Animal Cruelty Laws in Japan? Do they exist?

[Taiko666]

Don't the hen and chicks look so happy in their picture? Isn't it blissful?

So when confronted with the real thing;

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.

One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.

Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

 

[grapefruit]

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.



Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

I do think some advocates go extreme. Every summer, the square on my college campus is visited by these extremists with an array of huge pictures of slaughtered animals (by the way, pro-choice advocates also do the same thing). Some (or maybe most of) people do not want to see such gross pictures at lunch time. It is a public space and people come out to have lunch. I'm not saying that advocates should be banned from showing pictures. But, they should have a decency to choose a place and time or at least warn people. I respect ideas sought by animal rights groups but I don't like the extremist ways. I like the logical persuasion like what Peter Singer does. He is one of the favorite people.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals, but we're all moving toward the same end (gradually realizing that animals have feelings like humans and treating them accordingly).

This i agree and disagree with ("animals have feelings like humans").

I believe that animals do share many feelings/emotions in common with people, but they also lack many feelings/emotions that we have- what feelings or emotions an animal shares in common or lacks in comparison to us depends on the type of animal.

I grew up on my mums farm, and because it was a very isolated farm, i spent much of my spare time getting to know and looking after the various animals on the farm. I will give some example's of animals (based on my lengthy personal experiences) which have or don't have certain feelings/emotions that we have;


Chickens;
Chickens are animals that do share certain feelings in common with us, and i do believe they are actually quite intelligent animals (at least more so than cats).

Hens are very maternal animals and visibly seem to take great joy in raising chicks, and chicks themselves are also very emotional creatures- chicks cheep a lot and have different types of cheeping noises for the different emotions they feel- they make different cheeps for happiness/content, distress/pain and upset/anger.

When a hen starts to sit on her fertile eggs in an effort to hatch them, she goes to great lengths to achieve this- she will eat and drink as little as she can so she can sit on her eggs for longer to prevent them cooling down (and thus killing the chick inside). When sitting on her eggs and confronted by a threat, she will sit very still- if the threat/intruder approaches, she will try and peck the intruder even if the intruder (say a person or fox) is much bigger than her- only if her life is truly at stake will she consider abandoning her eggs, and even then many a hen has known to be killed by a fox for sitting on her eggs and refusing to abandon them.
(I might add here that not all chicken eggs are fertile and that hens only show this attachment to their eggs when they feel broody, usually in the spring and summer months- you can tell when a hen is broody simply by the fact that she will start to sit on her eggs a lot, instead of leaving them after laying them which is usually the case.)

As the chicks develop in the eggs, once they are developed enough they will start to cheep inside their eggs even though this happens long (weeks or many days) before they actually hatch. The hen can hear her chicks in her eggs and so she will "talk" to them- this helps develop a bond between the hen and chicks before the chicks even hatch (it also helps the chicks recognize their mother- unlike various other birds, chicken chicks do not imprint by sight but rather by sound). It also helps the chicks recognize threats or friends before they even hatch, for example if you go up to the hen and talk to her and she doesn't feel threatened by you, the chicks will register your voice (and so you as an individual) who is not a threat to them because their mother doesn't make aggressive noises at you (this is actually quite handy if you want to have close contact with the chicks when they hatch but don't want them to be automatically afraid of you).
The hen uses a special tone of clucking when talking to her chicks which sounds subtle and friendly.

When the chicks hatch, the hen will look after them to the best of her abilities- as soon as they are out of the nest she will start teaching them how to eat and what is good to eat. When the chicks are cold sit she will sit on them to warm them up and she will not leave them behind wherever she goes.

This sounds like blissful motherhood for any mother, especially human doesn't it?
But this doesn't mean chicken mothers are like human mothers.

Chickens instinctively roost on things like rafters or branches if they are given the option to- this helps keep them safe from predators like foxes when they sleep.
But it takes a long time before chicks are capable of flying anywhere and so hens have to nest on the ground with their chicks for many months before their chicks are capable of flying up onto safer places. Most hens do do this- however some hens do not (its usually the less experienced ones, although not always).
Some hens will just fly up into the rafters at night, and despite the constant crying/distressed cheeping of their chicks, the hen will ignore her chicks and fall asleep in the rafters. In the morning, she will descend from the rafters to find her chicks dead and cold on the floor (chicks are extremely vulnerable to hypothermia) and she will show no sign of grief whatsoever towards her chicks and simply walk out of the chicken house and socialize and eat with the other chickens as per normal- she will mate with the rooster/s and show no sign of grief or loss.

Now the thought to any human mother of letting her children die in the cold night, hearing their crying but being unmoved by it, and then ignoring their cold dead bodies in the morning and then simply going out to a cafe to socialize and even have sex with their boyfriend seems absolutely shocking and unthinkable to us.
Not all hens are like this (if they were they wouldn't survive as a species), but enough are. As a kid i dealt with this problem in a forceful way- if i found any hen up in the rafters at night ignoring her chicks i would catch her and put her and her chicks in a nest box and lock her up in it overnight with her chicks to ensure that she sat on them and didn't let them freeze to death overnight.

And hens can be vicious towards other hens chicks- if another hens chick comes close to another hen and her chicks, she will viciously peck the poor lost chick; usually the hen usually just does this enough to chase the chick away, but sometimes the hen will continue to pursue it and kill it. This is another thing that would be unthinkable to us humans.

