JM Coetzee’s fictional animal rights activist and ageing novelist, Elizabeth Costello, didn’t hesitate to compare contemporary stockyards and slaughterhouses to Nazi prison camps. In The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason generally resist frightening or offending the reader. The tear-inducing chapter on intensive chicken-farming is signposted: “Warning: May be disturbing to some readers.” Singer and Mason are like good parents in this sense: humane, protective, non-judgmental. “Food choices,” they say, “are only one aspect of what people do and not a sufficient basis for judging their moral character.”
Their argument, presented in a simple structure (three families, three shopping lists: the Standard American Diet, the Conscientious Omnivores, the Vegans), is clear and not unduly biased. The idea is to provide readers with viable alternatives, rather than backing them into ethical corners. They target the hip pocket: it may be cheaper to torture animals than it is to treat them well, but the “externalities” are eventually passed on to the consumer (in the US, for example, factory farming is economically viable because of government grain subsidies).
If you don’t eat sentient creatures but can’t decide whether your boiling lobster’s clattering claws are morsing H-E-L-P or nothing at all, Singer and Mason suggest that it’s best to give it the benefit of the doubt. As David Foster Wallace pointed out in Consider the Lobster, “it takes a lot of intellectual gymnastics … not to see struggling, thrashing, and lid-clattering as … pain-behaviour.”
On the other hand, Singer and Mason are aware of the shortcomings of alternative farming methods. Organically reared, fibre-fed cows emit more methane gas than their intensively farmed relatives (cattle are responsible for “about 2.5 per cent of the total effect of greenhouse gas emissions”). And because they’re not injected with bovine growth hormone, it takes 10% more organic cows to produce the same amount of milk.
The book closes with a more discomforting argument that is well-worn territory for Singer: if we justify killing animals on the grounds that they possess inferior mental abilities, then we should also sanction the killing of humans who are “not conscious of their lives as their own”.
There is nowhere quite like The Monthly. We are told that we live in a time of diminished attention spans; a time where the 24-hour-news-cycle has produced a collective desire for hot takes and brief summaries of the news and ideas that effect us. But we don’t believe it. The need for considered, reflective, long-form journalism has never been greater, and for almost 20 years, that’s what The Monthly has offered, from some of our finest writers.
That kind of quality writing costs money, and requires the support of our readers. Your subscription to The Monthly allows us to be the home for the best, most considered, most substantial perspectives on the state of the world. It’s Australia’s only current affairs magazine, an indispensable home for cultural commentary, criticism and reviews, and home to personal and reflective essays that celebrate and elevate our humanity.
The Monthly doesn’t just comment on our culture, our society and our politics: it shapes it. And your subscription makes you part of that.
Select your digital subscription