Use and abuse of animals: where do we draw the line morally ?

[GoreRenewed]

This was prompted by the thread (mine and another) about the Emperor of Exmoor that was shot
recently.

Responses were fairly divided.

1. It's outrageous.
2. It's just an animal there are more important things
3. You have no right to be upset if you eat meat.

I paraphrase disgracefully but I think that is more or less correct.

I completely see that there is hypocrisy involved in my response to this. I feel angry and distressed because it was
a beautiful animal in the prime of life, it didn't need to be culled and I suspect the motivation for the killing was financial on the part of the landowner and something even murkier on the part of the man weilding the gun. However I am not a vegan and I don't beleive in 'animal rights' simply because pragmatism dictates they don't have any, at least not in the sense that we think of 'human rights'.

As it happens this animal probably died quite quickly and with a minimum of suffering and there are undoubtedly millions who don't have that luxury. That might well have been the case for the pigs that gave me the ham that I ate in my salad at lunchtime.

Does that mean that I have no right to object to this. Can I take no moral position on the sufferings of animals or their treatment by us? We use and abuse animals all the time in our society, in ways that are largely invisible to the majority of the population. It is very hard to avoid being party to this in some way.

Is it then logical that because I eat meat I can object to nothing that happens with regard to animals.
"OMG I feel sick, I saw someone beating their dog"
"So what! You're a meat-eater hyprocrite"

"I think angling is barbaric"
"Don't be a hypocrite you eat fish!"

"I would never wear fur"
"Why, you wear leather".

Where do we draw the line? It isn't all or nothing is it?

I think there can be a middle ground.

I eat meat (a bit), but I object to the killing of animals for 'fun' or 'sport'

I wear leather but I object to the killing of animals for their fur. (these days. back when we were in caves, or in arctic countries it becomes a need)

I accept that there has been a need to test medications on animals but object to the testing of things like cosmetics etc. plus I think that wherever possible, we should work towards other methods of testing medications, so that we get to the point where we don't test them on animals either.

I am aware that is picking and choosing to suit myself. It is. It's an impossible question to have an answer to. Everyone draws the line where they are, iyswim. I do this, this and this. Beyond that is unacceptable. So vegans will have one line, meat eaters another, veggies another, science testy people another, animal rights groups another, dog fighters something else entirely! and so on and so forth.

I agree it's impossible. But I find it so frustrating to argue my case when there are people at both ends prepared to call you a hypocrite for not being black and white.

I think I stand somewhere near you hecate!

I think this is one of those things where people muddle ethics with good welfare. Something which is ethically unacceptable might be fine in welfare terms - so, killing animals for sport may be unethical in someone's view, but if they're killed instantly then their welfare is protected. Personally the ethics of a situation only come into play where welfare is compromised eg animals enduring painful procedures in order to research vital drugs. Otherwise, where welfare is good, ethics are something we can debate at our leisure but are of much less importance. IMO, of course.

I think ethics is probably what I am talking about. Welfare is important too and how well animals are treated when we 'use' them is an ethical argument too.

That's exactly my point. Ethics are of no interest or value to the animal, just us. Welfare is not important too - it's more important, because that's what the animal experiences.

I am only interested in welfare and so as long as the animal is looked after well, and death is quick then I am happy.

I am vegetarian but theoretically would eat animals that are killed quickly and on the site of their home, preferably in the environment they are happy in so I suppose wild duck, or deer.

Would you then be happy to wear fur frogety, if the animal had been killed quickly and near the place it lived? I'm not sure I would because I have an ethical objection to fur, or at least an emotional one - not sure where one where one blends into the other.

I would be happy Gore to wear fur (well actually I wouldnt as I would find it too glamorous in England - but if in Norway or the Arctic I would be fine). But only if I was happy with the kill and the animal had been wild or well cared for.

I will put animals out of their misery if I need to - a myxy rabbit on the road, or a deer hit by a car and badly injured, or a bird damaged by a cat.

I cant stand suffering.

So is there no room for ethics if you aren't a vegetarian? Or at least someone who only eats meat from certain sources?

Me too frog. I've done it when needed.

If I'm honest, I think the only moral/ethical stance to take is to not eat or use animals at all.

Here, with an economy such as ours, meat does not make the difference between a nourished person and an undernourished one. Where it does, I'd rethink (eg some Buddhists eat meat because where they are, there are so few sources of food that they'd be compromised without the protein).

Arguably a good vegan diet is healthier than our bloated, high-meat, high-dairy, (high-sugar) Western diet.

Most meat production involves cruelty, however well-meaning the farmer/fisherman/bolt-wielder.

There are now alternatives to most animal-derived products.

However I don't follow that. I'm an enthusiastic meat-eater and wearer of leather shoes, user of medication etc.

I can't put my finger on why I don't feel bad about it. I suspect it's basically that culture has won over ethics, in my head, at least.

Yes, and I suspect that is where a lot of us stand unprune. That being the case does it mean that the majority of us, sloppy-thinkers that we are, can have no view on cruelty in any form? Should we just shrug and let it pass?

I dont know Gore - I think I am being thick as am getting confused and a little lost.

As I would say in an interview - please could you ask me that in another way?

Does it explain my stance if I say that I cant understand why people would object to wearing leather if they eat meat, as the leather is a by-product of the meat trade and if an animal is to be killed it seems only fair to make use of as much of it as possible? But then I would object to leather if an animal was only killed for leather and the meat wasted.

Maybe that is my stance - I am ok if the animal is used as much as possible after being killed for the product it was reared for?

Gore - that was aimed at your post of 16.26.

Our impact on animals isn't just how we eat them or use their products is it though? Roads, houses, shops are all built on land that was once used by animals. We kill 'pests' to make our homes clean. We pollute, either first or second hand with all the things we use and buy. No-one has entirely clean hands.

I agree with that frog. But I think that is ethical no? The animal doesn't care what you do with it once it's dead.

BTW I think your stance is correct. Seems perfectly logical to me.

Yes, maybe you are right - I do have an ethical and a moral stance - the animal must be reared and killed in as humane way as possible and then utilised as much as possible.

Oh no, not at all, Gore.
I do my bit (a bit): I try to eat more game than farmed meat, we buy meat at the farmer's market most of the time for all the usual reasons. I do think it's important to try to stop the relentless acceptance of crappily-kept, cruelly-kept cheap meat.
I'm just saying, for me, if I'm really truly honest with myself, I know the only truly ethical stance is to not eat or use animals.

It is really hard when you think about pharmacological advances. DH had drugs to treat cancer (easily) and the alternative is that he slowly died. There, I have no qualms at all.

But then I am not ethical about blood sports such as shooting as I see it as one of the more humane ways to produce meat. The humanity of the kill overtakes my difficulty in understanding why people would want to shoot for fun. I just accept they do and are almost grateful that they will kill in the (nice??) way to provide meat for the table of those who like to eat meat.

Difficult one.

Why is it bad to boil a lobster and fine to use fly spray? Why WHY is fur much much worse than leather?

the amount of people who say I'm cruel for eating wild rabbit is shocking, most of these people happily gobble factory raised chickens though.

We aren't a furry species - what is it about fur that makes our hearts bleed so?

Colditz - pretty things always make people soft. The cute child will always make people go ahhh. The fox with the furry tail will always be 'cute'. As will the magnificent deer - he will be a beauty. The wild rabbit is associated with the pet rabbit.

The fly is not pretty and is annoying. The pig is just a fat, dirty thing in a field. The lobster screams and you can hear it in the restaurant therefore it penetrates the mind.

Its all topsy turvy.

I feel much worse about eating pigs since I learned how intelligent they are. I cannot help worrying that they might think about their own deaths.

Most animals worry about their own death - have you ever smelt a slaughter house? They instinctively know the time has come as the smell of blood etc is there. They can spend some time there prior to kill - a few hours at least.

I dont think they are intelligent to think about their own deaths before being transported to slaughter. But then what do I know.