And roosters do not make good role models at all. Roosters are constantly sex crazed birds and naturally spend the bulk of their day fighting with other roosters, taking their hens and mating with them or finding lone hens and trying to convince them to let them mate with them. Chicken social politics are very turbulent and if you spend enough time around chickens you will see hens swap between roosters and their hen groups every day.
Roosters show absolutely no concern over hens chicks (even if they are their own) and hens with chicks will usually avoid roosters as much as they can.
The pursuit of sex is all roosters care about and if they can, they will rape hens- which is why its so important to ensure that a rooster has plenty of hens, because if he only has one he will harass her so much trying to mate with her he will pull the feathers off her neck and make her bleed and give up her will. Roosters may even on occasion try to rape each other, and their fights with each other can be extremely vicious and cruel.
(I might add that not all roosters are as bad as each other, old roosters who are past their mating days often give hens much comfort and are not aggressive etc)

The loving attentive hen may have a lot in common with the human mother at times, but the rooster is a primitive animal that cares nothing for his young or the thought of forcing himself upon his hens, or murdering his brothers/father if he can.

And so chickens aren't like us- they do have some emotions/feeling in common with us, but often at times they seem to positively lack important emotions/feelings that we have, and this is why it would not be correct to treat chickens like humans. All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
BUT, this doesn't mean that we should treat them uncaringly or with disdain- they are intelligent animals, and most importantly of all, they are visibly able to suffer or experience joy (for example when chickens are happy and healthy, their comb upon their head appears full of color and is stuck on end- unhappy/unhealthy chickens combs are often dull in color and droopy etc. This is also not to mention the fact that they also have different noises/clucks for different feelings/emotions).
And this is why we should look after them well.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"This is a good point - I believe this is true, that everywhere people are in different phases of development, including their views on animals. . ."
This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?

This is based on from what i know and have seen so far, but as far as i am aware the animal rights movement largely started off in the west- for example the RSPCA was founded/started in 1824, and most of the most prominent and successful animal rights groups were also created in the west.
When animal welfare became one of social concern in Japan is generally said to be after the World War II, when large number of stray dogs was the serious social problems. It was 1948, when Japanese Society for Protection of Cruelty to Animals (JSPCA) was first founded and began an active campaign for the importance of Animal Welfare and against the cruelty to animals.
So the Japanese took almost 100years to catch us with us on the animal rights/welfare front (and because this was also after they lost the war, you could argue that it was possibly more so because of western influence).

Amendment of Legislation for Animal Welfare in Japan - WSAVA 2003 Congress - VIN


Of course there are Japanese which do seem to show a great amount of consideration towards animals (Like Hayao Miyazaki of Studio Ghibli- in many of his movies he has a strong environmental and animal protection motive/lesson, like in his movie Pom Poko, which i recommend btw), but that doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that its taken a long time for the Japanese to catch up with us on the animal welfare front (and that this is probably largely from western influence/pressures) and other countries in Asia like China have pretty much no enforced animal welfare protection laws at all.

All i am doing is stating the facts of reality here (i open for debate though)- yes it might sound condescending at times, however trust me its a lot more difficult to find the information/facts that could be used to argue that Japan and other countries in Asia are as developed and concerned as us about animal rights, than to find info/facts which suggests this isn't really/always the case etc.

It seems to me that animal-rightist beliefs are just a kind of religion. There is no scientific or rational proof, just beliefs that are taken as a matter of faith. I was glad to read, however, that at least you're not ready to push your religion on anyone else.

The rights of animals is a flawed concept technically because to have a right you must be able to debate/defend/dispute it- animals cannot do this and so the notion of them having rights is a completely human one indeed and one that animals are probably certainly not aware that they even have rights or understand the concept of rights etc.

HOWEVER. Although i use the term "animal rights" often, i do this more so out of convenience (everybody understands the concept/idea/meaning of animal rights), but i think that "Human to animal morality/ethics" is a more accurate term (however its a bit long winded so i'll stick to just "animal rights", especially since i've clarified now to you what i'm on about).

Anyways.

Animal rights is not a religion because there is no worship involved- its more a philosophy of ethics/morality. However i completely disagree with you when you say there is no [scientific] proof (or logical educated assumption for that matter) that animals do not have feelings because there is actually a great deal of proof and study suggesting this. For example;

"The difficulty is, of course, that the argument becomes more tenuous the further that you go away from the human being. Nonetheless animals, and by this I mean mammals primarily, do show homology of structure and function, they have similar pain receptors to those that we have, the neural transmitters used are the same and, indeed, if you use PET scanning you find that similar areas of the brain are activated when similar occasions occur. They also show very similar responses to the world that we do. Scientists often devise experiments to ask animals what counts for them, what matters for them, and those experiments do show that animals respond as if pain does matter to them so we would argue that pain and suffering are very important issues."

"(Dr Hubrecht) When I was a student, anthropomorphism was very much frowned upon but I believe there is a growing acceptance that some of the mental states that we have are very close to those of animals. For example, people now talk about boredom as being a problem for laboratory animals. It is difficult to show of course but under the circumstances in which animals might be bored they behave in similar ways to the ways humans behave in those sorts of conditions. There is also, I believe, some evidence from studies of brain activity which again show that the same sorts of areas of brains are activated, particularly in non-human primates, on which a lot of the work has been done,―as in humans."

