theycanpointoutthat animalskilled forfood donot live
without suffering either. Even the bullfight enthusiast can
arguethatthedeathofthebullintheringgivespleasureto
thousands of spectators, while the death of the steer in a
slaughterhousegivespleasureonlytothefewpeoplewhoeat
somepartofit;andwhileintheendthebullmaysuffermore
acute
painthanthesteer,formostofhislifeitisthebullwhois
better treated.
Thechargeofinconsistencyreallygivesnologicalsupportto
thedefendersofcruelpractices.AsBrigidBrophyhasputit,
itremainstruethatitiscrueltobreakpeople’slegs,evenif
thestatementismadebysomeonein thehabitofbreaking
people’sarms.^24 Yet people whoseconduct isinconsistent
withtheirprofessedbeliefswillfinditdifficulttopersuade
othersthattheirbeliefsareright;and theywillfinditeven
moredifficulttopersuadeotherstoactonthosebeliefs.Of
course, it is always possible to find some reason for
distinguishing between, say, wearing furs and wearing
leather:manyfur-bearinganimalsdieonlyafterhoursoreven
daysspentwithalegcaughtinasteel-toothedtrap,whilethe
animals from whoseskins leatheris made are spared this
agony.^25 There is a tendency, however, for these fine
distinctionstoblunttheforceoftheoriginalcriticism;andin
somecasesIdonotthinkdistinctionscanvalidlybedrawnat
all.Why, forinstance,is thehunterwhoshootsa deerfor
venisonsubjecttomorecriticismthanthepersonwhobuysa
hamatthesupermarket?Overall,itisprobablytheintensively
reared pig who has suffered more.
The first chapter of this book sets out a clear ethical
principle—of equal consideration of the interests of all