Lion is shot --- hypocrisy of it

[BlueHeron]

I think because Cecil has a name it becomes personal and social media made him the popular hashtag of the week. My heart hurts that this lion was needlessly killed. I do find it somewhat funny but alarming at the same time how easily the general public is brought to arms over a lion when there is sex trafficking and childhood hunger and many other causes that all this energy could go towards. The people of Zimbabwe must think we as a country are nuts.

There are many people in Zimbabwe; they are no more one entity than we are. Some of the people of Zimbabwe were devoting their time and energy to protecting Cecil.

Also, it's not as if people who are outraged over Cecil would otherwise be devoting their time to stopping sex trafficking and childhood hunger. Perhaps they could be outraged over those issues instead, but would that really do any good? We are all very good at being outraged - not many of us actually take action.

In fact, the use of animals for food is one of the few things we can easily do something about - simply by keeping animals and animal products off of our own plates.

[patty]

John Sally video is pretty good: http://videos.huffingtonpost.com/entert ... -518978514

Aloha, patty

[EvanG]

Jim, you raise a good point, that one of the indirect effects of agriculture and animal-based agriculture in particular, is that it destroys habitat and endangers species.

BlueHeron, PETA thinks that killing all animals is immoral, because they have the same innate right to life as humans. So, from that perspective, killing lions is bad in the same way that killing farm animals is bad. To the extent that people are upset simply because of the senseless brutality of killing, I agree that would be hypocritical. However, other people may think that killing the lion was bad only because it is an endangered species. If that is their rational, it is not hypocritical to eat a hamburger or torture a kitten for that matter. A compassionate person will reject one or both of those activities as immoral, but you have to make a separate argument for it.

[BlueHeron]

Jim, you raise a good point, that one of the indirect effects of agriculture and animal-based agriculture in particular, is that it destroys habitat and endangers species.

BlueHeron, PETA thinks that killing all animals is immoral, because they have the same innate right to life as humans. So, from that perspective, killing lions is bad in the same way that killing farm animals is bad. To the extent that people are upset simply because of the senseless brutality of killing, I agree that would be hypocritical. However, other people may think that killing the lion was bad only because it is an endangered species. If that is their rational, it is not hypocritical to eat a hamburger or torture a kitten for that matter. A compassionate person will reject one or both of those activities as immoral, but you have to make a separate argument for it.

I really don't think that people are upset because it's an endangered species. How many people really have a good grip on which species are endangered and which are not? If you walked up to random people on the street and asked them to name five endangered species, do you think they could? "Endangered" is a constantly moving landscape, and people don't keep track. (One of the issues with wolf hunting in my own state has been that wolves have been moved off and on the list and there's a lot of disagreement over whether they should be considered endangered or not.) I think it's more emotional than whether a species is endangered and that the conversation wouldn't really be different if the word "endangered" had never been uttered.

I mean, if there were an announcement tonight that it was a mistake to call the lion endangered and that lions aren't endangered, would all of these people suddenly say, "Oh, it's OK then. We aren't upset anymore."

I think the reason people are upset is that it's a lion.

Think of it this way - there are a lot of homeless dogs in Romania. Let's say it was reported that an American dentist was walking around in Romania hunting and shooting dogs on the street and maybe using their fur for something. Dogs aren't an endangered species, and in fact, there's a worldwide overpopulation problem, but I bet Americans would be outraged. I don't think they'd be as outraged as they are over the lion, but they'd post yelp reviews and ruin the dentist's life while eating hamburgers.

So I really see the problem as speciesism - the concept that some species are inherently more valuable than others. That's emotion, not reason.

[BlueHeron]

Oh - agreed that if people are upset because it's an endangered species, that's a different issue. I just don't think that's why people are upset.

[EvanG]

BlueHeron,

Fair enough. I think that people have a sense that it would be terrible to kill a coral reef or kill what appear to be "majestic animals" like giraffes and lions. There is a sense that these are not common, and so a more valuable resource. I agree that the recognition as an endangered species by some governing body probably has very little to do with it. It also seems that there is an arbitrary nature of what goes viral and catches everybody's attention. People do care about what is right in front of them and graphic much more than something that they aren't thinking about or that is more abstract.

