In Search of Consistency: Ethics and Animals [Human–Animal Studies] Part 9 doc

Harm Low on the Food Chain This section proposes a diet that minimizes harm, consistent withthe Minimize Harm Maxim, and consistent with morality regardingthe preservation and protection

432 chapter eight

globe The “flourishing of sentient non-human life on this planetrequires an end to human population growth” (A Taylor, “Animal”264) To minimize interference, humans need to quit breeding withsuch indifference to the larger world We need to commit to a no-growth policy

The greatest harm a human being can do is to have a child, cially in capitalistic, resource-consuming Western countries NorthAmerican children use a tremendous amount of resources in com-parison with youngsters in most other countries From abundantschool supplies to extensive medical care, from double-packaged

espe-foods to fast-moving vehicles, Americans are megaconsumers Humans

everywhere take a heavy toll on the environment, but humans in

the West are the most environmentally destructive animals on earth Has any other animal in the last few million years had such a negativeimpact on water, air, forests, soil, or ozone layer—the environment

in general—as we have in the past century? If any other speciescaused as much trouble as we do, human beings would engage inmass killing to reduce the numbers of such a dangerous and bother-some lot

Humans are the bane of the earth and capitalism a primary vicebecause of its dependence on unlimited, unsustainable growth.Resources are finite and the biosphere has a limited ability to sup-port human expansion and our concurrent destructive activities.Unlimited growth is the ideology of the cancer cell, which ultimatelydestroys its habitat, the host body In this way humans have become

a cancer, degrading and obliterating the habitats of nearly everyother life-form and enslaving or killing previous occupants The mil-lions of other species gain nothing from our economic pursuits, butthey suffer the consequences

The Minimize Harm Maxim includes a moral imperative to imize consumption, regardless of the effects on economic growth.Ongoing and extensive ecological degradation are the result of “aconflict between our moralities (and religions) and our visible andimmediate economic interests” ( Jamieson, “Moral” 9) We mustbecome motivated by the common good—common to all life-forms—rather than personal greed We must use restraint and reduce demand

min-If we are to respect the lives of these many other entities we mustreduce consumption At this point, not only the lives of other speciesare at risk, but our own lives as well

minimize harm maxim 433Some might argue that human conatus includes bearing children,that we are permitted to be the animals that we are just as surely

as other animals are permitted to fulfill their own biological urges.But statistics do not support this assumption Statistics show that edu-cated women, women who have other options, choose to have fewer

or no children No one can reasonably argue that women who choosenot to have children are bereft of conatus Statistics suggest thatchildbearing is not fundamental to human beings; indeed, it is prov-ing to be an optional activity

Humans, like all creatures, have urges which lead to reproduction.Our biological urge is to have sex, not to make babies Our “instinct

to breed” is the same as a squirrel’s instinct to plant trees: the urge

is to store food, trees are a natural result If sex is an urge to create, then hunger’s an urge to defecate

pro-Culturally induced desires can be so strong that they seem to bebiological, but no evolutionary mechanism for an instinct to breedexists Why do we stop breeding after we’ve had as many as we want?(“Biology”)

If we choose to breed, the Minimize Harm Maxim requires thathuman beings limit reproduction “‘Stop at two’ may have been aradical proclamation when Zero Population Growth was founded in

1968, but it was barely adequate even then So-called replacementlevel fertility wouldn’t bring about true zero population growthuntil the middle of this century, due to momentum Today the mes-sage is only slightly revised: ‘Consider having none or one, and besure to stop after two’” (“Biology”) (If an individual remarries, she

or he ought not to have another child with a new spouse, even ifeach has only one child.) The Minimize Harm Maxim asserts that

it is morally preferable not to have children due to current human

population problems

[I]n terms of energy consumption, when we stop at two it’s about thesame as an average East Indian couple stopping at 60, or an Ethiopiancouple stopping at one thousand Two is better than four, andone is twice as good as two, but to purposely set out to create evenone more of us today is the moral equivalent of selling berths on asinking ship Regardless of how many progeny we have or haven’tproduced, rather than stop at two, we must stop at once (“Biology”)The human species is not expected to dwindle and disappear off theface of the earth any time soon (though this might well bring aboutthe greatest good to the greatest number of living entities!) “Youth

434 chapter eight

is a wonderful phase of life, whether it’s people, panda, or panther.It’s sad to imagine there being no more of any of them A babycondor may not be as cute as a baby human, but we must choose

to forego one if the others are to survive” (“Biology”) The MinimizeHarm Maxim requires minimal human harm—an end to popula-tion growth and rabid consumption—and requires that we reverseour population explosion, reuse, and recycle

4 Harm Low on the Food Chain

This section proposes a diet that minimizes harm, consistent withthe Minimize Harm Maxim, and consistent with morality regardingthe preservation and protection of human life

We are permitted to harm other human beings in order to vive Ethics regarding the protection and preservation of human life

sur-admit of a gray area, an unspoken acceptance that if one must eat

other people to survive, one will not be prosecuted Cannibalism israre Nonetheless, there are two famous instances of cannibalism inthe last 150 years

In the winter of 1846–1847, the ill-fated Donner party was trapped

in the Sierra Nevada not far from Lake Tahoe Starvation reducedfriends and families to eating one another Only forty-seven survived

of the eighty-seven original members (“Donner Party”) In 1972 inChile, a plane went down, stranding a handful of individuals for sev-enty days in the Andes Mountains Most of the passengers wereyoung men, members of an Uruguayan soccer team Though extremely

fit, and young, only sixteen individuals survived; they survived byconsuming the flesh of their less fortunate traveling companions(“Cannibalism”)

In neither instance did the individuals involved willingly selectother humans as their dietary preference In both instances thosewho survived did so because they ate human flesh These cases were

of course controversial because no one can be sure whether thosewho were eaten were murdered Still, no one was prosecuted Fewwould prosecute, blame, or even complain, about starving peopleeating one another rather than perishing If placed in a situationwhere death is otherwise imminent, history reveals that cannibalism

is an acceptable option Under these conditions it is not legal to killother people to eat them, but morality permits the consumption ofthose who are already dead in desperate situations

minimize harm maxim 435Ethics regarding the preservation and protection of human life

permit people to eat other human beings who are already dead when there are no other options available Consistent with this high standardregarding human life, the Minimize Harm Maxim does not permithuman beings to kill and eat anymals It is only permissible to eatanymals if one is starving, and if the anymal is already dead Consistentwith human ethics, in a pinch, one might kill and eat an anymaland not be convicted

