A Humanist Concern -- Unfounded or No?

[FaustWolf]

I just came across what is probably one of the most horrific Youtube videos I've ever seen; I'm actually surprised it hasn't been taken down. People who can't stand cute furry things being harmed need not apply. I'm not even sure it's safe for work, so viewer discretion advised. You're probably getting visions of a hamster being cut up with a chainsaw or something, but it's much more subtle than that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEHTkoyw9ss

I've become more interested recently in examining our society's treatment of animals. I've even flirted with the idea that nature is outright immoral on some level by forcing animals to inflict pain upon and to devour one another in the wild.

Of course, we normally give Mother Nature a pass on that one. But what about this situation in the Youtube video -- is it a case of animal abuse? On one level it's just something that would happen in the wild; and yet, the person behind the camera intervened by purchasing a rabbit specifically to be killed in such a way.

What factors separate the cameraman (assuming the cameraman is the snake's owner) from, say, Michael Vick? And why should those factors make the cameraman's actions any less reprehensible than what Vick did? Someone in the comments claims to have actually reported the video, but since it's still up, I can only surmise that our society, in the aggregate, doesn't really care about events like this one.

Should we though? Where do we draw the line separating morality from immorality, and what rubric should we use?

[ZeaLitY]

EDIT: The link wasn't what I had in mind when I wrote this.

Yeah, I guess it'd be an ethical thing.

It would seem that animals experience consciousness (and even emotion), and that's not surprising considering they have brain tissue. There are efforts to create recognition, such as the Great Apes rights project.

My conscience won't let me pull away from updating the Compendium long enough to do any reading on this, but I will say that off the cuff, if I were Emperor of the World™, I'd put the people involved with this to death immediately and close the book. I'm not even a cat person. There's just something about this (if, as I'm guessing, it is the kitty-killing thing) that reflects a savage lack of empathy or humanity.

[Lord J Esq]

Here is the thinking that I use to guide my judgments in these matters:

First, I am strict with myself about distinguishing between emotion and reason. I welcome emotion in my life; I've been indulging myself in all kinds of emotional upwellings in the course of watching those Ken Burns videos on the national parks. But when it comes to judgment, I put emotion aside. So, the image of a bunny rabbit being killed and eaten by a slimy serpent, isn't something to which I would immediately object on emotional grounds. (Although I still remember reading a news story a few years ago about these teenagers who, for their personal amusement, grilled live kittens. That one, I admit, broke my discipline.)

Avoiding emotional decisions is an important prerequisite to good judgment, but the real key is clear reasoning. My thinking here goes something like this: Events themselves have no ethical weight, ethics being a creation of humanity. If, in the course of wild life or environmental occurrences, animals capable of suffering should be subjected to a great deal of it and then perish, that is simply the force of nature on the world in which we live. We might judge these occurrences regrettable, if they bring about the demise of exquisite species or the collapse of whole ecosystems, or if they contribute to hardship for the human species and our civilization, but such judgments are contextual only and do not address the physical occurrences themselves--i.e., the proverbial bunny being crushed and eaten.

However, we human beings have an incredible facility for rational decision-making, which, almost by definition (although the premise took much of our history to be consciously recognized and established), makes us culpable for our action in a way that the action of lesser animals and environmental processes is not. Therefore, immediately, the question of motivation arises. Why is a given act committed? "Why" is a fascinating question; we hold it highest in regard among "who, what, when, where, why, and how," probably because it is such a uniquely rational concept--for there is no "why" in nature. There is only "what," and "how," and so forth. Why only applies when a conscious decision has been made. It is our question, the question of the most sapient of sentient beings.

When a controversial action has occurred, such as what you showed us in this video, the first thing you have to do is set aside your emotions--what we call our "personal opinion." The second thing to do is ask why the person(s) who committed the action, committed it. Then, to determine whether a wrongdoing has occurred, we compare the action and its motivation with the contents of our ethics. (Or, among many, the consultation with ethics is supplanted by a consultation with morals. But I afford no validity to moral systems; I deem them invalid.) It is our ethics which determine, personally, whether a wrongdoing has occurred and, if so, how serious it is.

