“The day may come, when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or, perhaps, the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” — Jeremey Bentham, from Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation
When people learn that I’m vegetarian they inevitably ask why. Especially since I only gave up meat about 5 months ago. The simple reason is Peter Singer. He is an applied ethicist whose writing provided the main intellectual impetus for the animal rights movement. Here is a basic outline of the argument that caused me to foreswear meat. 1. Suffering is bad. 2. Since suffering is bad it should be avoided except at the cost of something with equal moral value. For example one starving person isn’t compelled to give what food he has to another starving person to alleviate his or her suffering. 3. Whether or not the being suffering is a member of our species is irrelevant. Simply because the flesh of an animal may taste good doesn’t mean that it deserves to be slaughtered.