Modern Ethics Observation

An Observation
On
Modern Ethics
In
Every Day Life

Examining A Dilemma
Of The
Consumer Market
And
It’s Relationship
With Social/Economic Structures



By
David A. Archer
02/15/1968

Upon a recent realization while shopping in the local supermarket coupled with my recent studies pertaining to Philosophy, I have found it in myself to put forward a brief commentary regarding ethics in our modern and every day life. The instance that I will begin with in addressing the modern ethical climate, regards modern business in some degree but is in no way limited to such. It is very much that such is simply an indicator of a larger commonality and normality which is now prominent within society.


While looking through food items on a recent evening, I happened to notice that there isn’t a substantial price difference between canned food items, pre-prepared meals for humans and those canned food items meant to be consumed (presumably) by the pets of humans; Dogs and cats predominantly.


I made an observation that is really quite obvious in many ways though is somewhat overlooked in modern society. These products are not marketed in altogether different ways. Factually, both types of consumables are very much put into the public’s eye in similar manners. Both promote the supposed fact that the product is of the highest quality standard and both use similar visuals on their packaging.


Something that immediately stood out in my mind is the fact that the pet foods are very much marketed as if they “taste good.” One in particular seemed of most interest, stating that it was “Filet Mignon Flavor.”


Now, this poses many ethical and even some moral dilemmas.


How do they know that it tastes like filet mignon? If they have never eaten the dog food that tastes like filet mignon, then they are obviously speculating at best… out right lying as a strong possibility.


Further in the ethical question here, is the fact that they advertise and market in a manner that suggests caring for the animal…. Hence the “flavors” and “special aspects” of different products. If they don’t know what it tastes like, though advertise it as if they do, what does that outright lie say about how much they really care about the health of your pet?


Even more, what this does is set up a precarious situation in regard to the marketing ploys employed. They use tactics to sell their product in a way that is supposed to make the consumer feel as though they should be doing more for their pet. Showing their love for the animal in treating it with the more expensive, supposedly better quality products. This means that their lie is for nothing more really than to “guilt” the consumer into purchasing their product so as to make themselves feel as if they are treating their pet with the best possible care.


In another comparison between those products meant for humans to consume and those meant for dogs and cats, the packaging is very similar. So much so that it inspired me to read the ingredients of a few of the canned dog food items. Not so surprisingly the ingredients listed are not all that different from similar items meant for human consumption. There are no markings on the pet food label that state that the product is not fit for human consumption. Such would be a detractor from the marketing of providing the best possible quality for the pet in some way….
Perhaps suggesting that it isn’t of a superior quality because it isn’t fit or meant for human consumption.


What this sets up is a direct comparison between the foods for humans and those for pets. But it does so in a manner that isn’t openly addressed or even acknowledged. It very much is a “social invisibility” so to say. It exists. People know it. But no one acknowledges it or addresses it. It is just a “given” that people don’t eat a certain brand of canned product with a certain label on it (dog/cat food), and as well a “given” that certain canned products are supposed to be for humans.


If it is that the pet foods are meant to provide the utmost in quality, why then is it that they are not fit for humans to consume? Such is suggested in the human knowledge of the presumed difference between animals and people. The ingredients in the “filet mignon” flavored canned dog food are not so different from those in many similar products marketed toward human consumption.


How is it that people are supposed to discern? Why should there be concern with differentiating? If it is that people are supposed to differentiate, why isn’t it stated on the packaging that certain pet foods are not meant for humans to consume? How is it that such a blurred line is allowed to exist? People are supposed to be smart enough not to eat dog food, but caring enough to provide superior quality for their pet. “Superior” suggesting the best pet food that is of the highest “quality” not meant for humans to eat, but containing (in most instances) more diverse contents, and very similar ingredients as the canned products “meant” for human consumption while being marketed toward the “tastes” of the human. The ethical dilemma that this presents should be pretty obvious at this point.


I should ad that much of the inspiration for this observation to manifest was in a happenstance comparison. I noticed first that the least expensive of those products meant for humans, had an incredibly scant amount of product… meaning that for around 89 cents I could get pasta rings in tomato sauce. For 50 cents I could get “Hearty Meat Chunks with Pasta and Vegetables” meant for a dog to consume in a relatively similar portion that was presented in a manner as to suggest satisfaction to me in the visual representation on the can.


I must admit that the picture on the can of dog food even looked more appeasing than did several of the canned product labels of food meant for humans. Yet another part of the dilemma. The marketing of the pet food is obviously (as I have stated and expectedly, as the pet has no money) directed at the human consumer. Yet another fold in this immediate dilemma.


