|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| dogbert wrote: |
I can counter pastis and guri guy's livestock arguments easily:
Turtles are not considered livestock. Yet, turtles are legally killed and eaten.
Fish are not considered livestock. Yet, fish are legally killed and eaten.
Bbondaegi are not considered livestock. Yet, bbondaegi are legally killed and eaten.
For that matter, are sheep or goats considered livestock in Korea? You cannot make the logical leap to "not considered livestock" means "can't be killed and eaten legally". |
The objection I would put forth is that you're not mentioning the commercial aspect of what the classification "livestock" entails. It's one thing to kill and eat an animal, and another to sell the meat for profit (like in dog restaurants). The literal definition of livestock as I've always understood it, is animals (usually raised on farms etc.) used in some way for profit. We could get real picky and say the Korean gov't has a different definition for livestock, but that might be stretching it...
I'm pretty sure fish are almost always treated seperately in any country (there's even a whole separate Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries). I'm admit I'm not sure, but I'd guess this presumably would cover any other seafood like turtles or even frogs. Either way, such animals as those are wild. The dogs eaten in restaurants are by no stretch of the imagination wild, and are pretty much not comparable to "turtles" in that sense.
Sheep certainly are considered livestock according to your article (I'll assume they mean goats as well, pretty much the same damn thing  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Exactly. Killing something and eating it is one thing.
Killing it and selling it to others as a business is another thing altogether. You are now responsible because if the product is unhygenic, you could do harm to others. That is why animals considered livestock have regulations. Dogs are not livestock so there is no regulation on their care, and humane slaughter. There is however an animal cruelty law which is not enforced because the dog meat lobby is in bed with government officials. They don't call this country the land of the white envelope for nothing.
You mentioned turtles. Hmmm....Korea has blood on their hands there I see. I am sure it is legal to eat turtles in Korea but smuggling them out of the country and eating endangered species in not.
Given China�s growing 1.3 billion population, plus leaps in individual purchasing power, the toll on turtles is mounting. After exhausting their own wild supplies, Chinese traders began working with traffickers in Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Bangladesh, then extended their footprint to Malaysia and Indonesia when populations nearer home became depleted.
Even in the continent�s most remote villages, the word is out that turtles mean money. In Laos, the very rare three-striped box turtle, believed to cure cancer, can fetch more than $1,200 (U.S.) per animal�about three times the per capita income in that impoverished country. Given such incentives, Asian villagers comb forest floors, river beds, stream valleys and rice fields in search of the reptiles. Turtles are speared, netted, dug out of mud, trapped, tracked down by dogs and caught on lines using baited hooks or pins.
Once captured, the animals are sold to middlemen who scoop them up wholesale for delivery to traders in larger cities. The final destination more often than not is China, although sizeable numbers are also sent to Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and ethnic Chinese communities in the region and around the world. From besieged habitats to soup pots, the turtles are moved along jungle trails, rivers, sea lanes and by air�the preferred mode given its speed and higher survival rate. To cross frontiers, illegally traded chelonians are stuffed into suitcases, packed under legal merchandise or falsely labeled as seafood. In one recent shipment out of Cambodia, about a dozen elongated tortoises were wrapped in cellophane to stop noise of their movements from reaching the ears of customs inspectors.
http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=80&articleID=1188
More medical hocus pocus along the lines of dog meat being good for stamina. A rare turtle that cures cancer? It'll be extinct before too long unfortunately.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
That is really poorly written, isn't it? Qualifying both of those sentences with the tag "without proper, rational reason" is laughable. What "proper, rational reason" could there possibly be to kill animals cruelly or to inflict unnecessary pain upon them? |
Exactly. If the original is as vague as the English version, it's extremely bad news for animals. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
I can counter pastis and guri guy's livestock arguments easily:
Turtles are not considered livestock. Yet, turtles are legally killed and eaten.
Fish are not considered livestock. Yet, fish are legally killed and eaten.
Bbondaegi are not considered livestock. Yet, bbondaegi are legally killed and eaten.
For that matter, are sheep or goats considered livestock in Korea? You cannot make the logical leap to "not considered livestock" means "can't be killed and eaten legally". |
Some of those animals may not be classified as "animals" under the animal protection law ... which means they would have no legal protection whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why would they even bother making the distinction between "livestock" and otherwise if that didn't carry inherent legal implications? |
Yes, this would seem to make sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Why would they even bother making the distinction between "livestock" and otherwise if that didn't carry inherent legal implications? |
Yes, this would seem to make sense. |
That may be so, but it is still a leap to assume that makes the slaughter and sale of "non-livestock" animal flesh illegal. I have yet to see that explicitly stated, so I continue to maintain that it is not, at least in regard to dogs.
