Drawing the line for freedom to abuse animals

We humans want freedom, animals do too

In our society we want maximum freedom for ourselves. In return we grant others their freedom, however they choose to use it, as long as we get ours.

This situation is ideal, but it also requires us to set limits when animals pay the price. This article is about which limits are needed, how to draw them and on what grounds.

Of course, we are talking about legal and non-violent means.

Topics

• The meat producer acts irresponsibly
• Responsibility is passed on
• Freedom as a pragmatic paradox
• Three measures can prevent the abuse of animals

Mercy towards wolves is cruelty towards sheep.
Leo Tolstoy

When the meat producer acts irresponsibly

Part of our freedom is that we do not have to worry about producing food. We no longer have to hunt for meat like our distant ancestors: we can limit ourselves to bargain hunting in the supermarket. We delegate the responsibility for producing meat responsibly to the farmer.

In return, he receives money for his product. Everyone seems happy, because our hands are free to earn money in whatever way seems most pleasant and effective.

So far, so good. But things go wrong when the producer turns out to act irresponsibly. He endangers public health, as in the scandals with hormones and antibiotics. He also mistreats the living animal, if only passively, by giving it an unnatural life. If producers also produce so much that a large share is exported (in the Netherlands, almost two thirds of the pork), the way of producing becomes all the more a matter for every citizen. Overproduction takes up space, harms the environment and goes hand in hand with poor animal welfare. Keeping animals in minimal conditions cannot be dismissed as a necessary evil, certainly not for export. As citizens we have the democratic right to demand that producers run their farms decently, and even that they refrain from overproduction.

Responsibility

The consumer can no longer trust the producer and is forced to think about the responsibility handed back to him against his will. We can look for another, more responsible producer. We can also try to push the message away or pass the responsibility on to the government.

The government, in turn, needs consumers and producers to act responsibly in order to carry out its policy. A policy cannot be carried out if every citizen has to be checked.

This vicious circle can be broken if one of the three parties puts pressure on another. Unfortunately, all three have a financial interest in not pressing the others too hard. Through taxes, the consumer has already paid in advance for meat and dairy. A price rise must therefore go together with an end to subsidies.

A solution will not come by itself. Nor should living responsibly cost us our freedom, for example by having to drive far for organic meat or by having to skip too many dishes.

We are busy enough as it is. Understandable, but factory farming and the export of animal products mean that we restrict our own living space more than necessary. They also mean that we keep up a big collective lie: that the fate of animals is not our responsibility and that we may withdraw from it.

Sartre: freedom and responsibility

A philosopher who linked freedom and responsibility was Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). One of his main ideas is that human beings are fundamentally free and therefore fully responsible for what they do. Everyone chooses what they do, but also what they are. Whoever denies this acts, in Sartre's words, "in bad faith".

Sartre's philosophy did not extend to animals. There is a similarity and a difference between humans and animals: animals are also fundamentally free, but they cannot be held responsible for their actions. That is where humans must act as representatives of the rights of animals and as protectors against the actions of animals.

Sartre's analysis is a call for "authenticity": to be truly human instead of living like a thing. To stop acting in bad faith, to stop playing a role just because you always have or because your surroundings or the spirit of the times impose it on you. Instead, to think consciously about how and who you want to be, to choose in complete freedom and to commit to that choice. His philosophy calls on us to be critical of ourselves, to philosophise about our own way of life. The most important example today is probably our role as consumers.

And the consumer role we should think about most is our role as consumers of food. Is consuming animal products still of our time? Should we not share the space on earth fairly with animals and nature?

Freedom as a pragmatic paradox

Anyone who wants to take full responsibility and not be a burden to anyone, for example by not using animals, has a hard time. So many products contain animal ingredients of obscure origin that it is difficult in this society to choose a truly conscious and responsible way of life.

The solution lies in the paradox: limits must be set to the freedom of market players precisely to keep the consequences of a free market responsible. In his essay The Liberal Spirit in America (in the journal Policy Review), the American legal scholar Peter Berkowitz points to the paradox of freedom: the more freedom we gain, the more we tend to reject every authority as arbitrary, and so we undermine our own freedom against our intentions.

Although it is a slow process, society benefits most when people develop themselves and free themselves from all kinds of harmful needs. It is up to humans to overcome the apparent contradiction between self-development and self-control, and to turn it into civilisation. That civilisation also leads to respect for animals.

Animal Freedom calls for a number of measures that set an upper limit to the use of animals and so make the abuse of animals almost impossible. These measures are part of the goals of Animal Freedom and read as follows:

1. An end to the import and export of live animals and animal products from factory farming, both of farm animals and of wild animals.
2. Restoring the natural balance in nature and giving animals in our culture the greatest possible chance to behave naturally.
3. A realistic price level for animal products, in which the full cost of animal- and environment-friendly production is passed on. The government saves money by no longer subsidising factory farming.

Point 1. Production for other countries keeps factory farming alive. It makes it impossible to run economically healthy farms on a voluntary basis within your own country. Anyone who does not farm responsibly spoils the market for others. Above all within a framework of "no import and export", a free domestic market is possible, in which responsibility for sound farming can be left to the producer. At most a regional market could be kept, partly across national borders, as long as it fits ecologically responsible farming.

Point 2. With this we take a stand against hunting for pleasure. By shooting animals for fun, the hunter fails to respect the animal. It shows arrogance towards the animal. Respect is expressed in working towards a natural balance in nature, with natural predators that make culling unnecessary. In such circumstances animals can rightly behave naturally and freely. Respect for farm animals is expressed in farming on an ecological basis, in which animals get the greatest possible chance to behave naturally.

Only when we limit the businesses in and around livestock farming can we enjoy our own freedom freely and without worries. In the long run these principles mean a profound change in the way many people earn their money. They are simply changes of course, fully in line with the way our society is organised: based on a free market, but protecting the vulnerable.

Point 3. Whoever wants to eat meat at any price should pay the price of a decent life for the producer and for the animal. The free market described under point 1 can then work, as long as government support for factory farming is also withdrawn. No more tax money as blood money: the sector must support itself. It also means that international fast-food chains must be limited in their unbridled drive for more meat consumption.