This week in class we are beginning to look explicitly at some arguments against eating meat and other animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.). In an effort to continue that conversation, please consider the following material.
In 2007, NFL star quarterback Michael Vick agreed to plead guilty to federal charges regarding dog fighting on his property. His actions were condemned heartily by the public, and he lost several high profile endorsements as a result. In 2009, Vick was released from prison and reinstated in the NFL. His reinstatement, and subsequent signing by the Philadelphia Eagles (where he is quarterback today) was surrounded by considerable controversy. Much ink was spilled over whether Vick should ever be allowed to play in the NFL again.
In this very brief op-ed that appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, Gary Francione argues that "we are all Michael Vick", and that Vick's case "dramatically demonstrates...our 'moral schizophrenia' about animals."
In the course of the brief op-ed, Francione claims that "the animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting." He further claims that the animals we eat are 'tortured' and that how they are treated is 'hideous'. These are claims that are made, and supported to varying degrees, by some of the essays we are reading together.
Upon reading Francione's brief essay, you might reflect upon the following sorts of questions:
1. Is there a moral difference between Vick's dog fighting and rearing, killing, and eating animals? Does this moral difference result in justifying our current eating practices?
2. Francione asks at the end of his op-ed: "How removed from the screaming crowd around the
dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?" What's your reply?
3. Francione briefly presents the case of Simon the Sadist. He wonders how those who eat animal products are any different from Simon. He claims that "we are all Simon". Is he right about that? If not, why not? If so, why?
4. Does it seem right to claim, as Francione does, that the animals we eat are "tortured" and experience "hideous" treatment? If not, why not? Do you have good reasons for thinking that those modifiers are mistaken? If so, what are those reasons?
Get after the (many) issues raised here and press each other, challenge each other. Take advantage of this opportunity to engage in high-level critical reflection on a very relevant, practical matter. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble as you express your views, offer your arguments, ask your questions, and interact with others.
Francione is over dramatizing the farming industry. He claims that the industry brutally tortures animals and that they endure unbearable pain and suffering. However, that is not the case. Families own most farms: thus farmers cannot risk beating animals and ruining the meat that is the income that supports their family. Therefore, they need to take good care of their animals and make sure that they go through as little pain and suffering as possible. Even the slaughterhouses kill animals instantly so they don’t experience pain or suffering. The process of getting the meat occurs after the animal is dead so they are not even experiencing any pain.
ReplyDeleteThe farming industry has gained a negative view due to the few times and places that have cruel procedures. A majority of the farms take very good care of their animals, however, the handfuls that do not give farming a bad name. This is very similar to religion. The Islam religion is not full of terrorists, however, the handful of terrorists that were Islam gave the religion a bad name. The sad part about this is that PETA and other groups find the minority and show it to the world and people remember it because it is so awful. However, no one shows the reality to the world, and even if they did, no one ever remembers the positive aspects, only the horrible ones. Thus, unlike dog fighting, farming is not brutal and the suffering of animals in dog fighting is significantly greater than the suffering of farm animals.
Mollie Backode
I believe that there really isn't a moral difference between us and Michael Vick. we honestly all are him. yeah, some factory farms are amazing and they treat there animals perfectly because that's what needs to happen in order to get good meat and produce out of them but at the same time there is always that one or two factory farms that abuse and harm animals and the workers actually get enjoyment out of it. Just like Michael Vick he was dog fighting more money and entertainment and we humans are slaughtering poor animals for not only food but like the factory farms, some people actually get enjoyment out treating animals so horribly. It is kind of annoying how the clothing companies stopped sponsoring Michael but still sell the leather shoes that are made from cows that were in the factory farms. There is no difference whatsoever in dog fighting and slaughtering animals for food.
ReplyDeleteI basically agree with what Mollie said. In the video, Meet your Meat, those slaughter houses and the way they were doing things, those are the kinds of businesses that get shut down. Although the animals are still alive, they are shocked to unconsciousness so they don't feel anything. Unlike in that video where the pigs were still wiggling around after they got their throat slit. The animals are not suffering and don't get beat to do what we want because if there are any bruises on the meat, they can't sell it on the market or in stores. Francione is exaggerating everything and needs to reeducate his self before he starts making claims that aren't true. Just because we like meat doesn't mean we are all Simon or Michael Vick.
