DOC PREVIEW
CU-Boulder ECON 4999 - Food for Thought

This preview shows page 1-2 out of 6 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 6 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

David J. Cooke Econ 4999 Food for Thought Arguably, it was only about 140 years ago that Darwin opened the door to our seeing that we humans are products of the same extraordinary, slow, and unpredictable process as are all living creatures-that we are not unique in the entire world in terms of our origins.1 Despite the similarities we share with animals, we still find ourselves debating whether or not other species should be included in our society. In other words, should we extend them the same rights we all take for granted. Moreover, we still see animals being harvested for food and hunted for trophies regularly. Upon breaking down the idea that we all stem from the same process, how can one justify killing animals? There are indeed moral dilemmas that result from the debate of hunting animals, but this phenomenon has been persistent through the test of time. The theory of evolution is one that prescribes to the “survival of the fittest” ideology. But are we not all trying to survive the competition from within our own societies? Below I hope to clearly address the issues surrounding the ethics of hunting animals for food.2 I will take a critical look at multiple schools of thought pertaining to this issue. In order to determine whether animals are entitled to our rights under an economic perspective, they need to belong to our society. In the social sciences, society has been used to mean a grouping of individuals that form a semi-closed social system, in which most interactions are with other individuals belonging to that group.3 The definition above raises an interesting anecdote when applied towards animal inclusion in 1 VanDeVeer, Pierce “The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book”: Chapter 1, 2008 2 I will be excluding higher primates for the sake of my discussion because as we know it is illegal, even impossible to hunt gorillas, chimpanzee’s etc. in this country. I am not saying this doesn’t happen in other parts of the world, but I will be excluding these groups for the purpose of my analysis, as I will be limiting my discussion to the United States. 3 Wikipedia Encyclopedia Online, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society, 2008society. Since hunting is limited to wild animals in their natural setting, most interactions of wild animals would be with other animals. I understand the fact that outdoor recreation and mountain top homes increases social interaction between humans and animals, but I would not claim that as most interactions. Consider this: a wild elk in downtown Chicago. I admit this is not exactly an animal’s natural setting, but I would go ahead and say that the Elk could not survive city life on any level (moral, legal, social). If the animal, or Elk in my example, cannot survive let alone interact with the individuals belonging to the group, they do not belong. Under these assumptions an economist would view it tolerable to kill animals not included in our society. Another school of thought is that of Ethical Egoism, which states that each person ought to act in such a manner as to promote (or maximize) her or his self-interest.4 Ethical egoism is not unconnected with the idea of Social Darwinism. Generally speaking, Social Darwinists prescribe to the idea that only the fittest survive. From an evolutionary standpoint, flaws in ones adaptive characteristics rendered their extinction. If a particular species was weak, it did not survive. Technically speaking, the human ability to manufacture weapons and change their environment could be viewed as an adaptive characteristic, which propagates the idea of evolutionary survival of the fittest. So when this concept is applied to the issue of hunting animals, someone of this school of thought would deem it permissible. In other words, if hunting another species is in ones best self-interest, then one who prescribes to Ethical Egoism would confirm this notion. 4 VanDeVeer, Pierce “The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book”: Chapter 1 ,2008From an economist viewpoint, one could see how survival of the fittest could drive competition. Besides, with the weak gone are we not more efficient? Someone prescribing to Darwinian Theory might consider this fair, yet it doesn’t seem right on equitable grounds. I am not saying hunting is a Pareto improvement, but if animals are not considered apart of our society, it would be if the benefits to the gainers are greater than the costs to the losers. A supply and demand analysis of hunting might make a case for increased social welfare from hunting. The United States Fish and Wild Life Service collects information annually on the number of hunting licenses sold. In 2006 there were a reported 14 million licenses sold.5 If one assumes that hunting reduces meat consumption from commercial grocers, it would effectively reduce the market demand for meat. Upon this reduction, economics tells us we will see a relative increase in supply and thus a subsequent reduction in price. Now essential proteins have been made more affordable making other members of society better off. And since I would say there are more meat eaters than vegetarians we may have a case for a potential Pareto improvement. Animals rights activist support the claim that humans can survive without animal proteins in their diet. Although this may be true, it is not a dietary choice recommended by the North American Health authority. According to the USDA dietary guidelines, the recommended diet is one with most of your calories coming from grain products, vegetables, fruits, low fat milk products, lean meats, fish and poultry.6 The United States Department of Agriculture includes red meat, fish, and poultry in our recommended 5 Remington, Tom “Continuing Misinformation about Declining Hunter Numbers” http://ushuntingtoday.com/news/?p=280 ,2008 6 Powlesland, Jim “Eating Meat is Natural” http://www.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/meat.txt ,2008healthy diet. If it is one’s self-interest to be healthy, the USDA recommends eating meat. Although lacto-ovo-vegetarians, or vegetarians who enjoy milk products and eggs, eat a healthy diet, vegan diets rely on artificial supplements and by definition are incomplete and unnatural.7 When I asked my lacto-ovo-vegetarian friend why she chooses not to eat meat, she replied “because it is cruel to the animal”. In rebuttal, isn’t caging chickens and cows for their entire


View Full Document

CU-Boulder ECON 4999 - Food for Thought

Documents in this Course
Syllabus

Syllabus

18 pages

Poverty

Poverty

6 pages

Essay

Essay

9 pages

Load more
Download Food for Thought
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Food for Thought and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Food for Thought 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?