“Why keep looking for the right way to do the wrong thing?” I first heard this question posed by an animal advocate during a discussion about “humane” farming. I thought it was incredibly insightful. After all, if needless killing is wrong, then why keep trying to find better ways to do it?
Why not just stop?
True, there may have been a time when killing animals was necessary for our survival, but for those of us living in the modern world, that is (thankfully) no longer the case. Today, we continue to harm and kill animals only out of habit, convenience, desire or for profit. Killing for those reasons is not ethically-defensible, regardless of whether the killing is done by a worker in a factory in Ohio or by some local guy in our own backyard.
And what of the assumption that it’s somehow better to kill a happy, loved animal than a miserable one? Isn’t that awfully disturbing when we stop to think about it?
I thought of these questions again today while watching a video featuring Jonathan Safran Foer promoting “humane” poultry products. For those who aren’t familiar with Foer, he is the author of Eating Animals – a compelling and eloquent exposé of the meat industry (including so-called humane farms). I’ve heard him speak in person and found him immensely persuasive, personable and entertaining. (No small accomplishment when the topic of discussion is animal abuse and food.) I have tremendous respect and gratitude for his work.
As far as I know, Foer is vegetarian with pro-vegan leanings. During the lecture, someone asked about eggs and dairy. He was very clear that there is suffering involved in ALL animal products, and that in his opinion, when it comes to animal cruelty, “eggs are the absolute worst.”
Here’s a sampling of a few more things Foer has said over the years:
On The Myth of Consent
On Destructive Food Preferences
It’s disappointing that a person who has spoken so eloquently in defense of animals would become a spokesperson for Buying Poultry.com. And yet, it’s easy to understand what his rationale might be: so long as people continue to consume animals, we might as well ask them to seek out products that have been produced in less horrific ways.
But the trouble is, I believe the promise of “humane” animal farming is a false one. It’s a practical impossibility and a misuse of the meaning of the word humane. And yet, most people see these labels as absolution. I know I once did. So long as we believe we are making humane choices, there’s no motivation to switch to a plant-based diet.
On the plus side, Buyingpoultry.com does expose the horrors of factory farming and rightly informs consumers that “No food in the nation produces more suffering than poultry.” They also provide a link for meat-free options. But the site’s main focus seems to be connecting consumers with “high welfare” and “sustainable ” poultry products.
This brings to mind one of my favorite passages from Foer’s book. He writes: “Children confront us with our paradoxes and hypocrisies, and we are exposed. You need to find an answer for every why — Why do we do this? Why don’t we do that? — and often there isn’t a good one. So you say, simply, because. Or you tell a story that you know isn’t true.”
I’m speaking from personal experience when I say that those of us who want to feel good about eating animals need to believe in false stories.
It may be a positive sign that more people are expressing concern about how we keep and kill animals. But I think the real ethical issue is why we continue to keep and kill animals when we no longer need to. Everything else is just a distraction. Just a way of looking for the right way to do the wrong thing.
I just read a comment on facebook written by Erik Marcus (of vegan.com) that I think is worth considering. He said he was pasting it around the internet where this topic was being discussed, so I feel comfortable that he wouldn’t mind if I posted it here as well:
“I just got off the phone with JSF about all this. Some points to consider: since completing Eating Animals he’s moved closer and closer to being vegan. He doesn’t eat meat, and he certainly has not gone back to eating chicken. In fact he told me he’s only moving forward in regard to his diet and would never take a step back. My sense from talking to him is his diet is a hair away from meeting a stringently-defined use of the word vegan.
As I understand it, Farm Forward’s key people are all vegan.
The motivation for doing this video isn’t to speak to potential vegans. There are all sorts of videos, some of which featuring JSF, that make strong pitches for becoming vegan. The point of this video is to speak to the people for whom going vegan is currently out of the question. I think we can all agree that if someone insists on eating chicken, it’s far better for them to buy one that’s pasture-raised than it is to buy some brutalized bird from a Tyson contractor. That doesn’t make me or Jonathan or any vegan happy about the idea of eating chicken, however well the bird may be treated before slaughter.
As he said to me in regard to the video:
‘This is not my favorite way about speaking the issue and I do feel some serious discomfort about suggesting there are better ways to buy chicken. I don’t think there’s a good way to buy chicken.’
He went on to say, ‘Ultimate success comes from a variety of approaches,’ and then stressed the importance of having an uncompromising base within the vegan community who advocates nothing but veganism at every turn. He understands why this group would speak out against a video like the one he just created.” – Erik Marcus
Great post Jo! And thanks for sharing Eric’s words here as well. I noticed that my own comment on the Youtube clip of Johnathon speaking for Farm Forward was ‘disappeared’ along with the few others that had started to accumulate yesterday at around only 50 viewings. The comment section is now closed altogether. I think this suggests that either Johnathon and/or Food Forward are rethinking their ‘launch’ approach…but of course this is only speculation. I found it ironic that that video would appear online at the same time as the news is spreading about ‘Beyond Meat”s amazing faux chicken product. I understand that the Food Forward app will, allegedly, let people know where to find such ‘real alternative’ products, too, but why couldn’t Foer make THAT his specific message? I hope the overwhelming opposition to his choice to participate in that video the way he has, will prompt serious reconsideration….
Ah! When I think of that “right way to do the wrong thing”… T Grandin’s marvelous slaughter systems come to mind. They always are improving on carrying out the deadly deed aren’t they?
And same goes for “friendly meat”… Just think! These chickens get to live a whole month and a half longer than the other birds! And the conscientious carnivore will be pleased to learn that the flavor of a pasture-raised hen will be superior as well! And gosh… Since they’ll be paying that much more for the de-feathered, roasted carcass – Of course it shows that they are caring consumers! So high minded! So socially progressive these gourmands can claim to be! It’s a win/win!
What a bunch of bunk!
The way to get people to “ease in” or “lean” towards veganism isn’t by eating alternative flesh… It’s to reduce and eventually eliminate flesh consumption entirely! I’m with Fireweed in lavishing praise towards ventures like Beyond Meat.
I have an acquaintance who was totally vegetarian – On her way to vegan with her husband by her side — Now she’s found some “organic/free range” local beef… And hey! They know folks who raise pigs out doors… And dairy cows too! What an easy opportunity for her to do a U-turn right back to where she was. Of course I’m disgusted.
And now I see that Farm Forward has received a $151,100 grant from the aspca to promote the Good Shepherd Poultry Ranch: http://aspca.org/Pressroom/press-releases/051512 This sure isn’t a surprise when you see their position on using animals as food/commodities… It fits right in to their pragmatic agenda.
What an inside/out world though. Animal “protection” organizations sponsoring “Good Shepherds” that slaughter the innocent. IMO it’s a giant step backwards. It doesn’t fix violence. It doesn’t fix speciesism or carnism. It doesn’t promote a plant based diet. It will only harm more animals previously left “off” the plate. Supporting, or condoning any killing absent of self defense, is still without exception- the wrong thing!
Finally, I suggest we all start with this notion: “The point of this video is to speak to the people for whom going vegan is currently out of the question.” Argue, debate and reason from there. This is the crux of their flawed justification that begs to know: WHY is going vegan “out of the question”?
Hello – If I was the bringer of bad news it’s only right that I share good news as well… I originally received the news about my friend’s supposed slide back to eating animals via a family member who totally exaggerated and mis-stated the whole truth of it. For whatever reason, it was implied that my friend was swayed by the happy meat campaigns… But this I learn is not the case at all! In fact I’m told first hand that she and her husband are more committed to move towards full time veganism than ever before!
What a relief it was to hear this news, as both she and her spouse are far, far too intelligent to fall for any “friendly flesh” white-washing. So for this once… Hooray for our side!
Note to self: Do not take second hand stories as hard fact… :/
Thanks for sharing that, Bea. With all the bad news we’re exposed to, it’s nice to get a little sunshine now and again. So glad to hear your friend is staying on the compassionate side!
Looking for the right way to do the wrong thing is codified by the judeo.christian tradition. Commentary from scholars indicates the nature of the fallacy:
“It is prohibited to kill an animal with its young on the same day,
in order that people should be restrained and prevented from
killing the two together in such a manner that the young is slain
in the sight of the mother; for the pain of animals under such
circumstances is very great…” Maimonides,Guide for the Perplexed, 3:48
With this model as long as one can justify slaughter and exploitation as a little more compassionate, violence to animals is legitimized and tolerated.
A model based on the Jain religious concept of ahimsa, grants unconditional compassion to animals and humans:
“It is the essential characteristic of a wise person that he/she does not kill any living being.
‘One should know that non-killing and equality of all living beings are the main principles of religion’ Jain sutra
This view has been used to establish more protective legislation for animals in India, where Jainism orginated. While India is a mix of many cultures and religions, there are laws to protect animals that are meaningful and broad based, rather than patches applied to cruelty. It is against the law to kill a healthy dog for any reason. A street dog in India has a better chance of surviving than a shelter dog in the USA, where the judeo.christian model informs the view of animals. Recently India banned vivisection on the college and university level. This would be impossible in the a dominion nation.
Ahimsa aims for complete abolition of violence to animals. The result are evidence that this view works. The Jain community has maintained a non-violent life style which includes a vegetarian diet, and a prohibition against professions that harm animals.
Reverend Andrew Linzey, Oxford University, noted the benefits of ahimsa as follows:
“It is true that many religious traditions contain notions of non-violence. The first Buddhist precept is not to kill. The Hebrew Bible speaks eloquently of how the lion will lie down with the lamb. And in Christianity there is the idea that love will finally triumph over violence. But only Jainism has made ahimsa its central doctrine. It alone has consistently held the vision of a peaceable world, realisable by moral effort and spiritual discipline” Andrew Linzey, Professor of Religion, Oxofrd University
Your contention that ” It’s disappointing that a person who has spoken so eloquently in defense of animals [as Foer] would become a spokesperson for Buying Poultry.com. And yet, it’s easy to understand what his rationale might be”
It is disappointing, but not surprising. This view is based on a view of animals which does allow for slaughter and exploitation. This view harkens back to the example cited by Maimonides, where slaughter is not questioned, so it must be rationalized with empty gestures of compassion, that encourage violence to animals as potentially compassionate.
How true
We must look for a new way to do the right thing, because the wrong way, the model of compassion enshrined by the judeo.christian tradition has failed to deliver compassion. Primarily because it is based on what is necessary for human benefit, not the inherent value of an animals life. It is a compassion based on convenience, that is to say, one may be compassionate when human gain is not challenged. Albert Einstein noted that one cannot solve a problem with the thinking that created it. Dominion has legitimized animal abuse as tolerable when it can be justified for human benefit, which so often the case.
The way of ahimsa, though not new to the jain-hindu tradition of India, is new to western, dominion based nations. It is essential that ahimsa be introduced as the model of choice, to replace the failed doctrine of dominion. Those who promote dominion, either in its purest form, or those who claim it is not as tyrannical as it appears, are preserving a harmful doctrine. Allowable slaughter and exploitation of animals is not a suitable foundation for promoting compassion.
As long as the dominion based religions of judaism, christianity and islam insist that sanctified slaughter must remain intact, these religions are not a suitable spiritual home for those who advocate for an animals right to remain free from human harm.
Thanks for posting this terrific phrase. I’m always smitten when someone is able to condense (without losing any critical meaning) powerful thoughts into eloquent phrases. “Why keep looking for the right way to do the wrong thing?” can be applied to so many things more than killing Earthlings but it is unlikely any will be anymore important.
It’s not a phrase I came up with, but I agree it sure says a lot…