A quick read of some of the pro-hunting comments under The Times online's news report, entitled "Hunters call for end to 'hate' campaign", makes it clear that the task of convincing animal abusers to stop abusing (and killing) animals, is an uphill struggle.
The main difficulty seems to be either that those who gain pleasure from abusing non-human animals are reluctant to see the facts as they are, or that some of them actually lack the linguistic and logical ability to comprehend the animal rights arguments, or both, as is evidenced in some of the comments I am reproducing (and replying to) below. One may find more comments of mine as well as comments from others in The Times online's article.
"Mr Cassar, one must realise that most of the human being’s practices might bother others at one time or another. It then depends on how tolerant one is. I am bothered by many behaviours and acts of other human-beings, as I am sure others are bothered by what I sometimes do. That is absolutely normal. If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals.
Unfortunately, some people are all the time pointing fingers and tarnishing other people’s reputations. They would be wise to sit down and think of the many things they do which irritate people. Only then will they start showing respect and tolerance towards others".
Of course, I agree that all practices will bother someone at one time or another. However, the (hunting) issue in question is not simply a case of "bother", but a question of rights. I have no right to launch a campaign against people who wear a brown t-shirt, even if brown t-shirts bother me. However, when it is a question of gross violation of rights, things somewhat change drastically.
However, perhaps, even in cases of rights violations, generally one should not resort to violence or personal hate-campaigns (perhaps it should be pointed out that the only people who resorted to violence in the recent past are hunters, albeit a small minority), but we should limit ourselves to educational and awareness campaigns with the clear intent of convincing a majority - legislation might then, in time, follow. I can see this already, slowly but surely, happening.
One can be tolerant towards a person and intolerant towards a practice that violates rights. To tolerate injustice, however, is to perpetuate and compound injustice. When saying "If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals", Sylvana Zarb Darmanin is obviously leaving non-human animals out of the equation.
Regarding tarnishing reputations, I value truth. If truth shows a person to be in the wrong, it is that person's actions that are tarnishing his or her own reputation. Hunters kill non-human animals. If by saying so, and thereby saying the truth, I am tarnishing their reputation, I wonder if Ms Zarb Darmanin believes I should lie, and say that hunters don't kill non-human animals. If, on the other hand, this is not what Ms Zarb Darmanin expects from me, then is it perhaps possible that by claiming that I am tarnishing hunters' reputations by saying that they kill non-human animals, she recognizes that unnecessarily killing non-human animals tarnishes one's reputation, and therefore, if one sees the logic, hunting is wrong? But perhaps I am giving Ms Zarb Darmanin too much credit. Perhaps all Ms Zarb Darmanin means when complaining about tarnished reputations, is that hunters are above criticism.
Moral persons have an active duty to expose injustice, and I'll keep on doing just that.
"Don't you think you are infringing on the rights of the law abiding hunter? This traditional pastime (hunting) is practised throughout the world. It seems that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby are being so intolerant towards these hunters. As usual you are tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter and I feel you have absolutely no right to do so. That is what call disrespect to the people around you. You may accuse law breakers, and I will join you in this, BUT placing all hunters in one basket and accusing them unjustifiably is definitely a shortcoming!
That is injustice indeed. Mr Cassar, it appears that my comments invariably hit home. This has been going on for years. Is it a case of la verita' offende? (the truth hurts?)".
Ms Zarb Darmanin's reply raises further questions, such as: Is someone who opposes killing, infringing the rights of the killer, even in cases where the killing is done legally? Are people who oppose capital punishment infringing the rights of the executioner? Are people who oppose torture and killing conducted by dictatorial regimes infringing the rights of the dictators? I don't think so.
That something is practiced throughout the world does not necessarily make it right. Human slavery was also once practiced throughout the world. We abolished it. If Ms Zarb Darmanin thinks that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby opposes hunting, she needs to spend some time browsing some international abolitionist websites.
And, once again, how am I tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter, when all I am saying is that hunters do not have the right to deprive innocent and sentient animals of their lives?
How does one tarnish reputations by saying the truth (that hunters kill birds)?
