A Response: “What About Bacteria?”
Print This Post
Recently, an individual posted the following comment responding to an anti-vegetarian article:
“I’ll admit that I haven’t entirely made up my mind on this subject. Having said that I will confess to being a meat eater. While I do not like causing other animals harm, I cannot accept that feeling pain is the only criteria for my acceptance of another being as being worthy of my altruism. Were this the case, I would never harm mosquitoes or arguably even bacteria (which will also attempt to flee harmful conditions and so might be said to experience pain) and would likely die of an infection rather quickly…Until then, I plan to enjoy the meat.”
As a display of this individual’s failure to grasp the ethical principles on which veganism is predicated, the question of bacteria is raised. Remember two things: One, “fleeing harmful conditions” is but one indication of sentience – prior to making the assumption that a being can experience pain one must consider its evolutionary history, its reaction to stimuli that I (or you) would experience as painful, and its physiology (e.g., central nervous system, biochemical functions) – a criterion that bacteria (or germs, mosquitoes, blades of grass) do not satisfy; and two, (assuming a being’s sentience) inflicting pain on a feeling being cannot be justified for any and every reason, which is why murdering a baby cow because you enjoy the taste of his flesh is absolutely not justifiable. (We can debate what makes a “good” reason; however, as Francione often argues, if unnecessary pain for example, is to mean anything at all, “taste,” “entertainment” or “convenience” cannot justify suffering harm on another individual.)
Therefore, not only has the first condition – assuming sentience – not been satisfied, but the case of bacteria, as it relates to the second condition, is markedly different than that of consuming meat: some types of bacteria kill human beings; and unlike any other situation between nonhumans and most humans, in our day-to-day lives bacteria cannot simply be avoided – they exist all around us, all the time. How many bears do you encounter while watching television? Is your “struggle” with the birds of this world tooth-and-nail? Such encounters are easily avoidable, while bacterial infections, or colds, the flu, etc. are common: in these situations there exists a true conflict of a most fundamental sort – health, life – whereby some harm, assuming that bacteria can be “harmed,” is justifiable. Of the billions of nonhumans we murder or torture annually, none present a threat of harm to you – it’s laughable to suggest otherwise.
It is a mischaracterization (purposefully?) of veganism to suggest absolutes: no suffering can ever be justified; all harm, in all circumstances, ought to be avoided; all life, sentient or not, should be preserved. This is absurd. I’ve yet to hear an argument supporting ethical veganism that proffers a theory wherein such absolutes are foundational. Pure pacifists may agree that these absolutes are objectively right (although most “pacifists” fail to account for the limitless suffering of nonhumans). But these pacifist principles aren’t necessarily implied in ethical veganism; indeed, most vegans may agree that violence ought to be avoided as best we can. However, if confronted with an angry mother crocodile, the situation becomes “life or death,” and different principles may apply.
Most people would agree that human life ought to be sustained; however, when encountered with an extreme case – direct self-defense against a rapist, for example – if the attacker were to be harmed or even killed most would agree that an ethical principle was not violated. “Innocent shields,” “innocent threats,” and “secondary self-defense” would also be cases where different principles, which may include harm, would be reasonably assented too.
Given that the case of bacteria (and germs) creates a true “burning house” question – a situation of true conflict between “needs” – the ethical dilemmas (if any) that arise when treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics is qualitatively different than that of “training” a lion to jump through a ring of fire for our entertainment. Mosquitoes, given certain conditions, raise similar dilemmas – West Nile virus. Bacteria? Some types of bacteria aid their human hosts. However, others cause pneumonia and tuberculosis.
So, even assuming the sentience of bacteria (which is unfounded), one cannot plausibly deduce from the ethical principles on which veganism rests an ethical constraint on our dealings with the bacteria that cause syphilis. Likewise, ethical veganism cannot be criticised by appealing to the situation of bacteria, or germs, or dust mites.
Interestingly enough, this individual actually makes this point well when he/she says,
“I would never harm mosquitoes or arguably even bacteria (which will also attempt to flee harmful conditions and so might be said to experience pain) and would likely die of an infection rather quickly.”
But again, it’s merely a failure to consider the issue in any real depth. Instead, relying on baseless assumptions and mischaracterizations of the argument for veganism seems to be the method being employed here – by most people actually.
I’m going to make an assumption and argue that this flawed counter-argument has less to do with a misunderstanding of our position, and more to do with this: “Until then, I plan to enjoy the meat.”
