Vegan for Life - Jack Norris [93]
You can read more about the various labels and what they actually mean in Farm Sanctuary’s Truth Behind the Labels report. There is only one way to know the conditions of the animals from whom eggs, milk, and meat are derived, and that is to visit the farm where they live and the slaughterhouse where they die.
THE BETTER SOLUTION: GO VEGAN
If some of the worst factory farming abuses are eliminated through legislation, we can expect the cost of animal foods to go up and consumption to go down. Influencing the supply of animal foods in this way is an important part of dismantling animal agriculture—which is important whether you support the rights of animals or simply want to see an end to the barbarity of factory farming.
But by far the most effective and powerful way to end factory farming is to eliminate demand. And the only way to do that is to adopt a vegan lifestyle. While it’s sad to think about the plight of animals on factory farms, it’s empowering to know that we can choose not to contribute to their torture—and that this choice can prevent animal suffering and threaten the very existence of animal agriculture.
DO ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?
People who choose a vegan lifestyle because of ethical concerns for animals may have fundamental differences in their beliefs. Some believe that any use of animals is likely to involve suffering, and therefore the only humane and ethical option is to avoid all animal products. Others embrace the animal rights perspective articulated in the early 1980s by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, or experiment on.” In other words, whether or not animals are treated humanely, we don’t have the right to use them for our own purposes.
Both perspectives can play critical roles in achieving the goal of eliminating animal suffering. But we believe that there is compelling reason to support the second viewpoint and that human rights can be logically extended to make the case for animal rights.
A human rights ethic suggests that no human—not just intelligent humans, but also babies, infants, and those who are mentally challenged—should be abused and used by others for whatever purpose they like. This raises the question about whether rights should be extended to animals. The idea that if we grant rights to humans of lesser intelligence or ability, we should also grant rights to animals is sometimes referred to as the argument from marginal cases. If intelligence and capability are not criteria for the possession of rights, why would animals—who have the capacity to feel fear and pain—be excluded from moral consideration? Some philosophers may reject the argument from marginal cases, but we have never known any of them to provide a compelling reason for doing so.
Catastrophes
Because huge numbers of farmed animals are confined in massive sheds on today’s farms, when catastrophes strike, there is no escape. If there is a fire, flood, or tornado, these animals are doomed to burn, drown, or suffer severe injuries. Over a recent two-year period, hundreds of thousands of farm animals were the victims of these types of tragedies. In 2010, for instance, 60,000 chickens died from heat exhaustion on a North Carolina farm when the fans stopped working following a power outage. A year earlier, nearly 4,000 pigs met the same fate when a vandal turned off the fans on an Iowa farm. And on a farm in Texas, 800,000 hens died in a fire. There are many more examples of fire, flood, and transport truck accidents that cause terrifying and agonizing deaths for hundreds and thousands of animals.
EXTENDING JUSTICE TO ANIMALS
In his book A Theory of Justice, John Rawls put forth a moral philosophy based on a hypothetical “original position.” In this scenario, the person who makes the moral rules for a society does so without prior knowledge of who they will be in that society. So place yourself in this original position: You are making decisions about whose interests