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:
For a more informed interpretation, this article seems like a good place to start.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment