Audrey Callus writes the following letter in today's The Malta Independent:
"I was shocked and angry when I read a headline (The Malta Independent, April 24) that a good number of dogs are expected to be put down if the situation (hunting ban) persists. As I could not believe that what my eyes were reading was true, I went on to read the relevant article and this confirmed the facts as outlined in the title and further elaborated that since 'some hunters have as many as four (dogs) or even more... as a consequence, a good number of dogs are expected to be put down if the situation persists'.
Do these people realise what they are saying? Do they have a heart or did hunting make them heartless and the notion of killing does not have the same meaning to them as it does to normal people? This is truly shocking and a further affirmation of how low these people can go to try to blackmail the whole population in backing them to get their spring hunting back.
Dogs are not commodities to be used to one's own whims and requirements. Once a dog is taken into a family it should be treated like a member of the family and not disposed of when it is not required any more. All the hunters who have this intention should really be ashamed of themselves. This makes us, the anti-hunting lobby, even more adamant in condemning hunting and those who have this hobby".
Now, of course, I am in perfect agreement with Ms Callus on this. However, it will not go without saying that all sentient animals are not commodities to be used to one's own whims.
If dogs are sentient individuals, (which they are), are not cows, chickens, pigs, fishes and all other animals also sentient individuals, with the right not to be treated as things or commodities? Taking into account that the consumption of animal bodies or other "products" derived from their bodies, are not necessary for our health and survival, does this not make the use and killing of any non-human animal, for pleasure or convenience, equally heartless?
Millions of non-human animals live miserable lives culminating in an untimely death just for the sake of our pleasure and convenience. These animals have as much a right not to be treated as commodities as your average family dog. And yet, many people who would be shocked by the killing of a dog, which is reasonable, yet do not even think about where the commodified animal flesh on their plate, or the animal skin they wear on their feet or backs, comes from.
Sentient animals are not commodities or things. Treating them as such violates their basic rights. Let us be consistent in the way we think and act. What you would not do to your family dog, why do it to the cow, chicken, pig or fish?
Posts
21 comments:
It is interesting how when asked about dogs or cats, people will articulate a logical and well-reasoned argument for our moral obligations to these animals. However, as you said, when asked to extend this argument to its logical ethical conclusion, the counter-argument is stunningly simple and unreasonable: "Well, it's our culture," or "it's natural to eat meat."
Yes, Alex. I had actually read the news report of April 24, and was expecting some letter like the one of Ms Callus.
I only hope that my commentary will be taken as it was intended - that is, as a means of showing the logical next step that should follow from the good reasoning of Ms Callus.
Speaking of which, interestingly, a hunter mentioned on this blog sent me the following message through my contact form:
"You may want to have a look
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/vargas.asp
You should mention this in your blog".
It's a petition against the starving of a dog for "art".
I guess this article is also relevant to his message.
There is a post about this issue about the dog on the blog I write for here:
http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/2008/04/maybe-i-shouldnt-have-slept-th.html
You're right, it exemplifies the point you are making.
So I see. I've added your blog to the links list on mine.
Thanks!
I see you made it onto Envirolink - forum of hunters, trapper and other types of animal users: http://www.envirolink.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7365
Yes, Roger. It's interesting how some people twist your words around, or blatantly lie, (or perhaps they are just stupid and fail to grasp simple logic?).
What's so hard to understand about someone opposing dog breeding for human use, and at the same time opposing the killing of the dogs who already exist?
I suppose they fit right in the category of people advocating the rights of sperm to become animals, but not the rights of existing animals ( http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-advocating-rights-of-sperm-and-other.html )
Of course, I won't bother replying in forums made up of people who can't comprehend simple logic.
And by the way, where was it mentioned in my blog that someone was criticizing hunters for not breeding any more dogs?
As for the "logic" of the "animal lover" in that forum, I suppose that she would then see no difference between not conceiving any offspring, and killing a 5 year old child!
I also see that they only quoted the letter, but not my commentary on the letter. Says a lot.
