An unsent letter from 2013
I am a capitalist. Though many might claim otherwise. My principal belief that motivates this counter-claim is that I do not believe that increasing ones bottom line is an argument for morality by itself. "I did action X because it generates more income" is not acceptable, in my mind, as an argument for worth to further the claim that action X is moral.
A business entity providing goods and services to customers for income is the basis of our economy. It's a good idea, at its heart: potential customers get access to more than they otherwise would and in achieving this, the entity gains some monetary reward. Over time this has grown both in size and complexity to the point that analysing modern businesses in this way is an over-simplification at best. But of the many things that are missing, is something so simple one might have included it in the original statement. Morality. Ethics. That definition of an entity would include a guild of assassins but, for such an extreme example, I'm confident few would think assassins have a moral place in a modern economy.
The argument of the bottom line has allowed people to get away with too much. Ridiculous examples like assassins guilds aside, there are still sufficiently unethical business entities in existence today such that most people would garner consensus on their amorality. Pyramid schemes, the motivations for occupy Wall St., the "businesses" of corrupt politicians and gangsters are all primarily motivated by increasing their income.
Puppy mills justify their deplorable treatment of humanity's favourite animal by claiming to be meeting a need that can't be met by animal breeders and handlers. A similar argument is made by abattoir workers' treatment of livestock before they are killed. "We need to electrocute these cows before they are killed so they don't feel the pain of bleeding out as a result their throats cut by a circular saw" is a commonly accepted argument that is rarely followed up by "And what is the reason for hanging them upside down in suspended suspense so that they can watch the cows ahead of them be electrocuted and slaughtered?". In both cases, the point could be made that in order to serve up the unimaginable quantity of meat we consume, a degree of unpalatable slaughter automation (Incidentally, Slaughtomation would be an incredible name for a horror film) is necessary. But, to me at least, this sounds like the age-old argument of "The end justifies the means". We all want to eat meat so we slaughter them by the tonne and treat animals cruelly. We all want to own a dog, so we produce them like they were factory products and treat animals cruelly.
So in order to increase supply to satisfy modern quantities of demand (and there is a hell of a lot of demand for meat and puppies, in particular in the wake of a PETA campaign or film featuring a dog), we need to sacrifice outdated concepts of morality and ethics. But there is a third element to the concepts of supply and demand: price. If price increases, demand drops. Unfortunately, demand dropping means sub-optimal income for the business (they sell less than would be the most efficient amount to sell for any price). So in reality it isn't about meeting huge demands at all; it's about meeting those huge demands while still maximising income. Unfortunately for puppy mills and the meat industry, "the profit margin justifies the means" is not an argument with established efficacy.
Yesterday I bought half a kilo of beef for $3. A week before I bought a kilo for $4. Both were on 'special' at the supermarket and market respectfully, but as I understand it 'special' means selling at reduced profit (never at a loss). That retail price is competitive with that of many vegetables.
Vegetables that would have been easier to grow, are better for you (relative to adding more meat to the average diet) and are better for the environment i.e. less land used and plants convert CO2 to O2 and (most) don't produce methane.
This isn't an argument for vegetarianism, but it is an acknowledgement that we are meeting our incredibly high meat demand using methods that ethically we would condemn if we weren't able to ignore them. We could meet the same demand, a higher one in fact, by supplementing our meat consumption with some yummy meat-free dishes without increasing overall dietary costs for the average consumer, quite possibly decreasing them in fact.
As for the industrialised state of the pet industry, puppy mills and their equivalents don't just cater for people seeking genuine pet ownership, pets ready availability in pet stores (one step away from a drive-through experience) allows for our whims and wishes to get the better of us whenever we are exposed to a cute puppy on an ad to make us want to buy breakfast cereal, toilet paper, or paint. And we are exposed to such things constantly. By contacting breeders and waiting for pets availability, or by applying to go through the adoption process, it gives us time to reflect on our reasons for wanting a pet and whether we are prepared for the responsibilities and downsides that come with it. Pounds, breeders, rescue groups, and private owners all vet potential owners as well, limiting the damage (to the best of their ability) to the animal by not placing them with an unsuitable owner.
This would be further improved by us enacting some social change to do away with toxic notions like pets being 'practice for having children' or as toys for children. Encouraging couples who want to evaluate each other as potential parents to use more ethical and effective means of doing so, for example, honest conversation - an excellent life skill for interpersonal relationships among other things. I'm not saying we should do away with pets for kids, that is laughable, but to make them less readily accessible in the form of pet stores that enable impulse purchases of living creatures would also put a small burden on us as a society to accept that unavailability. While pet stores are great for entertaining children at a mall or shopping centre, perhaps petting zoos or designated pet areas could substitute as a more ethical and wholesome activity. And probably improve the accessibility of malls for those who do decide to take on pets and don't want to leave their "beloved" practice-child in a hot car while they do their shopping.
Ultimately, my argument is not only could we easily afford ethics and morality, we could do so more affordably and healthily than we are now, and we could feel better that we aren't keeping our despicable practices out of sight and mind. It wouldn't even be that difficult and we could still maximise for income as capitalists are always going to. We would just need to reflect on our practices and no longer indemnify their ethicality by the argument of the bottom line.
posted by sean at
08:52
1 Comments
