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?

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

Too Good Not to Post

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?