How far to do considerations of intrinsic value go?
In the article by Pollen, entirely dealing with animal rights, and that of Freyfogel dealing with ethical considerations for several organisms and living systems, the assertion is made that “[Animals and other organisms] have or should have value in and of themselves without regard for how they affect us” (Freyfogle 113). Yet on a semantic level I ask the question why is it wrong to kill? Examining that question in a absolutely physical/logical sense yields responses like: because it causes pain, because it diminishes that animal’s species the ability to flourish, or because it violates that individual organism’s volition.
Yet I maintain that all of these consequences of killing are in fact present also in the act of competing with any organism. Even if we were all vegetarians we would still consume biologic materials– materials that other species would consume in our stead. Even eating carrots and lettuce rob the rabbit if it’s volition to eat it, cause it hunger (i.e. pain) and reduce it’s capacity to reproduce and flourish because it is weaker. It is not killing that causes pain, nor consumption, but the fact that we live on a finite planet in which competition is a fact of existence. Are then these scruples around killing to extend to competing with? Should a subsaharan farmer lie down in front of a pack of lions so he may respect their innate right to be free and act with volition? How far should this extend? The problem with extrapolating something like morality to non-human context is that it can be extrapolated beyond logical conclusions to those of the ridiculous. Should a child with the flu who very well might die forego Antibacterial medicine because it kills millions of organisms? Death is an inescapable part of life and to try and forego one’s death only leads to the death of others. That is why I reject all arguments about not eating animals, because the logical extension of any example that makes it seem as though people only harm the natural world and do not compete with it ignore basic tenants of real life. Death is real. Pain is real. The only people who could think we could forego them all are those in the ivory towers, but the people on the ground make the decisions and so the world continues as it should despite idealistic (unrealistic) nay sayers. So how far should these values extend? Just before the dinner table.