I recently had a "discussion" on Facebook that made me think. It also annoyed me a little and has been bugging me for days. It has made me realise that there are "animal people" and "others". The conversation was in response to a post about some awful festival where lots of cows end up lying in a pool of blood whilst many people watch the spectacle.
First comment from someone was "Disgusting"
Him : I don't understand the problem - unless you are a vegan
Another contributor : The problem is the barbaric way they are killed - sheer cruelty.
Him - No more barbaric than anything else in nature. Perhaps you'd better call for Lions to be banned.
Me ; Lions and (most) other predators kill when they need to eat - not for the fun of it.
Him : Foxes kill for fun. Muslims and Jews do not. They kill in the approved manner in order to eat meat in the same way that you kill animals to eat. Let's remember that these animals are just that - they are not "fur kids" or "hairy humans". We are too keen to anthropomorphise animals (and cars, computers etc) and we forget that they are animals.
Me : But other animals don't make a spectacle of it and have fun whilst watching another animal die in pain and distress.
Another contributor : Yes, they are animals, and they are in our care, and should be treated well it even says you in your Koran. In the days it was written I guess the best way was a quick slash to the throat, but things Have MOVED on. It is possible to kill so quick that the beats do not know it is even happening, also in the better places, they don't have to stand there watching their herd being killed. In a good slaughter house there is no panic and little noise. Animals, and we are animals too, certainly feel pain and scientists have proved they can think!
Him : Animal packs watch beasts being brought down and often dine off them while they are still alive, so your argument doesn't hold up. I have watched Qrban - there is little suffering going on. The case against it is being overstated.
Me : As the most intelligent species on earth (apparently), and self imposed caretakers of the planet, we have a duty of care to minimise the suffering of any creature in our care, or that we breed, catch, or kill for our own consumption or other use. These animals are sentient beings - and no, I am not anthropomorphising - with emotions and thoughts of their own. It is morally wrong, in my opinion, to make a festival out of the killing of other creatures. And no, I am not vegan or even vegetarian - but I do prefer my meat to have had a good like and a quick and clean death. There is a huge difference between a pack of wolves or lions waiting for dinner than a crowd of blood-thirsty humans watching for the fun of it.
Him : The difference is marginal at best. I am more concerned with humanitarian treatment of humans. Something that is rather rare these days.
Me : At least humans can speak up for their rights as a species - but I accept that there are many individuals and groups of individuals who do not have a voice. Other creatures do not. I prefer to speak up for the other creatures. Until humankind treats its own with dignity, kindness and compassion, I guess other creatures will have to wait a bit longer for that same treatment, and that saddens me.
Him : Most people cannot speak up or do not know how. Your argument is specious and based solely on your own experiences. Broaden your outlook and then come back to (at?) me.
Me : I think it is yourself that needs to broaden YOUR outlook. Humans are not the only creatures on this earth, and they do not have priority over any others. Without those other creatures, we would not have the life that we do have, physically, mentally or emotionally. Other animals have much to teach us and I am prepared to listen. Yes - my argument is based on my own experiences - perhaps I have been more fortunate than you to have experiences that have opened my mind wide open, and far beyond the human need.
His final reply was to give me the link to an article in his blog. If you want to read it, you will find it here. http://davidleyman.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/0-false-18-pt-18-pt-0-0-false-false.html
He has some good points in his article, but to my mind it didn't make sense as a comment.
I am guessing that most of you reading this will fall on the side of my argument as most of the people I rub shoulders with are animal people. So I am trying to put myself to the other side of the argument and exploring in my mind if I am in the wrong. It isn't that I don't care about humans - I have been told many times that I am a kind person - but I honestly think that caring only about our own species is wrong on so many levels. I think it is morally wrong and I also think it is arrogant and stupid.
I don't like to hear of wars and famine, of natural disasters and outbreaks of disease - I certainly don't take delight in hearing of the death of a person, or group of people - quite the opposite - so why is it that some people do take delight in or watching animals (or even people) being slaughtered in a way that causes those animals distress and pain. Because animal lovers care about this, does it make us better, or just different? Perhaps there are two kinds of human - have we evolved slightly differently?
To suggest that my argument is specious (plausible but actually wrong) and that I need to broaden my outlook is quite insulting as I cannot see, no matter how I look at it, how his outlook is broader than mine - he only cares about one species (human) where I care about others - surely mine is broader?
The earth is (or was!) a balanced ecosystem where every kind of creature has its place in the environment - it is only mankind that abuses the planet, bringing about extinction of various plants, animals, and destroying the habitat of groups of indigenous people. Yes, we should look after other humans far better than we do but unless we look after everything else with care, kindness and compassion, then we ourselves may cease to exist. And without the animals that are closest to us, the lives we currently lead would be so much the poorer on every level.
I am not perfect - far from it - but even after chewing on this for several days I don't think I will change my attitude!
If you have read this far - thank you! I know this is meant to be a doggy blog, but ..................... and I do feel better for getting that off my chest!!!!
That guy pulled one of the classical fallacies out of his hat: "appeal to nature"....
ReplyDeleteWikipedia: An appeal to nature is an argument or rhetorical tactic in which it is proposed that "a thing is good because it is 'natural', or bad because it is 'unnatural'.
Therefore it is not an argument. Just a fallacy.
Whatever nature has done, or is doing, we SHOULD know better, as we claim to be the "intelligent" ones. And yes, we did learn, that's why "we" don't think it is ok to take pleasure from animals suffering. Instead, we feel obliged to prevent it.