In defense of murderous humans: Animals at steak

2008 December 22
more by

Podcast: Download

By Andy Kaiser
Article ID: 1265

“Puppies.” Even the word is cute. With just a few very oddball exceptions, you’d agree with me that puppies are adorable. But at what point do people stop using the term “man’s best friend”, and start saying “pass the salt”?

I’m talking about the inherent differences between humans and every other animal on the planet. After all, as the smart, tool-using, big-brained creatures we are, do we not have an imperative to nurture and care for all the other animals on the planet?

No. Not when animal rights are compared to humankind’s safety, science or even hunger.

Okay, but what if you were really, REALLY hungry?

In my own country – the United States – eating dog meat is considered taboo. We’re just too emotionally close to our pets. Elsewhere, dogs are eaten and bred as a food supply: this occurs in China, Indonesia, Korea and Vietnam. Other countries eat dog meat more covertly, in more remote locations, or are used as a food supply in times of famine. These countries include France, Germany, India, Nigeria, the Philippines, Switzerland, and near the Arctic and Antarctic.

In times of desperation, the competition for life becomes a free-for-all. Stories like Jack London’s “To Build a Fire” are understandable – if a man is freezing to death, of course he’ll kill his trusty dog for its body heat. If a man is starving, he’ll feed himself with whatever’s available. This desire for life is so strong it’s even visible between humans. For those who have sung and danced through the black comedy, “Cannibal: The Musical” or the 1993 movie “Alive“, we know that people in extreme situations will ignore the most fundamental of taboos to stay living.

Life or death situations are pretty easy to argue. But throw in some ambiguity and it gets tricky. When immediate death isn’t part of the equation, at what point is it morally acceptable to kill an animal?

I argue that it’s allowed under these two situations:

1) It’s morally acceptable for humans to eat most animals. We are omnivores. We are designed to eat meat, and we get certain nutrition from meat we can’t easily get from other sources.

2) It’s morally acceptable for humans to perform research and testing on animals if that effort has a chance of saving or improving human lives. Animal testing to further our scientific knowledge is an imperative. We would advance slower or not at all without animal testing, because the alternative with today’s technology would be to test on humans.

Even as I write these words, I don’t like them. I believe they are true, but I don’t enjoy having to pick what is clearly a lesser of two evils. However, I’m confident in the above because of this premise:

All else being equal, any human life is worth more than any animal life.

This idea may in fact be at the core of every animal rights issue. If someone has to suffer and die so that humans don’t have to, then the animal must take this terrible burden. Why? Because someone has to – we don’t yet have the technology to do otherwise. If we are altruistic to animals, humanity would suffer.

In a rather brutal summary of the above themes, we end with this quote by comedian Nick Dipaolo:

“If hooking a car battery up to a monkey’s brain will help find the cure for AIDS and save somebody’s life, I have two things to say… the red is positive and the black is negative.”


Did you like this article? Want more? Support Digital Bits Skeptic.

Other articles related to this topic:

from → Biology, Healthcare, Philosophy, Pop Culture, Psychology, Science

6 Comments
2008 December 22
Science, Reason and Rationality permalink

“We have enclosed the rest of the animal creation and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feather so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the devil in human form.” ~ Dean William Ralph Inge, 1860-1954

I avoid eating nonhuman animals and any nonhuman species, or use them for whatever purpose, to the best of my ability whenever I possibly can for personal health, ethical and humane reasons, and for the same reasons I do not eat a human being under normal circumstances which requires no survival emergency for doing so.

Most humans give numerous excuses to continue abusing the nonhumans or eat them because they can’t resist the craving due to the childhood programing by their parent or guardians, just like how religion and belief systems work. I have cravings too, but at least I acknowledge the problem and make attempts to educate and deprogram myself without giving all sorts of excuses.

Those who never ate frogs, worms and other meats out of the norm, would feel disgusted even with the thoughts of eating such things because you were never programmed to enjoy it. If you were never programmed to eat chicken, cows, lambs and so on, you’ll feel the same way about it too. It’s all a matter of programming. A mind program that is supported by the billion dollar animal abuse industry that gets endorsements to say that meat is good for you and abusing animals is fine for the sake of human advancement and progress. And those who say otherwise are simply stupid or crazy!

I wonder how these people would feel if Aliens from outer space (if they truly exists) arrived on planet earth, and started doing the same thing and giving the same excuse to abuse and eat them? I think they would probably agree and say the same thing that I am saying now, unless they just want to just accept the fact that they are no longer at the top of the food chain and thus, will have to accept whatever that comes. I don’t think even animals accept that though…

The fact is, if anything separates us from nonhuman animals, it is our capacity for not only making humane choices to our own species alone, but to all other known and unknown species as well, may they be intellectually advanced or not, human or nonhuman. By choosing to respect the lives of other sentient beings, by refraining from abuse, cruelty and consuming them, WE are demonstrating OUR HIGHER STANDING in NATURE by those VALUES of HUMANITY. Thus, the practice of humane living is not only a healthy choice, it is also a humane choice that sets us apart from others in the animal kingdom whose diets and choices are generally based on necessity and instinct rather than on conscious humane choice.