The canned product meant to be consumed by animals, is actually marketed toward the personality and psyche of humans. Further it is done so in a less than truthful manner as I have stated. There is no way for those that market it to know about the flavor qualities unless they have actually eaten it. If they have done so, then it is that it is actually fit for human consumption in some manner. If it is fit for human consumption, why then would a person opt to purchase a more expensive product, with less components/volume and marketed “quality” that is supposedly meant for humans to consume?


I am in no way suggesting that all canned products are “dog food.” Nor am I suggesting that all of them are fit for human consumption. But shouldn’t they be in examining the suggestion and effect on the general public?


Beyond the fact that the pet food is marketed in a façade manner, is the fact that it is done so to stimulate the human perspective. This then suggests that the product has to satisfy the human appetite in some way as well. It is marketed in a way as to suggest it is good enough for the consumer to eat. This fact is never openly addressed which equates to producing a strange dynamic in that microcosm of society.


I do have to stress again, that even the ingredients listed were not at all that different between the two types of products…. Though anyone with any semblance of common sense knows that the ingredients used in most canned pet foods are not of the “superior quality” that is suggested in the marketing. Factually most of them are predominantly filler and offal. The type of offal that can be used in nothing else. This then means that it isn’t of the “superior” quality that is suggested…. But there again is another problem… people are supposed to be smart enough to know that such is the case and it is not meant for them to consume, but dumb enough not to acknowledge it. This being “trusted” in knowing that the standards set forward by the government will take care of the” public interest.” In that is yet another dilemma…. That of blind trust in a government body “guarding” your safety in some regard. The same government body that allows the type of marketing of pet food toward humans with the suggestion/target of being satisfactory for human consumption, while assuming that everyone knows it isn’t for such a purpose…. Though insisting that the public trust the entity which allows such a dilemma.


In so many words, suggesting that it is mandatory to follow the guidelines set forward by the governing body, while assuming that those doing so think for themselves in regard to differentiating between two different things. It is YOUR responsibility to follow directions and standards put forward while it is YOUR best interest not to.


These larger bodies mandate adherence and acknowledging their standard, while allowing situations where in those standards are clearly not met in their own. It is left up to the person to think for themselves… which is clearly in violation of those imposed standards. To not consume these pet products as a human, to acknowledge a difference, is in many ways to violate the standards that the governing body has set forward. In a way, suggesting that the entity itself is incorrect and not efficient.


While this does present a mildly amusing off set of sorts… it has much more meaning in the sense of society in general. It indicates an area within society that is very much in limbo. This limbo then acting to create and perpetuate a type of ignorance, more a callous in society which has birthed this “invisible ethical dilemma.” It has set up a situation where it is that society is moving toward a larger area of ignorance in regard to conditioning through such marketing and progressing lack in acknowledging the differences in the examples I have put forward.


This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if it were that it could progress in a manner that is actually healthy for society. I can see where it is that the general public shouldn’t have to be so wary of such “pit falls.” In the optimum setting of a prosperous society, the public would not have to worry about such quality levels. If it were that these standards were progressing as is that “graying area” as well, in a way that mandated the improvement of these two types of products… actually set a standard as to regulate the consistency and quality at a level that was knowingly fit for human consumption…. Then it would be that no one would have to acknowledge a difference.


Unfortunately what this poses is an increase of costs immediately. But in that is again the social dilemma of admitting that the marketing tactics for these pet foods has been less than honest.


This is a matter of perspective which, as I have addressed, isn’t acknowledged in society.


All that the general consumer normally see is the “mark of quality” aspect of the advertising/marketing. No where is it stated that the level of “superior quality” for an animal is seen as different in their eyes than that of the “superior quality” when speaking about human consumption.


In a business sense, this puts into motion another dilemma. That of monetary concerns other than those I have already discussed. If such “standards” progressed in the direction of maintaining the version of “superior quality” suggested for humans, then the cost of producing canned pet foods goes up. If the “standards” progressed in the direction of maintaining the version of “superior quality” suggested for canned pet foods, then the health of society as well as the actual “quality standard” for human consumption, goes down….. though profits would increase. Such is the business directions of the “invisible line dilemma.”


Further then is the question from the consumers point of view pertaining to purchasing the best quality for their loved pet. Is it good enough? In some instances even, “would I eat it?”


If the consumer purchasing the product would eat it, why then is there a difference in production levels within manufacturing? Quality of product and care? Since the pet foods are allowed to market in the same manner as are the foods meant for human consumption, directly to the same areas of the human intellect and decision making faculties, without maintaining the same health and quality standards within the products they are selling… this then acts to cause another problem within the dilemma itself.


