Futurama and Philosophy

by Young, Shaun P. , Lewis, Courtland

  In this respect, he’s paraphrasing an argument made long ago by Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher and social reformer. In The Principles of Morals and Legislation, he asserted, “A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?”

  Bentham’s insights are used as a foundation for a more contemporary argument in favor of animal rights by Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer. Singer contends that “if a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering . . . of any other being.” Waterfall stays consistent with this stance throughout the episode, even going as far as seeing the potential killing of an orangutan as equal to the potential killing of a human (in this case Leela)—more on this later.

  Pop a Poppler in Your Mouth

  Fishy Joe holds a view at the other extreme. He argues that the eating of any other living creature is acceptable, as long as it tastes good and you can get away with it. When he appears on a news panel discussion show, Datenight, Fishy Joe says it’s “absolutely not” wrong to eat intelligent animals. He goes on to say that “the only reason we don’t eat people is because it tastes lousy.” Ultimately, he acknowledges that eating Popplers might be “murder,” but says the real question is, “Who’s gonna stop me?”—at which point the sky ominously fills with Omicronian spaceships. Throughout the episode, Fishy Joe makes no attempt to hide the fact that he’d serve any meat in his restaurant that was “high in profit.”

  Fishy Joe is portrayed as someone who’s concerned only with profits, willing to exploit Fry and Bender for his own financial gain. He’s also completely unmoved by the potential killing of other creatures. His arguments are more mainstream than we might suspect. To begin, most economies have sectors devoted to the ongoing rearing and consumption of animals for food. In support of these sectors, there are agro-ecologists who argue it’s unethical to not eat meat that is humanely grown and processed. For them, animals raised specifically for their inevitable consumption are a vital part of the ecosystem. They contribute to the processing of nutrients and assist in maintaining the land in ways that could not easily (or possibly) be reproduced. If we stopped eating meat, there’d likely be a rapid decrease in the population of bovine, poultry, and pork, livelihoods would be lost, and ecological sustainability would be damaged. These results would be far more devastating and ethically more dubious than raising and consuming animals.

  In this respect, Fishy Joe is actually attempting to preserve livelihoods and may even be advancing ecological sustainability; even though it’s apparent that the only livelihood he’s concerned with is his own, and the only “green” he cares about is in the form of dollars rolling into his bank account.

  Eating an Intelligent Animal Is Different

  In between these two extremes stands Leela. Early in the episode, Leela has no problem with the eating of Popplers. When the crew first discovers them, they resemble “fried shrimp” and so appear to be fairly low-level creatures. When she encounters the animal-rights activists, she has no interest in their moralizing. As she says, “You’re vegetarians, who cares what you do?”

  It’s only after one of the Popplers has time to mature, due to the lack of cleanliness and general laziness of the Planet Express crew, and calls Leela “Mama” that she realizes these beings are intelligent. It’s this intelligence that, from her standpoint, makes eating them immoral. “I’m not saying eating meat is wrong,” she explains on Datenight, “but eating an intelligent animal is different.” In this respect, Leela is like a lot of meat eaters, who have no problem eating a relatively unintelligent being, such as a chicken or a fish, but who would balk at eating a more intelligent species, such as a dolphin or a chimpanzee.

  Peter Singer would strongly object to Leela’s distinction. For Singer, all animals, regardless of their intelligence, deserve equal consideration in regards to preventing their suffering. Singer equates giving unequal consideration to some beings based on their lack of intelligence to racism or sexism, accusing those who eat meat of “speciesism.” He sees such a dividing line as arbitrary and indefensible. “Our concern for others,” he concludes in “All Animals are Equal,” “ought not to depend on what they are like or what abilities they possess.” Singer asks us, rather, to consider whether a human infant or cognitively disabled human adult should be given unequal consideration due to their lack of intelligence. If our answer to that is “no,” then he doesn’t see why intelligence or lack thereof should be brought into our consideration of how we treat animals. For Singer, like Bentham before him, the only relevant issue is “Can they suffer?” If they can suffer, and we can prevent it, then we’re morally obligated to do so. For Singer, killing animals for their meat can easily be avoided, so it’s immoral to do otherwise.

  Animals Eat Other Animals. It’s Nature

  A common response to the type of argument made by Singer is simply a reference to the natural order of things. In nature, we witness animals consuming other animals. In such cases, however, ethics doesn’t apply. One doesn’t morally condemn the lion for eating a gazelle, nor hold the heron culpable for the murder of a fish. Organisms at the lowest level are consumed for their nutritional value, which is converted to energy for growth and survival. Most species aren’t autotrophic, meaning they can’t internally produce their own food. Instead, they’re consumers who rely on other organisms for their nutritional needs.

  Commonly referred to as the “food chain,” a trophic pyramid establishes a descriptive hierarchy of the position an organism occupies in the overall order of nutritional production and consumption. A simplistic conception of this ordering has at the bottom plants, which can internally manufacture their own nutrition. These organisms are consumed by herbivores that convert the nutrition made by the plant into their own. Herbivores are consumed by carnivores that rely on the flesh of the other animal to meet their needs, and at the top of the hierarchy are omnivores who ultimately consume both plants and other animals for survival.