I think the distinction, as seen in the law, is that the slaughter of livestock is regulated by the government, whereas the slaughter of non-livestock animals is not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 11, 2006 11:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| I think the distinction, as seen in the law, is that the slaughter of livestock is regulated by the government, whereas the slaughter of non-livestock animals is not. |
But can something (especially something open to public consumption) that's not regulated in any way by the gov't be considered "legal"? If it's not regulated (I mean even in the barest sense of being legislated if nothing else), how could it be guaranteed as safe? I think the government would be liable if they had something both legal and unregulated do harm to a consumer. I actually wonder, if someone got sick from eating (unregulated) dog, could they hold the government liable for it? Or would the government treat it as something done *illegally* by the consumer and/or vendor, and therefore as not its problem? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Qinella
Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Location: the crib
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pastis wrote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
| The first thing you need to do is establish that killing an animal is immoral. You're making this assumption that it is. However, humans throughout all of known history, with very few rare exceptions, have been eating meat. We still do it, in extremely mass numbers. |
Alright, since you seem to be coming at this with a straight face... (not that I altogether believe you're not just trying to yank my chain here, hence this little disclaimer) I guess I'll roll with it...
Without jumping too deep into the briar patch comprising the various overlapping (and at times contradictory) branches of the vast study of "ethics" (far better men than I have studied their whole lives without discovering a universal truth that could be copied and pasted on Dave's cafe in comic book form for your easy viewing pleasure), I'm just going to give you my basic premise on our topic as *I* see it (basically you can take it or leave it, unless you're prepared to offer a superior argument of your own in opposition): I believe that pitilessly and/or preventably inflicting suffering onto *any* sentient being is immoral.
Furthermore I don't think there's any way around this. On the one hand, one could argue that animals have their own rights as "subjects-of-a-life," and are "bearers of rights like humans. The idea here is that the moral rights of humans are based on their possession of certain cognitive abilities, and because these abilities are also possessed by at least some non-human animals, such animals must have the same moral rights as humans" (this is an argument by Peter Singer, one of the most influential animal rights scholars)). In this case you could apply a Kantian type of idea that it's morally wrong to use humans (and/or animals, as posited in the previous sentences) as mere *means* to be exploited (they should be treated as *ends* in themselves just like humans).
Or, even if you *don't* think human moral laws apply to animals for whatever reason, treating them cruely and causing them pain can still be considered immoral in that it still brutalizes humans themselves. Surely a lack of pity or even consideration for a suffering creature is immoral on the part of humans (even if you argue that the animal itself is not worth moral consideration) because it brings out the worst in cruel emotions or utter lack of empathy (desensitization towards the pain you cause etc.) in people. Basically "you do it to yourself" by willfully inflicting pain on a feeling creature. In either case, the moral culpability is transfered to the meat eater who directly and knowingly contributes to it.
I realise there's far more that could be added, but for the sake of brevity that's pretty much it. If you'd like me to clarify or expound on anything above, just let me know. |
Much better!
You know, I used to be a vegetarian, too, before coming to Korea. Part of my rationale went along the same lines as what you presented above. (The other part had to do with a belief that meat consumption is transfer of negative energy.) Your argument above is not bad. That doesn't mean it isn't open to criticism, of course.
For example, a report published by an agricultural researcher in Iowa a few years back found that if all people were to become vegetarians, one of the results of the increase in vegetable production would be that the number of "pests" (mice, gophers) being crushed to pieces in combines would exceed the number of pigs, cows, etc. that would otherwise have been slaughtered for consumption. According to his report, the number of animals (and let's not forget insects) that die in this way is already surprisingly large.
What I'm saying is, it's impossible to eat mass-produced food without assuming that suffering will be involved. Think about even the poor produce pickers who break their backs for your $1 banana. The only way to eliminate suffering in food consumption is to have your own garden.
As for the final paragraph above, however, there is a major flaw, and it is this: who says we don't feel pity? I pity the pigs that suffer before they end up on my sandwich. I pity the people who are essentially slaves that made some of my clothes. I pity that people die in cars every day around the world. There are very few things in this world which are helpful but without negative consequences. It's impossible to conclude that committing an action which results in suffering for some is de facto immoral. In other words, causing pain and suffering is not necessarily immoral.
| Quote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
Compare this to things which are commonly agreed-upon as being immoral:
- Murder
- Lying
- Theft
- Property damage
Now, these things, though they do occur (especially lying), would still be branded as immoral by close to 100% of the world population. Thus, we can agree they are immoral by most definitions. However, most of the world's citizens (historical and present), since they have eaten, do eat, or would eat meat if given the opportunity, implicitly say that eating meat is not immoral |
I hope you're not making fun (that wouldn't be very nice )... Obviously morality is not dictated by what most people think or do (also "by most definitions" is kind of vague  ). |
I said by most definitions as a nod to the fact that morality is relative. I'm sure it's possible to find a world perspective wherein murder is considered a moral act, but, in general, humans believe the four acts listed above to be immoral, regardless of their particular moral perspectives on other issues.
