Objection: There is a difference between systemic harm and harm that I have complete control of
In this post I pictured a situation between two partners where the sleep of one partner would be disrupted through an unwanted consequence of an action by the other.
In this scenario it was clear, that using the tap is directly tied to disrupting the other partners sleep.
But there is still a key difference between disrupting someone's sleep and killing animals though indirect measures like building roads: I cannot escape using roads when trying to live my normal life. But I can easily escape disrupting my partners sleep. And also I can easily escape eating animal food products.
On one side there is systemically done harm, while the other harm lies completely within my control.
So there must be a difference from a moral standpoint, right?
I would still argue: no.
Imagine a road building committee in a city council. They are in the middle of planning a new road. And part of that planning is considering environmental issues.
One brought up issue is that the road would be built through the breeding area of an endangered bird species. So the committee decides that those birds have to be moved in order not to disrupt them.
Another concern is that the sound pollution will increase the stress levels of the animals. And fragmenting the habitats will drastically influence hunting areas, possibly leading to starving animals.
But those concerns are rejected. Due to a justified human interest. A road is needed in order to enable traffic to move more quickly and thus increase the output of the economy and the ability of humans to move freely.
But does that "justified human interest" justify really anything?
Is this "justified human interest" really justified in respect to the suffering caused to the animals? Or simply justified by the way our society works? Simply justified through the human desire to improve its own living conditions.
Humans have survived for tens of thousands of years without building globe spanning infrastructure. Thus, our modern way of living with all of its consequences cannot be necessary for survival. It rather is just the result of trying to live a better and more comfortable life.
The moment the committee dismissed those concerns as acceptable consequences, the committee has prioritized the human interests higher than the well-being of the animals.
I am not about to say that this decision is wrong in some way, but I want to make clear that this a decision that is consciously made.
Even though harm done through a road is from my perspective a systemic harm, that harm is a conscious-chosen harm by another person. For no good reason other than improving our own situation.
So does that committee has to bear the full moral responsibility for that decision?
Again, no.
Of course, that committee plays a much bigger role in that decision than an outsider does. But by using that road you implicitly accept the circumstances under which it became to be. No ifs and buts. You participate in the system that enabled that road thus you also have a share of the responsibility.
In the same sense that you bear the responsibility when joining the military and executing orders even though you do not give the orders yourself. (One might object that joining the military is volunteer, but that objection falls apart the moment a war is started. Even though an active war that is way beyond of what you can directly influence, you are still not just a little wheel in the machine. You don't lose your moral agency just because someone else gives the orders).
Thus, the conclusion has to be, that even though roads are a systemic harm from my perspective, it is still a chosen harm. And a harm done by a system that I am part of. And thus I also take responsibility in that.
I might not like that conclusion, but I think it is inevitable when taking my own moral agency seriously. I am never just a bystander. Of course, I can choose to look away, but that does not free myself from my moral responsibility.
When eating an animal I have to accept that an animal will have to be killed. When visiting my family by car I have to accept that animals might be killed as well.