All hunters unnecessarily kill birds (or other animals). That is why I put them "in the same basket". I only accuse them of killing birds, which is the truth. If they didn't kill birds, they would not be hunters, and their reputations would not be tarnished.
"Although I am tolerant towards law-abiding hunters, I can understand that some people have different opinions. However I cannot comprehend why these people are defending birds and not other animals. Can you please enlighten me about the difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chicken, and many other animals?
Finally, what about snails which people who enjoy the countryside often also enjoy destroying rubble walls in order to find? Incidentally, these poor snails are kept in captivity for quite a long time without any food, and then cooked alive!".
I of course agree with Stef that there is no difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chickens, snails and all other animals. However, BirdLife Malta (the organisation the original article is about) is not an abolitionist animal rights organization. That is why it deals principally and perhaps exclusively on issues regarding illegal hunting of birds. I, on the other hand, am an abolitionist animal rights campaigner, and thus I defend the interests and rights of all animals.
Strangely enough, if one is consistent in defending all animals, one is called an extremist. If, on the other hand, one is not morally consistent, and defends only some animals, one is criticized for being inconsistent. So apparently, the choice is between either being morally inconsistent or being seen as an "extremist". I'd rather choose the latter, since justice requires moral consistency, and I am a strong believer in truth and justice. Hunters may keep complaining of "tarnished reputations". My principal concern is not my own reputation, but that of saving lives. If someone sees saving lives as a "hate campaign", perhaps they need some re-education.
Apologies for placing the picture of a hunter with a gun. I sincerely hope it does not tarnish the hunters' reputations.
Posts
18 comments:
The blog post "Hate campaigns and tarnished reputations" is featured on Maltamedia: The Maltese Blogosphere
- Nominate blog post of the month -
I can't stand the vegan thing. I'm with you about the killing for fun ain't no good, or abusing animal for our own pleasure but when you consider some stuff about turning into vegan is quite non sense. Reason being the following :
"Plants are bursting with movement. They are rich in sensation, and respond to the stimulation of the Surrounding world every moment of their active lives. They can send messages to one another about overcrowding or a threatened attack by a new pest. Within each plant there is ceaseless activity as purposive as that in an animal. Many of them share hormones that are remarkably similar to our own. Their senses are sophisticated: some can detect the lightest touch (better than the sensitivity of the human fingertips), and they all have a sense of vision."
Just for example, when the farmer cultivate potatoes, he must kill all the plant to get its fruit. You don't see anything immoral in such thing because the plant didn't say "Ouch!!!" ?
We are living things, and as such, we have mainly 2 purposes in life, survival and reproduction. So we have to eat something that is reproductive. That's why we didn't evolve in something that eat stones or iron.
Nature is never immoral. I don't see anything immoral if a Bengal tiger murders me for him to survive....
Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for your comment. I shall try to address briefly all the points you made.
You say:
"Plants are bursting with movement. They are rich in sensation, and respond to the stimulation of the Surrounding world every moment of their active lives. They can send messages to one another about overcrowding or a threatened attack by a new pest. Within each plant there is ceaseless activity as purposive as that in an animal. Many of them share hormones that are remarkably similar to our own. Their senses are sophisticated: some can detect the lightest touch (better than the sensitivity of the human fingertips), and they all have a sense of vision."
While conceding some of the above and obviously refuting some of what you say (like that plants have a sense of vision, for instance - vision requires eyes), the point is that veganism is about avoiding unnecessary harm.
So even if we concede (which I don't) that plants are somehow sentient (which would require a brain and nervous system), the point is that it is an undisputable fact that, even if plants were sentient, animals are definitely more conscious of the surrounding world, and self-conscious.
Also, you might wish to note that to feed on an animal diet, we have to breed animals and feed them a plant diet. Therefore we would be killing both animals and plants, as opposed to only plants.
For more reasons why it makes a huge difference to kill non-sentient plants from killing sentient animals, you might wish to see:
http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/04/on-commodifying-hunting-dogs-and-other.html (see especially the comments)
http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/02/concept-of-personhood.html
http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2007/08/on-false-dilemma-of-plant-vs-animal.html
and other posts on veganism (see the labels on the right-hand column).
