On PETA and Ethics

I must confess that this post is written in partial ignorance, as I was so furious at the MIT Debate Team that I walked out of the debate early. After a series of specious arguments and blatant fallacies in the opening argument of the MIT team, I couldn't stand to listen to the banter any longer.

First off, one cannot argue that because the majority of people do something, it is to be considered ethical or moral. It is absurd to say that "majority" is tantamount to "ethical." At the same time, "moral" and "ethical" are not the same either (the argument of the PETA team). Specifically, the MIT lead argued that "we can't all be considered unethical for driving sometimes instead of biking, or not bothering to look for a recycling bin." Actually, I would argue that that is fine. It is ok to be "unethical" sometimes, when those are the things that we are considering. I should probably clarify then my perspective on what "ethical" means. Because ethics, like morals in fact, are personally decided (I have somewhat of an existentialist or libertarian perspective on this-I will decide my own morals, thank you), I claim the prerogative to define what "ethical" is. For me, ethical is the concept of fairness, doing unto/expecting of others that which I hold myself to as well (Golden Rule? Similar yes, but sometimes I value doing more for others than is expected of me, because I know I am able to). And I don't believe people need to go out of their ways to be ethical or unethical, but when presented with a choice then they have an obligation to make an ethical one. So the argument drawing a parallel between not recycling and eating meat is specious-we do not recycle if we cannot find recycling facilities. But the argument against eating meat has to do with choosing not to eat meat when other options are available, when there are multiple options of equal convenience. I accept the fact that if I make the choice to eat meat than certain people will find me to be unethical. I eventually do see myself letting go of meat, the only real question is when.

The MIT team fell back on the thoroughly debunked arguments that went along the lines that "animals are dumber than us and can't make moral decisions, so it is fine to mistr(eat) them." By that argument, young children, already proven actually to be less intelligent than young primates for the earliest stages of life, are a fine source of sustenance, or at least do not deserve sensitive treatment. The same goes for the mentally retarded, or those with underdeveloped central nervous systems, such as those unable to feel pain. In fact, by that logic cannibalism of the dead is ethically acceptable. The whole point is that we are able to make moral decisions and thus should exercise that capability.

It doesn't have to be black or white either. I am comfortable in the decision that I don't value animal rights as much as human rights. But I do value them. So for example, I don't support slavery, and would totally refuse to eat food prepared by slaves as well as to keep any of my own. In contrast, I avoid cooking meat on my own, but I do not feel strongly enough to refuse to eat meat when someone else has prepared it, or when it is the most healthful option on a menu when dining out.

All we know is all we are. And I know that animals feel pain. Perhaps plants feel greater pain, but we are just absolutely incapable of reaching that understanding (just as I assume animals in general don't feel empathy for humans-this isn't always the case though, there are plenty of cases against this, or of interspecies empathy in general, there is some case I can't find now, where wildlife observers saw one animal of one species killed another, then it found the cubs of that animal and rather than killing them too it tried to save them). But for now, I know for a fact that animals feel pain. So I have two choices: accept the pain I'm causing as morally and ethically questionable, or not to cause that pain.