Number of animals killed in the world by the meat, dairy and egg industries since you opened this webpage, not including the billions of marine animals killed annually.
"Two dead pigs, died during transport. Pigs in boxes stay overnight to be slaughtered next day. Filmed with hidden camera by vet Gabriele Meurer."
"We do not like being told what to do. We want to enjoy our lives, and we want to enjoy them with a good conscience. People who disturb that equilibrium are uncomfortable, so moralists are often uninvited guests at the feast, and we have a multitude of defenses against them. Analogously, some individuals can insulate themselves from a poor physical environment, for a time. They may profit by creating one. The owner can live upwind of his chemical factory, and the logger may know that the trees will not give out until after he is dead.We exist in an ethical environment:
Similarly, individuals can insulate themselves from a poor moral environment, or profit from it. Just as some trees flourish by depriving others of nutrients or light, so some people flourish by depriving others of their due. The western white male may flourish because of the inferior economic or social status of people who are not western, or white, or male.
Insofar as we are like that, we will not want the lid to be lifted."
"This is the surrounding climate of ideas about how to live," Blackburn writes. "It determines what we find acceptable or unacceptable, admirable or contemptible...It shapes our emotional responses, determining what is a cause of pride or shame...what can be forgiven and what cannot. It gives us our standards - our standards of behavior...It shapes our very identities (emphasis added).This environment enables the monster of a paradigm animals-as-property. It justifies our collective speciesism. We avoid, because of the prevalence of this standard, the question begging nature of making species membership - a human genetic code - the necessary requirement for membership in the moral community. This, then, results in fallacious reasoning and undefended assumptions that are generally accepted, often unconsciously, as perfectly valid.
Yes, the Bible states this in the story of Genesis after God creates Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. Although I myself believe in the theory of evolution, there are some vegetarians and animal rights activists who do believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible. These individuals would point out that according to the literal interpretation of Genesis, no animal ever died in the Garden of Eden. Therefore, in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve and all the animals were vegans. (More here.)
In this context, the phrase "dominion over the animals" could not have referred to killing and eating them. Many would argue that "dominion" is more accurately interpreted as "stewardship" rather than tyranny. Furthermore, since the Garden of Eden represents the highest ethical ideal, some people who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible interpret this to mean that veganism is the highest ethical ideal. (emphasis added)
Yes, it does. In particular, Leviticus of the Old Testament gives very specific rules for how animals are to be slaughtered and which animals can be eaten. Leviticus is also the section of the Old Testament which specifically states that slavery is permitted, and which gives very specific rules for how slaves are to be treated. During the movement to abolish human slavery, many abolitionists were accused of going against the will of God, due to the fact that slavery is specifically condoned by the Bible.
Nevertheless, the movement to abolish human slavery included many Bible believing Christians, as does the modern animal rights movement. People who believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible are often troubled by these types of passages in the Old and New Testaments. The following is one possible explanation which some of them can offer.
A society can absorb only a limited amount of change at one time. It could be argued that God knew that if he commanded humans to abolish slavery and abolish the practice of killing animals for food, then this would simply be too great a shock for society to accept all at once, and most people would just end up ignoring the commandments altogether. Therefore, by giving specific rules for how slaves are to be treated, and for how animals are to be slaughtered, it could be argued that God made these practices considerably less barbaric than they would have been otherwise - although his real intention was for people to one day eventually realize that the message of compassion should be applied to all beings, including slaves and animals.
Animals were not created for humans any more than women were created for men, or any more than black people were created for white people. It is difficult to understand why a compassionate God would create beings capable of feeling pain, suffering, and a desire to live, if their only purpose in life was to suffer and die at the hands of humans.
There are many people who believe in the traditional religious view that only human beings are made "in the image of God" and that only humans have souls. Although I personally do not agree with this view, this view is held by some vegetarians and animal rights activists. Vegetarians with this view would point out that regardless of whether or not animals possess a soul, animals still feel pain and suffering just as we do, and animals still value their lives just as we value ours. Therefore, many of the people who believe that only humans have souls still agree with the principle that it is wrong to inflict death and suffering on animals simply for the pleasure of tasting meat.