Is it false advertising? Is it immoral as well as being a catch 22 in the ethical sense? What then is justifiably “quality?” What then would such mean for other standards and areas within society? How then to address it?


The larger aspect of this “invisible line” dilemma, is as I have touched on in regard to governing and standards… and not just within the canned product areas of business, but as well within society on the whole.


In many respects this situation leads to larger questions across society. And many larger ethical questions within the area of pre-produced food products themselves.


If it is that the direction this motion tends to lean continues to be that of the monetary route, then it is that something must be done to accommodate the peripherals of that direction. Some obvious and some not so obvious.


The most obvious is definitely an ethical dilemma. Though while it is not “invisible” in the regard as is that which I have been addressing, it is just as much ignored and even suppressed within the general populous…. Mostly, I would think, in the effort to hush any panic that may be generated through considering the problem(s) around it. That is the dilemma of the use of human flesh in such products.


As it is, such is simply a rumor used in a very un-ethical and un-sportsman like manner usually between corporations about other corporations products. This in the ever more ruthless area of corporate espionage and the effort to maximize profit.


In that are seen readily (though in a peripheral manner)the very real problems that are facing humanity on a larger scale, the least of which not being the moral and ethical standards which are ever in flux. This ranking for such standards being due to the fact that they must first be stable to some degree before the larger problems can be safely addressed without risk of a similar “invisible dilemma” developing out of earnest efforts to address societal concerns.


I feel more than qualified to speak on this subject matter because it is that I have witnessed and experienced these type of tactics in my professional career. Most of my adult life I have spent in professional kitchens. Fortunately enough I have experience in kitchens where it was that a larger percentage of canned (pre-prepared product) was in use, and as well in kitchens where the only canned items were in the form of oils and specialty items such as anchovies.


I have even further personal experience to draw on in this respect as well, being that I spent considerable years raising my own live stock and growing my own vegetables. I know what “quality” is in many more ways than does the average person in our modern American society. I have produced it from it’s very beginnings. I have a very solid area of reference from which to make my decisions. Much of which is from my very own hand.


Comically enough in a darker hue, I have heard those rumor tactics fired at and from both sides of that “fence.” Those rumors being to extremes sometimes of places serving meats that weren’t of the “live stock” type, if you know what I am referring to. “Cat, dog,” even “human” having been suggested at times as the source of flesh for what ever slanderous reasons.


I cannot speak for all producers or areas of product origin, but I do know that nothing I personally have ever served has been of such “procurement.”


What I can say and note, is that the use of such slanderous tactics and rumor may seem to produce an effect that secures and even produces profit, but in the longer term it does nothing but make things more difficult for society itself.


In the first instance, it actually makes it more a possibility that such “ingredients” would make their way into the food chain. Further even than is the normal level in some cultures such as “dog” for instance. It does so in a manner as to produce an area of confusion. An area of “bad information” in the way of instability. This is very much the intended result, though not in the manner directly as it does effect on the larger scale. This “propaganda” tactic has it’s own form of “collateral damage” that is not conducive to the standards of society… nor the path where it is we must travail to continue to maintain those standards.


In that direction, it is very disconcerting as it very nearly mandates the use of those “sources” in ways that only those looking for a smaller overhead would welcome.


These are problems which must be addressed, and addressed in an open and candid manner else all of society fall to the very worst form of their manifestation.


In the second instance of this problem is as I have stated within the “want” for lower overhead, and through the momentum of achieving such lower overhead. This still being a derivative of the collateral damage aspect, though more welcomed in the aspect of being a built in excuse. Presenting the “what do we do about it” situation.


Neither of these examples being optimum for either profit or health within society, and being generated from an immediate want for profitability while displaying a definite lack of foresight and planning. There is no longevity considered within this direction or tactic as it depends entirely on the maintained effect of illusion and slander for the purpose of providing immediate “results.”


From my perspective, the best way to address the real concerns is not through such “playground” tactics, but more from a very serious angle of addressing them for what they are. Addressing the reasoning’s. Addressing the potential outcomes of very regulated speculation and even implementation.




The concerns that I can see from the “large” business angle are briefly as follows;

• Profit;
1. Lower overhead/production cost
2. Movement of Product/Consumption

• A standard of “quality”
• Marketability- image


From the societal perspective;
• Health;
1. Sanitation
2. Nutrition
3. Safety
• “Quality”
• Affordability


From the consumer perspective;
• Health;
1. Sanitation
2. Nutrition
3. Safety
• “Quality”
• Personal/Political Association/Standards
• Affordability



When considering these aspects as well as other areas of society on the whole… it begins to paint a picture that is a bit disconcerting. That being the ever growing possibility of these “ingredients” becoming a part of the every day diet, with the ever falling area of standards through that erosion which is the “confusion” aspect.