Oh how people expose their true motives so unknowingly – “It tastes good so I don’t want to think about it.”
I went ahead and labeled my assumption as such therefore it’s easily critiqued. Our critics, however, don’t extend us such favors because often they don’t realize they are making assumptions that ought to be defended, or because they’re simply dishonest and willfully fail to take their beliefs to a logical conclusion. Stopping short is far easier – nobody likes to acknowledge their own hypocrisy or bad deeds. I didn’t for a long time…until I stopped exploiting nonhumans for food, etc. – but I’m still working on it.
P.S. It’s not “altruism,” it’s justice!
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
“It’s not ‘altruism,’ it’s justice!”
HAH! I LOVE THAT QUOTE!!!!
I’m a respondant on this article too…. the question of bacteria had me stymied – Thanks for addressing this “germ, mosquito, “meat” analogy. Great contribution to the debate!
“It is a mischaracterization (purposefully?) of veganism to suggest absolutes: no suffering can ever be justified; all harm, in all circumstances, ought to be avoided; all life, sentient or not, should be preserved. This is absurd.”
EXCELLENT POINT, Alex.
I think most people who bring up the insects, bacteria, and yeast objection to veganism are simply making excuses. Even if the vegan claim were that no suffering can be justified, there’s absolutely no reason to believe it’s better to inflict suffering for any and all reasons than to limit suffering.
The meat-eater’s argument is simply this:
‘If it can’t be done 100% perfectly at all times, it shouldn’t be attempted at all.’ If everyone thought that way, we’d have NO invention, no technology, no poetry, no art, no exceptional human experience. So what if you can’t do everything? It’s better to do something than nothing.
It’s like saying, ‘Since we kill insects while driving, we shouldn’t try to avoid hitting deer.’ It’s absurd. It’s clearly just another stupid excuse to continue unethical behavior.
Thank you for posting! I would also like to point out that, in nature, herbivores unknowingly eat bacteria all of the time! In fact, that’s how herbivores get their vitamin B12: by eating the dirt (with has bacteria in it) that is on their plants. The B12-containing bacteria then makes it’s home in the animals’ livers (this is why meat has B12 in it). Avoiding bacteria is impossible, but avoiding eating animals is not. I’d like to see those meat eaters manage if they had to hunt and eat their meat the way wild animals do.
I think the appeal to the experience of pain, and lack of, by certain life is the one true justification for ethical concerns regarding eating meat etc. To cite the inevitability of killing insects and bacteria, or the health risks posed by such life, as a reason for killing them is I think simply not true for most of us most of the time- at least, not at the scale at which we humans, even those of us who are the strictest of vegans, go about disinfecting work surfaces and swatting flies.
We probably kill bacteria and insects at a far greater rate than what is actually required to guard our own health – indeed, not every insect is a disease transmitting mosquito, and our immune system itself could no doubt handle a fair amount of microorganisms without us falling into a precipice of illness and infection.
Considerations of the sort concerning our own well-being versus the well-being of these sorts of life as a sort of zero-sum game just do not come up when we go about squishing small bugs or, I would submit, even when reaching for our anti-bacterial cleaner of choice. In outdoor survival and in certain cultures, it is perfectly possible to eat certain insects without cooking, and emerge healthier from it – that is, it’s possible for insects to be as clean (or germ-ridden, depending how you look at it), and nutritious, as the meat eater’s dish of raw sushi. But it wouldn’t matter to many of us, I suspect. We would still wish to kill certain bugs.
And the underlying reason I think is simply that we don’t like certain organisms. The thought of them gives us revulsion. They creep us out. Would these reasons in of themselves justify our killing of life from an ethical standpoint? No, not at all – but I think it important to recognise the real motive behind our desire to justify killing these sorts of lifeforms. It is not out of self preservation, but rather it is far more likely out of convenience and a distaste for “icky” smaller lifeforms. There are people who will be exceptions of course, but I would guess this is true for most people.
I killed a bug this morning in my kitchen. Now could I have lived in just as good health had I not? Most probably. But the thought of it in my kitchen made me uncomfortable. And that was simply why I killed it. And we can justify the killing of these sorts of lifeforms simply because we have no reason to think they experience pain.
Come on Alex who in their right mind would have sympathy for disease producing bacteria that can experience pain?? In my opinion a good germ is a dead or a weak germ!