Mahatma Gandhi acutely observed that “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” To seek to reduce the suffering of those who are completely under one’s domination and unable to fight back is truly a mark of a civilized society.
Charting the progress of animal-welfare legislation around the world is therefore an indication of moral progress more generally. Last month, parallel developments on opposite sides of the world gave us grounds for thinking that the world may, slowly and haltingly, be becoming a little more civilized.
First, the British House of Commons passed a motion directing the government to impose a ban on the use of wild animals in circuses. The motion followed the release of undercover footage, obtained by Animal Defenders International, of a circus worker repeatedly beating Anne, an elephant. The measure was, at least initially, opposed by the Conservative government, but supported by members of all political parties. In a triumph for parliamentary democracy, the motion passed without dissent.
More controversially, the lower house of the Dutch parliament passed a law giving the Jewish and Islamic communities a year to provide evidence that animals slaughtered by traditional methods do not experience greater pain than those that are stunned before they are killed. If the evidence cannot be provided, stunning before slaughter will be required in the Netherlands.
At times, it has seemed that gains for animals in Western countries have been outweighed by increasing animal abuse in China, as growing prosperity there boosts demand for animal products. I found it difficult to watch the videotape of the beating of Anne, but that recording did not compare to videos I have seen of animal cruelty in China.
The sickening footage available online shows bears kept in cages so small that they cannot stand up, or in some cases move at all, so that bile can be taken from them. Worse still (if one can compare such atrocities) is a video showing fur-bearing animals being skinned alive and thrown onto a pile of other animals, where they are left to die slowly.
In light — perhaps one should say darkness — of such images, it is sometimes suggested that animal welfare is exclusively a Western concern. However, that is implausible, given that Buddhist tradition places more emphasis on concern for animals than Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
Long before Western philosophers included animals in their ethics, Chinese philosophers like Chuang Tzu (莊子) said that love should permeate relations not only between humans, but between all sentient beings. Nowadays, China has its own animal-rights campaigners, and there are signs that their message is beginning to be heard.
One recent sign again concerns circuses. Chinese zoos have drawn crowds by staging animal spectacles and by allowing members of the public to buy live chickens, goats and horses in order to watch them being pulled apart by lions, tigers and other big cats. The Chinese government has since forbidden state-owned zoos from taking part in such cruelty.
Welcome as these initiatives are, the number of animals in circuses and zoos is tiny compared with the tens of billions of animals suffering in factory farms. In this area, Western countries have set a deplorable example.
However, the EU has recently recognized that the intensive confinement of farm animals has gone too far. It has already outlawed keeping veal calves in individual stalls; and, in six months, it will be illegal in all 27 EU countries, from Portugal to Poland and from Britain to Greece, to keep laying hens in the bare-wire cages that today dominate the egg industry around the world. In January 2013, keeping breeding sows in individual stalls will also be prohibited.
The US lags behind Europe in getting rid of the worst forms of abuse of farm animals. The problem does not lie with voters, who, in states like Florida, Arizona and California, have shown that they want farm animals to have better protection than the animal industries typically provide. The biggest problems are in those states that lack a mechanism for people to initiate a referendum on how farm animals should be treated. Unfortunately, this group includes the Midwestern and southern states, where the majority of the US’ farmed animals are produced.
MUCH LEFT TO DO
China’s centralized government can, if it so chooses, ensure that animal-welfare laws apply throughout the country. The animal-welfare movement in China should not be satisfied with its small, but conspicuous, success regarding animal abuse in zoos. It must move on to the far more significant target of better living conditions and more humane deaths for bears and fur-bearing animals, as well as for cows, pigs, laying hens and chickens.
There remain many other countries with deplorable animal-welfare standards. In Indonesia, for example, Animals Australia recorded undercover videos showing such brutal treatment of Australian-raised cattle that Canberra suspended cattle exports to the country. Now some members of parliament are calling for a permanent ban. The best hope for further progress, it seems, lies in animal welfare becoming, like human rights, an international issue that affects countries’ reputations.
Peter Singer is professor of bioethics at Princeton University and laureate professor at the University of Melbourne.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE
An article on the Nature magazine Web site reports that 22 scientists last month wrote to the daily Dagens Nyheter criticizing Sweden’s no-lockdown response to COVID-19. However, evidence-based analysis shows that a lockdown is not a one-size-fits-all strategy and Sweden is showing the world a sustainable way for everybody to fearlessly live with the virus, which is an inevitable situation that everyone must face and accept for a while. The biggest myth about lockdowns is that they are the only solution when an epidemic worsens. A lockdown is a measure to cordon off a seriously affected area so that people in
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke during the opening ceremony of this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). For the first time in the assembly’s history, attendees, including Xi, had to dial in virtually. Xi made no acknowledgement of the Chinese government’s role in causing the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was there any meaningful apology. Instead, he painted China as a benign force for good and a friend to all nations. Except Taiwan, of course. The address was a reheated version of the speech Xi gave at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Xi again attempted to step into the
China’s prevention of Taiwan’s participation as an observer at the World Health Assembly (WHA), the WHO and other UN specialized institutions is misleading the world. China always asserts that UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 established the so-called “one China principle,” in which Taiwan is a province of China. This is fake information that is part of China’s grand external propaganda strategy. Resolution 2758 made clear that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is the sole legitimate representative of China at the UN and its specialized institutions. However, there is not a single word related to Taiwan in the resolution, no mention of the