In the direction which these tactics are pushing society in regard to this subject, it is very much that both “sides” of these concerns will end up using such “filler” product across the board.


Such isn’t the optimum result, nor is it the most healthy…. Especially considering that neither “side” must use such lower standards for production.

It is the very use of such tactic in the “fear” area that is producing the opportunity for it to become reality, everywhere… but in a covert manner. From what I can tell, the optimum would be to directly introduce the concept in a manner that would utilize and contain the result in a very limited area of existence.


Such is (as has long been speculated) a very possible option to deal with the results from our current over population. I simply propose that it be utilized in a very open manner, and only so far as in very certain products meant only for animal consumption. There are already areas of society (in the U.S. and elsewhere) that are geared socially for the advent of such “progress.” It, again is the production of confusion within society that produces the risks which are feared over all.


Those areas of society which have been developed (geared) toward a more conducive relationship with such an option, are akin to the already present and quite normal act of donating a persons mortal remains to science, for instance.


It is not difficult to see how short of a step it is from such an act, to furthering it in regard to usage of those “mortal remains” in very specific product meant for very specific use, such as pet foods.


The only moral or ethical issues with this reside entirely within religious beliefs, if it is approached, implemented and regulated from a very candid, a very honest and serious angle. Those religious “issues” no longer are an issue when it is implemented from the personal choice and perspective. No one would be required to arrange for or take such steps regarding their mortal remains. It is entirely a personal choice…. And again, a choice that isn’t that far from what is already a very normal request for many people regarding their mortal remains. It is only the “secretive” and slanderous tactics that continue to make such moral and ethical violations as implementing such on society in total a very real possibility. If only through the erosion of standards through the conditioning of over stimulated imagination in that area… thus translating into decisions made/avoided in a larger political body format.


Is it really so far fetched for a person that would have normally donated their organs to someone else and/or donated their mortal remains to science, to simply request that those remains and unused parts then be utilized in such very specific and regulated products?


Is there an underlying danger to such a direction in addressing both the growing over population of humans and ever growing lack of food products fit for human consumption? Only if it becomes a moral and ethical violation as in use of such “ingredient” for human consumption. Especially without the choice of those consumers as being so.


Is there a scientific danger? A problem of introducing what inadvertently is product altered from it’s natural state through what it has consumed over it’s own life time (which is most humans regardless of religious beliefs), into the nutrition structure of living creatures? Obviously this hasn’t been a concern with the un-checked use of such scare tactics.


If it were that a specific line of product were planned, developed and regulated, which was meant only for the consumption of animals(domestic pets)… in a very open and honest manner… not only does the risk of such violation discontinue abruptly, but it begins to address other problems which loom on the horizon of humanity and many that already plague us. One of which being the incessant greed which continuously fuels the want for cheaper, lower costs in production.


Simply place those “scoundrels” without ethical boundaries, which would be more apt to utilize such cost saving covertly due to a want for no cost in production, in the area of this new product body. They would then get to be entirely happy having no production cost to produce a product. Albeit a product that is only meant for a very limited market which would be domestic animals.


I could even see where this could spur the pet industry in regard to more people having consuming pets through utilizing the efforts of the “misers” in other areas than have traditionally been the norm.


As things have historically developed time and again, as creatures and societies… our greatest fears will meet us “half way.” Perhaps even closer if it is that those fears are continued to be promoted and used in the manner that they have been, as well as being ignored in the very conscious sense that they are.


It is very much that “invisible line” which poses the greatest danger within this altogether too real aspect of existence on the global scale. “Head in the sand” simply will not suffice in regard to this subject matter.


To address it openly, and regulate such possibilities is really the only direction which is conducive to healthy existence. If any future at all The implementation and use of such a regulated and known area of production would also allow for the removal of that “invisible line” which acts to create an unspoken dilemma, which in turn acts as a party to perpetuating other ethical dilemmas within society. No longer would it be necessary to speculate on the quality of a pet food product in the marketing aspects of it. It would be of a quality that is fit for human consumption as well (though not intended), in regard to production quality and standards. It would be possible to advertise using human representation pertaining to the flavor and quality of designated pet foods through “honest” testimonials. No more “but how do they know?” No more of that unspoken, unrecognized confusion.


This through establishing and maintaining a quality standard which would allow for such possible consumption without adverse health effects or concerns to the human existence.



Please see the accompanying graph/illustration.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ethics Illustration