  The assumption made by the Planet Express crew upon first discovering Popplers is that they (the crew) occupy the highest position on the food chain, and therefore there’s no ethical dilemma for them in eating these prawn-like creatures. However, when the Omicronians descend to Earth seeking retribution for their young, the food chain argument is quickly abandoned by Earthlings who no longer find themselves in the position of privilege at the top of the order. After the Omicronians threaten to begin eating the same number of humans as humans ate of their young (which turned out to be a number higher than the entire human population), our friends at Planet Express and in the Democratic Order of Planets (DOOP) quickly abandon the food chain argument and try to argue their way out of being eaten. The logic that it’s okay to eat meat because of the trophic pyramid all of a sudden seems dubious when you no longer rest at the apex.

  Simply coming to the conclusion that it’s no longer acceptable to eat things because we ourselves would not wish to have that logic used against us doesn’t resolve the issues concerning the nutritional needs that are part of humanity’s omnivorous diet. We still have the same complex dietary needs, which gives rise to something that social critic and activist Michael Pollan famously referred to as the “omnivore’s dilemma”: How can we meet our needs in a way that minimizes harm to ourselves (ethically speaking) and to other creatures? One answer is maintained in a movement known as “ethical omnivorism.” Advocates of this position promote more humane and ecologically friendly means of consumption, which would still allow for the eating of meat, but in a manner that reduces the suffering of those animals being consumed. For example, the Humane Society of the United States promotes the “thre
e-Rs” of ethical eating: Reducing the amount of meat we consume, Refining our diets so as to avoid food that comes from the most inhumane and destructive methods of production, and Replacing animal-based diets with plant-based foods.

  To this end, many animal-rights movements have begun forming to address the issue of suffering as it relates to the harvesting and consumption of meat. As noted by Jesse McKinley in his October 24th 2008 New York Times article, Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States argues, “If animals are going to be killed for food, the least we can do is treat them with decency and give them a semblance of life.” Following this logic, member states of the European Union have adopted several measures that support the humane treatment of animals, and limit what are considered to be cruel practices. Likewise, some states in the U.S. have adopted legislation that would promote more humane treatment of animals used in food production, and at a national level there’s the (albeit rather weak) 1966 Animal Welfare Act, which has evolved through the passage of several amendments over the years. And, in 2010, China adopted its first animal protection law.

  However, while animal rights ethicists and liberation groups are generally supportive of any effort to eliminate pain and suffering, these legislative moves are far from the end of their struggle. From their perspective, laws passed to eliminate the barbaric forms of animal cruelty and exploitation like dog and cock fights, cosmetic experimentation and seal-clubbing are steps in the right direction, but they don’t achieve the ultimate goal of full liberation of animals from the yoke of human exploitation.

  Kill All Humans!

  Ethical omnivorism may address some of the underlying concerns of animal rights advocates, but it still doesn’t confront the basic question of whether or not it’s acceptable to kill another animal for your consumption. Imagine a case where Lrrr, the leader of the Omicronians, eats Leela following the principles of ethical omnivorism. What if rather than eating her alive, he had her painlessly killed through the most humane form of lethal injection and then ate her? She would experience no physical pain, and the amount of suffering she would undergo would be minimized as much as possible. Would it be okay then? And what if it was you or I rather than Leela?

  Arguments against eating human beings, made by other human beings, are exactly what Singer means by “speciesism.” Speciesism involves assigning differential rights or consideration to one thing over another, based merely on their membership status within a particular species ordering. Believing that a human being should not be killed for food, simply because they’re a human being with rights and protections inherent in their status as “human,” is circular reasoning. It is like arguing that Hypnotoad is loveable because everyone loves Hypnotoad.

  As seen in the food chain example, the speciesist position backfires when more powerful and evolved creatures than ourselves use the same justification to eat us humans. Another easily overlooked example of speciesism is seen through the character of Bender, who, consistent with his view of humanity throughout the series, sees robots as superior to humans and has no problem abusing humans to increase his pleasure. At the beginning of the episode, with the crew starving, Bender suggests that Fry and Leela “fight to the death and [he’ll] cook the loser,” and instructs Leela to “work his gut; I like it tender.” In this respect, Bender’s view on eating other species is clearly aligned with Fishy Joe’s (anything delicious or profitable is good). However, by making humans the subject of this viewpoint (which happens again when the Omicronians decide to eat one human for every Poppler who was eaten), it forces the viewers to consider the perspective of the side of the inferior (or at least weaker) species. Suddenly Singer’s (and Waterfall’s) standpoint sounds more reasonable, though this may just be self-preservation speaking, instead of a more enlightened ethical stance.

