The word murder generally applies to people killing other people. 99.9 percent of all violent deaths to human beings are wrought by other human beings. The individual human being we look at in the mirror every morning is cooperative, caring, and kind. As a species however, our propensity and capacity to cooperate as a group to go after other groups is nothing short of monstrous. The fossil record indicates that this has apparently been true for many thousands of years now.
Using the word "murder" to describe the act of a human killing a non-human does not sit well with me. It is a special word that shocks and should be reserved for when one human deliberately takes the life of another. The use of it by animal rights activists to describe the killing of a farm animal is demeaning people. It puts farm animals on the same level as my children. Using that term in such a manner may be counterproductive.
It also isn't used when one animal "murders" another, for food, out of anger, or just for fun. Animals kill each other for all of those reasons.
Can you murder a chicken? One of my daughter's roosters was just "murdered" for fun by our neighbor's Australian shepherd. When she came home from school and heard the sad news, her voice broke as memories washed over her. She raised this chicken from an egg. She stopped short of crying, although it would have been fine, even healthy, if she had. Her voice broke again when she read his eulogy as we buried him in our (ever-growing) pet cemetery.
I will admit, I am just glad it wasn't Bumblebee. That death is going to hurt a lot more, but she will deal with it because I have taught my children that death is a part of life, which does not in any way diminish how much we both enjoy her pets.
I have always taught my daughters not to get too attached to their pets because these pets are going to die -- all of them. They don't have human life spans. I cried over my share of pet deaths as a child. I recall watching the late Steve Irwin cry inconsolably on camera over the death of an alligator he had grown up with, and another time over the death of his dog. In my opinion, strong attachments are best reserved for other people in your life. The guy with the dog in the pickup truck may not be the optimal relationship. People have a natural tendency to create emotional attachments to people, places, and things. My youngest daughter still relishes the touch and smell of the ratty remnants of her beloved baby blanket. I suspect those remnants will one day go to college in one form or another.
Pets do not worry about their future, any more than baby blanket remnants do. They do not create religions to deflect the fear and anxiety created by the knowledge that their demise is inevitable. Animals don't have the computing power to see that far into the future. One downside to our level of intellect is that no other creature has the capacity to mentally suffer like humans can. Mental illness, depression, anxiety are all suffered on a uniquely human scale.
You will note that the recent discussions of animal rights here on Gristmill immediately spilled over into discussions of veganism. Veganism and animal rights are much more closely related than animal rights and environmentalism. I would describe the relationship like this: environmentalism -- vegetarianism -- veganism -- animal rights. Veganism is the direct link to animal rights.
Veganism is a step beyond vegetarianism. As such, you could call it a more extreme version of it. My oldest daughter's closest childhood friend (her two movies) was raised vegan. We know the family well and like them a great deal. They are not vegan to save the planet. They are vegan out of respect for animals, to enhance their own personal health, and to be a part of the vegan community (it is their thing; that is their monkey troop). They don't eat dairy or wear shoes made of leather out of respect for the animal. The preservation of nature has nothing (or at least very little) to do with their decision to live this lifestyle. That is not to be generalized to all who have decided to go vegan. It just demonstrates that veganism is not necessarily strongly connected to environmentalism.
You will also note that words like belief, conversion, convert, and morality have started to fly. Veganism has too many of the trappings of religion for my tastes. It is also hierarchical. That holier than though aspect was expressed in this Simpsons' episode:
Lisa: Oh, the earth is the best! That's why I'm a vegetarian.
Jesse: Heh. Well, that's a start.
Lisa: Uh, well, I was thinking of going vegan.
Jesse: I'm a level 5 vegan -- I won't eat anything that casts a shadow.
My family eats very little meat. Another way to put meat eating into perspective is to realize that one beef cow supplies enough beef annually for seven average beef-eating Americans. From a hunter-gatherer perspective, the idea that just one animal that size supplies seven 140-pound, upright-walking omnivores for a year is extremely efficient.
Once again, it comes down to the huge numbers of human beings this planet is groaning to support. My drinking of a few cups of brown tainted liquid in the morning is destroying jungles and bird migrations. Moderate your consumption of meat and rest easy; we are no more going to convince 6 billion people to forgo the pleasure of eating meat when it's available, or sweets for that matter, than we are of having sex. You will note that we haven't stopped having sex. We have just found ways to decouple it from baby making in most instances.
We need to find ways to decouple meat consumption from ecological destruction. And of course moderation in meat eating is a good thing, for lots of reasons, and convincing others of that is already a big part of the solution. The average American eats about twenty pounds less beef than they did a decade of so ago.
Comments
View as Flat
jayo Posted 6:30 am
13 Sep 2006
Using the word "murder" to describe the act of a human killing a non-human does not sit well with me. It is a special word that shocks and should be reserved for when one human deliberately takes the life of another. The use of it by animal rights activists to describe the killing of a farm animal is demeaning people.