"(Dr Kirkwood) It seems to me likely that fear and pain might have evolved at a very early stage of evolution; as soon as an organism starts moving around in its environment it is likely to need sensitivity to adverse stimuli to help steer it in the right direction. As the cognitive powers of animals, as their abilities to process information, evolve more, so they put themselves at risk of more complex types of unpleasant feeling. If you can see into the future, then not only might you feel instant fear but you might dread fear in the future which produces anxiety. So anxiety for me is having a conceptual ability to look into the future. If you can remember the past then perhaps you can dread things that happened in the past, so as cognitive powers develop you are more at risk of more complex types of unpleasant feeling. Maybe there are some that we alone are capable of, for example, guilt and embarrassment, and maybe they are peculiarly human because to feel guilt or embarrassment you have to know what another person is thinking about you, which is a very complex type of process. However, we cannot rule out at this stage that other animals, possibly the great apes, have processing powers nearly up there with us. For me these things may perhaps be answered better in the future as we get a better understanding of the cognitive powers of animals. Undoubtedly the right strategy at the moment is to give the benefit of the doubt, but it remains a very difficult thing to say at what point you stop giving the benefit of the doubt. If you give the benefit of the doubt to absolutely everything then you perhaps waste your resources, so it is a very difficult issue I think.";

House of Lords - Animals In Scientific Procedures - Minutes of Evidence

Fish have also been scientifically proven to feel pain, and since pain/suffering is a feeling then you can certainly argue that fish do have feelings;

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Fish do feel pain, scientists say

Etc.

Yes its true that some animal rights groups are practically cults in the way they go about animal rights and some of these groups are very extreme- some even appear to put animals above people. And this is why i don't equate myself with any particular animal rights groups- as far as i am concerned, i have my own views/opinions/theories (which i continuously work upon) and i do not want nor need a group to represent the way i feel about things, (because as quite often is the case with most animal rights groups i know of i do agree with their cause overall, however i don't always agree with how they go about achieving it- and i don't want to be represented by a group whose conduct i do not always completely agree with etc).

Anyways, with the animal feelings thing- its scientifically proven that most animals feel pain/suffering and there is increasingly (and logical) sound evidence that suggest that animals feel a whole range of other feelings/emotions like boredom, grief, happiness, contentment etc. So i suggest you revise your current opinions on particular stuff like this as they are incorrect.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

This kind of view is highly unlikely to gain ground in countries where the Buddhist thought of reincarnation is deeply grounded in culture.

Its not as ingrained as it used to be and i'm sure the thought of reincarnation is probably not thought off by most people when they eat their meat or farm their animals. The decline in business of Buddhist temples points to an increasingly less-religiously concerned population in Japan;

BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Hard times for Japan's temples

Your point that animals are treated as something "cute" makes sense. But, this also seems to present here in the US. One of the tactics that vegetarian extremists often employ to raise the meat production issue is to graphically display the real, industrialized process of raising and slaughtering animals to the general public, who has been misled by peaceful images created by the industry.

Well really these "vegetarian extremist" people use both tactics- a shocking real mix of pictures of the cruelty present in some animal practices, mixed with a cuddly and emotional dose of cute lovely animals.

I personally have mixed feelings on this. On the hand, i have absolutely nothing against those who show the horrors that are present in some area's of the animal-human world and neither do i have anything against those who make an effort to show people who amazing and lovable animals really are- i think its really good there are people out there doing stuff like this.

My issue arises when for example you get some people showing, i dunno, the horrors of farming, and they create the impression that the whole farming industry is rife with animal cruelty and neglect. This is not the case (i don't deny there's some truth in the matter to some extent though), and i think it is bad for progress because how on earth can we encourage those farmers who are making an effort to be better when some animal rights groups are painting them with the same brush they paint the bad farmers with?

IMHO, for true progress to be made on the animal rights/welfare/whatever front, then you need to encourage those farmers who do actually go to great lengths to try and look after their animals well (because believe me, it is difficult to do so when supermarkets have pushed the prices of animals products down so low, often its hard to be able to afford to give your animals any decent quality of life etc).
Animals are always going to be farmed, there is no way we can get around this fact of reality and future- so IMHO, the efforts need to be concentrated on improving the quality of life that farm animals have by encouraging better farming practices (while campaigning against or boycotting bad farmers) rather than simply trying to emotionally blackmail people out of the whole industry altogether (There's technically nothing wrong with that, when you do this you simply remove yourself from the problem, however IMO you can't change the bigger picture of farming by simply boycotting animal products altogether. Everything in the farming industry is about business, and to encourage better animal welfare you need to encourage better business etc).

Mysteriously though, many Japanese can have the cute image of fish but at the same time feel comfortable seeing signs of fish while eating it. The head, bones, and tail do not appear to frighten them.

As i said before, thats because i think people put fish in a different category to other animals. People often don't put fish on the same level as mammals like chickens, dogs, cats, cows etc- a lot of people even still believe misinformation like fish being not able to feel pain or not having the ability of a decent memory etc.

 

[Sarapva]

This does sound a bit condescending. Are Westerners in the most advanced state of development?

What evidence is there that animals have "feelings like humans"?

I've never heard of an animal having a depth and complexity of feelings to approach humans. Ever see a pack of wolves eat the guts out of a living caribou, while the caribou cries for maybe twenty minutes before the wolves sever a main artery and accidentally put it out of its misery? The wolves show no remorse or empathy for the caribou.

First of all, I said that I believe we in the U.S. are still in the stage of denying that animals have feelings. But I believe that each country is more advanced in some ways, and less advanced in others.

