donderdag 20 augustus 2015

Why a backyard hen is exploitation (and consent matters)

Photo by Steven Johnson
In a video, Unnatural Vegan explains that having a backyard hen is acceptable as she thinks it is not a form of exploitation. She draws on the works of Tzachi Zamir who makes a distinction between use and exploitation. I believe that she is wrong in her interpretation of Zamir's work and wrong in her conclusion that keeping a backyard hen is morally just. Here is why.

This is a response to the videos Tentative Vegan #2: Animal Use vs Exploitation and its follow-up Using Animals: Does Consent Matter? by Unnatural Vegan.

Unnatural Vegan, a fairly popular advocate for veganism on Youtube, has started a series of videos in which she explains why tentative veganism makes more sens as a moral position than 'normal' veganism. She draws forth on what she took from the book Ethics and the Beast by Tzachi Zamir. Zamir argues that animals can be liberated without us having to give up speciesism, which could be a factor in deciding our priorities in public debates.



In her first video Swazy, who runs Unnatural Vegan, explains the difference between use and exploitation of animals, which is also covered by Tzachi Zamir. She argues that while exploitation is wrong, the use of an animal is not. To clarify her point she explains, in her first video on this topic, that Tzachi Zamir defines exploitation as follows.
"X uses Y when he perceives Y as a means of furthering his own financial (or other) well-being. This turns into exploitation when X is willing to act in a way that is substantially detrimental to Y's own well-being in order to further his own.
By 'substantial' I mean that the action predictably carries consequences such as shortening Y's life, damaging his health, limiting his freedom, abusing what he is (e.g., some forms of prostitution), systematically thwarting his potential (e.g., child labor), or subjecting him to pain or to a strongly undesired life (e.g., demanding inhuman workloads ad thus creating human-slavery).
Exploitation usually also suggests lack of consent by the exploited party (or a consent that is predicated on a highly limited choice or on choosing among impossible alternatives). Exploitation is also mostly related to the existence of unequal power relations or some dependency relations between the parties, favoring the exploiting party in an institutional and systematic way." (emphasis by author)
Then she inserts that using a backyard hen is "use", not exploitation.
"Of course a vegan could agree with this distinction between use and exploitation and still believe that use, in and of itself, is wrong. That even if no exploitation occurs that using, say, a backyard hen by consuming her unfertilized eggs would still be immoral because you are using the animal."
While it is good to make a difference between use and exploitation, having a backyard hen is, according to the definition Zamir, not an example of use that is exempt of exploitation, as Swazey seems to belief. His definition clearly states that use becomes exploitation when an animal its freedom is confined. Also Zamir indicates that a lack of consent, confinement of alternatives to the animal, and relationship in which one is dependent on the other, are indicators that there is exploitation going on. In other words, Zamir rather argues that only if a free hen lays an unfertilized egg in your backyard and leaves it deserted, it may be considered as use, without exploitation.

In the case of a backyard hen, the space that the hen has, is confined to the property of the owner of the hen. Everyone who uses a backyard hen for the consumption of eggs, by definition limits the hens freedom to the borders of the yard, not allowing the hen to move elsewhere. One could bring in that the hen is equally happy with a smaller territory and has no clue about what is 'out there'. But truth is that the hen is prevented to find that out on its own. If we were to keep a human being in a confined space with barbed wire, or a fence, it is understood as immoral since we deliberately keep them unaware of the world beyond that.

Seemingly ignoring all this, Swazey continues.
"Assuming the hen is well-cared for and loved and all that stuff. What could be the harm? I don't even think you could argue that 'well they're being stolen from the chicken', because they're essentially a waste product... Do we really think that if a chicken could care, that she would care about us consuming her period? She may be a bit disgusted and worried about her mental state, but I don't think she feels slighted or exploited."
Again, Swazey seems to overlook much of the ethics involved in keeping a hen, and solely focuses on the general well-being of the hen. Indeed, the hen is probably not harmed when she is taken good care of and probably is not bothered when her unfertilized eggs are taken.[note] But it is way too narrow to solely consider that part of the ethical question.

Also, whether the hen feels exploited is irrelevant. I too doubt whether chickens have the mental capacity to feel exploited or understand what that could mean. But assuming they do not, or can not feel exploited, makes a horrible argument to go on exploiting an animal.

