Cruel Arguments

THESE IMAGES ARE DISTURBING, BUT SO ARE SOME OF

THE ARGUMENTS BEHIND THEM.

Animal Cruelty
Is it cruel to eat meat? Although the actual process of raising, killing, and processing the meat can be, the actual act of eating the meat is natural and instinctive. Proponents of animal rights argue that anyone who purchases meat is directly supporting the abuse of animals, regardless of their intentions. As a meat-eater, I am somewhat surprised by this logic, although I can see the motivation behind it. Still, there are aspects of the animal-rights rhetoric that I find exaggerated or oversimplified. Animals and humans are not equals; even more so, the Holocaust and the slaughter of animals for consumption are not equal crimes. Also, claiming that animals would “choose” alternate lifestyles is a weak and unsupportable argument, for many obvious reasons. There are many aspects argued by animal activists that I find disturbing, but I will focus on these two for now.

“The comparison here to the holocaust is both intentional and obvious: one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another. Though some will argue the suffering of animals cannot possibly compare with that of former Jews or slaves, there is, in fact, a parallel.”[1] Comparing slaughterhouses to the Holocaust of WWII is an insult to the people that suffered under the hands of Adolf Hitler. Although there may be aerial images of both that look similar, this does not mean that they are comparable crimes. From above, a military base resembles a city or town—does this mean they have the same function? A slaughterhouse will never have the same connotation as a death camp. During Hitler’s genocide, millions of people were imprisoned, separated, tortured, and murdered merely because they existed. Although a cow may moo as their calf is taken away, the emotional bond between a family is exponentially greater than that of a cow and calf. The cow instinctively wants to keep its calf near, but the trauma of the experience will last less than a month, and for one simple reason—the cow doesn’t have the capacity to miss its calf. Destroying a family, however, causes crippling and permanent emotional damage. During the holocaust, the victims were targeted because of their background. Slaughterhouses have a completely different priority; the production of meat. If animals were taken to buildings and killed simply because they were animals, then I could see a parallel to the holocaust. I can understand the passion that people have for animals, but these activists must be more careful and respectful with their arguments. The “shock and awe” technique might be one of the few weapons utilized by the animal-rights movement, but it is childish and disrespectful to attempt to associate the tragedy of Hitler’s extermination of the Jews with slaughterhouses.

IT IS IMMATURE TO ASSOCIATE MEAT CONSUMPTION WITH THE HOLOCAUST.

“What animal would choose to spend their entire life in captivity…if they had a choice?” [2]Granted, I would never want to live they way an animal raised for food does. It is a pointless, unfulfilling lifestyle. Still, this argument is irrelevant for several reasons. For example, I would not want to live as a chicken does in the wild. They are under constant fear of being eaten by predators, days consist of eating and defecating, and mates would be attracted to me according to the color of my feathers. Does this mean that a wild chicken's life is undesirable? Also, would a chicken want to live as a human? Any ounce of energy not used for eating or mating is probably considered wasteful to a chicken, so our lives may seem pointless. The priorities of chickens and humans are completely different, so no comparison could be made. It is my belief that chickens would imprison themselves if they were given the choice. If there was a field where chickens lived with abundant food, and there was a trough in the center filled with grain, I think that the chickens would crowd and fight around that trough everyday. They are animals, and their instincts tell them to survive. Chicken pens allow them to reproduce, eat, and gain protection from predators. What chicken would say no to that? In the wild, death rarely occurs from old age--a chicken will most likely die from disease, starvation, or predators. In my opinion, it is much more humane to die by beheading than it is to be eaten alive by an eagle, starvation, or a degenerative disease. Although the argument I have made is equally as contrived as the one I am critiquing, the point remains: no one can claim to know what an animal truly wants. Even through sympathetic imagination, humans will never be able to fully understand a chicken's wants and needs.

THIS ELK FACES A NATURAL DEATH--A CRUEL DEATH, BUT A NATURAL ONE NONETHELESS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOq18oecT1A

WILL THIS BUFFALO HAVE A PLEASANT DEATH? NO.

I think that they way we raise animals for food is cruel and unrefined. However, this does not mean that we should all be vegetarian. Animals have always eaten each other; it is a natural process of life. In fact, the protein that our ancestors got from eating meat has been linked to our large brain size. If animal-rights activists want to make real strides for animals, they should accept the fact that there will never be an all-vegetarian world. By lessening their goals, toning down their tactics, and focusing their resources, animal rights activists might be able to improve the living conditions of animals. Until then, their hostile attitude will continue to turn people away from their compassionate intentions.

MAYBE ONE DAY EVERY CHICKEN WILL BE FREE-RANGE, BUT I DOUBT THERE WILL BE A DAY WHERE EVERY CHICKEN IS FREE.

[1] X703

[2] X725