On Demonizing Animal Killers
Stephanie’s post about her grandfather raised what has been a complex issue for me: The temptation to view people who hunt, kill, torture, skin, gut, enslave or “experiment” on sentient nonhumans as in some way evil. People who eat and wear animals are exempt from this temptation in my mind as there is a significant difference between using an end product, such as ice cream or a down comforter, and looking someone in the eye and causing them harm and/or ending their life. There is a disconnect that is mortally easy when it comes to using an animal who has already been killed and who no longer resembles her natural, whole self. Using already-dead animals isn’t excusable, it’s just not the same as killing someone.
I get stuck when I think about the people who do the killing, though.
Karol Orzechowski’s new short film, The Rhythm, like Stephanie’s post, challenges my temptation to demonize people who kill animals.
I wrote to Karol, confessing my desire to see the face of the person who killed and “processed” the rabbits. It’s as if I wanted to determine if I could look in his eyes and see something that tells me what he’s capable of. (I do this when the evening news shows photos of individuals who have committed horrible crimes. And in case you’re wondering, I have yet to be able to say that their eyes or faces look any different from anyone else’s.)
I say this is complex because I’m sure that many people who kill animals aren’t bad people. They are otherwise wonderful people, like Stephanie’s grandfather. But what about torturers? What about people who skin animals alive? What about graduate students working in research labs whose torture of animals helps pay their tuition? Are there any bad people, or just people who do bad things, therefore we should, to paraphrase, dislike the sin but not the sinner? Is it ever right to dislike someone for doing something you find abhorrent?
I think about this blog, and the similarities between, say, human rights and animal rights. And if we were talking about the enslavement, torture and killing of humans, there’d be an implicit permission to demonize the people involved. Is it that demonizing those people (or, let’s say, strongly disliking them) is wrong, or that not disliking individuals who commit similar acts of violence against nonhumans is speciesist?
This is when I try to convince myself that it’s not the people, it’s the mindset. It’s not the people, it’s the system, it’s the culture. But the way we’re going to change the system and the culture is by changing the hearts and minds of the people, right? There is no culture to change that doesn’t include people. There is no system to change that isn’t composed of people (who make up institutions).
We’re supposed to blame the system–the system that commodifies sentient nonhumans (and in fact nearly every thing and every one not human). But at the point of killing or enslavement, it is, after all, up to a person to decide whether or not such an activity will occur. Whether pulling a trigger, pressing a button or slitting a throat, a person is responsible. You can talk about a system all day long, but it is the people who have accepted and internalized the culture, the system–the story that we tell ourselves–who need changing.
Meanwhile, Karol said that when he asked the man whose job it was to kill the rabbits (that’s him below) about his job, “he said it was no worse (and no better) than a previous job working at a bigger slaughterhouse. It was a job, and he was happy to have it. Happy to have it? Yes, he said. As he said so simply, ‘I’m happy to have a job. I work hard every day. I do the best I can.’”
I’m not campaigning for judging anyone or not. I’m merely pointing out that we seem to do it in a way that makes little sense and is also speciesist. The man above has a job. Does that job. Feeds his family.
But the same can be true of researchers, who might even claim that their work is benefitting humanity.
What are your thoughts? Why are some users of animals so easily demonized (e.g., those who experiment on them, those involved in the fur trade), even warranting home demonstrations, while others are immune or even viewed as victims (and some legitimately are, such as immigrants working in slaughterhouses)? Where’s the line? What’s the line?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
Hi Mary
Thank you for a thought-provoking post. I think the line is decided by Society. And therein lies the problem – society accepts the torture, abuse and endless slaughter of non-human animals. In some situations more than others. But while that may explain the actions of individuals that make up society, it does not forgive them for those actions. It does not excuse them for their head in-the-sand disconnect. Individuals – we all – must take responsibility for the way we conduct our lives. And hence the way the society that we are a part of conducts it’s business. Be that business the way we treat animals, each other or the environment. So yes, it’s wrong of us to demonize each other for actions that demonstrate continued disconnects, but it’s a fair call to gently – and repeatedly – point those disconnects out.
Oh, so perfectly said! Agree 1,000,000%
Hi Mary, my first snap reaction was : “the guy doing the job isn’t evil, he’s just working for a living. The guy who owns the slaughterhouse is the evil one.” But, then I though, really? Isn’t he making a living, too? What about the guy who buys the rabbits, the guy who raises the rabbits, the one who cleans up the processing floor, the one who runs the books, the one who ____ or ____ or _____??? They are ALL making a living. Would they have chosen processing rabbits as their career path (I can see the kindergarten classroom now, “And what do you want to be when you grow up, Billy?” Billy: “I want to work in a rabbit slaughterhouse.”
It’s such a great question you pose. And I think Harry (1st commenter) is on the right track, but that Society isn’t the one drawing the line, Society is the thing that is Evil. Society is a big ugly creature that has it’s own intelligence and it’s own set of morals & behaviors that are completely different from what individuals practice. “Society” then is the evil thing. Take a step back: Society is religious, but that religious society is full of terrorists from all religions, but is religion evil?
Society not only condones the killing of animals but NEEDS the killing of animals. Do I, or anyone else on an individual basis, *need* any animals killed in order to survive in this modern day world? No. I will not suffer if an animal doesn’t die for me today. If every person answered this question individually, REALLY thought about the answer before snapping to the usual “Society” driven answers of “I like the taste of meat” or “killing is a natural part of life” then they would see that this is a country where killing an animal today is completely unnecessary. No one who lives in a modern setting will die if they don’t eat meat today.
There is no line to be drawn. Individuals are not evil who do these jobs, unless they take the job to satisfy some sadistic desires. I don’t fault anyone for doing any job that provides food & care for their families. The monster called Society needs to be beheaded & reborn with some modern intelligence.
“Do I, or anyone else on an individual basis, *need* any animals killed in order to survive in this modern day world? No. ”
The Inupiat people are alive in this modern-day world. They are an Alaskan people of the Inuit/Eskimo culture group, primarily living in a small number of settlements along Alaska’s northern coast. In this part of the world, vegetation is sparse and there aren’t enough native edible plants to provide a subsistence diet, let alone one satisfying the nutritional requirements of a human being. To live here without advanced technology and the considerable amount of money it STILL takes to import outside food absolutely requires large quantities of animal fat and organ meat (for the vitamins).
