In a post made today, Becky asks if there can be found a solid reason for not being a vegetarian that does not lie within taste preference. Before answering this question, I would like to take a snap at a couple other of her points.
"I have a hard time comprehending the argument that, someone is too busy to be a vegetarian."
While I can see where Becky is coming from in terms of meal preparations, I can also see the flip side of this argument and tend to agree with it more. Taking a trip to the grocery store and searching for vegetarian options is often much longer than say someone who simply needs ground beef and a box of Hamburger Helper. It's not as simple as looking at a label of something and saying, "Alright, this seems vegetarian friendly!" Rather, I am often forced to look at ingredients and really check to make sure there are no animal products or byproducts. And in addition, vegetarians have to cook a wider variety of meals that are usually very extensive in order to get all the necessary nutrients. So yes, I think it is very time-consuming.
"The Peer pressure argument, is not valid by itself"
It most definitely is. Sarah made a good point in class today from Fast Food Nation which I have also read. Vegetarian options are very limited at many fast-food restaurants. Thus, when you are going out with your friends, often your preferences will sway the group. In addition, when a friend has you over for dinner, they will make sure to prepare something vegetarian for you and possibly everyone to consume. Purchasing and eating power shift in a vegetarian direction. On the other side, meat eating is heavily influenced by peer pressure. Why become a vegetarian when my family and friends all consume meat? Why pay more money for something I can get for a $1 at Burger King? The reasons are numerous, both close to and far from home.
Now with those points addressed, I will address the main question at hand about something other than taste preference deciding vegetarianism. First, I believe you could use any one of the above two as a very valid excuse. I hear them every single day from everyone around me.We don't see them as legitimate, but to the meat-eater they are.
One could also argue that you are selling them "liberal propaganda" in order to stop the consumption of animals and pervert the natural order. I hear this from my family mostly every other week. The facts aren't there! The facts are made up! People love the truth, but they hate the facts. And it makes ignorance a truly blissful cheeseburger to devour.
Another argument could be the many social and political ramifications we have discussed. The farming industry is heavily subsidized and provides a significant amount of jobs. And it's not just agriculture, but those who supply their products. If McDonald's went out of business next year due to a mass vegetarian movement, can you just imagine the economic and social chaos? It would be madness. Nobody would want that on their hands.
Now, sure, I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but I think you see the point. As Jacob said, nothing is black and white. To say something is absolutely right or absolutely wrong is all a matter of preference and conviction. I wish more people had the conviction that animal consumption is wrong, but that's not the case. And until they do, the above arguments will continue to be argued. We can only hope that by offering solutions to these things that there will be a slow movement in the other direction.
Until then, I will continue to be a vegetarian and spread the knowledge this course has provided me with far and wide.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
A Solution for Consumption of Animals?
In class today, Becca made me think of something interesting. She stated that one of the major reasons that animal flesh should not be consumed is because in order to do so you are cutting that life short. We are taking away the potential for life that this animal may or may not have had, but did have an entitlement to. However, her next statement raised my curiosity, as she stated that locally grown animals are treated in a humane manner and are slaughtered as such too. Thus, taking their "potential for life" is not nearly as harshly robbed from them. Or at least I think this is what she was going for.
Now I would like to point out one thing: no cow, even those slaughtered on local farms, are allowed to live out to their prime. To do so allows for meat to lose quality and subsequent taste/value. All farms raise cattle to a peak point of youth and maturity and then kill them as to capture freshness.
Now I agree with Becca in the sense that consuming animal flesh does deny the possibility for life lived beyond the butcher's knife. That makes perfect and clear sense. What I'm wondering is if one would consider the consumption of an animal that died of natural causes alright? Could we justify that? The animal is already dead and gone, having felt no pain inflicted by humans. Thus, it would seem we might be able to.
Now I would like to point out one thing: no cow, even those slaughtered on local farms, are allowed to live out to their prime. To do so allows for meat to lose quality and subsequent taste/value. All farms raise cattle to a peak point of youth and maturity and then kill them as to capture freshness.
Now I agree with Becca in the sense that consuming animal flesh does deny the possibility for life lived beyond the butcher's knife. That makes perfect and clear sense. What I'm wondering is if one would consider the consumption of an animal that died of natural causes alright? Could we justify that? The animal is already dead and gone, having felt no pain inflicted by humans. Thus, it would seem we might be able to.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
The Ruin of Man
I spoke of this in my Q&A response, but I want to discuss it here too for all to see.
In one of my anthropology classes, I had the pleasure of reading an article entitled The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jared Diamond. In short, Diamond asserts that humanities' move from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian society was, as the title states, the worst mistake in the history of the human race. Now, I wouldn't go that far as to suggest the title is appropriate, but I do agree with Diamond's major assertions.
In "primitive" societies, people hunted and gathered only what they needed. Everything was utilized to the very last drop. Once all the meat was consumed, fur was used for warmth and bones for medicine. Or so was the usual case. In addition, this style of consumption represented the very first example of "socialism" in practice, even before its inception. Essentially, each according to his own ability.
But suddenly, with an agrarian society, man began to tear at the fabric of this socialist utopia. Large plots of land had to be taken from wildlife in order to begin to cultivate. Animals had to be heavily subjected and domesticated. A class society began to form, as there were suppliers and managers. And eventually, humanity consolidated its food supply. Variety in nutrients and overall biodiversity slowly declined. Man began to experience more bouts with the illnesses that plague us most today. Thus, agrarian society deserves a lot more critical of a look.
However, to relate this to class material, I wanted to know people's thoughts on genetic engineering of animals as the next step in the perversion of the food supply?
In one of my anthropology classes, I had the pleasure of reading an article entitled The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race by Jared Diamond. In short, Diamond asserts that humanities' move from a hunter-gatherer society to an agrarian society was, as the title states, the worst mistake in the history of the human race. Now, I wouldn't go that far as to suggest the title is appropriate, but I do agree with Diamond's major assertions.
In "primitive" societies, people hunted and gathered only what they needed. Everything was utilized to the very last drop. Once all the meat was consumed, fur was used for warmth and bones for medicine. Or so was the usual case. In addition, this style of consumption represented the very first example of "socialism" in practice, even before its inception. Essentially, each according to his own ability.
But suddenly, with an agrarian society, man began to tear at the fabric of this socialist utopia. Large plots of land had to be taken from wildlife in order to begin to cultivate. Animals had to be heavily subjected and domesticated. A class society began to form, as there were suppliers and managers. And eventually, humanity consolidated its food supply. Variety in nutrients and overall biodiversity slowly declined. Man began to experience more bouts with the illnesses that plague us most today. Thus, agrarian society deserves a lot more critical of a look.
However, to relate this to class material, I wanted to know people's thoughts on genetic engineering of animals as the next step in the perversion of the food supply?
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Response to Kelsey
Kelsey asked if it is morally justifiable to genetically engineer animals if they are not harmed. I assert that it absolutely is not in any way. I justified this a little bit in my Q&A and also in a previous discussion we had about levels of animal harm.
With any level of genetic engineering, there has to be pain and discomfort involved. We discussed in an earlier class that while there are different levels of pain and discomfort, these levels still exist. Studies proved that removing an animal from its habitat and/or subjecting it to any sort of "experimentation" caused the animal's stress level to rise significantly. Now unless genetic engineering can now be done on the open field, which I highly doubt that it can, then you would have to subject the animal to these conditions. The animal would no doubt have discomfort and stress, thus making the act unjustifiable.
Also, I think we are abusing our moral agent status by doing this to animals. It's probably safe to say that no animal would actually desire to be genetically engineered in any way. They have lived happy and content lives for thousands of years without such interference. It's ludicrous and pretty arrogant to think we could help in any way.
In addition, altering species like this simply leads to a bad place. We supplant creation for existence. We decide that we can not cope with existing animals and so we modify them as we see fit. We could poison our food system. Maybe we could even alter them so far as to make ourselves the hunted.
It all goes scary places and the benefits of it are not justifiable in any way. At least to me.
Question: Is transgenesis and animal experimentation an abuse of moral agent status?
With any level of genetic engineering, there has to be pain and discomfort involved. We discussed in an earlier class that while there are different levels of pain and discomfort, these levels still exist. Studies proved that removing an animal from its habitat and/or subjecting it to any sort of "experimentation" caused the animal's stress level to rise significantly. Now unless genetic engineering can now be done on the open field, which I highly doubt that it can, then you would have to subject the animal to these conditions. The animal would no doubt have discomfort and stress, thus making the act unjustifiable.
Also, I think we are abusing our moral agent status by doing this to animals. It's probably safe to say that no animal would actually desire to be genetically engineered in any way. They have lived happy and content lives for thousands of years without such interference. It's ludicrous and pretty arrogant to think we could help in any way.