I understand the connotation bothers you, but usually 'murder' is defined as "an intentional killing". Given the customary definition, non-human animals can be murdered.
Second, you write: I have always taught my daughters not to get too attached to their pets because these pets are going to die -- all of them. They don't have human life spans. I cried over my share of pet deaths as a child. I recall watching the late Steve Irwin cry inconsolably on camera over the death of an alligator he had grown up with, and another time over the death of his dog. In my opinion, strong attachments are best reserved for other people in your life. By your argument, if a child had a terminal illness and attachments should be determined by lifespan, then you should be no more attached to a pet than a terminally ill child. That seems strange at best.
Permalink
jerrymander Posted 1:45 pm
13 Sep 2006
We can quibble over definitions of "murder", "veganism", and other terms, thereby missing the point only to be pedantic. There are well over 20,000 denominations of Christianity (see the Catholic Encyclopedia) because of disputes over definitions. We don't need 20,000 denominations of vegans or classifications of murder.
Murder is the intentional killing of another. Presently, the legal definition adds the requirment of a homocide - a human victim. But legal definitions do not conclude the question, as legal definitions are woefully subject to politics and prejudice. Remember that the law once called women, children, and other minorities "property", and the law currently calls corporations "persons". What is the legal definition of a "terrorist", and is it a definition mired in politics?
The laws can be wrong.
Claiming that nonhumans cannot be murdered because they are not human is a definition of convenience.
Imagine if Spock came to Earth, and someone killed him. Would the killer not be a murderer because Spock is not human? The race of the victim is irrelevant.
We should not be in the practice of using our membership in the human species as a license to exploit and murder members of other species. Just because we make the laws does not mean that we make the rules. Human prejudice against other beings is institutional, so most people don't recognize it, and I understand that, but institutional prejudice is not justifiable.
We should not call oursleves moral because our victims are not humans. We should call ourselves moral because we consider the interests of ourselves and others, and act in the best interest of everyone affected.
-Jerry
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:15 pm
13 Sep 2006
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
KathyF Posted 6:04 pm
13 Sep 2006
Also, I think you are doing your children harm by teaching them not to care about the animals in their lives. (How, exactly does one go about this?) Compassion for all creatures is surely a laudable goal, is it not? When my daughter wanted to have a small animal, I talked to her about the emotional commitment she was making, and when I felt sure she understood, I took her to the store, and we made responsible decisions regarding type of pet (a rat) and cage size, etc. While there I ran into a neighbor, and when I asked him what kind of cage he recommended, he said: Get the smallest one. They'll die anyway and you'll end up flushing it down the toilet. I cringed, and wished I'd covered up my daughter's ears from this callous speech.
We both cried buckets when Boyd finally died, but I'm glad I had the opportunity to love the little guy. (It was during Poetry Month and she wrote lots of moving poetry about him.)
I hope you don't share this man's attitude; if so your children are missing out on a wonderful opportunity to experience love for a pet and the joy that comes from that.
Permalink
Zooey2u Posted 7:39 pm
13 Sep 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 12:18 am
14 Sep 2006
The conversation that KathyF reports, about a cage for a pet rat, was really mean. Sorry, Kathy. Rats make very good pets, I understand, and it would seem perfectly natural, and even desirable, for a rat's human companion to grow emotionally attached to the rat. Their lifespans are typically short, shorter even than those of cats and dogs, which are short enough. But that is no reason to withhold our love.
It strikes me that Biodiv's counsel, intended with the best of intentions toward the children he loves, was in fact rather too fearful, and would possibly hinder their full moral development as committed, caring, loving human beings. His counsel is a species of Stoicism, which counsels we should not care too deeply for our parents, our friends, our lovers, because they are all mortal human beings and one day will be gone. No thanks. Hopefully, Biodiv's daughters have listened to their chickens, and their hearts, sooner than to his cold and fearful counsel.
In Biodiv's defense, he is right to react as he does to the way we animal-rights supporters use the word "murder." Well, speaking for myself, I have used it to refer to many cases -- though not all -- of the killing of non-human animals by humans. And I know that is a rhetorical usage, given the word's common meaning which of course Biodiv has in mind.
Nevertheless, I sincerely believe it is not inaccurate. There is an essential moral element in the common meaning of "murder" which is entirely applicable, far too often, to the killing of animals by humans. It is the hard-hearted, conscious disregard of the victims' suffering and will to live. And acting on that disregard is to be judged an evil, in part because it is morally corrosive to the killer.
How "murder" should correctly be defined has much to do with our original attitude towards the victim, or to the class to which the victim belongs. Infanticide is in our society a form of murder, because we are repelled by the idea that any infant might merit being put to death. Not so, though, among the ancient Greeks, who exposed their unwanted new-borns in wild environments, and did not consider it murder. Is abortion murder? Many anti-abortion activists say it is. Such activists say the same about the destruction of embryonic stem cells, and physician-assisted suicide, and the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
I happen mostly not to agree with these "pro-life" activists, and I strongly dislike their tactics. But I believe they have a right, and even a moral duty, to speak out against something that they consider murder.
