While classical socialists often talk about the importance of the worker and ensuring his welfare, they often differentiate themselves from the capitalist progressives by disparaging the need for animal welfare regulations and environmental controls. Frankly, it seems strange to me that we accord dignity to some domesticated animals and not others, when we are all bound by similar variations of the social contract. While we don’t have to worry about a cow stealing or murdering in the same way that we have to worry about a human doing such things, the cow is still a living being that plays a large role in the sustainability of our current system, and as such, should be given reasonable accommodations at its workplace. Even if we do ultimately consume the cow’s meat and drink its milk in the meantime, why does it need to live in the degrading conditions that it finds itself in right now? What would be the price increase on a gallon of milk for ensuring that cows don’t waddle through their own manure, aren’t beaten regularly, and can spend quality time with their calves? I’m not going to bother to do the math, because it would likely be pennies on the dollar, and if it actually proved uneconomical to afford these cows a semblance of dignity throughout their lives as unwilling subjects in our countries, then so be it. At this stage of civilization, if we cannot conduct ourselves in an ethical fashion regarding an area of production, then it is better for the market to find more cost-effective alternatives than continue the brutality and exploitation.
As a materialist, it is easy to fall into the trap of becoming a moral nihilist, but at the end of the day, what distinguishes a morally nihilistic socialist from a typical capitalist, beyond their current socioeconomic circumstances? I would say not much, and it’s part of the reason that so many of the classical socialists are mentally ill, because frankly, in a world where so much propaganda has made out past socialist regimes to be brutal nightmares, who else would want to live in such a place besides someone content with living in a hell that they don’t feel the flames of. In an era where few people read and even less explore literature beyond the pale of acceptability, the classical socialists of today often draw on western propaganda for their socialism more than any literature, and this is why – in addition to the conversations that I’ve been in – that I assume most of them are more malevolent than anything else. Socialism requires a moral compass, and it cannot be based on economic conveniences or the arbitrary whims of its rulers, but rather, based on principles. In our society, animals are largely our slaves and playthings, with little in the way of rights or protections beyond what other humans intervening from time to time affords them. Similar to children, animals need to be looked after and cared for, because they cannot exist in a society made for us and by us on their own. While individuals bring children into this world, human civilization has introduced domesticated animals into this world, and just like children, we are obligated to ensure that they live out relatively dignified lives free of unnecessary stresses, risks, and burdens.
While people in capitalism do talk about grass-raised beef, they seldom say, “this cow was raised on a open pasture, got plenty of sun when it wanted, had its own friends, and so on.” For us, in reducing the animals in our care and guardianship down to the status of the products that they’ll eventually become, we create considerable ethical issues. While I have always said that the ends justify the means, it is worth saying that if the ends don’t require the means be as harsh, why not improve the moral fiber of the process in the meantime? Just as someone that works at a supermarket should be given healthcare, living wages, and the ability to not only afford shelter but also drinks at the bar and at least two children, even if it marginally impacts the profits of the employer, we need to extend that same generosity to domesticated animals because their predicament is closer to ours than we realize. Humans have been similarly domesticated by civilization, and this is as clear as can be when we look at morphological differences, psychological differences, and so on in groups recently domesticated versus groups that were domesticated far earlier. At the end of the day, most of us rely on the existence of civilization as much as any cow or dog does, and if we’re willing to stick up only for ourselves, while ignoring those animals that don’t have a voice, then how are we not just as selfish as the capitalists? While any working form of socialism doesn’t necessarily require that you become selfless, it does absolutely require that you become principled.
