An argument for vegetarianismAn argument for vegetarianism(Incomplete first draft){apologies for apparent sexism, this may be fixed in a later draft}Introduction and PurposeThis paper attempts an argument for vegetarianism. Its goal is tomaximise utility, by decreasing the number of practicing meateaters. It is an argument that assumes the reader holds autilitarian position; if the reader does not, I have no hope ofconvincing him - or, at least, not solely with this paper. Let thatreader look elsewhere. [1]Firstly I will say what I believe ought be sufficient for thispaper to be successful. I do not, I make quite clear, have to provethat vegetarianism results in maximal utility, all consequencesconsidered. I am not a fortune-teller - I cannot predict what allthe consequences of any far-reaching action will be. Fortunately, Ido not need to be: utilitarians being, I hope, reasonable people, Ihave only to show that, for the reader, vegetarianism will likelyresult in a level of utility higher than the alternative. [2]I will also make clear that this paper is not meant as the "last word"on the issue of vegetarianism - by all means, let this issue be discussed.If, at any point, my case seems to lack evidence, I hope thefair-minded reader will inquire as to how much evidence is easilyavailable for alternative conclusions, and wonder if indeed my argumentis insufficient against it.And if there exist substantial arguments against my position, which I havenot raised here, let them be brought them out into the light of critical examination.On Content and StructureThis paper parts company with the normal vegetarian promotionalliterature from the first, by starting with oft-neglected animals -the fishes. Fishing is the most common method of taking animalsfrom the wild for food (in western society), most other animals weeat being domesticated and reared for that purpose. I will say thatthe case against commercial fishing is, on utilitarian terms,stronger than the case against (e.g.) beef production. It istherefore possible that the reader will be convinced that tocontinue eating fish is wrong, but that to continue eating beef isnot. I will, in both the cases of wild-caught fish and farm-producedanimals, proceed in two parts - I will try to show that (1) The industry is wrong, i.e. severely sub-optimal in its effects.(2) We (individually and collectively) should stop supporting thatindustry.I will be careful to avoid the mistake of assuming that claim 1necessarily implies claim 2. It can fairly be expected that tomaintain 1 will be a good deal easier than maintaining 2.Commercial FishingLet us consider briefly the case against the commercial fishing industry. One possible position must be overturned immediately - some peoplemay believe that fish have no interests, that they cannot feel pleasure orpain, thus we don't need to consider them directly. I make my case as anappeal to authority, the authority being biologists. Iname the Medway Report (which concludes "all vertebrates (including fish), through the mediation of similar neuropharmacological processes, experience similar sensations to a greater or lesser degree in response to noxious stimuli" [3]) in support, and remind the reader that Iought not need to prove that fish can feel pain, only that it seemslikely that they can.Another position must be overturned - one that is commonly the immediatesuccessor to the above position. While it may be granted that fish do suffer,it may be denied that this suffering counts, that it has value inthe same way as human suffering does. To counter this position it is only necessaryto ask what the distinguishing criterion is between a human's suffering afish's suffering. If the criterion is intelligence, culture, languageor some similar feature, then the proposer has abandoned the utilitarianposition, since it makes no account of these. One man's suffering is no worsethan another's for him being a genius and the other an imbecile, so this cannotbe the criterion for separating men from fishes. Alternatively, thespeciesdifference may be suggested as its own support, that what makeshuman suffering more important is that it is human suffering. Butif we allow "reasons" like these, we cannot then reject the racist's claimthat a white man's suffering is more important than other types because itis a white man's suffering. The nature of an experience is notdependant on some arbitrary feature of the being in which it isfelt, like race, sex, intelligence, or membership of some specific species, so neither can the value of it be.Given that me must give equal weight to the interests of fish as we would tothe similar interests of men, I would now state an argument for the plausibilityof the claim that fishing is wrong:One very simple reason why it is unlikely that fishing realises the goal of maximising total utility is thatit was never meant to. If it had been the case thatteams of well-educated scientists and solid non-speciesist utilitarians had carefully examinedthe evidence and suggested that we ought to (catch) fish then there would be someconflict with what I am saying here. But this has not been done - the purposeof fishing has always been about human interests, it has never beencommon to