There has obviously already been a great amount of discussion on our last reading, but this topic has interested me more than anything else we've read for class.
First, I don't think that it is a very wise argument to state that animals kill each other without caring about their pain, and thus we shouldn't either. Animals do a lot of things that humans don't, but according to this argument, it would be okay if we followed anything that animals did with one another. Lions perform infanticide, killing the young of other lions to strengthen the chances of their own offspring. Wolf packs kill lone wolves that have strayed from the group by themselves. So, would it be okay for humans to kill others' children, simply because they aren't their own? Should it be acceptable to kill homeless people because they have no family or no one who will miss them if they're dead? No. so why should a substantial argument for killing animals in a torturous manner be deemed acceptable because they'd do it to us if they could, and because they do it to themselves. It shouldn't.
I know that I have a skewed view of the world compared to many. this morning I did everything I could not to step on the worms covering the sidewalk; I catch spiders, ants, and bees and let them go outside rather than killing them; I still eat meat, but only because my will isn't strong enough yet; I'm anti-hunting, but also anti-PETA. It's certainly become apparent over our last 2 in-class discussions that everyone has a very personal view involving humane treatment of animals, eating meat, and more specifically, what the consequences of boiling a lobster to death really are. As I stated in class, dissecting a pig is what forced me to change my major. I wanted to be a veterinarian my entire life. I've never wanted to be anything else, and I chose Penn State for the Animal Bioscience major and the good chance I would have to get into vet school. But cutting an animal open, a little piglet at that, knowing that it had been healthy and happy an hour earlier, and only dead on the table for me to slice open and study, that went too far. Enough animals in this world die for unnecessary reasons without me adding to the problem.
I completely agree with what was said in class yesterday, that involving personal emotions into an argument takes everything to a more substantial level. And I'm too emotional to begin with. Another reason why I wouldn't make a good veterinarian: people agonizing over the decision to put their loved pet down need a strong doctor to look them in the eye and tell them that it's for the best. A crying doctor isn't helping anyone. I wouldn't be helping anyone. But I think I'm happier knowing that my emotions are the physical representation of my empathy towards living animals, and I'd rather have that than to be able to approach situations like boiling a lobster just because it tastes better with a cool-headed approach and detached mentality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Corinne raises a good point: would our attitudes and behaviors toward nature be better if we acknowledged our emotional responses to those issues? What would "better" mean in either case?
ReplyDeleteI think you could apply this question to the lobster/meat consumption debate, but let's just use the animal euthanasia example in Corinne's post. Do "people agonizing over the decision to put their loved pet down need a strong doctor to look them in the eye and tell them that it's for the best?" I can imagine a scenario where the vet, acknowledging the difficulty of the decision, presents pet owners with a variety of options that considers the animal's suffering along with the owners' emotional distress. That is not to say that the vet simply gives in to an emotional response, but simply that her veterinary decision-making tries to take that response into account. Would this improve veterinary science or simply water it down?
My sense is that we view such appeals as being unscientific, but if we consider how our eating habits or our industrial agribusiness rely on the denial of those responses, we might be willing to ask a new question: how scientific is it to deny the existence of a factor that so obviously influences our decisions?
You bring up a good point. I too was thinking about the lions infanticide when people were saying animals do it and don't care so why can't we argument. Animals do a lot of things most people couldn't do. It's a bad excuse for a bad idea. Like Corinne, I too was completely turned off from vet school after this dissection. You may say thats so pathetic, but you had to be there. Lucky for me (sarcasm), I had the lamb. But when I say lamb, I only mean its head and organs, no body. And oh the smell. Freshly digesting food in a rumen is not so pleasant. The warmth, the fresh irony bile smell, the amount of blood, it was all really eye opening. While I personally thought the pig was the easiest to watch I too just felt awful that this class, most of which did not want to do vet school had to kill 4 healthy animals for something no one really wanted to do. Not to mention these 4 animals were just for my section and the other 8 sections had 4 animals for themselves too. While no vet would say putting an animal down ever gets easy, I do feel it is the best option. I personally think I would want to go that way if I was suffering like I see these animals, many of my own. I never had a problem with the thought, but I also never had to do it either. I think it is important for a vet to be strong during times like these. The owners need to be reminded that they are helping not hurting.
ReplyDeleteAs for the emotional responses, I think our attitudes were not be better acknowledged if our emotions went too far. While we were discussing this topic all I could think about were the guys outside of Willard or down on college yelling stuff about religion. I am a "church-goer" and I believe but people like that even make me want to be anything but what they are. They are simply annoying. No one wants yelled at and no one especially wants to be forced to listen to something. Emotions should only be used if asked to be used. My friend is a vegetarian, and she could care less what I eat. She's never been emotional about it and it makes it become more of a noble thing. When people are like YOUR EATING HELPLESS ANIMALS AND THEY'RE TREATED INHUMANELY...yadda yadda yadda...it pushes you away because you just think they are being annoying and want to be so far away from what they are. Now if someone asks a question that want includes an emotional response then that is fine to become more emotional. The person listening has to want to hear about what the emotions behind your actions are. If not, your doing your cause no good but harm. I don't necessarily feel emotions are unscientific but they do exaggerate the truth. There's something scientific behind the number or fact. It's when your really trying to convince someone of something else that you start bending the truth. Peta is a perfect example. They are crazy and they bend the truth all the time to try to appeal with our emotions. But now they have lost so much credit for their cause. Peta has ruined itself.
I agree with the fact that emotions are all too easily played upon sometimes. I cannot stand when someone is forcing an idea down my throat; however, I do somewhat admire (in a small way) their conviction to be able to do that. Mainly though, I think arguing about something or projecting your ideas onto someone else makes them all the more wanting to ignore you and what you're saying. In the case of eating meat or not eating it because of the variety of reasons we have discussed, I think this may be one of the underlying issues (hypokeimenon?). The way people are presenting their ideas is what is causing us to choose one way or the other; not necessarily on fact, but with emotions entering as a large factor.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great point you brought up here. I'm not so interested in the arguement which tries to justify the method of killing certain animals for food. However, I like how you brougt the idea of human emotion into your point. I think about 99% of the world (including myself) try and set rules, morals and ethics in which they say they live their life by. In reality we don't. If I see a spider outside i will avoid it as opposed to killing it. However, if I see a spider on my pillow thats as big as my hand I would do anything to kill it just from my fear of spiders. I know it's not a very good example as I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't kill that spider regardless. My point is that humans are animals, whether you want to admit it or not. We are not becoming more dettached from the natural world, we are just acting on our emotions and insticts. We may have reason and logic but the truth is that we will always use it to our advantage just like the rest of the animal kingdom.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with this post. As I said during last class, I do not regularly eat meat. Although I haven't red meat in over a year, or any meat for a very long time, I do not claim vegetarian because I have enjoyed a few types of chicken. Such as the delicious chicken salad sandwhich from WaWa, which I might have next time I am home. But, I choose not to eat not only because the taste doesn't please me, but also because every time I see a steak I think of how it was once the muscle of a cow. (i dont purchase leather either) Growing up my parents had meat with every meal and made sure I cleaned my plate. As soon as I learned about the inhumane killing of animals for food, meat became displeasing to me. I guess this is where I let my emotions get in the way, too. And I, also, am glad that I have this great empathy toward animals. While I would not push my views upon any one else, I am proud to say that I stand by my beliefs.
ReplyDelete