The Minimize Harm Maxim requires that we minimize harm—harm less rather than more To harm less rather than more requires

us to avoid harm where possible and reduce harm when harm cannot

be avoided Fruitarian diets most effectively minimize harm Fruitarianstake fruit from other living entities, but do not kill plants or harmany living entity’s conatus The only harm that results from a fruitarian

diet is the destruction of potential plants—by eating fruits and nuts There is no moral imperative among human beings to protect poten- tial human life

Subpoint Two: We May Use Other Life-Forms Only with Consent

“From the ninth to the nineteenth century we have innumerablewritten accounts of criminal prosecution and capital punishment ofanimals pigs, dogs, wolves, locusts, rats, termites, cows, horses and

doves” (Linzey, Animal Gospel 22) Indeed, into the nineteenth

cen-tury anymals were tried in human courts for behaviors that humanbeings thought “wrong.” Anymals were excommunicated or executedaccording to human ethics, human faith, human law, and humanjudgment Today we recognize that anymals that do not use humanlanguage or participate in human ethics and law are not legitimatesubjects for trials, or for corporal or capital punishment Our behav-ior was unjust

We no longer put anymals on trial, but we continue to subjectanymals to unjust “punishment” based on human assessments ofwhat ought to be done Whether we execute, confine, medicate, orexperiment on anymals, we necessarily do so unjustly, for selfish rea-sons, and without regard for the anymals we exploit for our pur-poses When we “use” anymals for science, or in the food, clothing,

or entertainment industries, we do so necessarily without their consent.

Who would consent to the sorts of terrible experiments, unnatural

436 chapter eight

behaviors, and forced confinement that we bring upon anymals?Current Western ethics do not permit exploitation of other humanbeings against their will Under contemporary law we risk harass-

ment or stalking charges if we even persist in the presence of those who do not choose our company But with consent we may share

company, or even use others for certain types of research, ing purposes, labor, financial gain, or artistic productions Morallyand legally, as with emergency medical personnel and the treatment

child-rear-of the wounded, consent is critical.

In some instances, such as when one individual holds able power over another, even consent is not legally sufficient topermit exploitation of another human being Just because a fifteen-year-old gives consent for sexual relations does not mean such inter-actions are legal or morally acceptable They are not Young peopleare vulnerable to the power of those who are older Therefore, con-sent does not necessarily demonstrate a young person’s genuine wish

consider-to go along with a given plan or procedure

Humans hold tremendous power over anymals—more often thannot, we determine their lives and their deaths In this sense otherspecies are similar to minors: they are dependent and vulnerable;they are at our mercy Even if they could definitively consent toexploitation, their consent would not be sufficient to warrant exploita-tion any more so than for children and other unequal dependents.What of cases where little children are trained to be gymnasts orpianists before they are old enough to decide if they prefer such alife? If these children can be so trained, why not anymals? To someextent, the nature of parenting requires that adults make importantdecisions for their offspring While adults are responsible for pro-ducing the next generation of human beings—whatever they maybe—we are not responsible for producing greyhounds or thorough-breds that are of the right temperament and body build to runaround tracks at record speeds for the entertainment of human beings.Furthermore, while it is possible for children to suffer because theirparents make such choices for them, little ones who lack talent orathletic ability are never considered expendable; those who do notmake the cut are never cast aside or destroyed For this reason theexploitation of young athletes and artists is not equivalent to currentexploitation of, for example, horses or dogs for racing, pulling, orappeasing the human eye Also unlike human children, animalsremain dependents throughout their lives and can never determine

minimize harm maxim 437for themselves, over and against human interests, what will happenwith their lives Because anymals in our care remain dependentsthroughout their lives, and because we cannot definitively gain theirconsent, Minimize Harm Maxim does not permit exploitation ofother species for our ends.

The Minimize Harm Maxim is an extension of morality ing the protection and preservation of human life We cannotdefinitively ascertain whether or not other living entities consent towhat we do to them; even if they could give consent, such consentwould be no more acceptable than that of children due to theircomparative powerlessness We therefore cannot use other living enti-ties for our purposes any more than we can exploit little children.While there are cases where one might reasonably argue that chil-dren are exploited to fulfill the dreams of adults, such exploitation,however well intentioned, is not permitted across species Suchinstances are the unfortunate result of parental responsibility for shap-ing the lives of children, a responsibility that we do not and cannothave for other species

regard-Subpoint Three: Intentions Matter

Many of us are familiar with the adage “good intentions are notgood enough,” but intentions are critical where moral matters areconcerned Intentions are an important factor in assessing personalmorality, and the importance of intent is reflected in our legal system.Even when good intentions have bad outcomes, the Western legalsystem indicates that motivation is important in assessing guilt andassigning punishment For instance, if Jex’s very old great aunt drownswhile Jex is bathing her in a large bathtub, Jex is not guilty of mur-der She may be guilty of negligence, but not murder If Jex throws

her aunt in a tub and intentionally drowns her, Jex is guilty of

mur-der Intentions do not necessarily affect outcomes—Jex’s aunt is dead

either way—but intentions a ffect moral assessments Sometimes we make

mistakes—even in the tending of beloved anymals or children—and

we are not held accountable for a bad outcome if we have goodintentions, so long as we have not been negligent Intentions are

oftentimes the only difference, in a court of law, between murder

and accidental death, between stealing and borrowing, between tant cruelty and harm through ignorance

by accident (not through negligence), one is not immoral, while if

one purposefully kills a small child the deed is morally reprehensible.

It is not the act itself—but one’s intentions—that ultimately determine

the moral legitimacy of a deed in the Minimize Harm Maxim.Good intentions are linked with virtues One who fosters suchvirtues as benevolence and empathy is much more likely to live alife rooted in good intentions than one who fosters the vices of greedand arrogance Responding to an overintellectual, reason-basedapproach to ethics, Richard Solomon notes that what allows the cir-cle of ethics to expand to include other people, or other species,

is not reason (in the technical sense of calculation on the basis ofabstract principles) but rather knowledge and understanding in thesense of coming to appreciate the situations and the circumstances inwhich other people and creatures find themselves This requires whatmany theorists now call “empathy” or “feeling with” and it requirescare and concern, the emotional sense that what happens to others

matters According to this “moral sentiment” view, there is no “line”

to be drawn between ethics and benevolence, no place in our ence where affect and affection leave off and some new faculty called

experi-“reason” kicks in and takes over Rather, our emotions get more andmore expansive and better educated and new perspectives join withthe old to enlarge our world and embrace new populations in it.This should be recognized as the vital force in ethics (Solomon 75)According to L Johnson, if we each act with goodwill toward otherliving entities, we would probably behave in a morally exemplarymanner (200) Generally, one who fosters virtues will have benevo-lent intentions and will choose a different course of action from onewho is moved by self-interest; intentions have a tremendous effect

on the overall impact of a life lived An individual who sincerelyintends to be gentle and benevolent toward all living entities will not

minimize harm maxim 439live as most of us live Because we cannot avoid harming other liv-

ing entities, harm itself is not morally reprehensible, but intentions are critical for assessing which harms are immoral For instance, harms

that result from one’s attempt to survive are morally acceptable.However, the same harms brought about for one’s pleasure areimmoral As in the case of Jex bathing her aunt, the outcome is thesame but the intent differs

