The Forum > Article Comments > Embracing Life > Comments
Embracing Life : Comments
By George Seymour, published 11/3/2010An ethical mind takes seriously the question of the assertion of their will over the lives of others, including animals.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
-
- All
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 15 March 2010 9:12:54 AM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
It's a pathetic sight---but endearing.