afterall I gave them a jacuzzi...

[Guest guest]

> As far as animal rights are concerned, to me,

> the issue is not so much the

> actual *killing* of animals, but rather, their

> treatment in captivity as they are raised.

 

Even if cows, pigs, and chickens were raised in palaces, it is still not right

to keep them. Rynn Berry said at the Congress the other day " No matter how nice

the cage is, it's still a cage. " And furthermore, that doesn't make it right to

take their lives. If whites kept slaves in the nicest, most plush living

quarters, does that make it okay to keep them as slaves? (This excuse was

actually used in those days.) And does it make it okay to kill them? That's like

saying " It's okay to keep them and kill them, afterall I gave them a jacuzzi. "

Ludicrous. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0962449334/

 

What if I decided to kill and eat my cats? But they had a nice cushy life!

 

 

> Yes, they are animals, and I personally feel

> somewhat less sense of brotherhood with

> animals than I do with people of my own species

 

This is exactly why most people are not vegans.

 

We are animals. We merely have different genes than other animals. Because we

have different genes does not make it okay to draw arbitrary lines and decide

it's okay to kill them.

 

If your sentence was changed to " Yes, they are

[Africans/Jews/women], and I personally feel somewhat less sense of brotherhood

with [Africans/Jews/women] than I do with [whites/Catholics/men]... Oh my! It's

your right to feel brotherhood with whomever you choose however this does not

entitle you to raise them in splendid conditions and then kill them.

 

We are all living beings - black, white, male, female, jew, catholic, human,

non-human - we all feel pain and desire to live, and thus we all ought be given

the basic fundamental moral rights of freedom from harm and death.

 

I highly recommend Tom Regan's book " The Case for Animal Rights "

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0520054601/ which addresses this common

question regarding the treatment of non-human animals vs. killing them.

 

" Both the moral right not to be caused gratuitous suffering and the right to

life, I argue, are possessed by the animals we eat if they are possessed by the

humans we do not. To cause animals to suffer cannot be defended merely on the

grounds that we like the taste of their flesh, and even if animals were raised

so that they led generally pleasant lives and were 'humanely' slaughtered, that

would not insure that their rights, including their right to life, were not

violated. "

 

 

> On the other hand, in what I see as a

> predator-prey relationship, for example, the

> relationship of the American

> Indians with the buffalo, I have far less

> objection to. The animals were

> allowed to live their lives in freedom,

> eating the food they needed, etc,

 

Presumably, in history, certain natives lived in areas where sufficient plant

food was not available to them to subsist on and therefore were justified in

taking the lives of animals for their own survival. How many native populations

are in this position nowadays, I cannot say, and I often wonder how relevant

this common comparison is. I was watching a show recently where these natives

were going out to hunt polar bears. They had power boats and vehicles and

high-tech rifles. I couldn't help but wonder if they couldn't purchase food at

the grocery store in the town where they got their high-tech hunting

paraphanalia. Hmmm...

Are you familair with the Makah?

 

 

> This relationship I see as basically

> analagous to an animal-animal predator-prey

> relationship: foxes kill rabbits, that's

> what they do. But the rabbits still live

> healthy, vigorous lives, they

> just have to watch out for foxes. It's

> not an issue of the inherent

> " superiority " of the fox giving it a

> " right " to kill the rabbit, just as

> that's not the issue between Indians

> and buffalo.

 

No animal should have to " watch out " for humans, unless we are extremely

isolated and bloody starving. We are animals but we are not wild animals.

(Ideally)

 

 

> There's a basic balance

> which is of course NOT present in our modern

> relationship with livestock.

 

Livestock are just that - stock, domesticated animals. Unlike the fox who sees

the rabbit, I do not drool, get all excited and desire to pounce on a cow, tear

it to shreds with my well-manicured fingernails and flat teeth and eat it raw.

 

Even if animals are on a nice happy family farm, they are still domesticated,

and the concept of domestication does not exist in nature among other species.

Domestication is merely exercising self-perceived " superiority " . It is

domination. Domestication has nothing to do with " balance " in nature.

 

 

> I realize that some people don't agree,

> and view the killing of any animal

> being as immoral. I recognize and

> understand this view, but as far as my

> own personal views, to me it's the

> treatment of the animals that I object

> to moreso than the killing.

 

This is a very important issue that I think everyone, vegans and meat-eaters

need to think through. Many people are still meat-eaters because they still

think that animals are treated very well on " normal " farms and are " humanely "

slaughtered. But this isn't even the point. I feel that as vegans we have to get

the word out that it's NOT okay to kill animals under any circumstances (aside

from survival eg.starvation or self-defence, but that's not usually an issue.

And by the way, humans have been known to eat and kill humans in these

circumstances as well). We need to encourage people to have an overall RESPECT

for non-human animals and to explain how keeping them captive and killing them

is not respectful or compassionate at all.

 

Inspiring people to become vegan by exposing them to the horrors of modern

factory farms and slaughterhouses is one thing, but it is something else when we

are able to inspire people to have that shift in their brain where they realize

that exploitation is exploitation and no matter how well they are kept and no

matter how " humanely " they are slaughtered, they deserve the basic fundamental

moral right to not be killed.

 

My opinion is that if we, as vegans, go around saying we have no problem with

the idea of killing animals, we may as well go around saying it's okay to eat

them (and all the other things we do to them). In an all encompassing ethic of

compassion and respect, the issue is in fact as much about killing animals as it

is about the way they are raised.

 

 

-anji

 

 

" Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas

verbally and in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgments using the

accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other

sentient organisms, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger or

dietary need, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like

the taste of meat? In essence, should we know better? "

Peter Cheeke, Professor of Animal Agriculture, Contemporary Issues in Animal

Agriculture, 1999

 

 

 

 

> I identified with all of what you wrote here, and I used to feel very

> much the same way. Lately though, my stance has been that since

> we (humans) do not need to kill animals (non-humans) to survive,

> then why the hell would we??? Killing when you do not have to is un-

> natural and cruel. Feel free to write me privately. I'd like to explore

> this issue further.

--

 

Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmacafe.com

 

 

 

 

Powered by Outblaze