In addition, altering species like this simply leads to a bad place. We supplant creation for existence. We decide that we can not cope with existing animals and so we modify them as we see fit. We could poison our food system. Maybe we could even alter them so far as to make ourselves the hunted.
It all goes scary places and the benefits of it are not justifiable in any way. At least to me.
Question: Is transgenesis and animal experimentation an abuse of moral agent status?
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Shehitah
Norman Solomon outlines for us the Torah's view of meat-eating. In his essay, he states that people of the Jewish faith are not to consume meat unless the shehitah has been performed on it. Norman Solomon states that this process of slaughter involves, "...a single sharp cut across the trachea and esophagus" (281). Furthermore, it can only be performed by a 'qualified religious expert' within a special area which is to eliminate undue stress on the animal in its last moments. Furthermore, this method is said to be used by the Jewish faith because we owe animals the dignity of a painless slaughter. This method gives that, because they allegedly lose consciousness before the pain from the cut sets in upon them.
I guess I'm bringing this up partially because we discussed it in class today, but also because I find the whole thing to be a big charade. As you all know, I have qualms with religion as it is, but I will try to keep those separate from the argument I am about to make.
First, the justification for the method itself is completely ludicrous. The Jewish faith considers this slit in the animal's throat to be the most humane and painless way of death for an animal. Now I'm no expert on the slaughter of most animals, but I have seen the slaughter of a chicken. And I've seen this firsthand, so I can speak to it. In the "most humane" of circumstances on a local family farm where I'm from, chickens are hung upside down to have their throats cut in almost the same way as the Jewish process. The one difference is that their jugular vein is usually cut so that they bleed out faster. But the end goal is the same: a bled out chicken who has had its throat slit.
Now I can tell you that chicken felt that cut. And he/she felt it for a solid two to three minutes. They twitch about and make a terrible gurgling noise as life leaves their body. The blood drains into a bucket below the chicken, which they can no doubt see, regardless of if they can understand it or not, for that is another debate in entirely. But I can ultimately say, this is in no way humane. There is a good deal of suffering here, so I can assume there is suffering in the Jewish tradition as well. Now if you have scientific evidence saying otherwise, then by all means post away. In absence of that, I'll stick to my assertions.
Second, I wonder if Jewish people believe this is more humane because it does not simply reflect the factory farming system we have adopted on a mass scale today. However, I'm also wondering if Jewish people will consume animals raised on a factory farm as long as the shehitah is performed upon it. And if they did, I wonder if you could really consider this humane or justified. Does tradition trump morality? We touched this briefly today, but here's an application of it.
And I guess that's my question for all of you here: Is the shehitah morally justifiable because it is part of a longstanding tradition? Does tradition give credence to wrong?
I guess I'm bringing this up partially because we discussed it in class today, but also because I find the whole thing to be a big charade. As you all know, I have qualms with religion as it is, but I will try to keep those separate from the argument I am about to make.
First, the justification for the method itself is completely ludicrous. The Jewish faith considers this slit in the animal's throat to be the most humane and painless way of death for an animal. Now I'm no expert on the slaughter of most animals, but I have seen the slaughter of a chicken. And I've seen this firsthand, so I can speak to it. In the "most humane" of circumstances on a local family farm where I'm from, chickens are hung upside down to have their throats cut in almost the same way as the Jewish process. The one difference is that their jugular vein is usually cut so that they bleed out faster. But the end goal is the same: a bled out chicken who has had its throat slit.
Now I can tell you that chicken felt that cut. And he/she felt it for a solid two to three minutes. They twitch about and make a terrible gurgling noise as life leaves their body. The blood drains into a bucket below the chicken, which they can no doubt see, regardless of if they can understand it or not, for that is another debate in entirely. But I can ultimately say, this is in no way humane. There is a good deal of suffering here, so I can assume there is suffering in the Jewish tradition as well. Now if you have scientific evidence saying otherwise, then by all means post away. In absence of that, I'll stick to my assertions.
Second, I wonder if Jewish people believe this is more humane because it does not simply reflect the factory farming system we have adopted on a mass scale today. However, I'm also wondering if Jewish people will consume animals raised on a factory farm as long as the shehitah is performed upon it. And if they did, I wonder if you could really consider this humane or justified. Does tradition trump morality? We touched this briefly today, but here's an application of it.
And I guess that's my question for all of you here: Is the shehitah morally justifiable because it is part of a longstanding tradition? Does tradition give credence to wrong?
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Response to Jake
Jake asked if it was morally acceptable to own another being. I think this is indeed very important and that we have been bumping over it heavily in class. Allow me to clarify before I begin that I am justifying the ownership of beings as they refer to animals. In no way do I make a defense of slavery or any other time of human bondage.
Now, in regards to animals, I do think it can be morally acceptable to own an animal. I believe we have touched upon the concerns that most people would have regarding care, treatment, etc. of said animal. The animal deserves respect and care just like that of any other being. I mean this in the very basic sense of the word because I believe you could retort here by saying slavery would then be justified. But slavery is a sort of subjection of the human soul and a degradation of existence. I do not think you can aptly compare the two here.
But, I believe that if the animal is cared for with the utmost of respect, then you start to ascend to a mutual existence instead of ownership. For example, I own a small robo-dwarf hamster. He is just over two months old and he's a lot of fun. Left to his own devices, he may have been killed by now. He may have stayed in the pet store until he died from sickness or loneliness. Or worse yet, he may have made his way into the hands of someone cruel. In this strange sense, it's as if I've rescued him. And as he grows, I continue to rescue him.
I provide his food, his home, safety, security, and anything else he will need to live out his three to four years of life. In the wild, it is likely that this highly intelligent rodent would not last long. But here, we have formed a mutual bond. My care for his company has caused us to reach a mutual understanding of sorts. And though he does try to escape once in awhile out of pure curiosity, he will not resist coming back into my hand and heading back into the cage.
In the same broader sense, many animals function in this way. I recall the YouTube clip that went viral a couple years back which showed a lion that was raised in captivity for many years of its life. After having lived in the wild for many years, the old caretaker returned and the animal 'attacked' him with love. If you haven't see this, then check it out.
So yes, I would assert ownership is acceptable, because I think it ultimately transcends that. It puts us back in touch with something we have lost: connections with other beings.
Question: Is animal ownership the key to ending animal cruelty?
Now, in regards to animals, I do think it can be morally acceptable to own an animal. I believe we have touched upon the concerns that most people would have regarding care, treatment, etc. of said animal. The animal deserves respect and care just like that of any other being. I mean this in the very basic sense of the word because I believe you could retort here by saying slavery would then be justified. But slavery is a sort of subjection of the human soul and a degradation of existence. I do not think you can aptly compare the two here.
But, I believe that if the animal is cared for with the utmost of respect, then you start to ascend to a mutual existence instead of ownership. For example, I own a small robo-dwarf hamster. He is just over two months old and he's a lot of fun. Left to his own devices, he may have been killed by now. He may have stayed in the pet store until he died from sickness or loneliness. Or worse yet, he may have made his way into the hands of someone cruel. In this strange sense, it's as if I've rescued him. And as he grows, I continue to rescue him.
I provide his food, his home, safety, security, and anything else he will need to live out his three to four years of life. In the wild, it is likely that this highly intelligent rodent would not last long. But here, we have formed a mutual bond. My care for his company has caused us to reach a mutual understanding of sorts. And though he does try to escape once in awhile out of pure curiosity, he will not resist coming back into my hand and heading back into the cage.
In the same broader sense, many animals function in this way. I recall the YouTube clip that went viral a couple years back which showed a lion that was raised in captivity for many years of its life. After having lived in the wild for many years, the old caretaker returned and the animal 'attacked' him with love. If you haven't see this, then check it out.
So yes, I would assert ownership is acceptable, because I think it ultimately transcends that. It puts us back in touch with something we have lost: connections with other beings.
Question: Is animal ownership the key to ending animal cruelty?
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Epstein Goes to Extremes
In his article entitled The Dangerous Claims of the Animal Rights Movement, Richard Epstein asserts that the assertions Steve Wise and other animal rights activists are not only wrong, but also a danger to human society. After outlining some of the "crazy ideas" of animal rights activists, Epstein states that, "...if systematically implemented, would pose a mortal threat to human society that few human beings would, or should, accept" (604). I have another assertion: Epstein is the radical here. Allow me to clarify.
First, Epstein really doesn't present a morally-based argument very well. He simply states that, "...one difference stands out: through thick and thin, animals do not have the capacity of higher cognitive language and thought that characterizes human beings as a species..." (601). Really? Is that so? I seem to recall that dolphins and other aquatic animals have a very developed form of underwater communication. In fact, we have discussed that many animals speak in ways of their own that we cannot understand. I assert that this is their language, just as French would be to a French person. I do not understand it, but I know it to be language.
