A blogger has written an Op Ed that attempts to support the notion that those who kill animals or benefit from the killing by partaking in its repast – whether by eating animals or, I presume, by going to dolphin shows or “swim-withs” where one leaves with a selfie as she kisses or hugs a dolphin – are not “monsters”.
In the first instance, any pretense of discussion of name-calling can be answered quite readily without pretending to have a rational discussion of psychological pathologies. The ready answer is, be polite. Most humans were taught at a very early age, sometimes with the aid of soap-in-the-mouth, that name-calling is not polite.
So we’ve settled that bit.
Thinking people will recognize that his argument is based in a “because lots of people do it, it cannot be monstrous” position. But let’s be clear: that a monstrosity is cultural makes it no less monstrous.
There are obvious and numerous examples of acts that are no more acceptable just because many can do it in their sleep while chewing gum. Most of us living in 2014 would need but a second or two to recognize and list examples of past and culturally-accepted behavior that violate our current sense of ethics:
- Slavery/human trafficking
- Genital mutilation
- Stoning of women
- Hysterectomies to address, you guessed it, hysteria
to name just a few. These all have in common that each had a time when it was accepted as a social norm. Some cultures have modified the practices to be more palatable in a “rational” and “ethical” world. All of these remain acceptable practices in some cultures. All of them share something else: the need to be considered and eradicated without attempting to assuage the consciences of those who either cling to them or took part in them in the past.
Any attempts to assuage those consciences should be outed as nothing more than a red-herring. None who genuinely work for a more ethical, sustainable world are motivated by or interested in making someone feel bad for something they did in a state of ignorance. And it is undeniable that, nearly without exception, all who considered these practices acceptable were ignorant to the reality that the practices were never ethical, in the sense of ultimate ethics. The best that one can do to justify any of these activities is found using some amalgam of relative and cultural ethics, where ethics are justified or even created by the circumstances.
But I invite you not to go down the rabbit hole of some red-herring debate of whether someone is a monster by virtue of his killing or exploiting an animal, or is, rather, merely “punching a clock” like any Average Joe.
If one avoids joining a discussion on whether or not someone is a monster for his acts, he can spend more time doing the good work of examining his ethics in the light of day instead of in the dark tunnel of justification. He can, then, make informed choices. Rather than justify behaviors while taking a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance kool-aid sweetened by speciesism with more than a dash of relative ethics, examine. Read about speciesism. And examine again. Don’t waste time feeling bad in the “blame game.” Make choices and move on, as many of us consistently invite the Taiji or Faroese dolphins hunters to do.
Monsters? I don’t know and don’t care. Some of them may be. Some may actually revel in the taking of a life. But monstrous, Mr. Smith? Yes, indeed, the acts that you describe are monstrous. Without exception.
It is . . . our collective culture of objectification, not some subculture of food on one island or in one theme-park-based city, that is responsible for this act. This culture is the vestige, however powerful in forming our opinions, of ancient misunderstanding that all of us must throw off. We must throw it off because it was never true in the first place, and it will kill the planet and most of the creatures that found their lives formed here. – A reconsideration of the human entitlement to gawk