What did the video show us? Brutal, cruel, inhumane images of pigs, cows, chickens raised in terrible, disgusting conditions, only to be killed mercilessly and painfully, just to satisfy humans' "lowest desires." But why do we even think those images are terrible and despicable? Before answering this question, let's assume that the video filmed the genocide of ants, flies, protists, or bacteria. Would it have earned the same emotional effect it has earned by filming pigs being massacred? No. If the video was concerned about our "food animals" as a whole, as species, relating to the circle of life, it need not to. Because we constantly demand those animals, those animals will never become extinct as long as humans are powerful enough. If the video tried to stress the pain the animals were going through, the ant that was drowned by a curious seven-year-old experienced as much as pain. We kill mosquitoes, small bugs that irritate us, without even the slightest hesitation or consideration that this might be wrong. And the video purposefully exclude these examples, because hardly anyone would ever sympathize with bugs. The video used pigs, cows, and chickens, which can scream like we can, which can bleed like we can, which can writhe in pain like we would writhe if we were in pain. The animals were deliberately chosen by the video to arise sympathy because they were related to us humans. Who is the "specist" here?
At least, it is understandable that they didn't include bugs in the film. Bugs are not really that related to humans as the food we eat is. The food we eat. Our three favorite animals is cow, pig, and chicken. The video displayed disturbing images about the slaughterhouses of the three animals. It's not that I would like them to be in pain, but unfortunately we fully have a right to do that, although we have no moral justification whatsoever.
Before I argue that things we do to animals are justified, I would like to discuss some of the images the video used. This video focuses on showing that human beings are terrible and we do terrible things to the planet. Therefore I believe we can conclude that the images shown are probably the ugliest image the video could get hand on. Although I believe those acts could be justified, I was very discomforted with the images and surely do not recommend them. But some of the acts were actually extremely necessary: like slitting the throat to kill the pig. What does it want us to do-euthanasia for every single animal we want to kill? Leaving animal in extreme pain for an inhumanely long time is a problem. Slitting the throat to kill it is not. Maybe we should isolate all the carnivores from their prey and feed them animals that we personally killed painlessly, to ensure that no animal would feel pain. Ridiculous. Slitting throat is not cruel: it is in the range of "natural death," as the claws of a lion on a zebra would have a similar effect. If one wants to argue killing itself is cruel, then he denies the natural world itself.
Now, do we have the right to do what we do to the animals in the slaughterhouse? Yes.
I found a cartoon which has a nice analogy to the situation. In the cartoon, aliens invade Earth, and one of them, Lockhey (left in the picture below), uses humans for his experiments. A human soldier, Esna (right in the picture below), accuses Lockhey of being despicable. Lockhey answers:
1: Let me ask you something. 2: Do you get permission when you use your 'lab rats?'
1: You use those rats in your experiments because you have more power over them, right? And that is not wrong. That is the way it is. 2: No matter what you do with your rats, since you are the most powerful predator in the food chain, they have neither means nor rights to complain. 3: Meaning......
1: But now since we arrived on this planet, you are no longer the most powerful species. Therefore, you have no right to complain even if we use you as lab rats.
We human beings like to think of ourselves as unique beings, and maybe we are. But so are other species in the world in that aspect. We are just one of the 44 million species on the planet, but we assume "human rights" exclusively to our species, Homo sapiens. As the video states, animals share many of our pain and pleasure, and it is these basic rights the word "human rights" encompass. Therefore, if human rights exist, animal rights should exist. But human rights do not exist, and therefore neither do animal rights.
What are human rights? Why do they exist as a separate concept? The concept is only a few centuries old, relatively young compared to the five hundred centuries Homo sapiens existed. Why did they emerge so recently? The world is a simple place. The rights one can have is proportional to his power. After the Neolithic revolution, social stratification occurred and hierarchy was established. Kings, chiefs, and aristocrats had power over people, and "normal" people had very restricted rights. Slaves had even less rights. Then how did people achieve rights? Because "majority" itself is a power. When people learned to use that power, they were able to achieve rights.
What about animals? Animals lack the intelligence to unite and use the power of majority, and therefore we do not need to grant them any rights. The concept of "right" itself is a phantom: it is merely a projection of power. Therefore powerless beings do not deserve rights. "Human rights" are promises mankind made when the majority used its power; and since animals were never a part of those promises, it is absurd to say that they have any rights. And since "human rights" are promises between humans, an alien has no responsibility to obey them. Therefore, it is never unjust for aliens to conquer us.
Perhaps we should have more government regulations that would prevent unnecessarily excessive pain to animals in slaughterhouses, because we have no interest in giving them pain. But the crux of the matter is that animals don't really have rights, as none of us do: there is only power. The video appeals to emotion by showing us animals in pain without much logic and commits the "specism" it tries to destroy. Therefore I cannot agree with the video, although it was cleverly made. Actually, it is because it is cleverly made that I am not convinced. It was calculated to influence human beings using psychology and not logic.
Therefore I feel no more obligation to eat less meat even after watching <Earthlings>. There are some other reasons eating less meat benefits the environment, but animal rights are not on that list.
Great to see you wrote something as soon as you could after watching the film. I like many of the points above, but deem this as more of a "brainstorm" than what I would like to see in the actual assignment. Your intro and conclusion both need to be stronger and more succinct. In terms of style and tone, I'd like you to write it for someone who has no idea about the film - as it might appear in a magazine or university newspaper. I'd also like to see the use of three outside sources - that either mention the film/give info about it, or argue for or against points raised in the film.
답글삭제I haven't full outlined the assignment yet, but will do so once SAT is out of the way. Good writing, but you need to clean this up and organize it before it lives up to the criteria.:)
this is a first draft... I plan to change it after the SATs haha
답글삭제