Adriel won’t eat clams or fish. But the author of Animal Liberation, the utilitarian Peter Singer, eats clams but not fish. Singer (I took his remarkable class on Coursera) emphasizes the suffering of fish. The fish is not just sentient but is aware of its own existence, struggles mightily to continue to live, and most of all, obviously feels pain and can suffer physical pain and suffer from loss of life itself. It is not ethical to cause unnecessary suffering and it is unnecessary to eat fish. Despite being the foremost living utilitarian philosopher, Singer uses two Kantian ideas in his seminal book. In his ethics he espouses the “rights” of animals and also claims that animals are to be treated as ends in themselves, not as a means to our ends. Both the ideas are most associated with Immanuel Kant but Kant, who was a carnivore, viewed rational humans as having rights but not animals that could be used as serving the needs of humans. We have a duty to avoid causing pain to animals but they do not have rights equal to reasoning beings according to Kant.
On the other hand, Peter Singer sees the qualities of animals for their somewhat limited self-understanding and their avoidance of suffering as an equivalence to the same qualities in humans. Therefore animals have the same rights as us folks. But not for the poor, dumb clams. The life of a clam is not equivalent to that of me, or Sally, or even Rover. Singer says simply “I don’t think that bivalves — mussels and clams — I don’t think they can suffer, so I eat them” (Vox interview https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/10/27/21529060/animal-rights-philosopher-peter-singer-why-vegan-book).
So Peter Singer eats clams, and I supposed Immanuel Kant did too if they were nicely fried. But I won’t. For two reasons. First, with regard to the Kantian view, I don’t see humans as “higher” animals because of the (seldom used) ability to reason. The idea that we are something special, something spectacular, and rule the universe by reason is not acceptable to me or even to science. Current scientific research show more the amazing abilities of animals and the limits of human reason. The kind of cruelty and evil perpetrated by humans has no peer in the non-human animal kingdom. We are animals, the equals of other animals. Our rights are equivalent, not superior. Second, with regard to Singer’s emphasis on preventing suffering, I think the avoidance of causing pain is fundamental but not decisive. Rather, life itself should be the ultimate value, not just life free of suffering and not just human life. Of course, even bacteria or plants have a kind of life but so primitive and limited as to not be regarded on the level of sentient creatures. Even if a clam or an insect might not be considered “sentient” or having the ability to feel pain, a decent respect for life itself ought to cause an ethical person to avoid killing non-thinking creatures. I understand that it is sometimes necessary to kill lesser creatures, certainly dangerous animals or a deadly bacteria or virus, but it is not necessary to eat a clam or a hamburger to live. It is certainly important to kill disease bearing mosquitoes but unnecessary to kill an annoying jaybird.
Adriel follows the Buddhist hope that all sentient beings may live in peace. As I say to my friends, I am a vegetarian because I just want to live in peace with my fellow creatures on this earth. If that fly is bothering you, try to throw it outdoors. If you see a clam, let it lie. Or is it lay? Never can get that right.
Two Strikes 