The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Embracing Life > Comments

Embracing Life : Comments

By George Seymour, published 11/3/2010

An ethical mind takes seriously the question of the assertion of their will over the lives of others, including animals.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
George,
thanks for speaking out on the painful realities that underpin our lives. We all fail to give enough 9or any) consideration to the implications of the choices we make. Of course we once had to kill the animal ourselves and clean it before cooking, but now all such unpleasantness is kept well out of view, along with human sickness and death. It's consumer paradise; we can have anything want, for a price, and need not concern ourselves with the "real" price that's paid. Indeed, we live our lives for the most part remote from any of those more viceral realities, right up to the grand scale of climate change. We equivocate on the pros and cons of the validity of AGW, yet there's absolutely no question about the "ethics" of our impact on the biosphere and the species we drive to extinction. Just as Gill's unspeakable need for experience predominates over any consideration of another animal's basic right to life, so the teeming life on planet Earth doesn't get a guernsey when it comes to maintaining our profligate lifestyles. (Peter Singer will be discussing the ethics of climate change on Big Ideas this weekend).
As you say, ethics tends to be an "esoteric subject" rather than having the kind of inhibiting function it ought to have on human society and government, filtering down to each one of us.
Be ready to be branded a green loony, but good on you for discussing such an "esoteric" subject: human compassion and ethics!
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 11 March 2010 10:26:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article George. I have had dogs all my life. They feel emotions, happy, sad, pain, just like humans do. Anyone who says that they are incapable of suffering has got rocks in their head.
Posted by DigDoug, Thursday, 11 March 2010 12:07:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, I also worry about the rights of plants. I remember seeing a documentary once in which they wired up a cabbage with sensory electrodes of some kind, and then the guy hit it with a meat cleaver. You shoulda seen it. The cabbage shrieked off the dial; silently screaming in its pain and distress, and then it kind of went on a long, low whimpering.

At one time women were excluded from the category of human - they didn't have a soul, which God had breathed on man alone. Then blacks were excluded on some other arbtirary criterion - they hadn't reached higher civilisation, or higher evolution, or higher something or other, blah blah blah. Then people excluded animals - they supposedly didn't feel pain, even though it's obvious they do.

But I say, why should plants be excluded? Some say they don't feel pain or sentience, but why should pain or sentience be the criteria? They are no less arbitrary than the criteria by which women, and blacks, and animals have been excluded from recognition of their rights not to be exploited and abused. And do not vegetables live, and have offspring?

Since becoming a breatharian I feel relieved to be so much more morally superior to the other mundanes whom I despise, and it's true I have lost a lot of weight, but now I worry about the abuse of the rights of oxygen atoms and their electrons that I so thoughtlessly exploit and abuse, o mea culpa, mea culpa. "Tired with all these, for restful death I cry".
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 11 March 2010 3:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter Hume,
you rightly satirise the logical extremes to which this line of reasoning tends, yet it's to be hoped that, rational creatures that we are, we can act ethically within reason, rather than abandon ethics as unreasonable. At present, the ethics of the daily meal, indeed the ethics of everything we do, are easily elided; the victims, by so many degrees of separation, being at a tasteful remove from the sanitised saturnalia of civilised life. We are thus free to aestheticise and rationalise our attenuated barbarities. Indeed, we may chuckle about the absurdity of it all :-)))
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 11 March 2010 3:54:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting article.

I suspect that as we evolve further from our animal roots, and begin to use more of our brain, the issues raised here will become more widely discussed.

The "kill or be killed" instinct first morphed into "kill for food", and then later into "kill for pleasure". We still haven't thought through the last one very carefully. The sight of the mammoth struggle between man and fish never fails to fascinate me - what goes through the mind of the guy with the rod, as he engages in a battle of wits and strength with a 25cm yellowtail?

The article also makes the point that:

"The interests of animals are all too often discounted and discarded. They are treated as property before the law and in practice."

This extends, of course, to the keeping of animals as pets. The concept of "owning" an animal, and keeping it in captivity for the term of its natural life is also, I feel, a hangover from our more primitive days.