And the same goes for animal-rights activists. We may not like some of their tactics (e.g. promoting veganism in morally self-righteous, vaguely religious tones), but they have a right and a duty to denounce what they consider evil.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 12:27 am
14 Sep 2006
And as for warning children not to become too attached because their pet will most likely die before they do, well that's just ridiculous. It's a good thing to fall in love with an animal, to care for it over its lifetime, and to grieve for it when it dies. It teaches us that we love, that we suffer, and that we can come through the other side of grief with our hearts intact able to love still. The point about a child with a terminal illness is well taken. And we also lose our children unexpectedly, like one of my good friends whose 16 year old daughter was killed in a car accident. Life happens, to humans and to animals. The solution is not to not love but to love every day full with the knowledge that life is uncertain and best not be wasted.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:07 am
14 Sep 2006
Permalink
timbmiller Posted 3:04 am
14 Sep 2006
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:23 am
14 Sep 2006
In order to feel pain, either emotional or physical, you must have a nervous system. Plants do not have nervous systems, nor will one ever be discovered. We actually know quite a lot about botany at this point!
I've found that people who feign concern for plants are only trying to get a rise out of us. Don't fall prey. (No pun intended!)
Permalink
Robert Delfs Posted 3:40 am
14 Sep 2006
I always thought 'murder' required not just the victim but that the killer be human as well. I don't think anyone has called the stingray that ended Steve Irwin's life a 'murderer' just yet, though some might call it justifiable homicide (from the animals' point of view) and clueless Australian fans are seeking a pointless revenge by slaughtering stingrays.
We wouldn't normally call it 'murder' if the governor of California were fatally mauled by a bear, or Dick Cheney found pecked to death by revenge-seeking ringed pheasants, or if Geraldo Rivera were dismembered by a giant white shark. But perhaps I (longingly) digress.
Jerry wrote that "Murder is the intentional killing of another." I have to ask: Another what? Life-form? Or something more restrictive, like "sentient being"?
In a parallel thread, Jason Scorce explained he has been trying to make the case that "environmentalism at its core is about respecting life and that separating this from our behavior towards individual living beings doesn't make much sense."
(See So, environmentalists support whaling?. That thread may invoke further inquiries, such as "Have environmentalists stopped beating their spouses yet?" and "Why do environmentalists continue to support rap music with violent lyrics.")
For me, "living beings" is a very broad category, though elsewhere in that posting Jason seems most concerned with "advanced mammals". Does this just mean cetaceans, or we talking comparative SAT scores here? Zooey2u seems to be suggesting that the proportion of DNA shared with humans should be a factor in determining how we treat non-conspecifics. (I think humans and chimps actually share 99%, not just 98%, by the way.)
Many would put primates and cetaceans within the inner circle. Others might add a few species which whom humans have had a long evolutionary partnership, such as canines, some felines, horses, water buffalo, camels and reindeer).
But this may still be too narrow. Hunting and killing of animals for food has been frequently raised, suggesting that many here would insist that equal consideration be given to all mammals, or even all members of the Phylum chordata. There is a logic to this. Any animal with a central nervous system, even a primitive dorsal notochord, may be minimally sentient - that is, capable of responding to sensory impressions.
I could live with this, but the idea that killing a deer, a fish, or a bird is murder while slurping an oyster or crunching a shrimp is a non-offense still makes me nervous. It would be better to avoid phylocentrism altogether. Mollucs, insects, and arachnids insects have sophisticated nervous systems. Anyone who thinks crustaceans are incapable of responding to sensory impressions has never dropped a live lobster into a pot of boiling water - something I never want to do again.
Recent work in Evo Devo has surprised us with how much DNA is shared among all life-forms, including the so-called "primitive" ones. The same Hox genes that regulate the segments of an embryonic fly larvae determine the skeletal structure of horses and humans.
Earlier this evening, I killed a cockroach. It tried to escape, but failed. I won. Later tonight, I will try to kill all the mosquitos left in my bedroom, though this nightly attempted slaughter is almost never completely successful. Would anyone like to defend the rights of the exquisitely adapted Apicomplexa parasite Plasmodium fulciparum or its hosts? There is a lot of malaria here in Indonesia. Worldwide, it kills millions of Homo sapiens individuals (mostly children) every year.
As Jason Scorse knows, I could not be more strongly opposed to whaling. Being in the water once with a friendly humpback remains the peak experience of my life.
I do not know how to logically reconcile the reverence I feel for cetaceans and certain other animals with my willingness to tolerate treatment of other animals (including killing them, for food or, in the case of mosquitos, health and convenience) that Jason and other AR activists utterly condemn. I don't even try. But so what? I'm not the one trying to impose new moral obligations on environmentalists.
