Print This Article

by Pawel Fiedor

"Humanists acknowledge the inseparability of human beings from other animals

Pamplona is a relatively small city in Spain, about which no one hears for any other reason than San Fermín festival, held yearly in early July. The public at large likely first heard of it from Ernest Hemingway's second novel, The Sun Also Rises, which describes affectionately the most important part of the festival—corrida or the running of the bulls. Hemingway loved it, yet he noticed the lack of concern for the effects of the sanguineous actions among its participants:

Everything became quite unreal finally and it seemed as though nothing could have any consequences. It seemed out of place to think of consequences during the fiesta.

Many people, however, are indeed alarmed about the calamitous participation on the side of the bulls, reminding us of one more passage in the novel, "You are all a lost generation." But luckily the big picture of human morality isn't as grim.

A positive example of human morals in treating animals comes from the increasing popularity of vegetarianism in the last couple of decades. Some of the growth is due to religious reasons, but a large part of it is due to people realizing that meat is coming from a fell process of husbandry and slaughter. This indicates that the rise of vegetarianism is not merely a fashion, but a reflection of a deeper change. The ascendency of vegetarianism is a byproduct of a conscious shift of our social vision. While on the micro scale it may mean a different thing for every vegetarian to abstain from consuming meat, on the macro scale it does appear as a change in the morality of human beings.

Although the rise of vegetarianism due to reasons not grounded on rational inquiry—for example, treating animals as hallowed or impure—is largely meaningless for humanists, the part of the ascension built upon a secular, intellectual assessment of the morality of the relations between humans and other animals is very meaningful. Humanists acknowledge the inseparability of human beings from other animals as, to quote Humanist Manifesto III, "humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change." Apart from this disallowing treating humans and animals separately, there is also enough evidence for the ability of animals to feel emotions to convince anyone who takes the values of humanism seriously about the need for extending utilitarianism (or any other set of moral values) beyond speciesism in order to promote welfare of the planet as a whole. And even people not entirely convinced about humanism going beyond the interests of one species have to acknowledge the inefficiency of growing crop to feed livestock, as a vegetarian diet requires only one third of water and 40 percent of energy required by a diet with meat. This realization should, at the very least, encourage them to help sustain ecosystems by limiting their intake of meat, if not abandoning it completely. And while every humanist has to independently decide on this matter in his or her life, it seems that in general vegetarianism is destined to be more and more popular among humanists. It is arguable that it is in the interest of humanism to facilitate this change in the prevalent behavior in this area and make it a permanent shift of human consciousness.

If the zeitgeist is indeed changing toward less animal cruelty, what keeps some people from becoming vegetarians? It seems that there are two main reasons for that. The first reason comes from the fact that it's hard for people to accept any change. And an alteration in diet, which has been homogeneous for many people over a few decades, requires work and determination to break out of a habit. This may not be easy for very many people. Yet humanists should always be ready for a change, if it's necessary as a result of an alteration in reality or our understanding of it. The more important reason is different however. Many people won't assume responsibility for killing the animals they eat. They believe, quite incorrectly, that if they didn't kill the animal personally, it's not their responsibility and it's not their actions that are being unethical. Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher famous for his views on applied ethics, observes that delegating an action that is unethical is in itself as unethical as the action delegated. Therefore people eating animals are responsible, morally and ethically, for the killing of these animals. The realization of this may help accelerate the change in zeitgeist, although it is not likely to be agreed upon by the majority of people soon. Humanists, though, must assume responsibility to shape their own lives, as well as the welfare of the society and the ecosystems.

Supposing vegetarianism is a way to behave ethically, we may ask ourselves if it is the destination or just a stopping place, allowing us to behave morally while waiting for a complete solution? Unlike religious people, humanists shouldn't be dogmatic and always be ready for a change in their values and beliefs. Therefore impermanence has to be embraced. In light of the current research working on in vitro meat it seems that vegetarianism is indeed merely a temporary response to this problem. Once humans can produce meat without hurting living animals, and while using less water and energy than now, there will be no moral superiority in being a vegetarian and hence it will become an empty category from an ethical point of view. Many people will stay with vegetarian diet then, but it will become a matter of taste, not morality. In vitro meat may be a solution to more problems than this one. If the cost of producing it will be reduced, as is the plan, to much below the cost of ordinary meat, it will be able to provide a way to fight hunger in the world with its indelibly rising population. That is why humanists ought to step forward and make every effort necessary to promote in vitro meat as soon as it becomes available, as this change will conceivably have a counterweight in fundamentalists who will be arguing against it for superstitious reasons, not having anything to do with science or morality. As in vitro meat will allow better treatment of animals, the environment and the human race, it is one of the most important advances for humanism in the 21st century and must be treated as such.

We have reasons to be optimistic about the future of human morality in general, and in the treatment of animals specifically. But the spread of vegetarianism could also be the greatest good for the greatest number just for humans, as it would save millions of lives due to a breakout from their unhealthful diet. This claim is reinforced by the increasing support for diet high in plants and low in animal products proclaimed by experts in nutrition. Therefore vegetarianism may very well be Peter Singer's idea of a utilitarian heaven even if we're not counting animal rights. But we should include animal rights in the moral equation, and for us not to behave as the Spaniards did in early July we must weigh the consequences of our actions on ourselves and others, including animals that can feel pain and happiness. That's perhaps the greatest responsibility of any humanist, as expressed in the words of Hemingway: "That is the secret. You must get to know the values."