Definitely food for thought.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 12 March 2010 7:37:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:"The concept of "owning" an animal, and keeping it in captivity for the term of its natural life is also, I feel, a hangover from our more primitive days"

My dog Max is no captive. He doesn't even have a collar and has no fences keeping him from roaming. He travels everywhere with me of his own volition. If I have to leave him home, he is not happy. He'd do just fine if he was to go bush, but he doesn't want to.

I agree that dogs are often poorly treated by their "loving" owners, but not always and not by necessity, merely convenience.

I reject any claim that my dogs are in any way chattels; they have always been valued companions and as much as possible, individuals in their own right.

You're probably right about the atavism inherent in the impulse to have a dog around. No doubt as the human population increases to the point of unsutainability such impulses will be subsumed by the drive to get enough food and dogs will become a thing of the past except as working animals.

I'm sure that by then Sony will have perfected their robotic substitute.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 12 March 2010 8:04:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely, Antiseptic.

>>My dog Max is no captive. He doesn't even have a collar and has no fences keeping him from roaming. He travels everywhere with me of his own volition. If I have to leave him home, he is not happy. He'd do just fine if he was to go bush, but he doesn't want to<<

I have long reconciled myself to the fact that my concerns about dogs being kept as playthings for their human owners are well accepted by most dog-owners.

Except of course that it doesn't apply to their own particular Rover or Fido, who couldn't be happier.

Give him a biscuit from me, won't you.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 12 March 2010 4:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I may be a bit more primitive than most.

I have caught & hunted my for my food, many times. As a kid I took rabbits for food, & their skins. I have raised cattle for food, also. That doesn't stop you loving them.

My old shotgun has produced something to eat for every shot. Yes I did miss a couple of times, but as I got older, rather than climbing, I would shoot hands of coconuts out of the palm. It may take 4 shots to fell a hand of 10 nuts, so you catch up for misses.

Animals can be very happy living with us. My stalion is over 20, & has been with us since he was 4 months old, when he came with his mother. We raised him, "broke" & trained him, & my daughter & I show jumped him for years.

He won many events, because he jumped beautifully. He did that because he trusted us not to ask him for anything he couldn't do. He is enjoying his retirement, but comes, often at the trot, when he sees us comming. He even has different calls for me, or her.

Another of my old horses hated retirement. He became miserable when we stopped riding him regularly, & stood at the paddock gate all day, looking up to the house. I invited one of the local pony club kids, to compete with him. When she started training him 3 or 4 days a week, he stopped his lonely vigil at the gate.

Even a couple of years later, when he was ready to retire, he had to live up near the house, get a lot of attention, & a ride from time to time.

I am quite sure our animals have had a better life with us, than they would have had, in the wild.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 12 March 2010 6:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, it has been proven again and again that people who own and love pets and animals are:
less likely to have high blood pressure,
less likely to suffer from a mental illness,
far less likely to be admitted to hospital,
and, most importantly, less likely to assault or murder humans!

Doesn't look good for you does it? :)
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 12 March 2010 10:33:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My daughter when aged 8yrs purchased a goldfish named Whisky.
As I had only ever caught fish humanely and returned them to the sea; never bonded with any.
Whisky was 5yrs old on the day my daughter turned 13 attending a school excursion interstate and asked the family to feed Whisky during her absence.

Over the years I noticed Whisky occasionally retreating to the bottom of the tank when an altercation or argument erupted in the household. When the arguments had ceased; Whisky would rise to the top and stare at everyone in the loungeroom blowing bubbles. When peace reigned Whisky would not blow bubbles for weeks nor zoom to the bottom of his tank.

I fed Whisky his normal pinch while my daughter was away, chatted to him and gave attention as my daughter had over the years that week.

On the day of my daughter's birthday on her excursion Whisky died aged 5yrs.

I chatted to a pet shop owner months later about it and her reply was that goldfish definitely comprehend more than what people give them credit for. She has interacted with many over her 20year pet shop career and said it is sad that people just assume goldfish or any fish do not feel emotions or pain
Posted by we are unique, Sunday, 14 March 2010 10:44:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting line of reasoning, suzeonline.

>>Pericles, it has been proven again and again that people who own and love pets and animals are: less likely to have high blood pressure, less likely to suffer from a mental illness, far less likely to be admitted to hospital, and, most importantly, less likely to assault or murder humans! Doesn't look good for you does it? :)<<

Couple of points.