I would appreciate it if the AR activists here could explain where they draw the line (if they think there is one), and why. In order to make this exercise meaningful, I suggest adapting biodiversivist's initial question as an operating criterion:
Toward what animals or other living things would you extend the concept of inalienable rights to the extent that an intentional act which brought about the death of an individual should be considered equivalent in every respect (including morally and legally) to the intentional murder of another human being.
Frogfish {Robert Delfs}
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 4:20 am
14 Sep 2006
That said, there should be legal consequences for intentionally killing an endangered species, plant or animal. And if the crime is particularly heinous, like the cutting of Luna, the old growth tree Julia Butterfly Hill sat in for months, the consequences should be more. I'm partial to the big cats and in my opinion, killing a big cat is murder. But that's me. Still, I'm not sure the solution is to create more categories of crime but to help human beings become more aware of and compassionate of the hearts and spirits, and bodies, of other non-human creatures. To minimize suffering always, to educate about the lives of animals and plants so as to develop empathy for the other-than-human.
Do plants suffer? They certainly perceive the pain or discomfort of others around them, at least that's what I recall from reading "The Secret Lives of Plants" many years ago. Nervous systems or not, there's more there than meets the eye, and perhaps more there than meets the microscope. At the risk of opening myself up to ridicule, I've had some amazing conversations with trees, particularly old growth, and some of my most profound teachers have been the plants in my garden. Not just because they're there and I work with them but because there's an actual relationship between them and myself. And no, I'm not, as KathyF suggests, feining concern for plants to get a rise out of anyone. I trust my experiences and my perceptions and to me they are real and valid. Each summer one plant (or species I should say, represented by the individuals in my garden) that has a special teaching for me based on what I need either physically or emotionally that year. And even though I know this, it's always a surprise and the plant usually has to do the plant equivalent of hitting me over the head to get me to recognize it as my teacher and to grok the actual teaching. You'd think I'd get it after a while but then I'm just human.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:28 am
14 Sep 2006
Animals do suffer depression and anxiety
I never said they didn't. This is called a strawman argument--attesting to your debating partner things he did not say. I said they don't suffer those things at the same scale. Your opening sentence leaves too much unsaid. If you want to argue that lobsters (which are animals) suffer depression, have at it, but don't expect me to participate. There is no point in arguing that dogs and cats suffer depression and anxiety because we don't disagree. If you are going to argue that dogs and cats suffer those things at levels equivalent to a human being, I am game.
Just because an animal is not human doesn't mean it doesn't experience emotions that humans also experience. To think otherwise is simply arrogant. --Strawman argument number 2.
People have a tendency to see the world in simple blacks and whites. Lobsters do not suffer anxiety or grief at the same level or intensity as dogs and dogs do not suffer at the same level of intensity as human beings. I offer as evidence the fact that anyone treating a child the way most dogs are treated would be prosecuted for child abuse. Abandon a child alone all day with nothing but a bowl of rock hard food (the same food eaten day in and day out) and a chew toy in a silent, dark house until you return from work and CPS will be knocking at your door in very short order.
No, dogs don't suffer in the same way as people. If dog and cat owners are going to insist that they do, then they cannot continue to treat these animals as they do. Dog owners argue that their pets are not suffering. I argue that they are, very much so, even for dogs, and that these owners are wearing rose colored glasses. The 100-pound Australian shepherd that killed my daughter's chicken lives, from my perspective, a hellish life. The day he got to chase and kill my daughter's chicken was probably the highlight of it. And it is typical of almost all large dogs in Seattle (golden labs, Labrador retrievers, German shepherds). They are bred to run wild over rolling hills chasing and herding sheep, protecting them from predators, looking for game. Instead, he is trapped in a tiny house that smells like him, because every nook and cranny is filled with his fur. He is luckier than most in that he can be let out into a small fenced yard. He does not seem particularly unhappy. He is ecstatic anytime someone new walks into his house because of the possibility of some form of stimulation. But if he could think (feel) like a human being, he would probably commit suicide, or murder.
When I found him with the chicken, I simply grabbed him by the collar and walked him back to the door he escaped from. If all animals are equal, I could have had him put down for having killed my daughter's pet on my property. He is already on probation for having bitten strangers while on walks. Instead I explained to the owners what happened and eased their guilt (and fear that I would have him put down) by telling them we had one too many roosters anyway. 90% of what dog and cat owners attribute to their pets exists only in their minds and, like religionists, they are very selective about what they want to believe.
And as for warning children not to become too attached because their pet will most likely die before they do, well that's just ridiculous.
My daughter was quite attached to that rooster. She simply knew better than to read more into the relationship than what was really there. And she did grieve. She did not however go into a depression over it. As I said before, life is a matter of degree. I do not see the world in your simplistic mosaic of black and white. My parenting may seem ridiculous to you, your attachments to your pets seem ridiculous to me. I guess that makes us even on that count.
