Species justice and harm to animals - Environmental Harm: An Eco-justice Perspective - page 123

attitudinal, sensory, and volitional capacities. These animals
not only see and hear, not only feel pain and pleasure, they
are also able to remember the past, anticipate the future,
and act intentionally in order to secure what they want in
the present. They have a biography, not merely a biology.
(Regan, 2010: 37)
While the great ape obviously qualifies under the terms of this
description, the status of fish, such as salmon, are bound to be more
controversial. It is notable in this regard that People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) have recently been organising campaigns
intended to raise the status of fish (equivalent in some respects to
'humanising' animals via anthropomorphic representations). This is
done primarily through the strategy of relabelling fish as 'sea kittens',
presumably on the premise that people are less inclined to eat the cute
and cuddly (as implied in the descriptor). After all, 'who could possibly
want to put a hook through a sea kitten?' (PETA, 2009). This is part of
a concerted effort to create a positive image for fish that is intended
to deter people from using them for food and to present them in a
completely new way.
Where to draw the line has other implications as well. For instance,
in cases where there may be conflict over interests - who gets the
lifeboat spaces when only four spaces are available, yet five beings (four
humans and one dog) need to be saved - what criteria ought to be
invoked in order to make the decision? The issue here is the difference
between humans and nonhuman animals (parenthetically, we might
also ask what if the lifeboat has three humans, a cat and a dog? How
do we choose between species beyond the human?).
For some, the answer is that human and nonhuman animals are
morally equivalent. Neither is to be privileged over the other when
it comes to questions of value and worth. Thus, in the opinion of a
leading animal rights advocate:
In situations of true conflict - and not when we have
manufactured the conflict by bringing animals into
existence to use as our resources - we may decide to break
a difficult tie and choose the human over the nonhuman
because we simply do not know what death means to the
nonhuman. Conversely, we may also choose the nonhuman
over the human in a situation of genuine conflict. Either
choice, or a coin flip, is morally acceptable. (Francione,
2008: 14)