Out of Sight, Out of Mind
Posted on 07. Nov, 2009 by Ruda in Society, Unrelated Musings
Photo by Noel Zia Lee
Is the value of a cute and familiar animal greater than that of an unfamiliar animal? I’m defining familiar in terms of closeness to humans. Of course this varies across cultures as well. Eating a dog or cat would seem unthinkable to most people in the United States, but it is commonplace in Asia. But this bias toward animals that we think are cute or animals we have become accustomed to living among seems inconsistent. The value of a dog versus the value of a cow does not change with the human opinion. Both are four-legged mammals and neither have any discernible mental advantages over the other. So our decision to eat one and adopt the other comes down to how friendly these animals are to us.
We could adopt a subjective view of the world and claim that whatever we perceive as value is value, making the friendliness of the dog its higher value. But in this view, I would also become acceptable to differentiate among humans like this. I would be able to kill anyone that I believed had lesser value to me. Obviously this is not the prevalent philosophy. The people that eat cows are for the most part, people that think humans have value and certain animals have value. Outside of the subjective view, we have no logical basis for differentiating among different animals. Without a logical basis, it is just inconsistency in its most obvious form.
How can a person be against eating dogs, but eat cows? Most consumers of beef or chicken would not want to cause the death of a cow or chicken, yet they eat them. It seems that we are just choosing to ignore what’s not in front of us. It’s more convenient to make these differentiations than to face our inconsistency. A person who chooses to eat animals should be perfectly willing to kill animals. Some might be willing to accept the killing but want someone else to do it, even this is fine because they are accepting responsibility. But to eat meat without wanting animals to die is wrong. A person who chooses to eat meat and kill the animals that gave rise to the meat must also accept the killing of other animals. If I choose to kill and eat stray dogs, the beef eater should not tell me that I am wrong. It would just be a matter of taste.
The existence of an objective moral truth is arguable, so I cannot claim whether it is right to kill animals or not, but either belief should be practiced with complete consistency. The meat eater should be willing to accept the death of every kind of animal. The animal rights activist should not cause the death of any animal. To choose among animals corrupts whatever we believe and we end up with an inconsistent and faulty moral code.
Hello! I suppose you couldn't resist trying to catch a glimpse of the person writing all this nonsense. If you want to learn more about me, check out the "About Me" page. Self-explanatory I guess.
Adriane
Nov 7th, 2009
Hmmm… interesting thought process. However, I must disagree with some of it.
People who eat meat for the most part purchase the meat and the meat comes from animals which are raised for that purpose. If the meat is derived from a hunted source, again there exist boundaries within which the animals can be hunted or fished (at least it is so in North America).
Whether one eats dog, deer, beef, duck or salmon, it is certainly a matter of taste or custom. Indeed whether there is an “ethical” difference in eating meat that is bred for that purpose, hunted within legal boundaries or procured from a shelter by a do-it-yourself butcher, I can not say. But consider this: if for example a social animal such as a dog which is borne into a domestic environment is then slaughtered by the hand that it believes will give it salvation, would that not produce some level of discomfort in the butcher? I believe, though, that there are laws (in North America at least) which prohibit the use of domesticated animals as food sources. By so doing, one would be breaking the law.
My mother used to tell me stories about how as a child her family raised their own animals for later harvesting. The children would be responsible for feeding and caring for them, and when the little baby piglet and goose or whatever other animals they raised matured and time came for them to be slaughtered, many tears were shed but there was an underlying understanding that these animals would be capable of providing nourishment for their very large family for a chunk of the winter.
The choice to consume meat is very much a matter of habit and custom. I had adopted a vegetarian diet many years ago and my mother (who was Eastern European) was convinced that I would drop dead of malnutrition if I didn’t supplement my diet with some form of meat. Is meat necessary for the health and well being of a human? Perhaps not… but the consumption of meat has been ingrained in the cultural habits of most of the world and remains one of the most readily available sources of protein. It certainly is a matter of taste. And I don’t know whether there are karmic consequences to consuming meat, though I know that there are some that feel there is. I don’t gorge myself on the stuff, but I eat it regularly.
Our ancestors didn’t have a means of extracting soy from a bean to make tofu for their consumption… some of them didn’t even farm as they were mostly nomadic tribes and subsisted mainly of hunting wild game and eating whatever indigenous fruit, nuts and root vegetables were at their disposal. Why is eating an apple okay and not animal flesh? It’s also a living thing.
Perhaps I will come back as a sow, if there is such a thing as transmigration of the soul, and be one day consumed by (and provide nourishment to) other humans (or perhaps even another species of animal). We all fulfill a purpose in the end.
Blessings…
Adriane
Ruda
Nov 7th, 2009
Adriane,
You bring up the laws that are in place to govern the eating of domesticated animals, but we should never use the existing law in our thought process because the law is not necessarily something that is born out of truth. You said that butchering a dog might bring discomfort since it sees us as its caretakers, but in cattle ranches, the cows are raised by humans and fed by humans, so even to them, we are the caregivers.
Ruda
Adriane
Nov 19th, 2009
I suppose the difference is between “raised” and “socialized”… perhaps it’s merely semantics, but there is a difference in nuance, I think. Having rations of feed thrown over a fence isn’t the same as interacting on a one-to-one level. I have to admit that most of the methods of “raising” animals can make even a carnivore’s stomach turn~they are far from humane for the most part.
I agree with you in that if one eats meat then one should not feel indignant about another’s choice of meatstuffs. We are all free to make our own choices, good, bad or indifferent. ;^) This circles back to your “I am Me and You are You” post… same underlying thought processes.
Namasté,
Adriane