Response to "The Death of an Animal."

Response #5

In Courtney's blog, she talks about how living is in the best interest of an animal and, if it is killed, we are taking away its right to live and enjoy life. Frederike Kaldewaij believes animals shouldn't be killed or harmed by human beings since this would take away their ability to have a fulfilling life. Killing for food, fur, or leather can not be justified, according to Kaldewaij. "Death is harmful because it thwarts an individual's desire to stay alive and other desires he or she may have for the future," states Kaldewaji. She believes all lives are instrumentally valued. Courtney then talks about euthanasia and how it effects animals who are suffering and even those who are not. Some animals are euthanized because they are seriously ill and others only because shelters are too crowded. She talks about her own experiences of having to put past pets to sleep and then asks, "If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?"

I worked at a veterinary clinic for two years and part of my job was to assist the veterinary technician with euthanasias. I got to see the different reactions of the family members who owned the dog or cat that was being put to sleep. Most families were devastated; they only put their animals to sleep because they did not want to have their animals suffer and they didn't think there was any other way. One family in particular owned a dog named Savita who had leukemia. She was about twelve years old and they did all they could to save her. They brought her to the vets at least twice a week for treatment. I saw that dog suffer. She would not eat. She could not get up. She would just go to the bathroom in her cage because she didn't know what else to do. The family and the dog fought and fought for her life but nothing could be done. Finally, after quite a few years of the endless battle of leukemia, they put her to sleep.

I think it is in the best interest of the animal to be put out of its misery and suffering. If nothing can be done to save the animal or stop it from being in pain, then there is nothing wrong with euthanasia. It is a painless and quick way to stop an animal from suffering, if there is no foreseen end to said suffering. I think age does matter when it comes to deciding whether to put an animal to sleep or not. If it is old and sick but has lived a fulfilling life, as long as there truly is no known solution to the suffering, euthanizing the animal is the right thing to do. If the animal is young, it's much harder to make such a decision because it deserves life. But, nothing and no one should have to suffer, plain and simple.

Now, I also saw many people abandon their pets or want them to be put to sleep simply because they could no longer care for the pet. Sometimes owners would move or have children and they felt like they couldn't handle their animals any longer. If the owners asked the vet to euthanize their pet for this reason, the veterinarian would refuse but offer to take the animal into his care so he can find him or her a family that did have time and care for the pet. Under some circumstances, euthanasia is truly whats right no matter if the animal is old or young (only if it is to stop an animal from suffering) but in other instances, like if a family just does not want their pets anymore, then it should not be done. Taking a life, even if its for the most ethical reason, should be thought out and decided carefully. As long as it's painless, quick, and safe, then it is justifiable.

My question to you is: In the reading (page 62), Kaldewaij states, "There do not seem to be good reasons to assume that the harm that death causes animals that are kept for food production is much less serious than the human harm of death." Do you think many people hold this view (why or why not?) and how do you feel about it?

Huntin'

I come from a small Vermont town where deer hunting season is like an extended holiday and everyone has their "trophy" deer heads on their living room walls. People wake up at the crack of down, put on their camouflage, and trek into the woods to wait around for the next unsuspecting buck. Usually they come home dragging their feet before the after noon even begins, but every now and then, someone gets lucky. When a person shoots a buck, what matters is how many 'points' it has (for those none hunters, points are the tines coming off the beams of an antler). Then the person puts the deer in the back of their truck and drives it down the road to the only store in my town so he or she can weigh it. The bigger, the better. When people pass by the store, they get the unfortunate site of a bloody dead deer being weighed since the weighing is done outside.

I have never been hunting nor have I ever tasted venison and I can promise you that I never will. Deer hunting season is not something I look forward to, but my best friend and her family live for it. They even put on hunters' breakfasts at the Fish and Game for all of the hungry hunters. To be honest, I do not know what to think about the subject of hunting. Some people do it for the trophy; they don't care about the meat or anything else, they just want that deer head with its beady eyes staring back at them on their wall. I think that is wrong, killing for game. However, my best friend is part of the lower class and her family hunts for the meat. They love it and make sure none of it goes to waste. I don't know how I can argue against hunting when it does feed her family at a low cost. I'm always going back and forth with this one.

Hunting has been a vital part of mans life since the beginning of their existence. For the past thousands of years, mankind has depended on the harvesting of game to live. Ancient manuscripts and even cave paintings have shown that hunting played an important role in the people's lives. During those times no one questioned the correctness of hunting because it was so essential to their life and part of their nature. Around 1650, the "new world" was being colonized and people lived off the land. Deer, turkey, squirrels, rabbits, doves, and pheasants were all hunted and killed for food. Now that hunting is being questioned and seen in a different view, what's going to be the verdict?

Every time I start discussing hunting with my friends, they always bring up interesting points like how it stops over population or provides for their families. They also say that they 'respect' the animals that they are hunting, but how can 'respect' be shown to something a person is about to kill? Hunting is restricted to certain areas and people do need licenses to hunt. Plus, future hunters need to take the Hunters Safety Course. But what happens when a hunter shoots the animal but can not find it? The animal is obviously wounded somewhere in the woods. Now it will be in agony until it dies from lack of food or from another predator. I know no matter what I say, hunting will not cease and I will never be able to change the minds of my friends, but this topic is interesting to think about since it surrounds my everyday life.

I want to know your views about hunting. In what ways can this 'hobby' or 'sport' be seen as ethical and just? In what ways is it wrong and just another act of cruelty to animals? Is hunting just another sport or is it murder?

Response to "Exploiting Animals."

Response #4

In Shelby's blog, she talks about how our support and usage of animals as property and food seems to be done without realizing the effects and harm it causes. She states how Kant sees humans as superior because we are the only species that can refer to ourselves as "I." Humans are "beings altogether different in rank and dignity from things," according to Kant. She asks, "Is meat eating usually a carefully examined decision, or an unexamined habit?" However, Kant disapproves of kicking a dog in fear of that person becoming brutal. Shelby then brings up the point that all humans are taught that brutality is wrong, although, people choose to hurt animals before they would choose to hurt/torture a person. Shelby believes, as do I, that if people had to kill and prepare their own meat, the world would be filled with more vegetarians. She agrees with the Socrates quote, "the unexamined life is not worth living," and wants human beings to be more aware of what, or who, they are eating.

I fully believe meat eating is an unexamined habit, minus the occasional exception. This summer, I watched the movie "Food Inc" (which I recommend to everyone!) and I learned so much about the food industry that I never imagined to be true. Early on, our food choices are made for us. As babies, we're fed what whatever baby food our parents want to feed us. As children, we learn to eat what is given to us with minor complaints. We don't ask what "beef" is or where it comes from. Our parents say we need our protein so we keep eating meat without question. Once we are old enough to make our own food choices, we don't question what our parents have taught us. We just eat what we always have even if we don't know where it comes from or who produces it. Some people begin to question the meat and food industries, but others like the obliviousness and simplicity of just enjoying what is prepared; dead animal or not.

Once we get into the habit of eating meat, it's hard to give that up. I have struggled to be a vegetarian because I'm just so used to ordering meat at a restaurant or eating my mom's chicken parm. We eat meat because it's easy, it's what we know. To question this is to question tradition and our culture (or so we think). On Thanksgiving, how hard is it to stop yourself or question why we eat the big juicy turkey in the middle of the table? And who could ever consider a tofu turkey? So untraditional, right? While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. I think the reason why people don't seem to think about what they eat is because it feels like our traditions and what has always been would be jeopardized. The meat industry does a pretty good job of keeping the public away from the truth and that seems to be okay with most people. A lot of people I know don't want to know how their food is prepared. They don't want to change the way they eat so they don't think about their food. Why change what we have done since babies? Eating meat is in our nature and most people don't question human nature.

My question to you is: How do you think is the best possible way to inform the public about not only the meat industry but how all of our foods are grown and produced? Do you think people would listen and maybe change their ways?

"Food Inc" Trailer