Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
chicks, which are killed upon birth) or are raised only for their flesh (as are calves
and pigs)?
Presenting a vegetarian ideal is a theoretical challenge, not a practical one. The
question is whether vegetarian theory is flawed since it is predicated on an ideal that
is detrimental for some farm animals (there might come a time when the question be-
comes a practical one, but for us the question is merely theoretical). Is collective ve-
getarianism bad for some animals? One possible answer is that if the choice is
between exploiting some animals and the nonexistence of these animals, a moral
world should opt for the latter. According to this answer, a vegetarian ideal world
will not include any of these animals: the cow, the pig, and the hen will follow the
dodo. But milder solutions are possible. Selective artificial insemination can solve
some problems—at least for poultry and cattle—by the time that collective vegetarian-
ism will pose a real “threat,” should that time ever come. Artificial insemination is
widely practiced today with regard to cattle and turkeys, and more recently has been
made possible in chickens. Semen differentiation as part of these practices is not
technologically inconceivable (it exists for humans) and would solve the moral prob-
lems involved in the birth of “unproductive” males while preserving the species. Short
of this, vegetarian legislation, should that ever happen, can make the killing of “non-
productive” animals illegal and require that the cost of raising them along with their
“more productive” sisters be shared by the consumers of eggs, milk, leather, and
wool. Indeed, such “compensation” to these animals—conceived of as kinds rather
than individuals—can morally justify the use to which they are put and answer the
moral misgivings of vegans: without eggs, milk, and posthumous use of their bodies,
these animals along with their many brothers (in the case of chickens, more than half
of chicks are “useless” males) would not exist at all.
The vegetarian utopia's real problem (and, I must admit, somewhat ironic in the
case of a topic written by a Jew) is with pigs. Negative ecological consequences of
setting some pigs free at various places on the planet and letting them have their op-
portunity to survive as a wild species may outweigh the envisaged benefits, even if
this option is at all feasible. Keeping the species alive through confining some of
them in zoos is a solution only under the assumption that zoos themselves are mor-
ally justified institutions. Recent literature toys with the idea of “positive obligations”
or “negative responsibility” to animals, the idea being a duty to benefit animals rather
based on an obligation to save an endangered species, especially one that, like pigs,
has been heavily exploited. Of course, conceiving of such degrees of charitable beha-
vior in a world where human lives, misery, illness, and poverty are routinely ignored
is a fantasy. Again, the issue is theoretical, not practical. Pigs present the same moral