consider the interests of the fish. It would be the most remarkablecoincidence if the maximally useful action, considering the interests of fishwith equal weight of those of humans, turned out to be exactly the same one as would be maximally useful considering only the interests of humans!Plausibility established, let's examine the situation.There are fish, in the seas, living in populations in dynamicequilibrium with populations of other species. Naturally some fishare born, and some fish die (they are eaten, diseased, or starveetc). The system continues. Now introduce man's effects: he catchessome of them. Does this affect the system as a whole? It does, insome cases: some previously high-yielding areas are overfished andsome species, in those areas, become commercially extinct. Is thisa harm? Yes, if we assume that a fish have any net value whatsoever- if their lives involve a balance ofhappiness over suffering, yes; if fish are useful to others, yes,because havingfewer fish available diminishes their total instrumental value. And in other cases, where quota systemsensure sustainable yields by limiting catches, what there? Wellthere is still the suffering involved in the catch, and a terrible harmthat is. Fish are not killed directly. They become caughtin the nets, and they stay there - dragged along, for some hours,under increasingweight of other bodies - until the nets are raised. Thepressure changes sometimes causes internal organs to burst. Thefish are then dumped in the boat and left to die from the weight oftheir numbers, or from suffocation or internal bleeding. It takeshours.This death, it seems very likely to me, is a very worse one thannature offers - I guess that most would naturally be eaten by other fishor marine mammals, a fate involving only brief suffering.The death by a thousand gasps is horrific in comparison.I have little evidence - but where is the evidence thatI am wrong? If there is any, bring it forth. And in any case, thepotential for improvement is obvious - the fish could be euthanised, ratherthan left to suffocate, or internally bleed to death. So let him who says thatfish are better off being caught than left to die naturally put thecase for increasing the number of fish we kill, and let him alsosuggest the optimal technique for doing so. Let him say whether it is specificto fish, or whether he will apply his principles to the many other kindsof wildlife. And let him do all this withsome bare shred of plausibility.What points are there in favour of the fishing industry?Two reasons are commonly suggested in defence of the fishing industryIt makes it possible for humans to eat fish.It provides employment - i.e. work and wages for some number of people. I believe that neither of these reasons are significant. The evidence is that humans do not need to eat fish to survive - generations of vegetarians have proved this. So the argument must bethat eating fish makes people happier. But for this to be a good reasonit must be the case that eating fish does actually make people happier than they would otherwise be.that there is no way, with the same or lower cost, of producingequal or greater benefit. There seems to be only one main possibility of support: that the taste offish is pleasant.I answer this with reference to the well-known phenomenon of the "hedon[ist]ic treadmill" [4] which shows that peopleadapt to various indirect causes of pleasure, so that any effect is likelyto be minimal (in practice, I am saying that people would eat other foodsand get virtually as much pleasure from them), and with the suggestion thatpleasure can be increased more cost effectively with nutritional, herbal,and synthetic euphoriant supplements than with decaying or heat-denaturedfish corpses. I would also say that our society's eating habits are preciselythat: habits. Thus the case the people gain pleasure from eating fish willin many cases simply fail to realise. [5]Employment provides a very specious argument - he whowould use it as a relevant consideration stands a very substantial risk of having the tables turnedon him, for he shall then be required to show that the money used to supportthe fishing industry is likely more useful in this regard (i.e. providingmore jobs or more satisfying work) than any otherindustry we might care to mention - basket-weaving, for example [6].Will anyone attempt this?Summary on industryThere is no compelling argument in favour of the continuation of thefishing industry in terms of human interest.Since it is a significant harm for an individual fish to be caught in this way, it is surely a terrible thing for this harm to be repeated billionsof times a year as it is for those fish eaten in western society, sothe practice should cease.Individuals and Fish ConsumptionEven if we grant the case against the industry, we have not shown thatan individual should refrain from supporting the industry. After all,the industry continues whether John Smith buys fish tomorrow and everyday, or never again. But there must be some number of people who, collectively, can have an effecton the fishing industry - a number of people who, if they stopped eatingfish, would actually reduce the number of fish being caught in the future.