http://ncrcafe.org/node/933
This is, oddly enough, an article from the National Catholic Reader. Sorry for all of the PETA stuff lately. . .
Anyway, it seems that a monastery was found to be running a factory farm style egg factory and PETA addressed the situation from a theistic perspective. I found this angle to be especially interesting...it's one I've never heard argued. Yet it seems that it could be a persuasive argument for many Americans, considering how increasingly devout the nation seems to be becoming.
Perhaps the more extremist Christians (the born-agains, fundamentalists, evangelicals) might disregard a plea for animal rights (or at least less cruelty) considering the earth is a temporal place. In waiting for the Rapture or the final judgement, animals are second-class citizens, not to be sublimely transported to heaven during the final days. Therefore, their lives pre-apocalypse, is not morally considered.
But for most other Christians, it seems that the words of the Bible are convincing enough. Being the Word of God, people may be/are compelled to live each passage as closely as possible, even the parts that contradict each other.
Therefore, an excerpts like Lev. 27:26, "26: "But a firstling of animals, which as a firstling belongs to the LORD, no man may dedicate; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD's," might make a believer feel obligated to treat an animal with respect and consideration, as a work of God's.
This isn't to say that the Theistic argument would create holy vegetarians. . .Ezekiel 29:5 "And I will cast you forth into the wilderness, you and all the fish of your streams; you shall fall upon the open field, and not be gathered and buried. To the beasts of the earth and to the birds of the air, I have given you as food."
But if religious people read their tomes with a more sympathetic eye (mind, heart), then perhaps they would be able to approach animal suffering as important and the creatures themselves as God's creations, to be considered with a certain degree of reverence.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Saturday, March 17, 2007
What's in a Name?
Again, searching material on Peta.org, I noticed they have been on a crusade since 2003 to change the name of the town Rodeo, California because of the way it conjures up images of violence and animal cruelty. Apparently they offered the town $20,000 in veggie burgers for the schools in exchange for the name change (by the way, the name would have changed to 'Unity').
This response: http://www.songbites.com/observations/10292003.html
is a humorous reaction to the exchange, though I disagree with some of his points.
I suppose I'm mostly bothered by two of his claims, the first being: "While I do enjoy a good hamburger as much as the next guy, I admit that there are some inhumane people out there." I still find it difficult to encounter "self-aware omnivores," where an individual both savors the taste of meat, but admires the actions and motivation of the veggie activists.
And the second: "Unfortunately for [PETA], they failed to make an impact with the people of Rodeo." Although the town declined the name change offer, the event has absolutely made an impact on the Rodeo, CA community and anyone else who encountered the story. This little moment in time made people at least consider the violence and abuse of Rodeos. Often enough, a person is only 'set in their ways' until those 'ways' are challenged. And sometimes challenges happen late in life, or worse, never at all. Meeting an opposing viewpoint can inspire introspection and reestablish values and beliefs. Thus the townspeople can't help but consider the implications of the name Rodeo.
This response: http://www.songbites.com/observations/10292003.html
is a humorous reaction to the exchange, though I disagree with some of his points.
I suppose I'm mostly bothered by two of his claims, the first being: "While I do enjoy a good hamburger as much as the next guy, I admit that there are some inhumane people out there." I still find it difficult to encounter "self-aware omnivores," where an individual both savors the taste of meat, but admires the actions and motivation of the veggie activists.
And the second: "Unfortunately for [PETA], they failed to make an impact with the people of Rodeo." Although the town declined the name change offer, the event has absolutely made an impact on the Rodeo, CA community and anyone else who encountered the story. This little moment in time made people at least consider the violence and abuse of Rodeos. Often enough, a person is only 'set in their ways' until those 'ways' are challenged. And sometimes challenges happen late in life, or worse, never at all. Meeting an opposing viewpoint can inspire introspection and reestablish values and beliefs. Thus the townspeople can't help but consider the implications of the name Rodeo.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Seal Hunting
I've been reading up a bit on the whole industry of seal hunting, and commercial hunting in general. A PETA blurb (http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp) mentions that the US baned seal fur in the 1970s. This ban is incredibly biased, giving no attention to the other fur animals that are used purely for industry. I suppose the major difference between a seal hunt and factory farming is that we at least pretend that we can't see inside the farms.
The reaction to seal hunting is initially emotional, and for many this sensation is strong enough to be turned into a conviction. But if people were confronted by the grotesque rituals of industrial farming, there would perhaps be similar outrage. Seals, especially baby seals, are maybe considered more cute than cows. In addition, violent footage of seal hunting focuses on the younger seals, defining the event as one that victimizes the small, helpless, and adorable. This concept seems to transfer to the common response to veal. In my experience, those who refuse to eat veal do not necessarily deny themselves beef.
Some of the defense arguments for industrial farming include the necessity for population control. This seems reasonable enough...It's possible that in some cases areas without hunting may lead to animal populations going unchecked and growing to quickly. But this is, of course, due to the imbalance humans inadvertently created when settling. The "Elk problem" currently in Colorado is largely fueled by low wolf populations...which is in turn fueled by over-killing to protect livestock. But in regards to harp seals, for instance, the hunt allows the Atlantic cod numbers to be high enough for successful commercial fishing.