More importantly, she seems to argue that being cared for in exchange for eggs is a good deal for hens, as accepting the deal increases their well-being. Even though there can exist mutual benefits, this is actually pretty much a take-it-or-leave-it deal, which is problematic in and of itself.

Throughout her video she does not go into whether this deal is consensual. I get that. If something is consensual, it does not necessary mean it is the right thing to do. But lack of consent, as Zamir explained in its definition, is an indicator of abuse and should have been addressed. Many viewers therefore have commented in response, highlighting that she was ignoring that this relationship with the hen is devoid of consent.

It seemed to me that she assumes consent from the well-being of the animal: as long as the animal is happy you can use him. If this was her take: the well-being argument to decide whether it is okay to use an animal is pretty flawed, since it immediately raises the question how well an animal should be, before it is okay to use it. Is there a hen-o-happiness scale that tells us this?

I too commented on her Facebook profile that she seems to be mistaking "the well-being of animals for their consent to use them". Even though it may be a good deal for the hen, backyard hens are not asked about their opinions on this deal; in fact they are pretty much unable to give their consent. At the same time I told her that "Using hens that are bred by violation of their parents sexual freedom, which are deliberately constrained in their territory, is not vegan."

Does Consent Matter?


As a response, Swazey came with a follow-up video Using Animals: Does consent Matter? in which she explains why consent does not matter, according to her.


"A lot of people are bringing up consent. That the problem that they have with animal use is that it does not involve consent. And as long as there is no consent, it is wrong. So to take eggs even from a rescued hen ... is still wrong because she has not given you consent to do so."
It could well be that this was what she took away from the criticism she received on her video. But, as explained above, the absence of consent does not necessarily mean something is wrong, but is an indicator of exploitation. Or as Zamir puts it, "Exploitation usually also suggests lack of consent by the exploited party". Hence, I would agree that a lack of consent (where that can not be given) does not necessarily mean that something is wrong. For example, rescuing a human in danger is not necessarily the wrong thing to do, regardless whether we have his consent. But the lack of consent should make us more responsible about the situation.

Also notice how Swazey is now talking about a rescued hen, instead of the stereotypical backyard hen in the first video. Rescuing a hen from greater danger and then offering as much space as you can is a completely different situation than buying a newly bred hen for egg production.

Her counter-argumentation starts with a distinction between those who can give consent, and those who can not. She tries to explain why consent does not really matter when we are talking about animals (spoiler: because animals are not capable of expressing their consent verbally)
"But does consent really matter? I think intuitively we would all say yes, right? And to some extent rationally. Sex sans consent is rape. Borrowing sans consent is stealing. But in these cases we're dealing with adults. People who can consent. Who can give permission. What about infants?"
This is a remarkable statement, since the definition of exploitation which she quoted from Zamir in her previous video comes from a book that is all about animal liberation, and includes the lack of consent as at least an indicator for exploitation. 

Swazey is about to argue that if an animal is not able to give its consent, we then do not have to care about whether the animal consents or not. She does not explain why she sweeps it off the table. I would argue that consent is still on the table, and more importantly so, since the lack of consent means that we have a greater responsibility to think about the situation, than when we are given consent. Indeed, just like with infants. She continues her argument by making a comparison with children who are thought to be too young to make decisions.
"What about infants. Infants can not say yay or nay. They can't decide who their guardians are. They can't decide where they live or what they eat. Or really anything at all. They have no say whatsoever in what happens to them. (...) Even law-abiding parents, they decide and are really controlling over their children."

Hold on, we are talking about morality here. And it seems that we are presented with the argument that since children are controlled by their parents, it must therefore be morally just. First, it would be more correct to say that the parents "care" for their children, as they morally should. Secondly, the fact that children are taken care for (or "controlled" as Swazey calls it), does not mean their consent is discarded. Most parents, actually do respect the consent of their children. If their stomachs are full, we do not shove more food down their throats. If a child does not feel like playing with Dinky Toys, we do not force them to do so. It is also not that infants can not show their consent at all. They can, though non-verbally. In fact, adults give many times their consent non-verbally.

The great difference between adults and infants is how informed their consent is. The level of being informed about and understanding the situation, tells us whether an action is morally justified. The less capable one is to become informed, the more we get into the area where moral justification can not be derived from consent.

