h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>are murder rates particularly high amongst slaughterhouse employees?<

Aside from the animals they're murdering, you mean? One would have to look at statistical evidence; I'm not sure I can do that kind of research from the office without raising an eyebrow or two.

>Yet we observe that cannibalism is very, very rare (it's doubtful that any evidence exists for it as a settled pattern) even though meat eating very common.<

I'm confused. In previous posts, it seems that you've emphasized that something being common (i.e. racism, homophobia) doesn't make it moral or "right"; it stands to reason that rarer behaviors are not more or less immoral based solely on how rare they are, no?

Ah. No, that wasn't what I meant. I was just having a dig at:
>>Because if someone can justify eating Bessie or Fido today, what's to stop him from eating me or you tomorrow?
Is it really plausible? I can think of a handy natural experiment. The only nations I know of where dog meat is eaten (though illegal) are the Philippines and Korea. I wonder if we can find any statistics to indicate a an extraordinary propensity towards cannibalism there.

Oddly enough, there was a tellything last week about a guy who stays with various interesting indigenous people around the world and shares their hallucinogenic drugs etc. etc. Last week he was in Sarawak with some jungle nomads. They kept a pet monkey, pig, chicken and squirrel which they said they would not dream of eating. Yet they hunted close up and personally butchered these same species.

And while I'm at it...I'm not sure if I buy Math's connection between eating animals and not caring about the fate of Burmese Buddhists.

And I'd lay money on there not being markedly more murderers in slaughterhouses, too. I think we'd have heard.

Hi Eddie

"Well, I didn't use the full quote because it's a tautology. We define being good to animals as 'good', therefore good people are those who are kind to animals."

You define animals as being 'good', I don't. However, I believe that the willingness of a man to cause unnecessary suffering is a measure of his ability to function well in society. Cruelty is not a trait well thought of.

"Indeed. We have evolved as empathic animals. We can 'feel' pain in others, by inference. But let's unpack this even further: What do we suppose might be the survival value in our empathy?"

The ability to empathise with others is what allows us to transcend being a pack animal towards becoming a social one. Otherwise when a man moved in with his new girlfriend he might be inclined to slaughter the offspring of her previous relationship .

In the wild humans are not fast, they have poor scent, hearing and night vision, they have no claws and poor teeth. They are a predator's breakfast. By forming societies though man has been able overcome these physical deficiencies.

Thus I would say that empathy is an evolutionary development that allows societies to form.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Bingo, Math! That's wher I've been gently trying to lead us: empathy for animals as an evolutionary byproduct of our socially necessary empathy for fellow humans.

However...we observe that some people empathise far more closely woth humans than animals, and far more closely with certain animals than others.

So my question is...is empathy with animals necessary for a civilised society? Is it reasonable to suggest that it has a different moralm status - a 'nice to have' rather than an imperative?

And the answer surely is it depends what you call civilised
Plenty of people considered themselves civilised with slavery (and we call them civilised in history books) but we would consider going back to slavery barbaric
Maybe our society is elvolving to a more civilised state as concern for animals becomes a legitimate moral issue

Hi Blackberry Cat ,,,>^..^<,,,

I agree with most of what you say but notice the following:
"but we would consider going back to slavery barbaric".

The Anti-Slavery Society believe there are now more slaves in the world than there has ever been. Most of them being used to provide the West with cheap goods, and many of them are children.

We accept this every time we buy a pair of £4 hjeans from Tesco or ASDA.

Civilised? I don't think so yet...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Hi Eddie ,

"Bingo, Math! That's wher I've been gently trying to lead us: empathy for animals as an evolutionary byproduct of our socially necessary empathy for fellow humans."

Indeed.

"However...we observe that some people empathise far more closely woth humans than animals, and far more closely with certain animals than others."

Nobody's perfect...

"So my question is...is empathy with animals necessary for a civilised society?"

Yes.

"Is it reasonable to suggest that it has a different moralm (sic) status - a 'nice to have' rather than an imperative?"

No.

All this hangs on whether you believe that humans are somehow separate from the rest of the planet or are an integral part of it. if you believe the former then empathy for animals is an extra, if you believe the latter it is a necessary component of civilised social behaviour.

Anyone who is capable of deliberately causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is only one step away from being able to do that to their fellow humans. We have seen many examples in recent years of where ordinary folk have dehumanised their neighbours and then 'treated them like animals' (i.e. The Balkans, Abu Ghreib prison etc...).

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>Anyone who is capable of deliberately causing unnecessary suffering to an animal is only one step away from being able to do that to their fellow humans.

But...assuming that all US prison guards and Serbian Fascists were not first animal torturers (I'm guessing)...were they displaying lack of empathy towards animals or towards humans?

Supplementary question:

Is it humanly possible to repudiate Abu Ghraib, Srebrenica...etc. yet justify animal experimentation?

<>

Very true. In many areas the last couple of centuries have seen the worst horrors humanity is capable of and we in the West are dependent on things we claim to abhor

<>

Not sure its possible to justify animal experimentation but I'm sure its possible to sincerely repudiate Abu Ghraib etc and believe animal experimentation is justified

Kind of what I meant.

So why the disconnect in some peoples' minds?

OK - I'll fully accept that we'd generally be suspicious of the kind of person who'd kick dogs or torture kittens for a perverse thrill. We'd suspect a psycopathic desire to cause suffering which might well also be applied to other humans.

On the other hand...there are some who genuinely see a moral duty to put aside whatever empathy they may have for animals so that they can perform medical experiments on them for the benefit of humans. I feel that they are entitled to regard themselves as civilised - arguably as one of the highest expressions of our civilsation.

On the other hand...what if BC's (and Math's) comparison with slavery is accurate: that those who don't extend 'human' rights to all beings are morally blind in the same way as those who selectively apply human rights to different colours of human? (Personally I regard this as a vacuous belittling of the evils of slavery - but that's by the by). OK - so this gives us a paradox:
- Do we have a moral duty to act against slavery? Yes - even though we might not be personally involved.
- Do we have a moral duty to do speak out against the oppression in Burma? Yes - even though it's nothing to do with us.
SO:
Why don't we also have aduty to do something about the treatment of zebra by leopards? I keep coming back to this one. Is our duty or is it not to act against suffering? Ah, but...leopards need zebra to survive!
SO:
Would we have a duty to protect a human against a leopard?
Or our Darfur refugees against competition from rats?

And if not...why are we bothered about slaves or monks?

Hi Eddie ,

You are a one

Let us face thy pair-a-doxies then:

1. Do we have a moral duty to act against slavery?
Yes - even though we might not be personally involved.
Agreed, though we are personally involved as we buy the products of slavery. It is a bit like someone buying an Ivory Carving saying "well the deaths of them elephants is nowt to do with me". Supply and demand my dear boy.

2. Do we have a moral duty to do speak out against the oppression in Burma?
Yes - even though it's nothing to do with us.
Agreed, except that it has everything to do with us (especially us rascally Brit's - but that is another argument altogether).

SO:
3. Why don't we also have a duty to do something about the treatment of zebra by leopards? I keep coming back to this one. Is our duty or is it not to act against suffering? Ah, but...leopards need zebra to survive!

Oi vey! I thought we'd been through this one. A Leopard is, (a) a carnivore and can't survive on free range tofu-burgers or quorn, and (b) it hasn't the mental capacity to appreciate that what it does is cruel by human standards. There again 'human standards' include Halal Animal Killing...

SO:
4a. Would we have a duty to protect a human against a leopard?
Possibly. But we could act in a preventive manner and separate Leopards from this temptation.

4b. Or our Darfur refugees against competition from rats?
You don't have to slaughter or poison rats to keep them away from the grain. Steel grain containers work just fine. Some Aid Agencies use old Shipping Containers to great effect.

5. And if not...why are we bothered about slaves or monks?
Because we are capable of moral choices that are also pragmatic and enhance the evolutionary prospects of our species.

Does that cover it?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

Yes, not that predators generally attack humans unless their young is threatened or similar. The main exceptions are those like polar bears who haven't had enough contact with humans to know how dangerous they are. Wolves weren't exterminated in Britain to protect humans who they rarely attacked. It was the livestock we were worried about.

Hmm. I'm not convinced that British responsibility for recent Burmese history is anything more than a marginal consideration. I would have hoped that (say) the Swedes or Americans would also feel morally obliged to speak out. And in any case...I'm not sure that you, Math, bear any personal responsibility for the current situation. Obviously that doesn't absolve you, or any of us, from our moral obligation.

As for the lesser capacity of leopards...what you're saying, then, is that because leopards lack the capacity to empathise, they are blameless. I quite agree. But then...observably, many (most?) humans also lack this capacity in relation to animals and have for millenia failed to acquire it. Surely by the same argument they're equally blameless?

As for the business of we should have protected the grain in steel silos/ we should have separated the people from the leopards....etc. I'm afraid that's ducking the ethical issue. It reminds me of Tommy Cooper: "I says, 'Doctor, it hurts when I do this'. He says 'Well, don't do that, then'." Leopards (and crocodiles and hippopotomi and mosquitoes) *do* get amongst people. If you saw a leopard stalking a human, were holding a gun and failed to shoot the leopard, I'd want to see you in a court of law to justify your inaction. I'd also want to see a local authority in court if it failed in its public duty to keep rats under control. Nope...'shoulda's' don't count. It's a bit like failing to oppose Nazism on the grounds that the Treaty of Versailles was poorly phrased.

None of this precludes our taking the necessary measures to avoid the issues arising...but they do. For instance, at present it is not possible to develop certain medical technologies without using animals. We would be morally negligent if we let people die as a result. This does not preclude us from continuing to seek aesthetically preferable techniques which reduce animal use - provided they are at least equally effective.

(Oh...and I just want to clear up the presumption that halal slaughter is drastically crueller than mainstream industrial slaughter. I doubt it. We're kidding ourselves if we think so.)

Hi Eddie

But I do feel responsible for the Burmes Monks. As a supporter of the Free Tibet campaign for many years (decades actually now I come to think of it) I have had the happy occasion to meet many Buddhist Monks. They are truly lovely people and I was so proud when they stepped forward to enact the principle of right action and defend their people from further suffering.

Now they have been taken away to a fate I can barely even imagine, and the world is turning its back. After all the Western Governments have to keep China sweet, and what is a few monks here or there...?

Sorry, but it makes me very, very angry!

Onto Leopards.

They do indeed lack the capacity to empathise, but Humans do not (except in a few cases of mental illness or handicap), Humans can choose.

As for the Leopard stalking the Human. If I had the gun I'd fire it over the Leopard's head and watch it hightail it into the bush. I'm not ducking an ethical issue, you are just not presenting a realistic one.

How about the vegetarian on the deserted island with just a pig for company? Personally I'd be eating bacon for breakfast, that is sheer survival. In our modern world though we are unlikely to ever face that sort of moral dilemma. We have the capacity and opportunity to make other choices.

The reduction of animal suffering by the slow but steady reduction in industrial farming practices, the reduction of animal suffering by toughening the rules regarding the necessity for animal testing, the increasing protection of natural habitats. These are all practical and within our capacity, without risking the life of a single human.

We can do this. To do otherwise is cruel and unnecessary.

As for your statement about Halal slaughter being no worse well you obviously haven't observed either at first hand. I have. I know which I would choose if I were to be the next animal on the hook...

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>>But I do feel responsible for the Burmes Monks.

Well, yes..that's what I'm saying. Whether or not you're a meat-eating British non-Buddhist is morally irrelevant.

>>They do indeed lack the capacity to empathise, but Humans do not (except in a few cases of mental illness or handicap), Humans can choose.

To an extent...yes. But we have to accept that empathy for animals is an evolutionary byproduct of our necessary empathy for humans. It seems to me that this puts it in a slightly different place, ethically speaking.

Now, it's clear that humans would never have predominated over the millenia (and I know that you believe this is a bad thing ) unless we'd been able to set aside our empathy long enough to kill and eat the buggers. Obviously that doesn't mean we still have to eat them. But what it does say is that it is possible (and reasonable) to hold a moral disconnect between how we treat animals and people. Beyond a certain degree, less than perfect treatment of animals does not lead inexorably towards poor treatment of humans.

Where does this leave us? To my mind, it means we have a civilisation in which while there is a degree of moral consensus on what we should and shouldn't do to people (even if many transgress the consensus) there is more debate about animals. This is not due to moral blindness, but to differences of opinion. Human use of animals is not even remotely comparable to slavery...etc.

My own opinions, for what they're worth:
- I wouldn't want anything to do with someone who tortured kittens for a hobby.
- I'll give my children the most severe of my various levels of telling off if they frighten the guinea rabbits.
- I don't think we need to eat meat and don't myself - but to be honest I'm not much bothered if others do. The distinction between 'good' and 'bad' farming is unpersuasive, though.
- Medical scientists should be applauded for standing up to the whims of protesters by continuing to put human lives before animals.

<>

It isn't an exact comparision since the differences between humans and animals are real whereas those between groups of humans were artificial/imagined but I still feel it is comparable

<<- I wouldn't want anything to do with someone who tortured kittens for a hobby.
- I'll give my children the most severe of my various levels of telling off if they frighten the guinea rabbits.
- I don't think we need to eat meat and don't myself - but to be honest I'm not much bothered if others do. The distinction between 'good' and 'bad' farming is unpersuasive, though.
- Medical scientists should be applauded for standing up to the whims of protesters by continuing to put human lives before animals.>>

Well I'd agree with most of that except the last. You seem to be arguing that all our morality here is largely a matter of personal taste then saying the morality you agree with is to be applauded. My disagreement with you here is no way to be taken as support for those who dig up graves/ bomb scientists etc.

In the case of medical scientists...I believe that their decision *is* to be applauded. It's a profound contribution to the human good, yours and mine. They've been able to make it by putting aside any personal empathy they or any of us might feel towards animals. This might seem callous...but then I don't think I could distance myself enough to tolerate slicing open a human being and sticking my hand in.

That doesn't mean that I denegrate the feelings of those who feel empathy with animals. All I'm saying is that it's a matter of aesthetics. It doesn't make them morally superior.

And as for why slavery is comparable to maltreatment of animals...again, as far as I can see, the comparison is in the subjective preferences of those who feel that way. That's fair enough. But the two are on different ethical dimensions.

Hi Eddie ,

"In the case of medical scientists...I believe that their decision *is* to be applauded. It's a profound contribution to the human good, yours and mine."

Depending upon your definition of human good... There are many medical scientists who's entire careers serve nothing but the profits of Big Pharma. They use animals to test food colourings, new drugs that cure nothing but just relieve symptoms, the effects of man made environments upon creatures etc., etc...

"They've been able to make it by putting aside any personal empathy they or any of us might feel towards animals. This might seem callous...but then I don't think I could distance myself enough to tolerate slicing open a human being and sticking my hand in."

You assume that most of them are doing it from some great altruism, when in fact many do it just for the paycheque.

Another way of looking at is so it's alright for you to torture animals for the greater good, but if I go around killing convicted child molestors I am immoral?

"That doesn't mean that I denegrate the feelings of those who feel empathy with animals. All I'm saying is that it's a matter of aesthetics. It doesn't make them morally superior."

Suffering is not a matter of aesthetics.

"And as for why slavery is comparable to maltreatment of animals...again, as far as I can see, the comparison is in the subjective preferences of those who feel that way. That's fair enough. But the two are on different ethical dimensions."

Why? Just because you are human, not a Bonobo?

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>Suffering is not a matter of aesthetics<

And how!

I don't agree that scientists should be applauded for being able to turn off their empathy. It's a symptom of sociopathy, not a virtue.