People didn't always see animals as mere commodities. They were food, but they were also more.
I was very interested by Michel de Montaigne’s essay, “An Apology of Raymond Sebond.” I suppose it’s because the thoughts he expressed, against speciesism, seemed so modern to me yet they were written in 1576, over four hundred years ago! I thought, ignorantly I now realize, that people had only recently begun to recognize and think about speciesism and that our subjugation of animals was an unfortunate and extreme response to our biological motive to kill and eat—something that we were hopefully evolving to overcome. As the essay “Why Look at Animals?” notes, animals did not first appear to us as purely meat: they, “first entered the imagination as messengers and promises.” (Anthology, 409) They held a sort of dualism, “each lion was Lion, each ox was Ox,” yet we also ate them. (Anthology, 410) “They were subjected and worshipped, bred and sacrificed.” (Anthology, 410) In a response to the growing demand for animal products, I suppose, we have begun to forget our early beliefs and see animals as commodities. We are not evolving from a certain mindset as I once thought, but are embracing it more than ever. We are forced to live apart from animals in order to eat them and maltreat them so we may kill them—so the guilt doesn’t get in the way. That is why we must begin to appreciate the animal’s worth more than ever. It does not work to think that we could merely let them be. After all, what sort of world have we left for them? We must reconcile the relationship we have broken with them, to remember that although they are not one of “us,” we are one of them. As Margaret Mead said, “One of the most dangerous things than can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it.” (Anthology, 381) This creates mindsets which allow violence to happen because it is not true violence or a true wrong at all. When animals are subject to mistreatment—as living beings—so are all living beings. Humans obviously have a natural inclination to desire superiority: we have subjugated women, races, religions, animals and split societies into all sorts of classes and categories. One by one these categories have been proven unjust. How long will it take to break down the barrier between animal and man? “Presumption is our natural and original disease.” (Anthology, 386) Although it is all too easy for some to presume that cruelty to animals is alright, perhaps out of convenience, I presume—and I do it with faith—that this presumption is unjust.
If we treat animals better, how much easier will it be to treat humans equally, too.
Another section from the reading struck me, Emile Zola’s quote that, “the fate of animals is of greater importance to me than the fear of appearing ridiculous.” (Anthology, 381) I have always held myself back to a certain extent whenever I talk about animals. I’ve even done it in class. I just didn’t want to come off as too strong and embarrassingly, to “appear ridiculous.” I wonder how many of us truly want to help animals but don’t want to appear ridiculous, like citizens outside concentration camps who didn’t want to risk knowing what was going on. I realize now that my attempt at self preservation does not benefit anybody, especially myself. The treatment of ethics should not be stunted by reservations. I wish to say my beliefs with conviction: I believe that the common conception of animals is wrong. Even writing this down on a computer I feel a little stupid. It seems like such an unsupported and naïve statement to make, but I believe it nonetheless. I used to think that, although factory farms were terrible, they were not everything, but unfortunately they practically are. “Over 99 percent of US chickens spend their lives in crowded confinement.” (Anthology, 389) I feel like this statement surpasses the limits of our language because we are not able to emphasize the magnitude of that figure enough. Could you honestly look all of those animals in the face and not “have trouble, yes, a bad time overcoming [your] embarrassment? (Anthology, 396) Would you be able to call them “just animals” to their faces and ignore their suffering? The unfortunate answer is that this is what we do every day. We are faced with animal suffering, and we choose to ignore it. We are wrong. I used to think that changing my own behavior wouldn’t really do anything, but isn’t that what every conscious, concerned yet uninvolved person is saying? To say that you don’t want to try, to stop wearing leather or eating unethically produced meat, because it “won’t make a difference” is just like saying that you don’t care whether change occurs or not. They both have the same ends. How else can our treatment of animals improve unless we all strive to make a conscious change?
Change ultimately starts with the individual.
The final point that I wish to address comes from a four word phrase: “all men [are] Nazis.” (Anthology, 377) I agree that people are capable of extreme violence and destruction and that we all “have it in us” for lack of a better word. But I do not believe that this is a helpful conclusion. Yes, people will inflict pain on others, as they did in the Millgram experiment. Some feel, "enthusiasm for inflicting pain, suffering, or humiliation on others. "(Course website) What this should tell us is to be aware of the dangers of violence and sadism, not that we all have it in us, waiting for a moment to come out. Why not say that all men are compassionate, loving or good? If we are capable of abject evil, we all have the potential for good. I do not think it is beneficial to dwell on the negatives. As I have said before, that engenders hopelessness and maybe even a tendency to accept that that is “just the way it is.” Wouldn’t it be better for goodness, and not evil, to be the standard by which we measure ourselves? I do not think change can happen unless we realize that it can and that we all have it in our power to accept it, willingly.
This guy kind of goes on and on, but he is urging others to be kind. I think it is better to emphasize this than negativity.
No comments:
Post a Comment