Embracing My Contradiction
I’ve recently become aware of a possible contradiction in my thinking about animal rights. On the one hand, I’ve come to believe that, in a counterintuitive way, raising farm animals on pasture-based small farms is more cruel than raising farm animals in confinement on factory farms. My justification for this assessment is that the decision to treat animals well for a period of time and then do an about-face and kill them is more psychologically dissonant for humans than the decision to treat animal like objects from beginning to end—which is cruel, but at least consistently enshrouded in the salving fiction that animals are objects.
On the other hand, I have grudgingly tolerated these small farms—which, recall, I have just deemed crueler than factory farms—as “steps in the right direction,” a claim that has landed me in terrible, awful stead with my “abolitionist” friends, most of whom I suspect have quit reading this blog, dismissing me as yet another “new welfarist.” There are days when I do wonder if they are right (but I digress . . .).
So what gives? I think it’s important to note that, for the animals themselves, there is no doubt that the small-farm, pasture-based scenario allows more freedom to move about, socialize, and make choices. These freedoms, one can safely assume, lead to greater happiness for the animals even if they do subtly derange those who love their animals, name them, and then hand them over to the slaughterhouse and eat them as if this were all normal behavior.
Thus, while I think the alternative “humane” systems are quietly detrimental to the human psyche, I still think they are better for the animals who could otherwise be living a short life in utter hell. Better, of course, does not make anything right, but better is still better. So, even in light of the massive delusion that humans engage in to feel good about small-scale animal agriculture, and even if it is all based on a mad delusion, I still think that the heart of that delusion—the little kernel of an idea that farm animals matter enough to give them some extra space to be themselves—holds the potential to push potential vegans down the right path, however slowly, however dubiously.
Thus I embrace my apparent contradiction.
Jimmy, I think you are approaching this issue too scientifically. IMO, the farmers would understand theological explanation better and they would feel your affinity that way. Unless, of course, you have no intention to convince them. Biblically, I can show that killing an animal nad eating it is a sin, and I know it is a controversial statement.
The Beet-Eating Heeb realizes that writers must utilize generalizations to communicate.
But it’s still worth pointing out that, in reality, many “small” farmers inflict horrendous abuse on their animals, as well.
Castration, debeaking, the killing of young males, denial of medical attention, and other abuses are fairly common on small farms, as well.
Dear Sir,
First of all, I applaud you for “embracing your contradiction”. A very dear longtime friend of mine came to the conclusion about a decade ago that although she was a lesbian, she also could not walk away from her lifetime of Catholicism, in spite of the way Catholicism marginalizes homosexuals. She was the first to teach me about embracing the contraditions inherent in ~any~ spiritual path. Embracing one’s contradictions invites criticism and stone-throwing, but the older I get, the more honest I find that it is.
That said, I am curious as to your views on abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia. All of these are linked by your phrase “Killing a sentient being” (from a piece you did for The Atlantic), and I’m interested in learning how you reconcile these issues with your views on the killing of sentient non-human beings.
Kind regards,
Martine
You are not alone in your CONTRADICTION since I too suscribe to it for the reasons you well articulate and am WELL aware of holding these two understandings in my brain/mind at the same time. I believe that Abortion is a form of Murder and loathe it, but still suscribe to allowing a woman to make that decision without fear of legal punishment! Contradiction – well of course! Life experience informs our views and they can change as does our experince of it.
I agree with the abolitionist argument that “happy meat” does little to create potential vegans. That it, in fact, salves the conscience of those who may have thought twice about the cruelty inherent in their animal-based foods. Convinced that the cruelty has been removed via pasture-based farms, they no longer need to trouble themselves with the notion that it may be intrinsically immoral to use and eat other animals for any reason. I applaud you, James, for thinking and writing about this issue with such devotion.
Martine: Regardless of what moral value we may give to a fetus, it is not sentient.
Hi Karen,
Regarding the word “sentient”, I would refer you to a dictionary. The definitions therein present nuances of meaning, some of which of course may include moral connotations. However, for the word “sentient”, I have chosen definitions that seem to be freest of morality. Here they are:
1) having the power of perception by the senses
2) responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
3) finely sensitive in perception or feeling
Next, I would encourage you to google any one of the many hundreds of sites on the internet that go into considerable scientific, medical detail regarding the sensate development of the human fetus, without any mention of morality.
No further discussion is required. Happy New Year!
Kind regards,
Martine
Additionally, here’s a commentary from 30+ years ago that talks about abortion from a liberal, “hippie” perspective that the younger crowd might find at least moderately engaging. In it, an MIT writer considers abortion from a 1960′s civil rights standpoint, not a “moral” or religious one.
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent/meehan_progressive.html
Rgds,
Martine
This is so interesting to me. I’ve been vegan for over a year now, and have just now started seriously contemplating this issue. Which path do I take, at this point in my evolution as a vegan? I’m still torn. I’m partial to the “abolitionist approach” but I’m also very conscious of exactly the mindset you seem to be in- contradiction being a totally normal thing in my life, and definitely embraceable at times. Can’t I just stay an objective observer?
Godt nytår fra Danmark!
Kris,
Thanks for your comment and congratulations on becoming a vegan. If you can remain “an objective observer,” I would. To enter into the debate can be distracting and counterproductive. Just my two cents! Best,
James
I’ll assume that both “abolitionists” and “welfarists” have the objective of veganism as the normative ideal for industrial human societies. Then the “welfarist” approach to support small scale farms in the belief that the increasing consciousness towards the suffering of farm animals will tilt the rich consumers of “happy meat” into veganism, appears to be a shame and guilt driven approach to the transformation. I feel that the resources used to promote happy meat is better spent promoting more incentive-based approaches to the impending Vegan transformation.
The world is becoming less vegan by the day, due to the dietary transition occurring in newly industrialized countries. A good part of this is due to the perceived status associated with eating meat. The happy meat phenomenon doesn’t help solve this problem, and could make it worse. As stated in the PBS Newshour video on Chinese consumption (link in my blog article): “boutique organic pigs for the elite, industrially raised pigs for masses..”
Is this really the best we can aspire to?
http://canberravegan.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/world-trends-in-consumption.html
For me to embrace such a contradiction would mean:
~ devolving to an falsely idealized past
~ pretending to be sustainable (a la Green Mountain College)
~ ignoring the stark reality of abuse on small farms that The Beet-Eating Heeb points out
~ betraying the trusting animals (especially those who are not terribly abused until their last day)
~ supporting the desensitization of thousands of new small-time backyard breeders/slaughterers (not to mention inuring their young children to violence)
~ enabling consumers who subscribe to the “happy meat” myth to destroy the environment, dull their conscience, and delay their transformation from carnism to veganism.
Sometimes wrong made to look virtuous is worse than obvious evil. I believe this is one such case.
I appreciate this post, James. I think it’s alright to admit contradictions and conflicts, and I think that small, organic animal farming presents a lot of us with the same internal debate you so articulately lay out here. They seem more insidious to us because they’re disingenuous, and I think it’s also very important to point out (as some others have) that they’ve given a new kind of self-righteousness to meat eating, which ultimately does hurt animals in a big way. But for the animals whose lives we’re talking about, day to day, there is probably less horrific suffering on a smaller farm (probably).
There are lots of issues within the broad category of animal rights that confound me still, and which I have yet to resolve. It’s good to read that other advocates also struggle this way on occasion.