Animal ethics raises a number of uncomfortable questions, ranging from meat consumption to experimental methods to the model of zoos or even the increase in companion animals. Promoting these debates is the job of Tafalla, a professor of philosophy and an expert in animal ethics.
The pandemic and the climate crisis with its consequences underscore the importance of our relationship with animals and ecosystems. But, in addition, there is a whole ethical current that studies how these relationships should be. Is a diet with this meat consumption acceptable? To what extent or when is animal testing legal? How do different species suffer? Does an animal ethics make us better?
Marta Tafalla is a PhD in Philosophy, professor of Aesthetics and Ethics at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a member of the scientific council of the Center for Animal Ethics at Pompeu Fabra University. She has spent years studying these issues, which she herself recognizes as “complex” in many cases.
We spoke with her after her participation in the conference”The future of animal rights”, Organized by the Ministry of Universities at the Center for Contemporary Culture of Barcelona (CCCB). Considering the title, we asked him about it first.
Are animals subject to the law? If yes, which ones should they have?
Yes, I think so, but the issue is complex and should not be thought of in the abstract, but on a case-by-case basis, based on what harm we have caused them. You would have to think about which species we do according to what kind of damage and from there give them the rights necessary to protect them. The situations can be very different according to the species and even according to the country.
There would also be different scales or boundaries, right? A dog is not the same as an insect.
Sure. One of the important criteria is the ability to suffer.
And is consciousness necessary for suffering?
We understand that suffering and conscience are two things that go hand in hand. What characterizes animals like vertebrates and also some invertebrates like cephalopods is that they have subjective experience, they feel and experience what happens to them.
The problem is that when we look for traits of intelligence, we look for a reflection of our own intelligence, and it’s hard to believe that it manifests itself in very different ways. This happens, for example, with highly olfactory animals, such as dogs, because we are very visual.
In fact, during the days it was said that dogs do not pass the mirror test. [la prueba clásica de autoconsciencia por la que un individuo debe reconocerse en su reflejo], but they can be recognized by smell.
Is that anyone who has a dog knows that he has a conscience [ríe]. The case of mammals, for example, is very obvious, and in addition to concrete evidence, there are centuries of observation of behaviors that indicate it: the way they make decisions, how they behave and communicate with each other, how parents transmit knowledge to their children. …
And what about insects?
They may have a modicum of consciousness, but certainly nothing to do with the complex consciousness a vertebrate might have.
But some positions criticize insect consumption as immoral, although certain movements even promote it as a measure to combat the climate crisis. [la huella ecológica es mucho menor que la del consumo de carne].
I don’t know why we get so complicated with insects and if they suffer more or less, if the easiest thing is to eat vegetables.
In fact, during the conference he said that only vegetarian or vegan menus should be offered at universities.
Yes, it is already being done in some centers, at least on some day of the week. I said this because the sessions were organized by the Ministry of Universities, but could be extended to public centers. I think it’s something important because it stimulates debate and in the debate you learn that nothing happens to you because you stop eating meat. What you need to do is be well informed, consult a doctor or nutritionist and have a healthy diet.
Another issue is the use of animals in research, where there are two assets in tension: the human benefit and the welfare and freedom of animals. Is the “three R’s” rule sufficient in your opinion (reducing its use, replacing and refining the methods used)?
I believe there is an urgent need to make a bet on alternative methods. The problem is that the European directive, which is based on the three R’s, what it says is that since these methods exist, they must be used until they are completely replaced and stop using animals.
But the development of these methods is hardly being encouraged, there is not enough commitment or funding from the authorities.
Right now it depends on the voluntarism of some, and I think it’s for an economic reason. In the last few decades, a big business has sprung up around experimental animals. Companies have expanded the model and created a pressure lobby that prevents the search for alternative methods.
And while these methods are not enough, which will also be difficult for them to fully reproduce all current experiments, what is your position on the use of animals?
What I believe is that the vast majority of experiments being done now are unnecessary and this is recognized by many researchers. In the world of research there is brutal competition and CVs need to be inflated to get grants or contracts. Many studies are published that are known to add nothing new or important just because they serve to add a line to the curriculum.
But if these experiments are important and necessary, would you be in favor?
Look, a study came out recently that showed that living near a park reduced the risk of breast cancer. It is a very important job for which no animal needed to be killed.
Why aren’t measures taken and a firm commitment to implement measures like this one? I know it’s complicated, but tobacco and processed meat are carcinogens, why don’t they stop being produced? If we are going to use experimental animals, let us also make decisions that allow us to prevent the disease. If we’re going to kill them, we’re going to make a sacrifice ourselves.
During the conference, he said that scientists “don’t know how to argue about ethics and often viscerally reject it, but ethics is not an opinion.”
Yes, most colleges do not want to introduce the topic of ethics. But studying ethics doesn’t tell you what to think, it gives you the tools and a mental scaffold to work with. If you don’t, you only have your personal intuition.
The problem with trying to debate ethics with scientists is that since they don’t have that background, they have to think as they go along, but then we’re not going anywhere and it’s much harder to understand each other. Another difficulty that some scientists have confessed to me is that they don’t have time to think, which seems to me very paradigmatic of the fast-paced world in which we live.
Change the subject. She is also very critical of zoos.
Yes, I believe that fencing wild animals for display is a way of causing gratuitous suffering, and it’s also a way of people being rude about what an animal is. What it does, also in children, is to give the idea that the animals are ours, they are here to serve us and we decide for them.
On the other hand, sometimes it makes sense to breed endangered species in captivity. But that’s something else, and those working on it say it shouldn’t be made on public display either. I mean, it’s not a zoo.
And what is your opinion about extensive livestock farming? Its advocates justify it because it is much more sustainable and because there is a relationship of respect and care for animals.
In my opinion, extensive ranching is being used as a form of general bleaching of cattle. People listen to this song of the happy animal in the field and buy meat from factory cattle believing that nothing is wrong, because they put a picture of the animal in the field to pretend they are happy. But beyond that, there is no happiness in either.
Extensive livestock animals die in slaughterhouses and often without even following stunning protocols. In addition, thousands of lambs or calves are exported from Spain to countries like Libya or Algeria, where there is no regulation whatsoever.
Then there is that extensive livestock needs a lot of space, and for that you expel wild species. It is no longer just a matter of ethics or animal welfare, it is detrimental to the sustainability and health of ecosystems. A human population as large as ours is incompatible with any form of livestock.
In the trophic pyramid, carnivorous animals are in the minority, but the image that humans give is as if in a documentary about animals we filled the Serengeti with lions.
Sometimes I think we have so much strength in excess that we don’t know how to manage it. Like the child who wants to touch the grasshopper and accidentally crushes it. As if we were an experiment of nature gone wrong.
But from animalistic positions it is also said that human beings should not influence animals. A repeated question is, why should we give up something like hunting and eating meat if it’s something we’ve always done?
The point is not so much to influence, but to dominate. Influence that we will always influence. But while hunter-gatherers hunted, they didn’t have a whole system of domination in place. On the other hand, we are omnivores and can live without meat, a lion cannot.
Furthermore, we are what in ethics are called moral agents, we ask ourselves what is right and what is wrong, and we do this constantly, in fact. It gives you a responsibility. And why not do it in relation to other animals or ecosystems as well. A lion cannot stand up and ask himself: does this make sense or not?
Is an animal ethics always an ecological ethics?
Well, there is an argument. I believe that they are complementary and that both are necessary, but they are matters of enormous complexity and we are advancing by leaps and bounds, because we also need the advancement of scientific knowledge.
Issues such as climate change or the extinction of species are not easy to understand and sometimes arouse very basic emotions and beliefs. For example, something that has been very difficult for me and a lot of people is thinking about the fact that wild animals are decreasing so much while domestic animals are increasing.
There’s a moment when you start to ask yourself things like: does it make sense to have a dog or a cat when you have to kill other animals to feed them? There you break a lot of things.
At the conference, Marguerite Yourcenar’s quote was quoted: “There would be fewer martyred children if there were fewer tortured animals.” In general, and finally, do you think that thinking about an animal ethic also makes us better in relation to other vulnerabilities?
Yes, I think so, and there are a lot of people in psychology studying this. Kant himself said that when you learn to treat an animal well, you are learning to treat a person well. And also the opposite. Either you learn empathy and affection, or cruelty and violence.
Many people want their children to have a dog so that they learn to be responsible and take care of themselves, they are understanding that there is an educational process there. After all, ethics is about habits: you get used to being respectful or aggressive.