For many thousands of years their ancestors have lived here, and despite the nastiness wrought first by Russian colonists, then European-Americans from the United States, they have survived increasingly-trying times. One key to their ongoing survival, especially in the last century, has been maintaining their hunting tradition. In a time when most American Indian and Alaska Native populations have suffered devastatingly high rates of heart disease, diabetes and cancers linked to dietary risk factors, the Inupiat benefit greatly from maintaining their traditional diet.
Per-capita income, access to higher education and jobs that pay a living wage is a seriously awful for Arctic indigenous people today. The ability to eat a vegan diet is not merely “somewhat costly” for most Inupiat, it’s entirely impossible given the price and quality of, and access to, outside sources of food. This tradition isn’t just traditional, it’s life-sustainingly functional.
I point this out not because I want to challenge the idea that a great many people could get by with, bare minimum, far less animal harm and exploitation than they do, but because you seem to be convinced that the benefits of modern technology and economics are sufficiently fairly-distributed that eating meat is clearly unnecessary for anyone. Given there are plenty of subsistence hunters still alive today, with no realistic alternatives in sight, this is at best ignoring many disproportionately-oppressed groups and kind of squicky to hear from a fellow animal-rights activist.
I don’t believe any part of what I said had to do with subsistence hunters or people who live in anything other than OUR society. Do we, a society of people who have grocery stores on every corner NEED to eat meat? No. We have plenty of alternatives right at our fingertips. The only thing we need to do is reach a little to the left & pick up the soy instead of the cow milk.
You read a lot into what I was saying having to do with a society that wasn’t even a part of this conversation. Don’t you think that it is a little extreme to be making the assumption that I am implying that Arctic peoples, Inuits, Eskimos, or whoever should live the way that I do? One thing you should know about me is that I don’t speak in shades of grey – especially when I make very clear statements such as “then they would see that this is a country where killing an animal today is completely unnecessary. No one who lives in a modern setting will die if they don’t eat meat today.” I choose my words very carefully when writing responses online in these types of forums. If you want to truly know what my stance is on subsistence hunters in the far flung corners of the planet, then ask me directly. Don’t put words in my mouth.
I’m gonna quote your exact words again:
““Do I, or anyone else on an individual basis, *need* any animals killed in order to survive in this modern day world? No. ””
If you really, as you say, choose your words very carefully, why did you make an all-inclusive statement if you don’t mean it?
Also, the Inupiat aren’t seperate from “our” society. They are citizens of the United States, and as affected by its culture and economy as anyone.
Furthermore, if you have grocery stores on every corner, I congratulate you on your economic privilege — but your experience is not representative, which is my point.
In most parts of Detroit it’s incredibly difficult to get food of any quality at all — the residents tend to be poor and it’s become what’s known as a “food desert”, with grocery stores inaccessible within any reasonable travel distance. The only non-animal agricultural products most residents have regular access to are highly-processed refined carbohydrates loaded with high-fructose corn syrup and lots of extraneous fat.
I will be clear: Your contention that nobody in our society needs to eat meat in this day and age, because vegan alternatives are easily available, is incorrect. It is factually wrong. This does not just apply to people in third-world countries; it applies to people living in the society (I dare to assume you are from North America here) you call your own. In the wealthiest country on the planet a huge number of people get to choose between supplementing with meat or malnutrition (in some cases, starving).
Your opinions and ethical values are your own, but you don’t get to pick your facts.
“Furthermore, if you have grocery stores on every corner, I congratulate you on your economic privilege ”
Thank you. I live in a city where there are grocery stores. I don’t believe that indicates economic privilege, just illustrates the fact that modern society has places where we can go to buy food if we so choose. Modern society, in my posts, does not refer to people who live in the extremes of the planet. I, along with most people, would hardly consider the Inuits a part of “modern society” owing to the fact that they live outside what most of us (especially all of us using our computers to comment on this thread) consider modern society.
“I will be clear: Your contention that nobody in our society needs to eat meat in this day and age, because vegan alternatives are easily available, is incorrect. It is factually wrong.”
Walking into any grocery store you will find a produce department which is full of “vegan alternatives.” People grow vegan alternatives called fruit & vegetables, grains, legumes & roots all across our nation. Eating an apple, whether we like to admit it or not, is a wonderful vegan alternative to a ham sandwich.
When talking about modern society, let’s not pull in arguments containing people outside of what we all understand that definition to be. If you live in an American city, town or state, chances are you’ve got a grocery store somewhere to get food. I find it difficult to believe that people cannot find places to shop for their food in cities and have to exist on what they can “find” the way that Inuits & Native Americans have to.
if one knowingly supports industries responsible for the torture and slaughter of animals, one is complicit. the gray areas for me are those living in poverty and those in third-world countries. the fact that most citizens of the first-world are being lied to by the politico-industrial complex would seem to create a grey area, but i think most are simply slaves to taste, convenience, and fashion. i do not give them a “pass,” rather i call on them to justify their actions.
this article troubles me because in some ways it seeks to excuse murderous behavior with fundamentally speciesist concerns, i.e., the concerns of these animals aren’t as important as the humans killing them in massive numbers.
Actually, John, I don’t disagree. It’s not a popular thing to say, but if we take the position that people are just doing their jobs and providing for their families, what about people who feed their families by abducting and selling young girls? Where’s *that* line? When does work based on enslavement become not respectable? (I fear the answer is: when humans are the ones being enslaved.)
My mother used to tell me that all work is honorable. But I don’t agree.
Sometimes I think of this disconnect, too — like in the instance of Lady GaGa’s horrible “costume” made of meat. I mean, I think it’s abhorrent, and I think it was a stunt on her part, but it’s technically no worse than people who go pick up a carcass to eat for dinner.
I haven’t read Melanie Joy’s new book, and I hope that that will put some of this into perspective for me because it is a tricky issue.
I know how this is going to sound, but I’ll say it: I don’t care if that man has a job and can feed his family; I don’t care if the military at Guantanamo Bay can now feed their families from torturing and killing people, either. That said I understand that if there were no market for bunny meat, that guy would be unable to do that particular job. I’m not sure what the market for torturing people is, though.
I’ve got relatives I love who eat meat. And I am complicit myself, I even buy it for my companion animals. But there seems to be a line to me that gets crossed somewhere; the devaluing of anyone based on something as arbitrary as species or nationality is prevalent and, I think, wrong. But we live in an imperfect world, so unfortunately things are not going to always be black and white.
I think vivisectors are especially despicable, I think the people who own the agribusinesses are especially despicable, who run puppy mills, etc. But the kind of pain vivisectors inflict, and soooo frequently on redundant experiments, for $$$$$$, is beyond excuse. I can’t believe that the majority of them think they’re helping humanity. I think most of them don’t give a shit about humanity (witness the side effects, the deaths, from pharmaceuticals).
There may be a disconnect, too, in terms of things like those who slaughter the animals (usually extremely poor from what I understand) and those who run the agribusinesses — those are the real bad guys. For them I have nothing but contempt. Maybe it’s politically incorrect, maybe it’s a contradiction because I do love people who are part of the reason slaughterhouses can even exist. (I love them, but I do not respect their choices to keep eating animals.)
It’s obviously a complex issue, and I agree that it’s often too easy to make it black and white.
I wonder if some of the demonizing comes from feelings of inefficacy in our movement, our small numbers — we’ll fight back with anything we can, even if dwindles into the realm of the immature and ineffective. Perhaps it feels that by calling names we’re making a statement?
I don’t know, really. Except that there are some people who learn about what happens to animals and quit their jobs (I heard this story from someone at a tabling event: a waiter stopped by the table and spoke to the person for a while; after he found out what happens to animals to become food, he decided to both become vegan [I think it was vegan] and quit his job so he wouldn’t be supporting it). Those examples are rare, but that they do exist I think speaks to something possible in humans, which makes it all the more curious why some do not give a shit, why most choose to ignore the suffering and why others take stances.
No answers, sorry.
“It’s not the people, it’s the system, it’s the culture. But the way we’re going to change the system and the culture is by changing the hearts and minds of the people, right?”
I think we need to convince a certain number of people that animals deserve rights before any other type of change will have positive lasting consequences. But we don’t need to convince everyone.
The most efficient use of our advocacy time is to focus on the people who are already a little sympathetic to the animals’ plight. We can nudge them a bit closer to veganism with minimum effort and risk. It just takes a bit of education to encourage a caring person to act more responsibly. But if someone lacks empathy to animals, no amount of vegan education will help.
The people who do not care about animal suffering should be ignored. Don’t even waste one iota of time on them. Instead, take whatever energy you’d direct towards vengeance and direct that towards rescue. Focus on the animals instead.
I think one thing that definitely needs to be brought up is the difference between the worker and the boss. I rarely find myself angry at the slaughterhouse worker, but the owner gets my judgment. Definitely. Most recently, Conklin farms owner got no punishment despite being seen beating animals, but the worker who I am sure was paid shit and taught everything by that owner is the one taking the rap. That is the way it is in the system we live in- the rich and powerful never get held responsible. Whent he chips are down, they will always blame the worker and let them go down for it.
I understand Stephanie’s post and this one and have thought of these things much in my life. But what I don’t understand is that we ostracize snitches and rapists in radical circles but we’re going to have extra compassion for those who harm, torture, and kill nonhuman animals.
Many people grow up with values that women are a subspecies to men or that queer people deserve to be murdered and hung. Those people may be wonderful charitable people to their fellow men, but they put me and those I love in danger and thus, I have no desire to keep them around or have compassion for them.
Why are those who torture and kill other animals any different? There are researchers making 6 figures doing pain and stress studies in rats. Some of these people do charitable things, sure. Why should that hide their dark side?
I think by focusing only on the good things people do, we tend to ignore the awful things because we want to believe that everyone is good and we want to feel safe. Well, I’m not as optimistic. I choose not to keep company with rapists, bashers, skinheads, and animal abusers no matter how nice they may be to me or people who fit in the groups they see fit not to marginalize.
I’ve gone back and forth on this issue a lot. While I do have compassion for the worker who I see as being abused like the animals, I do not for their boss who orders them to anally electrocute animals to death for coats and who takes int he money in his business of their flesh- whether or not he would have me over for dinner and whether or not he has compassion for his children.
Focusing ONLY on the system takes the focus off the individual. I want this system to perish right now. I want freedom and anarchy and love to be the new system. But until then, we can’t give a carte blanche for oppression by individuals- especially those capitalists who make the system what it is.
This isn’t a criticism of people here. More of a rant of feelings. I see a lot of compassion on the compassionate side of things. But sometimes, people have to know that their behavior is intolerable and that they cannot take advantage of compassionate people in order to continue this intolerable behavior. They can not use their position of power and its effects on others as a way to excuse their cruelty. They cannot use the system we live in as an excuse for capitalizing on constant harm and suffering.
The problem is that when you know people who eat animals, who are partly the reason for animal exploitation, how do you not associate with them? Especially when they’re people you love and care about?
Because I have asked myself this before, too; if my family owned slaves would I disown my family? Is it that easy? The damn emotional connection is there.
I think the societal part comes in because animal exploitation is sanctioned and condoned pretty much, even if indirectly, by people across the world regardless of religion (with the exception of Jainism,but my very brief research into that religion showed a disrespect for women), race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation and/or identification, age, economic status, etc.
Other types of abuses are no so “universally’ sanctioned (in quotes because I really hate that word when it applies just to the Earth — the universe is pretty big, but anyway…) and therefore I think it’s easier to make inroads, even if you are stepping on cultural toes and acting in a way that can be construed as imperialistic.
It’s hard for me to say how I’d react to relatives who did vivisection, or hunted, or anything like that, but I do know that I haven’t given up on a sister and a dad who eat meat, and I have one non-vegan friend. However, that last wasn’t intentional and I do try to stay away from forming close relationships with non-vegs in part for this reason.
People who work in slaughterhouses, while their plight is more understandable, cannot be automatically dis-counted as people who would otherwise care; and certainly in cases of HLS where there is documentation of workers punching animals, laughing at them we can’t pity these people — or at least I can’t — and despise the boss. They are all complicit, but some may have better reasons for doing what they do than others. None of which, in my mind, excuses them so much (though when we branch into issues of immigration it all seems to get very cloudy).