Next, Epstein makes this wild assertion that by equating human and ape DNA together, animal rights activists must also consider that we may be related to the horse, dog and cow (602). This is like asserting that the hamster and the shark have the same DNA. Evolution has weeded out and replaced strands of DNA within species. An ignorance of modern science will produce a comment like Epstein's. It just so happens that humans and apes are evolved from the same strands. Thus, we still share a good amount of traits.
But not long after this is where Epstein starts to get radical in his own right. He states that, "The early society that did not rely on animals for food, for labor, for warfare was the society that did not survive to yield the heightened moral sensibilities of today" (602). What a statement! I seem to recall that most Native Americans did not just hunt, but also gathered. In fact, gathering was a major source of nutrition for them. And as I also recall, it was the meat-eating, profit-desiring, animal-slaughtering Westerner that took care of them.
However, Epstein doesn't stop there. He then takes the extreme of Gary Francione and somehow applies it to the entire animal rights movement. The theory of one man is not science. Just as one idea is not philosophy. So do not suggest it.
And finally, Epstein goes off his rocker with the statement, "The principle of first possession should therefore block us from clearing the land for farms, homes, and factories unless we can find ways to make just compensation to each individual animal for its own losses" (603). How is this even a suggestion? And how was it extrapolated? Human beings have lived peacefully with animals, in co-habitation, for thousands of years. The system we have now, one of pollution and exploitation, has perverted such an existence. We do owe animals a respect, just as we would hopefully respect another human's right to property and life.
But in the end, Epstein does not believe this. He follows up in summation by saying, "We should not undermine, as would surely be the case, the liberty and dignity of human beings by treating animals their moral equals and legal peers" (604). So there you have it. Epstein is the radical here. He picks apart the radicals of this movement and then makes a statement of his own which is just as radical. Giving animals liberty and dignity would no doubt trash human ability to have the same.
I do apologize if I come across snide or angered, but I am. And I hope that someone responds to my claims here, as well as Epstein's, in order to spur some discussion.
Question: Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor? (This sort of goes back to our discussion of space and care for animals; sorry to bring it back it but I don't think it was done justice.)
First, Epstein really doesn't present a morally-based argument very well. He simply states that, "...one difference stands out: through thick and thin, animals do not have the capacity of higher cognitive language and thought that characterizes human beings as a species..." (601). Really? Is that so? I seem to recall that dolphins and other aquatic animals have a very developed form of underwater communication. In fact, we have discussed that many animals speak in ways of their own that we cannot understand. I assert that this is their language, just as French would be to a French person. I do not understand it, but I know it to be language.
Next, Epstein makes this wild assertion that by equating human and ape DNA together, animal rights activists must also consider that we may be related to the horse, dog and cow (602). This is like asserting that the hamster and the shark have the same DNA. Evolution has weeded out and replaced strands of DNA within species. An ignorance of modern science will produce a comment like Epstein's. It just so happens that humans and apes are evolved from the same strands. Thus, we still share a good amount of traits.
But not long after this is where Epstein starts to get radical in his own right. He states that, "The early society that did not rely on animals for food, for labor, for warfare was the society that did not survive to yield the heightened moral sensibilities of today" (602). What a statement! I seem to recall that most Native Americans did not just hunt, but also gathered. In fact, gathering was a major source of nutrition for them. And as I also recall, it was the meat-eating, profit-desiring, animal-slaughtering Westerner that took care of them.
However, Epstein doesn't stop there. He then takes the extreme of Gary Francione and somehow applies it to the entire animal rights movement. The theory of one man is not science. Just as one idea is not philosophy. So do not suggest it.
And finally, Epstein goes off his rocker with the statement, "The principle of first possession should therefore block us from clearing the land for farms, homes, and factories unless we can find ways to make just compensation to each individual animal for its own losses" (603). How is this even a suggestion? And how was it extrapolated? Human beings have lived peacefully with animals, in co-habitation, for thousands of years. The system we have now, one of pollution and exploitation, has perverted such an existence. We do owe animals a respect, just as we would hopefully respect another human's right to property and life.
But in the end, Epstein does not believe this. He follows up in summation by saying, "We should not undermine, as would surely be the case, the liberty and dignity of human beings by treating animals their moral equals and legal peers" (604). So there you have it. Epstein is the radical here. He picks apart the radicals of this movement and then makes a statement of his own which is just as radical. Giving animals liberty and dignity would no doubt trash human ability to have the same.
I do apologize if I come across snide or angered, but I am. And I hope that someone responds to my claims here, as well as Epstein's, in order to spur some discussion.
Question: Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor? (This sort of goes back to our discussion of space and care for animals; sorry to bring it back it but I don't think it was done justice.)
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Garbarino's Limited Argument
In James Garbarino's essay Protecting Children and Animals from Abuse: A Trans-Species Concept of Caring, he essentially argues that the ability to harm animals is the ability to harm children, and vice versa. He states very simply that, "...using the occasion of investigating animal abuse as an opportunity to do an assessment of the quality of care for any children cohabiting with the animals in question" (562).
This assertion is oftentimes validated in every day society. Many serial killers once began with the mutilation of animals as a means towards mutilation of humans. Take for example, Ted Bundy, who was executed in the 1980's for the murders of 22 women. It was discovered in the trial that Bundy had participated in the mutilation of squirrels for fun as a young boy. This had fueled his "blood-thirst" as he matured. This too validates Garbarino's point that "...shame based on the denial of basic human rights is the engine that drives the violence machine" (563).
However much I may agree with Garbarino, I think his assertions are very narrow-minded. Indeed, children and animals exhibit much of the same "innocence" as one another. They both can be easily subjected to tortures and terrors that no grown human would, in the right moral mind, go along with. However, couldn't any human be subjected to the tortures of the sadistic human mind? I believe there are 22 dead women because of one.
What I am suggesting is that Garbarino should broaden the assertion to include the fact that human beings who participate in animal harm are more likely to harm human beings as a whole. Just because children are innocent does not mean that they are the only subjects of this abuse. As Garbarino stated, a denial of basic human rights will fuel the violence machine. There is no limit to where violence begins or ends. It simply is.
Question: Do you think that the abuse of animals, even by those who consume meat from and support CAFOs, is a reflection of a morally degraded society as a whole? Have we become complacent to cruelty?
This assertion is oftentimes validated in every day society. Many serial killers once began with the mutilation of animals as a means towards mutilation of humans. Take for example, Ted Bundy, who was executed in the 1980's for the murders of 22 women. It was discovered in the trial that Bundy had participated in the mutilation of squirrels for fun as a young boy. This had fueled his "blood-thirst" as he matured. This too validates Garbarino's point that "...shame based on the denial of basic human rights is the engine that drives the violence machine" (563).
However much I may agree with Garbarino, I think his assertions are very narrow-minded. Indeed, children and animals exhibit much of the same "innocence" as one another. They both can be easily subjected to tortures and terrors that no grown human would, in the right moral mind, go along with. However, couldn't any human be subjected to the tortures of the sadistic human mind? I believe there are 22 dead women because of one.
What I am suggesting is that Garbarino should broaden the assertion to include the fact that human beings who participate in animal harm are more likely to harm human beings as a whole. Just because children are innocent does not mean that they are the only subjects of this abuse. As Garbarino stated, a denial of basic human rights will fuel the violence machine. There is no limit to where violence begins or ends. It simply is.
Question: Do you think that the abuse of animals, even by those who consume meat from and support CAFOs, is a reflection of a morally degraded society as a whole? Have we become complacent to cruelty?
Sunday, November 7, 2010
A Response to Jake
Jake posits the question: What would be the economic ramifications of switching to a hunter-gatherer method?
It's a hard one to answer and I've taken some time to reflect on it. I think it is asked from the point of view of which I have spoken of. The day we moved away from hunter-gatherer, we moved into the capitalist system in which every man and woman fights for himself. This then turned into every man and woman fighting for the gold which humankind made "valuable". And it's never stopped turning then. Economic ramifications were indeed considered in the first switch to agrarian, but only with the mindset of profit. As Billy Joel would say, the fire's burnin' since the (and I'm adding my own artistic abilities here) tiller started churnin'.
So maybe a switch runs a little bit deeper? Sure, Mary will have to find other jobs and continue on in complacent misery. So is the way the system is set up. Maybe I've struck a nerve not just with the food system, but possibly the 'system' as a whole. I believe I suggested in an earlier entry that the food system today is a representation, pure and simple, of the capitalist mind. And if I did not assert it, then here I am. Profit, profit, profit. No matter the cost.
Maybe by considering the economic ramifications of this switch, we are considering the ramifications of a complete economic change. Statistics show that there is enough food in the world to feed its populous, for now. Simply, certain men and women keep it locked up and out of reach of the poor "children". So maybe by tearing down the dam of factory-farming and opening up the flood of hunter-gatherer, you are entering a new age. Maybe it is our way of getting what Marx wanted us to. In order to bring food to all, we have to share that food. And in sharing that food, maybe it will open up new doors to sharing other things. We will possibly enter that utopian socialist republic we never should have stopped seeking.
