Moral Disengagement and Animal Cruelty
There’s a special kind of animal killer that, as readers of Eating Plants, know, I’m obsessed with trying to comprehend. It’s not the slaughterhouse worker. He, after all, is effectively protected from the inherent brutality of the machine in which he’s a functional cog. Nor is it even the small, pasture-based animal farmer that the mainstream media treats as the heroic answer to the corruption of industrial agriculture. This person merely raises his animals with a modicum of dignity, calls them happy, and ships them to the nearest USDA approved slaughterhouse. No muss, no fuss there. The figure who really grabs my attention and makes me think, question, ponder, and investigate is the intrepid self-slaughterer, the very person who aims to eat the animal she raises (and yes, it is often a she).
In the simplest—and genuinely most curious—sense, I want to know something quite basic: how do they do it? How, that is, do these sangfroid slaughterers raise an animal in close quarters, come to know that animal as an individual, sometimes mark that animal’s identity with a name, and then, in a whiplash-inducing turnabout, kill the sweet beast? Culture is culture and habits are habits. But within every sentient human, however buried it may be, there’s a fertile seed of compassion, a pregnant kernel of empathy, that informs us, whether we want it to or not, that this kind of behavior isn’t exactly the right thing to do.
My curiosity led to me explore a great deal of psychological research over the past several months. Not fun reading, this. I did, however, discover that the mechanisms of “moral disengagement” or “amorality” speak directly to our elusive backyard hackers in ways that strike me as quite useful. To summarize my takeaways from the literature of moral disengagement, I would say that at least four themes deserve our attention as psychological nodes of activity. It is upon these that we can focus our efforts in the quest to highlight the unneeded brutality of backyard slaughter and, in turn, devise ways to combat it. That’s the idea anyway: a playbook to put ethics into action.
The first theme is one of marginalization. I’ve read enough narratives by backyard butchers to notice that, after a long discussion about how well the animals were treated, there’s an inevitable linguistic shift that reduces dinner-to-be to an instrument. It’s common, for example, for a slaughterer to note how “it served us well” before going through with the horrid deed. This linguistic adjustment, which directly reflects a self-protecting mindset, is frequently complemented by physical gestures and poses that reduce the often dead animal to an object. One example I vividly recall is of a guy who had placed his fists into the cavities of plucked chickens and was using the carcasses as boxing gloves. This, at its essence, is marginalization.
The second theme is distortion. Again, without going too deeply into specific narratives (there’s an archive of them here at Eating Plants, just search “backyard slaughter”), I’ve identified a powerful and, again, self-protective tendency for killers to shield their own psyches from the potentially jarring consequences of their actions. This habit is best glimpsed in the rationales that DIY butchers will almost always provide: “death is just one day,” “it didn’t know what was coming,” “dead is dead,” and “it was making the ultimate sacrifice.” These explanations are, of course, obvious distortions of reality and it doesn’t take an ethicist to explain why. But they are uttered so often, they parade as truth. We need to start uttering back.
A third theme is comparative moral justification. Backyard butchers often come off looking like the good guys because they effectively position themselves against the nearly unfathomable reality of industrial slaughter. This juxtaposition is convenient for backyard killers, But it’s disingenuous in at least two respects. One, very often the death blow delivered by a DIY slaughterer is executed with complete incompetence (see below) and is thus worse than an animal would experience in a slaughterhouse. Two, just because one form of suffering might be less than another hardly serves as a foundational justification for that action. It would be better if I arbitrarily punched someone in the face rather than shoot them with a gun. The moral thing, of course, is to do neither.
A fourth and final theme is substitution. Backyard butchers well might admit that there’s something cruel in what they do. Then, however, they portray it as a necessary evil integral to achieving an ulterior, more noble, goal. Two examples stand out. It’s common to hear butchers explain that they are exercising their agency in a food culture that has gradually stripped them of all control. In this respect, they portray themselves as taking power away from corporate monopolizers of the food system and, in so doing, obscure the brutality of their act in the nobility of a larger cause. We also see this happening when butchers argue that what they are doing is good for the environment—again, in comparison to factory farming (see entries on Green Mountain College).
It’s easy to be outraged at these slaughterers. It’s harder to understand, however, why they do what they do. It’s not because they are bad people. One of the most difficult aspects in covering the human-animal relationship is that so often very good people do terrible things and have no idea that they are complicit in structured evil. It is thus all the more critical that advocates work to identify and communicate the psychological and rhetorical strategies that prevent a more authentic assessment of what it means to kill an animal that you do not have to kill.
I believe in large part such people consider it alright to kill them because these animals are perceived by society in general to exist for human purposes. If more people denounced it, fewer people would probably be willing to do it or at least feel justified in doing so.
See also: http://www.tribeofheart.org/
(Click on “About the Film”) and:
http://www.peaceablekingdomfilm.org/
I am equally dumbfounded, but may add a couple of elements to your very well-thought out and I think accurate ones.
When I have had discussions with these kind of people two things often come up: 1) Taking care of their family. It’s an element of pride to many of these men and women to provide the meals to their loved ones.(I think this fits into your #4 theme too.) 2) Religion. Many people truly believe “God” gave animals to humans to be used for their purposes, including food, clothing and economy. Some believe only humans have souls and therefore killing animals is sanctioned.
I am equally confounded by hunters, although they at least don’t have the same close personal relationship with the animals before they kill them. To get a look at some of their rationalizations (and to add your own comments, if you wish) please see the current discussion at http://kirschnerskorner.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/suggestions-from-a-squirrel-slam-shooter/
Backyard slaughter is proof to me that we don’t see with our physical eyeballs; we see with our minds and hearts. I believe these poor people have — for any of the host of reasons you cite, James (and Mary and Lori) — “lost sight” of their otherwise just minds and kind hearts. In this area, they seem to be morally blind.
May their sight be restored.
I have no answers. I’ve often wondered it myself. But the “it” factor is very telling. Much like Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs. “It puts the lotion on the skin … ” If you de-being someone, then they are a thing.
hi everyone
i’ve been a vegan for ethical reasons for 4 years now. i make myself read all the blogs and articles about what’s going on in the industry so that i can answer all the questions people have when they want to know why i eat the way i do and i can explain to them everything that goes on behind the scenes. things that most people don’t want to think about let alone know about.
the one thing that i could never get myself to learn/see/watch is what’s going on inside the slaughterhouses. but now unfortunately i do know because i read this article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/we-raise-all-our-beef-humanely-on-open-pasture-and,30983/
i’m having a lot of trouble coping with it and keep seeing pictures of the animals, eyes filled with fear and the workers killing them so brutally and heartlessly like it’s just another day in the office. i can’t fall asleep and keep myself distracted until i get so tired that i can’t keep awake any longer.
i just don’t understand how all of this is possible, how we allow it all to happen. and it’s true……most of my friends eat meat and they ARE good people! it just does not make any sense….
i wanted to ask you how you deal with it – how do you do it without getting too despaired? i know i’m not supposed to judge and instead focus on the good but more often than not it just gets too hard……
very grateful for any feedback
peace & love
edie
note to james:
thank you so much for all your amazing articles! please give us a warning everytime you post disturbing pictures…..not everyone is able to stomach them.
Edie,
Yes, thank you. I will include warnings in the future.
James
Edie,
It’s hard not to have despair about it. I often despair. I often get angry. I often find myself having very little faith in my fellow humans. But all we can do is not participate in a cruel system, do our best, and change people’s minds where we can. Also, the Buddhist perspective (I’m not a a Buddhist nor am I religious) of acceptance seems to help me sometimes. Not acceptance in the sense of not wanting it to change, but the acceptance that this is the way things are now.
thank you very much lori! you are so right with what you write.
i will look into more of the buddhist insights. i have heard that there is a lot of deep wisdom in buddhism….
thank you for taking the time to write
Hi Lori,
I agree it’s important to not participate in the system, reducing its supporters and market opportunity. But it’s not enough to do that. U.S. lawmakers need constituents willing to lean on them hard: to educate them (because they vote yes on pro-industry, anti-animal legislation all the time without understanding the issues at all); to say “I as a voter and taxpayer want you to vote NO on this bill.” Lawmakers do listen to constituents—but most of the ones speaking to them are corporate lobbyists.
People like you, like the others reading this intuitive, powerful blog, have to step up and address laws, lawmakers, lobbyists.
James brought up a couple of bills that could help open the first slaughterhouses for horses in America this year. I asked people how to get support for it. One person said, “end capitalism.”
Changing people’s minds can start with an earnest, well-prepared phone call or letter to a lawmaker, media source of celebrity. People speaking up in social media can convert attitudes, one person at a time. It’s not just about how you shop and cook. It’s about how we speak to others, and speaking to lawmakers and thought influencers is about the most effective thing anyone can be doing.
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that I don’t take active measures. I certainly do, on a daily basis. Just yesterday, I spent a great deal of time writing to people about the upcoming coyote killing contest in California. I also am active in many groups. However, my advice about acceptance is more for peace of mind, being able to get through the day. If we are too depressed to function from it all, we’ll either turn away, or even worse, we might consider it’s not worth it…life I mean. While we fight, we feeling beings must find a way to cope with all the cruelty.
Edie, I think everyone who opens their eyes these issues or who works with and advocates for animals, deals with this type of psychic stress. I know I do, and even after all I’ve seen, it still affects me. You are not alone, but I am very sorry for the trauma that endures in your mind. It’s torturous to reconcile because there really is no way to rationalize it.
