Kava Tukuafu
Professor Jane Drexler
Philosophy 2300
May 3rd, 2015
The Ethical Dilemma Presented By Hunting
In the film, 30 Days: Animal Rights, the debate between animal rights activists
and the hunting community is presented in an intimate manner. An avid hunter
named George Snedeker is challenged to spend 30 days living with a family of
animal rights activists, the Karpel family. George primarily spends his time working
with Melissa Karpel; Melissa works for an animal rights group called People For The
Ethical Treatment Of Animals (PETA).
Throughout the film, the fundamental philosophical differences between
these two lifestyles are unveiled through a myriad of educational experiences
pertaining to animal treatment. Those experiences will be further analyzed in this
essay. Although I recognize the validity of animal rights arguments, I argue that the
practice of hunting is a natural part of our human nature. By participating in the
hunting process, we are recognizing our place as animals within the ecosystem. To
support my stance, I will employ the philosophical work of Michael Pollan and Aldo
Leopold. The opposing view will be discussed from the perspectives of philosopher,
Peter Singer. The work of Rene Descartes will also be discussed briefly to explain
George’s initial perspective on animal rights.
CARTESIAN APPROACH
During the opening interview with George, he discusses his views on human
relationships with other animals. George sees animals as a resource for humans. In
regards to his two pet dogs, George said, “They are dogs. They are in fact here to
serve me.” (Snedeker and Karpel)
This notion of superiority is similar to Rene Descartes theory of Dualism.
Dualism separates the body from the mind. Descartes suggested that the body lacks
consciousness, intention, or will. It is comparable to a machine that only follows the
natural laws. Descartes perceived animals to be a part of the body realm of dualism.
(Descartes 14) On the contrary, Descartes emphasized the mind suggesting our
ability to control the physical world and think for ourselves made humans superior
to other animals. Hence, the two tests of real man: 1)”Can they use speech, or other
signs as we do when placing our thoughts on record for the benefit of others. 2) “Can
they act from knowledge no just disposition of one’s organs?” (Descartes 14)
George’s personal belief system further mirrored this theory when he said, “Since I
have the ability to think about what I’m putting on my plate, that gives me the right
to eat whatever I want.” (Snedeker and Karpel)
I don’t think George realized his beliefs stem from the Cartesian approach,
but there are parallels. Indeed, many societal practices were born from this
approach. The systematic methodology used in mass meat farming is one example.
The livestock is seen simply as a product to be consumed. (Snedeker and Karpel)
The notion of the animal’s well-being, ability to suffer, right to inhumane conditions
is disregarded because the animals are viewed as “machines” or profit. In fact from a
Cartesian perspective, most other animals are not considered worthy of rights
because they do not possess the mind; they cannot pass the two real tests of man.
ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY
The Karpels believed George’s beliefs were born from ignorance not
education. To help dissuade him from his lifestyle, Melissa continually exposed
George to the firsthand impact that the Cartesian methods had on animals.
The theoretical framework from which Melissa drew her beliefs from became
apparent when she made the following comment, “They are their own sentient
beings that have a right to exist on their own.” (Snedeker and Karpel) The term
sentient (in regards to animal rights) is a central focus point of Peter Singer’s animal
rights theory. Furthermore, Singer’s philosophies are a cornerstone of PETA. Singer
defined sentience as, “The capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness.”
(Singer 152 ) Singer believes all sentient beings deserve to be considered in our
conversations and applications of equality. In regards to equality, he wrote, “The
basic principle of equality, I shall argue, is equality of consideration; and equal
consideration for different beings may lead to different treatment and different
rights.” (Singer 149) Singer’s theoretical views are grounded in utlilitarian
principles which emphasize equality as well as the greatest good for the greatest
number of individuals in the group.
There are two specific instances in which George was greatly impacted that
relied upon the philosophies of Singer to disprove the Cartesian methods. The first
instance pertains to a controversial practice called vivisection. Vivisection is, “The
practice of operating on live animals for the sake of scientific research.” (Snedeker
and Karpel) Prior to this experience George had made comments indicating that he
didn’t care how many animals lost their lives for the sake of humans. However,
George was taken back when he consulted with neurologist, Dr. Aysha Akhtar.
Dr. Akhtar informed George that there alternatives to vivisection (such as
testing on human tissue cells and organ cultures) which are more effective. Dr.
Akhtar said, “92% of the drugs that are found to be safe and effective in animal
experiements are found to be unsafe or ineffective in people. Out of the 8% that do
make it to the market, half of them are later recalled.” George was so moved by the
experience that he acknowledged his disproval of vivisection. Although George did
see video of the suffering animals endured at the hands of vivisection, it was
ultimately the utilitarian perspectives that dissuaded him from supporting the
practice. George didn’t think the suffering was right when the positive impact on
humans was minimal and effective alternatives were available.
Later in his experience with the Karpels, George did have several experiences
where the suffering of the animals prompted him to reconsider his beliefs. He was
most greatly impacted by a visit to a commercial dairy farm. On the farm he
observed the calves living in crates that were so small, the animals were forced to
stand in their own urine and feces, dead calves being thrown by the wayside once
they died, and farmhands aggressively handling the animals. George was further
moved when he saved a calf from a veal farm, and he developed a relationship with
the calf(later named Sugar). These personal experiences made it difficult for him to
ignore the suffering of these animals. He later concluded that the commercial farm
practices were unethical.
