Ant Ethics
Yesterday’s post purposely obscured an irony that should, if treated with honesty, give the ethical vegan fits. I argued that it was inherently compassionate for a scientist to bring his lab ants home rather than dispose of them as used objects. “Charming,” I called it. Left undiscussed is why he needed to be raising ants to study in captivity in the first place.
The answer to that question is that he was raising ants in captivity to confirm a level of consciousness that very well might warrant our moral consideration. This level of consciousness is arguably a quality that, without the scientist’s work on ants, we would have never fully recognized. Studying ants in captivity (not in the wild, as can often be done with birds), in essence, was a necessary precondition to confirming their sentience. Hence our first dilemma: to determine that an animal deserves moral consideration might require exploiting that animal without the consent that the animal cannot give.
This dilemma, in turn, poses its own dilemma. Assuming that there’s a sound moral justification for holding ants in captivity, does the scientist merely extend the exploitation by transferring their colonies to his garage and letting them develop in shoe boxes when their lab years are over? I honestly don’t know enough about ants to effectively answer this question, but even if I did I think there’s going to be a troublesome reality at the center of it. Do we know how ants bred in captivity will do in the wild? My guess is that they would be the proverbial fish in a barrel and that, therefore, they are better off in the garage. Again, some level of exploitation might be, under the circumstances, in the animals’ best interest.
These kinds of questions are annoying to the ethical vegan. They’re annoying because, despite our claims that our ethics are so basic and easy to comprehend, they aren’t. It is also important to confront these issues on as a sophisticated level as we can, drawing on science and philosophy to do so. Sometimes it’s not enough to say “we must live in a way that reduces animal suffering as much as possible” and leave matters at that. It’s not enough because, hard as it is to admit, we don’t know how our decisions will bear on such a noble goal.
Maybe all of Earth, the Milky Way and beyond are in some uber-being’s shoebox, stored in the garage, placed there after she finished studying us. True or not, I don’t think we’d know the difference.
Why can’t ants be studied in the wild? Lab studies are notorious for providing inaccurate information about nonhuman animals and promulgating all types of pseudo-science that distorts reality.
For instance, a lot of “science” regarding dog behavior was based on observations of wolves, which is why many (if not most) people now believe in taking the role of “alpha dog” or becoming “pack leader” when it comes to their canine animal companions. But the studies were done with UNRELATED, CAPTIVE wolves, and their conclusions have now been discredited (though the old inaccuracies still hold sway). Wolves in the wild live in family groups, and do not display the same behaviors as their imprisoned counterparts. As one enlightened dog trainer puts it “Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps.”
Animals should not be ours to “own,” regardless of sentience. Might this make studying them more difficult? Certainly. But that’s a human problem that requires a human solution; let’s not force animals to pay the price for our inquisitiveness.
With all living creatures, why not make kindness the default approach? We don’t have to be perfect (we can’t be anyway), but we can stop taking dominance as our species’ birthright and tread as lightly and compassionately as we can.
Beautifully put. Thanks.
There is no need to “confirm a level of consciousness that warrant our moral consideration,” if we assume that level of consciousness in all creation to begin with.
No more exploiting plants, then? Don’t we need research to make that distinction?
Actually academic research is heading in that direction so all vegans should have a sense of aporia about eating plants especially in the cyberpages of Eating Plants
As a matter of fact, I’m having a dish of aporia for brunch today. With the recent controversy about the sustainability of quinoa, I’ve switched to organic aporia, lovingly raised and hand-harvested by Jainist Bolivian peasants.
[I did chuckle but am somewhat chuffed]
Plant consciousness research is expanding with good cause and there is some innovative work at York and U of Toronto on this topic. Taking responsibility for the quinoa and the material conditions and consequences of its existence and act of taking its consciousness via harvest are as close a convergence of theory and praxis in your breakfast bowl as we may get
“Studying ants in captivity (not in the wild, as can often be done with birds), in essence, was a necessary precondition to confirming their sentience. Hence our first dilemma: to determine that an animal deserves moral consideration might require exploiting that animal without the consent that the animal cannot give.”
I don’t think it was a “necessary precondition” to determing that an animal deserves moral consideration. The ant is well aware of her/his own sentience — why do humans need to capture them and make that determination? So that we will treat them differently in the future? Why don’t we just decide from the beginning that all animals are sentient and deserve moral consideration? Then there’s no need to capture and observe them.
“Do we know how ants bred in captivity will do in the wild? My guess is that they would be the proverbial fish in a barrel and that, therefore, they are better off in the garage. Again, some level of exploitation might be, under the circumstances, in the animals’ best interest.”
In other words, some level of paternalism is warranted. Agreed.
Why do you agree with the premise that ants bred in captivity would not do well released? Wondering what you are basing this on?
Well, I don’t know this of course. I can only assume. And I would probably make the assumption that would favor on the cautious side for the ants. We do know that wild animals who have lived their lives in captivity do not do well at all when released into the wild unless they have been through extensive wildlife training and rehabilitation, and even then, many don’t do well.
Why on earth should we just assume that ants are sentient? Surely this is an issue to be approached with an open mind. I don’t reject the speculation, raised for example by David Chalmers, that conscious experience may be a fundamental, irreducible feature of nature, one that is correlated with the organization of physical systems — so that even a thermostat may have some slight degree of consciousness. But this is a matter for science and philosophy, not something to be settled by decree.
http://philosophyfaculty.ucsd.edu/faculty/rarneson/Courses/chalmersphil1.pdf
Even if consciousness is universal, there are manifestly kinds and degrees of consciousness. I have no reason to believe that a thermostat is the sort of thing to which I have direct moral obligations, and while ants are hugely more sophisticated than thermostats, I’m not (yet) convinced that I have direct moral obligations to them either; if I do have direct obligations to them, I’m pretty confident that those obligations do not approach the strength of my obligations to dogs or pigs or humans.
Now, of course we might want to apply the precautionary principle and give everything the benefit of the doubt. But to live and flourish ourselves, we would still have to prioritize certain obligations over others. I sympathize with the desire to show respect for all creatures great and small, and to treat all of nature with care, but unfortunately the universe does not allow us to live without compromise.
There is one big difference between a thermostat and an ant. An ant is a living thing.
I see no reason not to give compassion and thought to every living thing. I see no reason not to consider even the plant’s interest, and certainly an insect’s. Considering interests doesn’t mean I may not have to end it’s life, but I won’t if I don’t have to.
Early this winter was very rainy and cold in Northern Cal. We had endless ant invasions in the house. I tried my best to deal with them by discouraging them when I could (using cinnamon to block their paths, calking entry holes, not leaving food on counter, etc.) I did have to kill a few, but there were also days where I let them have their fill of the crumbs and then go back to their nest. 24 hours of ants on the counter was something I could deal with, and they did leave the next day (even though they usually popped upped elsewhere).
To live is to consume. We can never live without taking, but we can minimize that taking and have a lot of respect and consciousness when we do it. And yes, I agree, there are differences between a pig and a dog and a broccoli plant. So making distinctions based on science and common sense seems to be a good start. From my observations of ants (which seem to be possibly backed by science now), there is a sentience there. And I will respect it when I can.
Also, it may be semantics, but there may be an important distinction between consciousness and sentience.
BTW, I know many humans who seem to be living quite unconscious lives.
Taylor’s comment sounds like a classical philosopher suddenly realizing s/he is a post humanist in every way except the label. Which is good
Ant sentience poses a much more difficult problem for vegans than this. If insects have sentience, that makes them as rights-worthy (or suffering-reduction worthy, if you prefer to word it that way) as any other animals. Which means that all sorts of things that vegans tacitly endorse with their food purchases and lifestyle choices become unvegan rights violations: pesticides and trucking around bees to pollenate crops like almonds, for instance.
Insect sentience is probably worse for the animal rights set than for the suffering reducers. Because it is impossible to give insects rights in a meaningful way, including insects as deserving of rights due to their sentience would make a farce of a rights approach. Saying that you respect insects’ rights while eating foods covered in poisons designed to kill insects, while eating crops pollenated by exploited bees, and while killing insects just about every time you left the house would be tantamount to admitting that rights is merely a symbolic concept to you that need not have any real force.
The suffering reducers can say that they harm fewer insects than meat eaters by eating pesticide-protected crops directly rather than eating animals raised on pesticide-laden crops, but if they truly wanted to “live in a way that reduces animal suffering as much as possible,” this wouldn’t be enough. They would need to demand the end of pesticide use, go outside as little as possible, and avoid other activities that cause problems for insects. Maybe suffering reducers could argue that even though insects are sentient, they do not suffer in a significant way, and so they don’t need to be taken into consideration. (But of course this would allow entomophagy and honey consumption.)
I agree it’s very important for vegans to be advocating for organically, sustainably, (veganically) grown plants. The act of living (any being) consists of both destroying life and giving life (and many times sustaining life.) Yin/Yang.
