Jan 26, 2008 7:11 PM GMT
I wanted to make a post about the questions raised by some of the vegetarians on this site, while keeping in mind that it is not an us or them scenario. How are we able to make a deeper connection not only to the food we eat, but to the role our choices have in affecting the rest of the world. Too many times the argument is ended with some banal statement about hamburgers or the posting of a Carl’s jr ad. It strikes me as the death of original thought , the easy way out and a shirking of moral responsibility. Often times the FOOD CHAIN and natural order is asserted and I think it is important to examine that line of thought and its orgins.
Here is what I have found.
Aristotle philosophized about hierarchy. This hierarchy is known as "the great chain of being". It was proposed that the things lower on the chain were made for those higher on the chain. In other words, plants were made for animals, animals were made for people, slaves were made for masters, women were made for men, and men were at the top of the earthly chain, made only for God. According to this philosophy, animals were natural slaves, made for man to be used as a means to an end.
The Bible is another source of our society's current status of animals. In Genesis, God gave man dominion over every living thing that crept on the earth. Every moving thing that lived was meant for man. Some people argue that this is the reason why animals can be treated as property, or in some cases, as machines. It is easy to justify the use of animals for food, research or pleasure when it is believed that they exist for us.
Another argument for the use of animals without moral consequence comes for the largely Aristitilian belief that human beings are the only beings with a rational soul. Rene Descartes expanded on this, enforcing the idea that because animals cannot speak, they cannot reason. Reason is what Descartes claimed separated man from animal. Kant took this even further, demanding that the only value an animal has is instrumental. Kant believed that humans do not owe direct duties toward animals but that any duty owed to an animal is just an indirect duty, the duty owed is toward mankind.
These religious beliefs and philosophies have paved the path for our current legal system as it relates to animals. In the United States, animals are property. This follows directly from the ideas presented above. Whether we are just higher on the great chain of being or just granted dominion over the animals by God, asserting moral rights on animals would hinder their current role in our society. This trend has slowly begun to change through the way we view companion animals in the United States. Germany has taken it even further , creating laws to benefit the animals themselves and not just their owners. Companion animals are placed in a special class, far removed from farm animals and research animals. But why?
Where does that leave the 10 billion animals that are slaughtered every year for human consumption that are exempt from anti-cruelty laws that otherwise protect companion animals. The only time laws come into the equation are when the are being transported or slaughtered, not when they are being raised on the farm. What is the difference between a companion animal and livestock? Why is the dog herding the sheep protected but the sheep aren't? Why is a pet pig protected and the pig you eat isn't? They are the exact same genetically. Does loving something make it worth more to the courts? Can you ethically claim a difference? By claiming culture, are you unable to see our shakey history when it comes to our long lineage of injustice due to ignorance?. Surely we have “outgrown” much of the logic that has confused our laws regulating our relationships with women and African americans.( I am not comparing a farm animal to a woman or an african american. I reference them only in terms of law) Will we ever outgrow our notions of animals simply existing to be property just as we outgrew the way we looked at women and African americans in the same way? Is it ethical to overlook the abuse suffered by animals that are raised for food? Is it ethical to overlook the abuse suffered by any living thing? We worry about Polar bears drowning but not a calf chained to the ground unable to stand. I am so confused by the separation.
This is a question I have always wondered. I am not claiming perfection AT ALL. I just want to know how people can stand up for abused puppies but not abused farm animals. An abused animal is an abused animal right? I don’t know that I have ever heard a thoughtful justification for the imbalance. I need to have my faith restored because I don’t want to live in a country of rules and regulations. I want to have faith that great advances are born from freedom of choice and that we each have the capacity to make decisions to enhance wellbeing and reduce suffering of ourselves, others and animals. But given the vitriol and venom spewing on both sides, it seems as if we will never get past semantics and ideologies . I know in my heart that noone wants animals to suffer unecessarily but the lines at McDonalds paint a far different picture. We are so far removed from what is truly natural and healthy. How do we engage in a conversation demanding that all animals are treated on an equal playing field regardless of their position in life.?
Should it ever be a political question at a debate? will there ever be an answer that will please both sides? Should we discuss it in grade schools? My hope is that we will have a President in office who will reflect my belief that humanity is basically 'good', and given the choice, the majority of us will choose to act in ways that help not harm one another and the planet. But how can we act differently if there is no responsibility taken to insure both sides are heard? Washington is controlled by lobbyists, big business has no interest in animal welfare . If the questions aren’t even being asked, how to we work to create a better answer? I think this is why so many people become vegetarian. Is there a proper political response other than just giving up meat entirely? If you aren't veg but lobby for animal rights, you are quickly deemed a hypocrite . I think this is where the "soap box" comes into play. This isn't fair, and again destroys any hope of common ground. This isn’t meant as a question about eating meat, rather,a comment on our reluctance to see it as a question we should be asking ourselves in order to guarantee a more ethical America.
