AnalPhilosopher

James asks me the following question: "If you had the complete power, what specifically would you have happen, through law, the courts, and policy changes, to make U.S. citizens abide by your foundational premise 'that it is morally wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no good reason?'"

Before answering James’s question directly, three comments are in order.

First, James, I do not view the principle “that it is morally wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no good reason” as my foundational premise. I view it as your foundational premise, since both you [James] and Kevin committed yourselves to this premise early on in our exchange. It doesn’t matter what I think. It matters what you think. Most people think that it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no good reason. I have simply pointed out some of the logical consequences of that belief. Whether people live their lives in a manner consistent with their own fundamental beliefs is up to them. I am simply trying to point out what consistency requires.

Second, in my exchanges with James and Kevin, I have been discussing the issue of eating meat at the level of personal morality, i.e., at the level of how we should behave as individuals. Based on views they expressed early in our exchange, I believe that both James and Kevin are committed to moral principles that, in turn, commit them to the immorality of eating meat [at least, to the immorality of eating inhumanely raised meat, whenever equally-nutritious, plant-based options are available]. Moreover, I think that most people are committed to the same principles that James and Kevin are committed to, namely, (1) it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer unnecessarily and (2) it is wrong to cause an animal to suffer for no good reason. Anyone committed to (1) and (2) is, on pain of inconsistency, also committed to the view that eating inhumanly raised animals is wrong (at least whenever equally-nutritious, plant-based options are available, which is almost always). Anyone who is committed to the wrongness of eating animals should abide by his/her own principles and stop eating inhumanely raised animals.

Third, there is an important sense in which Kevin's question is completely irrelevant. It is completely irrelevant what I would do in the circumstances James describes. I might, if put in a position of absolute power, become a tyrannical dictator forcing my will on the people with no regard for their well-being. I hope I wouldn't be that kind of leader, but so what if that were the kind of leader I would become? That would show nothing about what I should have done as their leader. It would only have revealed me to be an unjust and unethical tyrant.

So, in answering James's question, rather than saying what I would do, I will answer the question in terms of what should be done.

James's important question cannot be answered without first addressing another fundamental philosophical question: “When is the government justified in restricting the liberty of its citizens?” A number of liberty-limiting principles have been proposed by social, political, and legal philosophers throughout history in an attempt to answer this crucial question. According to the paternalistic principle, a government can limit the liberty of its citizens for their [the citizen’s] own good. According to the offense principle, a government can limit the liberty of its citizens to prevent offense to others. According to legal moralism, a government can limit the liberty of its citizens to "enforce morality." Legal moralists have traditionally wanted to criminalize various sexual practices between consenting adults on the grounds that such conduct is immoral. According to the harm principle, a government can legitimately limit the liberty of its citizens to prevent harm to others.

"Liberalism" in the honorable Millian sense [See John Stuart Mills's On Liberty.] maintains that, of all the liberty-limiting principles just mentioned, only one is legitimate, namely, the Harm Principle. I, following John Stuart Mill (and Joel Feinberg), am a “Liberal” in this honorable sense, when it comes to restricting people's freedom. I think the most just society is one that allows its citizens to have the maximum amount of liberty consistent with (1) everyone else having that same amount of liberty and (2) preventing harm to others. Mill rightly maintained that people's liberty should not be restricted on paternalistic grounds. If people wish to smoke themselves to death, the government has no right to interfere. However, it is perfectly legitimate to ban smoking in all public places on the well-documented grounds that second-hand smoke harms those who unwittingly inhale it. [The only situation in which paternalistic legislation is legitimate is when the individuals affected are minors or mentally incompetent.] As a “Liberal” in the honorable sense described above, I think that the only legitimate reason to limit someone's liberty is to prevent harm to others, but I think that that reason is very legitimate, indeed. [For what it’s worth, I know of no “Conservative” who would deny the legitimacy of the Harm Principle (I suspect KBJ, himself a conservative, can confirm this point.). Where “Conservatives” might disagree with “Liberals” (in the honorable Millian sense) is that they might insist that there are other legitimate liberty-limiting principles in addition to the harm principle, e.g., the legal moralist’s principle. All that matters for our present discussion is that no reasonable party -- “Liberal” or “Conservative” -- rejects the legitimacy of the harm principle. My views are predicated on this most widely of accepted liberty-limiting principles.]

In my earlier postings, I have argued that factory farming is morally wrong on the grounds that such farming causes animals intense pain, suffering, and frustration for no good reason. Because no one needs to eat meat in order to be optimally healthy, all of the inhumane treatment that animals are subjected to is done for no good reason. In short, the animals are being harmed, their interests are being violated from the day they are born to the day they die, and all of this inhumane, harmful treatment is being done for no good reason.