I suppose this entry might seem idealistic, but that is truly my question: Is a push toward the hunter-gatherer system not just a change in the way we eat, but in the way we think and live? Is it a final abandonment of capitalist ideals and a push to Utopian socialism?
It's a hard one to answer and I've taken some time to reflect on it. I think it is asked from the point of view of which I have spoken of. The day we moved away from hunter-gatherer, we moved into the capitalist system in which every man and woman fights for himself. This then turned into every man and woman fighting for the gold which humankind made "valuable". And it's never stopped turning then. Economic ramifications were indeed considered in the first switch to agrarian, but only with the mindset of profit. As Billy Joel would say, the fire's burnin' since the (and I'm adding my own artistic abilities here) tiller started churnin'.
So maybe a switch runs a little bit deeper? Sure, Mary will have to find other jobs and continue on in complacent misery. So is the way the system is set up. Maybe I've struck a nerve not just with the food system, but possibly the 'system' as a whole. I believe I suggested in an earlier entry that the food system today is a representation, pure and simple, of the capitalist mind. And if I did not assert it, then here I am. Profit, profit, profit. No matter the cost.
Maybe by considering the economic ramifications of this switch, we are considering the ramifications of a complete economic change. Statistics show that there is enough food in the world to feed its populous, for now. Simply, certain men and women keep it locked up and out of reach of the poor "children". So maybe by tearing down the dam of factory-farming and opening up the flood of hunter-gatherer, you are entering a new age. Maybe it is our way of getting what Marx wanted us to. In order to bring food to all, we have to share that food. And in sharing that food, maybe it will open up new doors to sharing other things. We will possibly enter that utopian socialist republic we never should have stopped seeking.
I suppose this entry might seem idealistic, but that is truly my question: Is a push toward the hunter-gatherer system not just a change in the way we eat, but in the way we think and live? Is it a final abandonment of capitalist ideals and a push to Utopian socialism?
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Response to Bryan A
Bryan asked, "What is the most practical way to get people to experience the actual process of getting meat to the dinner table?...Do you think this would change people’s attitudes towards eating meat?". I think he answers his question a bit in his own post and I have answered it in a previous. However, I think his answer was arrived at a bit differently.
I say this because I truly do wonder if humanity would have as much "trouble" killing an animal as they would actual trouble. Let me clarify this otherwise coded little statement. I believe that the United States is a society based on aggressiveness and violence. Our television shows, video games, movies, our international policies, and even our very own food system reflect this. It is obvious that we as a people have no problem killing things. However, we would have trouble actually learning how to track down and kill an animal. Therein lies your "trouble". There are a very small percentage of people who would actually know how to gather the meat they desire. And the few people who did would dominate. This couples with my assertion that a return to hunter-gatherer system would create a whole new feudal system.
I don't make this assertion blindly. Anyone who has read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemna would realize this to be true. The whole point of his book is not just to point out corruptions in the food system, but also to examine if it is possible to create a meal through "hunter-gatherer" methods. He spends a significant amount of time in the hills of Northern California trying to hunt wild boards and finds it to be more than just a challenge: it's near impossible, even for his hunting companion who has been doing so for several years. On top of this, he cannot gather the mushrooms or yeast for the rest of his meal. If my memory serves me right (though please correct me if wrong), he had to buy things from a store to complete the meal for his guests. Thus, proving my assertions in literature.
So in short, there really is no 'practical' way to get back to hunter-gatherer methods. And even if there were, I think you would see people eat less and less meat by far. Slowly, the factory farm system may even collapse on itself.
Thus, I raise the question of if it is possible to incrementally eliminate the factory food system with the slow push of the hunter-gatherer method? Should we teach this to our children instead of grocery bought foods? Or is it too late? Several questions here, but I'd really like to see the discussion and thoughts because it's something I have given a lot of thought to.
I say this because I truly do wonder if humanity would have as much "trouble" killing an animal as they would actual trouble. Let me clarify this otherwise coded little statement. I believe that the United States is a society based on aggressiveness and violence. Our television shows, video games, movies, our international policies, and even our very own food system reflect this. It is obvious that we as a people have no problem killing things. However, we would have trouble actually learning how to track down and kill an animal. Therein lies your "trouble". There are a very small percentage of people who would actually know how to gather the meat they desire. And the few people who did would dominate. This couples with my assertion that a return to hunter-gatherer system would create a whole new feudal system.
I don't make this assertion blindly. Anyone who has read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemna would realize this to be true. The whole point of his book is not just to point out corruptions in the food system, but also to examine if it is possible to create a meal through "hunter-gatherer" methods. He spends a significant amount of time in the hills of Northern California trying to hunt wild boards and finds it to be more than just a challenge: it's near impossible, even for his hunting companion who has been doing so for several years. On top of this, he cannot gather the mushrooms or yeast for the rest of his meal. If my memory serves me right (though please correct me if wrong), he had to buy things from a store to complete the meal for his guests. Thus, proving my assertions in literature.
So in short, there really is no 'practical' way to get back to hunter-gatherer methods. And even if there were, I think you would see people eat less and less meat by far. Slowly, the factory farm system may even collapse on itself.
Thus, I raise the question of if it is possible to incrementally eliminate the factory food system with the slow push of the hunter-gatherer method? Should we teach this to our children instead of grocery bought foods? Or is it too late? Several questions here, but I'd really like to see the discussion and thoughts because it's something I have given a lot of thought to.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
My Argument for Hunting
I know, shocking, right? Coming from a newly devout vegetarian and strong animal rights advocate, this must seem quite the shocker. However, this section on hunting has broadened my perspectives on something and helped me adapt a few others. First off, I think it's important for me to mention that I have no problem whatsoever with people who eat meat. That is a choice you must reconcile, or not, with yourself. Though I do have a problem with the way in which the meat was produced (referring here to the dominance of CAFOs as our meat source), I do not hold anyone who consumes it at fault.
That said, I will state simply that I believe subsistence hunting is the only defensible type of hunting. I will explain this assertion.
First, we discussed the bushmen who rely on gorilla meat as the only source of food in their area. How can we tell them there are other alternatives when there clearly are not? In more advanced societies like the one we live our daily lives in, there are indeed other ways to obtain all the necessary nutrients to survive. But this is not true of say, as Alex brought up, people living in the Himalayas who will without a doubt have to consume a yak's meat, drink its milk, and use its fur for warmth in order to survive. Thus, you cannot tell these people their actions are wrong or immoral. There is a justification of survival here for humans that exists just so much so for animals. An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis.
The second reason I justify subsistence hunting is because it was a practice which naturally regulated our ecosystem in the, what now seems, long-distant past. I stated today in class that "By not interfering, you are interfering"; and I stand by this statement 110%. What I mean by it is that when humans do not hunt animals, as was necessary like mentioned above, they do become "overpopulated" and tend to eventually trample on one another. Example: There are too many coyotes and not enough food; not only will the food source be forced towards extinction, but the coyotes will also as they cannot feed their lot.
It's really a common sense concept. And I suppose I will have to go against my own statement that saying "animal overpopulation" is a human interest, because I just proposed it was an animal one too. In the same right, humans lived with wild animal populations in complete peace for thousands of years. This was done so by subsistence hunting which kept everything completely in check.
Concepts around respect or morality seem to bog down a conversation which could otherwise be solved relatively easily. And I believe I just have resolved it. As for trophy hunting, it is out of the question simply because it serves no purpose except to satisfy a cruel and vile human interest. There is no point and it should not continue.
That said, I will state simply that I believe subsistence hunting is the only defensible type of hunting. I will explain this assertion.
First, we discussed the bushmen who rely on gorilla meat as the only source of food in their area. How can we tell them there are other alternatives when there clearly are not? In more advanced societies like the one we live our daily lives in, there are indeed other ways to obtain all the necessary nutrients to survive. But this is not true of say, as Alex brought up, people living in the Himalayas who will without a doubt have to consume a yak's meat, drink its milk, and use its fur for warmth in order to survive. Thus, you cannot tell these people their actions are wrong or immoral. There is a justification of survival here for humans that exists just so much so for animals. An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis.
The second reason I justify subsistence hunting is because it was a practice which naturally regulated our ecosystem in the, what now seems, long-distant past. I stated today in class that "By not interfering, you are interfering"; and I stand by this statement 110%. What I mean by it is that when humans do not hunt animals, as was necessary like mentioned above, they do become "overpopulated" and tend to eventually trample on one another. Example: There are too many coyotes and not enough food; not only will the food source be forced towards extinction, but the coyotes will also as they cannot feed their lot.
