Is "A Life Worth Living" a "Good Life?"
The purpose of this brief essay is to discuss two phrases that are used in discussions of nonhuman animal (animal) welfare. Many people write about giving animals a "good life" and by this they mean that we should try as hard as we can to do all we can to have individuals live as free from pain and suffering as possible, given what supposedly needs to be done with and to them. Of course, a "good life" is not necessarily truly anything of the sort, however, it can be used as a "feel good" phrase to say something like, "We're doing all we can to improve their compromised lives because we have to use them."
Another phrase, namely, "A life worth living," is popping up more and more and it seems like this is a more ambiguous and less restrictive way to justify how we treat other animals in any number of venues ranging from factory farms to laboratories to zoos.
"Food animals" and "research animals": Does "killing them softly" provide "A life worth living?"
Let me give two examples, one from the animal-industrial food complex and one from laboratories, where we can read about giving animals "A life worth living." Billions of animals are used annually for human food, despite the fact that there are numerous injustices in this practice. In an essay by Jennifer Demeritt called "See No Evil: Temple Grandin Designs Around Animals' Needs" we read, "'Until gestation crates are banned by law in the U.S.,' says Grandin, 'what's going to drive a lot of things in the future is the customer. Young people are getting more concerned about where their food comes from.' That puts pressure on food producers to adopt more humane practices. And that leads to the ultimate goal for animals, in Grandin's eyes, 'A life worth living.'" (my emphasis) Dr. Grandin is known for her work to make the lives of factory produced animals more humane and has been "killing them softly at slaughterhouses for 30 years." Indeed, to be fair, her work possibly makes "better" the lives of a very few of the millions upon millions of "food animals," but their "better life" is not necessarily "A life worth living" nor a "good life," and millions upon millions of these sentient beings still deeply suffer on the way to our plates. I expect they wouldn't choose to do it again -- to relive the same life they had before being processed and killed -- if they were given the choice.
Another example of the use of the phrase "A life worth living" can be found in Dr. David Mellor's recent and comprehensive essay called "Updating Animal Welfare Thinking: Moving beyond the "Five Freedoms" towards "A Life Worth Living". Both Drs. Grandin and Mellor, iconic animal welfarists, recognize that animals have emotional lives, that they can suffer deeply, and that if we continue to use them for food and in research we need to recognize this well-supported fact and do as much as we can to alleviate the pain and suffering as they are used and then killed "in the name of food" or "in the name of science."
Dr. Grandin continues her work and has not called for an end to factory farming, a move that allows her to continue her work despite the fact that millions of animals experience extreme abuse from the time they are born until the time they die. Dr. Mellor writes "negative experiences of thirst, hunger, discomfort and pain, and others identified subsequently, including breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, debility, weakness and sickness, can never be eliminated, merely temporarily neutralised." He also writes,
"Animal welfare management should aim to reduce the intensity of survival-critical negative affects to tolerable levels that nevertheless still elicit the required behaviours, and should also provide opportunities for animals to behave in ways they find rewarding, noting that poor management of survival-critical affects reduces animals' motivation to utilize such rewarding opportunities. This biologically more accurate understanding provides support for reviewing the adequacy of provisions in current codes of welfare or practice in order to ensure that animals are given greater opportunities to experience positive welfare states. The purpose is to help animals to have lives worth living, which is not possible when the predominant focus of such codes is on survival-critical measures." (my emphasis)
Cutting through the chase, Dr. Mellor rightly recognizes that negative experiences cannot be eliminated, so we need to do the best we can so that we can continue on with the research. This is similar to trying to improve the lives of factory food animals while keeping the industry alive and kicking.
What's "A life worth living?"
This question could easily result in numerous long essays and books, and that is not my intention here. Rather, I'd like people to weigh in on what the phrase "A life worth living" means and how it compares to giving an individual a "good life." Of course, these are relative terms in a number of different ways. First, some people claim they're giving individuals a "better life" because they're improving, say, housing conditions, that are supposedly more humane and allow for more movement. However, having a "better life" does not mean that the individuals are moving on to a "good life," just a supposedly better one. Second, there is a good deal of speciesism here. One example of speciesistic thinking centers on the fact that what we call a "good life" or "A life worth living" for a nonhuman is invariably one of lower quality than for a human. Indeed, this is among the reasons why nonhumans are used in situations where humans are not.
Would you do it to your dog? A double standard
Another example of speciesism is located among the nonhumans themselves. We apply a double standard in that we don't typically use the same measures for assessing quality of life for our companion animals (pets) as we do, for example, for "food animals" or "research animals." Most people work hard to give the animals with whom they share their homes the best life they can, a good life and a life worth living. In an essay I wrote called "What's a Good Life for an Old Dog?" I used the phrase "a good life," and I feel that Inuk, the dog about whom I wrote, also had "A life worth living."
Many people are surprised, and a few taken back, when I ask, "Would you do it to your dog" when I refer to the ways in which other animals are used and brutally abused in different venues. However, this is a useful question for getting a motivated discussion going because when talking about mammals, we all share the same neuroanatomy and neurochemicals that play a role in individuals' emotional lives. A dog is no more sentient than, for example, a cow, pig, or mouse or rat. All of these and other mammals can suffer deep and prolonged pain (please see "Do 'Smarter' Dogs Really Suffer More than 'Dumber" Mice?'"). So, why allow cows, pigs, mice, rats, and other mammals to be treated in ways in which we would not allow our companion animals to be treated?
Another sort of discrimination, though it is not truly speciesism, is that laboratory dogs, for example, are used and abused in ways in which we would never allow our companion dogs at home to be treated. We also need to expand our moral circle because research has shown that birds, fish, and other animals also experience a broad array of emotions.
The phrase "A life worth living" cheapens the lives of other animals
As I was writing this essay I came across an essay called "Government planning to repeal animal welfare codes" in which we read, "Conservative ministers are planning to repeal an array of official guidance on animal welfare standards, starting with a move to put the code on chicken-farming into the hands of the poultry industry." As my friend Betty Moss notes, this is like the fox guarding the hen house. This move will allow those in the poultry industry to claim that the chickens are having "A life worth living," but surely it is not a "good life." It's what the humans decide is "A life worth living" so that the chickens can continue to be used and abused for food.
My take is that the phrase "A life worth living" cheapens the lives of the animals to whom it is applied, and it lowers the criteria we would use to claim that an animal is enjoying a "good life." However, both phrases are problematic, and, of course, we decide what "A life worth living" is and what a "good life" is, and neither results in stopping the use of animals and ultimately harming and killing them for human ends.
The science of animal well-being: Moving toward a more compassionate moral framework
I feel uneasy about the use of the phrase "A life worth living." Dr. Mellor's essay nicely spells out my concerns -- we need to improve the lives of the animals and give individuals "A life worth living" so we can continue to use them and so that they do what we ask of them when we subject them to this or that situation. This is rather condescending and dishonorable and fosters the welfare paradigm in which billions of other animals are used and abused for human ends. Surely we can do much better than this.
In a forthcoming book, Jessica Pierce and I argue that animal protection needs an animal-centered "science of animal well-being." We suggest that following the principles of the rapidly growing international field called "compassionate conservation namely, "First do no harm" and "the life of every individual matters," provides a promising and workable blueprint for the much-needed and long overdue shift from welfarism to a more compassionate moral framework. Please stay tuned for more on these ideas.
Marc Bekoff's latest books are Jasper's Story: Saving Moon Bears (with Jill Robinson), Ignoring Nature No More: The Case for Compassionate Conservation, Why Dogs Hump and Bees Get Depressed: The Fascinating Science of Animal Intelligence, Emotions, Friendship, and Conservation, Rewilding Our Hearts: Building Pathways of Compassion and Coexistence, and The Jane Effect: Celebrating Jane Goodall (edited with Dale Peterson). (Homepage: marcbekoff.com; @MarcBekoff)