However, even as these experiences moved him towards the animal rights
end of the spectrum. Other interactions during the film seemed to solidify his stance
in his current lifestyle. One such instance occurred at an animal sancturay that he
worked at during his stay. The sanctuary owner, Lorri Bauston, made an analogy
comparing the slaughtering of animals to the Holocaust and slavery. Philosophically,
Lorri’s claim is also rooted in Singer’s perspectives. Singer disagreed with all forms
of hunting, and he even said, “There can be no defense of eating flesh in terms of
satisfying nutritional needs.” (Singer 152) Singer argued that once we
acknowledged the animal’s sentience, we also had to acknowledged our own
speciesism, to consider our own species more important or to hold in a higher
regard. He argued that our speciesm is morally reprehensible as is consuming meat.
Lorri’s argument, however, had an adverse effect on George. He thought her analogy
was too extreme.
Even though George was moved to make significant changes in his belief
system, he was steadfast in his right to hunt. He concluded the 30 days with
disproval of vivisection, inhumane treatment of household pets, and commercial
livestock farms. However, he stated he would still consume meat and hunt.
MAN’S PLACE WITHIN THE ECOSYSTEM
George’s experience with the Karpels moved him past the bounds of
Cartesian philosophy. However, he did not quite agree with all of the arguments
within Singer’s philosophy. George firmly believed his hunter and omnivorous
lifestyle was ethically responsible. As I reviewed the film, I also thought George’s
stance could be ethically sound, but I searched for a theoretical framework that
provided more elaboration.
Michael Pollan steps out of the realm of animals and into the larger
ecosystem assessing the evolutionary relationship between all of the earth’s living
things. Even as Pollan struggles to justify an omnivorous lifestyle, he vehemently
despises the common practices used to provide mass amounts of meat to the world.
Pollan suggests everyone would turn vegetarian or drastically change their meat
consumption if the walls of the livestock factories were glass. (Pollan, The
Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History Of Four Meals) Pollan’s philosophies entail
a certain reverence and respect for animals and other living things that are absent in
Cartesian philosophy. Pollan said, "Looking at the world from other species points of
view is a cure for the disease of human self-importance.”(Pollan) In lieu of Singer’s
vegan perspective and Descartes dualism perspective, Pollan purposes a
relationship of mutuality between humans and animals as well as all of nature.
Before Pollan’s theories, Aldo Leopold provides a holistic perspective known
as The Land Ethic. “The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community
to include soils, water, plants, and animals or collectively the land.” (Leopold)
Leopold advocates for people to see land as more than just an economic resource.
Leopold asserts that the evolution of ethics to include land is a “possibility” and
“ecological necessity”. Leopold further asserts that man’s role in the land ethic is not
the “conqueror” as we have assumed for generations but instead “citizen.”
Leopold also introduces the biotic pyramid, a system similar to a food chain,
but it includes all aspects of land such as soil, grass, water, etc. Furthermore, the
biotic pyramid is not only about the food chain but the exchange of energy. Although
the large predators may be at the top of the pyramid, when they die, their remains
are replenishments for the land. The flow of energy travels up and down throughout
the pyramid. The most important lesson from Leopold’s pyramid is the drastic
impact man-made effects have on the pyramid. In comparison to natural changes,
man-made changes are more comprehensive and tend to have a longer effect on the
symbiosis of the biotic pyramid. As we continue to consume at unprecedented rates,
we may push the biotic pyramid to a point that it can no longer replenish itself.
(Leopold, The Land Ethic)
Within Leopold and Pollan’s theoretical perspectives, there are two major
points. Both theories concur with Singer’s disproval of the current ways in which
man exploits animals. They all recognize the need for humans to consume less and
revert to a lifestyle that is more sustainable. Yet, they recognize there is a natural
degree of exploitation and use that will occur because we, ourselves, are animals
and citizens of the land. Unlike Singer, they are not assessing the right and wrong
but more so assessing the natural versus unnatural. Leopold and Pollan revere the
natural order, and they recognize how our own self-importance has allowed humans
to assume we can supersede this natural order. This same self-importance has
fostered societal norms that lead to the destruction of nature and in-turn the
destruction of our own species when analyzed from a holistic perspective.
CONCLUSION
Assessing hunting from a holistic perspective and recognizing the reality of
humans as animals and citizens of the biotic community provides ethical
justification of hunting so long as it does not disrupt the equilibrium of the
ecosystem. I disagree with Singer’s assertion that hunting is immoral. In regards to
the argument of sentience, I revert to the work of Pollan, “Suffering…is not just lots
of pain but pain amplified by distinctly human emotions such as regret, self-pity,
shame humiliation, and dread.” (Pollan, The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History
Of Four Meals)Yet, I still assert that hunting should be done in ways that can
minimize pain to the animal out of respect for these fellow members of our biotic
community. Furthermore, our current disconnect with food consumption allows
people to be ignorant to the ugly practices employed in meat production. If citizens
reverted to hunting their own food as generations past once did, I believe a greater
reverence would develop for these animals’ lives and the sustenance they provide.
Bibliography
30 Days: Animal Rights. Dir. Morgan Spurlock. Perf. George Snedeker and Melissa
Karpel. 2008.
A Plant's Eye View. Dir. TED Talks. Perf. Michael Pollan. 2008.
Descartes, René. "Animals Are Machines." Descartes, René and Stephen Voss. The
Passions of the Soul. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co., 1989. 14-15.
Leopold, Aldo. "The Land Ethic." Leopold, Aldo and Charles W. Schwartz. A Sand
County Almanac, and Sketches Here and There. New York: Oxford University Press,
1987. 201-226.
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History Of Four Meals. New
York: Penguin Press, 2006.
Singer, Peter. "All Animals Are Equal." Singer, Peter and Tom Regan. Animal Rights
and Human Obligations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1989. 148-162.
The Land Ethic. Dir. Arizona Game and Fish. Perf. Aldo Leopold. 2012.