The Benjamin Franklin Objection: When Reality Clashes with Theory

In his article 'practical ethics', Peter Singer points out one of the famous critics of animal ethics point of view when it comes to eating animals and the sorts. According to Peter Singer, Benjamin Franklin was a vegetarian who denounced his way or life and decided to start consuming animal produce including meats when he saw his friends cut open a fish to fry just to find a smaller fish within its stomach and in his own words; "Well, if you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you" and from then started consuming animal flesh and other produce. Applying Regan's reasoning of moral agency and patiency, we see why Benjamin Franklin's objection is invalid here because as moral agents, humans are held accountable for the morality of the actions and the same can't be said for animals like the fish he mentioned in his autobiography since they are moral patients. Peter Singer also uses a similar train of thought to discredit Benjamin Franklin's point in the aforementioned story of the fish when he term humans "reasonable creatures" giving us the ability to ponder upon the implications of our action before we act.
The response to Benjamin Franklin's point isn't the topic of conversation for this entry but i brought it up because it brings out a crucial point in implementing the theories of animal ethics. As Paxton George stipulated to earlier as to how vegetarian diets couldn't be realistic for women, children and the elderly, i think Benjamin Franklin does the same here as he points out how people have to deal with the uncommon and not-so-natural (for lack of a better word) form of eating. I term vegetarianism a not so natural form of dieting because it proposes a idea that is new, one which contradicts the natural food chain respected by most ecosystems. Benjamin Franklin points out this difficulty in his story of fish eating another fish and then decides to start eating meat too saying "...if they could eat one another, why shouldn't we". He may have sounded ad-hoc or lets say mundane in his argument but suggesting of a theory this sorts that takes away from what we have grown accustomed to, could be a tricky switch.
This situation brings me to my present dilemma, how do we care for animals, treat them with respect and all that and still eat meet or use products that where made from animal hide or even worse through animal testing and research? Is that hypocritical?

Diet Discrepancies: A Response to Paxton George

A publication by Animal Agriculture Alliance recently addressed the supposed myth that " a vegetarian diet is healthier than a diet that includes meat, milk and eggs" but whether or not this is a myth or not is not a topic for this blog and we leave it at that. Nonetheless, this dispute of vegetarian diets over diets of animal produce and vice versa has plagued animal ethicist over the years especially when they propose a meat free diet of any source as a universal concept to be adopted by everyone irrespective of age, sex, race or creed.
Kathryn Paxton George addresses one of the major criticisms of the proposed universal vegetarian diet in her book " A feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism" as she addresses the difficulties women face maintaining a vegetarian diet amongst other health issues it may pose. Kathryn points out how the proposed norm of vegetarianism is a "male physiological norm that discriminates against females, children and the elderly". She points out that women have to face the pressures of eating alone, eating with others and preparing food for families which could be coupled with the extra burden put on women to diet on a regular basis as well as expecting mothers who have to account for the nutrition of the growing fetus within her.
She also points out that a vegetarian diet might not be realistic for growing kids who require the nutrients from animal produce for proper growth and physical development. The same argument is made for the elderly who calcium and other essential animal derived nutrients for their health.
To this dilemma, Paxton George suggests a semi vegetarian diet which in her words; " [calls] for a reduction in animal cruelty, improve the conditions under which animals are raised, to encourage gratitude for their association with us, and to recognize their membership in a community with us. We should not eat them wastefully but only in a portion that balances the needs of family members....".
I think this idea of semi vegetarianism is definitely realistic and it atones for the nutritional needs of all people irrespective of their gender and or age and although it isn't necessarily the best solution to the treatment of animals, it is definitely a step in the right direction; consideration of animals vital parts of our community.

Multifactorial Theory of Animal Ethics: An Eclectic Theoritical Orientation

Over the last few months as i grew accustomed to the theories and arguments set forth by animal ethicist and other concerned individuals, i realized that they all had one thing in common; they propose a single reason origin for the value of animals and consequentially the claim for their equal treatment. Be it the subject of a life criteria introduced by Tom Regan, the hypotheses of active or passive moral valuers by Mathew Silliman or better yet, the concept of emotions are stipulated by Josephine Donovan, they all argue to some degree that those independent concepts are primarily the sole origins for the moral value of animals and those why we should treat them with respect and justice. This got me thinking, why should we limit a concept of such gravity to one or two well supported concepts? Wouldn't it be better that we maintained an eclectic theoretical orientation school of thought like the one adopted by psychologists engaged in theories of human development?
This concept of mutifactorialism as applied to animal ethics is to my suggestion a much more valid argument for the value of animals because it proposes the concepts of subject of a life, moral valuers, emotions (love),moral agency or patiency and even "ends in themselves and not means to an ends" (Immanuel Kant) collectively as the source of animal value rather than either one or the other independently. Animal value as a product of this multifactorial theory is difficult to refute because of the collective strengths of the independent theories arguing as one.