Can We See Our Hypocrisy to Animals?



Caroline FischerPeriod 111 October, 2013Can We See Our Hypocrisy to Animals?By?NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFPublished: July 27, 2013The slaughter was monstrous, but it was also mystifying — which is the way it often is. I’ve interviewed war criminals in a half-dozen countries, and it’s always bewildering how the nice old person across from me, so graciously concerned with how much milk I want in my coffee, could have committed atrocities.The puzzle of such episodes is that otherwise good and decent people were so oblivious to the abhorrence of what was going on. So I was struck that the same section of this newspaper that carried a?thoughtful review by A. O. Scott?of “Act of Killing”?also reviewed another documentary. That one was “Blackfish,” and it looks at the SeaWorld marine park and its (mis)treatment of orcas.Orcas, also known as killer whales, are sophisticated mammals whose brains may be more complex than our own. They belong in the open sea and seem to suffer severe physical and mental distress when forced to live in tanks. Maybe that is why?they sometimes go berserk and attack trainers. You or I might also go nuts if we were forced to live our lives locked up in a closet to entertain orcas.SeaWorld?denies the claims, which isn’t surprising since it earns millions from orcas. Two centuries ago, slave owners argued that slaves enjoyed slavery.The juxtaposition of the two reviews made me wonder: Some day, will our descendants be mystified by how good and decent people in the early 21st century — that’s us — could have been so oblivious to the unethical treatment of animals?There certainly has been progress. Centuries ago, a European game consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death without getting your eyes scratched out. These days, torturing animals is a crime.Peter Singer,?the Princeton philosopher, published his landmark book “Animal Liberation” in 1975, and, at first, the idea was regarded as a quixotic source of amusement.Who would have thought then that today we would be discussing the rights of killer whales, or that the National Institutes of Health?would be halting most lab experiments with chimpanzees? Who could have imagined that Burger King would now be buyingcage-free eggs out of concern for hens? Or, more accurately, out of concern for tens of millions of customers who empathize with hens?Today, the challenge is factory farming, which produces food exceptionally cheaply, at huge cost in animal welfare.“There are still tens of billions of animals suffering horribly in factory farms every year, around the world,” Singer told me.Big Agriculture has dug in its heels, backing “ag gag”?laws that punish whistle-blowerswho secretly document abusive conditions for livestock or poultry. The House of Representatives recently had the gall to amend the farm bill so as to?nullify many state laws protecting farm animals. “In a single legislative act, it could undo two decades of state lawmaking to protect animals,” said?Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States; let’s hope the Senate-House conference committee will drop this amendment.A surprising force for positive change has been food companies, responding to consumer pressure. In 2013, so far, there have been commitments to stop using?pork from gestation crates?(which don’t allow sows to turn around)?from General Mills, Tim Hortons, IHOP, Applebee’s, Marriott and Au Bon Pain.McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Safeway, Oscar Mayer, Costco and others had announced in 2012 that they would move away from gestation crates.Europe has also already moved decisively to improve animal welfare. Most astonishing, a grass-roots animal rights movement has emerged in China, winning a battle this yearagainst companies that cruelly “milk” bears of bile?to sell for quasi-medicinal purposes.Look, I confess to hypocrisy. I eat meat, albeit with misgivings, and I have no compunctions about using mousetraps. So what? We have the same inconsistencies, controversies and hypocrisies in dealing with human rights. We may disagree about waterboarding terror suspects, but almost everyone shares a revulsion for genocide, the use of poison gas or the torture of children.Now we are plodding along a similar controversial, inconsistent, hypocritical — and progressive — path on animal rights. We may disagree about eating meat, but growing numbers share a disgust for extreme behavior, like the force-feeding of geese (now banned in California) to produce p?té.We as a global society have crossed the Rubicon. We disagree about where to draw the line to protect animal rights, but almost everyone now agrees that there is a line to be drawn.May our descendants, when, in the future, they reflect uncomprehendingly on our abuse of hens and orcas, appreciate that we are good and decent people moving in the right direction, and show some compassion for our obliviousness.In his article, Kristof reflects solely on the mistreatment of animals. As the speaker of his piece, he argues to his audience of a natural society that we are hypocrites towards the animal population. People claim they are against animal cruelty, yet believe it is fine to cage wild orcas in tanks in Sea World for their own public enjoyment. This indubitably enrages animal-rights battlers and casts a hateful shadow on those who fake the attitude for wanting animals to be free. Kristof gives many examples of animal mistreatment like the caging of orcas previously stated, the laboratory testing on chimpanzees, and the cruel behavior displayed upon animals in factory farms. He claims that it is our own fault animals act the way they do in captivity when explaining that orcas “belong in the open sea and seem to suffer severe physical and mental distress when forced to live in tanks. Maybe this is why they sometimes go berserk and attack trainers” (paragraph 4). Here, Kristof illustrates the effect the imprisonment has on certain animals and how humans are permanently scarring them without even realizing it. All humans care to see if a good show put on by Sea World. As the innocent subject in this article, the suffering animals help display the purpose of this article to stop animal mistreatment. Protecting farm animals is another issue because “there are still tens of billions of animals suffering horribly in factory farms every year, around the world” (paragraph 10) and civilians don’t seem to pay any attention nor provide a proper solution to this problem! The tone Kristof drapes over the beginning of his article is unfortunately miserable as animal loves read the cruelty the innocent creates have endured. Luckily though, Kristof enlightens the tone when stating that “McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Safeway, Oscar Mayer, Costco and others had announced in 2012 that they would move away from gestation crates” (paragraph 13) which restrict sow’s from turning around in their enclosures. Hopefully, once large businesses and corporations slowly steer away from using equipment or taking actions to harm animals, other people will too. One piece of compelling evidence that broke my heart when reading was how “Centuries ago, a European game consisted of nailing a cat to a post and head-butting it to death” (paragraph 6). Despite it being so long in the past, it still shocks me that humans have taken part in treating animals this way. This disturbing piece of evidence helps support Kristof’s urge to end animal cruelty because most people wouldn’t believe others would partake in inhumane and sick actions such as these. And the terrible truth is that things like this still go on today! Despite animal cruelty being illegal, that does not stop some people. No one publicizes the harsh horrors that occur with animals, such as the encaged orcas, which is why people are not aware and why Kristof writes that it must end.Claim: Unsettled and fed up with animal cruelty, Kristof uses disturbing and heart-breaking evidence as well as human morals to support his argument that this mistreatment must end, and gives a cold shoulder to human hypocrites who assert that they love animals, yet put their own enjoyment to see them in captivity before the animal’s rights and needs. Question: How do you feel about the actions taking place to decrease animal cruelty? Are there even appropriate actions taking place, or are people just not informed or not care? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download