Foie gras, anyone?
Tony O'Neill, head chef at Belfast's , was subjected to the full force of Andrew Tyler's rhetorical skill on today's Sunday Sequence. It was Tony's first time on the radio, and it must have felt like a baptism of fire. Or, perhaps, like standing in front of an enormous hairdryer on full power mode.
He told us his restaurant would be looking again at whether to include foie gras on its menu; until then, customers can have it served up for about 拢12. I can understand why Northern Ireland's would wish to include such an ostentatiously exclusive dish on its menu. Hotel guests are picked up from the airport by a highly polished black Bentley, and the bar boasts the (拢750 a glass). After the programme, Tony told me that only seven bottles exist in the world and the Merchant Hotel's bottle has yet to be opened. (Though may challenge their claim to the world record.) In any case, I've asked Tony to let me know if the Merchant reconsiders its foie gras policy.
A couple of ethical considerations emerged during his encounter with Andrew. First, the position of the UK and Ireland seems logically untenable. How can it make sense to ban a type of production (force-feeding) while permitting the sale of the produce (foie gras)? That's like banning torture in Britain, while permitting the judicial use of evidence obtained through torture elsewhere. Come to think of it, that used to be the UK's position as well, until the House of Lords last December. Somehow I doubt that the House of Lords will be making a similar intevention in respect of foie gras.
Second, those non-vegetarians who believe fois gras (or, for that matter, veal, caviar, or eggs from battery hens) is unethical, because the method of production is unacceptably brutal, probably need to reflect on the logic of their position -- given that a meat-based diet involves sanctioning some level of suffering by animals. When I put that point to Andrew Tyler of , he said, in effect, "I'd rather meat-eaters were inconsitently less cruel to animals than consistently more cruel".
Comments
The City of Chicago has already banned Foie Gras in the restaurants inside its city limits.
Yeah, I heard this debate and Tony wasn't great...his only argument seemed to be "well, if you ban this you should ban farming" with the implication that this showed something wrong with the logic, which of course it didn't - it backfired spectacularly and the animal rights guy had a ball with that reply...
Perhaps us meat eaters need to be a little more aggressive and stop dithering. The problem is that too many of us buy into the veggie premise that doing certain things to animals in morally wrong and if so should be illegal. We need to dispute that premise - not accept it.
Secondly, we need to be brave enough to say "yes, I am indeed putting my palate before considerations of a duck's life. So sue me."
SG
Just as some smokers are offended by the smoking ban, some foie gras fanciers, chefs and diners, in the Washington D.C. area have been organizing lavish feasts in protest against the proposed ban on it.
It's good to see that the art of sheer bloody-mindedness is alive and well. Long may it continue.
SG
Stephen, I don't get your position on this. Surely you must accept that reducing the suffering that animals experience is a good thing. The production of foie gras involves swelling a the liver of the duck or goose ten times its natural size through forced feeding. The animals are left in excruciating pain - and all to provide an expensive delicacy. Those of us who eat meat (and that includes me) need to argue that meat production is ethical to the extent that it aims for a human process. Foie gras production is not humane. Stick to sausages.
I agree with Jan. Stephen think your view through a bit more. Being so cavalier about making animals suffer for the sake of an expensive delicacy has an amoral ring to it. I am not a vegetarian, but I don't use bathroom products that have been tested on animals' eyes. That process causes unnecesary pain and suffering. I also eat only freerange eggs, because I don't agree with battery conditions. If we can reduce animal suffering, we should. As for those restaurants in Chicago flouting the ban: shame on you. And shame on you, Stephen, for throwing away your obvious intelligence making an argument for something so pointlessly abusive.
Pauly- Just to clarify, did you mean 'caviar' or 'cavalier'?
Jan: Reducing suffering to animals? Of course. I鈥檓 all for reducing suffering of animals. I鈥檓 not advocating that we inflict pain on them for no reason. The production of foie gras doesn鈥檛 inflict suffering for no reason. It's for a purpose. You might not like it - but it isn't gratuitous. You say you are a meat eater鈥n the grounds that it is ethical to the extent that it AIMS for a humane process. But, what if the process involves suffering - which it undoubtedly does in many cases. Aiming to be humane is hardly a good defence - you鈥檙e either humane or you're not - you don鈥檛 get brownie points for aiming to be humane if you fail to be humane. Stick to sausages, eh? Are you sure the cows or pigs in your sausages didn鈥檛 suffer? Do you check every time you buy a sausage? Are you happy if there is 鈥渏ust a little bit鈥 of suffering, eh? How much is too much? Perhaps you should be a vegetarian.
