Search

Surely it is time for us all to make every effort to evolve as a species and become more fully human. To be fully human is to be humane. To be sub-human is to be inhumane. In order to evolve in this way and become more fully human we must defme and refine our ethical and spiritual responsibilities and sensibilities. And we must redefine what it means to be human. 'Ine origin of the word human is rooted in such terms as humus, humility and humane. Then we may evolve socially and biologically, as our behavior, appetites, needs, values and relationships change.

This essay begins at the intersection of two controversies that are of considerable importance to contemporary discussions about the relationship between our species and the restofnature. One concerns the question of whether a compelling case can be made for vegetarianism on moral grounds. The other has to do with the debate between proponents ofanimal rights and ethical holists over which kind of theory provides a more adequate foundation for a new environmental ethic. My remarks have their origin in some personal observations as well. Over the past decade and a half I have been a participant in numerous conferences, seminars and workshops on themes having to do with animal rights or animal liberation; I have also been involved in many centering on problems in environ­ mental ethics. These have all been positive experiences for me in one way or another, and have, I believe, expanded the horizons ofeveryone present. Yet I could not avoid noticing that when I am at an animal rights or animal liberation conference it is a foregone conclusion, an essential premise, that all food presented to delegates shall be vegetarian, even vegan. In contraSt, conferences occupied with topics in environmental ethics conunonly display no such commitment; and as a matter of fact, I fmd myself at these gatherings surrounded by persons discoursing earnestly on the subtleties of biocentrism, the land ethic, value· theory, deep ecology, Gaianism, and so forth who are simultaneously tucking lustily into steaks, chops, bacon, and even veal with no apparent qualms. At one recent conference on environmental ethics and sustainable development, of some fifty participants. only two others besides myself had requested vegetarian meals. At another, a workshop on environmental ethics and higher education, I was the only one of thirty participants not eating meat. In case it may be thought that too much weight is being placed here on one source of evidence, it should also be noted that of seventeen general anthologies of contemporary work in environmental ethics or environmental philosophy that have appeared since 1974, only one contains an essay specifically devoted to agricultural issues.1None contains an essay that treats the topic of meat as an environmental problem. The same omission is found in monographs in these fields. (Ecofeminists, however, do engage this issue2 and appear to be the only group of theorists for whom it is anything like a central concern. What this entails will be considered briefly in section 5.) What does it all mean? Before I attempt an answer let me say that I fmd

Bioethics is a term that is becoming widely used today. It entails the objective appraisal of how our values, desires and actions affect others, including animals and the environment. We have medical bioethics, which focuses on such ethical issues as euthanasia, surrogate parenting and genetic engineering involving human beings. Such bioethical issues have been deliberated by the World Council of Churches, among other groups. Increasingly these groups are beginning to apply bioethics in addressing and seeking remedies for a host of other social and environmental issues. A healthy humanity is concerned about its humanity-how compassionately itacts toward its own kind and toward other sentient beings and the Earth itself. It has respect for all life because it realizes that when it damages the environment, it harms itself. Bioethics, in this regard, is a field of self investigation and enlightened self-interest. And it provides a foundation to establish meaning in our lives. Bioethics offers a holistic, rational appraisal of our place in the world and how best we can live for the good of the life community of the planet. It mandates that equal and fair consideration be given to human rights issues, animal rights issues, and environmental concerns. It includes a temporal principle of transgenerational equity-of being concerned about the well-being of future generations and having a respectful understanding of the wisdom and folly of our ancestors. We should neither forget our history, lest we repeat it, nor forget that "we do not own the land, we borrow it from our children." The polemicized rhetoric and bickerings within and among frustrated factions of the human, animal, and environmental rights movements are reconciled by the integrative approach that applied bioethics provides. Bioethics can be an antidote to the prevailing dominionistic attitude toward life. The subjugation of minorities and other life communities will continue as will war and other forms of violence until we reverse the belief that we are superior and apart from nature. l Within what some call the "establishment"meaning the government-industrial complex-bioethics is also taking root. Ethical conduct, ethical advertising, ethical products, full cost-accounting (social and environmental) are beginning to appear on its agenda. Protection of endangered species; humane treatment of domestic animals; sustainable use of agricultural and other natural resources; loss of biodiversity; global warming, air pollution; national economic security; and industrial-economic sustainability; these and other issues fall within the sphere of bioethics.

M any animal rights philosophers have emphasized the importance of recognition of the inherent or intrinsic value of animals in encouraging a deeper respect for non-human life. The intrinsic value of animals is contrasted with the perceived extrinsic value from the point of view of human utility. Intrinsic value is regarded by animal rightists as taking precedence over an animal's extrinsic value, because animals are ends in themselves rather than the means to satisty purely human ends. However, we should not dismiss in our thinking the fact that animals and other existences are not purely ends in themselves. The deer has inherent value and a life of its own but is a means whereby the needs of predator species such as the wolf and tiger are satisfied. While this is a fact of Nature, it is what I call a nat­ uralistic fallacy to rationalize from this fact that since animals prey upon and kill each other there can be nothing wrong with humans doing likewise. Predator species are always few in number. But six