Everyone employs different coping mechanisms after being witness to violence. My personal solution is to work through some physiological stress issues by doing hands-on work with animals. It doesn’t take away the images or the awareness of that suffering, but it allows your mind to change focus. For me, it keeps me grounded in the idea that I can be a small part of the solution for “someone” — that someone being an individual animal — even if I feel helpless about what’s happening to nonhumans at large.
hi ingrid,
that is so very true. i rescued 5 feral kittens all of whom would not have made it without veterinary treatment and lots of tlc. to see how they went from fearing me to loving me and to have this connection now with them is the best gift anyone could ever ask for. it is all about love…..love is the only answer. for me the world changed when i started seeing every animal, no matter how small or large, as equals. after that the best things came to me. but the more involved you become in animal advocacy the more horrible things you learn. some people say that my hurting for them means that this is also my lesson. i believe that but i have not found out how to apply it so that i don’t fall into desperation again. nothing good comes from being devastated and despaired – we have to be a shining light in order to heal ourselves and others, but again it oftentimes gets just so hard……
but you are so right – by saving just one life one has already made a huge difference……that’s why i’m trying, like you said also, to focus on the good and be all the love i can be…..
….sending love and light to those who need it…
thank you for your kind words, ingrid
Unfortunately Moral Disengagement extends itself to many meat eaters on the subject of eating cats and dogs. Is it the subconscious guilt of meat eaters that makes them refuse to acknowledge and protest in mass against this atrocity? If meat eaters allow themselves to empathize with farmed animals they risk finding themselves in an uncomfortable moral dilemma.
Switzerland refuses to outlaw the eating of cats and dogs on the basis that it is only practiced by a minority. Although trading in cats & dogs for human consumption is illegal in Switzerland, personal consumption is still legal. The result of this moral myopia is that these animals can only be killed by back yard slaughter. Even more ironical is that the national iconic dog of Switzerland, the St Bernard, has been imported for many years into Asia to be farmed for human consumption. The St Bernard is regarded in those countries as a great delicacy for the tables of the wealthy.
Today I read that Chinese legal experts are calling for a ban on eating cats and dogs. Whether or not the Chinese National People’s Congress agree to it is another matter! In light of this we need, now more than ever, to condemn Switzerland’s intransigence. We have a cause currently running in a bid to persuade the Swiss government to come in line with the EU to outlaw this hideous practice in their country http://www.causes.com/actions/1721082-legislation-demanded-to-ban-eating-cats-and-dogs-in-switzerland
That’s news to me, and I thank you for sharing it, Karen.
I’m sending this petition to a friend who, at the urging of his 16-year-old daughter, is contemplating buying a St. Bernard puppy (sorry, I don’t think they are into the rescue route yet). Coincidentally, he has also just agreed to watch “Peaceable Kingdom: The Journey Home.” (He is careful about his diet for health reasons, but is open to having new reasons to change his eating habits.) Who knows, maybe this petition will cause him and his spouse and three children to start connecting all the dots.
Well CQ while large scale breeding of ‘pure bred’ dogs continues somebody has to buy the pups otherwise more shelter animals. Better that a St Bernard puppy finds a loving home with your friend than being bought by suspect purchasers for shipping out to Asia!
Watch the “that”s, James!
“an animal that you do not have to kill” should instead be, “an animal who you do not have to kill,” reflecting the way you wrote about a human in the first paragraph, “the very person who aims…”
I’m guilty of doing this too, and I think it’s wise and important to try to root out speciesism in our language whenever possible.
At any rate, I thought this was a great post. It’s these backyard killers who really force us to boil our arguments down to the essential. I hear advocates say things like, “If you couldn’t kill a cow yourself, then you shouldn’t eat hamburgers,” and I think that misses the point. Because there are plenty of people who CAN kill a cow. The point is that you SHOULDN’T KILL COWS.
Great post, James! I’ve been engaging these people and their disconnected euphemisms when I can. Here is the latest commenter debate in a relevant grist article:
http://grist.org/food/bacon-wrecks-the-best-laid-plans/?utm_campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
The environmental crowd supporting sustainable meat really needs a reality check, for the love of life.
Edie,
My dear, I think you are suffering a true occupational hazard of those of us activists in the vegan animal rights movement. PTSD. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
I’ve written a little about the issue, as have others, and it is definitely worth looking into.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/eriyah-flynn/attention-vegans-if-your-compassion-does-not-include-yourself-it-is-incomplete/10151139140353290
hi eriyah
thank you so much for sharing!! it helped me so much! i also read the open letter to the vegan community and matt bear’s piece. both so worth reading:
http://kirschnerskorner.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/an-open-letter-to-the-vegan-community/comment-page-1/#comment-553
https://www.facebook.com/notes/matt-bear/the-troubles-weve-seen-keeping-your-heart-whole-in-heartbreaking-times/529892980378634
“Where there is a vegan, there is compassion, hope, an evolved mind, and a conscience at peace. This is who you are, it is who you will always be, and I will die singing your praises for gracing this earth. History will never forget you. We will get there. Stay strong.” -Andrew Kirschner-
thanks again
edie
I had “family” who raised cattle for consumption, gave them names, cared for them religiously and then had them butchered and ate them calling them by their names as they cooked them..eg: tonight we are having a bessie roast..I was dumbfounded and disturbed and protested this action and absolutely refused to eat their “pet” as I perceived this animal to be. I cannot understand this mentality myself..