  We might argue that Bender’s perceived robot-superiority is flawed. Perhaps humans and robots occupy an equal status, as do the Omicronians. If all three are rationally evolved creatures that have the ability to fully comprehend their status and ethical obligations, perhaps that’s reason enough for saying they’ve evolved beyond the point of killing and consuming other rational creatures. But if rationality is the standard, we’re back at where we began. Bentham’s argument about rationality remains. If rationality is the standard, then it would seem to be acceptable to eat a human baby, especially one with arrested physical and/or mental developments. Nearly all sane, ethical individuals would say that it’s never acceptable to eat another person, regardless of their level of intelligence or development. So why animals?

  Popplers Are People, Too?

  It’s possible that it is mostly sentimentality that prevents us from eating or experimenting on mentally inferior humans. Bender seems to have such feelings later in the episode when it appears as though Lrrr is going to eat Leela as revenge for all of the Popplers that were eaten. Bender, who generally avoids showing any affection for humans, but does have a “Do not kill” list of certain humans, mutants, and aliens, tells Leela he’ll miss her. Bender remarks, “I know you’re just a carbon-based life form but I’ll always think of you as a big pile of titanium” (even though, at times, she acts pretty aluminum). In this regard, Bender seems to be viewing Leela the way many meat eaters view their pets. Although such people have no problem with the idea of eating a pig or a cow, they would never let anyone harm their dog or cat. Logically and ethically, this distinction seems a bit arbitrary and may be difficult to support.

  To see a similar example of such arbitrary sentimentality, think about why we find ourselves, at the end of the episode, applauding along with the studio audience when Lrrr eats the hippie, Waterfall. Certainly part of our acceptance of this death is that Waterfall is obnoxious (“I’d like to lead you all in some swaying”), and part of it may be our recognition that he’s kind of an idiot, as we see when he’s unable to construct a compelling argument on Datenight. (He mostly tells his debate opponents to “shut up.”) But much of it may be due to the fact that, as a minor character, we don’t feel the same sentimental attachment to him that we do to the main characters in the show (we similarly don’t object to the disintegration of the annoying waiter who pesters Lrrr about side dishes and salad dressing options). Certainly we feel okay with Waterfall being the one human sacrificed, rather than Leela. But is this just because we’re sentimentally attached to Leela, as Bender is?

  The inherent flaws with allowing sentimentality to dictate our moral choices is illustrated by Waterfall’s decision to save the orangutan and allow Leela to be killed in its place. This choice appears to be influenced by his extreme fondness for the orangutan, which he hugs and calls “one of Mother Earth’s living creatures.” It seems morally questionable to willingly sacrifice a human being to save the life of an animal, but a strict interpretation of Singer’s warning against speciesism might allow for it, as it suggests we are wrong to view the interests of one species as more important than those of another. So how can we morally justify valuing Leela’s life over the orangutan’s? Certainly Zapp is no help in this regard, as his objection appears to be that Waterfall is valuing a “moderately attractive monkey” over a “beautiful woman” . . . a helpful reminder of Singer’s objection against arbitrary distinctions.

  As it turns out, it’s Singer who gives us one possible justification. In Practical Ethics, Singer responds to the counterargument made by some defenders of eating meat that most farm animals wouldn’t exist if people didn’t eat meat. Singer argues that these animals “never existing” wouldn’t harm them in any way, because a non-existent being has no “unsatisfied desires” or “future-directed preferences.” He argues that we don’t need to create beings just so they have preferences and desires, which we can later satisfy; just as we have no obligation to make people thirsty, so we can satisfy their desire by giving them a glass of water.

  By acknowledging that there’s a distinction between creatures that have future-directed preferences and creatures who don’t, Singer g
ives us a possible defense for saving Leela instead of the orangutan. Leela clearly has future-directed preferences (among other things, she just paid off her car and is presumably looking forward to a future of no car payments). It’d be difficult to make the same claim of the orangutan, who mindlessly picks nits from Waterfall’s head, but otherwise appears unaware of its surroundings. Singer doesn’t seem to object to the distinction made between creatures who have future-directed preferences and those who don’t. As long as we could minimize the suffering of creatures with no future-directed preferences, it might be alright to painlessly kill them, since it would be no different from them falling asleep.

  Thus, Leela’s stance of eating some animals but not others may have some merit. The Popplers that they eat early in the episode are low-level beings that seemingly have no future-directed preferences. The problem only arises when it’s revealed that these are the children of the Omicronians, beings who do have future-directed preferences and suffer by having their offspring devoured. Still, this stance is tenuous. It’s possible, of course, that the orangutan does have future-directed preferences of which we’re simply unaware.

  A Toast to Leela! She Showed Us It’s Wrong to Eat Certain Things

  The ethics of eating meat is a complicated issue. As a final testament to this point, the writers can’t resist leaving us questioning the morality of this distinction between intelligent and unintelligent beings with the episode’s final joke. For the feast that Bender prepares in celebration of Leela not being killed, he serves a platter of dolphin. When Leela objects that “dolphins are intelligent,” Bender replies, “Not this one. He blew all of his money on instant lottery tickets.” At this point they all agree that eating the dolphin is fine, including the Professor who asks someone to pass him “the speech center of the brain.”