 |
| Captive wolves gave humans only brief attention |
_______________________________________
My response
When I first saw the image that I've copied from "Why dogs are friendly - it's written in their genes", it reminded me of the Twilight movies, which have similar scenes of wolves, actually werewolves, getting up close and friendly with humans. In fact, I'd always thought that wolves were more inclined to eat humans than to be friendly with them, but as I read the article and thought about it, I realized that I must be wrong about that. In the movies and stories I've read about wolves, and even wild dogs, the animals do attack humans, but of course that is also true of many (all?) modern dog breeds: German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Pit Bulls and other dogs are often used for security because they can be easily trained to attack humans. I guess that they only attack humans when wolves need food, and if, as the article says, they can simply wander into the human camp and get some free bits of tasty garbage, that is much easier than an attack. Remembering back to my childhood on the farm where my family kept work dogs and pets, they were all very friendly and loyal to us, but even the little Fox Terrier would bark and snap at strangers who turned up: I can't remember her ever biting me or brothers and sisters when we were playing with her. Still, whilst I might choose a German Shepherd, or even a Great Dane like my family used to have, a wolf would not be my first choice for a pet: a bit academic, since my condo does not allow even small dogs.
But what interested me most is that the article shows how progress in genetics continues to uncover the way in which genes, which are just chemicals, determine such intangible things as our personalities, emotions and so on. Not only this, but as we learn more, it becomes clearer just how closely every living thing on our planet Earth is related to every other living thing: since we share a lot of genes with wolves, perhaps there is more than only symbolic truth to the old werewolf tales. It's not just that we humans are related to other primates such as chimpanzees, we are also related to roses, carrots, cows, cod fish and bacteria, and these relationships can be increasingly read from the genes that we share with every other living thing. From this, it is a short step to an idea that you have probably already discovered is important in Steven Law's "Carving the Roast Beast": namely, is there any human characteristic at all that can justify the different ways we treat humans and our non-human relatives that we love to eat?
_______________________________________
My question for readers
What do you think? Is there any uniquely human characteristic that justifies the different moral treatment we give to human beings compared to other animals?
This is actually Steven Law's question in "Carving the Roast Beast" (2003). I thought it would be useful to invite your responses here.
_______________________________________
- Briggs, H. (2017, July 20). Why dogs are friendly - it's written in their genes. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40655634
- Law, S. (2003). Carving the roast beast. In The Xmas Files: The Philosophy of Christmas [Kindle Edition] (pp. 124 - 140). Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Retrieved from https://www.amazon.com/
I can say, that I'm totally agree with Stephen Law. I used to be a vegetarian for a few years (and now that's a bit complicated for me, in Thailand). For example, I love good stake or fried chicken. But anyway, in my filling - that's not right. That's immorally. I think this is a personal choice of everybody. I have a dog and I love him a lot, for me it is unacceptable to eat dog meat. But I grew up in Kazakhstan where people eat horse meat. In my life - that's normal, for almost all my friend that's absolutely disgusting. So, the consumption of meat depends on the culture of the country. This is my choice now: I eat meat. But I support vegetarian people, and my opinion that they are right. We can talk not only about morally. We have to talk about economic reasons also. And one more serious reason for me - the use of hormones in the cultivation of animals.
ReplyDeletep.s. Do we have to write comments here?
Kate,
DeleteYes, this is the right place to comment on Law's ideas. When I read my source article on the BBC website, I liked it because it let me make the connection with the main supporting argument that Law uses in "Carving the Roast Beast".
Your thoughtful response raises a couple of issues that your classmates might like to reply to.
As I noted in my comment on the Yes/No question on Classroom, I do not agree with Law, but that's not a good reason for you or anyone else to think he's wrong. I will tell you my reasons later, but for now, I'm more interested in whether you agree or disagree with Law, and the reasons for that. I do think he gives strong reasons for the main idea in his piece of work: if we want to eat meat, we do need to answer his reasons for arguing that it is immoral.
For me, it is not totally wrong to take them for our meals. To ask about 'moral', I would say it is wrong, but I still eat it.(can I?)
ReplyDeleteThose animals also have their feeling. They can hurt and don't want to be killed, like us. They also have other many things like us. If we say discrimination between blacks and whites is not acceptable, then discrimination between human and other species is seem to be not reasonable.
But we have eaten them for a very long long time since my great great granddad wasn't born. So it's hard to say judge this stuff that it is really immoral. I also want to know that actually god create us to be herbivores or carnivores or omnivore. I used to hear the news that we are herbivores(i'm not sure, and it must take long time if I search for true conclusion). So why we like to eat meat? It might because we are intelligent creature. We are creative and we like to try new thing, and it is delicious. You might hear that someone eat something that we don't ever eat. Some groups might be okay to eat something that other groups aren't, so it is not weird to have this argument.
So now let take a look at animal we eat. Some of them also eat other species. But they don't have argument with their mate that what they are doing is morally wrong(I think it's not wrong for them because of it's their nature). And why? Because they are not intelligent. And that sound like god tell them to eat what. So why do we? Because we are intelligent. If take this topic, we are wrong.
However, we have to determine the nutrient we get that it is enough or not. If there is another thing that is enough for diet, we can choose to eat it instead. But we know that meat is high nutrient. We might suffer lacking nutrients if they eat just plant. But why some of us is vegetarian? We have to know that actually vegetable is enough for us. It might be hard to get.(i'm not scientist) However, to ask mom and dad, they would probably want their child to eat meat.
To sum up, even we actually are herbivore or carnivore, I think we still try to eat meat. So it is up to that guy. On the other hand, if we accept that eating meat is wrong, it still hard to tell other ones not to eat. And if ask me, my opinion, whether it is 'morally' wrong, I would say it is immoral(animal also have feeling). But, I still eat them, while I'm not fine to see the show cutting their life.