Nick
SRR

2008 December 25
Science, Reason and Rationality permalink

If I was the man freezing to death, I would NOT kill my trusty dog for its body heat. The dog has to die of natural causes in order for me to do that. Meanwhile, hugging the dog will suffice. Both of us could share the heat.

If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal.

I have not sung and danced through the black comedy, “Cannibal: The Musical” so I don’t know anything about it, but I have seen the 1993 movie “Alive“. These people only ate those who were already dead too, which I would have done the same.

Nick
SRR

2008 December 26
DB Skeptic permalink

Hi Nick,

If I was the man who was starving, I would only feed myself with whatever is available which is plant base or some dead animal.

This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason.

As for the rest, thanks for the well-thought-out response. I think we have a difference of opinion when it comes to moral values, and for that we may have to agree to disagree. I have a followup, however, that may expand on what you’ve said: how do you feel about medical testing using animals? (By that, I don’t mean testing cosmetics, but testing products and techniques that may save human lives.)

Andy

2008 December 26
Science, Reason and Rationality permalink

Andy: This indicates that you hold true to your values, even under pressure. It demonstrates your morality in a very positive way. This is a good thing, in my opinion, and indicates your morals are sensibly derived and exist for a reason.

Nick: Thank you Andy. I wish other humans were the same too.

Andy: … how do you feel about medical testing using animals?

Nick: Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are like us.” Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because the animals are not like us.” Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. ~ Professor Charles R. Magel

“Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.” ~ George Bernard Shaw

We all have seen the wonders of human intellectual capabilities and how far it can go. Some even think that the advanced inventions that are created today could not be possible without the aid of something supernatural or paranormal. Thus, I think that if the humans really put their mind to it, finding alternatives to a solution like animal testing is no big deal. It’s piece of a cake. It’s just that animals are easier and faster to use to get easier and faster results. That’s all. All rest are just excuses.

Here are one good example of an organization that are making attempts to find alternatives to animal testing:

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (Wikipedia)

Nick
SRR

2009 April 26
Squidlet permalink

PCRM. *snnnnrrrrk* Those guys are so full of silly, it’s absurd. (Diabetes owes more to sugar and flour than meat, contrary to their claims.) I’d sooner take biology lessons from a young Earth creationist than learn about diet from those fruitcakes. It’s vegan propaganda, not “responsible” anything. (Fewer than five percent of its members are actually physicians. Red flag much?)

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm?oid=23

2009 September 7
Chris permalink

 
While I would agree that some animal rights positions go too far, you’ve left out several areas where human behaviour towards animals is both wrong, and self-destructive.
 
While I might be able to accept that argument that experiments on rats to cure cancer is acceptable, the use of animals for cosmetics is absolutely not.  Never mind that cosmetics are totally unnecessary, cause great pollution, waste massive resources and energy, and are, at least in many cases, a vestige of patriarchy.  Even without all those reasons, causing the suffering and death of animals for purely decadent and non-functional reasons is morally repugnant.
 
Secondly, eating animals for food is also acceptible, so long as this is done in a sustainable and non-destructive way.  However, if entire species are being depopulated and becoming extinct, this is obviously stupid.  We have hunted and fished (and poisoned) so many species to death, it’s almost impossible to count.  This of course, is stupid, because we are destroying the ecosystem that supports us (and destroying our own food sources) but even if that were not the case, it should be clear this is morally wrong.  Destroying a unique species for no benefit (indeed for great harm in some cases) is sadistic.
 
Thirdly, hunting for sport is also morally dubious.  Killing a creature for no other reason than because one *can* or because one *enjoys* killing is surely indefensible.  Now, hunting for the purposes of eating the animal, and reusing its other body parts in many ways is different, so long as the species is not in danger.
 
Fourthly, destroying the environment, through pollution, soil degradation, deforestation, global warming, etc., is also very stupid.  We end up just killing ourselves (though of course, some will suffer much more than others.)  Again, though, even if this weren’t an existential threat, causing pollution and other harm that kills entire species clearly is morally wrong.  Wastefulness and thoughtlessness aren’t sufficient justication for these consequences.
 
If I were starving or in risk of dying, of course I would eat an animal, just as I do when I’m not in such situations.  But animal rights goes *far* beyond that, and if the moral justications are meaningless to you, perhaps the practical, self-interested ones will suffice.
 

Comments are closed for this entry.