"I'm happy that people are selectively compassionate instead of just universally careless. At least that gives us a starting point..."
That's a response I got from another facebook user after I suggested on The Oatmeal's facebook page that he (The Oatmeal, an internet figure usually concerned with comedy) should reconsider his support for the 'campaign to ban Melissa Buchman from South Africa'.
What I had suggested is that if you're going to hate hunters, you cannot defend meat eating. In the meat industry, animals are killed every minute of every day. They live cramped, awful lives. With hunting, animals are killed less frequently, live longer, and suffer less. But the quality of the animal's life isn't what is at stake here - they may live traditional farm-animal lives, not the horrific lives of factory farmed animals. Instead, what is of moral concern is the death of an animal - for the dubious purpose of human comfort. People hunt for trophies or for food - or both. Hunting is done for human comfort, yet people think raising animals just to hunt them is somehow different from farming where we use them for comfort (e.g. leather goods) or consumption. At bottom, eating meat and having a hunting trophy are the same thing; recreational. You could do without both. Canned hunting is just as cowardly as not killing the animals you eat yourself, but having them killed 'en masse' at locations far removed from you and then eating them in the comfort of your own home. You are dealing with the mass 'production' of sentient beings.
Killing for fun is disgusting (as is the case with some hunting), but today eating meat is, most often, 'just for fun'. We have all the means to do without it. But the habit remains, because it is fueled by a powerful drive - human taste. We eat meat for fun, because it tastes delicious. Even with serious scientific evidence suggesting that we stop eating meat:
(*) UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet (Lesser consumption of animal products is necessary to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change, UN report says)
(*) Or this study from medical journal JAMA Internal Medicine: Red Meat Consumption and Mortality (you can download the pdf)
I am aware that these two examples may be too meager for a staunch meat-eater to really take my point seriously. But these are antecedent issues. Let me attend to the real issue.
The anti-Buchman campaign has made this woman the face of evil. It's a case of everyone finding some kind of catharsis by blaming a scapegoat for all the evil we commit against animals. This is the real face of evil: factory farming (follow link for video)
If the almost universal norm is that animals die for our comfort - be it in appalling conditions on factory farms or in exemplary conditions on traditional farms - how is it that this woman is being called unspeakable names for what she does? People are so ignorant and so cruel. We, the people of South Africa, hunt and kill animals too. Hunting here actually helps fund conservation efforts and helps population control. We have no 'real' wild animals here anyway. They're all protected on game farms or reserves.
But let me get back to my highly offensive and controversial title, which alludes to the real issue...
Recall the quote: "I'm happy that people are selectively compassionate instead of just universally careless. At least that gives us a starting point..." This was said in response to the problem I raised above, namely that people who hate hunting but don't condemn meat eating hold contradictory beliefs.
My response is NO.
Being selectively compassionate is what has gotten us to almost every horror that we have ever inflicted on non-human and human animals - patriarchy, slavery, human trafficking, religious wars, terrorism, factory farming, unnecessary and cruel animal testing. When one sentient being, a woman, a homosexual person, someone from a different race, a different religion, a different nationality, or an animal from a different (but equally able to suffer) species is excluded from moral feeling, humanity has failed. Our inability to reflect upon our responsibilities to other sentient beings is what this Buchman petition is evidence of. Not taking the time to think about a situation gives rise to shameful behaviour. Consider that all that has been achieved here is a hate campaign against one woman, instead of a sober and responsible reflection on human behaviour. Being selectively compassionate IS universally careless.
So let me try to really hit this home: If we are ignorant and cruel enough to deny this woman entry to our country for doing what very many South African nationals do, then we have failed ourselves. We have perpetrated the kind of wanton disregard for knowledge that enables the worst kinds of cruelty.
The thinking behind this outcry is the kind of thinking that enables horrible practices (such as human trafficking) to remain unattended to. Selective compassion.
*
So, if you have 45mins to spare, watch this really thoughtful man talk to Richard Dawkins:
Peter Singer interview
Peter Singer interview
"...but today eating meat is, most often, 'just for fun'. We have all the means to do without it." = wrong, most people who stop eating meat go back to doing so within 9 years citing health reasons.
ReplyDelete" It's a case of everyone finding some kind of catharsis by blaming a scapegoat for all the evil we commit against animals." = Oh please. I do not agree with the hate lumped on this woman, but many people are outraged this practice is legal regardless of who is doing it. This is about the killing of endangered animals for not gain, not simply the moral issue of whether any animal lives or dies by the human hand.
"Hunting here actually helps fund conservation efforts and helps population control." = Oh so very incorrect, see below:
"Approximately 600 lions are killed every year on trophy hunts, including lions in populations that are already declining from other threats. These hunts are unsustainable and put more pressure on the species...Despite the wild claims that trophy hunting brings millions of dollars in revenue to local people in otherwise poor communities, there is no proof of this."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/.../130802-lions.../
https://www.facebook.com/.../the-myth-of.../113648248684575
http://fightforrhinos.com/tag/canned-hunts/
"If we are ignorant and cruel enough to deny this woman entry to our country for doing what very many South African nationals do, then we have failed ourselves." = completely incorrect as the majority of this hunting is by Americans from overseas. Though I agree the hate should be on the practice not the woman.
And finally: when discussing compassion we must regard compassion in context. I could be broadly compassionate to everyone allowing people to murder each other because I feel it's their right to do so, or I could be selectively compassionate and only feel compassion for those who would be the victim of murder.
Selectivity is a way of showing consideration of multifaceted issues, to be broad scale is to be dangerously ignorant or many factors.
Hello “CM”. You made very many points in your comment. I hope to attend to each of them in enough detail. Thank you for taking the time to give your opinion.
DeleteYour first point: ["...but today eating meat is, most often, 'just for fun'. We have all the means to do without it." = wrong, most people who stop eating meat go back to doing so within 9 years citing health reasons.]
My response: Well, I would want to see where you found that statistic? Would you send it on please? Then, I would also suggest that when people cite health reasons, other factors may be at play. For example, the notion that ‘health reasons’ seems like a legitimate excuse. We lie to ourselves all the time. Maybe read or watch some Dan Ariely, the behavioural economist. He studies human biases in situations which require specific responses. People may also switch to vegetarianism or veganism but be unwilling to really research their own nutritional needs. Another issue is that people often switch back to meat eating because of the serious cultural, social backlash. It is difficult to commit to a life-style choice when your family alienates you. This may then result in poorer health in various ways.
Your 2nd point: [" It's a case of everyone finding some kind of catharsis by blaming a scapegoat for all the evil we commit against animals." = Oh please. I do not agree with the hate lumped on this woman, but many people are outraged this practice is legal regardless of who is doing it. This is about the killing of endangered animals for not gain, not simply the moral issue of whether any animal lives or dies by the human hand. ]
My response: I don’t understand your point here, but I will try figure it out. I say she is being made into a scapegoat for everything bad we do to animals. You say people are outraged because the act that hunting is legal, and the issue is about hunting endangered animals for nothing. You say that the issue is not about humans killing animals in general, but about hunting specifically. Do I understand you correctly?
If so then my response would be that yes, people are angry about hunting being legal. But the claim that I am making is about what is really at stake when people are so outraged. People are being confronted with the wanton death of animals, and they are making her into the face of a large issue. Thus, they are making her into a scapegoat. But, at the same time, people who are outraged about trophy hunting, because it is so pointless, think that in other circumstances, such as farming, the animal’s death is not pointless. So the believe that hunting/trophy hunting is evil, because the animal’s death is pointless. When an animal’s death is pointless, that is just totally unacceptable.
I argue that deep down we know that we shouldn’t be killing animals for food (it makes us uncomfortable to realise we are eating something which was once alive), because the animal’s death also has no point. We don’t HAVE to eat it. Do you see my point?
Your 3rd point: "Hunting here actually helps fund conservation efforts and helps population control." = Oh so very incorrect, see below:] And then you cite statistics and counter claims which I have checked out. So let me get back to you below…
DeleteMy response: I agree that hunting and trophy hunting can be very, very bad – and often is. But the point is that sometimes we need it. We need to be stricter, we need to police hunting and culling very, very well for it to make sense. Sometimes the death of an animal may be justified, sometimes not. We have to make sure that there is a real point to their death. But, when the norm is that we eat animals, and we believe we NEED to eat animals, we are never going to respect them enough to really weigh up each animal's death. And then, hunting won't be done in a responsible manner.
Your 4th point: ["If we are ignorant and cruel enough to deny this woman entry to our country for doing what very many South African nationals do, then we have failed ourselves." = completely incorrect as the majority of this hunting is by Americans from overseas. Though I agree the hate should be on the practice not the woman. ]
My response: Goodness, but you are vehement! I did not claim that the majority of hunting is done by SA nationals, I said that very many of us partake in it. So yes, the issue is the practice. We can’t ban this woman for doing what we legally allow other Americans and South Africans to do.
Your last point: [And finally: when discussing compassion we must regard compassion in context. I could be broadly compassionate to everyone allowing people to murder each other because I feel it's their right to do so, or I could be selectively compassionate and only feel compassion for those who would be the victim of murder. Selectivity is a way of showing consideration of multifaceted issues, to be broad scale is to be dangerously ignorant or many factors.]
My response: Let me first cite the definition of selectivite compassion I provide in my post: “When one sentient being […] is excluded from moral feeling” Let me deal with your murder/victim example.
Your definition of being broadly compassionate: Everyone has the right to murder
Your definition of being selectively compassionate: Murder victims deserve particular compassion.
This is just a very weird picture you have sketched.
Selective compassion is when we limit the scope of our morality to beings we prefer would be included, and exclude those who it would be more convenient for us to exclude, given certain other beliefs we hold. For example, one could say that we may murder Jews but not Germans, because Jews are not really people and thus don’t deserve compassion. Being broadly compassionate is not saying that everyone has the right to murder, it is saying that everyone has the right to a good life. When you are selectively compassionate, you give your compassion to some beings at the cost of others. However, when I am broadly compassionate, I include everyone/thing which is able to suffer in my moral continuum. And when I fight for animal rights, I don’t exclude people from moral feeling.
I really hope that I have attended to all your problems respectfully. Have a nice day!
You cannot accuse people who may be 'selectively compassionate' of not being compassionate at all. If you look at any grassroots movement pertaining to animal or human rights, most have had to be selective to be successful. Why do you think there are so many separate organisations for different animal rights issues? Yes, there are broad scale ones such as WWF, Greenpeace etc. that deal with a wide range of issues, but at the same time, they SELECTIVELY address each issue separately because it needs to be done that way. Please tell me how active you have been in addressing the issues of hunting, factory farming and other related issues collectively? If you have done so and are succeeding, I commend you, but from my experience it is extremely hard to simultaneously fight battles on multiple issues that all possess their own complexities. How many protests or rallies do you see where people are fighting EVERY SINGLE ISSUE relating to animals rights at the same time? I am sure there have been some, but I believe the successful ones are those that are 'selectively compassionate', as you call it. Being selective is a means of fighting specific issues in terms of their legislation in government or by targeting specific groups that oppose animal rights in different ways. It does not necessarily mean selecting one issue and ignoring all others.
ReplyDeleteAlso, in what way has 'selective compassion' led to slavery, patriarchy etc.? I would say that these problems have been due to selective hate, rather than compassion. White people were not being selectively compassionate to the rights of other white people - they were selectively oppressing the rights of people who were not white, just as men have done to women.
Also, if you yourself agree that the evidence you have cited regarding meat eating is "meager", then please find some better evidence. I do not agree with allowing animals to live in inhumane conditions so that we can profit from them and eat them, but at the same time, there is little to no proof to suggest that humans should not be eating meat. I am interested in fighting for better conditions for farmed animals, but biologically, humans need the sustenance of meat to survive and be healthy. Why else do you think vegetarians and vegans are advised to take so many supplements...? I don't disagree with not eating meat - I respect the choice to do so - but I don't think my opposition to hunting and my act of eating meat are in direct opposition to each other, as I care for the animals I eat and support the groups that fight for more humane farming of these animals.
I agree that it is hypocritical of people who care nothing for factory-farmed animals to have a strong opinion on hunting and against this particular woman. However, I believe that hypocrisy and being selectively compassionate about certain issues are different things.
Rachel. Thank you for your lengthy comment. I would like to take the time to respond to the most salient points you make, namely
Delete1) You feel like I misunderstand/misuse the notion of ‘selective compassion, and
2) You want more information about why we shouldn't eat meat.