It's really a common sense concept. And I suppose I will have to go against my own statement that saying "animal overpopulation" is a human interest, because I just proposed it was an animal one too. In the same right, humans lived with wild animal populations in complete peace for thousands of years. This was done so by subsistence hunting which kept everything completely in check.
Concepts around respect or morality seem to bog down a conversation which could otherwise be solved relatively easily. And I believe I just have resolved it. As for trophy hunting, it is out of the question simply because it serves no purpose except to satisfy a cruel and vile human interest. There is no point and it should not continue.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Hunting As Capitalist Embodiment
In my class Native American Peoples, we discussed the use of animals and ecosystem by past Native peoples. You might ask what would make such a conversation so relevant or exciting? In turn, I would answer that it is fascinating because Native Peoples behaved in this area completely different then we do now. They held nature to be the same as and one with them. Every tree they cut, they knew would come back around in the circle of things. To consume animal flesh was to join the forces of life. And not only did they know this, but they respected this. Every kill was a clean one. Every piece of meat was a used one. And never was an animal hunted for sport or for 'economic reasons'; because there was no need to. In a sense, they were our first socialists, long before Marx or Engels changed political discourse.
Well now those people are unfortunately mostly gone, due to our own little version of hunting on them. But when we drove them out, we also drove the notion of hunting for need out with them. And instead, we turned hunting into a capitalist venture. The North American continent was not fought over for ideas or for glory. It was fought over money, resources, and raw power. The French fur trade dominated, and also destroyed, ecosystems across the continent. But it made money! So it was justifiable. Right?
Well now we've taken it one step farther: we tax and charge for the slaughter of animals. And our politicians justify it by saying that this money is being used to conserve the forest or to send your kids to college. Here in the United States, I think we know this to be absolutely false. In FY 2009, the United States committed 20% of GDP to military and "defense" spending. Do you know how much went to education and infrastructure? Combined, a total of 6%. 6%! How interesting.
The point here is that I believe hunting used to be something good and understood. And no doubt, bushmen and what Natives there are left understand and practice this. But as a whole, society has completely forgotten what it is like to "hunt", and I mean truly hunt, an animal. And therein is the moral justification for not doing so.
Question: Do you believe that hunter-gatherer methods could even be perverted to capitalist ends? Or is it a socialistic practice by definition?
Well now those people are unfortunately mostly gone, due to our own little version of hunting on them. But when we drove them out, we also drove the notion of hunting for need out with them. And instead, we turned hunting into a capitalist venture. The North American continent was not fought over for ideas or for glory. It was fought over money, resources, and raw power. The French fur trade dominated, and also destroyed, ecosystems across the continent. But it made money! So it was justifiable. Right?
Well now we've taken it one step farther: we tax and charge for the slaughter of animals. And our politicians justify it by saying that this money is being used to conserve the forest or to send your kids to college. Here in the United States, I think we know this to be absolutely false. In FY 2009, the United States committed 20% of GDP to military and "defense" spending. Do you know how much went to education and infrastructure? Combined, a total of 6%. 6%! How interesting.
The point here is that I believe hunting used to be something good and understood. And no doubt, bushmen and what Natives there are left understand and practice this. But as a whole, society has completely forgotten what it is like to "hunt", and I mean truly hunt, an animal. And therein is the moral justification for not doing so.
Question: Do you believe that hunter-gatherer methods could even be perverted to capitalist ends? Or is it a socialistic practice by definition?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Response to Becca
I am responding to Becca's question: "What do you think the world would be like if, in order to eat meat, everyone was required to hunt and kill the animal themselves?"
It almost correlates with a blog I did earlier about the slow scaling back of the factory farm system. I asserted that one could have an absolutist view of eliminating it because of the chaos that would ensue. I believe the same is likely if we forced the kind of change Becca is suggesting.
I read a scholarly article the other day asserting that the move away from the hunter-gatherer food system destroyed our society more than helped. Most people say that the move to an agrarian society made food plentiful, freed up more leisure time, and in general made us a more "civilized" society. This is simply not true. Farmers are treated abysmally by the government and the people that eat their food. They often do not make enough food (ironically) or money to survive, while being forced to produce more and more. They are essentially the proletariat while we are all unknowingly the bourgeoisie.
However, the main assertion of the article was that agrarian society created the hierarchies, governments, and inequalities we have today. Farms meant more urbanization. And urbanization meant farms. The two became intertwined. And thus, cities propagated disease, leadership struggles, and wars.
So, as answer to the question, I believe we would see an extremely different world and possibly a much uglier one. Maybe only a select few would know how to kill and prepare an animal. Maybe some would be better hunter's then all. With all the greed that is so much a part of our society, it is likely we would transfer it back to the hunter-gatherer system. At the heart of such a system was the idea that all would be shared and all would prosper. Today, humanity is too oriented on the self to believe it anymore. And thus, a new sort of chaos would arise.
Question: Do you think the agrarian system could be improved to reflect the values of the hunter-gatherer system?
It almost correlates with a blog I did earlier about the slow scaling back of the factory farm system. I asserted that one could have an absolutist view of eliminating it because of the chaos that would ensue. I believe the same is likely if we forced the kind of change Becca is suggesting.
I read a scholarly article the other day asserting that the move away from the hunter-gatherer food system destroyed our society more than helped. Most people say that the move to an agrarian society made food plentiful, freed up more leisure time, and in general made us a more "civilized" society. This is simply not true. Farmers are treated abysmally by the government and the people that eat their food. They often do not make enough food (ironically) or money to survive, while being forced to produce more and more. They are essentially the proletariat while we are all unknowingly the bourgeoisie.
However, the main assertion of the article was that agrarian society created the hierarchies, governments, and inequalities we have today. Farms meant more urbanization. And urbanization meant farms. The two became intertwined. And thus, cities propagated disease, leadership struggles, and wars.
So, as answer to the question, I believe we would see an extremely different world and possibly a much uglier one. Maybe only a select few would know how to kill and prepare an animal. Maybe some would be better hunter's then all. With all the greed that is so much a part of our society, it is likely we would transfer it back to the hunter-gatherer system. At the heart of such a system was the idea that all would be shared and all would prosper. Today, humanity is too oriented on the self to believe it anymore. And thus, a new sort of chaos would arise.
Question: Do you think the agrarian system could be improved to reflect the values of the hunter-gatherer system?
Saturday, October 23, 2010
A Response to Skyla AND Jenna
I actually read Jenna's blog entry on animal hunting first and then moved on to Skyla's response to it. However, I think both had some real substance in them that I would like to address.
First, Jenna discusses the issue of animal hunting and animal consumption through the means of the factory farm (CAFO). It appears that she believes that killing an animal through hunting would be more morally justifiable then eating one from the store. This is because hunting is a "clean kill" and the animal is consumed with understanding. Meat bought from a store is the result of years and years of pain and suffering in a factory farm. Not to mention, the inhumane methods of slaughter.
Now, I think she makes very valid points here, however, I think I would agree with her on a different level. I say this because my justifications for being a vegetarian is that I myself could not kill an animal. I do not have the strength or willpower to take another life. Thus, I do not deserve to partake in the flesh. Therefore, I believe that buying meat from the store perpetuates this sort of disconnection from our food sources. And the fact of the matter is that most people who buy and consume this meat probably couldn't kill the animal either. Thus, I believe meat froma store is morally unjustifiable. Hunting for food is.
Skyla seems to take on a sort of similar perspective, though she does assert that killing animals in any capacity is morally wrong. However, it was the question she poised that intrigued me. She asked whether or not there was a real difference between factory farming and local farms. And in addition, she asked if factory farming could possibly be justified in our society.
First, there is a significant difference between factory farming and local farms. I frequently visit Cricket Creek Farm in Williamstown, MA, and I have seen firsthand the conditions which these animals are cared for. They roam free in pastures. They have more than enough to eat. They have names and relationships with their owners. And when it comes time to slaughter, it is done so quickly and clean, just as if they were hunted in the wild. There is a respect for their moral status as a person on these farms. Something like this can not, and never will be, found on a factory farm. So yes, there is a huge difference.
And as for justifying the factory farms, I find this question to be most difficult. The way that the food system has built up around these CAFO's has made the system almost interdependent. If you were to take away the farms, then it is likely you would see prices skyrocket, meat become scarce, and maybe even riots start. It would be absolute madness. In addition, we have become so distanced from and contaminated our wild food supplies so much that even eating them would be difficult. Therefore, I am a huge supporter of an incremental approach. I do not justify the factory farms, but I understand them and their unfortunate concrete existence in our society.
First, Jenna discusses the issue of animal hunting and animal consumption through the means of the factory farm (CAFO). It appears that she believes that killing an animal through hunting would be more morally justifiable then eating one from the store. This is because hunting is a "clean kill" and the animal is consumed with understanding. Meat bought from a store is the result of years and years of pain and suffering in a factory farm. Not to mention, the inhumane methods of slaughter.