But the mere fact that factory farming is immoral does not, by itself, justify banning the practice. We allow people to engage in all sorts of "immoral" conduct, provided no one is harmed by that conduct . But, quite independent of its immorality, there are very good grounds for banning factory farming. These grounds are rooted in the Harm Principle, the most widely accepted liberty-limiting principle. Factory farming should be banned in order to prevent serious and devastating harm to others [in this case to prevent serious and devastating harm to 10 billion others each year]. If we simply were to apply the Harm Principle in a consistent and nonspeciestic way, we would immediately be required to ban factory farming, fur farming, puppy mills, and cosmetics testing on animals. That's right, a truly just nation with a truly just legal system would make these practices illegal immediately.

That might strike some readers as radical. Surely, anyone who thinks that raising animals for food should be illegal must be a crank. Right? Someone not to be taken seriously. But before you dismiss my view on such fallacious grounds, let us jump back in history. The year is 1850, and slavery is still legal and widely practiced in the U.S. At that time, a small but vocal minority [of “wackos”] was arguing that slavery was immoral [For the record, they (the abolitionist “wackos”) were right! With that, I'm sure you agree.]. I hope that if James and I were alive back then, we would have both possessed the moral wisdom, character, fiber, and foresight needed to be members of this vocal minority speaking out in opposition of slavery. Now, remember, this is 1850. Slave-owners have grown accustomed to their slaves and the luxury of having someone at their beck and call, waiting on them hand and foot. Slave-owners didn't want to give up their slaves (not without a fight!) and couldn't imagine what life would be like without slaves [Just as today, meat-eaters don't want to give up eating meat and often claim that they can't imagine what their lives would be like without meat.]. Let's hope and assume that both James and I would have been a part of that vocal minority speaking out against slavery. So, now [remember its 1850], I turn to James and say, "James, I know that you think that slavery is wrong. You've been outspoken about it on many occasions. Your speeches about the wrongfulness of slavery have been eloquent and moving. Your speeches about how slaves have been harmed and wrongfully exploited by the practice of slavery have been compelling, indeed. So, let me ask you this: If you had the complete power, what specifically would you have happen, through law, the courts, and policy changes, to make U.S. citizens abide by your foundational premise 'that slavery is wrong?' Would you abolition slavery, criminalize it, and prosecute anyone who continued to enslave people?" I suspect (and hope) that James’s answer would have been "Yes."

The idea of banning slavery, radical to most in 1850, strikes us today as the profoundly right thing to have done. Slaves were harmed by slavery, their interests were violated. Those born into slavery had their interests violated from the day they were born until the day they died. Banning slavery liberated slaves from a lifetime of tyranny and wrongful exploitation. It was, without question, the right thing to do. And no one today disputes that fact. Banning slavery was justified on the basis of the Harm Principle!

Jump back to the present. If causing animals to suffer unnecessarily is wrong, then raising them inhumanely for no good reason is ipso facto wrong. It harms them and violates their interests. Factory farmers have grown accustomed to their factory farm profits. Meat-eaters have grown accustomed to eating the flesh of these abused animals. But so what? As Gandhi rightly put it: "The greatness of a Nation can be judged by the way it treats its animals." A great and just nation would apply the Harm Principle in a fair and unbiased way and would criminalize harming animals for no good reason. We already have criminalized aggravated animal abuse for cats and dogs. Why not for cows and hogs? Would that have far-reaching ramifications for our society? Yes, it certainly would, just as banning slavery did. But, as in the case of slavery, those ramifications would strengthen our society, not weaken it. When, in history, has a society been weakened by taking the high moral ground?

Final Thought: We’ve been talking theoretically about whether or not factory farming should be outlawed [I might note that, unlike in the U.S., more and more factory farming practices are being outlawed in the European Union each year. In this regard, the EU is far more progressive than the U.S.]. But this much is clear: Given the incredibly deep pockets of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Dairy Council, etc., factory farm practices in the U.S. won’t be banned anytime soon. Don’t wait for the government to do what you yourself know is right. As long as corporate agri-business spends hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign contributions, politicians will continue to protect this illegitimate industry. But you, as a consumer, have the freedom to boycott such industries. As more and more conscientious consumers refuse to support the institutionalized cruelty of factory farms, factory farmers [and farm bureaus] will slowly lose their powerful lobby. At that point, concerned citizens might succeed in getting legislation passed that protects all sentient beings, not just cats and dogs. It won’t happen overnight, but you can help it happen by living your life in a manner consistent with your own moral principles. Radical? No. Just ethical.