Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

What We Owe What We Eat - George F. Will


Destino

Recommended Posts

July 18 issue - Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, is the most interesting conservative you have never heard of. He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest disturber of the peace. But he is among the most disturbing.

If you value your peace of mind, not to mention your breakfast bacon, you should not read Scully's essay ''Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate Conservatism—for Animals." It appeared in the May 23, 2005, issue of Pat Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative—not where you would expect to find an essay arguing that industrial livestock farming involves vast abuses that constitute a serious moral problem.

The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year livestock industry—the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations—have economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop, visit factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries inflicted on billions of creatures ''for our convenience and pleasure":

"... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains, as foraging animals will do when denied straw... The pigs know the feel only of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement, with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..."

It is, Scully says, difficult, especially for conservatives, to examine cruelty issues on their merits, or even to acknowledge that something serious can be at stake where animals are concerned. This is partly because some animal-rights advocates are so off-putting. See, for example, the Feb. 3, 2003, letter that Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—animals other than humans—sent to the terrorist Yasir Arafat, complaining that an explosive-laden donkey was killed when used in a Jerusalem massacre.

The rhetoric of animal "rights" is ill-conceived. The starting point, says Scully, should be with our obligations—the requirements for living with integrity. In defining them, some facts are pertinent, facts about animals' emotional capacities and their experience of pain and happiness. Such facts refute what conservatives deplore—moral relativism. They do because they demand a certain reaction and evoke it in good people, who are good because they consistently respect the objective value of fellow creatures.

It may be true that, as has been said, the Puritans banned bearbaiting not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. And there are indeed degrading pleasures. But to argue for outlawing cruelty to animals because it is bad for the cruel person's soul is to accept, as Scully does not, that man is the only concern.

Statutes against cruelty to animals, often imposing felony-level penalties, codify society's belief that such cruelty is an intrinsic evil. This is a social affirmation of a strong moral sense in individuals who are not vicious. It is the sense that even though the law can regard an individual's animal as the individual's property, there nevertheless are certain things the individual cannot do to that property. Which means it is property with a difference.

The difference is the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. So why, Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference? There cannot be any intrinsic difference of worth between a puppy and a pig.

Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a merciful life."

Says who? Well, Scully replies, those who understand "Judeo-Christian morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong protecting the weak."

Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your duty: read his book ''Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." Scully, a conservative and hence a realist, knows that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature, putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation. And as Scully says, ''If reason and morality are what set humans apart from animals, then reason and morality must always guide us in how we treat them."

You were warned not to read this. Have a nice day.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8525632/site/newsweek/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article and I'm glad to see Will put pen to paper on what is an odd topic for a conservative columnists.

It's not that non-PeTA types(of any political flavor) don't care about this kind of stuff, but often we don't know in-depth about the conditions. We see cows on some farm in a field we drive by and assume that this is where we get our food.

It's one weak point of doctrinaire libertarian thought. If something is your property you can dispose of it in whatever manner you choose, provided you violate no human's rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

It's not that non-PeTA types(of any political flavor) don't care about this kind of stuff, but often we don't know in-depth about the conditions. We see cows on some farm in a field we drive by and assume that this is where we get our food.

That's true. Most people don't know how bad it is because they've never seen it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing, though, while I sympathize, I do not immediately swallow the claims on that website about "food from animal sources degrades health." That's outright propaganda.

It is true there is an incredible degree of waste generated, but perhaps the next step is to find ways to process that waste or destroy it so that it doesn't wind up in rivers or huge lakes of sewage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

One thing, though, while I sympathize, I do not immediately swallow the claims on that website about "food from animal sources degrades health." That's outright propaganda.

It is true there is an incredible degree of waste generated, but perhaps the next step is to find ways to process that waste or destroy it so that it doesn't wind up in rivers or huge lakes of sewage.

Some of the problem is that factory farms manage to get away with crap that clearly violates enviromental standards. You know they keep pig waste in large pools? Well sometimes those things break and that stuff gets out. It happened before and lots of people and fish got sick when it found it's way into the river.

Apply the law as it is written companies must dispose of the waste they produce and if they can't afford to then they will go out of business and a better model will take their place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

Some of the problem is that factory farms manage to get away with crap that clearly violates enviromental standards. You know they keep pig waste in large pools? Well sometimes those things break and that stuff gets out. It happened before and lots of people and fish got sick when it found it's way into the river.

Apply the law as it is written companies must dispose of the waste they produce and if they can't afford to then they will go out of business and a better model will take their place.

I know(I think I mentioned it somewhere in there..or maybe I deleted it before I posted)

I agree with you. This is one case where a violation of the law/regulation is a direct poisoning of others property and bodies(as escaping sewage isn't exactly like a couple parts per billion chemical lol)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin

One thing, though, while I sympathize, I do not immediately swallow the claims on that website about "food from animal sources degrades health." That's outright propaganda.

In the amounts consumed by the average American, that is absolutely a true statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cdowwe

I personally believe animals have no rights or souls so I will eat them however they get from one point to my plate.

I don't think you understood the article. However, I will clarify by asking you a question: is torturing animals (for example, cutting the legs off an unowned dog) morally permissible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Gichin13

I eat meat. But I also am troubled by how we treat animals to produce our meals. It is a sign that we are living way out of balance and with a lack of respect towards God's grace and bounty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to go to college at the U. of Arkansas during the 80's when Bill Clinton was governor. There was a big issue with the chicken plants dumping dumping feces, or the feces overflowing, into water sources and rivers, which affected the nearby state of Oklahoma. Clinton really didn't do much to help this issue, which was one of the reasons why I didn't care for him too much, since he seemed very indifferent. That's a somewhat related issue to this article, but it also points to the fact that, like many environmental issues, factory farming also affects humans.

This was a good article by George Will, and I am glad he had the courage to write on a subject that is sometimes a sensitive issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cdowwe

I personally believe animals have no rights or souls so I will eat them however they get from one point to my plate.

Intersting take on this. You use religion to justify your opinion but care nothing of the moral implications.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by twa

I suppose we should provide a comfortable and humane life for these animals..............

Before WE Slaughter them and eat thier FLESH.:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

So you think that all things people eat should be tortured first? Intersting opinion.

It's funny how whenever this topic comes up the opinions from those that oppose any kind of humane treatment is always so well thought out and logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

So you think that all things people eat should be tortured first? Intersting opinion.

It's funny how whenever this topic comes up the opinions from those that oppose any kind of humane treatment is always so well thought out and logical.

Destino,

I find it hard to believe this post wasn't made in jest. Don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

So you think that all things people eat should be tortured first? Intersting opinion.

It's funny how whenever this topic comes up the opinions from those that oppose any kind of humane treatment is always so well thought out and logical.

Your concern is touching;)

I feel livestock should be raised in a safe [for the consumer] manner ,with reguard to enviromental impact[waste,ect] on the community.

However I see no reason to concern myself with HUMANE teatment when the whole purpose is to kill and consume them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I worked in a chicken plant for a day, and yeah, you wouldn't find very much amusement if you had worked there, too. It's pretty nasty and not very pleasant, even if you eat meat.

If this post was about torturing puppies, I bet a lot of folks, especially dog lovers, would take offense if someone made a joke about it. It's just one of those sensitive issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However I see no reason to concern myself with HUMANE teatment when the whole purpose is to kill and consume them.

Did you read the Will's article? He spells out very plainly perhaps why, even if humans eat animals, why we should at least treat them humanely before their death. As it is, they are receiving the ultimate punishment - they are going to be killed. Is it so bad to even consider perhaps the conditions that they live under?

If you saw pictures of beloved animals, such as dogs, cats, and horses, in terrible conditions, ready for the slaughter, would that offend you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I don't think you understood the article. However, I will clarify by asking you a question: is torturing animals (for example, cutting the legs off an unowned dog) morally permissible?

Would I ever cut off a dog's legs....of course not lol. Its not really that I think the animal has a right to be alive, its just my personal morals that I dont harm some personally. It may sound sad, but if a machine did it miles away like it does to a pig, I dont give a crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Baculus

I worked in a chicken plant for a day, and yeah, you wouldn't find very much amusement if you had worked there, too. It's pretty nasty and not very pleasant, even if you eat meat.

If this post was about torturing puppies, I bet a lot of folks, especially dog lovers, would take offense if someone made a joke about it. It's just one of those sensitive issues.

That is the main sticking point for me. When a animal is being raised to slaughter, it [at least in my eyes] is much dfferent than a pet or work animal oe even a wild creature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Cdowwe

Would I ever cut off a dog's legs....of course not lol. Its not really that I think the animal has a right to be alive, its just my personal morals that I dont harm some personally. It may sound sad, but if a machine did it miles away like it does to a pig, I dont give a crap.

That's being squeamish.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by twa

That is the main sticking point for me. When a animal is being raised to slaughter, it [at least in my eyes] is much dfferent than a pet or work animal oe even a wild creature.

feels less pain?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Destino

feels less pain?

Lowered expectations;)

Sorry if I offend ,but it seems a little ridiculus to put too much into humane treatment of animals sentenced to death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...