ReplyDeleteCristin S.
While reading this paper I was becoming very mad at the thought that he is calling us all Michael Vick. Just because I eat meat doesn't mean that I fight dogs for the enjoyment of watching them kill each other. Most places are not like the ones that the author beings up. Slaughter house and farms have to keep the animals happy and health to even get a profit to support their family. When you say well here is some proof, it's because you found the few places that are really like that. There are many other places out there that don't do that kind of treatment to the animals and that is where most of the meat comes from. When I eat meat it is no the same as fighting a dog and should not be compared to that.
ReplyDelete-Sara Hannon
I agree with Francione's point that we are no different from Vick based on the fact that he and most everyone else contributes to animals suffering. Most of society does not enjoy making animals suffer directly, as apparently Vick does. However, people do pay others for meat and animals products, which does contribute to great suffering whether people realize it or not.
ReplyDeleteI really think people should actually examine the food industry before forming opinions about animal agriculture. Most farms are not family owned. The few "independent" farms are dependent financially on large factory farms and often don't operate any more humanely that the CAFO's. Factory farms are not humane. They are not humane to the animals, their workers, or the environment. Do people really think that idyllic family farms can produce the BILLIONS of animals we eat each year? NO.
Not that anyone is going to, but if you want to know how the food industry works, read these two books:
Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser
The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan
They are decent overviews of the food industry and contain a lot of different information.
Or, read Gristle by Moby and Miyun Park (it's shorter and has pictures!)
-Monica T
Francione makes sense, slightly. He talks about how we are all the same as Vick, because he tortures dogs and we torture animals to eat them. But I also have to look at the differences between dog fighting and meat production. Dog fighting is an event that creates aggressive dogs to continuously fight each other, to either death or until one can no longer fight. And even after the fighting is over the dogs are "repaired" so they can fight another day. Meat production, yes put animals in stress and cause a lot of bad behavior in the animals but once they are sent to be processed then the animal is dead. There is no continuous torture, no "repair" and do overs, it ends. Yes many of you might say but that is worse to kill the animal and end its life, but is it? Or would you rather put the animal in pain over, and over again. I take this back to our last class discussion, "we would humanely euthanize animals whenever it is needed." Yes slaughter is not the most humane way to be killed but it would be putting the animal out of its misery.
ReplyDeleteYes, factory farming is not done properly in todays society and it should be changed and regulated greatly. But I also think that eating animals is not such a bad thing, yes it is taking a life but it is taking a life to help another life. And like I have said before if we were raised to kill our neighbor or animals eating humans was seen as acceptable, then this worry about animal moral and ethics would not be an issue. But since it is I think that factory farming should be regulated more heavily but I do not think eating animals makes us like Vick in all ways.
--Alyssa T.
When reading this article, I couldn't help but shake the feeling of frustration with some of Francione's statements. Food animals are not always tortured through the time of their death. Granted some factory farms do not follow protocols like they should and the people that work at these farms deserve to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. His allegations that we are all like Vick and Simon are completely outrageous.
ReplyDeleteTo start off, I would like to point out that I lived on a farm and worked on my family's dairy operation with over 500 head. I also aided a good family friend on his swine operation with over 5000 pigs. While I was working at these places, I saw NO animal cruelty taking place. All of the animals were in good health and were being treated with respect and empathy. If any of the animals were hurt or if the barn presented danger in any way, the problem was corrected immediately. Francione's statement that all food animals are tortured until there demise really frustrated me because he is grouping all of the farms with the few bad eggs that made the farming industry look like monsters. The violators of the regulations set by the FDA should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and made an example of. Yes, factory farms are not natural like our farms and there is a lot less resources to keep an eye on all animals. I believe that the factory farms should be nixed and rural farmers should band together to help make the industry better.
Additionally, the allegation that we all are like Vick and Simon is completely and utterly outrageous. Farming is not at all like dog fighting or blowtorching dogs. In MOST farms, the animals are not treated badly or at least not on purpose. Yes, in some factory farms there are illegal actions being administered on the animals there. However, this does not give him the right to say that all farming is bad. Deliberately torturing dogs and making them fight to the death or blowtorching them simply for pleasure is NOT the same as raising them and killing them humanely. There is nothing humane about the fighting and torturing of dogs. Most of the dogs are basically shredded and torn apart while still alive. In farms, the animals are killed using a bolt gun or other humane methods. I challenge you to give reasons as to how these are the same.
Francione is pretty bold for attempting to make a stretch such as this. Being raised on a farm, I felt that he was mainly trying to solve some personal vendetta and trying to attack farms as a whole. Yes, I believe that some of the actions of SOME factory farms are horrible. That is why I believe that these farms should be regulated more heavily and violators of these regulations should face serious time in prison. Francione should only attack the bad factory farms and their practices. Comparing that to the deliberate torture and horrible death of dogs is completely outrageous and widely invalid.
Even though I do agree with Francione at some extent, I do not agree with him on the fact that we are all like Michael Vick. In my own opinion there is a difference in fighting dogs and eating meat. To take pleasure in watching dogs fight is totally different from getting pleasure from eating meat. yes both cases involve animal pain and suffering, but instead of taking pain in watching something kill another and plainly eating meat that is already dead, the mode of pleasure is different.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to the argument that do butchers take pleasure in killing hundreds of cows or pigs on a daily basis? We all know that most factory farms are inhumane, but there is a rare instance when they are not.
The pleasure we get from meat is more of a nutritional pleasure whereas the dog fighting is pure adrenaline rush pleasure. therefore we are in two different crowds instead of one like Francione says.
--Matt P.
1. Yes, there is a moral difference between forcing to animals to fight to there death and killing for food. It is immoral to make to animals fight to there death for entertainment. It is different that we are hunting animals and trying to kill them as painless as possible rather than making them fight and injure eachother until one dies and then they throw out the dead animal rather than eatting it.
ReplyDelete2. Those people who are screaming and cheering for the dog fights do not care about the well being of animals and not forcing pain upon them. The people laughing around a barbeque are with there friends and are excited to eat the delicious food rather than watching something suffer and throwing it away. It is completely different and shouldn't even be compared.
3. Comparing farming and torchering dogs is crazy. You can not compare these to things. Yes, there are some factory farms that do not morally kill the animal how they might suppose to but they will eventually get caught and will pay for what they done to the animals. I do not think that you can sit here and say that all factory farms are like Vick and Simon, when you do not know for a fact that every factory farmer treats there animals immorally.
4. The animals we eat are not tortured. I hunt and I try to kill an animal as quickly and painless as possible. I do not torcher the animal before it dies that is not right. There are those people though that might torture an animal for fun but it is not right and not all animals are treated that way. I think these people who say all animals are tortured say this becuase, they only hear about the cases of the animals being tortured compared to the millions of animals that are not tortured that they never hear about.
Dillon K.
Reading Francione's article frustrated me like when I read the past couple of articles for our BAPS. Dog fighting and eating animals is completely different, its like black and white. Dog fighting is when people breed dogs to fight to the death or seriously injured; and when these people breed dogs they usually have the females tied on a heavy chain and have muzzles on and they are basically forced to breed. When they train these poor dogs to fight, if they lose half the time they don't even bother to fix the dogs injuries, they just leave them
ReplyDeleteFood production animals are not always treated fairly, and there should be more regulations and people checking up on these farms to make sure everything is up to code and animals are treated fairly. But not all these farms are bad; majority of farms to treat the animals respectfully. So I would have to say no food production animals are not tortured; when these animals times are up the process is quick and painless. Comparing dog fighting and the process of animal meat production is barbaric.