You write:
"Just for example, when the farmer cultivate potatoes, he must kill all the plant to get its fruit. You don't see anything immoral in such thing because the plant didn't say "Ouch!!!" ?"
Yes, I don't see anything immoral in that, but not because the plant did not say ouch, but because the plant is neither sentient nor conscious (no brain or nervous system).
You say:
"We are living things, and as such, we have mainly 2 purposes in life, survival and reproduction. So we have to eat something that is reproductive. That's why we didn't evolve in something that eat stones or iron"
True, we did not evolve in something that eats stones or iron. In fact we have evolved in something that can live healthily on a vegan diet.
You say:
"Nature is never immoral. I don't see anything immoral if a Bengal tiger murders me for him to survive...."
Very true. "Nature" is amoral. I too don't see anything immoral if a Bengal tiger "murders" me for him to survive. This is because the Bengal tiger cannot survive on a vegan diet. I (and you), on the otherhand, can. This makes killing animals for food immoral because unnecessary. Unlike the case of the Bengal tiger, meat-eating in the case of humans is not a matter of survival, but a matter of taste, pleasure or convenience.
Just for reference:
The quoted text is taken from "The Secret Language of Life" found at
http://www.brianjford.com/soulsa.htm
About the nervous system in plants, I've found an article describing some experiments done on Mimosa pudica (Sensitive Plant) found at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1709102&pageindex=1#page
"Very true. "Nature" is amoral. I too don't see anything immoral if a Bengal tiger "murders" me for him to survive. This is because the Bengal tiger cannot survive on a vegan diet. I (and you), on the otherhand, can. This makes killing animals for food immoral because unnecessary. Unlike the case of the Bengal tiger, meat-eating in the case of humans is not a matter of survival, but a matter of taste, pleasure or convenience."
I don't see anything immoral if a pig or a cow or a chicken eats me. Fortunately for us and other animals, they aren't good predators.
Last thing. Be careful where you sleep because your bed and body is full of living things (microorganism) such as dust mites which are nothing less than any other insect and which you probably eat 100s of them during the night :P. I guess those guest have a brain and a nervous system. Don't forget that the world is not how we perceive things. We only see objects that reflects lights.
Thanks again for your further comment.
I have taken a quick look at the article you mention (I might read it fully later) and made a quick search for the words "sentient" and "conscious". The search did not produce any results.
We must also be careful about antropomorphic language when dealing with plants, which, though useful as an explanatory method, could be very misleading. Again, plants have no brains. It is only brains that make it possible for an individual to have a concept of one's self.
Regarding your saying that you don't see anything immoral if a pig or a cow or a chicken eats you, and that fortunately for us and other animals, they aren't good predators, I have this to say.
Once again, if an individual truly needs to eat meat to survive, then killing for sustenance would not be immoral. And perhaps it should be pointed out that pigs and cows don't eat meat. As for being lucky that they're not good predators, that's besides the point. They don't have to be predators, since they are herbivores.
Regarding being careful where I sleep because of dust mites, bacteria or insects, well, bacteria are definitely neither sentient nor conscious.
As for insects, it is obvious that you aren't paying attention. Veganism is about not doing avoidable harm to others.
Just because people accidentally run over other people with their cars does not mean we are entitled to do so purposedly.
And one final comment. Consciousness, as you might know, comes in degrees. You will perhaps note that plants obviously are far less conscious than animals. Your reasoning seems to suggest that you find no difference between killing less conscious plants and killing more conscious animals when you have a choice and one has to be killed.
This would mean that, if you are consistent, you would find no difference between killing an irreversibly comatose human (who is less conscious) and killing a definitely more conscious healthy human, if you were faced with such a dilemma.
"And perhaps it should be pointed out that pigs and cows don't eat meat"
My mistake, cows don't eat meat, crows does. As for pigs, they are omnivores.
And dust mite are classified as animals.
