Morality for Beautiful Chickens
After the last round of chicken killing, there were various discussions centered around what it meant on a moral and ethical level to kill chickens for food. I must admit, I'm struggling with that myself.
I have been researching the concept of moral disengagement and its prevalence among executioners, terrorists and soldiers. My worry is that in killing my own chickens for food, I'm engaging in the same kind of slippery-slope thinking that devalues life and renders me capable of violence on some sort of larger scale.
At this point, my justifications are something like this: if you had to choose between:
1. living in penury and misery for a very short time and then being killed
or
2. living in comparative luxury and happiness for a slightly longer time and then being killed
which would you choose?
The Pirate brought up the point that there are crucial differences between a person and a chicken, and while I agree, I think that placing relative value on different forms of life is another slippery slope in itself. Then again, as he pointed out, the slippery slope I'm on goes the other way (from "I wouldn't kill a person because it's wrong" to "I will harm no living thing") and leads be to become a Jainist who eats only fruits that have fallen from trees and wearing a mask so I don't breathe in and thereby kill bacteria, etc.
I do believe that humans are on the earth just like other species to interact with the environment. And I also know that humans are disposed by genetics to be omnivores, eating both plants and animals. I guess I still have to ask myself which I think is worse - the moral disengagement that says "I am responsible for the food I eat and I will ensure that my animals are treated respectfully and humanely" and the more complete moral disengagement that says "I don't care where it came from or how it was treated - I want my food to be sanitized and anonymous."
You might consider taking the Peace Test to get a bead on your own moral disengagement. Apparently, it thinks I'm solidly in pacifist territory, which is okay by me.
I have been researching the concept of moral disengagement and its prevalence among executioners, terrorists and soldiers. My worry is that in killing my own chickens for food, I'm engaging in the same kind of slippery-slope thinking that devalues life and renders me capable of violence on some sort of larger scale.
At this point, my justifications are something like this: if you had to choose between:
1. living in penury and misery for a very short time and then being killed
or
2. living in comparative luxury and happiness for a slightly longer time and then being killed
which would you choose?
The Pirate brought up the point that there are crucial differences between a person and a chicken, and while I agree, I think that placing relative value on different forms of life is another slippery slope in itself. Then again, as he pointed out, the slippery slope I'm on goes the other way (from "I wouldn't kill a person because it's wrong" to "I will harm no living thing") and leads be to become a Jainist who eats only fruits that have fallen from trees and wearing a mask so I don't breathe in and thereby kill bacteria, etc.
I do believe that humans are on the earth just like other species to interact with the environment. And I also know that humans are disposed by genetics to be omnivores, eating both plants and animals. I guess I still have to ask myself which I think is worse - the moral disengagement that says "I am responsible for the food I eat and I will ensure that my animals are treated respectfully and humanely" and the more complete moral disengagement that says "I don't care where it came from or how it was treated - I want my food to be sanitized and anonymous."
You might consider taking the Peace Test to get a bead on your own moral disengagement. Apparently, it thinks I'm solidly in pacifist territory, which is okay by me.
posted by Aoibheall | 9:17 AM
2 Comments:
That's a weird test. Turns out I got the same numeric score as Aoibheall (106) but I'm rated, "...probably ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE," to support a war.
Yep, that's true. I guess where the difference comes in is that, when evaluating a military action I consider that there will be consequences beyond the immediate conflict. Even if no noncombatants are shot or blown up, there will still be infrastructural implications of the combat and they'll affect civilians. Everybody suffers. So, knowing that, if I still figure that the military action is necessary, then that's what I'm signing up to accept.
I'm still incredibly unlikely to think that a given military action is necessary.
I got 88, "It will probably be DIFFICULT for you to support a war."
I don't think I'm "morally flexible", but I'm not quite as much of a pacifist as some people.
Post a Comment
<< Home