The judge entered the court room and announced he had come to a decision in the murder case. In the defendant box sat 3 women, all had admitted to combining their money to hire a hit man to kill Victor, the man that had done them wrong. Although they admitted to hiring the hit man, they each pled not guilty of his murder for a different reason.
The judge ordered the first women to rise. She had pled not guilty because she did not actually kill Victor herself, the hit man she hired did it. The judge found the women guilty and said “had she had not hired the hit man, Victor would still be alive”. He went on to explain that she was just as guilty as the hit man and that hiring someone was a cowardly act to distance her from the responsibility and dirty work of the killing.
The judge ordered the second women to rise. She had pled not guilty because she had only contributed a small amount of the hit man’s fee. The judge found her guilty as well. He explained that even small contributions can still add up to murder and she too, was just as responsible as the person that pulled the trigger.
The third women was ordered to stand. She had pled not guilty because Victor was small, ugly and not too smart, so his death didn’t matter. This reason outraged the judge the most and she was also found guilty. He explained that murder is not OK regardless of size and looks. On the inside everyone thinks and feels the same and we are all equal.
Do you agree with the judge’s decisions? What happens when we apply this simple logic to animals? Does our reasoning become like that of the 3 women? Are you an animal killer?
Most people believe that humans are in a category of their own above animals but what about animals themselves, are there different category’s of importance for them and if so what are they and why? What is the difference between a Lion and a spider besides the obvious ones of size and looks? Both have brains, some form of conscious existence and feel pain, common elements found within all animals. Should we not considered all animals equal like we consider all humans equal? If so, if a person kills a spider, do they have the right to condemn someone that kills a Lion or are they no different then the 3rd women in the murder trial that believes because of size and looks, killing the spider is OK. Are looks and size amongst animals as superficial as a Halloween mask covering their conscious existance? Why do we have conflicting feelings from the killing of different animals?
What would you do if you just spent your life savings on a house and found out afterward there were mice inside and it was infested with thousands of termites? Would you put down poison yourself, hire an exterminator to kill them, or just let them destroy the house? What if instead of mice and termites the house had squirrels and racoons that were doing an equal amount of damage? Now suppose the method of killing the squirrels and raccoons caused no more pain to them than the termites and mice felt, would you have a problem with exterminating them? Not only do some people have a problem even thinking about killing a pest like this just because it’s size and looks, in many places it’s illegal. Are we again using the 3rd women’s reasoning for these attitudes and laws?
In the Summer of 2015 a black bear wondered into the highly populated city of Newmarket just outside of Toronto. After some time police deemed the bear a risk to public safety and fatally shot it, the video later posted on the news. A large protest of the killing followed on social media. Looking back to the 3 women’s defences for murder, how many cows, chickens, etc. do you think the people that protested killed that same day alone by buying a fast food burger, bucket of chicken, or meat at the grocery store. Would the protesters have the same reaction to the bear if they had been taken to the slaughter house regularly and shown the animals they eat being killed? What if instead of paying the slaughter house, the protesters had to kill the animals themselves? How many would be able to do it and if they couldn’t, in the eyes of the judge from the murder case would they be considered cowards for hiring other people to kill for them? Although the bear was not killed for human consumption it’s death was still not a waste. Nothing goes to waste in the food chain, besides have you ever thrown out meat that you let go bad or left an unfinished a meal in a restaurant? Not only that what if while waiting for someone to capture the bear it killed an unsuspecting child as it ran through unsecured residential areas? What if someone died because police were busy with the bear and could not respond to another 911 call in time?
Have you ever ordered lobster from a restaurant or cooked it yourself? Does it upset you when other people in a restaurant order lobster? In most cases the lobster is killed by dropping it into boiling water yet unlike the bear there are no large protests on social media to stop the horrific way lobsters are killed.
Hunting, even when it is done for food, is a sport that is not well perceived by most people now, even though the natural death of an animal in the wild can be much more violent and painful then by a bullet. It would seem some people think it is better that animals for food be raised and kept in small pens their whole lives for their own safety so that they can be killed quickly and humanly. Few people themselves would spend their whole life in the house just to avoid any possible violent injury or death from the outside world, why would animals be any different?
Fishing on the other hand is still relatively popular and familiar to most people today and for the most part considered acceptable. More and more people believe they are being morally responsible by practicing catch and release instead of keeping the fish for food, but are they? How moral is it to trick a fish into driving a hook through it’s mouth and have it fight for its life until completely exhausted from trying to get away. After being pulled from the water and while suffocating in the air the barbed hook is ripped from its mouth with a pair of pliers, then it’s thrown back into the water. A lot of times the hook cannot be removed without ripping out some of the fishes internal organs and the fish is released only to die a slow painful death. Acts considered unimaginable cruelty to some animals are done to fish for no other reason but for our personal enjoyment. We even encourage kids to take part.
“I’m a vegetarian, I don’t kill animals” is something you hear more and more people say. What about buying leather shoes, down filled winter coats, cosmetics, fur and other products made from animals? By purchasing these items are you not like the 3 women in the murder case above?
Have you donated to cancer or any other medical research. A lot of human lives have been saved through research that involved necessary testing of animals. Healthy animals are injected with diseases and suffer in pain before dying. By donating money to some medical research are you responsible for these animals pain and death?
I don’t know of anyone that I would not consider an animal killer, myself included. Is it not as normal and acceptable for humans to kill animals as it is for some animals to kill other animals? Has the powerful human emotions of empathy and protecting the weak and innocent, combined with our lack of exposure to some species of animal deaths caused a hypocritical lack of logical reasoning and denial in todays society? If you could go back in time 100 years, how would you explain your feelings to a farmer that killing a troublesome squirrel or bear is wrong? What if you were born and raised on a farm 100 years ago, with no store nearby, when you wanted chicken for dinner you had to kill it yourself. Would your current views on killing animals be any different? Would they make more sense?
Dave Lister
listerlogic.com