Animals as Food

Today, in Ethics, my professor asked a question - "Can you think of any moral code in our current society that you would particularly like to see changed?"

When nobody answered, he presented one - the treatment of animals. He also happened to post a small treatise on his opinions (I will not post a link, as I do not have his consent). To paraphrase - he believes that it is morally wrong to cause pain to any other sentient being, and, because animals are sentient beings, they deserve a right to life.

Of course, I must post a response (although I am quite positive his blog receives more traffic than mine).

I acknowledge the fact that animals are sentient beings, and can suffer as humans suffer. And I hold their life in the same regard as I hold human life.

However - I must define the regard I have for human life. I view humanity from the perspective of someone having a large interest in cosmology and the philosophy thereof. As far as my logos is concerned, I do not hold humanity is any sort of divine regard, any more than I do a sponge in the ocean. I prefer Hume's view, that "The universe has the same regard for human life as it does for the life of the oyster." (If this is misquoted, I will revise later - I do not have any of my resources with me at the moment as I am still forced to use a public computer). This does, for anyone who wants to come back at me, apply to myself.

I am also a contractarion at present time. That is, I believe that I have entered into a social contract that prohibits me from taking human life (barring certain exceptions, such as a threat to my own life). I have many other moral beliefs for things that happen - but that is for another day.

Regarding animals, I have entered into no such contract. I do not feel obligated to these animals to maintain their life/happiness, etc. as I would other humans, with whom I am contractually bound. I therefore find it acceptable take their lives for the benefit of my own nourishment. I do understand that I could find same nourishment from alternative sources, however, I happen to be pleased with my current choice and am in no way compelled to alter my decision on a moral basis.

As a note, however, I feel compelled to say that, as personal tastes based largely on my ethos, I do prefer to afford animals with some comfort. I do believe in more humane methods of obtaining this meat and have respect for each animal that becomes nourishment to me. For instance - I will not by chicken from Pilgrim's Pride, as I have first hand knowledge of what the chickens go through. I prefer more organic methods. I also prefer to obtain and eat meat that I or someone I know have actually hunted - I can then rest assured that the animal is fully made use of, without it's sacrifice being in vain.

I do not feel that animals are on earth to serve as a resource for humanity (I have learned that this is call anthropocentricity). I do, however, feel that all sentient beings on earth are important to each other, relatively speaking. I could even argue that non-human animals and humans are equally important, as far as their lives are concerned - simply that I have no contract with animals prohibiting me from using their corporeal bodies for my gain. And because it is impractical for me to enter into a contract with these non-humans, the only way I can see this happening is for my social contract with humanity to be ammended - an ammendment I would prefer not to see (again, personal tastes).

P.S - It would be interesting to test my logic against cannabilism - frightning, but interesting.

P.P.S. - I should have addressed this on a serious note in my passage - there is absolutely no pun intended with the word "taste" when used here. I mean my personal preferences, not the sense of taste.