Now, I think she makes very valid points here, however, I think I would agree with her on a different level. I say this because my justifications for being a vegetarian is that I myself could not kill an animal. I do not have the strength or willpower to take another life. Thus, I do not deserve to partake in the flesh. Therefore, I believe that buying meat from the store perpetuates this sort of disconnection from our food sources. And the fact of the matter is that most people who buy and consume this meat probably couldn't kill the animal either. Thus, I believe meat froma store is morally unjustifiable. Hunting for food is.
Skyla seems to take on a sort of similar perspective, though she does assert that killing animals in any capacity is morally wrong. However, it was the question she poised that intrigued me. She asked whether or not there was a real difference between factory farming and local farms. And in addition, she asked if factory farming could possibly be justified in our society.
First, there is a significant difference between factory farming and local farms. I frequently visit Cricket Creek Farm in Williamstown, MA, and I have seen firsthand the conditions which these animals are cared for. They roam free in pastures. They have more than enough to eat. They have names and relationships with their owners. And when it comes time to slaughter, it is done so quickly and clean, just as if they were hunted in the wild. There is a respect for their moral status as a person on these farms. Something like this can not, and never will be, found on a factory farm. So yes, there is a huge difference.
And as for justifying the factory farms, I find this question to be most difficult. The way that the food system has built up around these CAFO's has made the system almost interdependent. If you were to take away the farms, then it is likely you would see prices skyrocket, meat become scarce, and maybe even riots start. It would be absolute madness. In addition, we have become so distanced from and contaminated our wild food supplies so much that even eating them would be difficult. Therefore, I am a huge supporter of an incremental approach. I do not justify the factory farms, but I understand them and their unfortunate concrete existence in our society.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
No Pain in the Laboratory?
Degrazia states that "...possibly certain behavioral studies of other species that take place in laboratories but do not cause pain, distress, or suffering to the subjects" may possibly be justified (312). To be specific, he states that the taking of a blood sample would qualify as such. These actions do not cause unreasonable harm and thus could be justified. I'll state simply that I disagree strongly.
My opinion stems from an earlier discussion of animal space and desire. I stated that I believe animals deserve a right to space as a part of personhood. If we are to allow animals to live out their lives just as any other "person" would, then having access to room to move about seems imperative. We would consider "housing" a human right, I think. Contest it if you like, but for now it is.
So, that established, wouldn't be confining animals in a laboratory a violation of their right to space in and of itself? I do believe it would. Studies have repeatedly shown that confined animals suffer from higher levels of stress and discomfort. The laboratory, no matter the "accommodating conditions", is not a natural habitat. It is a "prison" of sorts, meant to keep animals in place until they have been sufficiently used.
However, I would contest one point further. Is DeGrazia suggesting that having blood taken is not painful in some way? It does cause distress during, and even leading up. To say it doesn't is ignorant. And to subject an animal in an already unfamiliar and stressful area to this would only seem to make the suffering worse. Thus, I find Degrazia completely at wrong.
Question: Setting aside the issue of "animal space", do you believe it would be wrong to cause such minimal pain in any situation?
My opinion stems from an earlier discussion of animal space and desire. I stated that I believe animals deserve a right to space as a part of personhood. If we are to allow animals to live out their lives just as any other "person" would, then having access to room to move about seems imperative. We would consider "housing" a human right, I think. Contest it if you like, but for now it is.
So, that established, wouldn't be confining animals in a laboratory a violation of their right to space in and of itself? I do believe it would. Studies have repeatedly shown that confined animals suffer from higher levels of stress and discomfort. The laboratory, no matter the "accommodating conditions", is not a natural habitat. It is a "prison" of sorts, meant to keep animals in place until they have been sufficiently used.
However, I would contest one point further. Is DeGrazia suggesting that having blood taken is not painful in some way? It does cause distress during, and even leading up. To say it doesn't is ignorant. And to subject an animal in an already unfamiliar and stressful area to this would only seem to make the suffering worse. Thus, I find Degrazia completely at wrong.
Question: Setting aside the issue of "animal space", do you believe it would be wrong to cause such minimal pain in any situation?
Saturday, October 16, 2010
The Fault of Davis
I was going to bring this up on Friday, but we were pressed for time so I figured it would be better placed here.
I had a major point of contention regarding Steven Davis. He simply stated that "dead is dead" when it comes to animal consumption. However, he touches upon the issue of animal suffering as key to the determination of whether or not animals should be consumed. Why consider such suffering when a death is a death? I feel as if such a statement invalidates his entire argument.
From Davis' point of view, it seems that pain would be your moral "contingency". If you are inflicting excess pain, then you are violating moral obligations to beings. And we did assign such status to animals if I recall. But then Davis seems to believe that the level of pain is also somehow irrelevant in the long run as the animal will be dead anyways.
For me, a death is not a death. You cannot equate the two. The manner in which death came about can differ in a spectrum of ways. A dog that dies of natural causes and a chicken that was raised without legs to be slaughtered are not the same thing. Your moral contingency does not hinge as much on the consumption of the animal, maybe so much as the suffering indeed. We owe good long lives to all beings, so how does one argue for "death is death"? Imagine the chaos, the breakdown of society, etc. We would not apply any other such term to society or reality, so why it is done here I am unsure.
But is death just that: death? Or can we assign different levels? And is the status at death the true determination of moral obligations?
I had a major point of contention regarding Steven Davis. He simply stated that "dead is dead" when it comes to animal consumption. However, he touches upon the issue of animal suffering as key to the determination of whether or not animals should be consumed. Why consider such suffering when a death is a death? I feel as if such a statement invalidates his entire argument.
From Davis' point of view, it seems that pain would be your moral "contingency". If you are inflicting excess pain, then you are violating moral obligations to beings. And we did assign such status to animals if I recall. But then Davis seems to believe that the level of pain is also somehow irrelevant in the long run as the animal will be dead anyways.
For me, a death is not a death. You cannot equate the two. The manner in which death came about can differ in a spectrum of ways. A dog that dies of natural causes and a chicken that was raised without legs to be slaughtered are not the same thing. Your moral contingency does not hinge as much on the consumption of the animal, maybe so much as the suffering indeed. We owe good long lives to all beings, so how does one argue for "death is death"? Imagine the chaos, the breakdown of society, etc. We would not apply any other such term to society or reality, so why it is done here I am unsure.
But is death just that: death? Or can we assign different levels? And is the status at death the true determination of moral obligations?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
True Genius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaYSFcBm-W4&feature=player_embedded#at=55
Just watch it. No real value to the discussion, but I figured it was something humorous to lighten up the mood and maybe show just how ignorant some people are.
Just watch it. No real value to the discussion, but I figured it was something humorous to lighten up the mood and maybe show just how ignorant some people are.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
An Attempt at Incrementalism (Response to Bridgette)
Seeing as I am a fan of absolutism, it's funny that I am going to proceed to try and defend incrementalism. However, I think it is something that must be done. And often, the best cases of defense are made by those who are in opposition.
I have read many, many books on the issue of mass-slaughtering and what not of animals. From Johnathan Safran-Meyer to Michael Pollan, all the literature says the same thing: the human-animal consumption is no longer a relationship but a form of genocide. CAFO's to corn, it's one big corrupt system from the top down. However, the same literature also describes a harsh reality of this system that is not often recognized: it is firmly anchored. According to the FDA, citizens of the United States consumed over 33 million dead cattle in 2009. That number is only increasing with each passing year. And as population grows, the need for food grows as well. Thus, the system will only get bigger.
Now, if one were to say put all the CAFO's out of business and return cattle to ranchers and casual grazing, the whole food system in the United States would undoubtedly collapse. It is likely there would be riots in the streets, as meat disappeared from store shelves and prices sky-rocketed for what little was left. This seems extreme, but I think we all know it to be true.
Now this system of food grew up over hundreds of years. A desire for cheaper food at greater rates did not spring overnight. Thus, a challenge to the system cannot be raised overnight either. Instead, one must take morally right steps over time. Protests of the meat industry and boycotts of their products would be as effective as any mass shut down. Legislation to prevent such treatment of animals (as the UK, Sweden, and several other EU nations have done) should be enacted in time.
This may seem "morally negligent, but it is truly the only logical way. To bring it back to what Bridgette was saying about slavery, I think I would say this: slavery was abolished overnight, but its root still grows in the American nation today. Think about it.
I have read many, many books on the issue of mass-slaughtering and what not of animals. From Johnathan Safran-Meyer to Michael Pollan, all the literature says the same thing: the human-animal consumption is no longer a relationship but a form of genocide. CAFO's to corn, it's one big corrupt system from the top down. However, the same literature also describes a harsh reality of this system that is not often recognized: it is firmly anchored. According to the FDA, citizens of the United States consumed over 33 million dead cattle in 2009. That number is only increasing with each passing year. And as population grows, the need for food grows as well. Thus, the system will only get bigger.