The next question is to search for mitigating or aggravating factors. If we determine a wrongdoing to have occurred, are there mitigating factors which lessen its severity? Was the person responsible for this act mentally ill at the time? Likewise, what about aggravating factors? Could the rabbit have been killed more humanely and then provided to the snake, while still providing the same food utility to the snake?

As more questions are explored and answered, a better judgment can be made as to the ethical character of the action, which then suggests our appropriate response. That's how I work through it. In some ways, this is similar to how our legal system works. In other ways, it differs. The religious among us would point out that, to them, some actions are inherently always wrong or always right--which of course contributes to the rigidity of religion, but that's another story.

I'm not sure whether or not the video you showed us is an example of animal cruelty or not. I am assuming the snake went on to eat that rabbit. If not, then, yes, unless there was some kind of meaningful science project underway, I would consider that to be animal cruelty. (And, even if there was a scientific purpose, I would want to know why it was necessary to feed the rabbit to the snake without sedating it.) But, if that rabbit was snake food, then, to the extent it is ethical for people to keep carnivorous pets at all, I would be hesitant to declare animal cruelty.

The most telling aspect of this is that the person filmed it and put it on the Internet for all to see. Why did they do that? Answer that question, and I suspect I'll be able to tell you whether or not I deem animal cruelty to have occurred.

One last comment. A question, actually, a question for all of you: When you hear the cries of a suffering animal (or person) and object to their suffering, is your objection raised against their plight, or your own? I harbor no small contempt for people who object to unsightliness and injustice elsewhere in the world simply because it makes them uncomfortable to watch. Yet, despite what most people will tell you, I suspect quite strongly that more objections are made in people's own interests than in the interests of the oppressed.

[Uboa]

J, once again I'm amazed by the depth of your analysis here.  What is interesting to me, in light of your comments, is that there are indeed many assessments of this video based on many individuals' ethics.  What concerns me is how developed, or undeveloped, these individuals' ethical senses are, given that most of the YouTube comments are based strongly in emotion and weakly, if at all, in rational thought.  (And yet so much in this world depends on the development of individuals' ethics.)

Faust, I do not think your concern is unfounded, nor is it yours alone.  The fact that the video has been reported shows that people do care.  I think I mirror both your opinion and J's opinion when I say that the video is a hostile statement.  The camera man is taking pride in his pet's ability to cause another animal's suffering and death, as evidenced by the fact that the video title acknowledges the rabbit's terror.  That is wholly unnecessary.  The action of feeding the rabbit to the snake, in absence of such a video, is still problematic, but it's more justifiable in my mind than Vick's actions because of the snake's dependence on live meals to survive. 

Believe it or not I've had to apply some of the moral questions which arise from this kind of ethical dilemma to myself, the reason being that I have a little dog to feed and have yet to find a decent vegan dog food on the market.  The meat component in my dog's food comes from USDA slaughterhouses, and the horrors you'd see within them far exceed those of the relatively merciful death in the posted video.  Granted, the slaughterhouses do everything in their power to try not to make the animals' deaths needlessly terrible, but on the scale that we slaughter animals it is impossible to prevent really monstrous occurrences. 

When you get right down to it, the pet industry is a pretty horrific scene from all angles.  First off, most pets come from pet mills; puppy mills, cat mills, bird mills, snake mills, ferret and chinchilla mills, and so on.  The conditions in these pet mills essentially mirror those of factory farms.  The animals are kept in filthy conditions, the mothers are impregnated too often and exhausted at a young age, and several animals are "fixed" by unqualified employees under unsanitary conditions (and without proper anesthesia).  Secondly, as the video demonstrates, the breeding and keeping of carnivorous pets necessitates the suffering and death of numerous other animals.  It's less obvious for pets such as cats and ferrets, which are usually not fed live prey but are fed some form of meat by-product.  Thirdly, pets who make it out of the industry are still by no means guaranteed happy lives.  I do not think I need to elaborate on that point for everybody to know what I am getting at, sadly.

This is a tricky problem.  I think the most we've agreed on so far is that the statement made by this video is more or less disgusting.  The big picture here, our society's treatment of animals, is lamentable in almost every facet of our interactions with animals.  The inhumanity of animal agriculture is something I can almost excuse for most people involved (consumers and producers), but only because most people are brainwashed into thinking that we need to eat gratuitous amounts of meat lest we shrivel and die.  Most of my contempt for that tragedy is directed towards meat and dairy industry lobbyists, and also at "big food" in general for neglecting to cultivate a hemp foods industry to offer better alternatives to animal protein.  Our regarding animals as ours to use however we wish for entertainment, by means of circuses, animal fighting, gratuitous pet production, etc. I cannot excuse.  This is, essentially, what we see in the YouTube video in which the rabbit's suffering is made into a spectacle.  This is where I draw my line separating moral from immoral, because this kind of behavior reflects not only outright lack of consideration for animals, but also seeks to exploit and cultivate human carelessness, to appeal to the inhumanity and the base within us. 

[FaustWolf]

While I haven't seen any video of a typical modern Western slaughterhouse process gone wrong, I was extremely shocked to see the process of kosher slaughtering -- and I've been responsible on some level for these events since I've eaten kosher beef hot dogs from time to time (they're quite good). I'm sure I'd be just as horrified to see what happens when a metal bolt intended to be shot through a cow's brain misses its mark.

As usual, I'm tempted to find a cop-out solution to these kinds of moral riddles: instead of going through the painful process of realizing one's moral code is fraught with inconsistency and adjusting, let technology solve what I vaguely feel in my gut to be a problem. We could, hypothetically, grow meat slabs directly from stem cells. Imagine meat farms where raw muscles are attached to electrodes and toned to succulent perfection before being shipped to grocery stores. Mmmm. The meat-sans-pain-receptors could also be fed to carnivorous pets and zoo animals.

But as with the birth pods, I realize that this isn't going to happen any time soon, and nor are the kind of meat farms I'm envisioning even an issue on the plate of modern science (badly formulated pun completely intended). I think my concern over animal suffering is ultimately going to drive me into a vegetarian lifestyle. Thanks to my newfound love of white cheeses, I've already managed to cut out half the red meat typically in my diet, and it's not bad at all.

[Uboa]

Wow, that's cool, Faust!  I'm really glad to hear that!  Most people don't consider making the switch to a more vegetarian lifestyle in light of these problems.

I felt I should add something here after my last post, which could be seen as coming down hard on meat-eaters.  I don't tow the vegangelical line when I can avoid doing so, because I've tried for years and years to be a successful vegan and have yet to succeed.  Even now, I only get by with eating a little over an ounce of meat a day with the help of, not one, but two different kinds of plant protein supplements.  I realize how hard it is to experiment with a minimally animal-sourced diet.  That is why I wish the various food industries would hurry up and produce meat alternatives of better quality than the soy and wheat gluten based ones which dominate the market.  (I happen to be allergic to both soy and gluten.  In fact, most people are allergic to both to some extent!)

For carnivorous pets and zoo animals that don't need to be fed live prey, I'd definitely prefer they be fed vat meat over real meat.  For humans, however, I think plant-based alternatives would still be better except for on special occasions.  The reason for that is the green factor, and the health factor.  Plant-based foods will always be more sustainable to produce than even laboratory meats, and they'll always be healthier for humans, unless labs can produce meat with fiber, phyto-nutrients, only "omega" fatty acids, and without sulfur-containing amino acids.

[FaustWolf]

I won't be able to make a complete switch as long as I'm living with carnivorous family; though I could make a go at turning them on to vegetarian meals. Are there any great vegetarian cooking information resources out there?

[Mr Bekkler]

I eat meat and will continue to.

You can't stop snakes from eating mice and rabbits. But the fact that they filmed it for showing off on youtube doesn't say much good about the owner.

[FaustWolf]

Lest I sound like I'm trying to be morally haughty or anything, I'll add that I know I'm engaging in blatant species-ism by treating vegetarianism as if it's something one can casually get into gradually. If I were eating people and I suddenly realized it, I'd cut that out immediately. A marginal concern to be sure according to society's dictates, but this still gives me serious pause. I'm in no position to judge others according to a moral code I'm trying to fashion for myself -- but perhaps this concept of moral relativism, too, should give us pause.

What I'm gradually getting at (albeit in extremely slow, misguided and wayward fashion) is unraveling the mysteries of fashioning moral codes. Society, becoming less bound by centralized traditional cultural and religious norms, is teeming with individuals essentially left to think about these things on their own to a large degree, and form independent conclusions. Law fashioned democratically can only express the lowest common denominators on which most of us agree. But when it comes to "marginal" things like male circumcision or eating meat, there are a ton of different opinions and justifications out there, as we've seen among ourselves.

But supposing for sake of argument that moral relativism is okay to some extent, I wonder whether developing one's self-applied moral code isn't a critical thinking skill that shouldn't be taught in elementary schools. I'm much intrigued by Lord J's stark legalistic approach; I might be tempted to rely on some kind of pseudo-economic analysis of the situation myself.

[Uboa]

I won't be able to make a complete switch as long as I'm living with carnivorous family; though I could make a go at turning them on to vegetarian meals. Are there any great vegetarian cooking information resources out there?

It's hard for me to give an emphatic "yes" to this since I have yet to find a website or cookbook that has been of great value to me.  Unfortunately, most vegetarian dishes are not going to be appealing to the devoted omnivore, unless the person doing the cooking really knows what they're doing with what they have.  Instead of cookbooks, I wish vegetarians and vegans would publish tips on how to make meals that both appeal to omnivores and address certain dietary concerns for people who have trouble getting by on a largely plant-based diet.

I'll just share a few tips here based on my own experimentation in the kitchen:  Much of what appeals to omnivores about meat is the kinds of flavors it can add to food.  There are few plant foods that can do the flavor of, say, buffalo meat justice.  The best flavor combination I've come up with so far (and this works pretty well!) is that of tamari sauce (not soy sauce! Tamari is much more flavorful.), garlic, and white truffle oil.  (White truffle oil sounds expensive, but like most things you can get it online for less, and you don't need much of it.  Just remember to keep the bottle in the fridge to prevent it from going rancid.)  With a good imitation meat flavor, you can add omnivorous appeal to just about any vegetable dish.  

High protein dishes are more of a challenge if you don't want to be limited to eating tofu.  Tempeh is a better soy-based meat alternative, and if you can cook it right you can make a wide range of appealing dishes.  (Tempeh fajitas, tempeh and mushroom burgers, tempeh curry, etc.)  Also, you can make your own meat alternatives using ingredients like cooked lentils and chopped almonds, along with wheat flour or xanthan gum and ground flaxseed for binding agents.  The easiest way to cook with homemade meat alternatives is to make dishes like stuffed bell peppers.  Lentil loaf and homemade lentil burgers take more practice.  Also, if you're going to use lentils, consider using red or white lentils which have no outer hull.  

Really, the best way to turn anybody on to vegetarian dishes is to have a culinary ace up your sleeve.  If you're able to cook something that makes an omnivore say, "Wow, that's vegetarian? (vegan?)" you'll make more of an impact than any over-hyped cookbook ever will!  I have a couple of recipes which might be able to accomplish this, and if you're curious I'll PM them to you.  If others are interested I'll post them here.

[FaustWolf]

I'm definitely interested in what others have tried. It seems spices would play a crucial part, but I didn't even realize it was possible to replicate meat flavors with substitutes like that.

[Uboa]

But supposing for sake of argument that moral relativism is okay to some extent, I wonder whether developing one's self-applied moral code isn't a critical thinking skill that shouldn't be taught in elementary schools.

I imagine moral relativism is an unavoidable aspect of human society.  True, there are issues which most people can agree on (and issues which most people should agree on, but that's another thread), but there will always be gray areas in everybody's moral/ethical reasoning.  (To what extent are those words interchangeable, moral and ethical?  Umm... J?)  Teaching critical thinking skills and subjects like logic and logical fallacies (age appropriate, of course) would help people to develop and question their own moral codes.  What is also crucial, in my opinion, is purposefully exposing students, and people in general, to moral gray areas with the intent of open-minded exploration.  It is important for everybody to understand that life is riddled with frustrating and bothersome moral gray areas for which nobody has a definitive solution.  I think the most important aspect about these gray areas is how people are taught to approach them.  

This reminds me of a book by Joseph Marshall III, one of my favorite Native American authors, in which he recounts how Lakota elders exposed their children to troubling moral dilemmas.  He says that an elder would ask a child what he or she would do if there were two people drowning in a river, and then would distinguish the two people by saying that one was old and one was young, or one was male and one was female.  As part of the moral puzzle, the elder would indicate that the child would only be able to save one person, then he or she would ask the child who they would save.  The child would give the answer, and the elder would often neither approve or disapprove, but perhaps ask only for elaboration.  The important thing, Marshall says, is that the child thinks.  By neglecting to act as an authority figure on the subject, the elder allows the child to feel responsible to find his or her own answer.  

To confront moral problems for which there is no suitable logical or human authority is tricky and often scary, especially when potential death or great suffering is involved.  But, when faced with these problems we have to know how to stand on our own, for our own sake and perhaps for others'.  This seems to me to be a crucial aspect of building character.  In schools, children are taught that "character" is synonymous with "good behavior", but I wholly disagree.  Character is more akin to backbone, in my opinion, and you don't develop backbone through mere good behavior.  Good character is developed by confronting what is problematic and trying to make sense of it, or just trying to deal with it.  

I'm going to get back to my original point, that being the unavoidable nature of moral relativism.  Consider, what seems problematic to some individuals may not seem problematic to others, just by virtue of the haphazard nature of the formation of our minds and circumstances.  Because of this, it is necessary that everybody confronts a set of moral problems throughout their life that is entirely their own.  These aren't cut-and-dry moral problems, such as, do I not kill person X today for no reason whatsoever?  These are more along the lines of, how much should I go out of my way to help person X (or persons p1, p2, p3, ...) in light of my own difficult circumstances?  Or, I really enjoy the company of a co-worker, but is it right to ask him/her out on a date?  They're unavoidably personal, and they belong to a moral realm that is unavoidably personal.  Often, solutions to these moral problems can be chalked up solely to trial and error, i.e. experience.  

I'm definitely interested in what others have tried. It seems spices would play a crucial part, but I didn't even realize it was possible to replicate meat flavors with substitutes like that.

Neither was I, until I tried it and was amazed!  If I ever become cutting-edge enough in my experimentation I may have reason to write a worthwhile cookbook.  I'll send you those recipes in a few.

[chi_z]

I flagged it for animal abuse, this reminds me of what Kato was telling us with CC and the whole humans destroying nature, and belittling the demi humans. A disrespect for the world and it's inhabitants.

[tushantin]

Hah, I've read Lord J Esq's post, and I must say I'm pretty intrigued. Although, pardon me, I haven't read throughout after that. Just bits and bytes.

What I'm gradually getting at (albeit in extremely slow, misguided and wayward fashion) is unraveling the mysteries of fashioning moral codes. Society, becoming less bound by centralized traditional cultural and religious norms, is teeming with individuals essentially left to think about these things on their own to a large degree, and form independent conclusions. Law fashioned democratically can only express the lowest common denominators on which most of us agree. But when it comes to "marginal" things like male circumcision or eating meat, there are a ton of different opinions and justifications out there, as we've seen among ourselves.

Welcome to my world. I've been thinking about this, including the Meaning of Life, ever since I was 8.  

---------------------------------------------------------

I'll place it in simple terms because I'm not much of a wordsman.

I respect Lord J's methods of analysis, because he's right. Though I'd hate to contradict him, I must say that emotion does play an important factor in judgment, but not so to be overwhelmed by it or have your decision biased. But rather to feel the actions of both the parties, think both ways and find the actual truth. And also right that most people would be against something such savagery only for their own selfish interest, but there are many others who would stake their precious time and life for the sake of granting a poor kitten her justice, whether or not human jurisdiction applies to her.

What you see in the video is the harsh reality factor (@FW, you probably know what I mean if you've read my thesis). It's hard to tell WHY the someone would do that. The reasons may be many. But judging by his words it seemed he WANTED the world to witness the helpless cries of the poor bunny. IF it was plain savage, then it's no surprise considering many of our own ancestors were even more brutal than this, making HUMAN slaves fight amongst themselves for the sake of pure entertainment. Such desires and ideas flourished long before humanity did, perhaps at the beginning of sentience or even when we discovered the ability to create music (even before the discovery of speech). Despite our intellectual evolution throughout the ages and awareness of injustice and cruelty, even now somewhere in the hearts of humanity lurks such desires of malice, lust and greed. Some are even overwhelm by it. It seems sentience cannot rid a man from his savage inheritance entirely, but when such desires manifest the possibilities of our intellectual ideology, the result is horrifying to an observer, but a mere sport for those who commit such a deed.

Witnessing one animal prey on another is a common act of hunting carried by everyone bound to nature. But the man a man uploaded a video of it, portraying a deeper and horrible version of it. The question is WHY. WHY would he want people to witness something such as this when they already know? If he'd have said nothing, then I would have considered it as purely scientific. But he MENTIONED something that triggered most of his audience's imagination, and immediately the bunny's torture caught their attention. Was it that he had nothing else to do? Was it that his mind yearned to watch something or someone suffer? Or was it plain curiosity?

Even so, whether or not the motive of the video was for ill or plainly scientific (it's hardly "noble"), one cannot deny that it got us thinking deeply into the matters, ethics and morals of humanity, emotions and justifications. What's more, all at the cost of a bunny rabbit.

And with respect to the reactions of some who feel this is unjust, it brings to mind that no matter what our ethics or morals, those with higher power and intelligence do in a way conquer those with weaker minds, and mankind has already conquered all but themselves. Either for meat, for sport, for sheer entertainment, it doesn't really matter. In the end it all depends on the decisions on an individual. Sometimes it's kinda sickening to watch someone with authority mercilessly enjoying someone else's pain such as... well you know.

[FaustWolf]

That's really interesting about the Lakota elders. American children who are in advanced literature and critical thinking classes are probably exposed to that sort of thing from time to time, but it seems odd now that it isn't part of the wider curriculum; at least I don't remember these kinds of discussions featuring heavily in my own elementary school experience.

tushantin, I think you're on to something very important. Empathy could have a huge role to play in measuring the morality or immorality of what the guy did (and even what the snake did); I'm not sure if Lord J would lump empathy together with emotion, but it seems to be a roundabout way of revealing mitigating circumstances, and feeling them viscerally. For example, the fact that the snake is just trying to survive and was confronted with a compatible food source mitigates the pain it inflicted on that poor rabbit. This is why we essentially give Mother Nature a pass on morality I guess. If we were reduced to the same means of survival, we might sink our fangs into live creatures too.

Interesting that moral capacity is sometimes a function of development and technology.