Making Sense of "Unnecessary": From Rhetoric to Action

Most seem to believe that animals do have the right to live free of suffering. From Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? by Gary Francione: "Two-thirds of Americans polled by the Associated Press agree with the following statement: ‘An animal's right to live free of suffering should be just as important as a [human being's] right to live free of suffering.'"

Suffering is, however, intrinsically related to having conscious experiences. A life free of suffering would seem to imply the absence of actually living. But we do generally hold the principle that suffering is impartially bad nonetheless, the suffering of nonhuman animals included. (Is making an animal suffer a good thing, categorically?)

The principle seems to become actionable by a practical qualification then. What we ought to be aiming for is the limiting or elimination of unnecessary suffering. I will draw heavily from Professor Gary Francione's argument to consider the implications of this position.

"Needless," "superfluous," "excessive," "uncalled for," "avoidable" - these are appropriate synonyms for "unnecessary" according to my English thesaurus. Perhaps we can clarify the meaning of this word by separating need from want/desire/fancy. I take "need" to denote a requirement - I need to drink water to live. "Want" seems to suggest that a feeling compels, or there is a preference - I need water, but I want orange juice.

-Continue after the jump-

The principle could be restated as such: Causing another to suffer is only acceptable if the suffering is necessitated by the fulfillment of a need. Making another suffer because of a want is definitionally unnecessary and therefore wrong.

In a joint statement, published in the June 2003 issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the ADA and the Dieticians of Canada report, "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." According to the ADA, a well-planned vegan diet is healthy at all stages of the life cycle. (Shouldn't anyone concerned with nutrition and health have a "well-planned" diet"?) A 20-year joint study of more than 880 million people conducted by Cornell University, Oxford University, and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine - "The China Study" - concluded as follows:

The . . . lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits - even when that percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories. So it's not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products is zero.

Carl Lewis is one of the most prolific Olympic track and field athletes in history, winning 10 Olympic medals (9 Gold, 1 Silver). Brendan Brazier is a professional triathlete (i.e., Ironman) and the 2003 50km Ultra Marathon National Champion. Mac Danzig is a mixed-martial artist in the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Robert Cheeke is a professional bodybuilder. Each of the aforementioned is vegan. (Lewis argues that his most successful year as an Olympic athlete followed his transition to veganism. It is rumored that he has since become a vegetarian.)

It stands to reason, therefore, that eating the bodies or reproductive excrements of nonhuman animals is unnecessary for optimal health. The reverse may be true - omnivorism is harmful. Any suffering an animal experiences to become "food" therefore violates our premise. If unnecessary suffering should be limited or eliminated because of the moral badness of suffering, veganism is the conclusion. It is irrational to challenge the conclusions that follow from your own premise, schizophrenic even. (Obviously, true situations of survival would not be included within the definition of "unnecessary.")

On this line of reasoning, one's choice to eat the body part of a cow is wrong because the need to eat something can be satisfied by readily available non-animal sources. From your own beliefs, it is unethical to eat animals.

Exploiting an animal for entertainment is necessarily indefensible. Isn't the "sport" of horse eventing simply satisfying a human desire? For "conveniences' sake" doesn't work either. For example, it may be more convenient to take sex rather than respect another's right to bodily security. Moreover, we can't reasonably deduce a "need" from tradition. There are other options besides the Iditarod, hamburgers, and patriarchy. These are most assuredly wants.

To restate, if you agree with the proposition that it is wrong to force an animal to suffer unnecessarily, then you have a prima facie obligation to do the following (for example): stop consuming all flesh, eggs, and dairy products; purchase clothing items that are not the products of animal exploitation; and stop frequenting rodeos, zoos, circuses, and events that exploit nonhuman animals.

-----
Photo: Cattle at livestock auction, courtesy Animals Voice