Pauly: See my above reply - much of it applies to your comment too.
In general: my major gripe is with the argument 鈥渋f it causes suffering it is immoral and therefore should be banned.鈥 Why should everything deemed to be immoral be banned? I don鈥檛 think that it鈥檚 the job of government to legislate morality. In my view of politics government can only justifiably legislate to uphold the rights of the people within it鈥檚 borders - their right to life, to own property, etc鈥 call it 鈥渓ibertarian minimalism.鈥 Even if you believe foie gras is immoral, why presume this is good enough grounds for a ban?
Lastly, you both buy into a particular form of ethics, seemingly without even knowing it. The ethic is of the utilitarian family and judges actions on the extent to which they cause or reduce suffering. I鈥檒l not get in to why but this ethic is far from unchallengeable. Incidentally it's the same ethic used by Peter Singer to justify vegetarianism - a piece of philosophy that nearly convinced me a few years ago.
To read more of my position on this issue see my blogsite.
SG
Stephen,
You think that causing suffering to animals is jusified because it is designed to produce nice-tasting meat? That's the justification for inflicting extreme pain? Well, that may work for you as an argument, but you're welcome to it. Eating meat is one thing, but causing suffering to an animal unnecessarily is quite another. I think it's possible to eat meat which results from a humane process - that is, a process that has deliberately minimised pain and suffering. My argument is that eating meat is permissible ethically when the meat results from a humane process. Eating meat is not permissible ethically if the animal has been mistreated or the meat results from an inhumane process. You and I can have a conversation about what constitutes a humane process, and I'm happy to do that, but for me the process required for foie gras wouldn't pass the test.
You seem to believe that human beings have no ethical obligations with respect to animals. Is that your view? Human beings can inflict as much pain and suffering on an animal as we see fit? Do you REALLY believe that? As long as I get pleasure from the abuse or mistreatment of an animal, that justifies it? Whether that pleasure is the taste of the animal's meat or some other pleasure?
Be clear: what moral principle do you propose in order to distinguish between the moral use of an animal and the immoral use of an animal?
Then there's your view on government. Libertarian minimalism ... which seems to imply that you think the legislature has no role in animal welfare either. At present, there are laws protecting animals in the UK. The authorities can make arrests when someone tortures an animal. I think that's a good thing. You disagree. Recently, on the news, we saw images of a thug in Northern Ireland hurling a live cat onto a bonfire, while crowds cheered at the animal's exruciating death. He was arrested. He SHOULD have been arrested.
Stephen thinks any argument concerned with the reduction of suffering must imply utilitarianism. This is simply not so. Even Kant was concerned about the reduction of suffering. I didn't read Jan's comments to imply utilitarianism. Utilitarianism states that moral and immoral action should be understood in terms of the reduction or otherwise of suffering. But other ethical systems express concern about reducing suffering without making that single concern the ONLY matter of ethical importance. Christian ethics is not a utilitarian ethic, but Christian ethics is certainly concerned with suffering and calls Christians to reduce the level of suffering in the world. I believe that God is concerned about the environment and about animals - not merely human beings. I believe reducing harm to the environment and reducing suffering in the humand and non-human world are christian moral concerns. I am not a utilitarian to the extent that I have those concerns.
I'm glad Stephen is raising questions about moral thinking. I'm just not clear on what basis he would defend a view that human beings have no ethical obligations in respect of animals.
As for the libertarian minimalism, the scenario mentioned about the torture of a cat demonstrates the need for governmental intervention. I am not a supporter of big states either, but there is certainly a role for lawmakers in cases where people are abused, or animals abused, or the environment is abused.
To paraphrae Somerset Maugham - it's a perfectly good way of using up geese and ducks.
But seriously folks, I love fois gras (and rilettes, confit etc), but won't eat battery chickens, or pigs. That's a real cruelty. Respect your animals, br prepared to look them in the eye when they die and respect their life and their flesh.
If you want to ban one really cruel poultry product, make it the chicken (mc)nugget.
Just a note to say that rather than continue these discussions over two posts we should stick to one - the post regarding Singer.
Jan - I'm incredibly interested in discussing that issue with you. Lets continue on the other post where I've left you a few questions.
SG