So according to animal rights it is precisely the same thing to kill a hunting dog now that hunting in Spring has ended to killing a chicken to have food on your plate. This is precisely what i mean when i say that the extremist views of animal rights activists can do more harm than good in this country.It is perfectly natural for a human being to eat a chicken, no matter what animal rights people will continue saying. If it wasnt natural ,your mouth wouldnt water when you saw a particularly savoury piece of chicken, the chicken wouldnt taste good when inside your mouth, you wouldnt have the neccessary teeth to tear apart pieces of flesh in the first place, and the chicken would probably make you sick. By comparing the heartless hunter who kills his faithful dog now that he does not need him any more ,to the average person who eats meat as nature intends him/her, this kind of argument will only serve to alienate yourselves even more from the reality of things, and will not at all help put a stop to any person who decides to kill his own dog! Shane Johnson
Interesting comments, Mr Johnson. Let me address your points, one by one.
1. Killing a hunting dog is not the same thing as killing a chicken for food. One is killing property because it is no longer of use to the property owner, and the other is killing property just for the taste of her flesh. Both killings are wrong because both are unnecessary and violate rights. However, like in the case of adopting a human child, adopting (or breeding) a dog brings with it added responsibility towards the dog's welfare. But still, killing a child who is not yours, but is a complete stranger, would still be wrong. Both killing dogs and chickens are wrong because apart from being unnecessary, it violates the non-human animals' right to life.
2. Let us ignore your unsubstantiated description of our views as "extremist", which basically means nothing at all. But what exactly is the harm you allude to in the idea (supported by scientific evidence) that one can live a healthy life on a vegan diet?
3. What is natural, or feels good, does not necessarily mean that it is moral and is what we should do. You say that it is natural to eat a chicken. It can also be said that it is natural (happens in other species) to kill, rape or otherwise mistreat other humans. Of course, moral thinking tells us to suppress these urges if we have them. You say that meat tastes good. Do you actually know whether human flesh tastes good? Would you be willing to kill humans and eat their flesh, if only for once to see if it tastes good? Of course not, and you do this not because the flesh might not taste good, but only because it is immoral to deprive others of their lives unnecessarily. As for the teeth necessary to tear up chicken flesh, they could equally be used to tear up human flesh. But again, just because we can does not mean that we should.
4. I was not comparing the hunter who murders his dog with the meat-eater who has others murder the non-human animals for him or her. I was only pointing out that the very rational arguments that Ms Callus made equally apply to other animals. I would suggest that you read my article once again - but do it with an open and unprejudiced mind. If you would still fail to get the point, I'm sorry but there is little I can do about that.
The reality is that millions of non-human animals are brought into existance to be imprisoned for life, and then violently killed, just so that speciesists may enjoy the taste of their flesh, and for no other reason than that.
If you pay attention, you will notice that Ms Callus' key sentence was:
"Dogs are not commodities to be used to one's own whims and requirements".
Now, if this statement is true, what makes it untrue in the case of the cow, chicken, pig or fish?
If saying the truth alienates me from speciesists, so be it.
Mr. Johnson,
The logic you would employ to criticize, "...the heartless hunter who kills his faithful dog now that he does not need him any more," taken to its logical ethical conclusion results in, "...according to animal rights it is precisely the same thing to kill a hunting dog now that hunting in Spring has ended to killing a chicken to have food on your plate."
The logic is there, Mr. Johnson, and the Animal Rights Malta’s response is erudite. Veganism has reason and logic on its side. Mr. Johnson, your argument fails the "logic test" because you are incapable of seeing beyond self-interest and social conditioning.
Don't make assumptions without defending them - that is the stuff that the "Envirolink-forum" is made of. "Well it's always been this way," is a juvenile argument.
Animal rights has taken me to task for not accepting the fact that one is called a murderer because one does eat meat.We are told that by killing animals for meat we are violating their rights. As far as I know inside the food chain no animal including humans have an unconditional right not to be eaten. Each animal has the right to try thier best to survive but at the end of the day if the smaller animal is caught by the bigger animal then the bigger animal has the right to eat it. In fact if i was to be taken by a great white shark in the seas of south africa, I would accept this as part of nature , even if i wouldnt be particularly pleased about it.We are also told that just because it might feel natural to eat meat it doesnt nessacarily make it right, and are given the fact that some people kill and rape other people.Well the truth is that most people do not kill and rape others, it is only the minority who does these things,thus making it in fact unnatural for the human species to kill and rape others.Regarding the question whether I would feel it is natural to eat human flesh,I can only answer that by nature the human species is not cannabalistic. There are various species of insects, snakes, fish and countless other anamals who are cannabalistic by nature. The Human being is not one of them so this theory doesnt hold water.As for the teeth that we are armed with, the fact that each human is armed with a set of canine teeth definitely is proof that humans are made to eat meat, or at least have the choice to do so if they wish, I can hardly imagine that we were given canines to help us chew on some leaves of tasty lettuce.Reagrding the fact that one can live a healthy life on a vegan diet i will not interfere on what you eat even if i think it is not natural for a human being to live only on vegatables. However if it makes you happy go ahead, eat your heart out, but dont interfere in my diet if i enjoy chewing on a steak every now and then.It is true that million of animals are killed every day just for humans to eat and enjoy the taste of flesh, but it is also true that for every animal killed and eaten by a human there must be a thousand killed and eaten by other animals, That is Nature!