It's a good thing to fall in love with an animal, to care for it over its lifetime, and to grieve for it when it dies. It teaches us that we love, that we suffer, and that we can come through the other side of grief with our hearts intact able to love still.--Strawman argument number three.
What I actually said:
When she came home from school and heard the sad news, her voice broke as memories washed over her. She raised this chicken from an egg. She stopped short of crying, although it would have been fine, even healthy, if she had. Her voice broke again when she read his eulogy as we buried him in our (ever-growing) pet cemetery.
The point about a child with a terminal illness is well taken.
It certainly was. Using a child with a terminal illness as an analogy that one should not teach a child that they should not project human emotions onto their pet chicken advances my argument that the environmental movement should keep its distance from the animal rights movement.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
amc89 Posted 4:39 am
14 Sep 2006
I'm vegan as much out of respect for animals as for concern for the environment, and I don't like the author's insinuation that veganism doens't have much to do with helping the earth. Factory farming, whether for meat, dairy or egg products, causes tremendous pollution, habitat degredation and resource waste. Over 95% of animal products sold in the U.S. comes from factory farms. When there is a diet that is actually healthier, according to many scientific studies, why choose a diet that greatly harms the environment (and animals)?
I also don't like the author's implication that meat eating is pleasurable but a vegetarian diet is not. He (or she) needs to get to more of the amazing vegetarian restaurants that are sprouting up across the country (and around the world).
I think when people start getting defensive about their diets, or any lifestyle choice, they start calling the opposite view a "religion". I don't know any vegans or vegetarians that consider veganism or vegetarianism a "religion". Sometimes, we might make jokes, but mainly we see not eating animals and their products as a practical way to help reduce the cruelty and environmental destruction we see happening around us. I don't think that's fanatical in any way.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:50 am
14 Sep 2006
Hopefully, Biodiv's daughters have listened to their chickens, and their hearts, sooner than to his cold and fearful counsel.
I got a kick out of this. You should be writing screenplays.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:15 am
14 Sep 2006
In the law, the crime popularly known as murder comes under the heading of criminal homicide. (Criminal homicide also includes the crime popularly known as manslaughter.)
Criminal homicide is the unlawful killing of a person by another. The elements of criminal homicide, therefore, are that there must be
(1) A person
(2) who kills
(3) a living person
(4) in a illegal way
Illegal way means in a way not authorized by law. So, e.g., an executioner injecting a lethal dose into a convict's arm has killed a living person, but is not committing homicide because the act is sanctioned by law.
More relevant here is the distinction drawn between the shorthand definition's "another" and the homicide definition of "a person."
Several cases exist in which people have been acquited of homicide by showing that the intended victim was already dead and, therefore, not a living person. So the victim must be alive for the killing to constitute homicide or criminal homicide.
And, to the point here is that, by definition, the victim must have been a person when alive. Other species are out.
This would all be legalistic mumbo jumbo except that "murder" is a legal concept for a certain kind of killing. Certainly people can call hunting or any other interspecies killing whatever they want, but calling it murder is spin.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 5:44 am
14 Sep 2006
I also wonder why suddenly so much attention is being paid to this issue over here. I can understand why an environmental blog would explore the environmental reasons for not raising animals for food, but why do so many posters here seem to want to stir up arguments that would be better argued elsewhere?
Did anyone here hear the one about the polar caps melting faster than ever?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:02 am
14 Sep 2006
<<
I always thought 'murder' required not just the victim but that the killer be human as well. I don't think anyone has called the stingray that ended Steve Irwin's life a 'murderer' just yet, though some might call it justifiable homicide (from the animals' point of view) and clueless Australian fans are seeking a pointless revenge by slaughtering stingrays.
We wouldn't normally call it 'murder' if the governor of California were fatally mauled by a bear, or Dick Cheney found pecked to death by revenge-seeking ringed pheasants, or if Geraldo Rivera were dismembered by a giant white shark. But perhaps I (longingly) digress.
>>
Right, this is yet another red herring. Non-human animals are not normally considered moral agents. But sometimes they seem motivated by what looks like revenge. Very very rarely, however.
I recall, not so long ago, a remarkable scene in an episode of "Nature," in which a mother grizzly bear, who had a couple of cubs, killed the pups of an alpha-female wolf, in their den. While the bears were still in the vicinity, the wolves in the pack assembled, and hunted down and killed both cubs, then, astoundingly, the mother bear herself.
Was that an act of "revenge"? Perhaps. The minds and hearts of Canis lupus and Homo sapiens are convergently very similar.
Or was it just a pre-emptive act of self-defense? Another arrow in the quiver of humanity.
There is a rather older documentary, very violent, perhaps ten years old or so, perhaps also in the "Nature" series, on what appeared to be a feud, not to say a war, between a pride of lions and a pack of hyenas, somewhere in East Africa. How accurate it was, and how scientifically questioning, I of course cannot say. But it seemed to show each side acting vengefully against the other, especially following an incident in which one of their own was lost.