As for students in labs working their way through college: fuck ‘em. Go get a different job and stop hurting animals. If you wouldn’t do it to people don’t do it to animals. In those cases I have pretty much no empathy for humans. Actually, I think vivisection is one area that’s a lot less gray for me and I don’t excuse people who work in animal labs. Or zoos.
I am at a point in my life where I usually choose not to eat with others if they will be consuming animals- more because it hurts me to see someone chewing on someone’s body than it is about judging. I avoid some of my family due to everything from me being queer to them refusing to even have any understanding of why I do not eat other animals. That’s my personal thing.
The reason I chose to focus on bosses is because I think there is a big difference between an oppressor who sits on top and an oppressor who does so to survive or because of poverty. Thus I am more likely to excuse a poor man who beats his wife than I am a CEO of a bank. This is not to say either one is ok or that I am the moral authority on all things. But, when you’re rolling in the dough, your entire existence is based on keeping a hierarchy of oppression of humans and other animals going, you’re responsible not only for the individual actions, but for the system’s replenishment itself.
I made a decision that I will no longer be ableto get intimately close to people who support the abuse and killing of other animals, as well as people who support other oppressions. But, I so still keep people in my life who make such mistakes.
There is a lot of gray area. But I do think there is a big difference between someone who eats an animal (which in their experience is a piece of food) and someone who has created an empire and enterprise on those animals they look into the eyes of before ordering others to slit their throats for meager wages.
It’s a question that while at first seems difficult to answer it actually easy to see IF you are willing to be honest. It all comes down to this, would you still think it’s ok if it was done on a human? Actually a human child I’d say because they have not as developed brains and are less capable to defend themselves. Would you still think that person has morals??
I think we tend to try to excuse all those people, especially when have some sort of relationship with them. Up to a point it’s understandable but ultimately we have to realize that we all keep making a bunch of excuses to justify every single thing we should (try) to do better but for some reason we don’t. And this is no exeption. Every job is honorable indeed???? So killing and torturing can be honorable if you get money for it? I ‘m sorry but I disagree. Just as I don’t believe its ok to stop having morals when facing difficulties in your life of any kind, I don’t believe that people can be justified when they get paid to do those abhorrent things. Even when they are of a lower income or poor country. Other people choose not to so why can’t they too?? I would rather commit suicide than be a murderer.
I can justify people who are disconnected from the true source of their foods, be patient with them and help them realize the truth, but people who kill and torture the animals themselves? They creep me out. Those people have that animal right there in their hands, when its terrified, when it screams, when in it’s own language it pleads for mercy for a crime it has not commited, they are the ones who torture without second thought poor innocent things, they cause their pain, suffering oh dear I can’t continue this, I ‘ll start crying, you get what I ‘m trying to say here. Why is that different from a child torture????
And actually I think those who actually do the killing are EVEN worse than their bosses. Because while their bosses should know better and have more choices than them as to how they are going to make money they are not the ones who are holding the knife. They are not the ones who do all those horrible things. They don’t do them THEMSELVES. The workers do it. And between the one who is the cause for the death(s) and the one who actually kills, the last one is the worse one.
Hello Rosalie,
I don’t think you can’t totally disconnect those who buy the result of killing from those who do the killing. Granted, there are differences. For example, if push came to shove and I had to, for whatever reason, kill animals myself to feed my cats and dog I could not do it. I’d have to let the cats out to hunt mice and grasshoppers or something — I just have no clue what I would do.
The reason I mention things that are societally acceptable and those that aren’t in terms of exploitation is because there are otherwise good people who do terrible things to non-humans, people who, if suddenly it became obvious to a majority that animals do not deserve that kind of treatment, would not do it or be part of it. These people are not on the front lines of stopping this kind of abuse because they benefit from it, but if they truly recognized it for what it is and stopped making their endless excuses they would stop eating animals, stop supporting vivisection, etc.
When I think of my omnivore sister it’s not simple as you suggest. She buys mainly non-animal-tested stuff for cleaning, I think she buys Sephora makeup, Body Shop shampoo (I know, owned now by L’Oreal or some crappy corporation); she is very opposed to fur and she calls me practically every day to tell me stories about her cat Lily or the sparrows, chipmunks, rabbits and squirrels she feeds, who sit on the railing and stare into her apartment at her — it’s quite a connection and it’s the freaking damnedest thing that she does not make the connection (I once pointed it out to her but knowing how my abrasive new-convert vegetarianism 20 years ago possibly put her off veg*nism forever I try to hold my tongue). If it were generally accepted that animals should not be eaten I feel 90% sure that she would not eat them.
There’s something a little more than what’s obvious to you and me, I think, that prevents most people from seeing the rights of animals, of acknowledging that kind of horrendous suffering. I’m thinking it’s some kind of psychological-sociological THING, but being neither psychologist or sociologist I have no clue what it could be.
If animals could speak up for themselves in human language, too, I think things would be different. But it’s very easy for people to ignore what they do not witness and what they don’t even know they don’t know. It’s very easy to believe the Bible or some such that demands superiority of one over the other because God Said So, you know?
Please understand: I am not saying this makes it right, just that even though what’s black and white obvious to you and me is not necessarily so for the majority of the world and that even good people are responsible for some of the worst offenses on the planet and yet they still remain, somehow, pretty good people.
I think I’m more confused now than ever! Because part of me wants to scream: NO. IT’S SO F*CKING OBVIOUS — KILLING IS KILLING!!! We would not even be having this discussion if it were about child pornography. Except I think that because one thing (animal murder) is not condemned soceitally and one (child porn) is, people seem to understand that better. Does that make any sense?
Cause I’m not sure I know!
Hi Wendy,
I understand what you mean and the things that confuse you and pretty much agree with everything ( please note that I didn’t write all my thoughts on the matter because it would be too long ) . My thoughts used to be like yours from the things you say about those people to the confusion I felt at the end, but I realized that at the end there’s only so many excuses we can make. All throughout history things have happened exactly as you stated, people have been confused so much about everything and that includes anything moral.
But in the end we have a choice . And a brain capable of making connections. And most importantly a heart. So no, while I can justify people ignoring truths that are right before their eyes I can’t justify their directly killing others, especially torture.
