An unknown species of animal, maybe a human, is behind a curtain.
Here is a thought experiment designed to help unpack our ethical reasoning regarding breeding, killing and consuming animals:
Similar to John Rawls's veil of ignorance or Original position:
An unknown species of animal, potentially a human, is behind a curtain.
Without asking for their species…
What information would you need about the individual and factors external to the individual, to make an informed decision about the ethics of breeding, killing, and consuming the individual?
Let's break it down.
Why the curtain?
The curtain is a metaphorical barrier against superficial bias, intended to prevent superficial answers such as “I will know it when I see it”.
Why the prohibition to asking for the species?
Humans — Homo sapiens — are an admittedly extraordinary species… inside the animal kingdom so it’s perhaps a little redundant to suggest that the unknown animal might be humans, but it’s worth reminding ourselves of that fact.
Many people would first ask ‘What’s their species?’ and then check with their own culturally inherited list of “breed, kill, and consume” species and do not “breed, kill, and consume” species.
However, they have inherited two unexamined elements:
- The definition of “species” itself
- The culturally inherited list of “do or do not breed, kill, consume” species
The thought experiment provides an opportunity for those who would answer with “What‘s their species?” to unpack these two elements.
The answerer is free to define species using whichever characteristics or traits that they feel are relevant.
A typical definition of species:
Species (noun): a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.
In this definition, which centres around sexual compatibility, we find a glaring hole: infertile individuals.
We can ask ourselves, why is sexual compatibility morally relevant?
Let's explore other possible answers:
“Can they talk?”
Human infants cannot talk, some individuals are nonverbal, and those suffering from Locked-in Syndrome can’t communicate at all. Why is the ability to communicate morally relevant?
“Are they smarter than me? Can they do maths?”
Many individuals, including infants and children and others with cognitive impairments, are not by measures of IQ, “intelligent”. We can ask ourselves, why is intelligence morally relevant?
“Do they understand ethics or morality?”
Many individuals, including children and others with cognitive impairments, do not understand ethics or morality and cannot morally reciprocate. We can ask ourselves, why is — understanding ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ — morally relevant?
“Are they tasty?”
According to numerous cannibal reports, pigs taste like humans. Given the popularity of meat from pigs, I think we can take it as a given that most people would find the taste… pleasant. We can ask ourselves, why is the taste of the individual morally relevant?
“What does my holy book say?”
Here is some guidance contained in various Abrahamic religions of the individuals that it is permissible to kill and consume:
- For Individuals who live on the land, they must have cloven (split) hooves and chew the cud
- For Individuals who live in the sea, they must have fins and scales
- For Individuals who fly, they must not be predatory or scavenger
We can ask ourselves, why are these traits morally relevant?
Is this simply guidance intended to exclude “unclean” animals that were once believed to be disease-spreading? — That would make this health-related guidance and not guidance on the morality of killing the individual.
“Do they possess a central nervous system? Pain receptors? Are they sentient or conscious? Can they experience pleasure or pain? What is the complexity of their experience? Do they display preferences and avoidance behaviours? Do they possess a will to live?”
We can ask ourselves, why are these traits morally relevant?
“More context needed…”
One could also reply that while answers to questions about the individual are important, they alone are not sufficient to make a call.
Context such as:
- What would the people in my country or culture think of me if I bred, killed and/or consumed the individual? We can ask ourselves, why is that morally relevant?
- How does the breeding, killing and consuming impact the economy or the livability of the planet?
- Does the individual have kin who will be impacted by the breeding, killing and consuming of the individual?
- If I do not consume the individual, several outcomes are possible. Will I perish from starvation? Will my family or I be killed? Could the planet be destroyed?
- Do I have access to alternatives for my survival and thrival, such as plant-based meat or Cultivated meat?