Yet we can make choices that lessen the suffering of other living things. We can make choices based on science and our best common sense and our compassion and empathy. That is the path of the vegan: to do as little harm as possible and as much good as possible. In this way, it’s a spiritual journey as well as a practical one. Never will it be perfect…life isn’t set up that way.
Hi Rhys.
I generally like your contributions and i even occasionally visit your blog. However, lately, i have noticed that you have been criticizing vegans by playing the ‘vegans-aren’t-perfect’ card. Saying things like
“this (moral dilemma) poses a difficult problem for vegans”
My main problem with this (apart from you lumping all vegans in the same group and assuming they all think alike), is that you assume that all vegans aim to be 100% consistent and that they pull their hair out over every inconsistency. In other words, you seem to think that all vegans think that they are the reincarnation of jesus and that by showing them they’re not will make them instantly drop their veganism, hug you and whisper ”meat brother” into your ear. I personally eat like a vegan but I don’t think for an instant that i am 100% consistent with everything I do. Consistency is way too demanding for anyone who lives in the modern world. On the other hand, inconsistent veganism isn’t very demanding (for me anyway) and it seems better than inconsistent meat eating.
This topic does a fine job at putting conscious living into perspective. It appears to me that one has to live a simple life to allow for a sufficient amount of time and effort/energy to expand one’s compassionate footprint to include insects. I’m not sure how 9-5 vegans, with a family to go home to, do it.
Embracing all sentient life offers a unique challenge for sure! Its time to step up friends
.
Interestingly, I know many meat eaters who will catch a spider or bug in their home and put her outside instead of killing her.
Rhys Southan’s comment is basically right. If we grant equal moral consideration to insects, which I realize many readers do, we face grave challenges in our practical efforts to reduce animal consumption for food, entertainment, clothing, etc. Rudy is right—there is a lot of work to do on this issue (which is why I raised it).
JM
So are we just granting “equal moral consideration” to food animals? Or would rats and mice that invade homes count too?
I don’t mean to sound mawkish with this comment. But my point is that perhaps “equal moral consideration” (and I know I am committing vegan heresy here, but perhaps the “consideration” part is more important than the equal part. From one who doesn’t have a major problem with paternalism in protecting animals and others when need be, perhaps it’s really impossible in our world to give “equal” consideration and equal rights to anyone.
If science comes out saying that ants are definitely sentient, what then? What about roaches?
I have a deep affection for rats. I have rats in my attic right now that I haven’t done anything about, but they need to be dealt with as they are eating wires and keeping me up at night with their shenanigans. Shall I separate their family by trapping them live and relocating them to a place where they will most likely be killed by raptors or the elements and to where they don’t belong ecologically?
What we have is a problem in our philosophy. If we are concerned about lowering or ending the exploitation of animals for food, clothing and entertainment, perhaps we should just say that. It’s wrong to raise animals to kill them. Period. That’s what we’re about.
Is it a problem in our philosophy though? Compassion for all sentient beings is a solid foundation for the vegan movement. It simply depends on where one draws the line, or rather, it depends on what one is willing to forgo in order to honor said philosophy.
In a years time, I’m hoping to be living out of a hammock, saving money for my own piece of land by working at a farm whose values I share, and consuming only fruits and veggies. As long as I have warm weather, fresh/local fruit, a safe place to sleep, books, social connections, a purpose and the internet, I’m willing to truncate the rest.
Do I expect such choices from other vegans? Of course not. I do believe, however, that everyone is obligated to do what they can when it comes to broadening their compassion to other earthlings. When I see vegans blowing off this ant discussion as if it is a silly notion, I can’t help but draw parallels with how others react to veganism and the killing of animals for food.
At the very least, I would hope to see people stating “Well, it is the next step towards a more compassionate world but I am not simply willing to take it just yet.” If I could get everyone to make such statements after I talk to them about veganism, I would consider it a huge improvement!
Yes, Rudy, well put. And your plans are noble.
I totally agree about compassion for all sentient beings, but I’m hesitant to draw lines. Ergo, if the philosophy is compassion for all beings, that’s one thing. But if it is equal consideration, that becomes more problematic. Then we really need to draw lines in order to keep that one up.
My first thought concerning “but if it is equal consideration, that becomes more problematic” is that during the course of my day I will actually take more consideration to insects compared to cows. This is simply because I see more bugs throughout my travels in the garden.
I, however, will not forgo my organic bananas or lettuce even though I understand that many bugs were killed. Unfortunate as it may be, with the given infrastructure it is more simple to avoid harming mammals than it is insects. Am I ‘morally correct’ for following through with such actions? I freely admit that I am not. As you see from my previous post, I’m doing what I can to remedy this dilemma.
I believe that it is safe to say that none of us were born into an environment that nourishes this philosophy of compassion/ equal consideration in its fullest of potential. It will continue to be a work in progress until we can provide the next generation with such a world.
All that we can do throughout this journey is remind ourselves that we are not perfect, take the necessary actions to improve, and spread knowledge and compassion to others.
Rudy, I agree. But let’s not kid ourselves that we are giving equal consideration. (And, btw, I hope you realize, that I don’t think we should.) That’s all I am saying.
This post is so challenging! Where does it end really? Our existence is tied up in consuming resources that other living beings would consume. There are things that we do to be conscious consumers such as reading labels, buyiing products without packaging (whenever possible), etc. Some of us have so much anxiety about that as it is. But our one act of kindness, of sparing an insect has a domino effect. If we release a spider from our home outside, it will through its survival, consume and harm other living beings. It will repopulate. If I provide a safe haven or resources for insects then they will consume resources, other animals, that I might or might not consume. What of cockroaches? I have read descriptions of how intelligent they are and incredibly fast they are (faster than cheetahs). But in your home they eat until they vomit and they will vomit, urinate and defecate all over the place. I can understand how it might be possible to maintain a veganic garden but to maintain a vegan home or just living outside is so much more difficult. To what level do we hold ourselves accountable? In our purchases, we hold ourselves accountable many steps back, for example, coffee, chocolate or quinoa. But in dealing with wild animals we only think of our one-on-one encounters. Why is that?
Excellent points Jennifer. No easy answers. The way that nature and life evolved (or were designed?) doesn’t allow for absolutes. In my opinion, it doesn’t allow for concepts like “equal” either. It does allow for conscious compassion, doing the best we can, and acceptance that we can’t always live up to even our own best expectations. And it does require that many times, we may have to make hard, imperfect choices.
Just my humble opinion, and don’t mean to sound preachy or as if I have the answers. I obviously don’t, but I don’t think anyone else does either.
I do try to do the least amount of harm in my daily life and am always open to improved consciousness. I know (or think) that this post is directly addressing insects as a problem in crop production for human consumption but the world of insects encompasses so many creatures that we interact with directly and indirectly in a daily basis. And vegan living as a whole is just about impossible if we are to consider all of these factors.
Well I agree. But to say other beings (including insects and plants) don’t count, don’t warrant our consideration, is being a speciesist too. Your point about parasites is well-taken and that’s why I say, we often have to make hard choices about our beliefs and philosophy.
And what about parasites such as ticks, fleas, tapeworms, heartworms in cats and dogs, leaches . . . ? They are all fascinating creatures but we have to kill them at times in order for something else to live or thrive.
Hunters and meat eaters would use the same argument.
They would. But tell me one vegan who would allow all of the above onto/into their body and not need to kill them. It is also necessary to kill parasitic insects when rescuing farm and companion animals. And so we make a judgment call then and there to determine whose life is more valuable.
How much of the insect world is parasitic? And the large destructive impact that a small portion of parasitic insects can make cannot be dismissed.
And I have not internalized the carnistic message that vegans are hypocrites. I am trying to understand which part of the insect kingdom warrants moral consideration and why.
I think we all are. I would say parasites are morally and ethically allowed to be killed under the principle of self-defense.
This is my point…allowing for consideration and respect, doesn’t mean equal treatment and it doesn’t mean that sometimes we won’t have to make hard choices. But it also means that, when we can, we try not to harm other life.
I’m not at all a gotcha vegan. But I am one who tries hard not to harm insects when I can, knowing quite well that just by living my life I am killing insects and animals as we speak. (My computer runs off the wind farm down the road, which kills birds and, I’m sure untold insects.)
But when a fly comes into my house (one of my dogs is deathly afraid of flies) I will try to shoo it out, but if I can’t I will kill it. I don’t like to, I feel reverence when I do, but I make the hard choice under the principle of self-defense. The fly is causing my dog harm and will possibly spread something harmful to my food.
That is not being a hypocrite if we are operating under the principle of compassion for all, but not “equal” consideration for all.
This has been the larger point I’ve been making on this thread, that many don’t seem to agree with, which is fine.