The Minimal Argument Against Animal Slaughter

The allowance of animal slaughter and meat-eating under circumstances where consumption of meat is not necessary for human health is a difficult moral question - at least, so I think. Some are dead-sure that it is always immoral, others see no problem with it so long as the slaughtering process is relatively painless; I believe I can empathize with both positions, but I find neither of them satisfactory. What I want to do here is to develop what I call a minimal argument against animal slaughter, which puts into question many, if not most, instances of slaughter of sentient, social animals such as cows, pigs and dogs.

First, to understand the background of the argument, watch this video showing a calf begging (as far as it seems) not to be killed. It is not pretty to watch, and if you are a sensitive soul you may want to skip the last five seconds when the bolt pistol actually goes off. After having watched such an instance of (the initiation of) slaughter, many will now intuit (myself included) that there is something wrong about this. Arguably, if the calf had been completely oblivious about what was going on before the pistol went off, the argument against slaughter would have been weaker; when, instead, the calf understands something of what is going on - difficult to say how much - the killing of the calf becomes more difficult to stomach. Finally, the calf expresses its opposition to the whole situation and seemingly tries to communicate this to the butcher.

We cannot read the mind of the calf, but it seems fair to say that the calf in the video may be begging for his life. I would even say that it seems probable. And if the calf is begging for his life, is it then justified to kill him? My answer is no, and my argument goes as follows:

P1. It is prima facie wrong to kill a creature who is begging not to be killed.
P2. If it is prima facie wrong to kill a creature who is begging not to be killed, then it is prima facie wrong to kill a creature who is probably begging not to be killed.
C. It is prima facie wrong to kill a creature who is probably begging not to be killed.

(Prima facie means "at first appearance", thus excluding scenarios where the animal must be killed to feed starving humans or the like.)

This could mean that eating meat from such animals capable of begging not to be killed is also prima facie wrong, unless you can ascertain that the individual animal whose meat you are consuming did in fact "go down peacefully" without a struggle. Or maybe it isn't; the act of slaughtering is surely different from the act of consuming the meat. 

But suppose that it isn't. Meat-eating has been a part of human culture for as long as anything - who are we to suddenly declare it haram? Rather, we are reminded of a story about the rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, which goes as follows:

The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. Once a calf en route to slaughter passed before him. It broke away, and hid its head under Rabbi’s skirt, and lowed pitifully, as though pleading, “save me.” “Go,” said Rabbi HaNasi. “What can I do for you? For this you were created.” At that, it was declared in heaven, “Since he showed no pity upon this calf, let us bring suffering upon him.” Rabbi was afflicted with a stone in the urinary tract and thrush for thirteen years. One day, his maidservant was sweeping the house. Seeing some weasel pups lying there, she was about to sweep them away. Rabbi said to her, “Let them be, as it is written: ‘God’s compassion is over all God’s creatures” (Psalms 145:9). At that moment, it was said in heaven, “Since he is now compassionate, let us be compassionate to him.” And he was cured. 

(A classic, but at this time quoted from here)

What is the morale of this story? It does not seem to be that animal slaughter is wrong in itself, for the rabbi in question, the famous redactor of the Mishnah, was obviously a close follower of Judaic law and this law does not prescribe vegetarianism. Now I'm hardly a rabbi myself, but perhaps the distinction being made here is that between correctly adhering to the law and being compassionate, compassion not being subject to any law?

For a more informed interpretation, this article seems like a good place to start.

Protecting Life, Left and Right

A brief reflection on political attitudes towards the protection of life.

I used to think that well, at least in India the right cares about animal welfare, unlike in the West where it is mostly an issue for parts of the radical left. In fact, there have been many cases in recent years where Hindu nationalists have killed or abused Muslims for eating beef. A curious alliance between Western animal rights activists and fanatical believers in Hindutva, eh? Then it struck me that it does seem to be a case of two different phenomena, after all. The right-wing Hindu nationalists beating up beef-eaters are not be likened to militant vegans in the west, but to fundamentalist Christians attacking abortion clinics.

