Skip to content or view screen version

Moral Schizophrenia

Carole Reckinger | 04.03.2007 18:48 | Animal Liberation | World

An analysis into our relationship with animals

We adore our dogs and cats, are mad about animated films such as Finding Nemo and Ice Age and nevertheless our behavior towards animals in general shows of our deep insensitivity in the face of their great suffering.

Billions of animals suffer every day because of us humans. Animals are turned into food, clothing, are used for sport, entertainment, experimentation and trade. According to the American ministry of Agriculture, the United States alone slaughters more than 800 million animals per year destined for human consumption. These animals are treated like objects and commodities and in large scale factories they endure their short lives under the worst and most horrific circumstances. The old slogan that says that if slaughterhouses would have glass windows, most of us would become vegetarians probably (or rather hopefully?) still holds true. When we walk through the supermarket aisles we can pick up a clean and neatly packed piece of flesh and not much reminds us of their former shape, or even the fact that our dinner once actually was a living being and that the chances are great that it had to suffer greatly for our 15 minute delight.

In the face of this everyday genocide it is rather bizarre that we humans have chosen a few of those non-humans to become our closest companions. Some of us consider our dogs and cats as members of the family, we give them the best and most expensive food, we take them to specialized hairdressers and clinics and we can buy them designer coats and special seat belts for the car. Many of these humanized dogs share their bed with their master, are taken on family holidays and seas of tears are shed when they finally die of old age.

How is it that people cringe when they hear that the Chinese eat dogs, while chewing on a cow? What is the moral difference between eating a baby sheep and a dog? Why do we in the West give so many privileges to our few chosen companions and ignore everything else? Why should a dog be treated differently from a pig? Where is the moral logic behind this?

Generally the suffering of animals is taken as a “necessary evil” for the well being of us humans. We need to raise them for our food production, we need to test our medicines and pharmaceuticals on it, we need to kill them for fashion, but on the other hand we love them. We try to teach our children respect for animals, and only few of us would advocate that torturing animals is acceptable. But the again, the torturing goes on behind closed doors, and it is easy to shut our eyes, and pretend we didn’t know.

We claim to take the suffering of non-humans seriously. There is a virtual agreement that it is morally wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering or death on our non-human cohabitants. The paradox however, is that although we express disapproval of the unnecessary suffering of animals, most of their suffering and death can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement or convenience. Most of this mass murder cannot by any stretch be plausibly characterized as "necessary".
When it comes to non-humans, we exhibit what can best be described as moral schizophrenia. We say one thing about how animals should be treated, and do quite another. If we took seriously the principle that it was wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering on non-humans, we would stop altogether bringing domestic animals into existence for human use. When using our power to inflict suffering and try to convince ourselves of different reasoning why don’t we start to take seriously what Jeremy Bentham said over 200 years ago: "The question is not, can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?" .

Carole Reckinger
- e-mail: carole81@gmail.com

Comments

Hide the following 3 comments

But Carole

04.03.2007 21:58

But Carole, much is left implicit in your argument.

Consider the cat. No matter how well fed on kibbles, inclined to hunt "for sport". Nor is the dog, unless carefully taught otherwise, inclined to treat a sheep any differently than a wolf would. Given these realities, please tyr to make EXPLICIT the answers to a few questions.

a) Is that EVIL? Is the natural world evil?

b) If not, if you think it's perfectly OK for ANIMALS to behave in this way, what sort of entity do you consider us humans to be? You believe we are some sort of "higher, better" beings? More spiritually favored?

In other words, I woud like you to consider carefully whether a good deal of what you believe about the situation you described could properly be said to represent "religious beliefs" which you cannot expect to be shared by your listeners. Not "obvious" in the sense you imagine them to be.

How, for example, do you make your case (how do you argue) to a person who says .......

1) The natural world is good.
2) I am an animal, different from, but neither superior nor inferior to other animals.

Mike Novack
mail e-mail: stepbystpefarm mtdata.com


Nature

04.03.2007 23:24

Nature, as Katherine Hepburn reminds us in the "African Queen", is what we were put on earth to rise above. Animals eat other animals. Animals also engage in rape and murder of their own kind. Nobody would excuse us doing this on the grounds that it is "natural", so why do we have similar moral schizophrenia over our killing of sentient beings from other species.

In any event, a cat is not a moral agent and must kill in order to live. The cat has a limited intellect nad is unlikely to be aware of the suffering she is causing. If we compare this with our own behaviour of deliberately and systematically torturing and killing millions of animals, not for our vital needs, but for fleeting pleasures of the palate, for money, or simply because they are in the way, then not only are we not rising above nature, we are sinking below it.


Michael Morris
mail e-mail: exposingpoultryfraud@yahoo.com.au
- Homepage: http://www.epf.org.nz


non-human animals

05.03.2007 13:40

Mike Novack, a non-human animal is not generally considered able to consider morality, humans on the other hand, can consider morality. The argument you present yourself acknowledges that other animals are different to humans, we as individuals able to consider morality are described as “moral agents” and have the ability to consider moral choices.

The fact animals are not known to be “moral agents” should not exclude them from moral consideration. For example, some severely mentally disabled people are in such a situation however; this should not lead to their mistreatment.

I hope this helps answer your points.

Carole Reckinger, thank you for the thoughtful well written article

ARA