|Frans de Waal explains 'the natural life cycle' to Janine Abbring|
on Dutch television, August 20th 2017
The moment Frans de Waal admits eating meat
and is met with amazement and disbelief
by the interviewster Janine Abbring. (in Dutch)
I find his meat eating habit completely unexpected and his subsequent defense very disappointing. First, he keeps eating meat in full knowledge of the deplorable situation of the millions and billions of animals in the meat industry. How can this be? If you know something is bad, a morally acting person stops doing it, or at least does everything in his power to stop doing it. His remarks about people being ready to eat less meat contributes even more to the confusion.
Second, he gives a naive and since long discredited defense for his meat eating habit. He calls it 'the natural cycle of life': in nature animals eat animals, we are being consumed by worms after our death, etc. But this clearly is a form of the naturalistic fallacy. Nobody denies the existence of carnivores in nature, but we cannot derive moral values from that fact. The argument is equivalent with: "I eat meat because lions eat meat". He could have easily taken his beloved chimps as a moral example, because they are omnivores just like us and are evolutionary closer to us than lions. Chimps and bonobo's do eat meat occasionally . But formulated as "I eat meat because chimps do" makes the naivety of the whole idea perfectly clear, and so is the whole 'natural cycle of life' idea .
There is another problem with his argument. If meat eating is natural, then reducing meat consumption is unnatural. How does he derive reducing meat consumption from 'the natural life cycle'?.
The most intellectually disturbing fact is that he knows the "is/ought distinction" in his book The Bonobo and the Atheist . He knows that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy or at least that it is very problematic.
|The age of empathy?|
Nature's Lessons for a kinder society?
Third, on Dutch television he told he eats animals, but in his books De Waal never told his readers he does so. Now, one could argue that it is a personal matter and not our business at all. However, his books are not neutral scientific reports about animal behavior. On the contrary. He explains we live in the age of empathy and teaches us 'Lessons For A Kinder Society'. In The Age of Empathy he writes about himself: "Empathy is my bread and butter", describes himself as an animal lover: "I love and respect animals", and: "In my own research, I avoid causing pain or deprivation".
Apart form his personal views, his science was never disinterested academic research to be published in scientific journals only. He broke old scientific taboos by attributing traditionally human qualities to animals, such as "empathy", "sympathy", "altruism", "consolation", "fairness", "conflict resolution", "peacemaking" and by giving the individual animals names; he is against emphasis on the nasty side of nature, selfishness, aggression, conflict, competition. Please note all these topics have to do with the social life and morality. Morality shows up in book titles: Good Natured. The Origins of Right and Wrong' and: Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved. In other words: all his books are in fact about morality. And that is not morality in a purely descriptive way. He wants us to learn from animals. Not just anything, but moral lessons.
So, knowing his personal and scientific background, the kind of books he writes, the message he wants to convey to the world, the way he is portrayed by scientific journals (for example by PNAS), it is deeply disturbing that he admits eating animals. How can he be serious about a kinder society? Doesn't he include the animals he eats in his society? He practices a double standard: Chimp Haven, and Hell for the animals he eats. He knows the meat industry is a hell for animals, he blames the meat industry for not being friendly to animals, but he takes no responsibility for his own actions. His critique is not serious. What did he learn from his lifelong study of animals? He preaches empathy and sympathy for animals, but he practices killing and eating animals. If anybody in the world is expected to be a vegetarian, it would be Frans de Waal. Just like Jane Goodall he should be on the list of famous vegetarians. TIME magazine honored him with the title "the 100 men and women whose power, talent or moral example is transforming the world". Sadly, he is not a moral example. He could be a very influential moral example when he practices what he preaches: admit that his defense of eating meat was wrong and become a vegetarian. He should condemn the meat industry in certain terms based on knowledge and facts and take action accordingly. Further, as a scientist he should encourage the study of the natural behavior of the animals we eat, including empathy, just as he studied apes, monkeys and elephants. I am suggesting this title for his next book: "Confessions of a leading primatologist".
- "they're far more carnivorous than was once thought. They eat over thirty-five different species of vertebrates." p.137 Our Inner Ape, paperback 2005.
- In fact any claim that meat is a necessary component in the human diet is refuted by millions of vegetarians world-wide. But this is a different subject.
- The Bonobo and the Atheist, chapter 6, paragraph 'When "Is" meets "Ought", page 162-165. It is however a somewhat muddled discussion. It should not be confused with the claim that many of the building blocks of morality have an evolutionary origin which is a scientifically sound claim. The expression "morality grounded in biology" is confusing, because it suggest a morality is founded on biology, which is impossible.