Intentions do not always make a difference in how one behaves;one might steal, kill, or lie with either good or bad intentions Infact, morally speaking, “crimes” are sometimes the best possibleactions, particularly when they are rooted in good intentions Forinstance, if Maggie lives in a society that punishes theft with deathand yet that same society offers no aid to the poor and needy, and

if Maggie has no wealth of her own, she might be considered amoral exemplar if she steals to feed the needy Though, from thepoint of view of the rich she brings them harm, her intent is to feedthe poor, not to harm the rich Maggie would, presumably, do thesame for the wealthy, should they come into hard times, and theywould no doubt see things differently Her interest is in helping themost desperate to survive Maggie’s act would most likely be con-sidered morally exemplary because her choice involves self-sacrificefor others—good intentions In this case the thief is concerned withaiding the needy rather than obeying property rights or protectingherself from possible arrest Because her intent is to preserve life, tofeed the hungry, and because most of us consider her cause just,the action (though illegal) is likely to be viewed as ultimately good.Many—if not most—would argue that she does what she ought ifshe steals from the wealthy for the specific intent of feeding theneedy

Though intentions are critical, they are epistemologically lematic; one cannot definitively know the intentions of another indi-vidual; our own intentions are sometimes obscure even to us PerhapsMaggie only steals from the rich because she likes to steal, or becauseshe hates the rich Still, consistent with current Western ethics andlaw, intentions are critical Though they cannot be definitively known

prob-or quantified by a jury, we acknowledge the impprob-ortance of tions under such terms as “manslaughter” (unintentional, recklesskilling) as compared with “murder” (intentional slaying) both distinctfrom “self-defense” (intentional, purposeful, but justified killing)

inten-440 chapter eight

Assessing the morality of a given action also rests on intent in theMinimize Harm Maxim

In many ways morality is a personal endeavor When an act is done

specifically to cause harm, it is immoral; an act that has a

benevo-lent intent but brings about the same harm is not immoral If one

has the capacity to learn and fails to guard against repeating a moralerror, then one becomes morally culpable for an act that was once

innocent of blame Ultimately, the acting agent is most likely to

under-stand motivation and will be the best judge of the morality of anygiven act

Consistent with Western morality with regard to human beings,intentions are critical in assessing moral culpability in the Minimize

Harm Maxim As with morality among human beings, reasons, vation , and intent help determine whether or not an act is moral.

moti-Subpoint Four: Self-Defense Is Morally Permissible

Consistent with morality among human beings, one can harm inself-defense As in the case of innocent human life, we cannot morallyjustify the forced, intentional infliction of pain, death, or other forms

of suffering on other people except to protect our immediate anddirect survival Consistent with morality regarding the protection andpreservation of human life, we may harm any other living entity

that poses a direct physical threat Bacteria, humans, and polar bears

can all pose direct physical threats to our lives, and we are notmorally culpable if we choose to defend ourselves, even if we harm

or destroy dangerous others

But it is morally obligatory to try to avoid dangerous encountersand to avoid such harm when possible

We should not kill the insane attacker, be he human or canine, ifinstead he can be trapped without great risk, nor should we causehostages to die if we can secure their release without endangering otherinnocents Moral agents who reflect on these matters generally agreeabout the necessity of seeking alternatives when humans are involved,but are frequently far less concerned when nonhuman animals are thepotential victims (Pluhar 281–82)

The Minimize Harm Maxim, consistent with morality and law ing the protection of human life, requires that we take precautions

regard-to minimize conflicts and, in the event of conflict, use the least

harm-minimize harm maxim 441ful means of dealing with threats Finally, if we must harm, we oughtonly to cause harm in relative proportions.

1 Minimize Con flict

The Minimize Harm Maxim requires moral agents to minimize thelikelihood of conflict and the need for self-defense For instance, ifMolly lives in a society without laws or law enforcement and depends

on pumpkins for survival, she is not wrong to frighten, threaten, oreven harm another person to defend her food source—even if sheinadvertently plants her produce in a predator’s thoroughfare Self-defense is acceptable if one’s subsistence, and therefore one’s exis-tence, is threatened

Intent also matters If Molly chooses to plant her pumpkins in an unprotected place knowing that planting her crop in a different loca-

tion would work just as well and would avoid confrontation, she ismorally culpable for any harm done to entities that come to feed

on her pumpkins In fact, under the Minimize Harm Maxim, shemay not harm such entities because Molly is morally culpable; she

has not intended to reduce conflicts, the need for self-defense, or harm

caused Similarly, if we know that intensive planting of crops is apt

to cause “infestations,” then we ought to avoid planting intensivecrops rather than kill insects and rodents that come to share thebounty In like manner, in order to minimize conflicts with insectsthat we find to be annoying or dangerous, we ought to wear longsleeves and use window screens

Minimizing harm in this manner is neither novel nor prohibitivelydifficult (and is included in Taylor’s theory of Respect for Nature

(Respect 268)) Down through history people have often adapted

prac-tices to avoid conflicts with other species: “While the Europeanskilled wildlife in number and without mercy, the Bantu built a struc-ture that attempted to minimize association between humans andwildlife” (Burnett 157) It is now simply too easy for us to kill, andgiven contemporary Western humanity’s lack of regard for life-formsthat are not human, we kill at will But most “pests” might easily

be avoided rather than eliminated The Minimize Harm Maxim

requires that we change our behavior whenever possible to avoid

harm-ful conflicts

The Minimize Harm Maxim is consistent with general Westernmoral ideals regarding the protection and preservation of human life

