It’s strange to me that some people will argue that a book they haven’t read isn’t worth reading. It’s like someone who has never been to Paris saying that Paris isn’t all that special. Maybe it is or maybe it isn’t, but someone who’s never been to Paris probably isn’t a trustworthy source of information about how special or un-special Paris is.*

So, when I read Dan Cudahy’s blog post about Eating Animals where he claims that the book “suggests, if not states explicitly, that we should treat some species (like dogs and cats) better than other species (like pigs and chickens)” it got my hackles up. I’m half-way through Eating Animals and this particular criticism simply isn’t valid.

Here is a quote from the book that implicitly compares dogs to pigs on page 157. It’s an implied anti-speciesist argument:

“Like dog or cat breeds, each pig breed has certain traits associated with it: some traits matter more to the producer, like the ever-important rate of feed conversion; some matter more to the consumer, like how lean or fat marbled the animal’s muscle is; and some matter more to the pig, like susceptibility to anxiety or painful leg problems.  Since the traits that matter to the farmer, consumer, and pig are not at all the same, it regularly happens that farmers breed animals that suffer more acutely because their bodies also display characteristics that the industry and consumers demand. If you have ever met a purebred German shepherd, you might have noticed that when the dog is standing, its rear is closer to the ground that its front, so that it always appears to be crouching or gazing up aggressively. This ‘look’ was seen as desirable by breeders and was selected for over generations by breeding animals with shorter rear legs. As a result, German shepherds – even of the best pedigrees – now suffer disproportionately from hip dysplasia, a painful genetic condition that ultimately forces many owners either to condemn their companions to suffering, euthanize them, or spend thousands on surgery. For nearly all farmed animals, regardless of the conditions they are given to live in – ‘free-range,’ ‘free-roaming,’ ‘organic’ – their design destines them for pain. The factory farm, which allows ranchers to make sickly animals highly profitable through the use of antibiotics, other pharmaceuticals, and highly controlled confinement, has created new, sometimes monstrous creatures.”

More than that, an entire chapter (2) is dedicated to how unreasonable is the “species barrier” (page 75), how unjust, how wrong.

It may be tempting for some vegan thinkers to get hung up on the use of words like “it” or “owner,” – as if individual words matter more than their collective meaning – but the reality is, this book will change the way many people think. This book will compel them to change their diets and change their thoughts about animals.

I chose the above quote for a reason: I think it’s compelling. It makes a strong case, albeit in a slightly subtle way, that forcing animals to live, breed, and die according to our unreasonable whims is wrong. It’s “painful,” it’s “monstrous,” and it’s not in the animals’ interests.

—

*For the record, I’ve been to Paris twice and I loved it. If you go, do your research first, though, because vegan options can be a little tricky.

Sections: Vegan Theory
Topics: animal rights, book, breeding, eating animals, factory farming, german shepherd, Jonathan Safran Foer, oppression, paris, quote, specieism, Theory, Vegan