This would seem to support my point that we humans are exploiting animals to our own advantage, would it not? The benefits are all on our side, none on theirs.

And if your intention was to show concern for me personally, as in my life - or the lives of those around me - might be in danger, have no fear.

My views on the topic are entirely grounded in my love for animals. I'm entirely unconvinced that the act of ownership confers any particular added virtue, health benefit or longevity.

On the topic of longevity, it seems to me particularly selfish of elderly people to keep dogs in captivity, and in doing so deprive them of exercise and fresh air, bar the odd toddle to the shops and back.

Just saying.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 March 2010 8:10:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles:"The benefits are all on our side, none on theirs."

Hardly. My dog's, of which there have been 10 over the years have been keopt free of vermin, well fed, rarely been restrained and have had a varied and stimulating lifestyle. Domestic dogs, on the whole live much longer than their wild counterparts and do so much less stressfully for all of their extended span.

I expect Max to live to perhaps 15 or 16, while a wild dog or wolf will last to perhaps 5 or 6, the last couple usually constantly hungry as they lose status within their pack. I doubt that the relative extension of my life would come close, assuming suze is right.

Pericles:"t seems to me particularly selfish of elderly people to keep dogs in captivity, and in doing so deprive them of exercise and fresh air, bar the odd toddle to the shops and back."

Circumstances alter cases. I do take your point about the elderly, but very often the dog in question is also elderly and has been a companion for years. Two old creatures gently decaying together doesn't sound so bad, does it?

I expect Max to go when I'm around the mid-60s. I'll very probably have acquired another dog in the couple of preceding years, which will be my last. I'm sure the grandkids will love playing with it and it with them.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 15 March 2010 8:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's an ancient couple, a male human and a non-descript (like a four legged Joda) canine, who daily circumnavigate the park accross the road in pigeon steps, halting frequently and apparently appraising one another's progress along the way. If anything the human more often than not waits patiently for the dog (who, from his gait I infer is afflicted with arthritis) to take numerous pauses. Both are very timid and one must accost them during their perambulations with exceeding deference lest they fall down dead from the fright. The human chats incessantly but the canine doesn't deign to engage him in conversation, though he looks up frequently in acknowledgment of his partner's perpetual monologue.
It's a pathetic sight---but endearing.
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 15 March 2010 9:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic: " ...Two old creatures gently decaying together doesn't sound so bad, does it?"

You put that so well.

Unique: My sister had three or four fish for many years too; buying bigger and bigger tanks - one fish in particular was enormous. She'd be shocked that I can't recall her pets' names just now, but they used to follow her by swimming along the tank wall as she walked about the house. One big fella in particular seemed very attached to her. She grieved terribly when he died.

Pericles: I like very much that you're concerned about the exploitation of animals even when it happens under the guise of loving care. Of course it's true that the relationship is an unequal one and the justifications often sound the same as those used to control slaves and all that. I am dismayed by any overt cruelty and even by listening to control freaks bossing their pets around.

However, I think that for many of us the relationship is symbiotic. We could say that putting food out is a way of creating dependency and maintaining control. Or we could think of it as sharing our bounty in a way that helps towards survival of another species.

I think that most people who've lived in the outback have had the experience of animals approaching to scavenge for food. I guess that's how our human-dog relationships began. I think Antiseptic described the less-than-Disney reality of life for wild pack animals accurately.

If we don't indulge in this symbiotic relationship it would probably be much easier to objectify the other and cultivate indifference to any cruelty perpetrated against them
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 15 March 2010 9:34:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for treating the subject with respect, Pynchme.

Usually, around this point in a discussion on this topic, I am being soundly beaten about the ears by "pet-lovers" of all shapes and sizes.

>>I think that for many of us the relationship is symbiotic. We could say that putting food out is a way of creating dependency and maintaining control. Or we could think of it as sharing our bounty in a way that helps towards survival of another species.<<

I would suggest that this is extremely close to "cargo cult" thinking.

"They observed as aircraft descended from the sky and delivered crates full of clothing, tents, weapons, tools, canned foods, and other goods to the island’s new residents, a diversity of riches the likes of which the islanders had never seen. The natives learned that this bounty from the sky was known to the American servicemen as 'cargo.'"

http://www.damninteresting.com/john-frum-and-the-cargo-cults

The dependency that you refer to is not necessarily deliberately created (although the teaching tricks to dogs via the presence or absence of a "treat" comes damned close), or with malice intended. But is exists nonetheless.