Having (informed) consent does not necessarily mean that what we do is morally just. But when we act against the consent, it must be for a good reason. One could give a burning match to an infant, who eagerly tries to grab it, but that would still not be the right thing to do. Keeping the child away from a bonfire may also be devoid of his consent, but is obviously the right thing to do. This does not mean that consent is worthless. It means that we should achieve consent, or else have good reasons why we do something to someone else without their consent.

Infants are hardwired to follow their parents, and therefore have no distinct preference for where they live, but they are quick to know who they want to live with: their parents. And anyone who tried to feed sour food like strawberries to infants, has seen how they show that this goes without their consent. Just because parents, as caretakers, have the right to make decisions on behalf of them, does not mean that they can disregard the consent of those they care for.

Swazey of course wants to demonstrate that we sometimes put infants in a situation where their consent is disregarded. This is not because "controlling" infants is morally just. Nor all kinds of decisions parents could make are morally just. Only the decisions that are in the interest of the infant (and its future) are. Vaccination being one example.

Without any regards to the above, Swazey assumes her audience agrees with her statement that infants can not give consent and continues with the deconstruction of a false comparison between one kind of necessity and another.
"You may say "Okay fine, but you have to care for your child, it is necessary to do so, whereas adopting a chicken, a bird, and then eating its eggs is unnecessary." But is having a child necessary? I think for a lot of us it is not necessary, it is often unnecessary and can actually be viewed as quite frivolous." (1:33)
Perhaps one of her viewers threw this at her, but fact is that we are now jumping from a necessity to care for someone who can not fully take care for itself (a chicken, a child) to the question whether it is necessary to breed (a chicken, or a child). I think it is clear to anyone that in modern civilization it is not necessary to have a child, nor have a chicken. But once you have one, it is necessary to care for them.

This is the last thing Swazey had to say on the topic of consent and concludes

"So it seems to me that focusing on consent in regard to using non-human animals is not consistent with how we treat human animals."
While this is largely true, it does not tell us anything whether this difference is logical or not. Just because animals can not give informed consent to the level that humans can, does not mean they can not express some sort of consent. But indeed, when it comes to moral justification, consent becomes less worth if one is not capable to fully understand the situation. We therefore give less weight to the consent given by animals and infants to justify our actions. But it goes too far that animals can not give the slightest consent or that we should not consider their consent at all, as Swazey seems to suggest.

She then heads on to comment on her critics who argued that taking the eggs is immoral since the chicken does not directly benefits. Here I agree with Swazey that not every action has to be a direct benefit to the hen. If the hen really does care as much about her egg as her poop, then there seems to me no moral objection to eat the egg (or poop if you are into that).
"Of course some could argue as some of you have did in the comments, that using an animal is fine so long as the action benefits the animal. Then it is okay. So in the case of the child or the baby the parents being very controlling, regardless of consent is okay because it directly benefits the child. Having a safe place to live, food, all of this kind of things, whereas consuming rescued hen's eggs does not directly benefit the chicken and therefore is immoral. " (2.26)
The point here made is a difference between different actions. One being years of raising a child, the other one being the action of taking away an egg. Thus we are asked to compare a whole category of actions, with one particular action. This never works.

Swazey resolves this by comparing two complete paths of caring, for either adopting a hen or an infant.

"What about a situation in which the only reason someone adopts a chicken is so that they can consume her unfertilized eggs, so she now has a home, she now has food shelter, instead of being dead. Doesn't this benefit her? "
We should compare this to a couple that adopts a child. Are they right in using or selling things that the child produced, like drawings? Are the parents allowed to spend the benefits on themselves, or should all benefits go to the child? A relevant difference in the comparison between a hen and a child is that people rarely adopt a child to benefit from all the products they produce (during the time the child can barely give its consent). If couples would be doing this, I expect they will be frowned upon, as we intuitively understand that we are not supposed to adopt children to benefit ourselves. Following Swazey's reasoning, she would counter-argue that even when the child's products are used, the child would still have a better life than if it were not adopted. But I think that when the intention for adoption is to have benefits, it is an indicator (just like a lack of consent) that someone might be done wrong.

Also, I think we should not only compare the whole of caring, but also look at parts in there, especially when it infringes the liberties of the hen or infant. Is it necessary to give the infant a pat? Is it necessary to curb the hen's area of movement? Yes, rescuing a hen or a child is better than not, but we should not stop there if there is room for improvement.