442 chapter eight

Just as we take precautions to avoid conflicts with detrimental humans

by locking doors and restricting travel in dangerous areas or at gerous times, the Minimize Harm Maxim demands that we avoidconflicts with those that we consider problematic or dangerous One

dan-of my friends left her door open on a hot day and fell asleep onher bed When she awakened she had been robbed, and the police-person with whom she spoke stated quite plainly that she was luckyfar worse things had not happened According to the law, while whatthe thief did was illegal, my friend’s lack of care had contributed tocriminal activity and was also unacceptable Human morality requiresthat we do all that we reasonably can to prevent such problemsfrom arising in the first place Many “severe conflicts of interest can be avoided simply by doing what is morally required early on”(Sterba 201)

The Minimize Harm Maxim, for the sake of consistency in appliedmoral philosophy, requires the same moral standard between species

as we now expect among human beings We are morally required

to minimize conflict

2 Exceptions

Certain scenarios alter the moral landscape, such as availability oflaw enforcement In Western law we are not allowed to harm some-one who steals our pumpkins for at least two reasons: In such a caseour lives are not directly in danger, and dealing with criminals isthe rightful duty of trained professionals In the Western world, ifyou steal your neighbor’s source of sustenance, you pose only anindirect threat; he or she will not die of starvation Because one’slife is not threatened by such an act, one is expected to notify lawenforcement and allow professionals to deal with the thief

For law-abiding citizens of Western countries there is “no sideration short of the defense of one’s own life [which] would jus-tify taking the lives of others” (Narveson, “Animal” 165) Casuistryrequires that like cases be treated in a like manner The MinimizeHarm Maxim extends this high value of life to other life-forms, and

con-we may only harm if another entity poses a direct threat to our diate physical safety (i.e if we feel our lives are in imminent danger)

imme-minimize harm maxim 443

3 Relative Proportion

In the Minimize Harm Maxim reactions are expected to be portional For instance, the occasional annoying fly that finds its wayindoors despite screens ought to be brushed away or put outsiderather than swatted Killing such comparatively mild irritants is nei-ther a consistent nor proportional response in light of Western moral-ity protecting innocent human life; an annoying fly does not deservecapital punishment any more than does an annoying human However,

pro-a mosquito buzzing pro-around one’s epro-ars in pro-an pro-arepro-a known to hpro-avemalaria or West Nile virus might be considered a direct physicalthreat, leaving open the possibility for delivering a swift swat Ahouse mouse in one’s kitchen might not be considered ideal, butdoes not pose an immediate, life-threatening danger Anymals that

we do not prefer to live with ought to be relocated before numbers pose a health issue, prior to serious conflict We are called on to

avoid attracting such residents in the first place, but if conflicts ofinterest do arise, responses ought to be proportional

The Minimize Harm Maxim requires that humans deal with all

“pests” the same way we deal with human “pests.” Consistency andimpartiality require that we respect the lives of these other creaturesinasmuch as we respect innocent human life In light of casuistry,for the sake of philosophic consistency and impartiality, “pests” ofall species ought to be dealt with similarly, through discouragementand relocation rather than execution

Extending Ethics Regarding Protection of Human Life:

A Parallel Theory

While current Western morality generally protects and preserves cent human life, laws in Western countries allow individuals to harm

inno-or destroy other life-finno-orms finno-or a host of reasons—inno-or finno-or no reason

at all In fact, there are very few instances in which anymals may

not be killed, most notably when such killing harms the interests ofanother human being Killing your neighbor’s mixed-breed mutt is

categorized as destruction of property, not the destruction of a life.

Similarly, endangered species legislation protects the lives of anymalsbut is ultimately intended to benefit humanity—we have a selfishinterest in biological diversity The lives of other living entities aremanipulated for human interests

444 chapter eight

In the absence of a morally relevant distinction between other forms and all human life, philosophic consistency requires the MinimizeHarm Maxim to apply contemporary Western morality regarding

life-the protection and preservation of human life to all life that is not

shown to be different in morally relevant ways We do not protecthuman beings because they wish to be protected, because they aresentient, because they are conscious, or even because they are viable—

as the six cases presented in chapter 7 reveal We preserve humanlife simply because our morals and law dictate that if a human life

can survive, we ought to do our best to assure survival If an cent human being endeavors to persist biologically (has conatus),there is a moral assumption that such a life ought not to be harmed,but rather that life ought to be preserved We have established nomorally legitimate reason to deny similar protection to other cona-tive life-forms

inno-The Minimize Harm Maxim offers a consistent and impartial

inter-species morality that parallels generally accepted Western moralityprotecting innocent human life Minimizing harm requires that weexist in ways that minimize conflicts Only when we have consid-ered the behaviors of others, proactively protected our lives and liveli-hoods, and only when we are directly, physically threatened byanother, is self-defense a legitimate reason to harm another livingentity This requirement is consistent with generally accepted Westernhuman moral standards between human moral agents and moralpatients

Minimize Harm Maxim Restated

It is possible to reduce the Minimize Harm Maxim to two mentary rules: minimize harm; minimize interference As long as theabove listed subpoints are not overlooked, this optional presentation

comple-is acceptable However, utilitarian scales of measurement do not apply in the Minimize Harm Maxim any more than they apply in morality with regard

to preserving and protecting human life (This can clearly be seen in thesix cases presented earlier.) Attempts to measure harm, or compareharm between individuals or across species, are contrary to theMinimize Harm Maxim, which is an extension of morality withregard to human life

minimize harm maxim 445

Conclusion Due to the absence of any morally relevant distinctions between all

human beings (including the six human beings in the cases presentedpreviously) and other forms of life, for the sake of philosophic con-sistency and impartiality, using the philosophical tool of casuistry,the Minimize Harm Maxim applies contemporary morality protect-ing human life to all other living beings that possess conatus (bio-logical persistence) First and foremost, the Minimize Harm Maximstates that one ought to minimize harm In the process of carryingthis out, one ought to minimize interference Consistent with moral-ity and law protecting human life, harms are not weighed betweenindividuals; instead, a personal assessment of intention is critical

In the Minimize Harm Maxim, harm is always regrettable, whether

to a buffalo gnat or a grison, whether by loss of habitat or loss of

a limb It is always immoral to harm a living entity purposefully and

unnecessarily It is only morally acceptable to harm when the tial for harm has been minimized, when harm is necessary for sur-vival, when no other options are available, and when such harm isproportional to the danger posed In short, the types of harm per-mitted, and the situations in which such harm is permissible, ought

poten-to parallel those that are permissible with regard poten-to innocent humanbeings

