Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food by Gene Baur discusses his efforts to provide sanctuary for farm animals, part autobiographical, part discussion of the harms of factory farming. Life is not much better since the days of Animal Liberation by Peter Singer. In discussing lethal injection, a column noted how we treat pets as a special class of animals, ignoring the misuse of various others because, well, we like to eat them. The fact that your segmented worm is not as much of an individual as a cow or pig ... and we can admit as such ... does not really change this.
My road to vegetarianism was based on the basic principle that people should be treated as individuals. This is in part a matter of their self-worth and the importance of fair dealing. Animals too are wondrous creatures. You next look at the real difference between many animals and human animals, including the fact that we (and not just out of mere emotion) realize that a pet can be an "individual" too. For instance, their ability to feel pain and experience life in various ways.
And, you wonder, well ... to save lives, maybe it is okay in various cases to hurt certain animals. [There are various alternatives, often leading to better results, and doing so to sell another brand of cosmetics is not the same thing.] But, to eat, when there are plenty of other good stuff out there? Particularly given current food production involves truly inhumane conditions? Conditions harsh both for the animals and humans. See, e.g., Fast Food Nation, which is much recommended (did not see the movie). To get fur? A trophy? Don't think so.
I also don't think some sort of soul divides the two. Besides, various religious arguments are in place providing our obligations to animals. In fact, the book quotes the current pope on the point. This includes some that are vegan or vegetarian. The vegan path (which actually means "the ultimate ethic" of non-violence) is best. But, given the breadth of the problem, damning those who are not there (and Al Gore underlines that care of nature* overall is not really a bad thing either) yet is silly. Any number of people can do more for their causes, which includes this writer in spades, but this is no way to damn those who do quite a lot.
[Also: The book highlights the value of doing what you can, even if your own efforts are but a drop in the bucket. A direct value of vegetarianism for me is akin to those who act in a certain way even if everyone else does not -- they themselves at least do not join in the wrongdoing. Individual acts also do add up, as shown by the number of small donations to Obama's campaign.]
Victoria Moran wrote a book some time ago, a conveniently small paperback version is available, entitled Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic, which underlines that veganism is not just a matter of not eating animal products or avoiding things like leather and wool. It is a way of living. Those who do not go all the way still often do quite a lot in the right direction. The breadth of the effort is underlined by a famous dissent by Justice Douglas, who argued that natural resources should have standing for their own sake. His writings overall underline Douglas saw utilitarian benefit to this, believing nature is essential for human happiness, and thriving in nature himself. [Though lesser in scope, Justice Blackmun also had a touching dissent, an early recognition of his human approach to judging.]
From his dissent:
Inanimate objects are sometimes parties in litigation. A ship has a legal personality, a fiction found useful for maritime purposes. The corporation sole - a creature of ecclesiastical law - is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation is a "person" for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes.
So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.
Also, consider an interesting blog post linking to this:
The Federal Constitution requires "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms". The ECNH’s key tasks include putting this concept into concrete terms.
That is, the Swiss Constitution. Gene Baur would surely be supportive, realizing that protecting animals, including you and me, includes respecting the world we live in. It is all connected and disrespect of one has a habit of affecting the rest. The harm factory farming does to the environment underlines the point. Anyway, the book tells a straightforward story, one even certain fast food places are starting to respect to the degree they are requiring limited better treatment of the animals that go in their products. It also supplies snapshots of some of the animals saved.
I at times wanted a bit more bite (it seems a bit predictable) and a bit more on mental abilities and experiences of animals thru a scientific lens. It is not a unique sort of book, basically, in the literature. But, it is a good reminder of the individual lives of the food on our plates. And, the concern voiced even by some of those who raise animals for food underlines the breadth of its audience.
---
* Robert Kennedy Jr. also provided a blurb for this book.