And I understand what you mean about your omnivore sister and that’s my point when I talk about people who are disconnected from the truth that while their heart is definately on the right place they don’t always realize the truth so easily, and the huge difference between us and them as well and those who actually murder and torture. Because they aren’t disconnected from the truth at all. The truth is right there day after day looking at them in the eyes cowering, pleading, hurting, dying.
Also I would like to point out that I was speaking generally. Things as you said yourself are a bit more complicated when your emotionaly attached to a person who does something you consider unacceptable . And I say a bit because in the end it’s the same for them as well, but it’s harder for us to aknowledge it. To be sure we are impartial we should think, what if someone else did this, someone I didn’t know?What would I feel then?
But you know what gets me everytime? That its aaalways about the humans, not only this whole animals are our slaves thing but also that we protect those who do it, justify them, even turn the blind eye when we see their actions , we see animals torture as of lower importance than ours and we seek to justify other humans when they do things to animals that had they done them to humans they would have faced life time imprisonement. I am tired of human ego and arrogance. I ‘m tired of protecting the villains. When they cross the line and do themselves those horrible things ( or pay others to do it big scale as well ) they do not deserve my compassion. I ‘ll keep it for those who while still eat meat and wear leather, don’t know where it’s coming from cause they don’t know the details and they’d be horrified if the knew. The others not only know, they are making it happen. Those horrible details that so many vegans saw on those videos-documentaries? Yeah it was them doing them.
As you can tell I am very passionate on the matter and I could write whole pages about it I ‘ll stop now I think you get my point.
Oh and something else,I think it’s important to remember that it’s our actions who determine who we are not our intentions or the general impression we give, meaning people who generally seem nice. It doesn’t matter what you seem, it’s what you do that matters. And your integrity as well.
Sorry I misspelled your name, Roselie.
There’s a lot of talk here about whether we should “excuse” or ignore people’s animal-abusing or animal-killing behavior, implying that someone has suggested that. I don’t think any one of us who argues against demonizing people is saying we should excuse those people or ignore their harmful behaviors. Not doing one does not require doing the other. We can discuss and criticize and draw connections for people and challenge people and ideas without demonizing and oversimplifying who people are at their core.
I think we all agree that people have to be changed for the system to change, but changing people’s behaviors and mindsets — the behaviors and mindsets of people who aren’t sadistic but who sincerely don’t recognize they’re doing anything wrong — isn’t going to happen through demonizing them and screaming at them or threatening them or refusing to talk or spend time with them or denying that there is any good in them. And yes, I will extend this to some students working in university labs too. Again, there are people doing that kind of work who’ve been indoctrinated over a very long time to think of it as noble lifesaving work, who’ve been taught perhaps without even realizing it that this is the only way things can be and even that, contrary to what their not-fully-processed observations tell them, the animals don’t suffer. Call them out? Talk to them about what they’re doing? Show them — and others — how wrong the actions are? Absolutely. But if their intent truly isn’t sadistic, if they aren’t consciously choosing to be cruel, if they sincerely don’t recognize that they’re a part fo something unnecessary and unjust, I don’t see the benefit in pretending, and approaching them or portraying them, as if they are.
There are callous, violent, brutal, sadistic people out there, yes, but I don’t believe it does us any favors to presume and speak as if this is true of all or even most of the people doing things we know to be abhorrent.
Regarding the last sentence of my second paragraph, I meant that to say that I don’t see the benefit in taking the stance that their intent is sadistic, that their conscious choice is cruelty, and that they recognize the injustice but just don’t care. I realized after hitting “submit” that it could be misread — I was arguing against misrepresenting their intentions/mindsets, not against honestly portraying the wrongness and cruelty and injustice of their actions and behaviors.
Part of what this loaded post is is an admission that I, Mary Martin, am tempted to demonize people who torture and kill animals because that’s *easier* than the more complex reality that they are very likely not evil at all. I’m not campaigning for actually calling them evil or trying to do anything about their behavior. I was revealing my own internal dialogue.
Another part is my discomfort around how it’s perfectly socially acceptable to view those who enslave, torture and kill humans as despicable (yes, judging them), yet we must tiptoe around the idea of judging those who enslave, torture and kill nonhumans.
@Mary: Fwiw, my reference to the repeated mentions of “excusing” people was in relation to commments more than to the actual post.
I guess one difference to consider, regarding human-on-human versus human-on-nonhuman violence, is that in many (but not all) cases, the humans we have no qualms about labeling and treating as despicable kill and maim and otherwise harm their fellow humans out of hate and for consciously selfish reasons, whereas many of the humans who kill and otherwise harm their fellow animals (or at least the types whom I argue we shouldn’t demonize) often do so out of ignorance or indoctrination — they don’t hate the animals they’re killing or think they’re an enemy to be eliminated; rather, they’re disconnected from who the animals are and ignorant to the injustice and nonnecessity of what they’re doing.
I will definitely say, on the students, it really is bashed into your head that animal research is necessary. I remember watching students come into classes horrified by the mistreatment of other animals and leave thinking it’s ok. For me, animal testing was the last thing I was sold on abolishing completely and it DID take a person being understanding to convert me (but I was already vegan among other things).
There is a very strong campaign of misinformation going on in Universities- especially those that make a lot of money from animal research.
That being said, I’ve also debated with animal researchers who I somehow know more than, despite never doing it myself, and they choose not to look at the ethical and scientific evidence against them. It is very different than the work study cleaning cages.
I think all people need to be approached in different ways. I’ve always loved the intense in your face approach and it’s taught me a lot of things- but perhaps I am more open to learning? More privileged in what I’ve been exposed to? I don’t know.
Am I missing something? Don’t animal rights advocates believe in a way of life that excludes all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals for food, clothing, entertainment, research or any other purpose? Throughout history certain jobs have been phased out and people found other ways to make a living. The people who don’t believe that they are doing anything wrong should be asked to switch places with the animals who are at their mercy. Even for just one time. Stephanie loves her grandfather who is a hunter. Don’t vivisectionists also have grandchildren who love them? That does not change the fact that what they are doing is evil. To the animals it doesn’t matter if their torturers are demonized, viewed as victims, villified or excused. The fact is that millions, billions, trillions of animals are constantly being exploited, tortured, living in terror and agony at the hands of humans.The only thing that matters to them is that it’s stopped.