(I know some of you grew up on farms and have stories about your life on the farm but this really isn't meant as a post about your family cow. It is a post about factory farming and our responsibility to animals that aren't living in open farms)
(I am standing before the firing squad)
Here is what I have found.
Aristotle philosophized about hierarchy. This hierarchy is known as "the great chain of being". It was proposed that the things lower on the chain were made for those higher on the chain. In other words, plants were made for animals, animals were made for people, slaves were made for masters, women were made for men, and men were at the top of the earthly chain, made only for God. According to this philosophy, animals were natural slaves, made for man to be used as a means to an end.
The Bible is another source of our society's current status of animals. In Genesis, God gave man dominion over every living thing that crept on the earth. Every moving thing that lived was meant for man. Some people argue that this is the reason why animals can be treated as property, or in some cases, as machines. It is easy to justify the use of animals for food, research or pleasure when it is believed that they exist for us.
Another argument for the use of animals without moral consequence comes for the largely Aristitilian belief that human beings are the only beings with a rational soul. Rene Descartes expanded on this, enforcing the idea that because animals cannot speak, they cannot reason. Reason is what Descartes claimed separated man from animal. Kant took this even further, demanding that the only value an animal has is instrumental. Kant believed that humans do not owe direct duties toward animals but that any duty owed to an animal is just an indirect duty, the duty owed is toward mankind.
These religious beliefs and philosophies have paved the path for our current legal system as it relates to animals. In the United States, animals are property. This follows directly from the ideas presented above. Whether we are just higher on the great chain of being or just granted dominion over the animals by God, asserting moral rights on animals would hinder their current role in our society. This trend has slowly begun to change through the way we view companion animals in the United States. Germany has taken it even further , creating laws to benefit the animals themselves and not just their owners. Companion animals are placed in a special class, far removed from farm animals and research animals. But why?
Where does that leave the 10 billion animals that are slaughtered every year for human consumption that are exempt from anti-cruelty laws that otherwise protect companion animals. The only time laws come into the equation are when the are being transported or slaughtered, not when they are being raised on the farm. What is the difference between a companion animal and livestock? Why is the dog herding the sheep protected but the sheep aren't? Why is a pet pig protected and the pig you eat isn't? They are the exact same genetically. Does loving something make it worth more to the courts? Can you ethically claim a difference? By claiming culture, are you unable to see our shakey history when it comes to our long lineage of injustice due to ignorance?. Surely we have “outgrown” much of the logic that has confused our laws regulating our relationships with women and African americans.( I am not comparing a farm animal to a woman or an african american. I reference them only in terms of law) Will we ever outgrow our notions of animals simply existing to be property just as we outgrew the way we looked at women and African americans in the same way? Is it ethical to overlook the abuse suffered by animals that are raised for food? Is it ethical to overlook the abuse suffered by any living thing? We worry about Polar bears drowning but not a calf chained to the ground unable to stand. I am so confused by the separation.
This is a question I have always wondered. I am not claiming perfection AT ALL. I just want to know how people can stand up for abused puppies but not abused farm animals. An abused animal is an abused animal right? I don’t know that I have ever heard a thoughtful justification for the imbalance. I need to have my faith restored because I don’t want to live in a country of rules and regulations. I want to have faith that great advances are born from freedom of choice and that we each have the capacity to make decisions to enhance wellbeing and reduce suffering of ourselves, others and animals. But given the vitriol and venom spewing on both sides, it seems as if we will never get past semantics and ideologies . I know in my heart that noone wants animals to suffer unecessarily but the lines at McDonalds paint a far different picture. We are so far removed from what is truly natural and healthy. How do we engage in a conversation demanding that all animals are treated on an equal playing field regardless of their position in life.?
Should it ever be a political question at a debate? will there ever be an answer that will please both sides? Should we discuss it in grade schools? My hope is that we will have a President in office who will reflect my belief that humanity is basically 'good', and given the choice, the majority of us will choose to act in ways that help not harm one another and the planet. But how can we act differently if there is no responsibility taken to insure both sides are heard? Washington is controlled by lobbyists, big business has no interest in animal welfare . If the questions aren’t even being asked, how to we work to create a better answer? I think this is why so many people become vegetarian. Is there a proper political response other than just giving up meat entirely? If you aren't veg but lobby for animal rights, you are quickly deemed a hypocrite . I think this is where the "soap box" comes into play. This isn't fair, and again destroys any hope of common ground. This isn’t meant as a question about eating meat, rather,a comment on our reluctance to see it as a question we should be asking ourselves in order to guarantee a more ethical America.
(I know some of you grew up on farms and have stories about your life on the farm but this really isn't meant as a post about your family cow. It is a post about factory farming and our responsibility to animals that aren't living in open farms)
(I am standing before the firing squad)
No one can stop me from expressing my opinion, regardless.