(Demand and supply - if the demand drops, then the supply will follow.) Now I don't know what this threshold number is - it may be 5 or 10, it maybehundreds or thousands. [7] But I would guess that the number ofvegetarians is greater than it - someone who disagrees would have to maintainthat, if the vegetarians were to suddenly start buying fish again, then nomore fish would be caught - and that Mr Smith may therefore have some effect. Yet this argument is weak - if the threshold is large, thelikelihoodthat he will make a difference is small.But the massive disutility of an agonizing death must outweigh the fewminute's taste-pleasure gained from eating a fish hundreds or thousands or millions of times over,so the small chance may be significant because of the large pay-off that occursif it succeeds. And no matter if this argument is weak: luckily, for the fish, Ihave others...I say that the harmful nature of the industry placesa prima facie obligation on Mr. Smith to campaign for the end of thefishing industry (the assumption being that he has resources which cannot bebetter spent on other campaigns [8]), and given the kind ofsociety we live in, I would ask Mr. Smith how credible (and thereforeeffective) he thinks his campaign will be if it is known that he continuesto, in practice, support the industry. He could, I suppose, opt fordishonesty, if he will take the risk of harming the public perception ofhis philosophy. (He cannot, of course, publicly advocatethat others continue to support the industry, since this will multiplythe risk of harm he is taking - he would have to be silent or a hypocrit.)I also say (in a disappointingly non-specific argument) that there isvery likely some better way for Mr Smith to spend his money, other than buying fish. LetMr Smith put the case for the importance of his taste for fish over feeding the starving [9],buying medicine for the sick, paradise-engineering research, or any other cause that I care to put to him. And let him afterwards still claim to be a good man.Summary on individual obligationIt can be seen that, even granting the terrible evil of the industry,the direct case for an individual obligation to refrain from supporting it issomewhat weaker than we might've expected (because the industry is only weakly linked toan individual's support) - but also that it is somewhat stronger than many other issues, say the case for avoiding excessively polluting forms of transport. The absolute strength of the position is irrelevant however, since it need only be stronger than the argument for the continuation of an individual's fish eating,which has almost no support whatsoever.Supplementary reasons for the individual to refrain from fish-eating includethe effects upon the agent's public image, ad hominem considerations(self-image), and a case for the more optimal disposal of capital. The capitalargument alone I take to be sufficient, though hardly, I can honestly say,inspiring - being quite unrelated to the terrible harm of the industry. [10]Farming{coming soon}Notes[1] I suppose he could read "The Case For Animal Rights", by TomRegan.[2] If I use Mr Parfit's terms (see "Reasons and Persons", part 10)I hope to show that vegetarianism is clearly subjectively right, byvirtue of its appearance of being likely objectively right. [3] Paragraph 57, Report of the Panel of Enquiry IntoShooting and Angling, Lord Medway, et. al., 1979. Information and extracts available from Pisces here and here. See also "Do pain and fear make a hooked carp in play suffer?" and"The welfare of fish and aquatic invertibrates" at the same site. [4] See MindWatching, H. and M. Eysenck, chapter 14 (cf. declining marginal utility). [5] I should mention at some point that the majority of fishcaught in the northern hemisphere are not eaten. Most are either of the wrong species (inedible,unsellable, or simply of a type for which the fisher has no remaining quota) - these being thrown overboard - or are caught for industrialpurposes: for use as fertilizer, oil, making candles, or (in a remarkable case of inefficiency) fish-food.[6] It might be assumed that the money saved from not eating fish must be spent on some other food source, but I would dispute this - the evidence is that we in western society generally eat too much rather than too little - yet, in any case, one can imagine anagriculture or arboriculture equally useful in this regard.[7] This number would presumably be much larger than it wouldbe in a "local fishing for local consumption" situation. Could this be the beginnings of an argument for smaller-scaleindustry, against nationalisation and internationalisation of big-business?[8] Given the blatant discrimination againstfish, merelyfor them being fish and therefore somewhat dissimilar to our normal targetsfor compassion, I suggest that this is quite unlikely.[9]The money saved from having a simple diet being quite sufficient to makean impact on the lives of many of the world's poor.[10]The (likely) very great harm of the industry is significant however, in thatit makes it a prime target for our campaigning resources to close the industrydown. It is only on this specific issue of one individual's eating-habits that its case is disappointingly weak. |
|
