The Ethics of Animal Products: Does Peace Begin On Your Plate?

In April Jane Smith of Compassion in World Farming spoke to us.


Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) was founded in the 1960s by a dairy farmer, Peter Roberts, who was horrified by modern intensive factory farming. Peter Roberts wanted to end all factory farming but agro-business is global with lots of international trade eg half of all pigs in factory farms are in China. CIWF members include meat eaters, vegetarians and vegans.

What is a farm? How big? Do they just provide food or other products too? Many farmers think their job is not what it used to be. Compare a high welfare farm which considers the health of the herd, good aeration of plants and uses no antibiotics with, for example, an intensive rabbit farm with all the rabbits in cages. 

Actually there are no intensive rabbit farms in the UK. Planning permission for one in Staffordshire was refused on grounds of transport not on animal welfare considerations. In the UK it is illegal to farm for pelts and most rabbit meat is used for pet food rather than human consumption.

Sheep are usually kept outside except in the worst weather as they are difficult to factory farm. However, new breeds of sheep, without wool, are being developed which can be kept indoors all the year round.

Most free range hens do not run around the farm yard, but are kept crowded in large sheds with openings to the outside. There is no guarantee that all the hens will find the outside space. There is often a dual system with battery eggs being produce by the same company. Pullets from the UK are being sent to foreign lands.

Two thirds of all farm animals live on factory farms and factory farming is increasing at six times the rate of traditional farming. Forty percent of the worlds grain harvest is used for livestock feed.

Pulitzer Prize winning author and environmentalist Gary Snyder said that Each creature is a spirit with an intelligence as brilliant as our own.  Professor Christine Nicol of the Department of Clinical Veterinary Science at Bristol University says that Every animal we intend to eat or use is a complex individual. It is harder to think of factory farmed animals as individuals. 

Jane and her colleagues engage in farm patrols in Cheshire helping animals which have got into difficulties and are not receiving help from their owners.

Can change happen? The answer is yes. Successes so far in this country include:
1990 Banning of veal crates.
1997 Animals legally recognised as sentient beings for the first time in history.
1999 Sow stalls banned in the UK.
2012 Barren battery cages banned in the EU (but replaced by enriched battery cages).
2017 Permission refused for what would have been UK’s first rabbit farm (already mentioned).

Problems to be addressed include:
Entire animal lives still spent in cages.
The problem of male calves and chickens.
The global nature of the agro –industry.
Devastating environmental effects of Factory farming worldwide.
Live exports (however these have been reduced).
Brexit – need to keep an eye on legislation and US trade.

CIWF has a big Day of Action each year. In 2018 this was in Manchester.

They provided a demonstrated at the European Parliament when live animal exports were being considered. Even though they used relatively mild footage, some MEPs couldn’t watch it so voted to end the practice. However live exports continue between countries with lower standards than the EU.

In March Greg Colburn spoke about Effective Altruism (EA) which is about doing the most good possible. The movement began in 2017 and uses a scientific approach with a heavy research element. Intuition is not always the most effective indicator.

Greg showed a chart indicating the number of years of healthy life (measured using DALYs) you can save by donating $1,000 to a particular intervention to reduce the spread of HIV and AIDS. The chart shows figures for four different strategies. The cost effectiveness in ascending order was: antiretrovirals, preventing transmission in pregnancy, condom distribution, and education for high risk groups. A fifth option, surgical treatment for Kaposi’s Sarcoma, can’t even be seen on this scale, because it has such a small impact relative to other interventions. And the best strategy, educating high-risk groups, is estimated to be 1,400 times better than that.

To take part in an EA study one must first choose a focus area and determine: How Important, How Tractable (soluble) and How Neglected Is this area. This is known as the ITN framework.

Global Health and Development is a tractable problem involving millions of preventable child deaths. See givewell.org/charities. Animal suffering is neglected – tens of billions farm animals are raised each year, not always in the best of conditions. Risks to humanity Greg considers important are: Nuclear war, Artificial Intelligence and Pandemics.

Other areas to be considered include: policy reforms, mental health and happiness; tobacco; prevention of traffic accidents, particularly in the third world; US criminal justice reform; international migration and trade policies; wild animal suffering; and global priorities research.

To be involved in Effective Altruism you can work directly for a cause; choose a career with secondary EA benefits; influence funding of suitable schemes; affect opinion; or give money directly, either by a donation or a regular commitment from income (Earn to Give). Greg considers 10% of annual income not unreasonable but accepts that people in below average salaries should pay much less.

Greg’s own EA path began by giving what he could then started reading EA blogs. He quit his research job to start a business on climate change and studying to be able to do direct work on the EA staff. He donated the profits from his business and began a new project, an EA Hotel in Blackpool.

EA companies include Open Source Ecology which is developing industrial machines that can be made for a fraction of commercial costs, and sharing their designs online for free.  ALLFED is working on planning, preparedness and research into practical food solutions so that in the event of a global catastrophe we can respond quickly and save lives and reduce the risk to civilization.

Greg used his own money to set up the EA Hotel in Blackpool which now provides a low cost hub for EA start-ups and study. People can stay for free if they commit to working on EA full time. It is limited to the UK but  is inspired by the Chelsea Hotel in New York which housed writers and artists paying in kind. 

One project supported by the Hotel is RAISE, Road to Artificial Intelligence Safety.

Greg also talked about Media coverage, the risks involved in the project and the next steps in the enterprise. 

Morality - A Tale of Three Evolutions

At Stockport in July Brian Gane of Central Lancashire Humanists spoke about Morality: a Tale of Three Evolutions.

“If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe” said Carl Sagan. The Big Bang resulted in the evolution of the universe. Gravity pulled together matter to make stars and eventually material from stars made planets. Under the right conditions amino acids were formed leading, after 3 billion years, to the Human Brain. Some examples of evolutionary stages include Pikaia which had the beginning of a spine and may have been related to the common ancestor of all vertebrates. Eusthenopteron lived in the mouth of rivers and moved into the shallows, developing a neck, lungs and stubby fins which eventually extended into limbs. Aconthostega was among the first vertebrate animals to have recognizable limbs. Tulerpeton lived in shallow waters and breathed air. Its limbs were stronger than the fins from which they developed and it could lift its head giving it an advantage over other animals whose heads only moved side to side. 

The animals that survived the dinosaurs were very small shrew like creatures which developed into modern mammals. Human beings have 96% genes in common with chimpanzees. Humans are more intense and better at reading faces than chimps are. As chimps have no whites to their eyes it is difficult to see where they are looking.

Brian claims that morality begins with early humans and he considered three moral clusters which contribute: co-operation, empathy and justice. Humans are born with a co-operative streak and this is shown by the behaviour of young children who are eager to help where they can. They would pick up items that someone had dropped accidentally, but would not pick up an item that had been thrown in anger. Examples of co-operation are when taxes are paid to obtain infrastructure etc that would not be possible for individuals. The ultimate in co-operation is the CERN project, funded by 10 countries and employing scientists from 100 countries. Threats to food supplies leads to tribalism in early humans. In modern times gangs and political organisations take over this role. 

Small children tend to get upset if companions are upset. If a child is put with an upset child he/she will join in. Laughter is also infectious. Smiling results in a release of hormones into the blood. People with big smiles tend to live longer than those who rarely smile.

A sense of good and bad begins at about 4 months of age and a sense of fairness is a very powerful emotion. Some issues where unfairness has been addressed, at least in part, are slavery, health care via the NHS, women’s rights, the labour movement. Gay rights and the legal system.

Legal systems have been internationalised. Interpol has reciprocal arrangements with other countries, and the International Criminal court was formed in 2003 to put on trial those people accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity whose own countries will not or cannot put them on trial. The United Nations encourages Jaw Jaw rather than War War. The EU has the European Court of Justice and the European court of Human Rights.

The Brain has three levels of morality.1. Basic Instincts about In-Groups( Co-operation, empathy and sense of justice), and 0ut- Groups(tribalism), 2.Individual caring, 3. Societal caring (evolution of social norms). There is an expanding circle from the Human Family to International events.

According to Steven Pinker there has been a decline in violence from biblical times to the present day. And that in many areas (e.g. homicide, war and poverty) we are doing better than previously.

We are all connected.

Our Greatest Moral Failing

The August GMH Meeting was a Discussion: In 2115, what will our descendants condemn as our greatest moral failings?

