Oppression and the Oppressed

Sandy Doyle
250713727
Oppression and the Oppressed

Every animal, regardless of carnivore, omnivore or herbivore status, requires nourishment to exist. If humans could only eat meat, the issue of raising and slaughtering animals for food would not be a moral dilemma. But because we have options and because the consequences of our food choices affect not only humanity but other species and ecosystems, the issue of what we eat and how we get it deserves thoughtful moral consideration. Whether we eat meat or not, most humans agree that we are slightly different than other animals in that we are the top of the food chain and have the ability to kill and eat any other species on the planet. Alistair Norcross agrees with this and claims that this standing comes with a higher moral responsibility than that of a cow or a dog. As humans, Norcross assigns us the role of “moral agents”. Since we have the ability to understand moral rights and we can be held accountable for our actions. He suggests that non-human animals do not possess these same abilities, assigns them the role of “moral patients” and says that we have a responsibility to apply moral rights to them and, in a sense, protect them from exploitation. The same patient designation applies to humans who are not able to display rationality, such as babies and comatose persons. Norcross uses a thought experiment which demonstrates the moral flaw with supporting factory farming using puppies as an example. We would never torture puppies for gustatory pleasure but we do it with other species of animals when we raise and slaughter animals for food. Even if we are not directly torturing the puppies (or slaughtering the cows) contributing through consumption is contributing to their suffering (Norcross, 2004). Peter Singer has a more egalitarian view of all sentient beings and maintains that no species deserves higher moral regard than another. For Singer, the same principles of equality apply to animals as they should to races, sexes and classes of humans. The factual difference between humans and animals are not grounds for assigning a lesser moral value or for disregarding their potential for suffering and to think so, constitutes speciesism. Singer feels that all suffering must be taken into consideration and if we practice speciesism, we will count ourselves among the oppressors (Singer, n.d.). I am in full agreement with both author’s stances but I would like to take it a little farther and state that if you participate in meat consumption, you are not only needlessly torturing and exploiting animals but you can also count yourself among the oppressed. Whether you pre-order a free range, organic, heritage-breed turkey for Thanksgiving or eat a Big Mac once in a while, you are being harmed, exploited and oppressed by the meat industry, much like the animals we eat. The health benefits of a vegetarian diet are many, according to Dieticians of Canada, they include “lower rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, type two diabetes and certain types of cancer” (2010). So by eating meat, raised under any circumstances, we are weighing ourselves down, risking lower quality of life for ourselves and becoming dependent upon medications to treat preventable illnesses. The amount of waste associated with animal farming also makes me wonder why we still produce meat. Besides the methane gasses and toxic run-off off from large farms, we are also bringing livestock into existence that must be fed, even though there are many hungry people already in existence. If five kilograms of grain is processed into tofu or cereal, it can yield five kilograms of high protein food product, however, five kilograms of grain will only produce one kilogram of beef (World Watch n.d.). The meat industry is breeding and feeding cows while humans are starving. So if we are aware of the health risks we are incurring by eating meat and if we could feed five times as many people if we stopped producing it, why do we still raise and slaughter animals for food? My view is that we continue because food is no longer a matter of nutrition but a matter of profit. The value of meat production in Canada in 2010 was 8.1 Billion Dollars (Industry Canada n.d.). This enormous industry relies on consumer consumption of meat. In order for a product to sell it requires a marketing strategy and we are exposed to this marketing strategy all the time. We are inundated with ads that glorify, promote and even sexualize meat. Popular culture practically worships bacon. Everywhere we look, fast, cheap and meaty is the standard. If you are not seduced by glossy, fast food culture, there are plenty of ad campaigns that target consumers’ sense of nostalgia and tradition. Advertisements show the ideal family dinner consisting of father carving the roast that mother spent all day preparing. When a powerful industry pours tons of money into market research and ad campaigns, it is easy to be enticed.

