Guest Op-Ed by Faith Bjalobok, Ph.D., Professor of Philosophy, Duquesne University, Fellow of Oxford Center for Animal Advocacy
There is much debate about the best way to deal with horses whose owners no longer seem to have any desire to care for them. In terms of the solutions proposed by horse owners there are those who support slaughter and those who oppose it. Group A who view horses are mere property much in the same way one views a farm tractor tend to be pro-slaughter. Group B who view their horses as a part of their extended family believe they have a moral obligation to care for them in their old age and oppose slaughter.
The proponents of horse slaughter employ numerous informal fallacies as the cornerstone of their position. In relying on the fallacy of hasty generalization, they label all anti-slaughter people as animal rights extremists. In employing the slippery slope fallacy, they would have you believe that banning horse slaughter will inevitable lead to the end of all agriculture in the United States. Pro-slaughter arguments also tend to rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy (it is the case therefore it ought to be the case). The naturalistic fallacy brings me to the point of my argument. My contention is that at least one argument against horse slaughter is the logical consequence of a genuine commitment to the pursuit of justice, not one of fanatical emotionalism, as the proponents of horse slaughter would have the public believe.
Sue Wallis and her supporters claim they are taking the moral high ground then proceed to employ the naturalistic fallacy to enable themselves to argue from the premise “ it is the case that people slaughter horses” to the logically false conclusion that “it out to be the case that people slaughter horses”. They have erroneously confused descriptive and prescriptive statements. Descriptive statements are a statement of fact which can be verified. Prescriptive statements are statements of ethics what “ought” to be the case. Any first year philosophy student is aware of the naturalistic fallacy. My question to Wallis and her supporters is: Based upon which ethical theory do you ground your claim that you are taking the moral high ground and horse slaughter is just? As I professor of ethics I know of no accepted religious or secular theory of ethics whose principles would support your claim.
Because the United States is a diverse culture in terms of our religious beliefs and we hold to a doctrine of separation of church and state it is nearly impossible to come to an agreement on issues of morality, however our society does share a common ground in terms of our political beliefs. It is my contention that an anti-slaughter position grounded in the principles that underlie the American political system supports my claim that horse slaughter is antithetical to a just society.
Americans prize liberty, autonomy, and the idea that the right to govern is derived from the consent of the governed. What is the source of those beliefs? Obviously in terms of human history democracy, with the exception of ancient Greeks, is a fairly new idea. The beliefs and the principles that underlie our constitution are for the most part are the ideas of the 18th Century Enlightenment thinkers.
That being the case, I maintain based on the works of 18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant we have indirect duties to horses that render the pro-slaughter position morally unacceptable from a justice perspective.
In order to argue for the above-mentioned proposition, it is necessary to first engage in a brief philosophical discussion of justice. Justice is not something that occurs in a state of nature but rather it is a human construct that exists only in human society. While some societies actually place great value on justice others value justice only when its implementation is cost effective. Therefore, prior to discussing a theory of justice it is necessary to address the issue of why some people have a greater propensity to value justice than others. This discussion is not new and can first be found in Plato’s Republic.
In terms of the 18th century thinkers, Immanuel Kant addressed that very question in his Lectures on Ethics and in the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant did not believe that we have direct duties to animals because they are not, according to his definition of person as a rational being, part of the moral community. However, he believed that we have indirect duties to animals because Kant like Hogarth and many other thinkers believed that cruelty to animals undermines our own humanity and leads to cruelty to humans.
Kant argued:
“If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals” (p. 240).
Again in the Metaphysics of Morals Kant argues:
“With regard to the animate but nonrational part of creation, violent and cruel treatment of animals is far more intimately opposed to a human being’s duty to himself, and he has a duty to refrain from this, for it dulls his shared feelings of their suffering and so weakens and gradually uproots a natural predisposition that is very serviceable to morality in one’s relations with other men” (pp. 192-193).
