Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
ation with such farms is wrong. Vegetarians can here object by claiming that the dis-
analogy between slave farms and farm animals is that slavery is wrong under any
conditions, whereas farm animals, if the previous sections of this chapter make sense,
can be raised in morally acceptable ways. Unlike human slavery—regarding which se-
lective consumption makes little sense since one does not wish to promote the exist-
ence of enlightened slave farms at all—here supporting moral progress through select-
ive consumption can bring about welcomed change.
But tentative vegans can press the vegetarian position further through analogies to
practices that, unlike slavery, are not essentially objectionable, though they are still
practices with which one should not cooperate. Child labor is an example. Selective
child labor is widely accepted as an honorable way for kids to make extra pocket
money. Say now that in a given society, child labor is practiced in its more exploitat-
ive forms. Say that two groups oppose this: one refuses to buy any products that de-
pend on child labor while the other tries to justify selective purchasing. Members of
the second group buy only from factories that, unlike other factories, allow the chil-
dren to have a break in the middle of the workday. Unlike slavery (and like farm-an-
imal husbandry), here there is no problem with child labor as such. But claiming to
support progress through selective consumption still seems too feeble an opposition.
The problem is clear: the Hare-Zemach argument on behalf of promoting moral
change through selective consumption cannot always work. Sometimes it sounds like
a self-serving rationalization. How can one determine when this argument can be jus-
tifiably used and when it is no more than a self-serving evasion? Distinguishing in a
principled way when one should altogether ban practices or promote their progressive
forms through selective participation can appeal to several factors. First there is the
magnitude of the step taken in the right direction, and the type and substance of the
moral recognition that it registers. Allowing working children to have a break or a
cup of tea as part of a long working day does not constitute a recognition of the ex-
ploitative nature of the practice. It is thus too insubstantial a step forward. On the
other hand, free-roaming animals do manifest a genuine recognition regarding animal
welfare, the most significant of which is the refusal to perceive animals merely as
tools, as well as a willingness to pay an economic price for unexploitative breeding
practices. Since farms that allow their animals such space still kill unproductive anim-
als and unproductive male offspring, one should not confuse between such farms and
nonexploitative breeding. But they do take a
substantial
step forward.
Second, there are considerations of effectiveness relative to the overall goals of pro-
animal protest. Overdemanding strategic moves will decrease the number of protestors
and thus diminish the overall effect of the protest. Veganism is a much more difficult
lifestyle than ovolacto vegetarianism and raises many more nutritional concerns, espe-