Now, most would agree that the activities carried out in factory farms or “Confined Animal Feeding Operations” as they are called in the industry, are less than appetizing; people are still finding ways to justify their consumption of meat. I have yet to meet someone who was happy about the fact that their meat could have been cut from an animal that was still alive, breathing and screaming. It is an ugly thought and one that most prefer to push from their minds. People like to think of their meat as coming from idyllic farmland oases where animals are lovingly cared for and free to thrive in their natural manner until they become food. This is what I hear about most when a person is in favour of eating meat. They think it is morally justifiable because they make good choices about their meat. People, who would never dream of supporting factory farming because they are fully aware of the horrors, feel good about buying local, organically raised, free-run, cruelty-free, and/or hormone-free. They feel like they are contributing to a local, wholesome business and the animals are given a better life. Purchasing a chicken breast with these labels provides a sense of righteousness that they just cannot get from frozen store brand meat lasagna. What I would like to propose is that once the conditions of factory farms began to be exposed, the meat industry, fearing the loss of consumers, developed a new image and strategy for meat and began marketing to the “compassionate” consumer. This ethical, small farm ideal begins to lose its credibility when you consider that many of these ethical buzz-words do not require any industry regulation. For instance, “Free Range” eggs indicate that the hens are allowed to roam anywhere and that sounds nice but at the farm level, it simply means they can roam anywhere inside their barn. There are no regulations as to how many hens can be in one barn which often means there is not enough room to even flap a wing. Free range hens can also be subjected to de-beaking because they become so aggressive in tight quarters. So if you are choosing animal products based on the amount of suffering the animals themselves endure, know that the only way to ensure that you are not contributing to their harm is to avoid all animal products. This lack of participation provides freedom for animals from harm and also for humans from an industry intent on keeping us fat, sick and oppressed.

References

Dieticians of Canada. (2010). Eating Guidelines for Vegans. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from, http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/ Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspxca
Industry Canada. (n.d.). Manufacturing Production Rendering and Meat Processing from Carcasses. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sis/ cis-sis.nsf/IDE/cis-sic311614prde.html
Norcross, A. (2004) Philosophical Perspectives, 18, Ethics: 229-245, Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web Site https://owl.uwo.ca/access/lessonbuilder/item/ 9391100/group/e0be31f3-0b79-4ef3-b27d-8c2b24c9fe4b/Lecture%20Notes/ Phil1305-Week05_3_slides_per_page.pdf
Singer, P. (2012) All Animals Are Equal [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web Site https://owl.uwo.ca/access/lessonbuilder/item/9391100/ group/e0be31f3-0b79-4ef3-b27d-8c2b24c9fe4b/Lecture%20Notes/Phil1305- Week05_3_slides_per_page.pdf
World Watch (n.d.). Matters of Scale - The Price of Beef. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://worldwatch.org/node/791

References: Dieticians of Canada. (2010). Eating Guidelines for Vegans. Retrieved February 25, 2013 from, http://www.dietitians.ca/Nutrition-Resources-A-Z/Factsheets/ Vegetarian/Eating-Guidelines-for-Vegans.aspxca Industry Canada. (n.d.). Manufacturing Production Rendering and Meat Processing from Carcasses. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://www.ic.gc.ca/cis-sis/ cis-sis.nsf/IDE/cis-sic311614prde.html Norcross, A. (2004) Philosophical Perspectives, 18, Ethics: 229-245, Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases. [PowerPoint slides] Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web Site https://owl.uwo.ca/access/lessonbuilder/item/ 9391100/group/e0be31f3-0b79-4ef3-b27d-8c2b24c9fe4b/Lecture%20Notes/ Phil1305-Week05_3_slides_per_page.pdf Singer, P. (2012) All Animals Are Equal [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from Lecture Notes Online Web Site https://owl.uwo.ca/access/lessonbuilder/item/9391100/ group/e0be31f3-0b79-4ef3-b27d-8c2b24c9fe4b/Lecture%20Notes/Phil1305- Week05_3_slides_per_page.pdf World Watch (n.d.). Matters of Scale - The Price of Beef. Retrieved February 22, 2013 from http://worldwatch.org/node/791