It appears that Kant is arguing that a compassionate predisposition towards animals aids in the development of a compassionate disposition towards other human beings which is a necessary prerequisite of a just individual.
Of course empirical evidence of the link between animal cruelty and human cruelty is well established as is the link in increased violence in areas that open slaughter houses. Kant is the philosopher who initiated the idea of the intrinsic value of all humanity and argued for the necessity of human freedom but he also realized that none of this is possible without justice and to be committed to justice requires a certain predisposition whose development is hindered by engaging in cruelty to animals.
The final question that remains is horse slaughter cruel??? By their own admission proponents of horse slaughter admit it is in fact cruel because they keep telling us they are working to develop a humane method of horse slaughter. Of course that does not address the inherent cruelty of the fear and betrayal horses experience in the process of getting them to the slaughter house. Proponents of horse slaughter have stated that China desires to be a major investor in the construction of horse slaughter facilities. That is not surprising given their human rights record. America is an original signer to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and we pride ourselves on being a just society. Based on Kant’s writings, the way we treat our horses is a reflection on our own humanity.
The humane treatment of America’s horses is a requirement of justice.
Categories: Horse Slaughter, The Force of the Horse
Straight from the Horse's Heart 
Ronie Lee Gardner was shot by a firing squad in Utah last night by police volunteers. How can we put mere words to the subject of life and death at the hands of others? Some of us are sickened, others believe its a matter of right. But as you put it some peoples rights trumps others. No we are not going to rid the world of Sue Wellis or Ken Salazar but at least we can vent to each other. If only we could divide the country in two halves compassion on one side and greed on the other, for in virtually every case money seems to be the issue. Those that want more seem to disregard our right to compassion.
LikeLike
God says in the bible it is a sin to eat the soild hooved animal. Also the story of Noahs arc, all the animals came on board 2 by 2 EXCEPT chickens, cattle,goats.sheep..those came onboard by the 7s. Because Noah and his family bred and ate them.
Horses came on by 2s. horses are not a meat animal, even using old religion and old stories.
even religion is against eating horses!! wallis only has the devil on her side! Love to get the true religious radicals after Sue also!! we need everyone after that woman to stop her hellish plans.
maybe karma will catch up to her someday soon and she will die from disease or accident.
never wish anyone dead or hurt in my life except this woman deserves any bad karma she attracts.
LikeLike
Laura, Thank you, thank you, &, Amen, to your comment!! The only problem is that not all people believe in God, the Bible, or ANY religious beliefs. I love ALL animals, however, I firmly believe that horses are God’s most beautiful & treasured creatures. They are referred to on a number of instances throughout the Bible, & none refer to them as food sources, more like God’s servants, &, gifts to mankind. The evil that is Sue Wallis, & others like her, is perhaps, one reason why they try so hard to exterminate what’s good in this world?? Well, anyway, thanks again for your eye-opening comments. Evil will NOT “win” this war, &, as R.T. says, “may the force of the horse be with all of us”.
LikeLike
The “Stanford Prison Experiment” proved how cruel and out of control supposedly INTELLIGENT AND MORAL humans can be when given ultimate control over OTHER HUMANS. It was frequently cited as an explanation of the horrors that occured and were allowed at Abu Gharib Prison in Iraq.
http://penal-system.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_stanford_prison_experiment_and_abu_gharib
If some humans have been proven to treat their own species in this way, what hope can there be for animals “managed” under the ultimate control of humans and current human laws? I don’t think “animal rights” will fly any time soon, but those in power can and should change and create laws and practices to support “animal welfare”.
LikeLike
Regarding your recent posting of those who view horses as a commodity to be bought, sold, and eaten, and those who see them as beings with whom we share and value the life experience, it seems to me that we have a divergance of opposites – those who blindly support BP like that great Texas embarrassment, Joe Barton, and those who care about quality of life issues and love our pristine environment. It’s clear, R.T., that you are among the latter and thank God for you. I value your friendship and honor you as a colleague pushing the pen for justice.
LikeLike
You are SO right! BRAVO, R.T.!
LikeLike
It really comes down to those who think the planet Earth is a commodity and those who view man just one of the diverse species here. Who will win? Well, looking at the Gulf, I’d say those winning are going to make us lose everything.
LikeLike
Great article!
LikeLike
http://www.examiner.com/x-37163-Equine-Advocacy-Examiner~y2010m6d17-Wild-horses-at-upcoming-Wild-Springs-Indian-Reservation-auction-could-face-a-gruesome-future?#comments
LikeLike
Horses are meat animals. The bleeding hearts want ALL Animals not to be used for food. Unfortunately, they are liberal, socialist democrats and a few brain dead peoplr of other political parties. Personally, I think your article is full of HORSE SHIT!
Animals do NOT have rights…….they are no human!! They deserve proper treatment and well being, nothing more – nothing less! If you want to keep your animal till it dies fine, but if you want to do other wise you should have that choice.
“As I professor of ethics I know of no accepted religious or secular theory of ethics whose principles would support your claim. This is your problem…..you are a college professor!!!!!
“By their own admission proponents of horse slaughter admit it is in fact cruel because they keep telling us they are working to develop a humane method of horse slaughter.” This is total bull…………………………………………we have humane methods of putting animals down……get your facts straight you college educated idiot!
Personally, we need your thought like we need another oil spill in the Gulf!
CJ Oakwood
http://www.cattleco.com
LikeLike
CJ
Yes I am a college professor. In fact hold two masters degrees and a Ph.D. You seem to have misunderstood my article. First you committed the informal fallcy of hasty generalization and second the article was Not about animal rights but about the necessary predispositon of a just person. Please inform yourself on the subject before you attempt to call my essay bullshit. I suggest you read Hurley’s A Concise Introduction to Logic see page 134 hasty generalization (this explains why your claim that all people are liberal socialists etc is faulty logic). Then please inform yourself on deontological ethics by reading Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals and the Lectures on Ethics. I appreciate criticism but I would ask that you write a well thought out well written argument that reflects some knowledge of theories of ethics and justice rather than merely ranting and name calling.
LikeLike
Don’t you have enough livestock to slaughter and eat? Beef, pork, chicken, fish, veal and on and on. Why do you feel the need to slaughter horses for food? And have you ever witnessed a horse being put down in a Canadian or Mexican slaughterhouse? If that is your idea of humane, God help you. Very tired of you cattle types treating our horses like cattle.
LikeLike
CJ, You are doing a great disservice to yourself and the “Cattlemen” ! You just protrait yourself as a “heartless, idiot”. Judging by your letter, you probably have not progressed beyond, 8th Grade…….if even that. Of course how could we possibly expect you to know “Philosophy, and Humane values”? You are stock in the “Cave man mentality”; all creatures in nature were created for food! Well I hate to brake it to you but you are wrong! GOD CREATED THE HORSE TO NOURISH OUR SOULS, NOT OUR BODIES……..that is if you have a soul???? The good thing is, you are the minority, I pity you, for you are infinately the poorer for not understanding!!
LikeLike
CJ DOUGHHEAD…you sound jealous???
LikeLike
Ah, CJ, our paths cross again. Horses are not meat animals in our country. They are not bred or raised as meat animals. Unlike horses, meat animals are tracked from birth and are documented as being free of prohibited substances. Horses are wormed, given bute and a host of other prohibited meds so they can maintain health and peak performance for the functions they perform in our society.
That makes them non-food animals. In our country, when non-food animals no longer have quality of life, they are humanely euthanized, not slaughtered. Surely you don’t think it is ethical to allow an animal into the food chain that risks the health of the consumers? That has nothing to do with being liberal, conservative or socialist. It is called accountability and responsible ownership.
LikeLike