 |
RE: [RC] The ethics of slaughter - heidi
I sent a much more in-depth post to Karen privately, since she posted
this same post to me privately somewhat earlier, but I'll reply in brief here.
When one starts talking about "ethics" one has to consider how one's own
actions relate to the whole. Certainly one can place "blame" on the situation of unwanted horses on the owners, or breeders, or whatever. Those sorts of generalizations sound nice, but don't cover the gamut of reality--yes, there are breeders who are rich, and who breed hundreds of foals trying to get that one stellar individual, etc., but they are not representative of the whole group of people who breed horses. There are a whole host of very responsible breeders who try to breed the best quality that they can, to keep quality using lines going, and to place their horses in homes where they will be appreciated. To me, simply blaming a class of people who are breeders is lacking in ethics.
Additionally, one can place blame on irresponsible owners, and that
feels good, too. But in reality, while some are indeed callous and irresponsible, many are simply ignorant of what it takes to keep a horse, and get trapped in the reality. Some get old and didn't have any way to make a contingency. (I once got a 14-year-old stallion from what had been a really top-quality and very responsible breeding program--but he was from their last foal crop, and was never halterbroke. The wife had Alzheimers and the husband was on crutches. Who do I "blame?") Some people fall on hard times in other ways--loss of job, divorce, death of a spouse, etc. Again, I find it unethical to point fingers at a whole class of people, when truly only a few are unscrupulous. It is all well and good to say, "Gee, they should have had a contingency plan," but most of them don't even have contingencis for their KIDS, let alone their horses.
Additionally, even though those who lobby to close down an outlet for
unwanted horses are not "causing" the problem, and are quick to point fingers to that effect, I find it particularly unethical to make the plights of these animals even worse by removing what is often the only route to euthanasia that their owners can afford. No, Karen, the lobbyists didn't "cause" the problem--but they are exacerbating the problem by their actions. Personally, I find that parallel to somebody who would say, "Gee, I didn't get pregnant as an unwed teen, so the babies that result from such births can just tough it." Or, "I didn't do cocaine, so that cocaine-addicted baby can just scream in the street until he dies." Just because you didn't contribute to a problem doesn't mean that you have the right to remove a solution to it and cause even more suffering--and to label such an action as "ethical" is particularly odious.
Heidi
|