In response to Andrew's question/answer post on 3/24/2013:
I agree that labelling animals used in scientific research does indeed affect people's perceptions of their moral statuses. The effect is akin to one of dehumanisation, although of course that term does not fit because the objects of it are not human. Deanimalisation? Regardless of linguistic minutiae, it helps people turn a blind eye to actions which they might otherwise find highly objectionable. While the scientific community provides one example of such a process, I think that the meat industry (once again!) takes the cake for most its most distasteful implementation.
The word 'pig,' according to both the Oxford and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, primarily refers to a domesticated version of the animal known as a swine. The Oxford also says that 'pig' can refer to the meat of this animal. The word 'pork,' in contrast, refers only to the meat of a swine, specifically that meat when used as food. Neither the Oxford nor the Merriam-Webster says that 'pork' can correctly be used to refer to a living animal. And yet, the meat industry encourages us to do just this. Large pigs, such as those exhibited at fairs, are 'porkers.' Gazing out on field occupied by a group of pigs, a meat enthusiast might mention how fine that pork looks. Some advertisements refer to whole, living pigs as pork, before digitally separating the images into cuts of scrumptious meat with no gore or violence before viewers' eyes.
Pigs are not the sole victims of this odd terminological persecution. The words 'beef' and 'cattle' certainly existed as separate concepts long before the meat industry gained such a hold in American culture, but 'beef' referred to the corpses of cattle, not the living beasts. This blurring of lines between animal and product further contributes to the objectification of sentient non-humans raised for consumption.
Sunday, March 31, 2013
Q&A 6, Answer
My question is: Is killing an animal less immoral if one then
uses all parts of that animal, regardless of need?
Many people seem to subscribe to the belief that this is the case. I do not think that I agree. The usage of different parts of an animal after it is dead does no less harm to the animal; it is still dead. While using all of its corpse may seem 'respectful,' the dead animal does not care about respect. It does not care about anything, because it is dead.
Nor does the usage of the corpse justify killing the animal any more than it may already have been justified. In a situation in which one does not need to use any parts of an animal's corpse, then one should not kill the animal, since there is no need to do so. If one does so, and does not use any of the corpse, that is unethical. If one does so and then uses all of the corpse, it is still unethical, since none of those uses were necessary. Really, upon analysis, this notion seems almost ridiculous.
If one does need the corpse of an animal, to survive or for some other weighty reason which might justify discounting the life of the animal, then under no reasonable circumstances would one kill the animal and then fail to use its corpse! That would, indeed, be unethical, but more than that it would be nonsensical. If one kills the animal and then uses its corpse, killing the animal may have been morally justifiable, but not because of the use one made of its remains. Instead, the action was justifiable because of the circumstances surrounding it, which necessitated an otherwise immoral deed.
And therein, I think, lies the source of this common conception. Most of the time, people who use the entirety of animals' corpses do so because they need to, not because they want to. People in so-called third world countries who have few to no resources and have the means to hunt animals use all of those animals' corpses, because those are the only resources they have available for whatever purposes they need them for, at least without expending a great deal more time and effort to hunt more animals. Such people may be justified in hunting, and therefore their actions afterwards are inextricably linked to that justness, regardless of whether or not those actions are remotely morally relevant.
In short - no, killing an animal is no less immoral if one then uses all parts of that animal, but in the (relatively rare) circumstances in which one is justified in killing an animal, one is much more likely to utilise all or most parts of the corpse out of necessity.
Many people seem to subscribe to the belief that this is the case. I do not think that I agree. The usage of different parts of an animal after it is dead does no less harm to the animal; it is still dead. While using all of its corpse may seem 'respectful,' the dead animal does not care about respect. It does not care about anything, because it is dead.
Nor does the usage of the corpse justify killing the animal any more than it may already have been justified. In a situation in which one does not need to use any parts of an animal's corpse, then one should not kill the animal, since there is no need to do so. If one does so, and does not use any of the corpse, that is unethical. If one does so and then uses all of the corpse, it is still unethical, since none of those uses were necessary. Really, upon analysis, this notion seems almost ridiculous.
If one does need the corpse of an animal, to survive or for some other weighty reason which might justify discounting the life of the animal, then under no reasonable circumstances would one kill the animal and then fail to use its corpse! That would, indeed, be unethical, but more than that it would be nonsensical. If one kills the animal and then uses its corpse, killing the animal may have been morally justifiable, but not because of the use one made of its remains. Instead, the action was justifiable because of the circumstances surrounding it, which necessitated an otherwise immoral deed.
And therein, I think, lies the source of this common conception. Most of the time, people who use the entirety of animals' corpses do so because they need to, not because they want to. People in so-called third world countries who have few to no resources and have the means to hunt animals use all of those animals' corpses, because those are the only resources they have available for whatever purposes they need them for, at least without expending a great deal more time and effort to hunt more animals. Such people may be justified in hunting, and therefore their actions afterwards are inextricably linked to that justness, regardless of whether or not those actions are remotely morally relevant.
In short - no, killing an animal is no less immoral if one then uses all parts of that animal, but in the (relatively rare) circumstances in which one is justified in killing an animal, one is much more likely to utilise all or most parts of the corpse out of necessity.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)