Now, the first issue; you say “hypocrisy and being separately compassionate about certain issues are different things”.
Let me respond by citing the definition of selective compassion that I provide in my post: “When one sentient being […] is excluded from moral feeling”
So you have misunderstood what I was trying to convey. Hypocrisy is when people condemn hunting but continue to eat meat. The reason; the meat you eat had to be killed first. There are other issues at hand too, like what are the broader social, environmental and economic impacts of hunting. But that is not at issue in your comment, so let me move on. Selective compassion is when we limit the scope of our morality to beings we prefer would be included, and exclude those who it would be more convenient for us to exclude, given certain other beliefs we hold. For example, if we hold the belief that we need cow’s milk, then we will exclude cows from serious moral consideration when we elect to use their milk. Other examples could be made, such as when the people of a certain country that your own country is at war with are seen as less important than the political agenda of your own country. Or when a female hunter, who is equally human and equally able to suffer, is targeted with hate by millions of people who don’t know her and wouldn't want to be treated that way had they done an equally problematic thing (I’m not saying we shouldn’t hold people accountable for the wrongs they may do, but we must consider HOW we do so).
You ask; “in what way has 'selective compassion' led to slavery, patriarchy etc.? I would say that these problems have been due to selective hate, rather than compassion” I would totally disagree… haha. Let me explain again. What you are saying is that we select who to hate… but I would say that there is no reason to hate something if there is nothing/no-one that you already love or have compassion for to provide grounds for hating the person/thing which you see as opposing your values in some way. That was a long sentence, but I hope you get my meaning.
I agree that we can’t kill ourselves with caring by devoting all our time and effort to all things that deserve it, but that is not at issue. What is at issue is when we draw exclusionary lines upon our moral feelings to others who can, and do, suffer. We must acknowledge everything which is of moral concern, but can only devote ourselves to so many causes specifically. That doesn’t mean that when I fight for animal rights I stop acknowledging women’s rights. I still have compassion for all sentient beings. I am not being selectively compassionate. Compassion operates on an abstract, symbolic level. Activism, however, operates on a practical level. But I’m not going to get into the workings of the symbolic order here.
Now the second issue; “biologically, humans need the sustenance of meat to survive and be healthy. Why else do you think vegetarians and vegans are advised to take so many supplements...?”
DeleteWell, there are many reasons why people would advise vegetarians and vegans to take supplements. I have a few ideas. If you believe that meat is the most important or only source of protein, then you would advise those who don’t eat it to compensate for its absence from their diet. That would be one reason. But the protein issue is highly contested and many studies have been done which debunk the ‘protein myth’. Do some research. Here is a useful article which references nutritional research – you can go read the primary sources if you like: http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/protein.html
Then, if you change your diet, you need to be smart about it. Supplements are a way of side-stepping all the trouble of learning more about the nutritional value of different foods.
My issue is that no matter how happy the farm animals are, when you eat it but are unwilling to kill it yourself, then you are committing a logical inconsistency. And, more than that, you are being morally inconsistent. The only time when it is justified to kill an animal is when you have no other option for food. We have inherited meat eating from a time when we had to eat them in order to survive – today things are different. Furthermore, if you have an issue with canned hunting, you have to have an issue with farming – any kind of farming, factory or ‘traditional’. Both provide jobs to people, both are also recreational. Because we don’t need to eat the amount of meat that we do, and we don’t need to hunt. We eat SO MUCH meat it’s frightening. And we consume dairy – from pregnant cows. Eternally impregnated cows, so they keep on producing milk until they die. Read about the health issues surrounding dairy – we should stop consuming any form of milk after we are weaned from our mothers. Like other mammals.
My last point will be this; people who eat meat also have health issues. To think that only ‘veggies’ have to think long and hard about they eat is just not reasonable.
I hope I have answered you well and have not upset you. Have a lovely day.
P.S. If you are keen to learn more about the ethics surrounding meat, go watch some youtube videos of the philosopher and ethicist Peter Singer. And maybe read this:
http://altering-perspectives.com/2013/11/scientists-sign-declaration-animals-conscious-awareness-just-like-humans.html
The page provides links to read more about the study itself, so follow them if you want to read more.