In Defense of Speciesism

From http://www.filemagazine.com/thecollection/

The vegetarian community can be safely assumed to be a substantially liberal. This assumption I make without citation, but it is self-evident from the cultural zeitgeist, identifiable leanings of organizations such as PETA, and the absence of a modern conservative archetype known to adhere to vegetarian or vegan diet. In reality, no obvious dogma prevents the most conservative, evangelical, gun-loving, hard-right winger from becoming an enthusiast of the Whole Foods produce aisle and stir frying every known recipe of tofu. But the thought of Ted Nugent picking that lifestyle up seems absurd.

Sure, Hitler was a right-wing vegetarian. Most vegetarians are not Hitler.

            Meanwhile, the liberal stance in American politics squarely sits in support of gay marriage and the repeal of legislation such as The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the woeful legislative compromise signed into law by President Bill Clinton. Other advances on this agenda have been made under the Obama administration, such as the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which required even greater sacrifice from gay American soldiers than is already required by their service. This is an encouraging step for gay rights activists, and while progress may be slower than liberals desire, progress it is.

            Moreover, several states have begun recognizing the legal right to gay marriage. This allows same-sex couples to enter the same union that is recognized by the government--a union that must be agnostic to religious dogma if it is to respect the First Amendment and particularly the non-establishment clause. An occasional counterargument from opponents to gay marriage is that “Freedom of Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion.” This is a direct assault on a quickly growing, and equally valid segment of the population: the agnostic, atheistic, humanist and free-thinking individuals amongst us. These individuals do not demand that God delivered morality to be deciphered and disseminated by a lucky few religious elite, but that ethics and morals come to us as innately and intrinsically as the ability to speak or walk.

            Using consistency of reason and thoughtful assembly of ethical principles is essential in a free and moral society. Without deliberate and reflective moral pondering, the absence of discrete transcendent authority does leave the danger of a poor moral compass --a danger not remotely alleviated by erroneous claims of heavenly knowledge. The requirement to personally create ethical boundaries will produce better results than those relying on non-existent heavenly command.

            It is the quest for moral consistency that disrupts my ability to support the ethics-based vegetarianism.

            The bridge between the morality of gay marriage and vegetarianism requires two assumptions: first, we are mammals, primates—the descendants of evolutionary and ordinary biological processes. Should I lose half the country with that first assumption, but so be it-- the scientific community supports my assumption.

The second and more cumbersome assumption is that while human beings may be animals, human life and other animal life cannot be held with the same moral regard. This is obvious at least on a certain level-- even the gentlest vegan will at some point accidentally trample an ant with his or her bare feet and not need suffer cries of (conveniently named) manslaughter. It would be enormously surprising if the most organically-minded beatnik could shrug off a mouse or roach infestation in their food supply. And all this is to ignore all other types of life-- no one bemoans the plants. The degree of sentience and intelligence a being possesses may excuse it from becoming livestock, but cultures will disagree to this point. Dogs of certain breeds are still an acceptable food source in China; Scooby might become the snack itself if he isn’t deemed cute enough. Although pigs have shown intellectual promise comparable to dogs, bacon persists.

Healthy people don’t want to eat their pets. But how do we decide what will make a happy pet and what will make a happy meal?

            Food taboos are clearly and enormously defined by cultural norms and consensus. How do we draw this line? PETA has engaged in a prolonged campaign for tuna meat not to be simply dolphin-safe, but tuna-safe as well. The American culture that abhors Shark Fin Soup will feed its schoolchildren “pink slime”. It is difficult to break down these preferences without entirely arbitrary boundaries.

From the other side of the argument though: was Cruella DeVille really not so bad? What degree of cruelty will we permit animal life to suffer?

And…. how does this come back to gay marriage?

            In 2003, Rick Santorum made comments that referenced the “slippery slope” grounds as a defense against LGBT equality. Columnist and activist Dan Savage at that point began the neologism for “Santorum” in protest—redefining the politician’s last name as “the frothy mixture of lubricant and feces that is sometimes a byproduct of anal sex.” Ouch.

            And Dan Savage was right to object—the entire gay population being compared to the guy in Montana who has sex with his horse? That’s ridiculous, absurd, and insulting.

            

But.

There is a man in Horry, South Carolina who has sex with his horse. A fascinating Internet search will reveal the much longer sordid human history of beastly flings between man and horse, dog, and even octopus.

Still, a horse cannot provide legal consent, so does that render the point is moot? Two gay people can affirm their mutual affection, where the horse-man relationship is not capable of dual confirmation. After all, it’s just a stupid animal.

Here we find a breach in logical consistency—excluding bestiality from sexual liberation requires an entirely different perspective on human beings from what has been previously established. Suddenly it is assumed that we are, in fact, uniquely special—God’s chosen children, so to speak. Let us assume that animals can—in some shape or form—provide consent. Granted, animals probably will not recognize our legal mores and social norms, but it is fathomable that they have sufficient behavioral autonomy to make some choices for themselves—to provide some form of acquiescence. If that can be deciphered, an animal’s will is not so different from a human’s.

And if this is the case, why unconditionally condemn interspecies relationships? Humans have played their hand at controlled interspecies breeding: take the mule or the liger, for example—horses and donkeys create a hybrid similar enough that it offends no one. If phenomena can occur in nature, is it not natural? And are human beings themselves not a part of the natural order? Certainly bestiality is rare—rarer than any other sexuality—at least so far as we could possibly know and safely assume. Nonetheless we could choose to decry it as “unnatural”, “sinful”, “disgusting”, “depraved”, or any other word that comes to mind when this subject comes to mind.

All of these terms and arguments, of course, have been used by the heterosexual majority on the LGBT minority, and that segment of the population has had their behavior and identity suppressed for generations in American society. A recent one-shot comic book story called “Our Love is Real” explores a dystopian (utopian?) future where sexual relationships between humans and animals, vegetables, or crystals are quite ordinary.

It is argued to this day that homosexuality is a choice; the gay population and a growing majority of America disagree. Is it possible that the horse-loving population also claim their attraction is ingrained in their DNA? If not… why do it? Arousal from watching “Seabiscuit” is incomprehensible and revolting to those who do not experience it; the same, again, could be said of gay pornography.

This equivalence is not just disagreeable—it is unacceptable.

The fulfillment, love, and mutual benefit of same-sex relationships are inarguable; society has “evolved” to an era that (while not advancing in lockstep) is growing friendlier to the gay community year by year. Those who claim to know divine truth or tropically argue that “marriage has always been one man one woman” are not only ignoring history (Athens, anyone?) but also sit on the clear losing side of history. The same form of argument (using Biblical endorsement of slavery, for example) has been used to obstruct civil rights in the past; future generations will inevitably look back with disgust.

But any argument is fundamentally flawed if permitting acknowledgement of the first assumption and dismissal of the second. The idea that society should embrace bestiality is laughable, and it is simply not something that is or should be permissible by civilization. Human beings must be held in an elevated regard—a regard that is paradoxically a tad arbitrary based on the first assumption-- but a higher standard nonetheless. Species solidarity must supersede fealty to outside species. We are built as social creatures and both logic and nature demand loyalty to homo-sapien.

To that end, it is not wrong for a human being to eat animal meat; the mass-industrialization of farming may have some unwanted effects, but there can be no doubt that it feeds a hungry population. Once it is accepted that it is far better for one hundred chickens to die than for one human being to starve, this conclusion becomes inescapable. Vegetarianism as a healthy choice is still valid—it is believed (in somewhat spurious calculations and studies) to be energy-saving as well as (less questionably) a healthy lifestyle. But there exists no moral high-ground for the vegan to perch.