"If the metric by which we deem an action moral or not is consent, then the consequences shouldn't matter: Use is abuse no matter what, in every case with regard to animals, because they cannot consent. The same can be said for infants, for someone who is comatose. If it is benefit that matters, then consent doesn't matter. So use is not abuse so long as the one being used benefits from the exchange. I would argue that both are wrong."
I think there is much semantics going on here. If we are taking the eggs of the hen, are we using the hen or are we using the egg? I think it is fair to say that someone who rescued the hen and takes the eggs is "keeping" the hen and "using" the eggs. Using the hen implies that the chicken is used instrumentally, which according to the "use is abuse" camp is wrong to do. And many philosophers agree that using someone solely for a purpose without their consent, is exploitation. And most philosophers would agree that it does not matter if the one who is used will be rewarded in the long run. On the other hand it is also not deemed moral to lure someone into a pyramid scheme, even though they conscientiously subscribe to it. I do not get why Swazey sees consent and consequences as mutual exclusive. Can't they both be guiding whether an action is moral or not?

She then has a thought experiment for us that she copied from the user brimstoneSalad on the forum theveganatheist.com:
"Perhaps I can not open doors, due to an injury. So, I lie in wait for an unsuspecting pedestrian to enter a building, thus opening the door, and I slip in behind him or her. I have used that person as a machine to my ends, and he or she did not give express permission for me to do it. Have I wronged him or her?
If this was a secure building, and that person was punished for accidentally letting somebody in, then yes. If this is a public facility, and the person suffered no injury from it, why would anybody argue that there's something wrong with this?"
In this situation the one being used, isn't harmed by being used, but neither benefits from it either. Again, there seems semantics at play. Is the person used, or was the opportunity used? As far I can tell the person was a free individual, and was not manipulated to act in a way. The person was not confined. This is a great difference with a hen, which is held at a location, perhaps even stalled. The term "use" may apply to the hen, while it probably does not apply to the free human.

While she does not mention this difference, she does notice that there is a difference.
"I don't think many of us would think there is something wrong with this scenario. And yet we do when it comes to a chicken's unfertilized eggs. What is the difference?"
For her answer she turned again to brimstoneSalad who wrote:
It's not wrong to use any being, human or non-human animal, for your own ends as long as that use doesn't compromise their own ends. Saying it is, without valid explanation, is what makes veganism look irrational. 
Only the most paranoid, petty, and psychologically unbalanced people care that somebody else "used" them, when that use was merely incidental and not malicious. It's very unlikely that any non-human animals have the elaborate and convoluted mental landscape to be that irrational. They don't care that we're using them, they care that we're hurting them.
There are again some semantics at play in brimestoneSalad wording, but what we get from this, is that it is actually not about "use", but about "compromising" the freedom of someone else. As mentioned before, a backyard hen has its freedom of movement limited. Thus, when we follow brimstoneSalad's reasoning, it is wrong to have a  backyard hen. Ironically, Swazey chose this text to backup the statement in her first video that "using" a chicken as your backyard hen is not wrong and even raises that thinking otherwise "makes veganism look irrational".

It is not the text by brimestoneSalad that can make a backyard hen morally just. Neither does a conflation between "using a hen" and "using the egg". What makes a backyard hen morally just in certain cases, is when there are no better options. We all agree that buying a hen to keep them as an egg producing machine is exploitation. Providing food and shelter to a rescued chicken could be morally just, if that is the best that we can do for them. Eating their waste products, like eggs may even be not an issue. Even the confinement of their space could be morally just, given a situation where greater freedom would put them at risk --to keep her away from a highway or the neighbor's dog. It is the best for them. This implies that we should be ready to send the chicken off to a place where she will find an even better home. If we 'forget' that in order to keep the hen around since we do not want to miss out on the eggs, then we do wrong. Once we rescued a hen, does not mean that we should stop looking for better homes. What we should not do is concluding that a relatively better live, is a sufficient good life.


Note: A hen can not tell the difference between her eggs and the eggs of other hens. It is therefore unlikely that a hen would know her egg is unfertilized. The modern hen does not care for the eggs she lays. Commercial farms did not bred for broodiness, but for the production of as much eggs as possible. The reason why the hen does not care when her eggs are taken away, is because humans have bred her specie to be like that. In a world where many people refuse to buy products that  were once tested on animals, it makes sens to not use hens that were 'produced' as a result of an immoral breeding program.

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten