Excuses we've heard before
Many people defend animal exploitation by saying things like:
- "animals were made for this";
- "it's natural, it's the food chain";
- "it's tradition";
- "lots of people make a living from it";
- "the only problem is the environmental impact";
- "the only problem is the industry; hunting and fishing are fine";
- "the only problem is suffering; killing without pain is fine";
- "the problem is capitalism, not exploitation."
Now swap the animals for humans in each sentence. None of them would be accepted to justify raising people for food, clothing, or testing.
Reason 1: it breaks equal consideration
Harms and benefits of the same size should count the same. Bigger harms should count more. Exploitation does the opposite: it gives huge weight to a small benefit for humans, like a flavor, and almost no weight to a huge harm for animals, like a life of suffering and death.
Reason 2: it fails the impartiality test
Ask yourself honestly: would you accept this practice...
- if you didn't know whether you'd be the human or the animal?
- if you knew you'd be the victim?
- if the roles were reversed?
- if you had to suffer the harms to get the benefits?
Animal exploitation is only defended because the people defending it know they won't be the victims.
The conclusion
Animal exploitation is just as unfair as it would be if the victims were humans with harms of the same size. And it doesn't stop being unfair if it's "sustainable," small-scale, painless, or done outside capitalism.
In short
- The common excuses would be rejected if the victims were human.
- Exploitation gives more weight to small benefits than to huge harms.
- Nobody would accept it without knowing whether they'd be the victim.