It is the warm and fuzzy mutual love-in that people like to believe in when it comes to pets.

I simply see that as the exception, rather than the rule.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 15 March 2010 5:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well I'll just butt out while you all have your own little love-in, sniff each others armpits etc. The points I make are merely vitally important, but as usual not taken up.
For what it's worth, I hardly think it's pertinent talking about the ethics of trans-species domecticity and ever-loving goldfish while we're processing animals into meat on a staggering, and invisible, scale.
You're all ust to subtle for me on this one!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 15 March 2010 6:27:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers: Geez sorry. I hope you don't butt out because I like reading your posts.

I think it is pertinent though to talk about the power-differentials in our relationships with other species. The article talked about killing a creature because the creep deemed his whim more important than an animal's right to live. IMO - a tragic waste of life and disgustingly selfish of the human.

So then I considered how we can be so loving and protective towards some creatures and yet dish out so much cruelty to others, which I referred to when I mentioned that distance from animals (ie: not having them as companions) might make it even easier to objectify them and ignore their suffering.

Sorry that I didn't respond directly to your posts but they seemed so sensible and complete that they didn't seem to need any elaboration on my part.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 12:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Squeers

Just ask farmers how they can have personal relationships with some animals, like sheep/cattle dogs and even the stray lamb or calf that was raised by hand, yet send animals off to slaughter houses - the dichotomy of being human, fallible and omnivores.

On considering what domestic pets have to gain from relationships with humans, after the massive hailstorm two Saturdays ago, one of my cats, who taught himself to jump on my shoulder, spent a good half hour stretched across my shoulders after coming in from the storm. We both benefited from the comforting closeness. And quite frankly I always feel humbled whenever an animal has sought me out for help.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 8:07:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,
sorry about my little dummy spit, though I wasn't specifically thinking of you (and I like reading your posts too btw).
There are a few issues on which my contributions tend to be a refrain, but they're seldom taken up. I'll have to a bit more nuanced; and not for me to dictate what people talk about :-)
Now, finally, I'm going to listen to that Background Briefing episode with Peter Singer (first chance I've had) and might have more to say then.

Severin,
It is a bit odd, almost like famrers use a different hemisphere of the brain for loving their pets and sending animals to slaughter respectively. My in-laws are cattle farmers and are rearing a poddy now (Sadie), who's to be a pet. At least farmers have to deal with the harsh realities of supply and demand--the incredible logistics involved in society's prandial extravigance. As in most departments, modern civilisation, the commodity is far removed from the realities of life; a thick layer of "techne" keeps us well and trully insulated in the abstract, apropos materialism.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 1:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day Squeers: I didn't mean to be too self-referential either but nevertheless could only speak for myself. I really do enjoy your posts regardless of whether or not we agree. I like your emphasis on ethics too. I recall a post once where you talked about the way in capitalism, marxism and the like (or ideals really) disintegrate into exploitative systems because of human failings and a lack of ethics.
Are you a philosopher (apart from the sense in which we all are, whether aware of it or not) ?

Is this the Peter Singer item - Sustainable Living - you're planning to listen to?

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2837901.htm
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 3:00:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh and PS - I didn't think of it as a dummy spit; but the way you worded it was pretty funny. So much imagery crammed in to such a short post. lmao - was good reading. Of course the exasperation was apparent so I just wanted to apologize for contributing to it.

Re: Peter Singer. (I can't listen to it just now). Will you give us a sum up of it? What's he say about animals?
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 3:03:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd recommend everyone listen to Peter Singer at this link http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bigideas/stories/2010/2837901.htm (thanks Pynchme) as too much for me to summarise.
It probably doesn't pay for us to really consider the ethics of our situation, as to live ethically would be tantamount to us all donning orange robes and becoming Buddhists, quite literally renouncing the lifestyles to which we've become accustomed.
As for the minimifidianists, well, I defy them to find the flaw in Singer's logic. Our situation is ethically untenable.

Pynchme: Continental philosophy plays a large part in my research; as for being a philosopher, only in an interdisciplinary sense, and as a lifelong dedicated amateur :-)
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 5:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy