Toss a few more Snags on the Barbie

As you probably already know, we wombats are herbivorous. Our diet mainly consists of a variety of grasses, herbs, roots, fungi and barks.

I make mention of this here only because a few days ago an old friend dropped into the 'Burrow' for a chat. You know how it is when old friends get together: some of your favourite beverage, a lot of talk and maybe something to eat.

Now, you've got to understand that this bloke (let's call him Fred) likes nothing better for a meal than a few beers, some barbecued sausages with a liberal helping of tomato sauce (US: ketchup), and a plate of chips (US: fries).

Having to cope with the smell of meat cooking is not something your average herbivore wants anything to do with. While I am by nature a vegetarian, it is also something I strongly support on moral grounds. I'm not vegan myself, but can clearly see, from an ethical point of view, what attracts people to that lifestyle.

I told Fred that we would have to go out to eat later on, because I did not have anything available at home to feed him that he would enjoy. He, of course, knew this but it's sort of like a ritual we go through when he visits. Maybe he thinks that one day I will decide to eat meat - yeah, when hell freezes over! The things we put up with for the sake of an old friend. ;-)

Having worked out our mealtime arrangements, we started to discuss various unimportant topics. However, a bit later on we started talking about the moral issues associated with using any products that come from an animal source. The following is a record of our discussion.

The Sausagic Dialogue

Bruce:
Towards the end of the first post here, A Blogging Wombat, I introduced the concept of all creatures being treated with respect and being valued for their own sakes.

a view of a world where all people, and indeed all creatures, are treated with respect and valued for their own sakes. Not merely as some economic pawn or tool to be pushed about, used or manipulated by whatever powers exist without any real concern as to their welfare, both materially and spiritually

I want to continue from that point and expand on some of the ideas implied by that statement. Since your beloved sausages were the starting point for this conversation, let's just look at the case of animals raised primarily for their meat to be used for human consumption. How does that strike you?

Fred:
That seems very reasonable. Hopefully this 'limitation' will make our discussion here more focused. Ok, over to you.

Bruce:
I obviously don't eat meat, so I am in the morally easier position of not having to deal with issues of raising animals for eventual slaughter. You, however, old friend, are now in the hotseat! I'd like you to explain how you can justify, what in my mind is the brutal treatment of animals, since they can obviously see what is happening to others of their kind. They can see that young animals disappear not long after weaning and that older animals disappear from the farm on a regular basis too. I mean, the whole idea of a cow giving birth, feeding the calf, then that calf being taken off for slaughter is in no way natural for cattle. The cow, if free to do what she wished would feed the calf for a while, naturally wean it, teach it some basic skills and then let it go off to do whatever young cattle do naturally. At some stage this process obviously involves the production of more calves, and the cycle goes on. So basically I have a problem with the whole concept of raising animals for their meat.

Fred:
You're not making my job easy are you? I strongly believe that food animals need to be looked after humanely by the farmer. Apart from any other welfare issues this means that the animals must be adequately defended against both disease and attack by predators. The quality of their 'housing' needs should also be of major importance. I will not even try to defend the practice of battery farming where too many animals are kept in enclosures that are too small for them to move about in and stretch.

OK, my basic position is that I want to have meat available for me to eat. However I believe that there are moral limits on how this meat can be justifiably produced. These relate primarily to how well the farmer cares for the animals being raised and also that slaughtering processes should be such that the animal is as untraumatised as possible.

I believe that you would regard these concerns as mere window dressing, and that the whole enterprise of meat production is extremely undesirable from a moral point of view.

Bruce:
I agree with your assessment of the state of play. As you say, I believe that it is morally impossible to justify the whole process of human beings eating meat from domestic animals. The hunting of wild creatures for food is another totally different topic from a moral viewpoint, at least for hunter-gatherer societies. It is the deliberate breeding of animals specifically for their meat production that is what concerns me most.

Fred:
I have thought about this issue before and have come to the conclusion that the central difference between us is that stated in Genesis 1:26

God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

To me this sort of mindset creates a hierarchy with humankind at the top and other creatures below this. This hierarchy has previously been used to justify cruel exploitation and even the extinction of many species - I strongly reject this behaviour. I believe that with this superior position comes the responsibility to look after and ensure the long term healthiness of the world in which we all live.

This hierarchical arrangement is a very ancient part of human existence and is not going to go away. I think the trick here is to respect, within reason, that different people look at the world in different ways and that all people need to accept that this is the way things are.

Bruce:
I see what you're getting at, but can't agree with your interpretation. You believe that to have dominion over all creatures means that humankind is entitled to exploit the resouces they represent. You do however state that with this power comes responsibility for looking after the welfare of these creatures. I'm sure that they would really appreciate that distinction, given that you still want to kill some of them :-|

So it seems that it all really comes down to a difference in fundamental beliefs, not bridgeable by pure logic.

Fred:
Given this reality, those of us who do consume products which require the death of other creatures owe an obligation to them. We must ensure that all these creatures, bred to give us products derived from their dead bodies, are treated with dignity in life and slaughtered in ways that minimise the trauma they suffer.