On “gentle training”, murder and “killer” Gods
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
Shane Johnson replies to my letter in The Times of December 21, 2007. In his letter to The Times entitled “Animal training”, Mr Johnson writes:
“Kenneth Cassar found a lot of objections to my letter questioning all the fuss made about the protest against the circus. One of my main points was that it is not true that one has to necessarily hurt or cause an animal to fear one in order to train it.
In the animal rights Malta blog on the internet, Mr Cassar wrote: ‘However, it is a well known fact that many wild animals do not willingly learn unnatural tricks unless coerced in doing so, often through violent means (fear is a great motivator)’.
I ask, how can any person who is so strongly against any organisation that keeps animals in captivity, talk about the way these animals are trained when they have probably never set foot inside one of these organisations to have a look at what really happens? I have personally trained different types of animals (some more wild than others) and have never had to use force or cause the animals to fear me in any way. I have also watched and assisted tens of other people train many different animals with modern techniques and not once have I seen anyone use force.
Mr Cassar should check his facts before accusing organisations of abusing animals. Let me repeat myself. Any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know these facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain. Mr Cassar has no idea about animal training and should check his facts before accusing the trainers of wrongdoing”.
Let me address each of the points raised by Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson claims that it is not true that one has to necessarily hurt or cause an animal to fear one in order to train it. Well, this much I concede, of course depending on the species of animal in question. In fact, in my blog entry of December 14, I also mentioned positive and negative reinforcement, which involves rewards when an animal performes a task, and deprivations when the animal does not perform. This, an animal rights advocate worth his salt, will recognize as abusive.
That said, it is a fact that animals belonging to some species (like tigers and elephants) cannot be trained unless through coercion and violent means. It is not necessary for one to set foot inside one of these “organizations” to know that a tiger will not willingly jump through a flaming hoop, or an elephant stand on one leg, unless coerced to do so through violent methods. It’s all common sense, and the onus is on the trainer (like Mr Johnson) to prove that no violence has been used by providing evidence that no violence is involved in his/her training methods. Otherwise, we are entitled to keep to our own common sense belief that one cannot train such animals except through violence.
Mr Johnson goes on to say: “Mr Cassar also tells us that he does not even agree that police dogs, and dogs that save people from avalanches, should be trained. If, God forbid, Mr Cassar or any other person close to him should ever be trapped under an avalanche, he would be praying that a dog (who according to him has been coerced to learn unnatural behaviours), should turn up and save him from an ugly death”.
Well, strictly speaking, I did not mention police dogs and dogs who save people from avalanches in my letter, but of course that was implied in my saying that “all sentient animals have the right to life and liberty, and the right not to be property”.
Mr Johnson makes a grave moralistic fallacy in judging an action to be morally right through weighing the consequences to the beneficiary of the action. Mr Johnson justifies the using of non-human animals as human property by claiming that human lives are saved through non-human animal use. The fallacy of this line of argument becomes clear when one considers that perhaps millions of human lives could be saved if scientists were allowed to experiment on a few unconsenting human beings, thus providing the chance of huge medical breakthroughs. Of course most people would agree that the end does not justify the means.
Mr Johnson continues by saying: “Futhermore, in the blog Mr Cassar also mentioned that he thought it abusive that human beings murder animals for food. As far as I know murder is when one animal or human kills another for no good reason. By saying so he is accusing the vast majority of humans (those who are not vegan or vegetarian) of being murderers just because they are exercising their God-given right to eat other animals. I am sorry but in no way can I or indeed the vast majority of humans worldwide ever agree with him on this matter”.
Let’s use Mr Johnson’s own definition of murder. Mr Johnson says that murder is when one animal or human kills another for no good reason. Now, considering that it is perfectly possible for humans to go vegan, or at least vegetarian, this makes killing non-human animals for food unnecessary. Eating meat is killing non-human animals for no good reason. That he, or the vast majority of humans worldwide cannot agree with me on this matter is of no consequence. Numbers neither prove nor disprove the validity of a proposition. Reasoned arguments do.
Does this mean that humans who eat meat are murderers? By Mr Johnson’s own definition of murder, the answer seems to be in the affirmative. However, murder involves knowledge of the act of killing being wrong. That is why the law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Therefore, by my own definition of murder, I would call the act of unnecessary killing murder, but would not call people who eat meat because they have not yet recognized that doing so is wrong as murderers.
That said, no one is let off the hook, so to speak, and when the lives of millions of sentient animals are at stake, it is a moral duty of everyone to be properly informed about these issues. That is why I provided a list of books on the subject in my last reply to Mr Johnson (which may be found through a link on this blog).
Mr Johnson concludes his letter by writing: “We do have a right given to us by God to eat other animals, just like a lion living in the African Savannah has the right to hunt and eat. Such extremist views are only supported by a small minority of people”.
First of all, the lion living in the African Savannah needs to eat meat to survive. We don’t. That makes all the difference. Secondly, it is very convenient for people to refer to parts of the Bible only where it suits them. Does Mr Johnson, by referring to a God who supposedly has given us the right to kill non-human animals, mean the same God who approves of slavery; orders genocide; orders capital punishment by stoning of blasphemers, gay people, and those who work on the Sabbath; approves of the giving away of daughters for prostitution; and permits or orders many more acts which any moral person considers to be atrocities, but which we are led to believe God permits or orders us to do in the Bible? If you don’t believe me, read the Bible.
Like I said in “A “God-given” right to kill, and humanity’s “uniqueness”":
“Creationists who reject evolution, and who believe that God authorized humans to do with other animals as they wish, will hold on to their selfish anthropocentric view of a ‘God-given’ right to treat non-human animals as lesser beings and human property - an unfounded claim which echoes the claim of supposed ‘God-given’ superiority made by racists in respect of black humans in the era of black slavery. It must also be pointed out that the claim of a “God-given” right to humans to treat non-humans as they please rests on the mistake of taking the whole Bible as historical fact which should be followed literally word-for-word…Of course, a non-literal interpretation sees all these crimes as human policies in history whose origin was falsely or mistakenly attributed to God. Likewise the supposedly ‘God-given right to dominion’ is also a mistaken claim whose origin is falsely or mistakenly attributed to God”.
As for calling me an “extremist”, I’ve gotten used to being called that name in the absence of valid counter-arguments to my own. The more people call me an extremist without explaining why they consider me so (and having minority views does not make one an extremist), the more I am convinced that I am striking a chord and making people feel uneasy about the abuse on non-human animals that they themselves perform or have performed on their behalf.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
