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.

Photo by ASPatrick

One of Sigmund Freud’s most popular theories is that of the “id”, “ego”, and “superego”.  In this theory, he states that the id is our most basal state, it is driven by the pleasure principle.  This means that it seeks pleasure in the form of food and sex and avoids pain.  Later in his career, seeking to answer why humans so often engage in self-destructive behavior, he theorized the existence of a “death instinct.”  This was also part of the id.  Basically, he thought that eventually, the id becomes tired of the constant struggle for survival and pleasure and seeks to end its own existence.

This theory could explain why we are so drawn to escape from ourselves through movies, music, and books.  It could also explain the blatantly destructive behaviors such as aggressive behavior and war.  The theory is interesting because it offers a biological explanation for a lot of our negative behaviors.  It almost excuses our inability to change.  I say almost, because fortunately, we also possess the ego and the superego.  The job of the ego is to control the id.  So it follows that even if this death instinct exists and is some sort of biological trait of all human beings, then it is also in the biological capacity of all human beings to recognize it and choose to control it.

We can examine ourselves and see whether we take part in certain activities because they provide an escape or because we genuinely enjoy them in the present.  I’m sure almost everyone will experience at some point in their lives this death instinct because anyone who becomes aware of the cyclical struggle for survival will feel its pointlessness.  But the benefit of recognizing this is that once we are aware of the futility, instead of succumbing to our biological natures and seeking destruction, we can choose change the the struggle for survival.  We can choose to learn more about the world or who we are as human beings, or even if there is a purpose to us or anything else.  We may never find the answer to any of these questions, but in the process of contemplating them, we can live up to our own potential as humans.  We have the characteristics of animals, but we also have more that we can choose to utilize.

There is a whole universe of thought and ideas and possibilities that can never all be explored by one person, to choose to end the struggle would be to think that there is nothing else of interest left.  On the road of becoming more aware of ourselves, there is always a phase where it feels tiresome to keep on going once we recognize the struggle, I’ve seen it many times in people that I know.  This is the toughest part and one that has to be overcome in order to be able to think clearly and leave the struggle behind completely.  Our id will call for us to destroy ourselves, but we have to remember to use our ego and superego, our higher thought, to control it and put it back in its place.  It’s time for those that consider humans to be different or superior to animals to earn that distinction.

In life, it seems that there are very few other things that could compare to the importance of “love.”   I put this in quotes because I feel like most people who use this word haven’t really thought of what it really means to them.  The idea they have is based on what they were told as children, what they saw in movies and TV, what they read in books.  Maybe it’s just me, but I believe that we should all have our own understanding of the things we consider important and not be content with what has already been put in our heads.

The word “love” is almost dangerous to use now because of the numerous connotations that it has attached to it.  This creates misunderstandings and hurt feelings, as demonstrated by enough relationships around us.  The first question we have to ask is if there is such a thing as an objective “love” out there that should be the ideal.  This of course is something you have to think out and decide for yourself.

Even before we start to create our own beliefs, if we examine what people call “love”, it is full of contradictions.  We say love is selfless but we practice selfishness with our loved ones.  We say love is forgiving but we harbor grudges.  My favorite is “if you love someone, set them free,” but everyone wants to hold on and get angry when it’s taken away.  Even the thing that most people think “love” is seems completely contradictory.  It seems sad that we aren’t able to live up to our own expectations of what it is.

I’m not saying I have the answer about what it is or should be.  I only think that it’s time to start questioning ourselves and our belief about what it is.  If we are going to have this thing in the top priorities of our lives, it should at least be worth some reflection.  Believe in something because you thought it, not because you were told it.