Just to be clear, my questions does not refer to Vegetarianism, but to Veganism, where it states that:
"Vegans endeavor not to use or consume animal products of any kind"
I don't see any harm at all! Just make sure you know from where they are coming from.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I don't intentionally eat dust mites, so whether they are animals or not makes no difference to me.
But in any case, since this is going nowhere, I'll let you have the last word ;)
Listening to otherwise reasonable people insist that plants are sentient, like you, I and a sheep, is like listening to a drug addict who repeatedly claims that they "don't have a problem." You can catch glimpses where they clearly don't believe what they are saying - it's their selfish refusal to give up the drug that drives their infantilism – but they consciously refuse to have a reasonable thought.
Okay, plants are sentient: Does their pain and suffering matter? If not, why not? If yes, veganism is still the ethically sound choice for it avoids the inefficiently wasteful system of funneling plant protein through nonhumans to produce edible animal protein.
As usual, Alex, you make an excellent comment. Thanks.
Does a living thing has less rights because during its evolution, they realised they don't need eyes to see or a nervous system just because they can't move?
So if I tell you I don't have any sensitivity in one of my fingers you have no problem eating it right?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I know you're not serious, but in any case, I've nothing to lose by making a final reply (unless of course you decide to take the issue seriously and start making sense).
First of all, you have no idea about how evolution works. Evolution is not a conscious agent. Evolution happens incrementally in thousands or millions of years, and it's not like some individual feels evolution in his/her own lifetime.
Evolution, in short, works this way: Through reproduction (sexual or otherwise), it may happen that there be a slight mutation that, if well adapted in its environment, would in turn be successful in propagating itself. Given enough time and enough mutation, it may become a separate species. If not, it will simply die out.
Therefore, to say that a living thing realizes that it doesn't need eyes or a nervous system is the most silly thing to say.
You should perhaps start reading something serious on evolutionary biology (I would suggest anything by Richard Dawkins) instead of simply doing an internet search and picking up out-of-context parts that suit your agenda.
As to your final question, well, if your finger is not sensitive, and we are stranded in a desert island with no vegetation or other non-sentient means of sustenance, yes, I would perhaps consider eating your finger. That said, by that time, you would probably have already eaten it yourself.
Joking apart, fingers are part of your body, to which you have every right because you are a sentient individual with rights. Plants are not.
What I meant to say was that at one point, we didn't had any eyes, teeth, ears, feet .... We started to slowly evolve depending on our needs. And since we're not still, we needed a kind of alarm to understand more what's around us( ie light, UV, ultrasound). A plant, being fixed, wouldn't need such "devices".
( By "we" I'm referring to the animal world )
Dear Sir/Madam,
You wrote: "What I meant to say was that at one point, we didn't had any eyes, teeth, ears, feet .... We started to slowly evolve depending on our needs."
That's a common misunderstanding about evolution and natural selection. There was never a point when we had no eyes etc. The species that had no eyes etc were ancestors who lived millions of years before us and would be unrecognizable from humans and most other animals.
Also, "we" never started to evolve according to our needs. That's not how evolution works. Again, evolution works by "random" mutations that are either fitted to the environment or are not. If not fitted, the mutations die out. If they are well fitted, they adapt and survive. If they are better fitted, they might in time evolve into a separate species, given that there is a separation between the "mutants" and the rest that bars co-evolution through interbreeding.
"And since we're not still, we needed a kind of alarm to understand more what's around us( ie light, UV, ultrasound). A plant, being fixed, wouldn't need such "devices"."
That's exactly why plants "did not evolve" sentience or feelings such as pleasure and pain. Pain, for instance, is a helpful way to avoid sources of danger to our health. If there is no way to avoid the danger, pain would be just a burden with no benefits, and would be selected out.
Dear "anonymous",
Your first post stated: "I can't stand the vegan thing. I'm with you about the killing for fun ain't no good, or abusing animal for our own pleasure but when you consider some stuff about turning into vegan is quite non sense."
I believe that what you mean is something that practically every human agrees with. Namely, that it is wrong to cause "unnecessary" harm, pain, suffering and/or death to another animal.
We acknowledge that "killing [other animals] for fun" is unnecessary, therefore "wrong" and "immoral".
We acknowledge that "abusing animal for pleasure" is unnecessary, therefore "wrong" and "immoral".
The problem arises when we consider, seriously, other kinds of abuse that we impose on other animals.
Let´s take a look at our diets.
In the year 2008, nobody, with a minimal knowledge of nutrition, maintains that humans need to eat other animals´ flesh, secretions or excretions in order to survive or stay healthy. Tons of scientific studies, plus thousands of vegans as empirical proof, point unequivocaly in this direction.
Furthermore, more and more professionals argue that animal "products" are indeed harmful to humans´ health.
The only reason why we continue to eat them is because we "like" how they taste. Because we derive "pleasure" from it.
So, we impose tremendous amounts of pain, suffering and death on other animals (to consume "meat", "dairy", eggs, etc.) for no other reason than "pleasure" and "taste".
So, the question seems unavoidable.
What´s the difference between the one that "kills for fun" or "abuses" an animal for her own "pleasure", and those that deprive of liberty, torture and kill other animals for their tastebuds?
The answer, of course, is that there is NO difference (besides social conventions on what is regarded as "abuse" and what is considered "normal".)
Rationally and logically there is, therefore, a cognitive dissonance between what you say to believe in ("I'm with you about the killing for fun ain't no good, or abusing animal for our own pleasure) and your actions (enslavement, abuse and killing of other animals for your own pleasure).
So, the choice is yours. Either you play blind to this and go on with your contradictions, or you become a Vegan and live in true align with your stated beliefs.
Kind regards,
Samuel.
p.s.: Just in case you don´t know, all cows and hens exploited for their milk and eggs end up in a slaughterhouse. All male calves that get born in order to make cows to "produce" milk, are separated from their mother soon after birth and get either killed immediately or raised a few months further for "veal". All male chicks born into the "egg industry" are "non-productive" to it, and are discarded soon after birth, thrown into the trash to slowly die of suffocation, starvation or dehydration, or "crushed" alive. Not to mention the suffering of an entire life being exploited, deprived of liberty and so on; and the fact that all of them constitute rights violations of the most basic interests we all, sentient animals, have.
If you ask me, I see no moral distinction between omnivorism and ovo-lacto vegetarianism.
You said, "I don't see any harm at all!"
I, and all of the victims of our greed and lack of empathy, see "nothing but harm and death!"
Thanks for your excellent comment, Samuel.
Kenneth.
qa qa, no way.
There is a difference between killing to have something to say and feel proud with your friends and killing to survive. Yes, it's just a matter to survive without having to take any pills or fortified food( which I don't know from where the vitamins such as B12 are taken from
since they are found only in diary products or meat )
I think the problem is the way we look at life. I'm a mammal. I'm not above nor below other species. As animals, we got rules between the same species. You don't see a dog killing a chicken for fun. He will either eat it, or he thought it was a threat for him or for his territory.
Dear Anonymous,
I will immediately concede that there is a difference between "killing to have something to say and feel proud with your friends and killing to survive". However, it is a fact that unless you live in somewhere like the north pole, you don't need meat or "animal products" to survive. Therefore, the only reason you have animals exploited and killed for you, is pleasure and convenience.
Regarding B12, and your "concern" about it, it derives from bacteria that can both be cultivated and found in both vegetable and animal products. See http://www.vegansociety.com/html/food/nutrition/b12
The problem truly is the way we look at life, but it has nothing to do with being a mammal. The problem is that people like you see nothing wrong with exploiting others for pleasure or convenience, and would willingly kill others simply to avoid the "trouble" of seeking and using alternative means of sustenance.
As you say, you don't see a dog killing a chicken for fun (though you may find exceptions to the general rule). However, seeing that veganism is well known to be a healthy option, the exploitation of non-human animals for food is only done for profit, pleasure or convenience.
People who still insist that veganism is not a healthy option are people who either knowingly deny the facts, or else are not properly informed.
Well put!
Post a Comment