Now, if one were to say put all the CAFO's out of business and return cattle to ranchers and casual grazing, the whole food system in the United States would undoubtedly collapse. It is likely there would be riots in the streets, as meat disappeared from store shelves and prices sky-rocketed for what little was left. This seems extreme, but I think we all know it to be true.
Now this system of food grew up over hundreds of years. A desire for cheaper food at greater rates did not spring overnight. Thus, a challenge to the system cannot be raised overnight either. Instead, one must take morally right steps over time. Protests of the meat industry and boycotts of their products would be as effective as any mass shut down. Legislation to prevent such treatment of animals (as the UK, Sweden, and several other EU nations have done) should be enacted in time.
This may seem "morally negligent, but it is truly the only logical way. To bring it back to what Bridgette was saying about slavery, I think I would say this: slavery was abolished overnight, but its root still grows in the American nation today. Think about it.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Wild and Radical? I Think Not.
One thing that I've noticed we keep coming back to, text after text, is the notion of whose interests are more relevant and if there is a sort of "hierarchy" to personhood. We go around and around in circles with the whole question. I am not so much curious about the question, as much as the way in which we answer it.
Every time the question arises, we seek to answer it by thinking up a hypothetical situation. For example, we ask what should be done if a building is burning and you have the chance to save a human or a dog. Sometimes, we even spice it up by making the human our child or best friend. These questions are always so crazy and absolute. It even provoked Professor Johnson to quote, "Ehtics does not apply to wild and radical scenarios". But doesn't it? And are these situations so wild and radical?
I ask this because I am confused as to how one would answer these questions then. It seems to me that these scenarios are not as outlandish as we would think. To me, asking if it is okay to wash your hands because of the loss of life seems more drastic. But then again, that makes me appear to subscribe to the hierarchy, so I'll refrain.
But in all honesty, why do we consider these legitimate questions towards morality to be so wild and radical? And in the same right, why can we not apply ethics to them? I'd be curious to see other thoughts.
Every time the question arises, we seek to answer it by thinking up a hypothetical situation. For example, we ask what should be done if a building is burning and you have the chance to save a human or a dog. Sometimes, we even spice it up by making the human our child or best friend. These questions are always so crazy and absolute. It even provoked Professor Johnson to quote, "Ehtics does not apply to wild and radical scenarios". But doesn't it? And are these situations so wild and radical?
I ask this because I am confused as to how one would answer these questions then. It seems to me that these scenarios are not as outlandish as we would think. To me, asking if it is okay to wash your hands because of the loss of life seems more drastic. But then again, that makes me appear to subscribe to the hierarchy, so I'll refrain.
But in all honesty, why do we consider these legitimate questions towards morality to be so wild and radical? And in the same right, why can we not apply ethics to them? I'd be curious to see other thoughts.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Response to Skyla
I really, really enjoy this question that Skyla proposes. It's one that I think about often, but one that I find difficult to answer. First and foremost, it poses the question of whether or not you can indeed confine animals and to what extent? But than I believe it opens up a Pandora's box of sorts in regards to space. What makes a cow more deserving of space than a goldfish in a bowl? And where do draw the line or even begin to define this?
I would like to suggest that it is actually quite reasonable to keep animals in a confined space, as long as no obvious discomfort seems to be done to them. A few classes ago, we discussed how animals do have the ability to express pain or discomfort in their own way. So wouldn't it stand to reason that if a goldfish was displeased about it's conditions that it would swim frantically or express discomfort in its own aquatic way? I am no zoologist so I unfortunately do not know the technicalities, but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.
In the same regard, cows do not appear at all harmed by their confined pastures. In fact, their pastures are extremely big in some regards. Free-range cows have more land to their desire than the average human being. I don't see anything wrong with this in any way.
However, it becomes wrong to confine animals when they are expressing overt discomfort. Puppy mills put hundreds of dogs in small cages while awaiting shipment to pet stores across the nation. The conditions are deplorable and the yelps even more heart-wrenching.
Maybe more relevant, and more mainstream, is the treatment of egg-laying hens or broiler chickens. All confined to tiny cages where they cannot move for their entire lives, these chickens are forced to produce sustenance for hungry humans at back-breaking speeds. One look at a cage of these chickens tells you they are suffering.
So no, unfortunately we cannot know what an animals is thinking inside. And to prescribe to it human emotions seems a bit of a stretch, because we really can't be sure. What is safe to say is that we can observe the actions of these confined animals and notice their physical discomfort. And from this, we can deduce that animals can be kept in confined spaces as long as they are not brought to discomfort.
What I wonder is if there is someone who believes animals should not be confined to space? And does this in turn mean that animals should not be domesticated at all?
I would like to suggest that it is actually quite reasonable to keep animals in a confined space, as long as no obvious discomfort seems to be done to them. A few classes ago, we discussed how animals do have the ability to express pain or discomfort in their own way. So wouldn't it stand to reason that if a goldfish was displeased about it's conditions that it would swim frantically or express discomfort in its own aquatic way? I am no zoologist so I unfortunately do not know the technicalities, but I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.
In the same regard, cows do not appear at all harmed by their confined pastures. In fact, their pastures are extremely big in some regards. Free-range cows have more land to their desire than the average human being. I don't see anything wrong with this in any way.
However, it becomes wrong to confine animals when they are expressing overt discomfort. Puppy mills put hundreds of dogs in small cages while awaiting shipment to pet stores across the nation. The conditions are deplorable and the yelps even more heart-wrenching.
Maybe more relevant, and more mainstream, is the treatment of egg-laying hens or broiler chickens. All confined to tiny cages where they cannot move for their entire lives, these chickens are forced to produce sustenance for hungry humans at back-breaking speeds. One look at a cage of these chickens tells you they are suffering.
So no, unfortunately we cannot know what an animals is thinking inside. And to prescribe to it human emotions seems a bit of a stretch, because we really can't be sure. What is safe to say is that we can observe the actions of these confined animals and notice their physical discomfort. And from this, we can deduce that animals can be kept in confined spaces as long as they are not brought to discomfort.
What I wonder is if there is someone who believes animals should not be confined to space? And does this in turn mean that animals should not be domesticated at all?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Vegan Athletes and Weakness?
This topic is completely unrelated to the course material, but I wanted to touch upon it anyways. I was browsing through the link that Dr. Johnson posted of "vegan athletes". As anyone should be, I was very shocked and impressed with the amount of muscle mass, combined with accomplishments, that these people had made. No doubt, I thought it such because of their diets and the lack of meat. However, this started me down another path of thought.
These people are considered somehow especially amazing because of the lack of animals in their diet. Now, I know that most of society considers animals to be an essential part of diet for protein and iron. However, I believe there is research that shows animals do not necessarily need to be consumed for such reasons. In fact, a dinner full of chick peas followed by a peanut butter dessert probably contains more iron than the average piece of steak. So why would we consider these people especially amazing because of diet?
I think this is because the "animal" in all of us subconsciously still views the consumption of animals as a form of dominance. By eating the other flesh, we are asserting that that species is weaker and has been "conquered" by us. Thus, people that don't eat the flesh should also be considered weaker. They are not as "strong" as we are. Not biologically, but maybe mentally?
This might all be way out there, but that's why I leave it up to you to decide. Do we consider vegan/vegetarian athletes to be weaker because of nutrition or because of the subconscious? And if we do it because of the subconscious, do you believe it can be overcome?
These people are considered somehow especially amazing because of the lack of animals in their diet. Now, I know that most of society considers animals to be an essential part of diet for protein and iron. However, I believe there is research that shows animals do not necessarily need to be consumed for such reasons. In fact, a dinner full of chick peas followed by a peanut butter dessert probably contains more iron than the average piece of steak. So why would we consider these people especially amazing because of diet?
I think this is because the "animal" in all of us subconsciously still views the consumption of animals as a form of dominance. By eating the other flesh, we are asserting that that species is weaker and has been "conquered" by us. Thus, people that don't eat the flesh should also be considered weaker. They are not as "strong" as we are. Not biologically, but maybe mentally?
This might all be way out there, but that's why I leave it up to you to decide. Do we consider vegan/vegetarian athletes to be weaker because of nutrition or because of the subconscious? And if we do it because of the subconscious, do you believe it can be overcome?
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Response to Becky
First off, I will say that Becky's entry was masterfully written and nicely thought through. Hence my response to it. I think it continues to pose that ever-looming question that has plagued our readings this week: species over the broad spectrum? Becky takes this one step further in asking if it is possible to abandon such a feeling or desire. And on top of that, is it selfishness to continue to adhere to such a strategy? To the latter, I say it is not possible. And to the other, I say it is not selfish. Allow me to explain.