--Michelle F.--
This article picks a bone with me that has not been picked in a long while. Yes what Micheal Vick did was very wrong, and so are the countless others that do the same. Farming animals for their meat is nothing like dog fighting. Although there are many farms that give agriculture a bad reputation, not all farms abuse their animals. many farms actually do take really good care of their animals. It is the companies that own the farms that impose strict protocols that cause farmers to resort to unfavorable acts towards the animals they are raising. If you watch Food Inc. there is a poultry farmer that talks about Tyson Meats and how she feels horrible about how she has to treat her chickens because of Tyson's regulations. If she choose to not abide, she would have lost her job.
ReplyDelete-Kimber C.
There is a huge difference between the two. For starters not all the animals that are eaten are tortured their whole lives. There is an increasing scrutiny over the quality of meat and if you torture your animal its whole life the meat will be very poor quality and you will make no money. But even if they were treated the same, the fact is we get nutritional value out of eating animals. Now yes, perhaps there are other places we can get the nutriments we need, however we are still getting nutrients vital to us living on. Dog fighting does not contribute to our well being what so ever. To say they are all treated the same is pretty ridiculous, and these are he reasons people can not agree with people like Francione.
ReplyDeleteWhen looking at the Simon the Sadist point it is even more ridiculous. Blow torching a dog for enjoyment is so disgusting because you are getting the satisfaction from watching the suffering. Many people are disgusted and change their diets when they see how some animals are treated that they eat. Once again he is just trying to use an extreme example of something that barely relates to the real point, to shock and awe people into a certain point of view.
It is not right to claim that the animals are "tortured" and in "hideous" conditions. While yes this is true in some cases it is and over generalization. It is not right to lump in all the farmers who focus on humanly treating animals, in with those who do not. He can make that argument about the farms where it does happen, but needs to make other arguments about the farms where they are treated well. If he cannot do that, any basic student of argumentation and debate would understand that generalizing and using strong emotional words to get response is a cheap tactic that is used when real evidence can't be found. Therefore it has no place in this article.
-Matt Powers-
I enjoy the point Francione makes about Nike and Reebok revoking products endorsed by Vick that contain tortured cows because he tortured dogs. That does seem a bit ironic. I do disagree though with Francione about dog fighting and slaughtering animals being both equally immoral. Just because a few bad apples fell from a tree does not make the tree bad, so why should the entire livestock industry be condemned for a few bad apples? Not to mention I too condemn those who fail to properly practice humane methods but I strongly support those who do practice the proper and humane methods set standard by the industry. And to recap on the mention of how all of us in this country who eat meat are no better than Vick, I argue that I should not be condemned for someone else’s lack of morals. The individual who demonstrates ill practices should be the man at the stake, not those of us who are miss lead and blindly guided by various persuasive technics and cover-up ploys.
ReplyDelete-----Nick-----
I feel like there is a difference between the two. When you have animals that are used for meat they are not harmed really until they get to the plant. People think that they animals are harmed so much on factory farms and what not but really they just don't know animals and how they work or they would no they are not treated as badly as they think. Animals like cows will not produce milk if they are not relaxed and feel safe enough to do so. So right there proves they are comfortable on the farms or we would not have any type of milk products. Dog fighting however is torture to the animals to fight for their lives. They have been put through it since day one when they were being trained, so its an ongoing torture. As for screaming people around the dog pit....this is encouraging the dogs to win and be more aggressing. I don't think that you can encourage your steak to be any better. so that's just stupid to compare. We are not like Simon. When an animal goes to slaughter it gets it throat slit and will die. Simon however is burning the dogs with a blow torch which in turn would have to be used a lot to kill the dog. If he enjoys this torching of the dogs that much he is not going to burn the dog to bad that he dies, but enough to watch him suffer. The dog will live to be tortured again where the cow that went to slaughter the day before will have died yesterday and will not live to be slaughtered again...the suffering is over. The animals we eat are not tortured. Like I said before cows would not produce milk at all. Chickens would not lay too many eggs. The meat going to the slaughter house would be damaged and bruised so in return there would be money lost. So in reality I do not think they are treated as badly as people say.
ReplyDeleteChelsea
1) I feel like this is a difficult question to answer. To me, there is no moral difference between the two, although I will point out that it seems more hideous to make two animals fight each other to the death. I also understand Francione's point, and it is just as horrible to kill an animal for our pleasure.
ReplyDelete2) This is a very eye-opening question. The difference is that the people surrounding the dog fighting pit are well aware of their actions, and derive sick pleasure from it. The people at the BBQ most likely do not have what exactly has to happen for them to eat that steak in the front of their minds. They might not think past the fact that they are able to eat steak, to the killing of an animal for that steak. Its just an obvious assumption. However, no matter how aware we might be of our actions, it makes eating the steak no less horrible than the dog fighting.
3) I do not believe we are all Simon. This goes back to what I previously mentioned in my answer for question two. Simon knows that he is inflicting pain, suffering, and death, and derives sick pleasure from it. Those of us who eat animal flesh do it because it is second nature, and we do not think past the steak to the fact that an animal had to die (and possibly suffer) for our pleasure.
4) I feel like this depends. Not all animals are tortured in farms and factories, though we may see it quite more often than we wish. Sure, it is horrible that these animals are dying, but that's not exactly the same as an animal being tortured.
This article raises a few red flags to me when he as he is basically comparing us to Micheal Vick. We as humans have consumed meat for a very long time. It is something that most people where raised on as a child until adulthood. The fact most people don't have to see their food before it is slaughtered also allows them a sort of escape from actually seeing the pain that the animal suffers.
ReplyDeleteThose who participate in dog fighting have to choose if they want to watch and bet. They are making the conscious decision to watch two animals violently attack each other until one ultimately dies. To most this is something that seems immoral. In the defense of those who consume meat, they dont have to watch the animal suffer. There are some factory farms that treat the animals very well as before they are slaughtered and when they are slaughtered, it is done as humanely as possible. There is nothing humane about dog fighting. Do I agree with Micheal Vicks actions? NO. But as far as the NFL letting him play is strictly their choice.
As far as football goes, most people watch it for entertainment. Rather it be for the big hits, or routing on their hometown team, football has been apart of American tradition for a very long time. The NFL letting Vick back into the NFL rubbed many fans the wrong way. But since it is a sport that millions love, people still watch the games. Vick has lost a lot of his following as well as his endorsements, which on top of his jail time and fines, is a large punishment. Vick as a football player is truly someone who is a amazing athlete. I feel the NFL allowed vick to play again based on the fact that he is a valuable assent to the competition of the sport.
-Cameron K
In reading Francione’s paper I am slightly repulsed that he compares people who eat met to someone who fights domestic animals. First of all fighting domestic animals is cruel because there is no physical gain for the pain those animals are going through. Some people might argue that the rush is enough to justify this but there are so many different ways to get this mental rush. Another point Francione does not bring up is the fact that a majority of animals in factory farms are not brutally beaten until they fight or killed because they do not cooperate. In a farm industry harming your animals will decrease their productivity losing the farmer money. Now why would a businessman do things that will lose him money in the long run? Also Francione compares people to a character Simon. Simon enjoyed burning dogs. This cannot be compared to eating animals. Again a majority of animals are not abused or treated terribly when they are slaughtered they are euthanized in the most rapid and effective way possible. This comparison is just ridiculous and why I always find it very hard to agree with radical vegans or vegetarians.
ReplyDelete-Josh Pitters
I understand what Francione is trying to do by comparing dog fighting to eating animals but i do not agree with it. In dog fighting the dogs are forced to breed solely to fight and injure themselves as well as other dogs. It is not often that the losing dogs are treated for their injuries. After a dog has been trained to fight it is nearly impossible to rehabilitate it and make it suitable to live a normal life as a family pet. Like dog fighting some animals are also forced to breed to produce animals to be used in slaughter. But unlike dog fighting people do not get enjoyment out of slaughtering a cow in the way people do with dog fighting. A cow that has been raised for meat very easily could be turned into a pet cow unlike a fighting dog. I feel like many of these authors try too hard to get an emotional connection from the reader and pick bad examples while comparing.
ReplyDeleteVikki Burt