As humans, we have a strong empathetic capability that conflicts with our high position on the world food chain. We have a strong curiosity and the power to change the world around us to the way we would prefer it. Yet we have a moral responsibility to respect other living things on the planet, and a strong sense of companionship for the beings that we share the world with. It is difficult to define the line that we cannot cross, when exploration and improvement becomes destruction.
The thing that separates humans from animals is our ability to determine good from evil. We understand what it means to be good, and how to check our desires to prevent becoming evil. Despite this, we have most things in common with animals, except for our advanced language and writing. We have the same general biology (we’re made of the same stuff) and many of our social constructs can be seen in nature too, such as class structure. However, we are aware of the suffering we can inflict upon others, and we have the ability to survive while limiting others’ suffering, like the suffering of domesticated animals. The ‘vegetarian’ in Herzog’s piece clearly was able to limit suffering, indicated by the fact that she did not eat meat other than fish. However, she would not see fish as animals, and therefore reasoned that they must not suffer as much as a cow would. Clearly, humans value certain animals more than others. A fish can certainly feel as much pain as a cow would, but yet we have less empathy for fish. Maybe if a fish was as cute as a baby cow, we would be less inclined to eat them. There are limits to our empathy for animals, depending on their usefulness or even their appearance. Usually people don’t get offended by killing an insect, but they would get offended from killing a puppy. Do we know if an insect feels less pain, or do we just don’t like looking at them? I think we have a responsibility to answer these questions, because our morality is what separates humans from animals.
DFW and Hertzog agree in the fact that there are hypocritical aspects of our morality towards animals. We value the lives certain animals over others, like keeping cats as pets even though they destroy bird populations. We boil lobsters alive, even though we value them as part of our culture. However, they agree that there are moral grey areas when it comes to dealing with animals. Herzog believes that people can love animals while still using them as a resource, whether for research or for food. DFW comes to less of a solid conclusion. He introduces the idea that we should be aware of the moral quandaries surrounding the way our food is prepared, and to question how we justify eating animals just for gourmet and not for subsistence. Yet, consumption of animals is part of our culture, and it may be close to impossible to change that.