Of course I don't mean that consensus dictates morality. However, it can be a good guide, no?
| Quote: |
| In my own personal opinion most people are generally a fairly self-serving, uncaring bunch, who commit some or all of the crimes you mentioned above regularly (certainly not even murder is exempt). Most people also happen to eat meat. Doesn't make it moral anymore than the other things you listed. |
You know people who regularly murder and damage property? Huh?
Really, though, I must say I'm taken aback at your view of humanity. Of course people are self-serving. That's part of every animal's nature. Many plants, too, if I'm not mistaken. But to say most people are uncaring, and regularly commit acts that violate their own personal morality? It's hard to agree with a statement like that.
| Quote: |
| Qinella wrote: |
| In other words, it's you against the world. You've tried to state that eating meat is inherently immoral. However, this can't possibly be the case, unless you wish to argue that almost every human ever known has been an immoral being |
Surely this is fairly obvious too. I don't know about *everybody* per se, but of course *most* people do indeed live immoral lives to some degree or another. How many truly "moral" people do you know? I wouldn't even consider myself to be moral half the time. The fact that we all contribute to a pretty much immoral society rife with social and other injustices etcetera etcetera ad nauseum, places the blame on all of us to some extent (I'm actually fairly cynical about where humans have come from and where we seem to be headed, in case you were wondering).
As already stated, just because "almost everyone" chooses to do something (i.e. eating meat), doesn't make it therefore moral at all. And saying that it's me against the world suggests that I'm somehow "waging war" against all that I see unjust. That's pretty silly, I am fairly realistic about how things are, and don't really see them improving anytime soon. Frankly I don't dwell on it too much in my everyday life because I am also desensitized to a fair degree. But none of this alters the fact that mistreating animals is immoral as I see it. |
By you against the world, I meant that it's your opinion vs. everyone else in the world throughout history (a slight exaggeration).
There's not much more for me to respond to, as I see it. I mostly wanted to see what you'd come up with as justification for the opinion that eating meat is immoral.
I may or may not respond again. It's very time-consuming, and I'm way too busy for my own good this week.
Q. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 11:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Qinella wrote: |
| For example, a report published by an agricultural researcher in Iowa a few years back found that if all people were to become vegetarians, one of the results of the increase in vegetable production would be that the number of "pests" (mice, gophers) being crushed to pieces in combines would exceed the number of pigs, cows, etc. that would otherwise have been slaughtered for consumption. According to his report, the number of animals (and let's not forget insects) that die in this way is already surprisingly large |
I've read (as you no doubt have too) that producing animals as food actually requires somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10X more grain to feed them than if humans were to simply grow it for themselves. It would seem to follow that vegetable (or at least grain) production would actually decrease exponentially (and thus along with the pests etc. you mentioned). Considering the sheer scale of the animals that are produced, I'm guessing they actually eat far more than humans do (or would even if we didn't eat meat).
This actually leads to a somewhat separate point: the environmental effect of intensive animal farming can be quite serious. The sheer amount of waste produced by things like factory farms has poisoned many a river/lake, and even contaminated human water supplies causing illness. While I may think animals should have rights, I don't think overpopulation is good and think we could do with far less cows polluting the earth just so we can eat them.
| Quote: |
| What I'm saying is, it's impossible to eat mass-produced food without assuming that suffering will be involved. Think about even the poor produce pickers who break their backs for your $1 banana. The only way to eliminate suffering in food consumption is to have your own garden |
This I agree with you on totally. The bottom line here is almost always going to be the huge scale of production (and the exploitation that entails under the current system) and waste resulting from human overpopulation. It would be pretty hard for 6+ billion people to get by eating even simple grains without putting some pressure on the ecosystem. But mass production of animals is *by far* the most damaging and expensive in that regard (moral implications of the animals themselves aside).