The feeling of empathy is one that seems to separate humans from animals, though I have heard of cases where an animal seems to feel empathy for another animal or human. This is why we need to realize that all animals have feelings of fear, happiness, frustration, etc., like humans. We get scared when our lives are in danger, and so do animals. The difference between us is that we have the ability to empathize; therefore, instead of behaving like animals ourselves and killing without thought of the animals' suffering, we should use our ability to feel what another is feeling and act accordingly (like killing quickly so as not to cause pain).

Anyone who has had a pet or observed an animal for any length of time (like Tokis described observing chickens) can see that animals have feelings. This is a quote from the PETA web site (the bold is mine):

In his book Animal Liberation, Peter Singer states that the basic principle of equality does not require equal or identical treatment; it requires equal consideration. This is an important distinction when talking about animal rights. People often ask if animals should have rights, and quite simply, the answer is ﾂ"Yes!ﾂ" Animals surely deserve to live their lives free from suffering and exploitation. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, stated that when deciding on a being's rights, ﾂ"The question is not ﾂ'Can they reason?' nor ﾂ'Can they talk?' but ﾂ'Can they suffer?'ﾂ" In that passage, Bentham points to the capacity for suffering as the vital characteristic that gives a being the right to equal consideration. The capacity for suffering is not just another characteristic like the capacity for language or higher mathematics. All animals have the ability to suffer in the same way and to the same degree that humans do. They feel pain, pleasure, fear, frustration, loneliness, and motherly love. Whenever we consider doing something that would interfere with their needs, we are morally obligated to take them into account.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Couldn't agree more. Reminds me of when I saw rabbit skin handbags in a shop in Harajuku, adorned with cartoons of bouncy, happy bunnies obviously enchanted with the idea of being cooped up in a small cage all their lives, killed and then skinned for the sake of fashion.

Yeah i never did really get why the Japanese do this so much- at least this sort of thing isn't very common in my country. The other day i saw this tub of Whale Sashimi ice cream (sounds disgusting i know ) with a cute picture of a happy whale on it, and i thought "Yeah that whale looks really happy at the thought of being eaten!" rolls eyes.

Vegetarian extremists? Mmmn... nothing extreme about showing the truth. I think not being able to, or resisting making the connection between, say, a tasty slice of bacon and an unanaethsetized young piglet screaming in agony while being castrated with wire cutters is a form of extremism.

I agree, its important that people make others aware about all the different faces of the animal farming industry so that people can make better informed choices about what they eat.

Its not that fast food restaurants like McDonalds and KFC actually try to cover up facts like where exactly they source their meat from, its that these places don't mention anything about stuff like this at all. So people end up assuming things are better than what they actually are, and become shocked when they are faced with the truth (which usually causes most such people (if they have any decent level of ethics/morality) to go vegetarian/vegan or at least boycott animal products produced by bad farming practices etc).

 

[pipokun]

it requires equal consideration.

Sounds great, and I require the equal consideration that the treacherous obesity in Japan is merely overweight in the 100 year advanced countries.

http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_1/pdf/d01.pdf
D.1 Dietary energy, protein and fat consumption

The people in the US/UK consumes much more
1000kcal/person/DAY
700(UK)
than the Japanese.

I don't know which measurement we should use to judge how humane/inhumane people are, but it is easy to use how much the people consume.
Each country has each food culture, so I think it is good to just compare the data with yourselves over the last 30 years.

Get Bikini-Ready With a FREE Weight-Loss Kit!
http://www.peta.org/feat_weight-loss_kit.asp?c=weekly_enews

The greater cause justifies the bikini conscious means?
Anyways, it would be more interesting, or at least fairer, if inhumane, meat-eating, and kawaii-conscious J girls were also to be enrolled in the next summer campaign.

 

[grapefruit]

This i agree and disagree with ("animals have feelings like humans").

And so chickens aren't like us- they do have some emotions/feeling in common with us, but often at times they seem to positively lack important emotions/feelings that we have, and this is why it would not be correct to treat chickens like humans. All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.
BUT, this doesn't mean that we should treat them uncaringly or with disdain- they are intelligent animals, and most importantly of all, they are visibly able to suffer or experience joy (for example when chickens are happy and healthy, their comb upon their head appears full of color and is stuck on end- unhappy/unhealthy chickens combs are often dull in color and droopy etc. This is also not to mention the fact that they also have different noises/clucks for different feelings/emotions).
And this is why we should look after them well.

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence. Does that mean one does not feel anything when killing creatures that do not appear to have emotions or intelligence like mosquitoes, ants, or frogs? I am uncertain if my analysis is representative of Japanese behavior, but when I kill insects, I feel bad. I have not killed animals with my own hands so I don't no how my reaction would be on such occasions, but as far as killing insects are concerned, size or type does not affect my feeling.

Given this, my rational on eating meat and seeing dead insects on the windshield might stem from the same reasoning. I need to eat meat because that is what everybody else does. I drive my car because that is what everybody else does. I am aware of the pains that I cause to these creatures but I cannot live the life that I am accustomed to. What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway. I will not intentionally cause pain to animals but on things that are related to my survival, I have to close my eyes.

All animals are like this to some extent and this is why they are animals and below us.

This startled me. I don't think Asians (at least Japanese and Chinese) have this type of logic.