Corn ethanol production in the US reduces Soybean production here, and results in people in Brazil cutting down rain forest to grow soybeans. Also, highways divide habitats and drive extinction of many animals that need large areas to roam. So, driving habits indirectly affect loss of habitat and species destruction. Also, just purchasing a house or pretty much any goods leads to this same destruction, because you are paying others to drive trucks, etc. So, one could call a vegan a hypocrite if they take part in these other activities. However, I respect the boundary on ethical behavior that vegans define. It seems that it is impractical to stop all activities that lead to animal deaths. On the other hand, I think it is more ethical to eat honey than it is to buy vegetables that were grown using pesticides (neonicotinoids) that are likely to be killing bees at a rapid pace. There are probably a lot of issues like these that could be used to nit-pic on the consistency of someone else's values. So, it seems to me that the cases for veganism and animal rights should be made separately from this poor lion and people's reactions to it.

[BlueHeron]

BlueHeron,



Corn ethanol production in the US reduces Soybean production here, and results in people in Brazil cutting down rain forest to grow soybeans. Also, highways divide habitats and drive extinction of many animals that need large areas to roam. So, driving habits indirectly affect loss of habitat and species destruction. Also, just purchasing a house or pretty much any goods leads to this same destruction, because you are paying others to drive trucks, etc. So, one could call a vegan a hypocrite if they take part in these other activities. However, I respect the boundary on ethical behavior that vegans define. It seems that it is impractical to stop all activities that lead to animal deaths. On the other hand, I think it is more ethical to eat honey than it is to buy vegetables that were grown using pesticides (neonicotinoids) that are likely to be killing bees at a rapid pace. There are probably a lot of issues like these that could be used to nit-pic on the consistency of someone else's values. So, it seems to me that the cases for veganism and animal rights should be made separately from this poor lion and people's reactions to it.

I actually think many vegans are very aware that just by being on the planet and participating in any kind of "normal" life, they are harming animals. The overriding attitude I see is that people should do the best they can, recognizing that it's impossible to live a life in which no other beings are harmed. Many new vegans haven't thought of the ramifications of all of their actions yet - it is a process to recognize the things that you can do to minimize harm. I find it irritating (not saying you're doing this) that people jump on vegans for inconsistencies because I often think it's used as an excuse so they can justify not changing their own behavior (e.g., you drive a car that ultimately results in habitat loss; therefore, I can still eat steak and not feel bad about it). Changing what you eat is the simplest way to do the most good.

I had not thought of the vegetable/pesticide/bee issue, but the problem I see with that is that there's no direct connection. Eating honey doesn't make it more likely that people won't use pesticides. The choice to avoid the inherent cruelty in human use of honey does not hurt bees in an alternate way.

[Spiral]

I think it can be rational, but still wrong, for someone to oppose killing an animal that is a member of a species on the brink of extinction while at the same time believing that it is acceptable to eat factory farm animals.

The argument would be that the factory farm animals are not on the brink of extinction because those raising and slaughtering these animals are making sure that they breed enough animals to keep themselves in business. So, no risk of extinction.

One can make a rational argument against the killing of a lion and in favor of eating a cow or a pig or a chicken. It might be a cruel argument, an argument based on the idea that human beings should be allowed to satisfy their taste buds and this desire has a higher value than the suffering of an animal, but it is an argument still.

It's sort of like the abortion issue. One can make an argument against the killing of an unborn child. Another person can make the argument that priority must be given to a born woman and that woman's control over her body. Also, if someone objects to the selling of aborted baby organs, one can make the argument that these organs can be used to help born, non-aborted, human beings.

Similarly, one could argue that we should take prisoners on death row and perform medical experiments on them. Another person might object to this. Both can make rational arguments.

We tend to think that our own opinions are the only rational opinions available. But quite often we must choose between two or more competing rational opinions.

[BlueHeron]

I don't see these rational arguments actually happening though. Internet outrage tends to be about emotion. It's the modern version of an angry mob.