| Quote: |
| As for the final paragraph above, however, there is a major flaw, and it is this: who says we don't feel pity? I pity the pigs that suffer before they end up on my sandwich. I pity the people who are essentially slaves that made some of my clothes. I pity that people die in cars every day around the world. There are very few things in this world which are helpful but without negative consequences. It's impossible to conclude that committing an action which results in suffering for some is de facto immoral. In other words, causing pain and suffering is not necessarily immoral |
Excuse me for saying so, but I don't really see how you can feel real pity for the pig and still eat the ham sandwich. Perhaps I should have used a better word like remorse or compassion (the latter is not necessarily implied in the word pity, which I'll admit was kind of a bad choice of words). I would actually say that, strictly speaking, "comitting an action which results in suffering for some" when you have a choice *is* de facto immoral. Very strictly speaking, something can be both seemingly unpreventable and immoral at the same time (I won't go there though). But this is especially the case when you have a choice in the matter. To some extent you can say (for example) that driving a car is immoral because it pollutes the earth or contributes to global warming etc. but this is something a lot of people have little or no choice in doing. If you live in a city like L.A., you pretty much *need* a car to live. People also need clothes (and may not have the money to buy anything not made in a sweatshop and sold in discount retail stores). The list goes on and is all debatable, but I realise people (myself included) are at times limited in the choices they can make (a lot of the immorality is inherent in the societies we live in). But I happen to think eating meat is a fairly simple choice. Meat is actually more expensive and generally considered less healthy than having a balanced vegetarian diet (which can be quite cheap). You could say it's more convenient to eat meat (i.e. in restaurants), but this is fairly weak (in my experience, it's not that hard to maintain a vegetarian diet).
| Quote: |
I said by most definitions as a nod to the fact that morality is relative. I'm sure it's possible to find a world perspective wherein murder is considered a moral act, but, in general, humans believe the four acts listed above to be immoral, regardless of their particular moral perspectives on other issues.
Of course I don't mean that consensus dictates morality. However, it can be a good guide, no? |
This is iffy, because some people would say ethics are relative, others would say there are moral imperatives (like murder is wrong independent of cultural norms). Anyway, I don't necessarily think that consensus is a good guide for morality. I could point to various examples in history (like the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany or of black slaves in the U.S.) where moral "consensus" by the majority clearly failed.
| Quote: |
| You know people who regularly murder and damage property? Huh? |
I think you know what I meant. People may not do it on a daily basis, but it still happens everyday around the world. Just because people eat meat more often than they damage property doesn't make it moral.
| Quote: |
| Really, though, I must say I'm taken aback at your view of humanity. Of course people are self-serving. That's part of every animal's nature. Many plants, too, if I'm not mistaken. But to say most people are uncaring, and regularly commit acts that violate their own personal morality? It's hard to agree with a statement like that |
I didn't say they commit acts that violate their own personal morality (nor do I believe in "human nature"). Though I would say that many (I'll even compromise and drop the "most") people's sense of morality does not take into account the suffering outside their own sphere of existence. A lot of this has to do with simple ignorance. Some has to do with resignation (or apathy). A lot more has to do with indifference. A lot of people just don't seem to care enough about suffering outside the immediacy of their own lives to do anything (I'll admit I am times guilty of this as well). Few people devote their lives to moral causes, the vast majority, while they may be "concerned" about world issues, basically don't seem to care enough to act in a proactive way, because it would require change (and therefore inconvenience).
| Quote: |
| By you against the world, I meant that it's your opinion vs. everyone else in the world throughout history (a slight exaggeration). |
I don't want to get to bogged down in history outside or the "modern" era. I wouldn't compare hunter-gatherers scraping out a meagre existence and hunting animals for survival to the commodification of animals we have today. But in this industrial era, where the countries we live in overproduce, and animals are exploited completely unnecessarily for profit (when other food is anything but scarce) I think a change would only be good. Good for the environment, good for people's health (it's no coincidence Americans are the fattest in the world and also eat by far the most meat), good for the animals themselves. Aside from the "taste" of meat (overrated anyway) I see *zero* justification for the meat industry, which is a demonstrably immoral insititution.
Anyway, I see your stance is leaning to the pragmatic side of things. Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but you essentially seem to be saying that "that's just the way things are, how they've always been, and how they will continue to be whatever". I'd actually agree that it's unlikely to change. However, that doesn't change the argument that it is immoral. And again, just because it's commonplace doesn't change this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| hunter-gatherers scraping out a meagre existence |
Interestingly, hunter-gatherers actually have a pretty good life by many standard. They have significantly more free time than we do. They may die earlier but they don't go through long battles with cancer or spend their lives paralyzed by car accidents, either. Actually, I think agriculture was a big mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifdog
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| For most people, meat tastes better than vegetables. I prefer a hearty meal of meat with a few vegetable side dishes. The world is your oyster. Why limit yourself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shifdog wrote: |
| For most people, meat tastes better than vegetables. I prefer a hearty meal of meat with a few vegetable side dishes. The world is your oyster. Why limit yourself? |
Wow.
How many socks do some of you save just for these occasions?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
