Is The Price Of Drinks In Pubs Too High?
ChatterBank1 min ago
Animal cruelty
Here's a controversial one (which I raise for the purposes of discussion and not because I necessarily agree with it). Given that it seems to be agreed that animals on their way to, and also in, the slaughterhouse suffer distress and pain and given that human beings don't have to eat meat (since there are plenty of healthy alternatives) then the only difference between fox-hunting and meat-eating is a matter of degree (since both take place for the purpose of giving humans pleasure). And, if this is true, then the majority of those opposed to fox-hunting (who, presumably, are meat-eaters) are simply being hypocritical.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Brugel. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We are all hypocrites in this regard. A vegetarian has taken a decision not to eat certain animals but how many worry about the animals killed so they can have their food delivered to the plate?
Who has the right to say a cow is more deserving of life than a cabbage white butterfly? What about the fish many vegetarians eat? Aren't they animals? They are in my dictionary
Would a vegetarian put poison down if their house was infested with rats? I think they would and what's the difference? Probably the cuddliness quotient is higher for foxes and of course the rat is being a nuisance
As it happens I do eat meat and I have hunted so I don't fit your definition of hypocrisy but yes we are all hypocrites with one exception. There is a small sect of holy men in India who even sweep the ground in front of them as they walk in an attempt not to kill any living thing
The people who wind me up the most are those who say they are vegetarian but eat chicken / fish.
Its like saying you're a pacifist but don't mind killing the Swiss!
Jills makes a point, but most anti fox hunting people say its nothing to do wth that. Can't have it both ways!
Interesting that there are no posts from the antihunting brigade yet.
Actually, human beings are omnivores and have canine teeth designed for tearing meat. It is possible to cut meat out of one's diet, but this usually involves a lot of thought about what you eat and probably using various supplements to provide the minerals that fruit and veg aren't so good at providing. Of course, this is all a bit irrelevant as anyone living in today's society is using products that have caused the death and suffering of animals - so one might as well eat meat. The main differences between eating meat and fox-hunting are that the fox isn't eaten by the hunters, and the hunt is purely to provide amusement, whereas eating meat provides nourishment.
It's not entirely accurate to say that animals killed for food are killed for 'pleasure' - the byproduct is food, no pleasure is gained from the killing. In hunting, and I have raised the point previously, the hunting fraternity persist in putting forward the fanciful notion that hunting controls the fox population, wheras statistics prove that the ratio of hunts to kills is probably about 90 - 1. They should stop being mealy mouthed, and admit that the pleaseure of the hunt is the chase, and that is purely for pleasure. It causes fear and suffering to an animal that cannot be eaten for food, and that is the barbaric nature of hunting with dogs. I would also argue agains the anthorpomorphic notion that cows and similar animals are 'aware' that they are to be slaughtered - I don't believe they have the intelligence needed for existential experience, although they do suffer fear from the confinement before slaughter. Meat eating is a food choice, hunting is an entertainment choice - there is a considerable difference.
I agree with Andy when he says that no pleasure is taken by meat-eaters in the killing of animals in the slaughterhouse (well, presumably this is the case). However, pleasure is taken from the actual practice of eating- and this would seem to be unnecessary and cruel given the number of alternatives that exist. So it seems misleading to defend meat-eating against hunting by saying that the former is a food choice while the latter is an entertainment choice- and that this is a considerable difference between them. It would only be a considerable difference if we had to eat animals in order to survive- but we don't. So, in fact, meat-eating and fox-hunting both seem to be entertainment choices. And, as such, it seems difficult to defend the former- as Andy and LeMarchand do- on the grounds that eating meat nourishes us.
If we are to take this argument to its logical conclusion, everyone who contributes here (healthy meat-eater or faddish vegetarian ;-) ) is being hypocritical. There are three things that we know about everyone who posts here: they are using a computer, electricity and some sort of internet connection. A computer will have been built in various factories that have been constructed at the expense of the local fauna, and whose pollution will be killing animals; electricity - even wind power - will have involved the same deaths of animals in it's set up at least; the net connection will have involved the same costs to wildlife and the maintenance and support of all three givens is by people, some of whom eat meat, many of whom use cars and all of whom use other technology that will have been made at the expense of, and/or cost further animal deaths. Everyone here has benefitted from the deaths of animals - some of us are just more honest about it. It still doesn't mean that chasing an animal for hours for nothing more than entertainment is acceptable behaviour.
My own position is that I find it difficult to rationally justify meat-eating but that, despite this, I still do it anyway. Furthermore, I don't feel guilty about it. So I suppose, as Drewhound says, that this makes me a hypocrite. It appears that the real difference between fox-hunting and meat-eating is that, even though both involve animal suffering and human pleasure, the former has the pleasure occurring at the same time as the suffering, whereas, for the latter, the pleasure occurs afterwards. But whether this practical difference makes any moral difference remains to be seen. The pleasure is still unattainable without the suffering (and, anyway, hunt-supporters might deny that it's really the animal's suffering that gives them pleasure in the first place). Finally, to address LeMarchand's intelligent point, it's true that we've all benefited from animal suffering but that still doesn't explain why eating meat is acceptable and fox-hunting isn't. Surely if a benefit to mankind involves animal suffering then it should be rejected unless it is a particularly large benefit that can't be obtained otherwise.
Lemarchand - all though I agree everyone is responsible for the killing of fauna & animals, some people posting here are not being hypocritical as they have not said that fox hunting should be banned.
As I have said before, I believe this is a mainly class debate (and the amount of references to toffs etc seem to back this up). I can't say that I think that fox hunting is any more cruel than fishing (and i participate in neither). Noone seems to want to ban this as although most people gain pleasure from it, and most people do not do it for a need to eat, it is a middle - lower class sport.
Killing animals for food is a basic human need (I mean that food is a basic need, not necessarily that meat is) and is not just done for fun. Killing foxes by hunting them is done for fun, and not for socially useful reasons. I do not necessarily agree with the premise of the question which states that it is "agreed" that animals suffer when they are on their way to be slaughtered.
um life isnt a happy film? when are people going to actually wake up and accept that unfortunately suffering and pain are part of LIFE? its unfortunate, and I personally wish it to be as minimised as possible, but I have no problem with animals being killed for food. heck, if I was hungry I would kill one myself, and I guess every other human would if they were hungry enough. Once again - life is not some sort of beautiful idealism - things hurt, are miserable and get killed. life isnt fair, we can try to be but we are not going to succeed.
although saying that, the likelihood is very soon that arable farming will overtake pastoral as its about 10x more efficient.
You say it yourself Brugel its a matter of degree. If the point is that we eat meat so therefore there's nothing wrong with fox hunting. We can say the same about badger bateing and cockfighting. And in response to Oneeyedvic, as a piscaterian I eat Fish but not meat. The difference is that fish have a very different nervous system (in fact they don't have one as such) and therefore they are not the same as other animals. Studies have shown that there is a chemical reponse when fish are caught but its nothing like the fear or stress an animal has.
Wowo - I wasn't trying to take the piscatarian. I would also note that although you say that fish have a diferent nervous system etc, there are planty of articles which dispute that - just as there are plenty of articles both pro and against fox hunting and indeed vegitarianism.
Also, is the fact that you don't beleive that they suufer in the same way justification in itself. If you could for example gas sheep in a humane way would you then eat lamb?
Again, it seems that there is no justification for banning fox hunting by poeple who do eat meat in any form (as nature intended us to) apart from the "pleasure" aspect.
There is evidence that fish suffer stress when caught thats true, but there is little dispute that their general physiology is different i.e. different type of nervous system. How much this "stress" effects the fish is open to much debate. Anyway that doesn't matter as I don't eat meat simply because I don't really like it. If we could gas sheep in a more human way yes I do think this would be more accetable. I can't argue with what your saying so I won't both but I think we all know there's a difference between doing all we can to give an animal a good life and then killing it for food and simply chasing it around for an hour then letting a load of dogs rip it apart. If people can't make that distinction then we have a bigger problem on our hands. To be honest I'm not fussed either way, I'm more concerned with the fact it was a labour manifesto pledge which they haven't as yet seen through, but thats a whole other issue.
I disagree with Bernardo when he says that killing animals for food is not just done for fun. Given that there are alternatives to meat (assuming, of course, that these are perfectly healthy) then killing animals for food is done for fun- it is done because the meat-eater gains a particular enjoyment from (say) eating beef that he cannot get elsewhere. It's true that he gains no direct pleasure from the animal's actual suffering but it's not clear how much of a difference this makes morally (especially since the fox-hunter might make the same claim- I believe many do). To take an analogy: suppose you break into your neighbour's house and steal his TV. Your reason for doing this is because you know it will cause him distress and you gain a perverse delight from seeing people suffer- you aren't particularly interested in the TV itself. Now, suppose I pay someone to steal my neighbour's TV. I know this will cause him suffering but that's not why I did it- I simply want a TV. Does this make you a worse person than me? The answer is probably yes since you seem to be vicious whereas I am just selfish. But, nevertheless, there still seems to be something hypocritical about me condemning your behaviour as immoral and demanding you be stopped while I continue to pay to have things stolen from my neighbour. I think Bernardo's last point is very interesting. I must confess that I have just always assumed that animals bred for food suffer. Perhaps this isn't true or has been exaggerated by animal rights' groups. I'm surprised none of them have replied to this point.
Along a similar line of questioning, I recently looked up which makers of skin care did not test on animals. There were plenty to choose from. But many of them (only) offered what appeared to be products that were introduced previously into the marketplace by leading edge companies. In other words, the big "heartless" corporations have already done the animal testing so now others can say, we never test on animals. In my mind, information about companies who develop leading edge products without animal testing would be more helpful than lists of those who simply say they don't test on animals. So I'm with LeMarchand's Logical Conclusion on this one.