[awest27]

The main reason for outrage is because the animal had an assigned name and "personality". It would be like Esther The Wonder Pig being stolen from her farm and killed for bacon. The outrage would be huge. Yet, at the same time, millions of pigs are abused and killed for meat without a care.

[dailycarbs]

Maybe some Americans just like to kill as many things as they can get their hands on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/hi ... .html?_r=0

[EvanG]

I find it irritating (not saying you're doing this) that people jump on vegans for inconsistencies ...

I agree. It's not productive, and is a way of avoiding the real argument, which has to do with the ethics of killing animals for food.

We tend to think that our own opinions are the only rational opinions available. But quite often we must choose between two or more competing rational opinions.

This is kind of the point that I was trying to make. In my opinion, the vegan position and the position of meat eaters who are upset at Cecil's death are both consistent and rational enough.

I appreciate people like Ricky Gervais, who advocate against trophy hunting, even though they are not vegan. It doesn't seem productive to try and find inconsistencies there.

[BlueHeron]

I think that there are people who have rational thoughts about opposing trophy hunting and eating meat. That exists. I just think that most people don't really give much thought to why they care about lions and not cows, and this crazy outrage over Cecil seems like something entirely different to me - that is what I think is driven by emotion, not reason. If you're interested in the phenomenon of internet outrage, which we seem to be stuck with, I recommend the book "So You've Been Publicly Shamed" by Jon Ronson.

I also think that, while veganism can be very rationally argued, vegans are subject to emotions as well. And if you're committed to treating all animals as having value in themselves and not existing for human pleasure, it's very frustrating to see this one lion being held up in this way while so much animal suffering is dismissed as unimportant. So part of the vegan outrage about the outrage is probably driven by that frustration - I think both emotion and reason come into play for vegans.

I can't think of any type of commitment that is treated the same way as caring about animals is treated. People who give time and money to animal rights causes are frequently asked why they would work for animals when there's so much human suffering in the world. But if you're spending your time and money going to movies and watching baseball, nobody asks how you can do that when people are starving.

[Spiral]

People who give time and money to animal rights causes are frequently asked why they would work for animals when there's so much human suffering in the world. But if you're spending your time and money going to movies and watching baseball, nobody asks how you can do that when people are starving.

Most people who watch baseball are not under the illusion that they are engaged in an activity that will make the world a better place. Most believe that they are simply entertaining themselves.

But if you spend time caring for animals, someone else who is focused on all of the human suffering in the world might think that your priorities are wrong, that you should use your spare time helping human beings and only after there are no more suffering human beings should you spend time helping animals.

I personally do not subscribe to this point of view. I think someone who volunteers at an animal shelter deserves a pat on the back as does a doctor who performs free surgeries as part of doctors without borders. Both behaviors should be encouraged. I would not, however, give the baseball fan a pat on the back for being familiar with the top 10 home run hitters in professional baseball.

I think this just shows how different people are. Some people spend a huge proportion of their spare time helping others (people/animals). Others spend a huge proportion of their time watching movies, watching sports, watching the food channel. I suppose some people could criticize me for spending a lot of time training for my next half marathon. Maybe all of this energy could be put to a more noble purpose.

I think this gets to why many people are outraged at the killing of a lion and not outraged at the killing of millions of factory farm animals each day.

One belief system allows a person to feel outrage at some stranger who killed a lion. Another belief system (veganism) requires one to change ones own behavior or at least feel guilty about what one ate for breakfast. When people choose belief systems, often times they will choose belief systems that do not require much in the way of behavior modification.

It's like that book from the 1970s: I'm Ok. You're Ok. Pass the pork chops.

[Jumpstart]

And what is happening to the man/men who own the private land and arrange these hunts? From what I can tell, nothing. But, a guy who comes to Africa doesn't know where the park boundaries are, and needs a plan and help to lure a lion onto private land to be shot is the person that everyone including the country seems to be after. All of what happened could never have been accomplished without the direct involvement in the plan and duplicity of those that own the private game preserve. They are the ones who need to be arrested and charged.