Animals Do Not Care Which Theory You Cite to Justify Not Exploiting Them.

Josephine Donovan writes in “Feminism and the Treatment of Animals” that feminist animal care theory was created in reaction to the prevalent animal rights theories in the early 1980s. Namely, Peter Singer’s utilitarianism was a cold, abstract calculus, and Tom Regan’s rights-based approach privileged reason above all else. These theories treat individuals as isolated units, neglecting their social relationships and the power differentials between humans and non-humans. They were hyper-rational. The core of this criticism is that rights-based and utilitarianism excluded sympathy, empathy, and compassion. Feminist care theory attempts to rectify this by validating emotional responses in philosophical debates. Since then, feminist care theory has had numerous scholars expand the theory and met with success in academia.

When discussing animal rights and veganism, it is essential to clarify what context or realm we are discussing. In the academic realm, precise definitions and glorious details are explored at every avenue to maximize correctness and knowledge. The rest of society lives in the non-academic realm I call the realm of practicality. What is correct in some academic papers may not propagate throughout society. Dissemination of knowledge and advocates of this knowledge is required and does not always happen. Real life can get in the way of what is our moral duty on paper. This distinction is rarely (if ever?) called out in casual conversations. But this clarification should be given the effects it can have as we not only apply our ethical theories to the practical world but also as we examine our purpose of developing these theories in the first place.

I am going to make the assumption that both Singer and Donovan develop theories and write about animals because they wish to see an end to animal exploitation. In the academic realm, their thoughts and approaches differ as they seek the most correct and best theories. But in the practical realm, their intentions align in that they want to cease the use and abuse of animals in society.

So in the practical realm, both feminist care theory and utilitarianism theory can be correct (or incorrect) so long as they accomplish the goal of liberating animals. Whether a meat eater is persuaded by the mathematical calculations of Singer or the validation of their emotional response through feminist care theory, if the end result is that the meat eater no longer consumes animals then in the practical realm what does it matter which theory was used? What theory resonants with the animal eater to make them stop is the correct theory, even if every other person subscribes to a different theory.

Peter Singer developed his theory without invoking sentimentality on purpose. The great animal rights activist Henry Spira was drawn to the plight of the animals specifically due to Singer’s hyper-rationalizing. Singer made “an enormous impression on me because of his concern for other animals was rational and defensible in public debate. It did not depend on sentimentality on the cuteness of the animal in question or their popularity as pets” [Ethics in Action, Singer, pg 50]. Had Spira been instead persuaded by feminist care theory and then went on to accomplish all that he did change much of anything? In the practical realm, it is the quantifiable results that are important. The result in Henry Spira’s case is that fewer animals were harmed after learning about Singer’s utilitarian theory.

Dietrich von Haugwitz similarly was compelled by Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights: "No book has ever affected me as profoundly as this one... Here finally were the rational arguments that validated my feelings" [source: personal communication with Charles Patterson while writing Eternal Treblinka, pg 207]. Von Haugwitz needed rational arguments to validate his emotions instead of just listening to his emotions as feminist care theory would suggest. Perhaps von Haugwitz would have committed himself to animal rights sooner had he believed emotions were valid in his internal dialog about how to treat animals. But if the end result is the same, does it matter which theory he used?

This essay argues that the means justify the end in this case. Academic philosophers might lose sleep over developing the best ethical theory, and they should as understanding the best ethical behavior is imperative to our continued progress in society. But the 70 billion land animals slaughtered for human use every year, the depletion of our oceans, and the eradication of our native habitats do not care about ethical theories other than that they are used to stop this pointless destruction. If you were a pig in a shed, do you think you would care if a person decides not to eat you because of hyper-rationalizations or emotions? I bet not.