Sharon F.
I don’t think anyone disagrees that we must stop our exploitation, torture and killing of sentient nonhumans. This post was a deconstruction of what goes on in my mind–and what I see going on in the larger world around me–regarding the people who do the exploiting, of both humans and nonhumans. The animals do not care what we are thinking about, that’s true. But part of participating in a movement is unpacking the thoughts we have–however uncomfortable–around the disconnects, the hypocrisy, and things we tell ourselves to get us through the day.
I thought this topic was worthy of a post, but perhaps it’s too self-absorbed for your liking.
Sharon, I’ve seen no one indicate that he or she doesn’t believe the exploitation and killing of our fellow animals to be inherently wrong. *Of course* we all want these jobs to stop existing, for people’s minds and behaviors to change, for the world to shift. But *how* that’s going to happen? How best to influence and relate to people? How to move in the world while we’re trying to make that happen? These are legitimate–and necessary–conversations to have. Just telling people, “Hey, you’re wrong; knock it off” doesn’t work. If it did, the whole world would be a lot more peaceful, just place.
Yes, Mary’s post was in part about what goes on inside her, and yes, my earlier post inspired by grandpa was largely personal too, but the questions raised — and the matters of how we go about effecting change and opening the minds and hearts of people who aren’t yet where we are mentally — are vital points of discussion.
When society views corpse-munching like we do cannibalism, we will have a vegan world. The best way to get us from here to there, is to view the two as the same now and express our outrage in non-violent creative ways … unless you don’t care that much or you are cool with the present failing tiny movement of vegans. The hour is late!
Well, this post sure is an interesting one, raising as it does an issue I think quite a bit about.
I’ve been reading this site since it first went up, but as non-chatty INTP type haven’t posted before because previously my comments wouldn’t have been novel. Today, unusually, I’m finding my train of thought not entirely in accord with yours, Mary, so I thought on that basis I would comment. I apologise in advance this post won’t be quite as detailed or well thought ought as might be helpful. Perhaps I will revisit this topic at a later time – it is sure to arise again.
I became a vegetarian at about age 18. I didn’t know any other vegetarians and I don’t think I’d ever heard the word vegan at that point. In biology one day were shown a video on the treatment of battery hens. Dinner that night was chicken drumsticks, and as I reached across the table to put one on my plate, a series of thoughts flashed across my mind.
1. This chicken suffered because I was willing to eat it. 2. To reduce suffering for animals, I probably shouldn’t eat them, now or in the future. 3. But knowing this doesn’t bother me emotionally, so maybe it doesn’t matter and I can go on eating animals anyway. 4. I said what???? I don’t care about suffering because I don’t feel it myself? And do I want to be a person who acts purely on how I feel about things, or based on what I reason is right?
I didn’t eat the chicken that night. Flash forward 17 years: I’ve now been vegan for two years, and find myself reading this blog. Mary asks:
“What about graduate students working in research labs whose torture of animals helps pay their tuition? Are there any bad people, or just people who do bad things, therefore we should, to paraphrase, dislike the sin but not the sinner?”
Well, that is me. In fact, although I haven’t handled a lab. animal in several years now, I’m finishing up my PhD thesis, which will describe experiments performed on tissue that I took from mice after killing them.
Early on in my thinking about becoming vegan, numerous issues confronted me, but my process of reasoning led me to two conclusions in particular that were thorny for me: 1. my prior lacto-vegetarianism probably hadn’t been as effective at reducing animal suffering as I would have liked to believe and (2) my scientific use of animals had been unjustified, and as wrong as if I had killed humans to obtain their tissue for study.
I will no longer perform animal experiments, and will not be applying for postdoctoral work for the time being, because any research role I’d be considered qualified to perform would likely involve the use of animal products (eg. Animal derived antibodies, fetal calf serum, non-fat milk powder – the list goes on).
I infer from what Mary has written that either I’m a bad person or just a person who does (did) bad things, and that in this way I differ from Mary and most of the readers on this blog, who are ‘exempt’ from being assigned to either category, because although you’ve perhaps (previously) consumed vertebrate animals and their secretions for decades, you’ve probably never consciously killed one with your own hands (I’ll leave out invertebrates in this discussion, although I certainly don’t exempt them from my consideration in daily life).
Mary asks “Where’s the line? What’s the line?”
Well, for starters, I have a different perspective that described by Mary:
“The temptation to view people who hunt, kill, torture, skin, gut, enslave or “experiment” on sentient nonhumans as in some way evil. People who eat and wear animals are exempt from this temptation in my mind as there is a significant difference between using an end product, such as ice cream or a down comforter, and looking someone in the eye and causing them harm and/or ending their life. There is a disconnect that is mortally easy when it comes to using an animal who has already been killed and who no longer resembles her natural, whole self. Using already-dead animals isn’t excusable, it’s just not the same as killing someone.”
As a minor, I would have concurred with the above reasoning. But from 18 onwards, through my time as a lactoveg, non animal-wearing animal experimenter, to me there was only one important difference between a well-nourished human who purchased a body part from a killed animal to eat it, and one who took such a body part for the purpose of surgery or medical experimentation: the latter action had the potential to improve the human condition and was warranted, while the former action had no such potential and resulted in animal death and suffering for the sake of a trivial pleasure.
The difference in my thinking now, and the basis of my career-ending decision is this: medical experimentation using animal body parts is unwarranted because animals are sentient yet cannot give informed consent.
So this is where I substantially disagree with you Mary (my changes to your text indicated by **):
“We’re supposed to blame the system–the system that commodifies sentient nonhumans (and in fact nearly every thing and every one not human). But at the point of ** utilizing the products of killing or enslavement**, it is, after all, up to a person to decide whether or not such an activity will occur. Whether lifting a fork, wearing a coat or accepting an egg-based vaccination against infectious disease, a person is responsible. You can talk about a system all day long, but it is the people who have accepted and internalized the culture, the system–the story that we tell ourselves–who need changing.”
As for : “Using already-dead animals isn’t excusable, it’s just not the same as killing someone.”
Well, unless a consumer is very young or has a very low IQ, they will know where animal products come from. And that makes them responsible, even if they *feel* different about causing an animal to be killed, than they do about doing the killing themselves.
So back to Mary’s question “Where’s the line? What’s the line?”
My two cents:
What is the line?
Well as you’ve probably figured out by now, for me the line divides those who have at any point used animals without said animals informed consent (practically every human alive today), and those who have not.
What is the line?
Well, in my opinion, that’s consideration for the interests of organisms with neurons. Goes for squid, goes for insects, goes for human babies. Can I continue my life and never cross this line? Probably not. But I’m doing what I can.
Mary asks: “Why are some users of animals so easily demonized (e.g., those who experiment on them, those involved in the fur trade), even warranting home demonstrations while others are immune…”
Because many people find it easy to demonize people who participate in activities that they themselves have never performed, although these activities performed by the demonized have outcomes for the victims that are substantially similar to the outcomes of activities performed by the demonizers.
I’ve kept that about as short as I can. Thanks for an interesting post, Mary, and to anyone who’s read this far, thanks for your consideration of my thoughts.
Have you considered doing in vitro studies with human cells? Your experience would probably allow you to shift to a field like that with organ cultures or cell cultures- maybe donated stem cells or something?
I applaud you for giving up nonhuman animal research. As a guardian of two rats, I despise the way rodents are treated in the research field even more than before I shared their company.
You can also know that there are plenty of scientific problems with extrapolating nonhuman research to humans so you are making the right decision. Good for you and good luck in finding a new path in life!
I recently decided to return to school to be a vet tech after years of experience in human research because I found there to be so many problems with scientific fields in general. I’d rather spend my time helping animals, which I already do for free.
G’day Corvus,
Thank you for your encouraging words.
Yes, I have been giving alot of thought to how I could continue to be a lab-based researcher. Having experienced many ‘problems with scientific fields’ myself – well, problems with other scientists and their methods, mainly (but not to digress) I was thinking of getting out of the dehumanising biomedical game altogether. But there is so much about the practice of medical science that really needs to be changed – with animal experimentation one example – that simply won’t change if the only people who do science are those who conform to the scientific status quo. So we shall see.
I think cell culture as you mention is one option, although frequently this will involve bathing the cells in some kind of animal-derived supplement, like fetal calf serum, or assaying the cells with an animal-derived antibody, and so forth. I actually think that it will be possible to hunt down and – where necessary – develop alternative methods. In some cases it will be easy, in some cases difficult. Actually this is a big topic, and one to which I will be giving much consideration.
The main practical problem for ethical biomedical scientific practice is that it isn’t quite like cosmetics or food, where the consumer has a distinct choice about whether to purchase ‘cruelty free’ or otherwise. I can’t put out my shingle as a supplier of cruelty free molecular biomedical services, and let people choose between me and the other guy who uses animals or their parts. Science funding in Australia is decided by peer review, and the peers here generally (probably universally) consider that if you value animal rights, you’re automatically considered to be ignorant and ‘anti-scientific’.
Good luck with your studies Corvus, I hope you find them fulfilling.
@Bronwyn K,
There is a significant difference between using animals and killing them. How do I know? Because I used animals for years and would never knowingly do the killing. It’s not in me. It takes something within someone to be able to knowingly take a life (when not in a situation of self defense, and maybe even then as I’ve never been in that position so I can’t say).
To the animals, it’s all the same. They don’t care if I kill them or I pay someone else to do it and just use the end product. (And I think we’d all include products that are tested on animals or include animal ingredients when referring to using animals.)
But I was talking about the people who do the killing, and taking someone’s life is indeed different from using someone’s corpse.
Mary,
Thank you for your reply.
Two areas in which I have an interest are alternatives to animal and animal product usage in biomedical science, and effective methods of raising awareness of animal rights and animal alternatives amongst other researchers. To the latter end, what I think I ‘know’ of human nature can always bear revision, so I hope you don’t mind if I enquire further.
With respect to your response:
“There is a significant difference between using animals and killing them. How do I know? Because I used animals for years and would never knowingly do the killing. It’s not in me. It takes something within someone to be able to knowingly take a life (when not in a situation of self defense, and maybe even then as I’ve never been in that position so I can’t say)…”
and regarding the use of killing animals, or not, to obtain tissue,
What is the “something within someone”, the “significant difference”, between killer and end user, more precisely?
What is it that is or is not in you that is not or is present in someone who has knowingly killed an animal?
Have you observed that these traits/characteristics are common to all or most animal killers versus animal end-users?
Do you have any additional evidence in support of this/these difference/differences?
I’m trying to relate to your perspective a little better. Out of curiosity, how did you “use animals for years”?
@Bronwyn K,
I have no idea what the trait is. I’d wager it’s more prevalent in males, but I have no scientific evidence of that.
I used animals for years. I was raised as an omnivore, wore leather, etc… I didn’t go to circuses or animal parks, but my daily life otherwise included animals. As a teenager I started educating myself and the more I learned, the less I used animals.
Empathy is inbuilt in social mammals, including human animals. This is a well-documented fact. In the face of suffering, empathy is a pre-reflective, that is, not-rationally-mediated, response; in the first moment, it is felt.
It stands to reason, then, that having animals disembodied, pre-packaged, and served to you as a consumable “thing” differs qualitatively from YOU doing the disembodying yourself. When you are the acting agent you must necessarily overcome that inbuilt, empathetic response to suffering.
Now, I recognize that ideology may mediate: animals are viewed as “things,” not subjects, and therefore their suffering is rationalized, which can strain the empathetic response; furthermore, as empathy is extended outward, beyond our “in-group,” it becomes watered-down. However, I still maintain that the “natural” capacity to empathize with another’s suffering must be overcome, and it is THAT ability to overcome that may separate those who indirectly use animals from those who do so directly.
Sorry, that should be:
So this is where I substantially disagree with you Mary (my changes to your text indicated by **):
“We’re supposed to blame the system–the system that commodifies sentient nonhumans (and in fact nearly every thing and every one not human). But at the point of ** utilizing the products of** killing or enslavement, it is, after all, up to a person to decide whether or not such an activity will occur. Whether **lifting a fork, wearing a coat or accepting an egg-based vaccination against infectious disease**, a person is responsible. You can talk about a system all day long, but it is the people who have accepted and internalized the culture, the system–the story that we tell ourselves–who need changing.”