 

[grapefruit]

Its not as ingrained as it used to be and i'm sure the thought of reincarnation is probably not thought off by most people when they eat their meat or farm their animals. The decline in business of Buddhist temples points to an increasingly less-religiously concerned population in Japan;
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Hard times for Japan's temples

This is mainly taking place in rural areas where the populations have dwindled. Besides, many Japanese associate the idea of being "Buddhist" only to occasions for funerals. Not going to temples does not translate into not believing in the religious teachings. The same applies to any religion. Not going to church does not necessarily mean losing faith in Jesus. Curiously, many Japanese go to a church for wedding, but this also does not reflect their religious belief as most of them are not Christian.

The world views are ingrained in society. Although most of the Japanese do not consciously engage in religious acts, that does not necessarily mean that they have thrown away religious beliefs and teachings. Japanese are simply not aware of them because the isolated small islands do not provide people with much opportunity to be exposed to other ways of thinking. It is hard to get out of old customs.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.

The rational behind the feelings/emotions issue is this: if an animal can feel these things (emotions/feelings etc), then it could be aware of its suffering (just like how we have the ability to be aware of our own suffering). If the animal can suffer just like we can, then for us to make the animal suffer it would be rather immoral. If the animal cannot suffer, feel emotions/feelings, nor pain and is not intelligent etc, then you could argue that because of this it doesn't matter how you treat the animal because its not going to be really aware of your treatment either way etc.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence. Does that mean one does not feel anything when killing creatures that do not appear to have emotions or intelligence like mosquitoes, ants, or frogs? I am uncertain if my analysis is representative of Japanese behavior, but when I kill insects, I feel bad. I have not killed animals with my own hands so I don't no how my reaction would be on such occasions, but as far as killing insects are concerned, size or type does not affect my feeling.

My point of the argument is that regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, all animals can suffer and so this is why you should treat all animals well. Animals vary a great deal with intelligence and emotions (i do believe most animals are relatively intelligent and can feel a certain degree of emotions though), but one thing is certain is that they can all suffer (and this is shown through stress/distress).

Insects/bugs are a gray area, but generally speaking, if you don't have to be cruel to such creatures then why would you want to be so?

Given this, my rational on eating meat and seeing dead insects on the windshield might stem from the same reasoning. I need to eat meat because that is what everybody else does. I drive my car because that is what everybody else does. I am aware of the pains that I cause to these creatures but I cannot live the life that I am accustomed to. What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway. I will not intentionally cause pain to animals but on things that are related to my survival, I have to close my eyes.

You don't actually need to eat meat to lead a healthy diet/lifestyle.
Also everybody is completely capable of changing the way they live/are, even if you are accustomed to living you life in the same sort of regime every day.

There are very few cases in life where you will be forced to be cruel to an animal, and even when it comes to your own survival you have options. For example, would you rather eat battery farmed eggs or free range eggs? Would you rather wear fake fur or real fur? Do you eat organic cereals or GM pesticide/herbicide dowsed cereals? Do you recycle your rubbish or just chuck everything in the same bin? Do you decide to ride a bike to work or drive a car? Do you donate to charity or fight for better rights etc?

We have choices concerning almost everything we do in life. But this is not to say that the choices available to us are all equally easy- sometimes the better choices mean making more effort to practice them. But the important thing is the moral/ethical value you place on things when you make choices and the lengths you go to to try and practice your ethics/morals in the choices you make.

What I learned from school makes me believe that in nature all creatures are in competition so that killing of creatures take place anyway.

Yes animals kill each other all the time but that doesn't mean we have to act like animals.
At the end of the day we are animals (we're the intelligent ape), but we have built a society based on morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- we are above the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom in these respects, and if we are to sustain a positive and productive (rather than hypocritical) image of our society then we need to extend our morality/ethics to everyone and everything, and not just to what is convenient or beneficial to us etc.

This startled me. I don't think Asians (at least Japanese and Chinese) have this type of logic.

Can you clarify what you mean exactly when you say this please?

 

[Sarapva]

Can anybody enlighten me on the rational behind the issue of emotions/feelings and intelligence? To me this appears key to the "Western" animal rights movement.

As an Asian brought up under the influence of mixed Buddhism and Shinto shamanism, my personal understanding of feeling bad about cruelly treating animals is that all living things do not want to die, get hurt, or suffer so that we, human, need to avoid causing pain in animals. I feel awkward to hear that one should not hurt animals because they have emotions and intelligence.

I wholeheartedly agree with you here. How we treat an animal shouldn't be based on how intelligent we think it is - we should always be mindful that any living thing can feel pain and has the capacity to suffer.

I think bringing up animals' intelligence is a way of arguing with the western mind-set about animals: that they are here only for our use. Most of us westerners haven't been brought up with the idea (like in Buddhism) that all animals should be treated with respect because they suffer just like us. Some westerners can be persuaded to treat animals better if they know how intelligent they are or that they have emotions (because then they can empathize better with them).

I like the Buddhist philosophy about animals, and wish we had more of it here in the west. I hope you keep your feeling about killing animals and insects, grapefruit. I think that's the more advanced attitude, and one we need to catch up with in the west.

 

[grapefruit]

The rational behind the feelings/emotions issue is this: if an animal can feel these things (emotions/feelings etc), then it could be aware of its suffering (just like how we have the ability to be aware of our own suffering). If the animal can suffer just like we can, then for us to make the animal suffer it would be rather immoral. If the animal cannot suffer, feel emotions/feelings, nor pain and is not intelligent etc, then you could argue that because of this it doesn't matter how you treat the animal because its not going to be really aware of your treatment either way etc.

So does it mean it is OK to kill human beings (or the fetus?) if they do not suffer or feel pain? It seems it is dangerous to base the decision purely on the suffering, emotions/feelings, and pain factor. There must be more to it.

The intelligent factor totally puzzles me. Does it mean you feel less empathetic about a dumb person being killed? Most of people will be outraged by such an opinion. So, it means the degree of intelligence should be irrelevant.

My point of the argument is that regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, all animals can suffer and so this is why you should treat all animals well. Animals vary a great deal with intelligence and emotions (i do believe most animals are relatively intelligent and can feel a certain degree of emotions though), but one thing is certain is that they can all suffer (and this is shown through stress/distress).

Insects/bugs are a gray area, but generally speaking, if you don't have to be cruel to such creatures then why would you want to be so?

If all animals should be treated well regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, then why do you consider insects/bugs constitute a gray area? Is it because the insects/bugs show less capability to be intelligent or feel emotions? It seems the notion of "we must save animals" exist before thinking about the issues of intelligence and emotions.

You don't actually need to eat meat to lead a healthy diet/lifestyle.
Also everybody is completely capable of changing the way they live/are, even if you are accustomed to living you life in the same sort of regime every day.

I agree. Sadly, it is difficult to live a life like that. Look at how all the West (including Japan) hesitate to change their lifestyle facing Global Warming. Yes, we can lead a perfectly healthy life style without driving cars, taking trains, or using air conditioners.

Yes animals kill each other all the time but that doesn't mean we have to act like animals.

We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.

At the end of the day we are animals (we're the intelligent ape), but we have built a society based on morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- we are above the rest of the animals in the animal kingdom in these respects, and if we are to sustain a positive and productive (rather than hypocritical) image of our society then we need to extend our morality/ethics to everyone and everything, and not just to what is convenient or beneficial to us etc.

What I meant was that the expression "above the rest of the animals" startles me. Why are we "above" any other animals? There is no "above" or "below". Such a notion implies that if a society incorporates more strong morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- foundations, the society is "above" the rest.

 

[pipokun]

So it isn't immoral at all when obese people eating safe and morally killed Tokis' chicken much more than the average Japanese.

I don't know English, but we call it gizen, hypocrisy in Japanese.

Sorry about our generalization, "Europeans have been eating meat for ages".
It is just wrong, but your history goes...
when their economy was not good, they ate less meat; and
when their economy was good, they ate more meat.

The eel pie in your country is a good example. People, esp., in London, ate the eel pie about 100 years ago as a meat substitute, but now, many moral Londoners think it as yucky.
Even from the point of an immoral eel loving Japanese, the recipe below should be refined.
cookitsimply.com is coming soon
(´窶柎`)<not uma

Just wondering what would have happened if they had introduced a special eel cooking knife from Japan then.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So does it mean it is OK to kill human beings (or the fetus?) if they do not suffer or feel pain? It seems it is dangerous to base the decision purely on the suffering, emotions/feelings, and pain factor. There must be more to it.

Humans are above animals and different laws and ethics apply to people than animals (and when i talk of animals i mean creatures which are not human). We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people, we don't keep people as pets etc- an animal like a dog, cat, dolphin, mouse etc is not on the same level as a human being. Comparing animal and human ethics/morality is never going to work because animals are not people- the ethics/morality i talk concerns animals and animals only.

The intelligent factor totally puzzles me. Does it mean you feel less empathetic about a dumb person being killed? Most of people will be outraged by such an opinion. So, it means the degree of intelligence should be irrelevant.

I've never argued that the intelligence of animal is important when it concerns the value of its life.

If all animals should be treated well regardless of the animals capability to be intelligent or feel emotions, then why do you consider insects/bugs constitute a gray area? Is it because the insects/bugs show less capability to be intelligent or feel emotions? It seems the notion of "we must save animals" exist before thinking about the issues of intelligence and emotions.

Insects/bugs are a gray area, because so far research has found that they have no intelligence, no feelings, no emotions, no pain etc. These creatures function on a robotic level.
IMHO the reason why you should avoid being cruel to these creatures though is because cruelty is not something that should be encouraged in human nature towards anything.

We are animals. Our behavior is constrained by animal instincts. By the way, animals have codes of conduct too.
What I meant was that the expression "above the rest of the animals" startles me. Why are we "above" any other animals? There is no "above" or "below". Such a notion implies that if a society incorporates more strong morality/ethics, justice, fairness, partnership etc- foundations, the society is "above" the rest.

We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?

We put ourselves, our family, our friends, our species first because we are human- if we don't look after ourselves and our own kind first and foremost, then we can hardly expect to stay evolutionarily successful. I disagree with you strongly that there is no above or below when it comes to humans and other animals- this notion in itself is a man-made concept. If you can't see why a humans life is worth more than an animals then i think you need to look a lot deeper.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

So it isn't immoral at all when obese people eating safe and morally killed Tokis' chicken much more than the average Japanese.

I don't know English, but we call it gizen, hypocrisy in Japanese.

Sorry about our generalization, "Europeans have been eating meat for ages".
It is just wrong, but your history goes...
when their economy was not good, they ate less meat; and
when their economy was good, they ate more meat.

The eel pie in your country is a good example. People, esp., in London, ate the eel pie about 100 years ago as a meat substitute, but now, many moral Londoners think it as yucky.
Even from the point of an immoral eel loving Japanese, the recipe below should be refined.
cookitsimply.com is coming soon
(´д`)<not uma

Just wondering what would have happened if they had introduced a special eel cooking knife from Japan then.