John Coss opened the meeting by summarising an article written by Stefan Klein and Stephen Cave entitled, What will morality look like a 100 years hence? The authors point out that norms and values change, e.g. in 1915 – sexism, racism, imperialism, anti-Semitism and homophobia were not just accepted, but expected, even required.  The authors self-identify as ‘progressive’ and are glad that these attitudes are increasingly unacceptable. But OUR values will also be supplanted – and not always in ways we will welcome.

What is the proper reaction to such change? A good start is to CONSIDER HOW OUR VALUES MIGHT CHANGE OVER THE NEXT 100 YEARS.

Secondly, there is an idea of moral progress that can help us see how values might change in ways that we today could accept as FOR THE BETTER even though it may not be easy for us. This alerts us to the contingency and particularity of our own moral views. It pricks our illusion that we are at the pinnacle of moral progress. It is different from asking ‘what are you or I doing wrong’ which implies we are not living up to CURRENT moral standards. Instead, it addresses our moral
IMAGINATION. Rather than speculation about future norms, we can look at underlying trends that are still unfolding, and ask where we are failing not individually but COLLECTIVELY as a moral community. In other words we can imagine a better world and in so doing may help to make it real.

As to what counts as moral progress, the authors argue that morality means giving common concerns or the wellbeing of  others as much weight as one’s own self-interest. The tricky question then is: WHO COUNTS AS THE ‘OTHER’? They conclude that moral progress means including ever more people (or beings) in the group of those WHOSE INTERESTS ARE TO BE RESPECTED. In these terms we have come a long way. But there is room for improvement, and so a key aspect of moral progress is imagining HOW THE CIRCLE MIGHT WIDEN STILL FURTHER.

The authors claim that recent research supports the view that the more people feel connected with others, the more moral they are. Hence they hope that an increasingly globalised interconnected and interdependent world will also be an  increasingly benevolent one, with ever more people (or beings) drawn into the circle of concern. But these changing values have a price. For many of us, they will mean sharing or giving up privileges that we have long enjoyed, admitting that our comfortable lifestyles are based on industries of exploitation, or otherwise recognising that we have in a hundred ways been wrong. This is not a message we rush to hear! But debating the question of what we will be condemned for in 100 years may be a way of easing the transition.

The authors then put forward four suggestions as to what they think we might be castigated for in 2115, which they regard as natural extensions of progress so far. 

1. Rights for future generations, i.e. extending the circle of moral concern IN TIME. This will involve massive  restrictions on our freedom of action, since current activities have impacts on people far into the future 
2. Rights for other conscious beings: non-human animals feel pain and many other emotions 
3. ‘Opening the floodgates’: in 100 years, our descendents may be impressed by current levels of welfare and prosperity in the developed world, but appalled that access to them depends on where you are born 
4. Healing criminals: in 100 years, no one will believe in absolute free will or that anyone chooses to become a criminal but we will not find it easy to decide who to treat, how radically and when, nor to extend sympathy to those who commit the worst crimes 

The authors acknowledge that there are many other changes they could imagine, and say they have barely touched on the  question of INEQUALITY. For many who live through them, these changes will be extremely uncomfortable – but they will not be troubling for those who grow up with them.

John suggested that the discussion should focus on societal norms in modern technological societies and how these are likely to develop, assuming that civilisation develops continuously from the present but the position of humanity in 2115 is significantly less favourable relative to how things would have been if current environmental challenges had been
adequately addressed in a timely manner.

A lively and healthy debate ensued. One of those present suggested at the conclusion of the discussion that we (GMH) should consider getting involved with H4BW - Humanists for a Better World, a BHA special interest group. See https://humanism.org.uk/about/h4bw/. The meeting was well attended, especially given that it was August, with a lot of new people in attendance.

Morality

The July meeting at Stockport was given by Derek McComiskey.  He presented a personal view of some aspects of morality – stressing that it is not necessary to know anything about morality in the abstract to be a good person. The Humanist concern to act morally is a key feature of our world-view.

He described how someone comes to build their understanding of morality in a series of layers. Firstly were are born pre-programmed to learn morality. This “hard-wired” predisposition almost certainly comes from our long evolutionary development as a social creature. Secondly we are socialised in a particular context. Then, when older, we can learn more formally. There is a strong analogy with language acquisition.

To make a moral judgement there is an interplay of Intuition and Theory. We can often make a judgement with almost no thought, as we have strong gut feelings, or intuitions. However, there are difficult issues where we need to reflect, and fall back on theories.

A brief discussion about whether we can rely on our moral intuition concluded that it works well most of the time. However Derek gave examples (primarily Disgust) where it seems to misfire. Also experiments show that pro-social behaviour can be altered by seemingly inconsequential factors: e.g. people are more helpful if there is a pleasant smell in the air.

But if intuitions can be “wrong” - can we find a reliable yardstick in Moral Theory? There are a number of theories which claim to have procedures for comprehensively settling issues. The main ones were discussed, along with situations where they seem to fail.

So both intuition and theory can let us down. There isn't a fail-safe way of knowing what the right thing to do it. Helpful in this predicament is American philosopher Bernard Gert. He suggests that harm to others (death, pain, disability, etc) is the basis of moral thinking. He says that all “moral agents” know that these things are wrong to do unless there is sufficient justification. He is clear that there need not be a unique moral answer to every situation. We need to use careful reflection and discussion with others to sort out the best solution to difficult problems.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has analysed attitudes according to five moral categories (1) Care/Harm (2) Fairness (3) Loyalty/Betrayal (4) Respect for Authority (5) Purity. People who are socially liberal stress the first two only. Social conservatives include them all. Our cosmopolitan society leads to us mix with different “moral tribes” - i.e. people who emphasise different moral categories to us. This illuminates why we often talk at cross purposes.

In the last 20 years there has been an explosion of psychological and neuroscientific research into decision making – including moral decision making. This is building up a body of knowledge about exactly how and why we make the decisions we do, and the factors that influence us.

Effective Altruism is a recent phenomenon grounded in consequentialist ethics. It applies reason and evidence to find out how we can do the most good. Oxford philosopher Toby Ord has committed to living on £18k and giving the rest of his pay. He set up Giving What We Can – and the website there has a calculator to work out how rich you are. There are charity evaluation site to make sure your donated money does the best good.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is attributed to Socrates. If things are good because God commands them, and for no other reason, then he could command terrible things and we would have to call them good. If God commands things because they are good – it suggests that moral judgement is independent of God, and that he is subject to it. Most theists find this difficult.

If you are in a discussion with someone who tells you that their God is necessary for Goodness – ask to take a look at what their scriptures say. It is hard to take lessons in morality from the god of the Old Testament or of the Quran/Hadith.

Finally, we looked at the argument put forward by a prominent Christian speaker about “Objective” moral values, and how this points to God. After much discussion - we didn't agree with him!

Resources:

Websites:

http://www.yourmorals.org/ - Test Yourself

http://www.givewell.org/ - Charity Evaluation

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ - Evidence based giving information, and "How Rich Am I" calculator

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/ - Research for the Bible, Quran and Book of Mormon

Books:

Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. Paul Bloom

Morality Without God. Walter Sinnott-Armstrong

The Moral Landscape: How Science Determines Human Values. Sam Harris

Experiments In Ethics. Kwame Anthony Appiah

TED Talks:

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals

(short clip from the above talk, re. monkey fairness experiment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo)

http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code

The Golden Rule

We often refer to the Golden Rule in discussions about humanism and religion, and we can all probably recite our own version of it. But have you wondered where it came from? Well here’s a potted history:  

“Do not do to others what you would not want them do to you.” (CONFUCIUS -  born 551 BC)

"I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself.“  (BUDDHISM - The Siglo-Vada Sutta, about 500 BC)

“We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us.”  (ARISTOTLE - 384 BC) 

"This is the sum of duty: Do nothing to others which, if done to you, could cause you pain."  (HINDUISM - from The Mahabharata, about 150 BC) 

"What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (ANCIENT GREECE - Epictetus, the Greek philosopher, about 90 AD) 

"Love your neighbour as yourself." (JUDAISM / CHRISTIANITY – Leviticus 19, in The Torah, about 400 BC, quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22 and Mark 12, 1st Century AD) 

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.” (JUDAISM - from Hillel: The Talmud, about 50 BC) 

"None of you truly believes, until he wishes for his brothers what he wishes for himself." (ISLAM – Hadith a saying of The Prophet Muhammad, 7th Century) 

"As you think of yourself, so think of others." (SIKHISM - from Guru Granth Sahib, 1604) 

"Treat other people as you'd want to be treated in their situation; don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you.” (British Humanist Association, 1999)

Thanks to Jeremy Rodell the BHA’s Dialogue Officer for compiling the above.