Mary's Question

This post is a response to Mary Marcil's question: Is there a line in which using animals as a use for food or materials or other necessities stops, and exploitation begins?

When it comes to food or materials, yes, there is. There are many examples throughout history of earlier cultures hunting animals but always treating them with respect. The most well-known example I can think of is the different Native American tribes that used to span across North America. Animals would be hunted and killed, but the hunters would always respect the animals' spirits and thank them. Every part of the animal was used, all of the meat, the hide, and the bones. Nothing was wasted, and when it came to hunting the tribes only took what was needed and no more.

Though some people coming from European descent honor these traditions, most people do not. Many animals are slaughtered for meat and other materials, and who knows how much of the complete animal is actually being used and how much is thrown away. Also, the amount of meat being produced is likely more than humans actually need and the leftover meat is thrown away and wasted.

As for other necessities, when it comes to farm animals used for things like meat and eggs, it is also possible there to only take what is needed and let animals roam, like on small farms. It is the large farms with animals crammed in everywhere that exploit them. Animals for transportation used to be a large necessity here, and  may still be in other parts of the world. Overworking an animal is exploitation. Giving an animal rest when it is needed and giving an animal the commands needed, as opposed to hitting an animal so hard as to cause harm, is another way in which an animal can be treated without exploitation. There is a line, yet it is crossed all too often.

So now my question would be: What is your opinion on using dogs to herd other animals? Does it cause the animals undue stress or does it not matter?

Animal Rights

After reading the texts and doing my Q&A for this week, an interesting thought occurred to me. Humans often stand up for those who are oppressed, and the case is no different for nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals are being abused and exploited, so therefore many  believe they should have rights. Of course there are the dissenting voices saying that nonhuman animals are lesser and therefore should not have rights. They do not have the same interests, the same inherent values, or the same self-awareness that humans have. Yet maybe another question to be asked in these days is, if animals were not abused and exploited, would they need rights?

This is a tough question to answer. After all, many humans are not abused or exploited and still have rights that protect them from harm. The same can be said of nonhuman animals living a "happy" life, such as a loved family dog or cat, yet many more animals are still being exploited and abused. Factory farming still happens, lab animals are still being used, and animals are often used for sport, yet because it all happens behind the scene for most people, we do not even think about it. We do not think about how the meat ended up on our table so long as it is there. The same goes for how we got the leather for our couches or clothing. The way to make people see is to bring it to their attention. Perhaps then the conditions for nonhuman animals would be made better. As it is for the moment, the fight for animal rights is still going on, and probably will for a while (if not forever; after all, look how long it has already been going on).

Now my question is, even if conditions for nonhuman animals were improved, would humans still want to grant them better conditions?