I think it might properly raise moral consciousness if someone opened a dalmatian farm, where free-range dogs were raised in pleasant environs, on natural, antibody-free meat, killed painlessly and humanely and sold as steak.
Why this particular rant? Well, here's a nice article encouraging people to forgive transgressors:
A central message is that harboring a grudge appears to be detrimental to both psychological and physical well-being. "People who have been able to forgive show clear health benefits," says Kathleen Lawler-Row, who chairs the psychology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., and has published her findings in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine and the Journal of Psychophysiological Research. "Whether we're looking at heart rate and blood pressure or whether we're looking at the number of medicines someone is on, their quality of sleep or the number of physical symptoms they report. Almost every way I've thought to measure it, people who have been able to think forgivingly show health benefits."
The article goes on in this vein for a while. Now, I've often thought there's some considerable credulous wish-thinking about the forgiveness industry, and maybe I'll write about that some day. Still, obviously forgiveness is a good thing to do at least some of the time, and as the author notes, it can confer health benefits upon the forgiver, test his character, aid offender rehabilitation and the like.
But who is to be the target of our great, ennobling, healthful forgiveness? Who might we be in a rage over? George Bush? Osama bin Laden? Narendra Modi? The Burmese junta? Pol Pot? Bernie Madoff? No, it's Michael Vick, assailer of dog. Because that is the great moral dilemma, straining our moral fiber, corroding our innards as we smolder. Seriously. I understand people have pets, and indeed I care about animal welfare. The arguments of someone like Peter Singer gain some purchase upon me (they made me go vegetarian), but this Vick hysteria strikes me as madness.
I really do wish there were such a farm, perhaps in New Jersey. It's existence might cause some moral reflection. I assume and hope people would continue to think it bad to electrocute dogs for fighting badly. I also don't doubt that at least some people in a reflective equilibrium would continue to attach a special moral significance to canis lupus familiaris, perhaps because we've coevolved with them or something. But I do hope they'd find it at least slightly weird to get so frenzied over dog fighting, while countenancing cock-fighting or bull-fighting, and while consuming more meat and dairy than people ever have in the past. There probably isn't enough significance attached to the welfare of animals at large, but it also seems obvious to me that too much is attached to that of cute, photogenic or cuddly ones, and it being that being easy on the eye has no particular ecological or ethical significance, that over-weighting seems untenable.
Those of us who have lived in close proximity to cows in India feel the same way about cows as people in the West feel about dogs and cats. Calfs are as cuddly as puppies and kittens if they are not stuffed with hormones.
Posted by: banerjee | August 17, 2009 at 05:56 PM
The Salon article is indeed silly and vapid. That said, I happen to be a Michael Vick hater (see here and here.) I can also assure you that I feel no burning desire to "forgive" Vick to maintain my blood pressure, nightly sleep or immune system at a healthy level. The man remains a jerk in my eyes.
As for the reason why we are all riled up about the mistreatment of dogs and cats but not so much for other animals is akin to why we love our own children more than we do those of others - greater emotional attachment to those who live in close proximity with us. There are certain cultures where dog, cat and horse (another beloved beast) meat are not forbidden whereas beef eating, or any meat eating for that matter, is abhorrent to many Hindu Indians. But just because a population eschews meat in the diet does not necessarily guarantee kinder, gentler treatment of animals. You surely are aware of the treatment of stray dogs, cats, beasts of burden like donkeys and horses and even the venerable cow on Indian streets. True, some of that neglect and cruelty arises from poverty but not entirely. Religion or culture based vegetarianism (as opposed to a deliberate morally considered stance) often leads one to think of animals as "impure" beings.
And why do we tear up about the sad fate of tigers, seals, elephants, pandas and other cuddly creatures of the wild while we take a shovel or a footwear to the snake and the cockroach? Could it be that cuddliness is a very empathy generating trait as opposed to fear and disgust? I have often wondered why we humans, among the nakedest of mammals, go all kootchie-koo over furry bundles. Anyone knows what evolutionary pressure is at play here?
Posted by: Ruchira | August 17, 2009 at 06:38 PM
Ruchira,
"Could it be that cuddliness is a very empathy generating trait as opposed to fear and disgust..."
These are much deeper questions than I can handle! My instinct is that what we should be 'deriving' an account of the logic of cuddliness (viz. as some kind of property that may be shared by things we aren't disgusted by, where disgust itself is probably easier to account for in evolutionary terms) instead of grasping on to the visual characteristics of cuddliness and wondering why a love for such kinds of visual features would evolve. Those latter probably aren't fundamental to the character of cuddly - I'd be much more surprised to hear that Martians babies looked cuddly in ways similar to our own than to hear that Martians found their babies as cuddly as we do ours.
"greater emotional attachment to those who live in close proximity with us. There are certain cultures where dog, cat and horse (another beloved beast) meat are not forbidden whereas beef eating, or any meat eating for that matter, is abhorrent to many Hindu Indians."
I think the trouble here is that like bull-fighting, dog-fighting itself (though presumably not electrocuting and hanging them) is grounded in culture. Though many of us know to disapprove of bull-fighting and fox-hunting, we also know not to think of Spaniards and the English gentry as evil, barbaric people. Part of the difference presumably is in the relative "status" of these cultures. Hence Ms. Bardot etc may presume to tell the South Koreans not to eat dogs in their own country, but no Indian will get to decide that McDonalds not sell beef burger patties.
Posted by: D | August 19, 2009 at 06:39 AM
Meanwhile, as we debate the morality of forgiveness, meat eating and animal abuse, some market savvy folks have decided to make a buck or two off of the sordid Michael Vick affair. The ever enterprising, bottom-line conscious NFL, which has found ways to accommodate rape, assault, drug abuse and other criminal infractions by its stable of atheletes, plans to sell Michael Vick dog">http://blogs.usatoday.com/thehuddle/2009/08/nfl-selling-michael-vick-jersey-customized-for-dogs.html">dog jerseys!
Inappropriate? Why? Go on, sell 'Bad Newz.' It is sure to bring in a flood of dollars from football loving blockheads.
Posted by: Ruchira | August 20, 2009 at 09:13 AM
In my opinion all animals are cute and cuddly..or can be. Whether it's a cow, cat, dog, pig, panda etc. every animal has a place and can provide human companionship and love in one way or another.
DJ
Posted by: Lupus Symptoms In Women | May 12, 2011 at 11:25 PM