CHAPTER NINE

APPLICATION: CONTEMPORARY MORAL DILEMMAS

This section applies the Minimize Harm Maxim to five ongoing tectionist issues and two hypothetical scenarios In each case, given

pro-a lpro-ack of morpro-ally relevpro-ant distinction between pro-all innocent humpro-anbeings and all other life-forms, the central question posed is, Howwould we behave toward human beings in similar instances? TheMinimize Harm Maxim, rooted in the consistent application of con-temporary Western morality regarding the protection and preserva-tion of human life, provides a framework for applied philosophyconcerning other life-forms that are not different in morally relevantways, a framework for answering critical questions in contemporarysituations in an impartial and consistent fashion

A Ongoing Protectionist Issues

1 Zoos and Circuses

The Animal Welfare Institute recently reported that U.S zoos gainedpermission from authorities in Swaziland to capture and import elevenwild elephants These imports would further decimate already dan-gerously low elephant herds in Swaziland, reducing elephant popu-lations by a whopping twenty-five percent The Animal WelfareInstitute, fighting to keep these elephants out of Western zoos, notesthat elephants, one of the longest-lived animals in the wilds, do notlive long in captivity due to lack of exercise, inadequate diet, poorliving conditions, neglect, loneliness, and depression (Buckley 1–2).The Animal Welfare Institute argues that elephants do not belong

in our cages but “should be left to wander freely with their familiesand friends through their native savannahs, playing in watering holesand mud pits, and interacting with one another as they choose” (“Save” 20)

The Elephant Sanctuary in Tennessee now houses six elephants,all rejects from zoos, circuses, amusement parks, and businesses that

448 chapter nine

used animals to attract customers Each elephant arrives at the tuary with his or her own horrific story of capture and separationfrom family and herd, transportation in tight confinement and chains,then further confinement mixed with training, exploitation, and finallyrejection

sanc-Orcas suffer a similar fate in captivity, and like elephants, “sanc-Orcasare big business: wild-caught Orcas can net their captors a cool $1million apiece” (Hoyt 7) Given the funds involved, it is not sur-prising that Russian authorities have set a quota for the capture often orcas from Russian waters for each of the past three years Whencaptured, these giant mammals go from feeding on mackerel andsalmon, mating and playing under the snowy volcanic peaks of icyRussian waters, to human-built holding pens in cities of NorthAmerica They are taken from bonded family groups, where theycommunicate using a specific dialect, travel, socialize, and forage as

a group, to isolated tanks (Hoyt 6) At the end of the day, orcas arecaptured and sold because people like you and I pay to watch them

do tricks that we find entertaining, for which the orca receives onlydead fish

Dolphins are among the most intelligent animals on the planet.They are also very active, swimming up to forty miles in a day, andremaining in motion even as they sleep Like orcas, dolphins aresocial creatures who live in pods and stay with their young for four

or five years Most females never leave the pod into which they areborn As with orcas, dolphin capture entails pursuit until the victimsare too exhausted to attempt any further escape A net is then low-ered, the pod is trapped, and the dolphins are pulled out of thewater Dolphins between the age of two and four are selected outand kept; the rest are thrown back into the sea “Some drop dead

on the deck, from shock Many are injured” (Regan, Empty 136).

[Fifty-three percent] of those dolphins who survive the violent capturedie within 90 days The average life span of a dolphin in the wild is

45 years; yet half of all captured dolphins die within their first twoyears of captivity The survivors last an average of only 5 years incaptivity Every seven years, half of all dolphins in captivity die fromcapture shock, pneumonia, intestinal disease, ulcers, chlorine poison-ing, and other stress-related illnesses (Finney)

These wild mammals are then kept in concrete tanks or sea cages,sometimes in only six feet of water in an area of roughly twenty-five square feet These active sea animals have nowhere to swim,

contemporary moral dilemmas 449nowhere to dive, no family, and no pods, and cannot use their sonarwhen they are surrounded by walls (Finney) Instead, these dolphinsare forced to interact with their human captors They are taught

“tricks” to entertain the public According to Helene O’Barry, panion of Ric O’Barry (who trained Flipper), and co-founder of theDolphin Project, dolphins “depend totally on their keepers to be fed.Once the hungry dolphins have surrendered to eating dead fish, thetrainer teaches them that only when they perform a desired behav-ior do they receive their reward: a fish” (Regan, Empty 138).

com-Confined animals who abuse themselves (banging their heads againstthe walls) are creating stimuli which their environment cannot supply.Dolphins in captivity tend to develop stereotypical behaviors (swim-ming in repetitive circle pattern, with eyes closed and in silence) because

of boredom and confinement This is equivalent to the swaying andpacing of primates, lions, tigers and bears confined in cages (Finney)There are an estimated one thousand captive dolphins throughout

the world (Regan, Empty 136); the vast majority of them were

cap-tured at sea because most captive-born dolphins do not survive anylength of time (Finney) Captive dolphins are exploited for humanentertainment; in the process their life expectancy is shortened ( just

a little over five years) and their quality of life is significantly ished (Finney)

dimin-Beanie, a gibbon now under the care of the International PrimateProtection League (IPPL), was born in a zoo and then sold to aresearch laboratory where he became very ill As a result of his ill-ness, he is now blind and epileptic (McGreal) Neither zoos norresearch facilities are interested in Beanie now that he is disabled

He is a cast-off, robbed of his independence long ago, with nowhere

to go, and no one in the zoo who wants to look after his needs nowthat he is no longer lucrative Such anymals end up in sanctuariesonly if they are very lucky Sanctuaries for wild anymals are chron-ically full and funded only by private donations from those few peo-ple who both know about these anymals and who care enough tosend money

Anymals need not be disabled to be cast off by those who onceprofited from their exploitation Alan Green, an investigative jour-

nalist who wrote Animal Underworld, documented zoos “looking to rid

themselves of six hundred mammals, nearly four hundred reptiles,thousands of fish, hundreds of birds, and a variety of invertebrates”

on a single day (“Canned” 6–7)

450 chapter nine

This traffic in exotic animals exists in large part because many zoosdepend on baby animals to attract paying customers When these babiesgrow up, they must be disposed of to make room for the new crop

of babies who will draw a new crowd of customers Since the publicwould not tolerate the animals simply being killed by the zoo, theyare sold to dealers, who in turn often sell them to research laborato-ries, roadside petting zoos, and canned hunts (“Canned” 6)

Anymals are used in zoos and circuses, on television, and in localfairs for the entertainment and “education” of human beings andthen discarded when they are no longer profitable Some cast-offzoo anymals become targets for those who wish to shoot “exotic”animals on “game preserves.”