The thing is, Hindu nationalists who want to protect cows at all cost do this because the cow is understood as innocent. The leftist vegan militants freeing animals from factory farms do so because the animals are construed as oppressed. Likewise, right-wing Christians opposing abortion do so because the baby, even as a mere embryo, is considered innocent, while the pro-choicers feel that if women do not have the right to abortion then they are oppressed. The slogan of the right remains, as always, that it is wrong to take an innocent life; the left responds that it is wrong to oppress others, innocent or not. In a spiritual sense, perhaps the right can be said to be more sattvic, always on the lookout for purity, while the left is more tamasic - materialistic in the true sense of the word. In following the philosophy of Tamas, "innocence" is not even an intelligible word or concept.

Now the question becomes, what is it that turns a sentient being into a “possessor of innocence”? Why would it be unintelligible for the Christian and Himdu right-wing militants to understand each other? Why would the statement “Don’t kill the cow, it is innocent!” most likely be unintelligible to the Christian? Perhaps because humans alone can possess the quality of innocence - but then, why is that? Food for thought.

Den maskulina solen och dess undertryckande

Inom astrologin räknas solen som den planet (bokstavligen "vandrare") som ger lyskraft och kreativitet, men som också kan skänka andra lyskraft. Solen räknas också till den manliga principen, Yang, och till Lejonets tecken som representerar självuttryck. Jag tror att vissa fenomen, såsom att män ger kvinnor komplimanger för deras utseende, eller vissa fall av "mansplaining", är exempel på hur män genom denna princip vill dela med sig av sin lyskraft till kvinnor i deras omgivning. Om Mars och Venus representerar en av de mest grundläggande dynamikerna mellan könen, så är det solen i relation till månen som är den andra. Månen får sin strålglans endast genom solens ljus och är på så vis beroende av den.

Idag är detta grundläggande samspel mellan Sol och Måne ifrågasatt, inte minst genom olika former av feministisk medvetenhet, och kanske inte på helt lösa grunder. Genom att sprida sin lyskraft omkring sig så tar solen och dominerar sin omgivning, de andra som han väljer att "lysa upp" hamnar inom hans gravitationsfält och börjar kretsa kring honom. Detta kan vara minst lika uppfyllande och tillfredsställande för solen själv som för de andra himlakroppar som blir upplysta. Och det finns nog många exempel på män som missbrukat detta, vars hjälp och stöd och ledarskap mest tjänat till att bekräfta dem själva och reducera andra (både kvinnor och män) till satelliter. Detta behöver inte vara något problem om "satelliterna" trivs med en sådan position, men i dagens individualistiska samhälle så skapar det problem. Icke desto mindre borde det finnas utrymme för den här typen av samspel än idag; det är, om inte annat, livsbejakande! Så fram för fler män som med självklarhet och självförtroende möter sin omvärld och närmast naivt lyser upp sina medmänniskor utan att kännas vid vare sig skuld eller feministiska problematiseringar av sitt beteende - fram för fler karlar som Guido i Livet är underbart!

The Sephirot and the Thoth Tarot: Part 2

I might as well finish the analysis of the 9's and 10's of the Thoth Tarot in relation to history. We have already looked at fire and air; now for the feminine elements, water and earth.



9 of Cups is called Happiness. And was not collective happiness a driving motive behind much of modernist thought and action? "With an iron fist we drive humanity towards happiness", stated a slogan in a Soviet concentration camp (though I cannot find a flawless source for it at the moment), but there were also healthier examples of this drive in the ranks of socialism, nationalism and liberalism. Eventually, happiness leads to Satiety, the 10 of Cups, representing the postmodern state of cheap comfort and desire gratification at your service. Here, appetite has truly been satiated, and there is nothing left to do but to surf the wave until something more interesting comes up: a new water impulse, an Ace of Cups.

9 of Pentacles is called Gain. This is an image of productive collaboration for mutual profit, the release of "productive forces" if you will, a powerful and dare I say positive card, labor exploitation notwithstanding. Western countries are surely past this stage economically, while arguably some non-Western countries are not. It evolves into the 10 of Pentacles, Riches - the result of Gain, no longer productive but simply content to behold itself in all its splendour. Crowley adds that this card, as the last number of the last element, represents to totality of all that has been created before. Of all the 10's this is doubtlessly the most magnificent one, as are the riches of the world today, and one will be somewhat saddened to eventually see it go.

I have been reflecting on the possibility of extending this analysis even farther back in time: the 8's, 7's, 6's and so on, though this seems like a more difficult task. It need not even be the case that the Tarot captures historical evolution for the lower numbers; for now, I am content to state that is does so in an illuminating way for the eras of modernism and postmodernism at the very least.