A more detailed and less ideological treatment of this subject will reveal may cracks in the argument. I suggest that the writer should read MacIntyre, "After Virtue" especially chapter 5

The author writes: “Denmark's recent ban on religious slaughter for halal and kosher meat has outraged Muslims and Jews, who see it as a violation of human rights; their argument, however, is not that the Minister is ignoring God's law, but that cutting the throats of animals is not cruel.”

He has oversimplified matters. Their argument is only partially that cutting the throats of animals is not cruel. It is also other than that. It is also that the Danish government has interfered with the right of a religious community to practice its faith in accordance with its religious law. They probably grant that the Minister is not obliged to observe Islamic and Jewish law, but he is overstepping his authority in restricting Muslims and Jews from doing so.

Actually the question of whether cutting an animal’s throat is less cruel than other means of animal slaughter depends on what the other means of animal slaughter are. However, one can carry the argument further. One can contend that one avoids cruelty to animals by not raising them and then killing them for food. One can substitute vegetable protein for animal protein and not kill animals for food at all. That would put less strain on the environment. Of course most Danes accept killing animals for food. We can even go further and contend that the slaughter of cockroaches, ants or other forms of animal life that interfere with human well-being is not justified since other forms of life have as much right to life as humans have to their well-being.

One can also question the Danish government’s ban on ritual slaughter on the grounds that it may have been motivated by the desire to bring Jewish and Muslim practices in conformity with the mores of the majority population. It also may have been inspired as a measure to discourage further Muslim immigration.

I don’t know whether the ban was justified. I don’t know whether it was primarily a concern with animal welfare or an attempt to bring the Islamic and Jewish communities into line. I suspect it was both.

.

I still have a vivid memory of my visit, as a boy, to my home-town slaughter yards and abattoir in the Queensland outback.

I can still see those big innocent eyes of the lambs looking out at me as they were held in the tight embrace of the slaughterer as he slit their throats.

The pigs were stabbed in the neck with a pick, the blood gushing out onto the concrete floor and running into the drain like rainwater.

The cattle (mostly steers, heifers and some cows) were hustled, one at a time, into a narrow, rectangular enclosure of wooden beams which was quickly closed behind them once they were in.

The slaughterer then hoisted himself up onto the top of the enclosure, straddling the animal beneath him with a foot on the top beam of each side of the enclosure. He then proceeded to smash the animal on the head with a sledge-hammer.

I can still hear the sickening sound of the solid steel on bone and the howling moan of the beast as its knees buckled with each blow from which there was no escape. After a half a dozen blows it was left reeling with pain and shock, trapped between the wooden beams, literally knocked-out on its feet.

The slaughterer then scrambled down from his perch, threw down the sledge-hammer, picked up his rifle and put the poor beast out of its misery with a single shot between the eyes. He then slit the beast's throat from ear to ear, the blood gushing out onto the concrete floor, flowing into the drains.

That was the work of a good professional in those days. It had nothing to do with religion.

It was an impressive experience, even though I was used to chopping off the heads of fowls, ducks, geese and turkeys which my brother and I raised in our back-yard for the family consumption. I also used to ride off into the bush on my bike to shoot the occasional rabbit with my .303 army rifle I bought for a few shillings from military surplus.

.

Re comment by Sells: I don’t believe there is anything in McIntyre’s book which undermines any views or arguments in this paper, but I would be interested to hear why you think otherwise; even a brief summary, with references, would help.

Re Jon J: They are not weasel words and your question is important but would require an article of its own. In the meantime you might be interested in a more extensive account in ‘Religion without God’, by R. Dworkin.

Max Atkinson

http://theamericanscholar.org/loving-animals-to-death/#.UzPb6SEU-FF argues that it is unethical to eat meat.

Some of the Inuit would starve to death without eating meat. I don't think there is any objective set of ethics, values or morals only the set of ethics we choose in our particular circumstances.

There is, of course, no objective religion also. If Sells or Sellick were Jewish or Muslim he would be a monotheist and could not accept the Trinity.

Jewish: Hear, O, Israel, the Lord, our God, the Lord is One.

Muslim: There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet.

Dear Max,

Thank you for your article. Well written and reasoned.

I would draw the distinction however between the 'ordinary, everyday values' or others such as those imposed by religious authority, and the 'value' ordinary people place on their religion.

The following link is a radio prank call organised by a gentleman's daughter with the aim of cheering him up before major surgery.

http://youtu.be/RQT1lF-gX6A

Besides being very amusing it is interesting the reaction of many non-believers to what occurs. The general theme is around the hypocrisy they judge the man displays when reacting to the deacon's request. To me his reaction was human and I get little sense of it impacting his faith.

I suspect that there are rational decisions made around retaining religious dogma implanted in ones formative years than most people are prepared to accept, although those decisions may be in a sense subconscious. For instance the welcome comfort of others praying for you or the thought that an intervening god might help have the dice roll your way may well serve to supercharge what scientists call the placebo effect and add to chances of surviving serious illnesses.

As a piece of moral philosophy your article is commendable, I'm just not sure of its relevance to ordinary religious folk nor if they would see themselves being referenced within.