Response #13
This is in response to Mary's question, "So obviously trophy hunting is an instance where the interests of the human are weighed heavier than those of the animal, but my question right now is, are we really able to justify it, or is it just a pig-headed argument created because it is something that humans can do and makes them feel good?"
Mary talks about how trophy hunting is just another way people show their competitive nature not only to brag to others about their conquests but to compete with animals for their lives. I agree with Mary; that trophy hunting is wasteful because the hunter has no intentions of using the rest of the animal. He or she just wants the head to mount of his or her wall. I do not find there to be any 'sport' in trophy hunting because the animal's life is on the line and he or she is usually, like Mary said, pushed into a corner with its back against the wall (figuratively speaking). The animal has no say in the matter. Trophy hunting is a power trip for the hunter because he or she is trying to overcome a more powerful animal. There is always a risk. Hunting for the sole purpose of gaining a new trophy to brag about is disgusting, to me. I wouldn't appreciate it very much if my head was mounted on someone's living room wall, staring at whoever is watching television that day. It's just sick. In my home state Vermont, most homes have deer head mounted on the walls and they all look the same to me. Once a hunter kills one, why must he or she keep going? What is there to prove?
There is no way to justify trophy hunting. End of story.
My question to you is: What is the difference between trophy hunting and hunting for sport? Which is more justifiable and why?
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Factory Farming vs. Animal Hunting.
Which is more ethical?
I know I already blogged about this topic once but I feel as though I should come back to it...
This is a question I have been tossing around in my head for a while. Both, to me, seem like unethical topics because each requires taking a life and causing the suffering of the animal before it eventually dies. Billions of pigs, cows, chickens, horses, and so on are killed each year in factory farms. On the other hand, a little over 100 million animal deaths are reported by hunters each year. Factory farm animals are raised just to be meat. Most of them don't even see sunlight and their growth is altered and advanced by hormones and antibiotics. Animals that will be hunted in the wild live a natural life, eating what they please and enjoying the sun. Hunters then take them away from nature by shooting them for their own purpose; trophy hunting, subsistence hunting, or for sport. Both ways of killing animals provide food for families and consumers but which is more ethical?
Corporations control factory farming and employees are desensitized by the killing of animals every day. Conditions are extremely hazardous to the employees, the animals, and the consumer's health. However, consumers are often oblivious to what they are eating. They are able to detach themselves from the animal they are consuming. Since they didn't directly kill the animal, then don't see the wrong behind their meat. Hunters are required to have licenses to kill animals in the wild and are restricted to certain time periods. This way, people actually kill what they eat and the meat is not contaminated and spiked with growth hormones. Although animals do not consent to being hunted, factory farmed animals don't choose to live the lives they do either. It is hard to say one act is more humane than the other because, to me, taking a life in any way is wrong and it is not right to rank which way is more ethical.
However, I am going to have to say that people who hunt animals strictly for food is a more ethical act than the slaughtering of animals in factory farms for food. I wish both actions would cease but if I had to pick one over the other, hunting wins. Although, if people are just hunting for the sport or for the trophy, then they are just as wrong as the big corporations that kill animals in masses. I understand the point that people eat meat to survive but doing it in a way in which animals suffer from birth is really unnecessary and only killing animals for fun is not any better. Factory farming and hunting are the most controversial topics (aside from animal testing) when it comes to animal ethics. In the end, no one should have the right to take a life, human or nonhuman.
My question to you is: In your opinion, are factory farming and animal hunting comparable and which act is more ethical to you?
I know I already blogged about this topic once but I feel as though I should come back to it...
This is a question I have been tossing around in my head for a while. Both, to me, seem like unethical topics because each requires taking a life and causing the suffering of the animal before it eventually dies. Billions of pigs, cows, chickens, horses, and so on are killed each year in factory farms. On the other hand, a little over 100 million animal deaths are reported by hunters each year. Factory farm animals are raised just to be meat. Most of them don't even see sunlight and their growth is altered and advanced by hormones and antibiotics. Animals that will be hunted in the wild live a natural life, eating what they please and enjoying the sun. Hunters then take them away from nature by shooting them for their own purpose; trophy hunting, subsistence hunting, or for sport. Both ways of killing animals provide food for families and consumers but which is more ethical?
Corporations control factory farming and employees are desensitized by the killing of animals every day. Conditions are extremely hazardous to the employees, the animals, and the consumer's health. However, consumers are often oblivious to what they are eating. They are able to detach themselves from the animal they are consuming. Since they didn't directly kill the animal, then don't see the wrong behind their meat. Hunters are required to have licenses to kill animals in the wild and are restricted to certain time periods. This way, people actually kill what they eat and the meat is not contaminated and spiked with growth hormones. Although animals do not consent to being hunted, factory farmed animals don't choose to live the lives they do either. It is hard to say one act is more humane than the other because, to me, taking a life in any way is wrong and it is not right to rank which way is more ethical.
However, I am going to have to say that people who hunt animals strictly for food is a more ethical act than the slaughtering of animals in factory farms for food. I wish both actions would cease but if I had to pick one over the other, hunting wins. Although, if people are just hunting for the sport or for the trophy, then they are just as wrong as the big corporations that kill animals in masses. I understand the point that people eat meat to survive but doing it in a way in which animals suffer from birth is really unnecessary and only killing animals for fun is not any better. Factory farming and hunting are the most controversial topics (aside from animal testing) when it comes to animal ethics. In the end, no one should have the right to take a life, human or nonhuman.
My question to you is: In your opinion, are factory farming and animal hunting comparable and which act is more ethical to you?
Response to "Change."
Response #12
In Sarah's blog, she talks about the big multinational corporations that control the meat industry today and how they also have the power to change the state of factory farming. Profits would be lost but there would be many supporters of the change which could make up for some of the loses. According to Food Inc, there are only a handful of meat companies that hold 80% of the power in the United States; Tyson, Swift, Cargill, and National Beef. They do not want the public to know the truth about what people are eating. Over the past one hundred years, the industry has changed the entire way meat is processed. Chickens have been redesigned to have larger breasts because there is such a demand for white meat. Animals are fed growth hormones and antibiotics so they grow in half the amount of time that they use to. Today, meat industries do not care about the animals nor the people. They care about the profit and the power only.
I don't think the large corporations are afraid of changing; they just don't want to change. They control everyone; the farmers, the assembly line workers, the public, and the animals. Industries do not care how the animals are treated as long as the assembly line is always moving. Conditions are unbearable and workers' lives are always in jeopardy. The large companies recruit illegal immigrants because they can pay them extremely low wages and put their jobs on the line if they speak out to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other regulators.
Consumers think they have thousands of product choices in supermarkets but really only a few companies are involved in producing goods. Healthy and organic foods are much more expensive because meat producers feed their animals cheap corn which drives down the prices. The lower class can not afford to eat well so they find themselves at fast food restaurants because it is all they can afford. The average person eats 200 pounds of meat a year and this is made possible because of the overproduction and meat being more affordable. The result is unsafe food which can lead to E. coli breakouts. Even though big companies do have the ability to change their ways, they don't want to. They have everyone eating out of the palm of their hands. They have finally developed a new way of 'farming' where animals grow twice as fast as they should and the assebly line never stops. They would never sacrifice their profits.
My question to you is: Since big corporations do not seem to want to change their ways, the only hope is with the people. If more and more consumers banded together and refused to support the meat industry, would companies finally listen? Why or why not?
In Sarah's blog, she talks about the big multinational corporations that control the meat industry today and how they also have the power to change the state of factory farming. Profits would be lost but there would be many supporters of the change which could make up for some of the loses. According to Food Inc, there are only a handful of meat companies that hold 80% of the power in the United States; Tyson, Swift, Cargill, and National Beef. They do not want the public to know the truth about what people are eating. Over the past one hundred years, the industry has changed the entire way meat is processed. Chickens have been redesigned to have larger breasts because there is such a demand for white meat. Animals are fed growth hormones and antibiotics so they grow in half the amount of time that they use to. Today, meat industries do not care about the animals nor the people. They care about the profit and the power only.
I don't think the large corporations are afraid of changing; they just don't want to change. They control everyone; the farmers, the assembly line workers, the public, and the animals. Industries do not care how the animals are treated as long as the assembly line is always moving. Conditions are unbearable and workers' lives are always in jeopardy. The large companies recruit illegal immigrants because they can pay them extremely low wages and put their jobs on the line if they speak out to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other regulators.
Consumers think they have thousands of product choices in supermarkets but really only a few companies are involved in producing goods. Healthy and organic foods are much more expensive because meat producers feed their animals cheap corn which drives down the prices. The lower class can not afford to eat well so they find themselves at fast food restaurants because it is all they can afford. The average person eats 200 pounds of meat a year and this is made possible because of the overproduction and meat being more affordable. The result is unsafe food which can lead to E. coli breakouts. Even though big companies do have the ability to change their ways, they don't want to. They have everyone eating out of the palm of their hands. They have finally developed a new way of 'farming' where animals grow twice as fast as they should and the assebly line never stops. They would never sacrifice their profits.
My question to you is: Since big corporations do not seem to want to change their ways, the only hope is with the people. If more and more consumers banded together and refused to support the meat industry, would companies finally listen? Why or why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)