Although it is possible to believe in animal rights while still adhering to the traditional religious view of animals, I would like to point out that this traditional religious view of animals is inadequate. For example, the traditional religious view states that only humans are made "in the image of God" because only humans have the ability to make moral decisions, and a soul is required to be able to know the difference between good and evil. However, we now know that other animals do know right from wrong. In fact, they sometimes know it much better than we humans do.
I'm struggling. Due to simple economics (and fate's bitch-slap) I have had to accept a job doing something that, while on its face it doesn't offend my reasoned ethical veganism, in practice, I will be confronted daily with situations that I find deeply troubling.
It's a curious state of affairs that I'm in here; however, practicality calls and therefore I must, for the moment anyway, accept my current lot. Unfortunately, after only a single day, I found myself in a pitiful state as I watched a once living, feeling, experiencing creature being defiled. The suffering and pain occurs long before I get involved in the process, however, I'm the peddler-with-a-smile. Today I happened to be able to force a smile but I was truly disturbed.
I said to myself: "I need this job. I'm not directly inflicting the harm - doing the wrong - and therefore I shall proceed." However, justifications aside, perfectly reasonable as they may be, I cannot seem to square what I believe to be a circle. And it has only been a single fucking day.
I strive to be a deeply principled individual and yet my actions here, my job indeed, runs directly counter to the end I believe ought to be realized: a vegan world in which my employer would be out of business, unless he drastically changed everything.
Most people won't understand my conflict or get why I am making such a case for it anyways. "Just do it," they may say, "You're not actually killing anyone." These people have a point up to a point. They're correct in that I am not killing or harming anyone, with one massive caveat: I am directly supporting the underlying flawed assumptions that serve to justify the unethical paradigm of animals-as-property. My profit from it says, "I agree."
Through my actions I lend support to our prejudice against animals; "Yes," I say, "I will happily get you some baby cow so that you may get your bloody satisfaction." True, I am not actually doing the killing. However, through my explicit support for the terrible results, indeed, my support must be explicit lest I fail to perform my duties, I feel that I may be actually pushing back against the movement in which I am actively involved.
How can that be moral I wonder? If I were working in a store that primarily sold fur, for example, I would be similarly disturbed. I can't imagine how I wouldn't be. It's like selling pornography when you believe it harms women and perpetuates sexism. I'm seriously conflicted.
Get a new job, I know. But what should I do until then? This isn't irrational I assure you (I know some are thinking that). If you accept the premise that unnecessary suffering is a call for our moral intervention if we have the capacity, being disturbed, as I currently am, follows. It's demanded actually.
"I take it seriously!" is my answer to dismissing my concern with "Just get over it." However, I understand, I exist in a non-vegan world. We make concessions every day. So it goes. But I think this is different for some reason. At the very least, I'm legitimately troubled here.
A participant in an ongoing debate surrounding the question "Should we eat meat?" asked: "What do you mean by "unnecessary suffering?" Who decides what is unnecessary?" The commenter apparently takes issue (or understands what we mean but insists on being obstinate) with the term "unnecessary." I wonder, then, what do we mean by unnecessary?
Terms such as "needless," "superfluous," "excessive," "uncalled for," and "avoidable" are said to be appropriate synonyms according to my English thesaurus. But this isn't really helpful when we are considering an issue - like ethics and nonhumans - so distorted by an all-pervasive prejudice.
For consider: we generally accept the premise that causing another to suffer is only acceptable if the action is necessitated by some general understanding of what constitutes "a need." This would exclude, then, me harming you because it is more convenient than not doing so. You hurting me because you find it entertaining to do so would seem to violate this constraint. The racist, as another example, who causes a black American to suffer because the tradition in which he exists seemingly demands it would be considered unethical. Similarly, it would be wrong, on this premise, for a sexist to harshly "punish" his girlfriend when she expresses an opinion because his father did the same to his mother.
Cutting to the core of this issue then, I think we could reasonably agree that "Because of convenience, entertainment, or tradition I do X to you" would be considered inappropriate given our belief that something as terrible as suffering is only acceptable within a system of strict ethical limits. (See Gary Francione for more.) Avoidability is assumed here too: It's basic, ethically speaking, if I can complete action X without harming you, I ought to do so.
What about something as arbitrary as "I like how it tastes"? It seems to follow from our belief that pain is intrinsically evil that eating animal's because their body parts taste good would violate this premise. We eat animals (and wear their skin and fur, for example) because it is convenient to do so, because most everybody else has done so and continues to do so (i.e., tradition), and because we have learned to enjoy how they taste. And further, we watch the torture of bulls during rodeos and spectator events in Pamplona, Spain because it entertains us. We even insist on forcing bunny rabbits to consume massive quantities of "botox" injections in an effort to find out if it's safe for the Hilton's to use when trying to even out the wrinkles under their eyes because it's what we have always done. (Actually, these torturous experiments - LD 50 - are attempting to find out how much of something it takes for a bunny rabbit to commit suicide by overdoes.)
Ask yourself: Do you believe that we can do anything and everything to animals? Or are their some constraints that we all kind of accept? Consider Michael Vick-esk treatment, or those images of worker's pulling "downer" cows with a forklift. Is it possible that we simply haven't asked ourselves those uncomfortable, but perfectly logical questions, such as: Vick tortured dogs because it entertained him to do so, and we chastised him for it. But what's the difference between that wholly unnecessary example of suffering and us torturing and killing a cow just because we have been conditioned to enjoy how he tastes? (Again, see Francione.)
The term unnecessary at least implies "avoidable." As such, and I think it's unreasonable to argue otherwise, in this situation with killing the cow, as there are perfectly viable alternatives that many, many individuals have been re-conditioned to enjoy - including "faux cow" options - doesn't our insistence on killing the cow violate our own beliefs about ethics?
Taste, convenience, entertainment, tradition: Is it not intuitive that these impetuses do not provide a good justification for forcing another to suffer? When applied to human suffering, I doubt that I would receive an argument from anyone. Therefore, this raises the question: Why do we accept these justifications - and therefore okay wholly unnecessary suffering - when we are considering animal pain, frustration, harm, terror, or any other form that suffering may take? As Francione argues, if we allow these exceptions, doesn't the "exception swallow the rule"?
It's clearly a prejudice that mirrors racism and sexism in form: The interests, even at their most fundamental level (e.g., not to be in pain), of X group of individuals doesn't count ethically because those in group Y have arbitrarily decided to make membership in their own group morally relevant and because the Y's have the power to enforce this discrimination. Might, in this case, make's right, as it did in Nazi Germany and pre- (and post-) Civil War America.
Isn't it obvious, however, that we simply haven't unfolded the logic of our own positions about suffering yet? We know what constitutes "unnecessary suffering" in every other case accept in our relationship with nonhumans. And yet, it is precisely this relationship that represents the largest portion of utterly unnecessary suffering being experienced in the world today. Why doesn't this at least deserve a mention? And why am I "extreme" for broaching the question?
Going further: Doesn't our acceptance of needless suffering on such a massive scale (e.g., 10 billion animals annually in the U.S. alone for food) undercut our own belief that it's almost an ethical absolute that forcing another to suffer is something that should be avoided to the greatest extent possible? This raises another all-important question: What kind of society would we exist in if suffering could be forced on another so needlessly, in such a shockingly cavalier manner? Prejudices such as bigotry have been thoroughly discounted as valid ethical principles, as should our collective speciesism that say's a horses pain doesn't matter if it conflicts with my desire to force him to jump over something. It isn't a good reason and we know it; given our rather muddied ethical history, we need to know it.
So let's dispense with "What's unnecessary?" shall we. You know; I know; we all know.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Thanks go out to Vegan Soapbox & Ahimsa!
Eccentric Vegan wrote,
"This is a PETA video called "It's All Connected." The video demonstrates how the same tools of oppression have been used by the oppressors throughout history. It shows, in more ways than one, how similar humans are to animals."
My name is Jennie, and I'm a vegan. Vegans don't eat or use anything that comes from an animal. I've heard it described at "nothing that farts or has a face" but that's vulgar and I'm a prude. This blog is my labor of love, all about how I kick ass and take names on a regular basis.
Pigs Going To Slaughter
September 30, 2008
