What constitutes cruelty? What constitutes necessity? How can one condone the killing of cattle or swine but look unfavorably upon the killing of dolphins or cats? Where doth one stand in the animal kingdom, now that homo sapiens replace the brutish homo neanderthal-is?
Such questions have puzzled me for a long time, and it is high time to do something about it. While watching YouTube, I came across a very graphic and appalling video regarding the slaughter of turtles in New Zealand. The resentment, sorrow, and confusion that had set in after watching The Cove, became renewed in full.
In recent years, animal cruelty activists and conservation agencies have become progressively more vocal in their war against human kind. While it is true that many animals are slaughtered yearly, it is also true that animals have been integral parts of our diet for many millennia. From the homo erect-us' success at hunting mammoths to the modern ape's angus burger at White-Spot today, veal has never left our side. If meat is so important to the human race, why do these activists remain adamant about cutting off our supply?
Animal activists argue that animals such as cattle or sheep are domesticated and bred for the sole purpose of consumption. Thus they reason, their deaths are not as nearly as memorable and worthwhile as those of cute, furry pets. However, some cultures hold these animals on an inordinately high level of importance. For example, the Hindu faith of India regards cattle as the sacred animal. Cows are cared for unto their death, and the killing of cattle is an unspeakable taboo. On the flip-side, countries such as Germany or the United States have no problem killing millions of heads of cattle to supply MacDonald and the proliferation of obesity. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who can say?
The Japanese kill thousands of dolphins and whales every year. In response, the international community has set treaty after treaty, governing the Japanese whaling industry, and their subsequent grounds of operation. Wildlife preservation societies are still attacking the Japanese, and the Japanese are still killing dolphins and whales. While many people mindlessly revile the Japanese for their “heinous” actions, some people actually stop to observe. It seems that dolphins and whales have been a dietary staple for the Japanese since a very early time. As Japan is a small island nation, it makes sense for it to rely on products of the sea rather than waste large patches of their valuable land tending cattle or sheep. This activity of whaling – one that is condemned by the whole world – is a way of life, very much like bull-riding or deer-hunting. In Canada, Orcas, or killer whales, are hunted by the Native Indians. Even today, the government grants special permission for Natives to hunt Orca on the basis that it is a way of life they have no authority to encroach upon. All the time, Canadians are a very large and vocal force in condemning the Japanese for whaling. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who can say?
For now, I will have to leave you with this much. The truth is, I don't want to know, or believe that one side is indefinitely superior than the other. It all seems to be a grey area. All I can say is that killing for the sake if killing if morally wrong. As higher thinkers and rational beings, humans should only act out of necessity. Even when necessity comes knocking on our door, we should keep it shut until we have eaten the last pot of flour, and drank the last drop of dew. Moreover, it is morally wrong to accuse others of an act which we ourselves commit on a regular basis. This double-standard is the mother of all misconceptions and the father of contention. Ignorance of the practices and lifestyles of others, is no justification for a claim of superiority. Is it really of such importance to assert that the eating of rabbit is morally wrong compared to the consumption of chicken? Let the man eat what he wants, I say. Ye of shallow breadth and callow passions, set free liberty, and you will live by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment