On Christmas Eve 2010, Douglas Batchelor, head of The League Against Cruel Sports, wrote a blog post entitled “An Ethical Christmas”. In this post, he addressed why he himself and many other meat eaters as a general rule, are against blood sports such as fox hunting, but still continue to eat animal products. It was written in response to criticism from Alice Bernard, the Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance. She asked those who oppose hunting for sport to justify why they feel shooting/ hunting a “free-range” wild animal is morally wrong, but killing a farmed animal is fine; and why they would rather eat an animal who has no doubt endured a life of suffering and a painful death in the industrial farm system, over one who has been shot by a hunter (which she deems to be “humane”). She is not the first to do so and won’t be the last. Sarah Palin, Republican politician and hunting advocate in the US has also accused the anti-hunt “carnists” of hypocrisy.
As an ethical vegan opposed to all use and abuse of animals, I never thought I would see the day when I actually agreed with something someone from The Countryside Alliance, or the hunting community, said...But in this instance, I must agree with the hypocrisy in logic.
Supporters of The League Against Cruel Sports oppose the hunting of animals with dogs or shooting because it involves inflicting extreme and unnecessary suffering upon animals for the sake of amusement. This is a principle so widely supported that hunting with dogs-one of the sports considered to be the “most” cruel (if you can grade cruelty) as it involves the torment, distress and drawn out painful death of the victims-has been banned by law (it still continues in-spite of this, but that is a separate issue to be discussed at another time).
Shooting animals for fun (“sport”), is still legal however and is a multi-million pound industry in Britain and the US (as is animal agriculture). The League and much of the public oppose it for various reasons. Many agree that no animal should be killed for the sake of recreation, while others are against it because of the suffering it causes when a hunter shoots an animal but doesn’t kill them. Many thousands of animals shot by hunters every year are not killed quickly. Some get away injured only to suffer a slow and painful death from infection, blood loss or starvation. Dying from a gunshot wound, would certainly not be devoid of suffering no matter how quickly the victim died. Some, like me, oppose it on the moral grounds of it being wrong to kill sentient life even if there were minimal suffering involved. Murder is murder no matter what species the victim belongs to. When it is not a natural requirement for survival or a situation of true emergency, it can be described in no other way.
In his blog post, Douglas states “I certainly don’t have the right to cause unnecessary suffering. And most importantly I do not have the right to decide for myself what constitutes necessary suffering and killing.” I can’t help but think he is overlooking a blatantly obvious fact...Humans do not have the biological need to consume meat or animal products. (In fact we are a lot healthier without them). The only reason we do so is for pleasure. As it is not necessary for us to kill animals for food, when we do so, it is by definition “unnecessary suffering”. This is a contradiction of his own morals.
Many who are against hunting consume animal products. Their perception is that killing animals to eat has a “purpose”, whereas hunting is merely frivolous and is therefore inexcusable. Unfortunately, not enough people know that we simply don’t need to do either. Both activities should be regarded in the same light.
Animal agriculture is the largest industry of animal exploitation on the planet. We enslave, kill and eat some 56 billion cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys and sheep every year (not including the billions of marine animals). The majority of which, will spend their cut-short lives confined in industrial factory farms, who treat animals as commodities-a “product” from which to make money. They are mass produced in conditions that can only be described as akin to concentration camps. But factory farming is not at the heart of the moral issue. If it was, I would be out there backing up Ms. Bernard, arguing that it is better to kill an animal who didn’t suffer like this first for your dinner plate-but that would only be the case if we actually had to eat animals.
Even a free-range, organic, soil-association-approved, RSPCA-monitored farm of the best conditions, does not morally justify farming animals when we have no need to do so. Indeed these terms are meaningless nowadays. The media has exposed how even farms sporting all of these titles can still keep animals in horrendous conditions who suffer disease and distress. The Happy Egg Company, who advertise their chickens running around freely in the sunshine through grassy fields and woodland, were exposed in 2010 for keeping their chickens in filthy sheds, with a muddy flooded yard qualifying their “free-range” status. Birds were suffering stress and feather-loss, with corpses of their companions littered about the floor. Perches were electrified in some cases. The conditions can only be described as appalling, yet are not uncommon. Shockingly, a number of such farms qualified for the RSPCA “Freedom Foods” certificate.
Douglas mentions how “We take comfort from the assurances given that on the way to our plate the animal lived well and was slaughtered humanely”. Sadly the public are very mislead as to the reality of the situation. I would encourage him to look into it further. He refers to the “caring” farmer, but animals kept as commodities are only “cared” for as much as if it profitable to do so (and discarded when it is not). Which is why welfare regulations only come into effect when it improves production efficiency. The concern is the benefit of the producer, not the animal property involved. Property has no rights and can be treated cruelly by the property owner if it improves the value of said property.
But for the sake of argument-even if the myth of the sunny, open grasslands and the caring farmer was always correct, this does not change the fact that an animal-a sentient person-is used as a commodity and exploited. They have their lives taken (prematurely), for the sake of a few seconds of palette pleasure. And there is certainly no such thing as “humane slaughter”. Death by a slit throat would certainly not be considered a “humane” way for a human to be killed. Yet non-humans animals suffer no-less than we do.
Indeed, aren’t all of these the very reasons why he is against the shooting of deer and other animals? The fact that they live wild and free and do not suffer the torment of farming first has nothing to do with the moral principle against murder. Unfortunately, Douglas does not see that eating animal products and hunting are in fact both unnecessary and cruel activities. One could certainly argue that the suffering involved in farming is in fact far more horrific than shooting (excluding animals raised on factory farms to be released and shot-the worst of both worlds). But the point isn’t how well or badly animals are treated, or how much they suffer when we use them-it is that we use them that is ethically problematic. It is not morally justifiable to enslave and kill another sentient being. Especially when we do not need to do so. It is why we have outlawed human slavery.
Douglas has already considered the moral ramifications that far, this is why he is against hunting; but he-like much of the British public-seem to have blinkers on when it comes to applying this logic to all animal kind. It would certainly appear that someone can be morally outraged at hunting, but then have a double standard when it comes to their own pleasure of eating flesh or excretions.
The distinction in his mind is that in hunting, people are making a spectacle of killing an animal. They are taking amusement from the infliction of suffering. The inference is: it’s ok to kill and eat animals as long as you feel bad about it...But if you enjoy its wrong! This is highly hypocritical. The animal involved suffers and dies either way, in both instances completely needlessly. Both are in fact killing for fun. From the animal’s perspective, it doesn’t matter what your reasons are, the end result is the same. It doesn’t matter whether your intention is to sadistically cause suffering or not. There is no moral distinction. Being against the infliction of pain, misery and death upon a fox, deer or hare, but not being concerned for that of the cow, pig, chicken or sheep, is morally schizophrenic.
Now I know Douglas is concerned for the welfare of farmed animals-he says as much, so it isn’t that he doesn’t care at all about their suffering. He is clearly a compassionate person. His blog post is well intentioned and this is not a personal attack. Unlike the hunting community, I am not trying to pick holes in his logic in an attempt to justify continuing a cruel practice. But at the League he takes a stance that it is morally wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering for the sake of fun. He fights for the abolition of it in the context of blood sports, but directly participates in it in consuming animal products. He may argue that he supports animal welfare policies in farming, but regulation of unnecessary cruelty is still cruelty. I highly doubt he would suddenly support fox hunting if it was regulated and given a humane label. Indeed he has opposed this in the context of shooting. Would it be right to participate in an activity that causes suffering such as rape, if it were suddenly regulated to make it “more humane”? No, we oppose it because we regard it morally wrong for one person to inflict suffering upon another for their own gain.
So why point this out? As long as some (human inflicted) animal suffering continues, all animal suffering will. We need to wake up, realise the hypocrisy and apply the principle of equal consideration to all. As long as we fight against a single issue of animal cruelty but overlook other instances, we are being morally inconsistent and undermining our own cause (not to mention over complicating things). Nothing will ever change until we communicate a clear and consistent message to society. Being inconsistent or hypocritical, leaves room for excusing the cruelty of bloodsports to continue. If we persist in eating animals for fun, why then can they not be shot or tortured for fun? It’s all the same thing really. Particularly from the animal’s perspective. We cannot continue to support the misconception that the infliction of cruelty and suffering is fine as long as the result is “useful” to us. Either inflicting torture and death is wrong, or it isn’t. The mindset in which it is committed is irrelevant as long as there is a victim.
This moral schizophrenia is deeply ingrained in society. We are against hunting, but eat meat, against fur, but wear leather and wool, against animal testing, but buy pretty cosmetics and nice smelling cleaning products from companies who do it. It is everywhere we look. Most people who consider themselves civilised and compassionate are against the infliction of unnecessary suffering in principle, but are yet to put it into practice in their lives. All use is abuse. The only way to abolish animal exploitation is to stop participating in it. That means going vegan. If you are against fox hunting, you are clearly a compassionate individual who finds such cruelty abhorrent-but if you consume animal products, you are having such cruelty inflicted upon billions on your behalf and this is perhaps something you should examine.
I feel Douglas’ post is more about justifying to himself a way to continue participating in his own “festive tradition” and alleviate his guilt. Or perhaps it is the fear of alienating the donor base? But the only “Ethical Christmas” is one without animal sacrifice. I have singled him out here, but I do so respectfully, for he is just one example of the moral schizophrenia that persists in society today. It is a problem we need to address if we ever hope to put an end to animal suffering.
P.S I would like to wish Douglas all the best in his retirement :).
http://www.league.org.uk/blogs_entry.aspx?id=292 -Douglas' Blogpost
http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/natural.html -Humans are natural herbivores.
http://zerocarbonista.com/top-ten-food-choice-myths-busted/ Top Ten Food Myths
http://www.viva.org.uk/guides/Wheat-Eaters-guide.pdf Humans: Meat Eaters or Wheat Eaters?
The China Study (available from Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295111819&sr=8-1)
A Delicate Balance: The Truth. Documentary exposing the correlation between typical "Western Diet" (high in animal products) and high rates of heart disease, cancers, diabetes, strokes etc
No comments:
Post a Comment