In all species, from the grasshopper to the human male or female, there is an innate instinct to survive. We have outlined this several times, including how it can be differently expressed across the board. How else would evolution be a functioning theory? Natural selection has worked its way through the years, with things ranging from species to empires fading away. And yet in each case, survival has been the goal. Build a building to last. Train the lion cub to hunt. Raise the child to live a long life. These are all different scenarios, all with the same desire: survival.
You can't beat or train that out of someone. Short of insanity, it's a characteristic bound within all species. Even plant life can be said to adhere to it. But I will not make the Defense of Plants here. Without such an instinct, I don't truly think anything would live on. Evolution would stop and the world would die out. And finally having watched Life After People will have paid off somewhat. But I digress.
I also go out on a limb, but I believe a fairly firm one, when I say that it is not selfish. Rather, I think you have to look at the context of the actions. Kill the dog to save my child and perpetuate the human race? Or bulldoze the swamp to put up a shopping center? Now both are selfish. But only one is selfless. I think the point speaks for itself.
So no, I don't think we can let specie-bias go. In fact, I think we must keep it in order to survive. But I think we must judge every action we take in the terms of the moment. And we must ask ourselves: is this selfish or selfless? There is your true question.
In all species, from the grasshopper to the human male or female, there is an innate instinct to survive. We have outlined this several times, including how it can be differently expressed across the board. How else would evolution be a functioning theory? Natural selection has worked its way through the years, with things ranging from species to empires fading away. And yet in each case, survival has been the goal. Build a building to last. Train the lion cub to hunt. Raise the child to live a long life. These are all different scenarios, all with the same desire: survival.
You can't beat or train that out of someone. Short of insanity, it's a characteristic bound within all species. Even plant life can be said to adhere to it. But I will not make the Defense of Plants here. Without such an instinct, I don't truly think anything would live on. Evolution would stop and the world would die out. And finally having watched Life After People will have paid off somewhat. But I digress.
I also go out on a limb, but I believe a fairly firm one, when I say that it is not selfish. Rather, I think you have to look at the context of the actions. Kill the dog to save my child and perpetuate the human race? Or bulldoze the swamp to put up a shopping center? Now both are selfish. But only one is selfless. I think the point speaks for itself.
So no, I don't think we can let specie-bias go. In fact, I think we must keep it in order to survive. But I think we must judge every action we take in the terms of the moment. And we must ask ourselves: is this selfish or selfless? There is your true question.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The Species Factor!
Today in class, I kept wanting to say something, but I suppose it would be better served here in the hopes that someone constructively replies to it.
We talked a lot about Singer's Moral Circle, its legitimacy as a theory, and all this stuff. However, I would tend to think that I disagree with the circle because it does not account for one very important thing: species.
Is it not too much to assume that we act the way we do because humans are loyal to humans? Just as a bear would kill a wolf to save another bear, I am certain a human would do the same. Is it wrong to compare these? I do not think so at all. All species have this instinct within that makes them loyal (or sometimes disloyal I suppose) to their own species. When given the choice between theirs or yours, it is often most likely the case that they will choose their own.
Now some might say that this is just a stretch and that I cannot place this generalization to mean the same thing for all species. I would respond that they are incorrect and I would base it on Donovan. She asserts that all species are equal. Regardless of whether you agree, it is the assertion. Therefore, we must attribute some sort of likeness to all species. And I believe that "species" in and of itself defines the characteristic that I am pointing out.
So I ask this question: can species bias be attributed to all species? Or do some species not possess such an ability? It puzzles me.
We talked a lot about Singer's Moral Circle, its legitimacy as a theory, and all this stuff. However, I would tend to think that I disagree with the circle because it does not account for one very important thing: species.
Is it not too much to assume that we act the way we do because humans are loyal to humans? Just as a bear would kill a wolf to save another bear, I am certain a human would do the same. Is it wrong to compare these? I do not think so at all. All species have this instinct within that makes them loyal (or sometimes disloyal I suppose) to their own species. When given the choice between theirs or yours, it is often most likely the case that they will choose their own.
Now some might say that this is just a stretch and that I cannot place this generalization to mean the same thing for all species. I would respond that they are incorrect and I would base it on Donovan. She asserts that all species are equal. Regardless of whether you agree, it is the assertion. Therefore, we must attribute some sort of likeness to all species. And I believe that "species" in and of itself defines the characteristic that I am pointing out.
So I ask this question: can species bias be attributed to all species? Or do some species not possess such an ability? It puzzles me.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
A Response to Kelsey...
From what I was able to deduce, Kelsey questioned the validity of punishing animals for committing "wrong" acts. She asked whether or not it was okay for us, as humans AND moral agents, to set the "going rate" for punishment of a particular animal.
I found the question and idea intriguing, because it puts into question Regan's notion that animals are "moral patients" while humans represent the "moral agents". I would tend to disagree with Regan and possibly with Kelsey, if the assertion is that animals have no sense of right and wrong, so we must define it for them. I personally think that the whole "moral agents .v. moral patients" argument is full of wholes, but I digress.
To answer Kelsey's question, I would say that yes, we humans must set moral standards for animals and apply them as we see fit. Does this mean that animals have no sense of right or wrong action? Not at all. In contrast, they might see something that is wrong to us as right to them. For example, a female dog has just had a litter of puppies. She plays a bit rough with them at times and carries them about in her mouth. Now, imagine there is a newborn baby in the same house as the new mother dog. How would the dog be able to differentiate between the way it treats its young and treating the baby? No doubt the humans would scold, if not remove entirely, the dog for such behavior that in its world is only normal.
So yes, I believe it is right to subscribe our moral guidance to animals. You could almost consider me an adherent to Donovan's theory of an equal playing field, with a few minor rules that change from game to game.
I found the question and idea intriguing, because it puts into question Regan's notion that animals are "moral patients" while humans represent the "moral agents". I would tend to disagree with Regan and possibly with Kelsey, if the assertion is that animals have no sense of right and wrong, so we must define it for them. I personally think that the whole "moral agents .v. moral patients" argument is full of wholes, but I digress.
To answer Kelsey's question, I would say that yes, we humans must set moral standards for animals and apply them as we see fit. Does this mean that animals have no sense of right or wrong action? Not at all. In contrast, they might see something that is wrong to us as right to them. For example, a female dog has just had a litter of puppies. She plays a bit rough with them at times and carries them about in her mouth. Now, imagine there is a newborn baby in the same house as the new mother dog. How would the dog be able to differentiate between the way it treats its young and treating the baby? No doubt the humans would scold, if not remove entirely, the dog for such behavior that in its world is only normal.
So yes, I believe it is right to subscribe our moral guidance to animals. You could almost consider me an adherent to Donovan's theory of an equal playing field, with a few minor rules that change from game to game.
The Miniride Principle?
While reading Regan, something struck me as odd: the concept of the miniride principle.
Regan basically states that the miniride principle means that every moral agent or patient has their own prima facie right. This basically means that my rights are no greater than the rights of the person sitting behind me or behind me at this very moment. Thus, when presented with the choice to violate one or all of our rights, a person must choose to violate only one. Our rights are all equal and so one must take the "miniride", so as to avoid hurting the most minimal of rights.
Now I'm sure the whole conversation above seems trite and choppy, but bear with me. My confusion with the whole thing is rather quite simple. Regan states that the miniride principle maintains a sort of "egalitarianism" by making all our rights equal and thus asking for the smallest amounts of rights to be violated. But aha! Therein lies the contradiction and my contest of the idea: wouldn't it be more equal to violate the whole?
If one violates the rights of the whole group, then all rights have truly been considered equally and dealt with accordingly. To violate one or a few persons instead of the whole seems more segregated than anything.
Maybe I have simply misinterpreted Regan, so I ask for comments in any way to discuss or clear the air.
Regan basically states that the miniride principle means that every moral agent or patient has their own prima facie right. This basically means that my rights are no greater than the rights of the person sitting behind me or behind me at this very moment. Thus, when presented with the choice to violate one or all of our rights, a person must choose to violate only one. Our rights are all equal and so one must take the "miniride", so as to avoid hurting the most minimal of rights.
Now I'm sure the whole conversation above seems trite and choppy, but bear with me. My confusion with the whole thing is rather quite simple. Regan states that the miniride principle maintains a sort of "egalitarianism" by making all our rights equal and thus asking for the smallest amounts of rights to be violated. But aha! Therein lies the contradiction and my contest of the idea: wouldn't it be more equal to violate the whole?
If one violates the rights of the whole group, then all rights have truly been considered equally and dealt with accordingly. To violate one or a few persons instead of the whole seems more segregated than anything.
Maybe I have simply misinterpreted Regan, so I ask for comments in any way to discuss or clear the air.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)