the first thing that i would like to say on the subject of torture is a reaction to something that Betsy said today. she brought up the fact that she doesn't like it that animals are never included in the topic of legalized torture. personally i think that there is a reason for it. my understanding of the debate over legalizing torture has nothing to do with animals. legalizing torture has to do with being allowed to torture criminals into giving information. this really doesn't have anything to do with animals.
the next thing that i would like to discuss is the concept of nonintervention in the wild. personally i think that we should leave nature alone. animals are sometimes violent. this is just the way that the world is. it is hard to be this way, but i think that it is important to be this way.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
hey sorry i said you stated something you didn't.
jaclyn
Nikki,
I really appreciate hearing differing and sometimes totally opposite views offered up from my mates on these deep topics. It helps me to view my long-held, and long unquestioned beliefs with fresh eyes. It helps me define and refine my personal world view.
I have multiple concerns re:topic of legalized torture. One of my concerns is that a society that facilitates torture - for any reason, has lost the majority of its humanity. Considering how anthropocentric most humans are - if they have desensitized themselves to the torture of humans, - what are they going to start dishing out to the animals? For me, I am deeply fearful of what follows after societal acceptance of torturous activities to humankind. What will that look like?
We already have laws in place prohibiting the torture of humans - yet we do torture humans. Since animals aren't even included within this prohibited (though repeatedly violated) zone, what unimaginably brutal practices against animals might we adopt and legalize? This is a paradigm I don't want to play in.
I trust animals, wild or domesticated, more than I can trust humans. My parents told me I have always been that way. My experience and understanding of animals is that unless an animal is unbalanced from illness, it is unlikely to act violently, in any non-instinctive sense of the word.
On the other hand, Person X might act violently against innocent person A - who has not transgressed against X in any way. Maybe just because X is angry - or feeling disempowered by abusive person B. If person A is weaker than Person X, than he might suffer the displaced transference of Person X's rage.
I don't believe animals in the wild do that. If an animal strikes out - it does it out of instinct - not displaced feelings or transference. Domesticated animals that have been abused by humans or even another nonhuman animal specie, can display greater than normal frequency of aggression towards perceived representations of the original incident of abuse. - but I believe it is in reaction to a perceived threat - survival instinct PTSD fashion so to speak.
As to the topic of nonintervention - I am hopelessly incapable of that practice. I can't remember how many times I have stepped in to aid a weaker animal from being consumed or attacked by a natural predator, and sometimes, by overly aggressive domesticated animals. I feel more a part of nature than humankind. As animals ourselves, we are inherently conjoined with nature.
I resonate with the philosophy DKJ offered up in class. That if we have a relationship with a wild animal, we have some responsibility to the relationship. That is how I interpreted what he was saying. I trust he will correct me if I misunderstood or mis-stated him!
Post a Comment