To conclude i'd like to comment on Ms Callus's qoute Dogs are not commodities to be used to one's own whims and requirements".
Now I do not know Ms Callus personally but I do know that most animal rights campaigners are against humans owning animals and tell us that this ,is not morally right. Well i cordially invite anyone for a coffee at my house and you can ask my dog what she thinks about living her life wth a human being.I really dont think that anyone who has never kept an animal in his /her whole life is qualified to tell us whether it is right or wrong to do so.The truth is that there is nothing more beatiful and beneficial to both parties( this has also been scientifically proven) than the relationship that exists between human and animal (dog in particular)Obviously it depends on the owner to make sure that the physical and psycholigicl needs of the animal he takes care of are seen to in the best way possible.So Alex, I do hope that i have defended my assumptions enough to make you happy this time around.
That's a long post, Mr Johnson. I will try to briefly tackle your main points.
You say "As far as I know inside the food chain no animal including humans have an unconditional right not to be eaten".
Of course. But this does not mean that those who can live healthily without killing anyone should still kill.
"Each animal has the right to try their best to survive but at the end of the day if the smaller animal is caught by the bigger animal then the bigger animal has the right to eat it".
Might is right then. You are forgetting that while everyone has the right to survive, we do not need to kill to survive.
"In fact if I was to be taken by a great white shark in the seas of south africa, I would accept this as part of nature , even if i wouldnt be particularly pleased about it".
I don't think so, Mr Johnson. I think that, like me, you would do your best to avoid being eaten - even killing the shark if necessary. I don't think you would simply let yourself be eaten just to be a part of nature.
"We are also told that just because it might feel natural to eat meat it doesnt nessacarily make it right, and are given the fact that some people kill and rape other people. Well the truth is that most people do not kill and rape others, it is only the minority who does these things, thus making it in fact unnatural for the human species to kill and rape others".
But what if the case was otherwise. What if the majority killed, raped and abused other humans? Would you do likewise just because "everybody's doing it", or because it is "natural"? The only reason that the majority of humans do not kill, rape or otherwise abuse other humans is not because it is unnatural (to a rapist it is natural to rape - read some psychology), but because it is immoral.
"Regarding the question whether I would feel it is natural to eat human flesh,I can only answer that by nature the human species is not cannabalistic. There are various species of insects, snakes, fish and countless other anamals who are cannabalistic by nature. The Human being is not one of them so this theory doesnt hold water".
It was a hypothetical question, Mr Johnson. So I ask again, if the majority of humans were cannibals (making cannibalism natural), would you be one?
"As for the teeth that we are armed with, the fact that each human is armed with a set of canine teeth definitely is proof that humans are made to eat meat, or at least have the choice to do so if they wish"
Sure. I could mention our digestive system which is not "designed" to eat meat. However, this is all irrelevant. You concede that we have a choice, and that's all that matters. I do believe that you got your evolution theory the other way round. We did not evolve teeth so that we eat - we eat because we have evolved teeth.
"I can hardly imagine that we were given canines to help us chew on some leaves of tasty lettuce".
Actually we were not given anything. Evolution does not involve conscious design. Evolution is the ongoing process which results from blind mutation and adaptation.
"Reagrding the fact that one can live a healthy life on a vegan diet i will not interfere on what you eat even if i think it is not natural for a human being to live only on vegatables".
Is taking pills natural? Would you refuse pills if you were dying and the pills would save you? The "natural" argument is only brought up when it suits us. Once again, "nature" is amoral. It is moral agents who are moral.
"However if it makes you happy go ahead, eat your heart out, but dont interfere in my diet if i enjoy chewing on a steak every now and then".
May I remind you that I never asked you to visit my blog?
"It is true that million of animals are killed every day just for humans to eat and enjoy the taste of flesh, but it is also true that for every animal killed and eaten by a human there must be a thousand killed and eaten by other animals"
Interesting logic. So just because others are doing so, we should do likewise. Reminds me of episodes in my childhood where I would stomp my feet after being refused by my parents to do something, and would say "but all my friends are doing so!"
", That is Nature!"
Agreed...nature is amoral. We, on the otherhand, are moral.
"To conclude i'd like to comment on Ms Callus's qoute Dogs are not commodities to be used to one's own whims and requirements. Now I do not know Ms Callus personally but I do know that most animal rights campaigners are against humans owning animals and tell us that this ,is not morally right. Well i cordially invite anyone for a coffee at my house and you can ask my dog what she thinks about living her life wth a human being".
Irrelevant. I suggest you read "All human controlled non-human breeding is wrong" at http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2007/04/slave-parades-speciesist-pure-breeding.html
"I really dont think that anyone who has never kept an animal in his/her whole life is qualified to tell us whether it is right or wrong to do so".
So I guess you wouldn't think that anyone who has never kept a human slave in his/her whole life is qualified to tell us whether it is right or wrong to keep human slaves.
"The truth is that there is nothing more beatiful and beneficial to both parties( this has also been scientifically proven) than the relationship that exists between human and animal (dog in particular)"
We're talking about breeding, not adopting here. The "dogs" who don't exist have nothing to gain, nor to lose. The dogs who exist depend on their owner's whims for all his/her necessities. You will find some information on the downside (for dogs) of humans breeding dogs at http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-petophilia-and-planned-marine-prison.html
"Obviously it depends on the owner to make sure that the physical and psycholigicl needs of the animal he takes care of are seen to in the best way possible".
'In the best way possible' is the key-phrase. The truth of the matter is that we are breeding totally human-dependent animals just because we like keeping pets.
"So Alex, I do hope that i have defended my assumptions enough to make you happy this time around".
Actually you have not. All your points reflect a prejudiced belief that humans have the right to subdue non-humans but not other humans. They also reflect the naturalistic fallacy which says that because it is natural, it must be moral. One shouldn't extrapolate morality from "nature". That's a very dangerous course to take, a course where "survival of the fittest" would imply that the strong have a right to subdue the weak. Darwin himself warned us about this fallacy.
Love this blog! Nice work! Come visit me at http://alaskanshelpinganimals.blogspot.com/
I am afraid hat you animal rights activists are missing the forest for the trees. When looking at the rights of animals you need to have a close look at nature to find your answers. In fact i always try to give scientific proof to reinforce my reasoning. However if you will always reply with yes, but what if..... , then i am afraid that I dont have time to waste with people like you. You guys like calling nature amoral and I dont know how the hell you can lay such a term on something beatiful and fully functional as nature.In My opinion nature knows precisely what it is doing and never commits mistakes, it is only the interference of human beings that leads to problems in nature.
I would suggest that instead of filling your head with these ideas that completely go against nature, find some time to relax have a closer look at how nature works,learn to appreciate it , and refrain from being so impertinent as to call Nature Amoral.
Incidentally just because ithis blog is yours hardly gives you the rightto tell me that you never asked me to visit this blog just because you dont agree with my comments. A blog is there to allow different people with different views on a common subject to write their views however it is obvious to me that with you extremists this is not the case. Shane johnson
Dear Mr Johnson,
You say that you don't have time to waste with people like us. And yet, here you are, once again, posting a reply.
You are surprised by my saying that nature is amoral simply because you fail to understand the difference between amoral and immoral. I would suggest you look up the meaning of the word "amoral" and you will find out for yourself that "nature" is amoral. I hope that you don't believe, for instance, that trees are moral persons.
You say that in your opinion nature knows precisely what it is doing. Are you saying, then, that there is a sort of spirit called nature which consciously guides its parts, the parts being the individual animals, plants, bacteria, etc? If you believe in such nonsense, I don't know what else to say.
You tell me to find some time to relax have a closer look at how nature works. I would suggest you take some time and read some good books on evolutionary biology.
You tell me that just because this blog is mine hardly gives me the right to tell you that I never asked you to visit this blog. However, you conveniently fail to acknowledge that when I said that I never asked you to visit this blog, it was in response to your assertion that I should not interfere in your diet and on whether you enjoy chewing on a steak every now and then. So in response to that comment, my own comment is only fair. If you don't want to read people criticizing your diet, you shouldn't visit websites that do just that. It's a free country.
You then say that a blog is there to allow different people with different views on a common subject to write their views. True. It is precisely for that reason that I did not censor your comments.
You conclude that it is obvious to you that with us extremists this is not the case (that we allow different views to be published). I think that if you take a look at your own uncensored comments, you will find that you are basically lying, and that we do allow for different opinions to be published. Hence your comments above.
Mr. Johnson,
From you reasoning I must conclude that you believe that an avalanche is acting immorally if it kills a skier. If a tree fall's in the woods and nobody is around to here the human beings scream as she is being crushed by the falling tree, she may not have made a sound, but the tree has acted immorally.
It's odd because this line of reasoning would most certainly force you, Mr. Johnson, to include animals in your sphere of moral concern – you even include rocks. Therefore, I don’t think that you and the animal rights movement differ theoretically.
Mr. Johnson, if you were to cage your dog, feed her scraps of food, prevent her from standing upright comfortably and taking steps in any direction, then transporting her to a slaughterhouse to have her throat slit so you can eat her, would she still praise the beneficial relationship? Or, do you not eat meat - just own dogs?
http://www.not-quiteright.net/tvg/
Chickening out on your reply this time?
Shane johnson
Chickening out on my reply to what, dear Mr Johnson?
I believe I have addressed all your points. If I missed something, please specify.
Yes I defintely think that" there is a sort of spirit called nature which consciously guides its parts, the parts being the individual animals, plants, bacteria" You refer to it as a spirit, others call it God I prefer to call it nature. If there was nothing to control this, can you explain what keeps the perfect balance of nature in control? Can you tell me what stops a species from completely eating another species?What enables animals to evolve? How come each species is perfectly made to be able to survive in its environment? I suppose you must think its good luck, or coincedence perhaps.
Shane johnson
Shane Johnson,
You say that you believe in a conscious nature that consciously guides its millions of parts (animals, plants and bacteria).
So the nature you believe in is a sadist nature, for, how otherwise would you call a conscious "being" who controls some beings to tear up other beings to pieces (lions and gazelles, for instance), and to make matters worse, makes the gazelles feel excrutiating pain in the process.
And what's perhaps worse, this "conscious" nature allows the gazelles to run so fast that it makes the task of the lion in catching the gazelle very demanding and time and energy consuming.
Would a "conscious" nature be so callous and inefficient?
You say that "If there was nothing to control this, can you explain what keeps the perfect balance of nature in control?"
Dear Mr Johnson, your so-called "balance of nature" is not so perfect. The balance comes about by itself, and it involves severe suffering of multitudes of individual beings.
I don't have time to explain evolutionary biology in detail to you. If you want to learn more about how nature "finds" a stable equilibrium, you might wish to read some literature on the topic. I would suggest anything by Richard Dawkins.
You ask: "Can you tell me what stops a species from completely eating another species?"
A simple answer would be that herbivorous animals are more numerous (have more offspring) than carnivores.
You ask: "What enables animals to evolve?"
In a few words, random genetic mutation which happens to be well-suited to the environment.
You ask: "How come each species is perfectly made to be able to survive in its environment?"
You are forgetting the perhaps millions of species or mutations that do not make it, and either die out instantly, or become extinct naturally. Again, read some evolutionary biology.
You say: "I suppose you must think its good luck, or coincedence perhaps."
You can say its good luck, in a certain sense, since each mutation that makes it to gradually (sometimes taking thousands if not millions of years) become a new species, has no control on the environment it will find itself in. What is certain is that coincidence has no part to play in this.
I hope my reply satisfies your curiosity. But to get more facts, I suggest you buy some literature on evolutionary biology.
Here's a short list to get you started:
Richard Dawkins - The selfish gene
Richard Dawkins - The blind watchmaker
Richard Dawkins - Unweaving the rainbow
Richard Dawkins - River out of eden
Richard Dawkins - The Ancestor's tale
Post a Comment