Circus trainers and others who train anymals for the ment industry replace normal species behavior with contrived acts,all for the sake of personal profit Training wild anymals to ridebicycles, jump through flaming hoops, and stand or sit in unnaturalpositions is generally accomplished with negative reinforcement “Thetools of the trade today are much the same as the tools used bytrainers in the past: whips, bullhooks, metal bars, chains, electricprods, muzzles, human fists” (Regan, Empty 130) Kelly Tansy, a for-mer Ringling Brothers performer, reported to the Performing AnimalWelfare Society at a press conference in Sacramento:

entertain-I saw an elephant being beaten in what appeared to be a disciplinaryaction The beating was so severe that the elephant screamed I havecome to realize, through all the circuses that I have worked for, thatmistreatment of animals is a standard part of training and is thought

to be a “necessary” part of exhibiting them I have seen chimps locked

in small cages constantly when not performing; elephants chained tinuously; and even animals being beaten during performances .There is no way that an animal can even begin to fulfill a decent lifewhile traveling on the road with the circus (“Testimony”)

con-It is not surprising that these wild animals sometimes rebel againstthose who restrain and manipulate them Trainers are sometimesattacked; the trainers often respond by destroying “aggressive” any-mals, most often with a gun Between 1990 and 2004, some onehundred people were killed, and forty-three injured, by captive ele-phants who turned on human beings (“Cruelty”) Tyke, a twenty-one-year-old elephant, “was riddled with nearly 100 bullets beforedying in the streets of Honolulu after she killed her trainer and toreout of a circus tent” (“Cruelty”) I was foolish enough to witness a

contemporary moral dilemmas 451video of this event, a memory which I cannot shake, and which car-ries a particular horror that haunts me to this day All those whopay to attend circuses that exploit anymals—who support these cir-cuses in any way—share responsibility for Tyke’s terrifying, pro-longed, and painful death at the hands of her captors and tormentors.The Minimize Harm Maxim is rooted in noninterference Humanbeings are expected to leave each living entity to its own indepen-

dent life, to carry out its natural, biological behaviors, unless we must

harm another organism in self-defense or to fulfill a primary need.And we may only harm other entities if we have taken appropriatemeasures to avoid conflict Confining, restricting, and training otherentities to perform bizarre acts for the sake of human entertainment

or education violates the Minimize Harm Maxim And if such mals as Tyke turn on us, we are not morally permitted to kill those

any-we have so thoroughly provoked

Given that zoos and circuses exist, what ought we to do? Manycaged anymals have lost their ability to survive in the wilds, and itwould be

grossly immoral to throw a young child or mental patient out on thestreets, particularly in the name of “freedom” and “autonomy.” Thesame holds for most domesticated nonhuman animals Some couldreadapt to the wild, perhaps, but we cannot contemplate releasing bil-lions We would be abrogating the responsibilities to them that wehave acquired, not to mention endangering ourselves and other ani-mals through ecological devastation, if we were to do so No [pro-tectionist] view worth its name could sanction such idiocy (Pluhar 270)One of the most well-known cases of such human neglect and mis-judgment was that of Lucy, the chimpanzee brought up like a humanchild by the Temerlins so that she would learn to use sign language

By the time Lucy was ten, she had grown too powerful for safekeeping, and so the study was terminated “The Temerlins decided

it would be best if Lucy were released in Africa to live a ‘free’ life.The trouble was that Africa was as foreign to Lucy as it would be

to any ten-year-old who had never been outside Oklahoma” (Pluhar275) Though volunteers in Africa did what they could to prepareLucy for life in the jungle with other chimpanzees, she was fright-ened in her new surroundings and fearful of other chimpanzees She

“repeatedly signed ‘Please help Lucy wants out Please help’” (Pluhar275) Nonetheless, Lucy was released into the jungle Her body wasfound not long after, minus hands and feet The humans she had

452 chapter nine

come to trust had betrayed her yet again: “[S]cientists” exploitedher for their studies, then abandoned her to the wilds of Africa,where “poachers had killed another human, albeit in a chimpanzeebody” (Pluhar 275)

Anymals should be rehabituated and returned to the wilds whenpossible But those unlikely to survive in the wilds ought to be allowed

to live out their lives in spacious, private quarters, in conditions asnatural as possible The Sugarloaf Dolphin Sanctuary, located in theFlorida Keys, is a fine example This sanctuary is designed for dol-phins who were once held captive so that they can choose betweenreturning to the open sea and remaining in more familiar surroundingsattended by human beings Good intentions require that such once-

captive animals exist for their own sake, not for our entertainment or

“education.” It is sad that anymals such as Lucy exist—misused forhuman interests so that they are completely incapable of living anatural and independent life Nonetheless, many such anymals doexist; providing for their safety and comfort until the end of their days

is no less than morality would demand that we do for human beings

We are not entitled to assume, across species and without sent, that confinement is acceptable (or preferable) for anymals Thisincludes captive breeding and caging “problem” wildlife

con-While one might argue that captive breeding is well intentioned,

a closer look reveals that captive breeding fails to show good intent

toward individuals involved Captive breeding stems from human interest

in maintaining genetic diversity Such breeding is not done for those

individuals who are bred, nor on behalf of the species we strive to

save Captive breeding is for our future, in hopes of maintaining

bio-diversity, a biological state that we deem beneficial to ourselves.Captive breeding is restricted to certain species, mostly birds andmammals, that we have a special interest in preserving out of manythat are endangered, out of many that have already been driven toextinction Meanwhile, for those captured and caged, a great deal

is lost These birds and mammals lose their freedom, autonomy, localcompanions, and familiar home territory Basically, they lose every-thing that is of meaning short of their bodily existence

Consistency and impartiality require that we deal with anymals as

we would our own kind We do not engage in “captive breeding”

to preserve “endangered” human races The last purebred Maori(indigenous to New Zealand) died at the end of the twentieth century;

contemporary moral dilemmas 453there was no systematic effort to continue this particular breed ofhuman It is considered immoral to control and manipulate humanbreeding Casuistry requires similar treatment for similar cases; philo-sophical consistency and impartiality demand the same response toother dwindling species Rather than captive breeding, a long-stand-ing ethic of minimizing interference and minimizing harm would

likely have assured the continuance of the Maori as well as that of

endangered and extinct species

Where “problem” anymals are concerned the Minimize HarmMaxim indicates that we must do all that we can to avoid encoun-

ters, yet if such encounters occur (even though we have tried

assid-uously to avoid them), we may harm an entity that poses a directthreat to personal safety Shooting circus anymals that we have kept

in chains and beaten into performing unnatural acts is unacceptable.(Anymals such as Tyke should be retired to sanctuaries set up tosatisfy their personal needs In the future we ought not to catch anddetain such animals.) But what of wild anymals that endanger localresidents or those hiking through forests?

The Minimize Harm Maxim extends ethics regarding the tion and preservation of human life to other living entities How do

protec-we deal with “problem” humans? We “cage” people who pose lems for others, but caging such humans is not comparable to cagingother species for four reasons

prob-First, human beings are morally accountable to human ethics Incontrast, we do not imprison four-year-old children—they are inno-cent—and for the same reasons we should not imprison black bears

or rattlesnakes Additionally, other species are not accountable tohuman ethics, and therefore cannot reasonably be imprisoned on thebasis of an ethical or legal code about which they have no understand-ing, and which they play no part in either establishing or maintaining.Second, “problem humans” undergo a rigorous procedure in order

to determine whether they ought to be detained “Caged” humansare determined to be morally culpable and to have willfully brokenlaws Nonhuman animals are not morally accountable to humanethics or law, and therefore cannot be put on trial any more thancan a small child Neither do anymals share our language, and sothey cannot reasonably participate in legal proceedings

Third, while anymals are generally detained for life, people receivevarious sentences, only very few of which are life sentences An

454 chapter nine

anymal forced into confinement through no fault of his or her own

is often ill suited to ever be returned to a natural environment.Fourth, we cannot legally exploit imprisoned human beings forentertainment Prisoners are never forced to learn and perform unnat-ural “tricks” for profit Nor can they be legally exploited for science

or education or sold to other industries

Many humans would rather die than be captured or controlled

by others The likely terror of finding oneself suddenly in a cell—the fear, frustration, loss of freedom and autonomy, and boredom

of confinement (not to mention uncertainty regarding one’s captors)are a dreadful thought to most human beings The horror would bemultiplied if our captors were of a completely different species, alien

to us in nearly every way imaginable Caged anymals exhibit iors suggesting that they feel similarly about being captured anddetained, confined and controlled

behav-Capture and release reveals good intentions toward those tured, and though there is perhaps no human equivalent, this approachseems clearly preferable to ongoing conflicts likely to result in defen-sive killing No anymal should be detained, but capture and releaseseems morally acceptable in situations where such an action willbenefit the anymals involved

cap-Consistency, impartiality, and casuistry require an end to zoos andcircuses, to captive breeding, and to the caging of anymals for anyreason except for their own good In the Minimize Harm Maximzoos and circuses are inherently unethical because they are built andmaintained for the benefit of human beings at the expense of any-mals Anymals are incapable of offering verbal consent for suchexploitation, and because they are more like dependents than equaladults, they could not offer such consent even if they were able.Zoos and circuses, the exploitation of anymals for entertainment,education, and/or profit, fail either to minimize harm or minimizeinterference For the sake of impartial and consistent application ofhuman ethical standards across species, the animals-in-entertainmentindustry ought to be shut down permanently, including zoos and cir-cuses, and the anymals retired to comfortable, private quarters ifthey are not fit for release into their natural habitat Children andadults alike will learn much more about anymals from learning thatthey are not to be caged and exploited than they will from seeingthem pace neurotically behind bars or from watching them performunseemly acts

contemporary moral dilemmas 455

2 Clothing

The basic need to cover our bodies against sun and cold entailsharming other entities The Minimize Harm Maxim, consistent withmorality regarding the protection and preservation of innocent humanlife, permits harming other entities in order to satisfy basic interests,

so long as one avoids harm when possible and minimizes any harmthat cannot be avoided

Approximately forty million anymals are killed per year in order

to produce fur products Of these, roughly thirty-one million areraised on fur farms, leaving eight million to be trapped in the wilds.The U.S Department of Agriculture reports a total of 324 fur mills

in the United States (Regan, Empty 109) Those raised on fur farms

remain genetically wild even though they are confined in small cages

As a result, many such “fur bearers” develop neurotic behaviors likepacing or even self-mutilation Though unheard of in the wild, nearlyone in five fox will kill and eat their own offspring under the strainedconditions of fur farms (“Fur”) Those raised for hides on fur farmsare given a minimum of care

While eight million animals are brought to market from wild traps,many more anymals are killed by traps each year Traps are indis-criminate, catching dogs, cats, birds, and endangered species—anycreature that inadvertently springs the set jaws Those anymals notconsidered “fur” anymals are simply cast aside Any of the anymalscaught in traps, whether wanted or unwanted by the fur profiteer,remain pinched in the trap until the one who set the trap comesalong to check the lines The only other option is to chew off a limband escape back to the wild minus one leg Anymals sometimes waitfor many days in traps, without food or water, in extreme pain.Perhaps the best comparison of what this might be like is to imag-ine having your hand slammed in a car door Of course for a per-son, a car door is not mysterious and terrifying in the way that asteel-jawed trap must be to wild anymals They have no way tounderstand the mechanism that holds them so painfully Yet theymust remain in place, waiting until someone happens along to killthem, often by simply clubbing them to death (Bullets mar the any-mal’s fur coat.)

What kinds of anymals, and in what numbers, die to create onefur coat, and how do they die? According to a table provided bythe Syracuse Animal Rights Organization, the numbers and methodsare startling:

456 chapter nine

Anymal # necessary method of killing

Chinchilla 110 genital electrocution

Through international trade, cat and dog fur also finds its wayonto Western markets The cuddly stuffed bunny grandpa bought as

a gift may have come from a cat or a dog Short-haired cats and

German shepherds are the most common victims (Regan, Empty 118).

In other parts of the world people have as little regard for cats anddogs as Westerners do for mink and fox

Aside from the harm done to individual anymals, the fur try harms the environment Piles of rotting corpses are not onlyunseemly, but unhealthy, and somewhat difficult to dispose of in anenvironmentally friendly manner Landfills in the state of Montanaare sometimes loaded with the skinned bodies of mink But the rot-ting corpses are the least of the environmental problems caused bythe fur industry A fur coat requires twenty times more fossil fuelsthan are necessary to produce a synthetic coat The fur industry uses

indus-“environmental contaminants and possible carcinogens such asformaldehyde and chromium” in the process of turning anymal skinsinto a human coat (“Fur”); these contaminants eventually end up inthe groundwater

The leather industry is no better for the environment Curingleather involves the same toxic chemicals used to tan and finish fur.These “chemicals are not any better for the people who work withthem than they are for the streams and rivers into which their wasteeventually flows” (Regan, Empty 119).

The leather industry is for cattle what the fur industry is for coons Contrary to common assumptions, leather is not simply a by-product of the meat industry Cattle are killed specifically for theirskin Much leather in the Western world comes from India, whereonce revered cattle have become the targets of leather profiteers.Cattle, many of them too thin or too old to be killed for their flesh,are rounded up and transported for miles in rickety trucks, without

rac-contemporary moral dilemmas 457food or water, to crude slaughterhouses Many arrive with brokenbones In the United States, anymals exploited for their hides haveoften suffered the horrors of exploitation in the dairy and flesh indus-tries before their skin becomes leather Of course cattle are not theonly victims of the clothing industry In considerably smaller quan-tities, Western peoples also purchase and wear the hides of “pigs,goats, lambs, horses, snakes, boars, deer, frogs, sharks, bison, zebras,

kangaroos, alligators, lizards, eels, and elephants” (Regan, Empty 119).

Wool, down, and silk also entail unnecessary suffering Eighty cent of the wool on the market in the United States comes fromAustralia, where tails are docked, notches are punched in ears, andlambs are castrated without any kind of pain killer Marino sheepare bred to have such thick coats of wool that maggots will infectcertain areas of flesh if the flesh is not cut away Cutting off thewrinkled skin around the tail to prevent maggot infestation, a pro-cedure called mulesing, is performed without anesthesia These openwounds take three to five weeks to heal (Regan, Empty 120–23).

per-The soft, downy feathers in pillows and winter coats are plucked,repeatedly, from geese, before they are sent to slaughter, where theyfare no better than chickens or cattle Silkworms are boiled alive “toobtain the lustrous filaments of their cocoons, from which silk ismade” (“Compassionate”)

Perhaps the most morally questionable clothing product on theWestern market is that made from Persian lamb, native to CentralAsia; some four million Persian lambs are slaughtered annually (Regan,

Empty 117) Persian wool comes from newborn or unborn karakullambs (also called Persian lambs), bringing a handsome profit, espe-cially if the mother is killed, and the lamb removed before birth.The older the lambs grow, the more their tight, smooth curls begin

to unravel Since premium prices are paid for the tightest, smoothestcurls, the lambs are killed anywhere from one to three days after theyare born and up to fifteen days before This latter procedure requiresthe death of the pregnant mother

A coat made from aborted karakul lambs sells for twice as much

as a coat of comparable size made from those newly born, as much

as twelve thousand dollars for the latter but more than twenty-five

thousand dollars for the former (Regan, Empty 117)

Consistent with morality regarding the protection and preservation

of human life, we may not kill others simply because we would like

3 Diet

The number of animals killed for fur in the U.S each year is imately equal to the human population of Illinois The number of ani-mals killed for experimentation in the U.S each year is approximatelyequal to the human population of Texas The number of mammalsand birds farmed and slaughtered [for food] in the U.S each year isapproximately equal to one and two-thirds the entire human popula-tion of Earth (Ball 4)

approx-Anymals consume other entities in order to persist; for the human

animal, choosing a diet is an ethical matter Wild carnivores cannot

survive without killing other creatures for food “The well-being andfreedom of predators require the killing of others Even if theywere able to decide that morally they ought not to kill, any such

decision would be suicidal” (Pluhar 276) Human beings can choose

not to eat anymals, or anymal products, without harming their health

in the least There is no nutritional need for most human beings to

eat any anymal products, dairy, flesh, or eggs “As intelligent and

sen-sitive human beings, we can acknowledge the harshness of the world,and yet not accept it at all We are not merely at the top of the food

chain We are, in an important sense, above the food chain We

have what is uncritically called ‘free will.’ We are able to reflect andchoose our food, our habits, our breeding patterns” (Solomon 69).Sprout is a calf that arrived at Farm Sanctuary from a Pennsylvaniafarm weak from want of food and water due to leg infections Thelower portion of both hind legs was swollen to twice the normal sizewith large, open sores Davey and Stylar arrived from the same farm,along with their mothers, Misty and Gracyn Both of the mothershad such severe udder infections that they were unable to nurse theiryoung These unfortunate individuals, and roughly twenty-five others,

contemporary moral dilemmas 459were rescued from a “beef ” facility where a visiting veterinary de-scribed the cows as “very thin” and their conditions as overcrowded,standing in more then three feet of manure with inadequate venti-lation, no food, and no water except a frozen barrel of rainwater(Bauston) Cattle that are raised simply to be exploited for food onlymatter inasmuch as they bring a profit to those who “own” them.

It is not unusual for these anymals to have pathetic lives and rid deaths Sprout, Davey, and Stylar are but three of millions raised

hor-to produce ice cream and cheese, hamburgers and steak Cattle soldsimply for beef, in the United States alone, number more than thirty-

five million (Regan, Empty 98).

My sister runs a small sanctuary for rescued animals She adoptedtwo tiny white “broilers,” Loise and Shirley After about six months,

as they reached maturity, they grew increasingly sedentary, movingabout only with great difficulty Their hearts and legs could not sus-tain their ample flesh Their breathing soon became labored, andneither hen lived for more than one year “Broiler” hens like Loiseand Shirley are bred to grow so rapidly that their hearts and legscannot sustain their bulk Healthy, normal hens live active lives for

up to fifteen years (Davis, Prisoned 130) But Loise and Shirley were

“man-made” birds, birds bred solely for human consumption, birdsbred in such a way that they were unable to function as living beings

Actor James Cromwell was cast as the farmer in the movie Babe.

During the course of the movie he discovered that pigs are gent, with distinct personalities, and that piglets have a lively sense

intelli-of fun and play People in the West each eat about thirty-two pigsduring the course of their lifetime (Wardle) Roughly 100 millionpigs are raised and slaughtered annually in the United States alone(“Factory”) When James Cromwell came to know just a handful ofpiglets, he stopped eating them; Cromwell is now a vegan

The Minimize Harm Maxim is an extension of morality ing the protection and preservation of human life As noted above,people cannot eat one another unless they must do so to survive

regard-We are forbidden to eat other people simply because we favor theirtaste Eating other people is immoral and illegal

What we choose to eat is morally relevant; through our foodchoices we ought to minimize harm Calves with sores on their legs,hens with hearts that cannot sustain their bulky bodies, and pigs sent

to slaughter in their youth—these do not minimize harm Those who