A recent paper published in the journal Neuroethics argues for minimizing animal suffering by creating beasts that lack the ability to sense pain. This reminded me of a collection of thought experiments, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, by philosopher Julian Baggini. The thought experiment from which the book’s title comes from includes the following excerpt from Douglas Adam’s The Restaurant at the End of the Universe:
After forty years of vegetarianism, Max Berger was about to sit down to a feast of pork sausages, crispy bacon and pan-fried chicken breast. Max had always missed the taste of meat, but his principles were stronger than his culinary cravings. But now he was able to eat meat with a clear conscience.
The sausages and bacon had come from a pig called Priscilla he had met the week before. The pig had been genetically engineered to be able to speak and, more importantly, to want to be eaten. Ending up on a human table was Priscilla’s lifetime ambition and she woke up on the day of her slaughter with a keen sense of anticipation. She had told all of this to Max just before rushing off to the comfortable and humane slaughterhouse. Having heard her story, Max thought it would be disrespectful not to eat her.
The chicken had come from a genetically modified bird which had been ‘decerebrated’. In other words, it lived the life of a vegetable, with no awareness of self, environment, pain or pleasure. Killing it was therefore no more barbarous than uprooting a carrot.
Yes as the plate was place before him, Max felt a twinge of nausea. Was this just a reflex reaction, caused by a lifetime of vegetarianism? Or was it the physical sign of justifiable distress? Collecting himself, he picked up his knife and fork…
While the passage is ostensibly about the ethics of vegetarianism, I believe the questions it raises can be extended to other interesting areas. Specifically, I want to explore a specific theme that I believe is parallel to human experience.
Claim A — If one of the teleological purposes of pighood is to be eaten, then Priscilla is simply aligning her attitude with her reason for existence. Berger would arguably be doing nothing morally wrong by eating her. That point seems rather uncontroversial, at least to us carnivores.
Claim B — If pigs have no teleological purpose, then Priscilla’s desire to be eaten may be beneficial to her psychologically (if not necessarily physically) but her state of mind would not necessarily be the determining ethical consideration. The moral concern would shift to and be determined by other relevant factors and/or principles. For example, is Berger doing anything wrong in killing a creature that has no purpose? That question cannot be resolved simply by saying that the pig has a desire to be killed.
Claim C — Another variation, and the one that I am most interested in discussing, is the consideration that pigs might have a teleological reason for being that has nothing to do with being eaten. If this is the case, and fulfilling the purpose of the pig life requires its continued survival, then Priscilla’s desire to be eaten will prevent her from being a fulfilled being. Berger, as I see it, would clearly be wrong in eating her even though this is what she would choose of her own free will.
Am I wrong on this point? If so, what moral principle have I failed to consider?
Also, what are some of the parallels between Priscilla and humans? Is there a conflict between what some people freely choose and our moral obligation to reject their desire in favor of treating them according to their reason for being?
September 15th, 2009 | 9:50 am
Maybe it’s just that I’m a vegetarian, but my immediate reaction is to be utterly disgusted by the fact that people do that kind of research.
That said, I find your ‘Claim C’ to be amazingly coherent – perhaps uncomfortably so for many.
September 15th, 2009 | 1:02 pm
This Priscilla scenario just sounds too close to modern bioethics for my taste, where many people have a hard time saying /anything/ is wrong provided that the person asking for it is an informed adult.
I am sympathetic to C, though I don’t think that it necessarily precludes eating pigs. It would at least argue that the pigs be humanely treated and allow to /be/ pigs, rather than mere eating machines designed to convert antibiotics and feed into meat, which is how they are treated in modern industrial farming.
September 15th, 2009 | 1:22 pm
I’m not a vegetarian, but I’m disturbed by this too.
I’d hold to claim D (which is a bit more complex):
The whole assumption that pain is the primary thing determining morality is an invalid and dangerous idea. Following it to its logical conclusions in the secular world (where humans are just animals), it’s okay to kill people as long as they’re on happy pills, and if we can create “A Brave New World” where life is meaningless and mindless but everyone is happy and pain free, that is our moral imperative.
All the Abrahamic faiths make comforting and aiding the suffering a moral imperative. All the Abrahamic faiths contain in the Noatic Covenant, which shows God’s desire that we kill the animals we eat humanly (it is the nature of life to eat life, even if that life is vegetable). IMO, that should involve pain reduction, at the point of death, but it would be the height of presumption as stewards of creation to breed a race of zombie pigs. If God wanted to create a race of zombie animals, he would have. So why hasn’t he? Job 38:39-39:30 and Luke 12:27 and Psalm 104 hint that although we are given permission to eat animals, all animals and plants do have a teleological purpose — it’s to live, be nurtured by God, and to glorify God. All zombie animals do is demean life as being a means to and end. While animal sacrifice might be repugnant to Vegetarians, the volitional emphasis whereby the best animals are chosen and the best parts of those animals are chosen, clearly brings home the fact that the animals belong to God. It’s too easy for the western “cow in a can” society to forget where our privileges and blessings come from.
September 15th, 2009 | 3:06 pm
I vote for claim D, too.
As someone who’s poked her head around the corner of the barn on chicken slaughter day, I know that the chicken doesn’t appreciate being grabbed by its legs and stuffed head first into the killing cone, but the neck is slit within seconds and the chicken doesn’t care one way or another then. If the other birds weren’t penned, they’d be fighting over rights to eat the dead heads in the collection bucket. As long as the chicken is killed quickly and is treated humanely during its life, then humans and chickens have each fulfilled their purposes.
The notion of a self-aware animal is as offensive as the creation of a pain-free animal. That the animal be dumb is essential. That the animal be sensitive to cruelty is equally essential. We practice our humanity through our stewardship of these animals. A level of helplessness in the animal brings out our compassion. An animal that feels no pain might as well be a walking stuffed toy. Cuddle it or rip off its leg, what’s the difference? An animal that feels pain is a check on our own excesses. Before the finality of slaughter day I am happy to see to the needs and comforts of the chickens. I’m blessed to see all their funny little ways of walking, dust bathing, dirt scratching; and all their useful habits of laying eggs and eating bugs. This is the order of the world and there is great peace in playing my part in it.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact