To start,
it’s worth noting that I'm personally more than a bit of a nihilist,
but for the sake of this class, those that value the longevity of life,
and the billions of animals we owe the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to try my best to put
this idea of philosophic ideals aside, and talk about the reality of the
situation at hand; the reality is, there is tremendous, horrific suffering happening at every
second of every day in places like CAFOs, animal breeding facilities, dairy
operations, fur farms, and countless others around the world, and ideology isn't going to save them.
It's also worth noting that the only reason these non-human animals suffer so horrifically is to be
alive for our pleasure and livelihood; the sheer numbers alone warrant an alarming call to activists
everywhere, but our reliance on them is so deeply systemic and far reaching into nearly every economic sector, it's hard for us to imagine anything else. The assumed dominance, and the use and ownership of these
individuals happens in such great numbers around the world that it’s
often hard to imagine a progressive, ethical and sustainable way.
As I mentioned before, there are organizations like PETA that stand
by the view of complete non-suffering (a form of utilitarianism) and are quick
to ethically euthanize countless lives before they believe anymore suffering
possibly occurs.
PETAs president Ingrid Newkirk has been quoted saying “It
would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
Their views on animals birthed and forced into the commodified system
are that they are always going to be at risk for suffering, abuse, torture, etc, no matter what. Even if
they were to be later adopted, they hold the mentality that amongst human control, non-human animals will
always be voiceless and vulnerable to abuse; that their dignity as
individuals will never be met when they are forced into roles as “pets,”
for humans.
There is a blatant philosophical difference here between the “right
to life,” ideologies of animal activists groups like the ALF (and “no
kill” shelters) versus the “right to not suffer” side of the spectrum of
those like PETA and the Humane Society who are quick to
dispatch animal lives via ethical euthanasia.
In reality, most disagree
with euthanasia or consider it only a last resort. They see bringing
about early death itself as unfair treatment. I guess I want others to question what’s so cruel about being dead,
or is it simply the very end moments that are unfair (the needle poke
into the neck), or the taking away of “potential,” happiness one may
have had? There is a general assumption most humans and animals prefer
to live as long as possible, which I personally see as a “quantity over
quality” argument. The “live fast and die young,” rationale see
longevity as a complete misconception of true happiness, owing short-lived and happy as the better life.
I guess the taboo associated with euthanasia is the idea that it’s a
slippery slope problem. Who makes the call, and when is the time
“right” to die? Is it simply a matter of personal choice to choose
fate? Many agree that “right to die,” as Washington and Oregon have
deemed fair, is a human right when we are terminally ill within 6
months. So the question is, what happens when we apply this thinking to
conscious, sentient beings who don't have a voice or rights like humans
do?
Many argue that non-human animals don't have a “conscience,” and
therefore don't have the same rights and aspirations of human animals, however
it's quite clear, scientifically speaking, that this is not the case. A large consensus of scientists at a conference at Cambridge in
2012 came to a landmark agreement when they concluded there are in fact
many conscious non-human animals such as marine mammals, cephalopods, birds, etc, that have the distinct ability to feel, fear, think and
hold self-awareness like homo-sapiens can.
They concluded that non-human
animals are not simply biological “machines,” that go about their day
because of evolutionary programming, or because of innate or involuntary mechanisms.
These individuals (as they should be considered) are instead the
“aspiring selves” Kinsey talks about. They are due the same rights
humans are; a life free of slavery, pain, fear and mistreatment. They
are entitled to live lives their own way, and in their own natural
environments.
Of course this agreement was quite controversial to many
outside this scientific consensus. When people have livelihoods, wealth,
stability, future investment, etc based around the enslavement and mass-commodification of
billions of non-human animals, this type of statement is a blatant attack on their
ways of life and profession.
So what about those cases where ethics come into play instead of monetary gain? Occasional we see cases of humans that are in brain dead states
after traumatic brain injury, or humans that are otherwise incapacitated
due to persistent paralysis, coma, or other physiological reasons. This also includes corporal punishment. In
past cases we've seen these humans life and death choices go to the
courts to decide, but generally the most immediate family of the
individual has first say over the person's right to live or die. These
people, some would say, are no longer sentient individuals with rights, and
therefore no longer themselves, and thus no longer human at all; in which
case these bodies are judged unworthy or incapable of continuing to live
a meaningful life, and instead brought to justice or peace through death.
In the historic case of Terri Schevo, the family ended up fighting
each other to adequately represent as her proxy. The two sides disagreed
about the philosophical reasons of whether to keep her body alive or to
take her off life support (tube feeding). In so doing, ultimately it was
decided that medical professionals were to let her die, and
because Schevo didn’t require a breathing apparatus, but instead a
feeding tube for continued support, she persisted for thirteen days after
this tube was removed, her body slowly dehydrating to death.
I think it’s important to point out this case, because ultimately
Schevo was sentenced to a death not considered worthy of even the most
uncherished animal being. There was no swift euthanization process to
stop her heart and organ function and end her life quickly; instead,
because of the laws and medical procedures allowed in the area, she died
in one of the most grotesquely torturous ways imaginable. For the last
few days her eyes were described as sunken in with blood pooling inside
them, her skin withered and brittle, her face and body as skeletal, her groaning erratic, and her tongue and lips cracked open and blistering.
I would argue that most agree; even the most far-removed brain-dead body of any
animal deserves so much better a death than this one,
alas, our legal system ironically grants death to those who
most arguably need it, but surely not a humane, swift or painless one.
I see Schevo's case border some of the many animal cruelty examples
we’ve seen in the past, but with alarmin irony… are those “deserving”
of death still sentient or human to us at all? Capital punishment’s lax
legislation and oversight of painless “ethical” death via lethal
injection, as well as faulty captive bolt guns and electrocuting devices
during slaughter are examples of how we might distance ourselves and
our empathic tendencies toward others away from those we deem worthy or
deserving of death.
In Schevo’s case, I see her cross that
“animal/human” boundary as soon as her death was decided imminent; at that
moment she wasn’t human to us anymore, she had become animal simply
because we couldn’t bear her not to be one. To try to empathize or cope
with the horrific violence we inflicted on her is too much for us to internalize, so we deemed
her to be something lesser-than, much like we deem most all other human animals
to be lesser-than.
No comments:
Post a Comment