The laws of the Canadian seal hunt indicate that the animals must be killed as humanely as possible. There are age limits imposed and licenses are distributed for the event. But regardless of whatever rules are determined, there will always be people to break them. And in such circumstances, 'breaking the rules' equates to immeasurable animal suffering. I was also suprised by how few licenses for indiginous people were distributed when compared to the numbers for general industrial hunting (10,000 versus roughly 150,000). Not that I think the numbers should be increased to equalize the injustice to Amarinds, but the figures seem imbalanced. At very least, the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression may be (very, very, very) slightly recognized by allowing indiginous ppl. to hunt as they have historically. Yet even granting indiginous people the right to hunt certain animals does not conditionally guarantee the methods will be as humane or respectful as tradition grants.
Industrial hunting is free-range industrial farming. The only 'improvement' is that hypothetically the animal was able to live a natural life prior to being killed, except for the seal cubs, of course.
(o, and my sources are the various linked official reports from the wikipedia.org article on seal hunting...)
The reaction to seal hunting is initially emotional, and for many this sensation is strong enough to be turned into a conviction. But if people were confronted by the grotesque rituals of industrial farming, there would perhaps be similar outrage. Seals, especially baby seals, are maybe considered more cute than cows. In addition, violent footage of seal hunting focuses on the younger seals, defining the event as one that victimizes the small, helpless, and adorable. This concept seems to transfer to the common response to veal. In my experience, those who refuse to eat veal do not necessarily deny themselves beef.
Some of the defense arguments for industrial farming include the necessity for population control. This seems reasonable enough...It's possible that in some cases areas without hunting may lead to animal populations going unchecked and growing to quickly. But this is, of course, due to the imbalance humans inadvertently created when settling. The "Elk problem" currently in Colorado is largely fueled by low wolf populations...which is in turn fueled by over-killing to protect livestock. But in regards to harp seals, for instance, the hunt allows the Atlantic cod numbers to be high enough for successful commercial fishing.
The laws of the Canadian seal hunt indicate that the animals must be killed as humanely as possible. There are age limits imposed and licenses are distributed for the event. But regardless of whatever rules are determined, there will always be people to break them. And in such circumstances, 'breaking the rules' equates to immeasurable animal suffering. I was also suprised by how few licenses for indiginous people were distributed when compared to the numbers for general industrial hunting (10,000 versus roughly 150,000). Not that I think the numbers should be increased to equalize the injustice to Amarinds, but the figures seem imbalanced. At very least, the hundreds of years of abuse and oppression may be (very, very, very) slightly recognized by allowing indiginous ppl. to hunt as they have historically. Yet even granting indiginous people the right to hunt certain animals does not conditionally guarantee the methods will be as humane or respectful as tradition grants.
Industrial hunting is free-range industrial farming. The only 'improvement' is that hypothetically the animal was able to live a natural life prior to being killed, except for the seal cubs, of course.
(o, and my sources are the various linked official reports from the wikipedia.org article on seal hunting...)
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
morally permissible?
to what degree is it morally permissible for a person to continue to eat meat, while still being enlightened to the factory farming (and other reasons to cease/limit meat consumption)?
Are there degrees of moral permissibility? Is it just what a person can overlook in their day-to-day life?
I can understand hypocrisy, I see it, I partake in it. It's almost unavoidable to have one's values clash with one's actions. Yet I've never encountered a pro-meat argument that was ever founded on anything stronger than the aesthetics of the product. I can't think of any circumstance that would articulate when aesthetics may out way suffering. Maybe moral permissibility is more subjective, like: I may not consider someone else's dietary hypocrisy morally permissible, but as far as they're concerned (and the majority of Western culture) they're absolutely permissible, no question. The way its done is the way its done. Since the morality of industrial farming is overlooked by the greater percentage of people, morality in the cultural sense (concerning the farming only) is defined to overlook the offence.
Are there degrees of moral permissibility? Is it just what a person can overlook in their day-to-day life?
I can understand hypocrisy, I see it, I partake in it. It's almost unavoidable to have one's values clash with one's actions. Yet I've never encountered a pro-meat argument that was ever founded on anything stronger than the aesthetics of the product. I can't think of any circumstance that would articulate when aesthetics may out way suffering. Maybe moral permissibility is more subjective, like: I may not consider someone else's dietary hypocrisy morally permissible, but as far as they're concerned (and the majority of Western culture) they're absolutely permissible, no question. The way its done is the way its done. Since the morality of industrial farming is overlooked by the greater percentage of people, morality in the cultural sense (concerning the farming only) is defined to overlook the offence.
The Lifeboat Dilemma
I've been considering the "Lifeboat dilemma" for a while now, and it seems I'm reaching an understanding (or a wisp of one?). Singer denounces the the problem, deeming it "bizarre," and thus impractical. And while the literal situation is an unrealistic and improbable one, there is great value in its consideration. In fact, the though process should be the highlight and the focus of the problem, not whether it has literal practical implications. The practical application of the problem lies in our determining of our values, how and what we value, and why. Such details can often be overlooked in a thoughtlessly moralizing culture. Problems like the lifeboat dilemma can offer individuals a renewed perspective on their world, their relationships, and the importance of their various exchanges throughout.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