(Who are you talking to specifically Pipokun or are you just making general points here?)

Of course it isn't really morally/ethically good/preferable to overeat when you are obese, however what can you do about people who do this either way? Do you suggest living in an ultra fascist state where our diets are completely regulated by the state and those who over or under eat are taken to special "reforming" centers and punished etc?

The only real way to effectively tackle obesity would be;
a. Increase the price of fattening foods
b. Tax the obese/overweight to make them pay for the huge strain they put on the NHS.
c. Those who claim disability benefits for being overweight/morbidly obese etc must be forced to go on a diet and exercise regime if they want the benefits money etc. Either that, or the money gained from benefits must be put into healthy food rations or some such similar things as so to ensure the person does not spend the benefits money on things that they don't need or will make their condition worse etc.

Or other such similar things etc.

Right now though in this country, fattening food is getting cheaper and cheaper, modern technology has made people's lifestyles easier and less energy consuming, people can claim benefits for being overweight and it is easier than ever to get benefits, and people get free health care etc- so its no wonder why on the whole the population is consuming so many calories and getting fatter and fatter.
Concerning the Japanese though, various factors have contributed to them being slimmer, although as far as i am aware these reasons a largely do to social/cultural pressures and the price of food etc. However i have heard that the obesity levels in Japan have risen overall over the last couple of decades too, although i have no statistics to hand on this. Your statement on Europeans earing more meat when the economy is good also applies to the Japanese.

 

[pipokun]

(Who are you talking to specifically Pipokun or are you just making general points here?)

Of course it isn't really morally/ethically good/preferable to overeat when you are obese, however what can you do about people who do this either way? Do you suggest living in an ultra fascist state where our diets are completely regulated by the state and those who over or under eat are taken to special "reforming" centers and punished etc?
...

My last post was for both general points and cruel obese people who unnecessarily consume morally prepared Tokis' farm animals. I think it is rather hard to find some numerical methods to judge how immoral you are, but the obesity is an easy data for a simple-minded person like me.

The average Britons consumed 300kcal/day more than 30 years ago. I don't think you should be an ultra fascist to get back your memory just 30 years ago.

According to the moral, oh no obesity, standards in the US or Europe, it is just overweight which our government loudly yells, "OBESITY RUINS JAPAN". But I partly agree with the noisy campaign, for Japan has a similar health insurance scheme like Europe which bears the cost equally among people, (I know the European ones are better than Japan's), not like individual responsibility country.

We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people

It is true, but I don't know why the EU nations are proud of their food sufficiency and safety?
The under 40% sufficiency of Japan is simply a joke, but EU nations can help more farming people outside EU, aren't they? If you import more chicken from outside EU with proper eco/animal-friendly and safe methods, the rest of the people would become more animal friendly as you claim.

*snip

battery farmed eggs or free range eggs

What if the aviation would hit your farm?
Cleanliness can be granted for both methods to eat raw eggs by using a washing machine and strict supply chain management, but the pandemic couldn't.

Reference

How to pack eggs
http://sc-smn.jst.go.jp/8/bangumi.asp?i_series_code=B030601&i_renban_code=131

From around 9:17, you can see the machine working.

 

[grapefruit]

Humans are above animals and different laws and ethics apply to people than animals (and when i talk of animals i mean creatures which are not human). We don't kill people for food, we don't farm people, we don't keep people as pets etc- an animal like a dog, cat, dolphin, mouse etc is not on the same level as a human being.

Just because we have laws and ethics, it does not mean we are above animals. As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons. What do you think of war? We killed millions of people. What do you think of atrocity?
We exhibits tons of ugly nature.
We don't farm people or keep people as pets, but we do farm animals, keep animals as pets, and eat animals as food. The example of not killing people for food, not farming people, and not keeping people as pets were listed as examples of unethical conducts. Yet, we engage in these seemingly unethical actions when it comes to animals. The human being, who engages in such behavior, does not look ethically superior to animals. It is just an excuse to exploit animals and avoid feeling bad about it. Defining we are superior to something and treating it unfairly was the rational for slaving and colonialism.
If we are aware that animals have emotions/feelings and intelligence, why do we still keep dogs as pets? No human beings want to be kept as pets. You can admit such conduct is ethically tainted or avoid admition by applying the concept of "superiority".

Insects/bugs are a gray area, because so far research has found that they have no intelligence, no feelings, no emotions, no pain etc. These creatures function on a robotic level.

So, I'm curious how YOU feel when you squash bugs. Do you honestly feel nothing because science proves that? Or you feel a tinge of guilt because you have killed a creature. Have you observed how ants appear to suffer if you spray one of those insecticides for ants? They struggle and curl up and look as if they are suffering.

IMHO the reason why you should avoid being cruel to these creatures though is because cruelty is not something that should be encouraged in human nature towards anything.

so, you do agree that it is cruel to squash bugs, yet insist that human beings can keep doing this to bugs because we are superior to them? That sounds awful.

We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?

I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed. I bet they would respond more to their own monkey babies.

We put ourselves, our family, our friends, our species first because we are human- if we don't look after ourselves and our own kind first and foremost, then we can hardly expect to stay evolutionarily successful.

So this is motivated by self-interest.

I disagree with you strongly that there is no above or below when it comes to humans and other animals- this notion in itself is a man-made concept. If you can't see why a humans life is worth more than an animals then i think you need to look a lot deeper.

