Animal Rights
I don't understand Animal Rights. So when I read that Japanese whalers are hunting Humpbacks and hear my fellow employees talk about the deer they shot over the weekend I become confused and irritable as a result of not knowing what I think of these activities. I am sad that a deer died. But is this saddness rational? I am sad that whales have harpoons thrust into them. But is this saddness rational? Let's find out.
I enjoy eating venison. This means that I condone the killing of deer for to eat venison and not condone the killing of deer is absurd. But surely the basis of Animal Rights cannot be what I do or do not enjoy; "I like it so it is ok" is nonsense. So what precident would allow me to accept and condone the killing of deer? Ducks.
Ducks are ominvores. This means that ducks devour everything. One can argue that the existence of ducks sets a precident for beings consuming other beings. If a duck can devour a snail, or, hell, a deer (I don't know what ducks eat) then it ought also to be fine for a human being to devour a deer. This follows for anything else one would consume. Since ducks devour everything all things exist in such a state as to be devoured by ducks. Since ducks are not the only omnivores it seems sensible to say that all things exists in a state such that omnivores may devour them.
So, ducks, and by extention human beings, can devour everything. But with regard to "rights" one must ask whether or not beings ought to or should devour everything. This brings us to whales.
Japanese Kamikaze Moon People consume whale. I assume this is the result of being stuck on an island and basically stealing their entire culture from China, but I digress. So what of the Japanese Whale hunters? Greenpeace is attempting to sabotage the hunt. But why? Why would killing whales be "bad"? I don't know.
And that's the problem. I don't know what the foundation is for determining right and wrong with regard to harming/killing/eating animals. Is it a question of cuteness or neatness? Whales and otters are neat so we oughtn't eat them; cows are not neat so they may be consumed. Is it a question of killing/harming living beings? Then what of slugs, carpenter ants, termites, or brown people? If killing or harming living beings is bad oughtn't we never kill or harm a living being? Is it a question of rarity? Humpback whales are decreasing in number so we ought to avoid killing them? Is that a sensible system? Why not just kill all of the whales to simplify everything?
What of dog fighting? What of abusive pet owners? What of gigantic chain pet shops which mass-produce small woodland creatures for the purpose of suffering neglect while spurring the sale of pet foods? How does one assess these things?
Is it based upon empathy? Is it based upon rationality? Is it based upon an ideal, a hope, a desire? Is it based upon utility? Is it even possible to use ducks as a precident or are the actions of animals somehow divorced from our system of establishing rights? But then, if the actions of ducks are not a part of the system by which rights are established how could ducks themselves be a part of that system of rights?
It does not seem as if there is any sensible rule by which one can make decisions of this nature. Thoughts?
6 comments:
the japanese whale eaters and the green peace whale savers can battle it out. winner keeps the whale. we can market it and sell the idea to Fox.
I think there is an argument for population control of deer. there are now more deer in IN than when white settlers first came. the settlers killed the bear and wolves. deer no longer have preditors. deer popluation sky rockets to the point where it causes problems. i say we release wolves and bears. this would solve 2 problems. deer population and suburban sprawl. but as no one else seems to like the idea. lets kill us some deer. But i dont know why this gets limited to deer. i guess becuase there is a desire to hunt them. There is a tradition of hunting whale in japan, but the whale population is dwindling. and they may be intelligent or some nonsense. If they can take out a giant squid, you would think they could handle some whale hunters. I have no issue with people defending the whales. as i would have no issue with someone defending a deer. however, i have no sympathy when they get harpooned themselves, as they put themselves in the situation. this however does get public support for green peace. Cause whalers are mean. hmm. im all for not hunting soemthign to extintion. and i dotn think it is possible to farm whales. I have no answers. But now im curious about what whale tastes like.
As for rights. We declare we have rights and live acordingly, until someone more powerful comes along. then it is up to the more powerful one to determine rights. so i suppose its up to green peace to over power the whalers to grant whales rights. that seems to be the way it works.
i think im going to go make myself a whale sandwhich now.
My understanding of rights is based on Planet of the Apes. Taylor had rights under Hu-Man law but Taylor had no rights under Ape Law.
To me this takes away any value or meaning "rights" had and makes them merely "crap we say". Then again, I was raised Methodist/Presbyterian, which fucked my value system all to hell.
I haven't noticed an abundance of deer but I guess I don't live in deer rich areas. The "We have to kill them or else they'll die" argument never resonated with me, but I guess I appreciate the taste of venison too much to really care about the rules involved.
I think it would be neat if people did not kill whales. I think it would be awesome if people killed snakes.
Sadly, I think that is how most of these "animal rights" people operate. Unless, of course, they are those super-extreemists who don't use anti-bacterial soap and who always broom their path clear when they walk.
Actually, you would live in a deer rich area, were hunting not so prevalent in Kosciusko. It isn't so much as killing them so they won't die as it is kill them so they don't wipe out their (and our) ecosystem.
Interesting.
How does one establish the ideal number of X for a given area?
CHeck out the IN DNR website.
it knows all
I checked.
Using Contraceptive Agents To Manage Deer Numbers:
Fertility control agents have been evaluated for use in deer reproduction control. Fertility control in deer is a rapidly advancing technology that continues to evolve. As research has progressed, questions persist regarding the methods of delivering the contraceptive, percentage of does requiring treatment, regulatory issues, effects on deer social structure, the impact on the overall long-term health of the deer population and public health considerations.
I wonder what the Catholic Deer have to say about this.
Post a Comment