moral value of dairy products?

Question

Is the consumption of dairy products or eggs compatible with a) the theory of animal rights and b) equal consideration?

Ad a) How can a right of ownership be defended, i.e. every animal is owner of her product, and what follows from it? How plausible is a right of "no intervention", i.e. that no human may use, deprive another animal of their products or make any actions that may result in the afore mentioned? For what animals does it count? And if this right holds for bees or clams, why not for plants?

Ad b) Is there an interest of a sentient animal towards her products, comparable to our interest towards our "products", that would forbid us to use it? Is a cow in the same way interested in her milk as a mother is in hers? (Provided that the cow can feed her calf as long and as much as she wishes.) Considering that even human mothers donate their milk, and considering that an animal cannot verbally express agreement, how strong should one judge the relationship between a mammal and her milk? Or a bird and her eggs, if reproduction is guaranteed?

NOTE: Please excuse the chain of questions. I feel that those questions lead into on another and wish to find answers to as many as possible.

Answer 1

I think that perhaps the biggest point here is that chemically identical but ethically "clean" dairy products could be developed using humane methods, and this would allow consumption with no ethical ramifications. However, that isn't immediately viable or what you're asking, so I've attempted to address your sub-points more closely.

a) To borrow from economics, animals could reasonably be held to own everything they produce themselves. I believe that technology is the long term solution to no intervention: eventually we put all the humans in spaceship and fly off, leaving Earth as a nature reserve (maybe clean it up a bit first). The costs of doing this immediately would be incredibly high, even just measuring in terms of animal welfare, but in the mean time I believe equal consideration is a fairly reasonable guide as a global utilitarianism (across species). As plants don't implement nervous systems, they can be reasonably held to either have no utility curve, or at the very least, the worst possible endocrine distress a plant can experience can be held to be less costly than that of any organism with a nervous system. I would argue that equal consideration does hold for plants, it's just that they experience pain and utility to a lesser extent due to their structure's natural tendency toward stoicism.

b) Reproduction and associated overhead are not zero cost processes, that is, even if there is sufficient milk for offspring, a maternal mammal would still have to more rapidly deplete her body to provide additional milk. As this is nonconsensual by definition, it is relatively difficult (but not impossible) to defend morally.

Attempted defense:

It is important to consider that this probabilistically increased milk production and associated body degradation is a low cost operation, and violation of rights in this case may be globally optimal in equal consideration as, for example, the provision of milk for a human caretaker may be considered a form of mutual welfare or a service purchased with labor. In some cases, the greater good invalidates the need for consent. Just as paramedics are permitted to assist unconscious patients incapable of communication, it is not unreasonable to argue that a non-consensual partnership between humans and other animals is not just ethically acceptable, but possibly necessary. Perhaps a better example is the idea of spaying and neutering cats and dogs- non-consensual, a violation of individual liberties, but generally considered a moral mandate.

As mentioned earlier, eggs are an even more difficult argument, but it could still be made.

Answer 2

If done in a humane way, using natural animal 'products' such as milk and eggs is perfectly fine. Animals should be treated with respect, and they should not be 'over-used', but otherwise I see no problems with it.

Answer 3

If we grant that a single dairy cow does indeed have a right to her own milk, what would she do with it?

Cows that have calves that are young enough to nurse are allowed to do so. Their milk is used for its intended purpose until the infant no longer requires it. At that point, in nature, her milk would dry up until she gave birth again. Instead she is artificially suckled to stimulate continued milk production and that milk is taken for use by humans. It is, in a sense artificially produced in that it is not produced to nourish a calf. If the cow was allowed to keep it she would have no use for it.

Answer 4

From my perspective, the only rights animals and plants have, are those provided by their "owners." If they are "wild," then it's the rights provided by the government (and the laws). On their own, I only see their right to fight and defend themselves (and/or other members of their group) to the best of their ability against all predators. If they are owned by somebody, then it is the owner's responsibility to provide any rights they want for them. From this perspective, the questions of "compatibility" and "equal consideration" are indeterminable/irrelevant, as animals and plants, on their own, have no/minimum rights.

Answer 5

The more fundamental question is what rights should animals be given. That said, the animals would never have lived were it not for their product. If you take a evutionary view the organisms are benefiting from a symbiosis that has allowed them to successfully reproduce far beyond what they would otherwise have achieved. If succes for an animal is judged by a life free from discomfort and meeting their biological drives then it is perfectly possible / realistic that they would, if sentient, select the current arrangement. The alternative being an end to their species in its current form or a life of hardship and peril if returned to the wild.