Almost related to this pit thread, and this great debate, about the skinning of house pets for artistic purposes.
The pit threat makes reference to this article about how cows are processed at a slaughterhouse, which says (amongst other things)
The charges not being prosecuted are animal cruelty.
I’m wondering how to phrase this…Here goes nothin’
Why is “butchering cattle before stunning or killing them” any worse than doing it after stunning or killing them? The result is the same, the cows life has ended, and it’s flesh will now become your dinner, my baseball glove, etc. Why is it considered any more cruel to butcher a cow prior to “stunning” it?
Why are certain forms of capital punishment considered inhumane?
Society (or those elements of it making such decisions) deems that the ends are necessary, but only because no desirable alternatives exist. Thus, the means should not increase the suffering. I imagine this presupposes the idea that all sentient creatures are treated with some measure of dignity.
I can’t really put it any better than mattk, but I would like to say the follwoing.
We had a poster in another recent debate suggest that it was of secondary importance if people died of horrible diseases since they would eventually end up the dead anyhow.
This seems like an extension of the same argument. Of course if you want to take it to its ultimate limit the whole universe is going to end up as a frozen, lifeless corpse. Therefore murder, torture and any other act against people, animals or the environment is acceptable because the end result will be the same. Of course this isn’t logical from a human perspectve because it is the quality of life and emotion that matters, not the end result.
Probably for the same mix of reasons that I find the events surrounding the murder of James Bulger way more disturbing than I would if he had died from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome[sup](Not that I’m saying that it would not still be deeply tragic)[/sup]
As far as unpicking that mixture of reasons logically, I’m not sure that I can (just because something is based on gut feelings/emotions doesn’t necessarily invalidate it (IMO))
We butcher cattle for necessity. Our society eats steak, wears expensive coats and baseball gloves, etc. So like it or not, we are going to kill a lot of cows.
That does not mean that we should make them suffer needlessly. Skinning and chopping up a still-living cow is unnecessarily unpleaseant for the cow (and presumably emotionally unpleasant for the slaughterhouse workers).
If you had to die, would you rather be quickly killed by a shot to the head, or would you prefer to have several angry bovines rip your skin off you and cut you into pieces while you were still awake?
Many serial killers start out as torturers of animals and quite a few people who commit child abuse also abused animals (from this site http://www.abuse.com/index7.html but I notice there are others that support this claim). The unnecessary suffering of animals is a symptom of a diseased person. Therefore to claim that there is no difference between skinning an animal alive and skinning the animal after death is ludicrous. People are compassion beings. A person who is morally stable is unable to inflict this kind of unneccessary suffering on animals.
The answer is obvious and probably best stated by Mattk (though I am not sure I would call cows “sentient”, but I am sure they are somewhat self aware and I know they can feel pain) I’m sure that all the answers you are going to get fall along the lines of unnecessary pain to anything is evil. It makes me wonder why you asked the question in the first place.
Say, why IS your name Beezlebubba…
It is because we are ashamed. We are ashamed of the death that is such a big part of our everyday life. So, we make small concessions, call it “humane”, and tell ourselves that it is okay. This trial is a show trial, a trial that we conduct so that we do not have to put ourselves, and our real crimes, on trial.
Um no. Does a lion feel shame when it kills a gazelle? Does a monkey feel shame when it eats a banana? So why is it a ‘crime’ when a human kills a cow for food (and perhaps a belt and coat)? Even though we use modern mechanization for the task, it’s still part of the natural order of things (come on! didn’t anyone see that Troy McClure film on The Simpsons?).
Is slaughtering cows an unpleasent task? I imagine it is, but I wouldn’t get worked up over it. Death is a part of the natural order of things as much as life is.
Essentially yes, as it relates to a terminal illness (as opposed to an illness that is merely dibilitating). Basically it’s the concept that if death is unavoidable, it mind as well be as quick and painless as posible.
This is utter BS.
I am not unnecessarily cruel to animals for much the same reasons I am not unnecessarily cruel to human beings: because it is disrepectful and goes against my moral, ethical ,religous and cultural beliefs. I assume even sven only refrains fom cruelty to small children and fluffy bunnies because of shame, since this is the only reason he can think of not to be cruel to large animals. :rolleyes:
I suspect the only shame felt is by those who genuinely do refuse to acknowledge how many lives they are responsible for extinguishing in the struggle to stay alive. These people in my experience have been almost exclusively vegetarian.
And I would like to add a hearty well said and Amen to that.
And just for the record, slaughtering and butchering a beast is to me far less unpleasant than replacing a head gasket. At least blood washes off in water.
For the record I am not an animal rights zealot. I wear my leather sandals like everyone else. I embrace the same hypocrisy that nearly all of us embrace. I will wear a silk shirt with no qualms and yet a balk at fur. There is always an amount of hypocrisy in life. While there is nothing we can really do about it, it doesn’t hurt to be conscious and thoughtful of it.
In America, we have a code of values regarding animal cruelty that allows our hypocrisy to continue without hurting our consciousness. For example, we eat pork with no problem, yet we are disgusted by the idea of eating dog meat. We tell ourselves “yes, I kill for food, but I’m not like those barbarians over there, because I don’t eat dog.” A couple years ago, there was a bill in California to ban the slaughter of horses for food. You could, of course, slaughter horses for other reasons, but not for food (even if you planned on shipping the meat to France). What was with this bill? It was an attempt to reassert to ourselves that we are “civilized”, and why would we need to reassert that if we didn’t feel a little nervous about our status as “civilization”? It allows us to calm any dissonance our consciousness might have. It is akin to the occasional acts, like football players with their hands on each others butts after a game, that allow us to recognize homoeroticism while still asserting straight masculinity.
Okay, enough rambling. The point is, our society has compassion towards animals, but not enough to make us forgo our steaks and baseball gloves. So instead of acknowledging our hypocrisy and moving on, we designate certain taboos that make us feel better (We can chain up a baby cow for veal in a tiny box, but when you kill it, you better make sure it’s stunned) and allow us to continue our lives without thinking about the things that bother us.
Cite please.
Waht makes you think most people share the view that this is hypocritical, or even object to wearing fur?
I happily wear fur, as do most of the people I know. It’s only when the fur is obtained with undue cruelty (eg the trapping of wild species) that most people have a problem with it. Even the fringe nutters that I’ve seen object to captive bred fur use only because it increases the market for wild fur. This same logic is applied to cull ivory. The objection is less to ivory than it is to the economic potential for encouraging hunting.
BTW does silk production actually kill the moth? I thought they harvested the coccoon post pupation.
In every life a little rain must fall.
Life wasn’t meant to be easy.
Take the good with the bad.
Keep right.
Warm wash, drip dry, do not dry clean.
Cliche, axiom, platitude, common sense dressed up as morality.
Cite please. The American animal ethics legistlation that I have seen has been firmly based on the concept of “Society (or those elements of it making such decisions) deeming that the ends are necessary, but only because no desirable alternatives exist” as Mattk said. Do you have any cites to contradict this, or is this just personal opinion presented as fact?
What has this to do with cruelty and skinning animlas alive?
Are you implying that those nationalities that eat dog skin them alive? Or are you implying live-flaying is a pre-requisite for dog flesh prepartion. Surely this is a socially induced taboo and has no bearing on our motivations for minimising suffering.
And again is live flaying a necessary preparatory step for the Parisian horse meat cafe? Or is this yet again a case of an illogical cultural dietary taboo? What has this got to do with cruely.
Cite please.
Which all hinges of course on the above, so far unsupported, statement being true. There is a term for the use of this logical fallacy in a debate but the name eludes me at the moment.
Cite please.
I’d love to see a cite for that one.
What can I say?
Agreed.
What hypocrisy? How is having levels of emotional commitment hypocritical. I love my GF, but not enough to kill for her. I’m a hypocrite. I hate child molesters but not enough to stone them to death. I’m a hypocrite. I fear shark attack, but not enough to cease surfing. I’m a hypocrite. :rolleyes: even sven having levels of emotional commitment is not hypocricy. Not having levels of emotinal commitment is insanity.
Cite please. You’re drawing a pretty long bow on this one. Our tabboos may be illogical and unfounded but you’ve in no way proved a link between these dietary tabboos and guilt. My society has a taboo against incest as well. Is that driven by guilt. How about the taboo against prostitution? foul language in public? destroying culturally significnt artefacts? rape? All driven by guilt are they?
And this invalidates the stated reasons for animal ethics legistalation how? Just because legistlation is less than comprehensive or consistent does not immediately make it driven by guilt and shame.
And again I will say. I must assume the only reason even sven does not torture samll children and fluffy bunnies is because he wants to live his life without thinking about things that bother him. If he could arrange to take drugs that would erase his memories of the events he would willingly engage in such torture The concept of not doing it because it is cruel, disrepectful and morally reprehensible apparently in no way figure in sven’s reasoning for not being cruel. Only shame and discomfort matter.
Sven if this were true of the average human then all those people suffering brain damage that destroys short-mid-term memory, including Alzheimers sufferers, would kill and torture with merry abandon. They don’t have to worry about thinking about the act ever agin. Of course they don’t because sane adult human beings know intuitively that torture is wrong.
If the only reason you don’t torture is because of the feeling of shame I feel very sorry for you.
*Originally posted by even sven *
In America, we have a code of values regarding animal cruelty that allows our hypocrisy to continue without hurting our consciousness.
*Originally posted by Gaspode *
Cite please. The American animal ethics legistlation that I have seen has been firmly based on the concept of “Society (or those elements of it making such decisions) deeming that the ends are necessary, but only because no desirable alternatives exist” as Mattk said. Do you have any cites to contradict this, or is this just personal opinion presented as fact?
I think you just supported it yourself. Please note exactly what you quoted, "“Society (or those elements of it making such decisions) deeming that the ends are necessary, but only because no desirable alternatives exist.” “Gee, we would stop doing that, but then how are we gonna get our meat?” I don’t know, sounds like a a weasling excuse dressed up in pragmatism.
Sophistry?
*Originally posted by even sven *
The point is, our society has compassion towards animals, but not enough to make us forgo our steaks and baseball gloves.
*Originally posted by Gaspode *
Agreed.
Aye, that’s the rub. Gaspode, can you inform me of something? Matt K’s quote above dictates that we would stop killing animals if we had another way of getting the stuff we get out of killing them. Why should we desire to stop killing them in the first place? This sounds like an emotional response to killing animals washed over by a pragmatic excuse. And that, IMO, does smack of hypocricy. the justification we give ourselves doesn’t match the reason we’re looking for justification in the first place.
Hardly, man. Let’s try and translate this. I love my girlfriend, but only because I haven’t found a better way to get off. How do you think she would respond to that? Think she’d see the common sense aproach there?
If we’ve resolved that we shouldn’t go around killing animals, that they have some semblence of rights, but then just ignore those rights in the next fucking breath, yeah…I’d say that is hyporitical.
Either we believe that animals can be used for our puposes period, and don’t need to justify anything we do to them, or we believe that they are creatures that don’t deserve to be treated poorly by humans. But to act on the former and say the latter is, IMO, a crock of shit.
I se where your coming from erislover. The problem here is evensvens statement that we only do this to avoid feeling guilty. For me at least this isn’t true. I do it because I make the following assumptions which to me are self evident:
1)I have a right to life and health.
2)I need to eat.
4)I need to kill animals in order to eat.
3)Animals feel pain.
4)Causing pain in animals is wrong.
No guilt implied or necessary. I have a right to exist and to exist I must kill. I believe that causing pain is wrong for the reasons I listed above. Guilt has no part in it. It’s not a case of “I would stop but where would I get my meat”. It’s a case of “I would stop but I’d die”. There’s no room for weaseling when human life is at stake IMHO and in the stated opinion of the legislator. That is the point that there is no alternative to. We have to eat, and in order to eat we must kill.
I would feel guilty if I tortured an animal unnecesarily it’s true, but I’d also feel guilty if I killed a man. That doesn’t mean that guilt is the only thing stopping me from doing so or attempting to prevent others from doing so. even sven apparently doesn’t indulge in torture exclusively because of guilt and implies that everyone else does the same. I hope to God this isn’t true.
The problem is not in the killing IMHO. Ultimately if you could find a way to kill animals without causing any pain or stress then I would have to say I can see no reason why we should desire to stop killing them. Slaughtering animals however invariably results in some pain and stress and causing pain and stress is disrepectful and goes against my moral, ethical ,religous and cultural beliefs. I would hope it goes against human nature and that you wouldn’t indulge in it either. Those are the reasons why I believe we should desire to stop killing animals. I openly admit it may be emotional/ethical, but ultimately much law is. That does not make it hypocritical. After all what is the basis behind the laws outlawing slander and libel in cases where no financial injury is sustained except emotion and ethics. Does that make those laws wrong, or hypocritical? I guess one could say that the reason we are looking for justification is that we intuitively know that causing pain to an animal is wrong and it is this we are justifying. I know I do and as deb stated above it’s a fair sign of mental illness. However knowing something is wrong and doing it in order to survive in spite of this is common in human nature. I know it is wrong to kill people, yet I would do so unhesitatingly if my life depended on it. Does that mean that I am a hypocrite? I think it means I place relative values on lives: mine and other lawful citizens first, would-be-murders second and animals last. The legal systems of both our countries acknowldge these relative values,and go so far as to add enemy soldiers even below animals.
I see an obvious flaw in your analogy. sven suggested that if we feel an emotion (compassion) and yet it doesn’t prevent us doing something (killing animals) we are automatically hypocritical. My analogies illustated rather clearly that we place limits on other emotional commitments constantly without being hypocritical. Your analogy suggests that your emotion (love) will be superceded by another emotion (lust). This may be true but it’s not what sven was alluding to, nor what I was parodying. Your girlfriend would be justified in being upset and I bet the pig I had for breakfast wasn’t best pleased either. The fact remains that I felt compassion for the pig (or would have if I’d killed it). If you genuinely felt love for your girlfreind you would be prick for your actions, but not a hypocrite. You genuinely felt the feelings you expressed, they were just over-riddden by a stronger urge. I felt compassion but it was over-ridden by the stringer urge of self-preservation.
Perhaps a better way to phrase your analogy in line with sven would be “I feel lust for that woman who isn’t my girlfreind, but not enough to fuck her”. Does that make me hypocritical? Would my girlfreind think my hypocritical?
[quote]
If we’ve resolved that we shouldn’t go around killing animals, that they have some semblence of rights, but then just ignore those rights in the next fucking breath, yeah…I’d say that is hyporitical. **
But only if you accept, as sven does, that there can be no levels of emotional commitment. If we agree that we shouldn’t be killing people, that they have some sembalnce of rights, but do it in self defence that isn’t hyporitical to me. If we agree we shouldn’t be killing animals but do it to survive that isn’t hypocritical to me. It’s prioritising our ethics and values. And as I’ve said above I think there is implicit in Mattk’s statement a belief that death causes pain and should avoided for that reason.
That, to me, is bizarre. I heartily believe that criminals should be incarcerated, foreign invaders intent on rape and pillage repulsed and children forced to go to school. To me your all-or-none statement implies that “prisoners, children and invaders can be used for our purposes period, and we don’t need to justify anything we do to them, or we believe that they are creatures that don’t deserve to be treated porly by society”. That don’t wash with me. I can believe that something is unpleasant and should be avoided (slaughter of animals, incarcertaion of criminals, bombing of soldiers, education of children) while at the same time not accepting that this gives me carte-blanche to engage in rape, torture and mutilation. It’s all down to doing something the subject objects to while showing due respect and compassion for the subject. Levels of emotional and ethical commitment.
Gaspode, we probably see eye-to-eye on the issue, but one of us isn’t saying what he means to say correctly. I will assume that is me since that is a motiff in my message board life.
My all or nothing proposition isn’t quite taken correctly. My whole point is that we note that something is wrong for reason A, but justify it based on reason B. That is, we haven’t actually demonstrated a “loophole” in A, if you will, but merely glossed it over after stating it and using B as support.
I fully agree with the breakdown of a staggered value system where things are prioritized. that prioritized system isn’t apparent in the statements I read. My only beef.
Furthermore, if our first statement is “Killing animals is wrong,” our supporting statement for goging ahead and killing animals any should follow that guideline. Just like you did at the beginning of your post to me.
Agreed. then why would you use the following argument against sven?
At any rate, we do agree. And even is, by evidence I’ve gathered, a female. Who likes Bananna Slugs.
erislover I admit I probably didn’t explain my position well initially. Partly that was because I assumed an unwritten part of Mattk’s post was that slaughter =pain. You’re quite right, if we are going to try to justify not torturing animals despite killing them we do need to explain why we feel it necessary to salughter them in the first place.
You’ve made me think out my argument a little more clearly. Thanks.
I don’t follow your logic here. How does not objecting to painless deaths in some way invalidate my criticism of Sven when she suggests the sole reason why we want painless deaths is so we can bury our heads in the sand and not feel guilty. I fail to see a link. I believe that most people don’t indulge in torture because they feel it is wrong, not because they’re worried about the pangs of guilt afterwards. I know that’s true of me. Saying the sole reason is guilt is completely unfounded.
Sven has stated “we have a code of values regarding animal cruelty that allows our hypocrisy to continue without hurting our consciousness. It is because we are ashamed. We are ashamed of the death that is such a big part of our everyday life. So, we make small concessions, call it “humane”, and tell ourselves that it is okay. This trial is a show trial, a trial that we conduct so that we do not have to put ourselves, and our real crimes, on trial.”
I object to this on the grounds that it is so much unsupported rhetoric presented as fact. It tars those of us that treat animals with due respect and compassion, and endeavour to persuade others to do the same, as moral cowards. The moral cowardice IMHO belongs to those who truly do refuse to acknowldge that humans need to kill to survive.
Sven’s female? I thought Sven was a male name. There’s a story there somewhere.
Err…huh? The only reason one would feel guilt is by doing something one thought was wrong, no?
Well, that’s the rub ([hindsight]argh, twice in one thread I said this[/hindsight]). We recognize that they should be treated with respect and compassion, right up to the moment that we kill them. “Well, at least we didn’t torture them!” That’s how I’m reading into the “hypocracy”.
Yes, we do need to kill them. We need to kill all kinds of stuff to get along on this planet. As Tool mentions so eloquently, “This is necessary. Life feeds on life feeds on life…[ad nauseum]”
The fundamental argument, IMO, to avoid hypocracy begins with the subordination of animals to mankind, period. From there we may then, in good consicence, admit that they probably experience rudimentary emotion, definitely feel pain, and that even though they are lesser creatures than us don’t deserve to be tortured, even though we’ve already resolved to kill them. This is, really, how I think most people think internally.
If we start with the premise that animals have rights, however, I see that even sven’s conclusion is inescapable and [can be] well-founded, even if not presented so in this particular instance (though I thought it was).
Quite correct. However it does not follow automatically that because I feel guilt and shame at doing something it is only fear of guilt that prevents me from doing it in the first place. As I stated above I would feel guilt and shame at killing another human being. However to suggest that the sole reason I don’t kill peole is because I don’t want to feel ‘ashamed’ or ‘hurt my consciousness’ is just plain scary. Maybe serial killers think this way but I’m fairly certain normal people don’t.
Ahh, OK different definition of hypocrisy methinks.
Mine says “The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.”
In this case we genuinely hold those beliefs in the animal’s rights to respect and compassion. We don’t simply discard them, we acknowldge that they must be subservient to our own right to survival. At no way are we professing beliefs we don’t hold so this can’t be called hypocrisy. As I stated above I love my GF, but not enough to kill for her. I hate child molesters but not enough to stone them to death. I fear shark attack, but not enough to cease surfing. None of those things make me a hypocrite, they make me sane. I can’t think of any other instances in life where feeling a certain emotion compels one to act on it even at the expense of ones life and happiness or be labelled a hypocrite. Why is this case different?
Agreed, and very well put. The thing I don’t see is how I can’t believe exactly as you state above and yet still feel compassion and respect for animals without being hyocritical? Why are the two mutually exclusive? If they aren’t, where is the hyocrisy in feeling compassion for a subordinate species, yet still killing it to preserve one’s own life? Would you allow a person you respect kill you simply because the only way of stopping him is to kill him?
[quote]
If we start with the premise that animals have rights, however, I see that even sven’s conclusion is inescapable and [can be] well-founded…QUOTE]
I’m buggered if I can. I think the pair of you will need to work on it some more.
I assume we both agree with the basic premise that humans have rights. How does that then make me hypocritical if I kill a psycho who’s off his face on PCP, crack and some stuff he found under the sink who is trying to stab me? Just because we start with the premise that something has rights, that does not immediately make us hypocrites if we assert that those rights do not consistently and automatically overide our own rights to existence and happiness. Nor is feeling guilt the only reason why one might decide not to torture said entity. I may decide not to harm it through promise of reward, threat of punishment, religious reasons or, in this case, ethical and cultural.
I think that far from being inescapble sven’s conclusion is illogical and contradicted by many laws, facts and actions in the everyday world. I haven’t seen any support at all beyond assertion that it is inescapble and the assumption that belief in the subordinate status of cattle is mutually excusive of a feeling of respect and comapsssion towards them. Call me wierd but I manage to hold both concepts in my head Electric Monk style.
Just to clarify one point in my post above. I did mean to imply that slaughter involves pain. People in our society, for the most part, do not enjoy inflicting pain on other humans or animals. Since we (generally speaking) are not prepared to stop killing animals for food, we try to minimise the pain inflicted.
Whether this is due to moral squeamishness over the fact we’re killing them in the first place, or because we see the need to treat all creatures with some dignity in death I can’t say.