To avoid demonizing other folks, I look at my own actions, especially when I’ve failed others or myself. That makes empathy possible and judgment less likely. Perhaps “evil” and “good” individuals don’t exist. We are our actions from hour to hour. Those actions are in constant flux like a river. Does living a vegan life redeem my past? I haven’t found this to be so. It just lets me match my actions to my beliefs better: to continue to learn how to cause less harm and to help whenever I’m able to help.
Our culture is speciesist. The norm is to be speciesist and eat/use animals. Must we somehow accommodate that and go against ourselves, dilute our words and actions? Nope. We all love relatives and friends who are speciesist. One of my closest relatives is a former animal researcher. Is there a satisfying resolution to my relationships with speciesist individuals? Nope. Some conflicts have no resolution.
Vivisection is a billion dollar industry. It has no scientific basis. None. Vivisection harms lab animals and people. Results from animal experiments cannot be used to predict human response to pharmaceutical compounds and disease. A thorough review of the scientific literature today makes this self-evident. Evolutionary biology, complex systems theory, genome analyses, and statistical data on the failure of animal tests are a few of the primary aspects the literature addresses. The public relations juggernaut of the industry implies people benefit from vivisection. This is how vivisectors try to justify their use of our annual taxes to pay for animal experiments and to sustain a dead-end institution.
We’re running out of time to live right on this earth. If we want the children of future generations to inherit a society far more substantial than one with only a little less violence and a little less injustice, then we have to continue to strongly oppose the murder of all species. We have to continue to travel beyond our comfort zone in our dialogue with each other and in our grassroots actions for our hometowns.
Hi Everyone,
I was wondering if this website was the one that which the social activists fight for the killings of dolphins and whales in Taiji Japan. If anyone can help me with the proper information that would be highly appreciated. Thank You.
Iris
It seems to be that it’s more advantageous and tactically efficient to focus on the species we cause suffering to here. Japanese slaughter of animals is no more cruel than what we do on farms here. And you don’t have to buy a plane ticket.
An excellent post, Mary! Thank you for writing it.
For me, the more direct and personal the cruelty, the stronger my urge to demonize becomes. So while I can still tolerate people who consume animal products at the dinner table, I’d find it much harder (probably impossible) to have relationships with, for example, hunters, vivisectionists, researchers, or people who participate in activities like dogfights. And sometimes too I just get so angry and frustrated, and can’t understand why what is obvious to myself and other vegans, isn’t as clear to everyone else. But then I try to remember what my mindset was like before I became vegan, and how resistant I was to anyone trying to change me or tell me that I was wrong about something. In the end I guess all we can do is figure out (and discussions like this are part of it) as many effective ways as possible to reach as many people as possible.
Corpse-munchers are evil
Adjective
evil
1. Intending to harm; malevolent.
2. Morally corrupt.
Noun
evil
1. The forces/behaviors that are the opposite or enemy of good. Evil generally seeks own benefit at the expense of others and is based on general malevolence. The evils of society include murder.
2. Any particular individual or state which may follow these forces or behaviors.
“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the ignorant and/or apathetic corpse-munchers who are evil, but because of the vegans who don’t do anything about it”
Mary, thank you for your reply.
Alex, re: “…it is THAT ability to overcome that may separate those who indirectly use animals from those who do so directly.” Yes, it may. And it may not.
I’d just like to explain that I’m actually not here to pick a fight. I’m relatively new to commenting on blogs, and am carefully weighing my words carefully to avoid appearing confrontational or gratuitously provocative. I may not always succeed, especially since I’m time-poor.
1. In my thinking about how biomedical science might proceed whilst efforts are made to end animal experimentation, I have given relatively less consideration to the attitudes towards (and knowledge of) biomedical scientists who are ‘direct’ animal users, – and towards biomedical science itself – held by those who are currently vegan.
Elaine wrote: “The people who do not care about animal suffering should be ignored. Don’t even waste one iota of time on them.” I agree with what (I infer) Elaine was saying about maximizing the effectiveness of one’s animal rights ‘outreach’. However, having read the responses to Mary’s original post, and having noted some of the comments here regarding (biomedical, animal experimenting) scientists, and the speculation and statements about how they might be different from other people, I would suggest that one may not always correctly identify “the people who do not care about animal suffering”.
I’m not in a position to make claims about the relative effectiveness of ‘awareness-raising’ methods on scientists versus the rest of the population, but based on what I have observed of my former colleagues I would suggest that such efforts are unlikely to be a waste of time.
2. In response to Mary’s original post, there has been some discussion – in which I participated – of where to draw ‘the line’, and of who might be included or excluded on/from one side of the line.
When I recognise that I’m demarcating similar types of boundaries between myself and others, I find it useful to ask myself not so much “Where is the exact best place to put this line?” but rather “Why am I interested in drawing this line? Why is it important to me to draw this line? What do I gain by drawing it, and what might I fear to lose if I don’t?”
I’ve sometimes found that these deliberations help me to be honest with myself about the motivation/s behind my impulses to label or judge others.
Reading the responses to Mary’s post, it appears to me that a line – between groups of people with particular characteristics, rather than between actions that are harmful or not harmful – is not only being drawn, but defended and justified with some vigour. I hope you might care to ask yourself/yourselves why that may be.
Hi Bronwyn K,
I don’t pretend to say I know for certain who believes they care about animal suffering. What I can comment on is what people’s actions tell me. One of two things is the case: a) their actions are aligned with their beliefs, or b) their actions are not aligned. In other words, they believe they care, yet their actions harm animals–their actions belie their proclamations and beliefs. They might not have thought about that, however, like the probably hundreds of millions of people who claim to care about the suffering of animals yet eat and wear and otherwise use them daily.
Vegan education is largely about bringing attention to that disconnect.
With regards to the lines we draw, there’s no fear of losing anything. The reality is that everyone has a line, and I’m just curious about where everyone’s lines are. For me, it’s an interesting topic. I don’t know if there’s a “best place;” that wasn’t really what I was after.
I ask these questions, which some might find annoying, because I believe that the more you know about why your beliefs and actions are what they are, the better positioned you are to have such conversations with others.