I longingly regret that Dick Cheney's game birds are probably not up to that level of effectiveness. Nice hypothetical situation, though. And, hypothetically, once power shifts in DC, it would be a nice idea, to erect a monument to pheasants, and the service they have given to the American people, the American animals, and the world.
Frogfish makes a number of interesting observations on distinguishing taxa, according to supposed sentience, and considering how they should each be assessed as victims of allegedly immoral acts of killing, including this:
<<
Earlier this evening, I killed a cockroach. It tried to escape, but failed. I won. Later tonight, I will try to kill all the mosquitos left in my bedroom, though this nightly attempted slaughter is almost never completely successful. Would anyone like to defend the rights of the exquisitely adapted Apicomplexa parasite Plasmodium fulciparum or its hosts? There is a lot of malaria here in Indonesia. Worldwide, it kills millions of Homo sapiens individuals (mostly children) every year.
>>
I think I am on the record about killing such critters. Unlike the Dalai Lama, I have no qualms about killing mosquitos, not least because they are notorious spreaders of disease -- in this country, West Nile virus and equine encephalitis, though malaria is obviously a much more terrible scourge in tropical regions. When I actually kill a mosquito, she dies immediately. When I miss swatting her -- fuzzi-cuddly alert! -- , it is easy to imagine she laughs, within that evil little heart of hers, rejoicing that she outwitted me yet again.
I have killed many cockroaches. Hopefully, their deaths were always fairly quick. Lately, I have decided to make peace with American cockroaches, which are actually rather pretty, IMHO. And apparently rather territorial, so it is rare to see more than one at once. The one that used to live in our living room, and would look down on us from above the window frame, cutely waggling its antennae, I finally captured, and put outside.
German cockroaches are another matter entirely. I cannot so easily detect evil in them to the same degree as in mosquitos, but nevertheless, on balance, it is better that they be eliminated.
And then, very very very rarely, there are body lice ... But let us not go there.
Frogfish writes:
<<
I do not know how to logically reconcile the reverence I feel for cetaceans and certain other animals with my willingness to tolerate treatment of other animals (including killing them, for food or, in the case of mosquitos, health and convenience) that Jason and other AR activists utterly condemn. I don't even try. But so what? I'm not the one trying to impose new moral obligations on environmentalists.
>>
Well, I dislike the wording of the last sentence, but I guess that is Jason's problem. For my part, Jason seems not to be "imposing" anything, he is just asking everybody to think through where they are, and hopefully to reconsider in favor of animal welfare.
Frogfish concludes:
<<
I would appreciate it if the AR activists here could explain where they draw the line (if they think there is one), and why. In order to make this exercise meaningful, I suggest adapting biodiversivist's initial question as an operating criterion:
Toward what animals or other living things would you extend the concept of inalienable rights to the extent that an intentional act which brought about the death of an individual should be considered equivalent in every respect (including morally and legally) to the intentional murder of another human being.
>>
First, there are a number of situations in which the intentional killing of another human being is justified. E.g., killing an assailant, in an act of self-defense; killing an enemy combattant, in a just war; executing someone convicted of a capital crime -- though of course that is highly controversial, and I happen to oppose such killing.
Then, Biodiv's interesting, rhetorical application of the Jeffersonian, Enlightenment-vintage, rather theistic "inalienable rights" to what are proposed to be the rights of non-human animals, deserves to be applauded as a lovely trick. But it is also worth considering, by such as Peter Singer, Jim Mason, Tom Regan and their AR followers, among whom I wafflingly include myself: Does the adjective "inalienable," with all its historic associations, deserve to be put in front of "animal rights"? I shall indeed be thinking more about that.
Finally, and most important, I will not be pushed to "draw a line," neither by Jason nor by Frogfish. Every case deserves special consideration. I have written before that not all acts of the killing of animals are equivalent to murder, or are unjustified. I have written before that I admire Jason's well-thought-out attempts to articulate when the killing of non-human animals is justified. I have written before that all vertebrates, and a number of invertebrates, merit moral consideration; I should be more clear, that they do not necessarily deserve equal consideration, either with each other, or with human beings. I have written before that it is sometimes morally correct, e.g. in the chaotic evacuation of New Orleans last year, to prefer the interests of the non-human animal that you know, and are committed to, to the interests of the strange human entity that is unknown and untrustworthy.
From what I can tell, David Roberts' personal conduct, basically pro-animal-welfare, is admirable. And Jason Scorse's philosophic urgency, to get us to think about whether our supposed commitment to the health of biodiversity and the conservation of species is not really silly and hollow and flaccid, without a more solid commitment to the welfare of the individual animals belonging to those species, is magnificent.
Post-finally, I remember that I had something to say to Kaela on the subject of using animals in laboratory testing, but lost that thread. Hopefully there will be an occasion to recover it soon.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
anouk Posted 6:22 am
14 Sep 2006
Passed away, put to sleep, put away
You can call it all the euphemisms that you want but obviously this is an attempt
on your mind to soften the fact that you are an accomplice to the murder of a being that wanted to live up until the time
that you so selfishly felt like having it for dinner.
with this logic, if someone kills your beloved pet for food, then there should be
no consequence right? it's not murder.
oh that's right, you only humans are deserving of love.
Animals have one life, you have a million excuses. Meat is delicious?
That is your opinion.
It smells like rotting flesh to me.
Close your eyes and imagine that you are that cow as its throat is about to be slashed
maybe a hair of compassion will grow on your body.
In some countries, men do not go to jail for
killing their wives, because they are property or inferior. It is not murder.
Must be nice to be the superior human, unless it is you that is about to be someones supper,
have you ever noticed that when an animal kills a human, there is outrage, alarm, fear, and revenge by our society.
I am talking about Bears, Alligators, Elephants et cetera.
Then, the animal who ironically was just defending himself/herself has to be killed, or shall i say put away.
Now isn't that a double standard? When we eat them it is just a meal, when they eat us, it is the end of the world.
I bet you are earth friendly though.
Are the animals that you eat, "free range" up until you eat them?
is the slaughter house solar paneled?
are the bullets used to kill animals, made from earth friendly recyclable materials?
Your attempt at making humans the superior ones, in order to justify your actions is called speciesim,
The believe that humans are the big shit of the earth.
If we are so intelligent, then why is it we are destroying the very earth that we depend on? Not very smart is it?
We are too busy fighting over petroleum and land when our earth is melting right before our eyes.
I have never eaten an animal, because of me, 94 animals got to live this year.
My pillow is very comfortable at night. Is yours?
Water required to produce:
500g of lettuce 96 litres
500g of tomatoes 96 litres
500g of potatoes 100 litres
500g of wheat 105 litres
500g of carrots 137 litres
500g of apples 204 litres
500g of chicken 3,400 litres
500g of pork 6,790 litres
500g of beef 21,700 litres
Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by the death of others: we are burial places! I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look on the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men.
~ Leonardo da Vinci (Renaissance painter, architect, engineer, mathematician and philosopher, 1452 - 1519)
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 6:36 am
14 Sep 2006
I agree with you absolutely about the way most people treat their animals. And I admire you for the way in which you dealt with the dog who killed your daughter's chicken. I'm afraid I wasn't nearly as kind (to the humans) when a neighbor's tiny, yip-yip dog chased and killed a pet turkey we had years ago. It was a cruel way to die and the owners just didn't get it. "It was just a turkey!" they exclaimed. And offered to pay us for it as if it was a piece of meat at the store. But this turkey was special. This was in the 70s, my back-to-the-land days. Mama Turk separated herself from the others in the flock, made a nice nest on our front porch and proceeded to lay three eggs which she sat on. But since they weren't fertile nothing would happen. So we substituted three fertile chicken eggs and eventually three chickens hatched. She was a great mother and those chickens followed her around acting totally like turkeys. (Turkeys and chickens act differently). Finally the chickens went to the flock but Mama Turk stayed on the porch. When we moved we took her with us and she became a pet. Until she was killed. I was very angry with the owners of the dog, mostly because they were so uncaring about the horrible, painful death my turkey suffered, not because their dog acted, well, like a dog.
I suppose you could say our cats suffer because we keep them inside. Although they do have a nice screened in porch to hang out on. But there are coyotes and fisher cats in this neck of the woods not to mention birds which the cats do a great job of killing. So keeping them in was a compromise that works for us and hopefully my cats don't suffer too much. They do eat well, however. Better than most inside cats, I'd be willing to wager.
Your parenting doesn't seem ridiculous to me, just the idea of warning your kids not to become too attached because animals have short lifespans. It's impossible not to become attached to an animal we love. We just have to understand the reality of the situation.
Finally my life is full of shades of gray. There's very little black and white and I can assure you it's not simple either. We interact in this blog to share ideas, and to learn, and also to hone our skills at expressing ourselves in words, which can be slippery and often mean one thing to the writer and quite another to those who read them. So we type, and read, and learn -- at least that is the hope.
Permalink
kmp Posted 6:45 am
14 Sep 2006
I have to say I share BioD's irritation with the term "murder" when it is applied to animals. It is sensationalist, and depending on which side of the barnyard fence you sit, either irriating or soul-stirring. I relented a bit in my curmudgeonly irritation, however, after reading Canis' eloquent defense of the AR groups' use of the term "murder;" they believe it to be an outrage, they are specifically using the sensationalist term in order to shock and offend, and they feel it their duty to do so. I can understand, and even respect, that. I would imagine I shock and offend people on a regular basis. :)
As for BioD's original gauntlet, and LSam's revision, I say as well that each case is different. I may be outraged over the death of an endangered species of coral in the Pacific, yet understand the rationale for a legalized deer hunt in Harriman Park. I guess, personally, I tend to be moved by habitat more than by individual species, so the cute-and-fuzzy factor does not tug at my heartstrings quite as much as, say, drought, fire, flood. (With the exception of those damn pandas - they are just too cute!)
On the subject of animal testing, again words come into play. In the US, pretty much all animal protocols use the word "euthanize" to describe killing lab animals at the end of a study (actually, more like the beginning of a study, as the end of the "in-life" stage of a study is the beginning of gathering the serious data). In the UK & Germany (and presumably the rest of the EU) they use the word "kill." Myself, I've always preferred to call a spade a spade - but most of my American colleagues are very squeamish about the word "kill" and will without fail edit it to "euthanize." Trivial word play, IMO, but it offers interesting insight into how our cultures differ in emotionally dealing with the fact that there are studies we do in support of medical research that require you to kill animals.
Kaela
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:43 am
14 Sep 2006
And you quoted from some other words of yours, about your daughter, which I still have not seen.
You are of course absolutely right, always to put your daughters' best interests first. Always.
Whatever I wrote before, was without the knowledge of this very sad incident. Speaking for myself, I was thinking in terms of "typical, expected lifespan." Of course, "unexpected death," including "death as the result of violence," is always just there, over the left shoulder of all of us. I am very sorry that your daughter had to encounter death like that, so early in her life.
I can understand your thinly veiled charges of hypocrisy and insensitivity. But it would surprise me if anyone writing in this forum truly deserves such charges. Please give us the benefit of the doubt, and allow that, like me, no one else understood your family's experience.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Pandu Posted 3:34 am
15 Sep 2006
I would include much of the killing of animals under the definition of murder. That's not meant as a strategy for stopping the killing, but simply a matter of fact. Generally speaking, people have no moral right to kill animals, so that killing is murder.
It is common for people to maintain an ideological barrier between humans and other animals without proper basis. Spiritually, what makes a human is understanding the distinction between spirit and matter. That is intelligence. Accordingly, the large majority of humans are not substantially different from animals. Eat, sleep, mate, and defend. Eat: raw or cooked. Sleep: in a hole or in a bed. Mate: in a field or in a bed. Defend: with teeth or with guns. The principle is the same, the difference merely a matter of style. Often animals do it better.
Simply based on the false ego -- the eroneous idea that "I am this body, and these bodily relationships belong to me," -- we determine that some living entities deserve our care and others do not. But these are merely mental constructs. Every body is made of the same material nature, and life everywhere is of the same spiritual nature.
The morality of killing must be considered according to time, place, and circumstance. Some species or individuals are naturally aggressive or dangerous, and may be killed. There is a statement in the Vedas that even a saintly person is pleased when a scorpion or a poisonous snake is killed. On the other end of the spectrum, one Sanskrit name for the cow means "never to be killed."
And yet, justice is an integral part of this world. So one who has killed gets killed. Kill a cow, take birth as a cow and be killed. So it can be understood that one who gets killed was once a killer. But then what of the second killer? It perpetuates, but we can make it stop by being merciful.
Wouldn't that be nice?
Permalink
amc89 Posted 5:55 am
15 Sep 2006
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
So while killing a human is the top definition, the second definition does not specify human or animals.
As I consider much of the killing of animals that takes place today as being "wanton" I don't think people are technically wrong to use the phrase "murder of animals".
But if we want to change people's opinion, I think we should stick to straight-forward words like "killing."
The use of the word "euthanasia" has always interested me. In my opinion, few methods of killing animals constitute "euthanasia." The roots of the word mean "good death." When dogs, cats and other animals in animal shelters are given substances that have been proven to cause little pain and act quickly, that is euthanasia. Euthanasia means that the animal is being killed in the way that will cause the least amount of pain and suffering. (And what goes on in animal shelters can be prevented if more people adopt from shelters rather than going to pet stores and breeders, but that's a whole different topic...)
However, many animal abuse industries refer to the way they kill animals, whether the anal electrocution of foxes on fur farms or the clubbing of seal pups for their fur, as "euthanasia," even when veterinary studies have proven these methods are inhumane. Industries use these cruel methods because they are the cheapest, most efficient way to do the deed, not because they are humane. The substances given to animals in shelters can be expensive to use when killing mass amounts of animals.
I think these industries use the term "euthanasia" just because it is the word the public would like to hear.
Permalink
cgd Posted 11:33 am
15 Sep 2006
The use of it by animal rights activists to describe the killing of a farm animal is demeaning people.
It puts farm animals on the same level as my children.
...and your assertation that your children are somehow a higher life form than farm animals is demeaning to animals everywhere. I can't see how your offspring are any more or less important than mine, a cow's, or a turnip's.
The distress of a cow mom at the death of her child is not somehow less valid than yours would be just because you can express it in words.
Get over it. We're all animals. And we all must consume other life to continue our own, be it plant, fungi, or animal.
Permalink