The fact that the notion is man-made should be irrelevant to the argument of human's ethical and moral superiority to animals.

 

[Sarapva]

This is a good argument - I personally don't know where I stand on the issue of whether people are "above" animals or not. I know we have more reasoning ability and the ability to empathize, but I think this gives us more responsibility to treat all other humans and animals in a respectful way (which of course we don't always do). As for killing insects, if it's necessary I try to kill them as quickly as possible so there's no pain involved, but I don't like killing anything.

Obesity is also rising in the U.S., though we don't have national health (yet), only huge insurance companies that make huge profits. Half of us don't have any health insurance.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons."

Then you should go educate yourself more on the animal kingdom (and no, I don't mean watching more Disney films). Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.

"why do we still keep dogs as pets?"

The dog is a wolf that's evolved to depend on humans. It's a DOMESTICATED species, meaning it only thrives under care of humans. Do dogs like this deal? I'd say yes. As a human pet, a dog might live 15 years or more. But you'll never find a wolf more than half that age.

"I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed."

They'd probably prefer to save their own kind, just like us. The difference is, they probably don't hold debates about whether it's ethical to do so.

 

[grapefruit]

"As far as I know, human beings are a deviant in the animal kingdom who kill their own kind for various reasons."
Then you should go educate yourself more on the animal kingdom (and no, I don't mean watching more Disney films). Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.
"why do we still keep dogs as pets?"

I did not know that. Thanks.

The dog is a wolf that's evolved to depend on humans. It's a DOMESTICATED species, meaning it only thrives under care of humans. Do dogs like this deal? I'd say yes. As a human pet, a dog might live 15 years or more. But you'll never find a wolf more than half that age.

The point was not limited to keeping dogs. Any type of animals including those that are not domesticated.

"I wonder how monkeys would feel when they witnessed their babies and human babies being killed."
They'd probably prefer to save their own kind, just like us. The difference is, they probably don't hold debates about whether it's ethical to do so.

Whether holding debates or not was not the point of the argument.

Tokis-Phoenix said,

We are above animals because a human life is worth more (or at least should be worth more) than an animals life.
You might argue that all living creatures are equal, but you tell me, if you found your house on fire and a child and a dog screaming/barking for help inside and you could only save one of them, who would you save? Would you honestly say "I would say the dog if it was easier to rescue than the child or vice versa" or would you say "I certainly save the child's life over the dogs in any scenario"?

This rational that human life is worth more than those of animals was argued from the fact that we tend to save our children. I gave the example of monkeys to prove that that type of reasoning does not verify human life is worth more. It simply displays our self-centered view and disregard to animals' point of view.

 

[Tanya47]

Who has the right to decide what happens in Japan?

A previous comment was made by 'Astroboy' about pressure on Japan to stop whaling 'because the Anglo-Americans don't like it'. That is a load of rubbish. Search the world and you will find there are people in Canada, India, Indianapolis, Australia, Poland, France, Argentina, Greece, Hungary, Israel and many more who oppose the horrifying activities. I have mentioned these places because I have friends and colleagues here who have the same notion that whaling and dolphin slaughter is cruel.

Find the Facebook group 'Save the Dolphins from Japan'

So many people are against it, we all share the same world, we all have a right to say what we want in this world, we want evil banished and that's what this is.

For those who want to continue to slaughter for science Mr Otemba has addressed this clearly above, take heed.

For those who want to continue for culture consider this statement from a facebook user:

"Culture and tradition is all well and good, but as we evolve and progress, we are supposed to gain a higher level of consciousness and better ourselves. Do we still sacrifice humans? That was also a tradition but we are cleverer now and we know it is barbaric (can't believe we were so thick in the first place). This act carried out by Japanese whalers and dolphin slaughterers is cruel and barbaric...my evidence is the dolphins bleeding to death in pain, convulsing and dying slowly. School children walking by, seemingly immune to this, they are the future and the future looks bleak to me right now."

I could not agree more, along with gaining intelligent it is important to learn compassion and care about all creatures of this world. Currently we are a vicious breed of people who slaughter as well as rape, hurt and murder humankind. The whole world want to end the fighting, the wars, the pain we cause to other people. And the whole world wants to put an end to this mindless violence against our own fellow creatures of the world.

Japanese people are not being shown in a good light here. The uncivilised actions of these animal abusers are tainting your country and tainting our world. Japan has a duty to its country to stop these atrocities, laws need to be put in place, and THESE LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. If this can be done, then you can regain respect, honor and pride. Seriuosly enough is enough.

Long live the Whales and Dolphins and all innocent creatures.

 

[grapefruit]

I could not agree more, along with gaining intelligent it is important to learn compassion and care about all creatures of this world. Currently we are a vicious breed of people who slaughter as well as rape, hurt and murder humankind. The whole world want to end the fighting, the wars, the pain we cause to other people. And the whole world wants to put an end to this mindless violence against our own fellow creatures of the world.
Japanese people are not being shown in a good light here. The uncivilised actions of these animal abusers are tainting your country and tainting our world. Japan has a duty to its country to stop these atrocities, laws need to be put in place, and THESE LAWS NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. If this can be done, then you can regain respect, honor and pride. Seriuosly enough is enough.
Long live the Whales and Dolphins and all innocent creatures.

Then, how come only targeting on whaling? how come not voicing against killing all animals? If you are choosing only one species, it sounds culturally biased.

 

[Tanya47]

Grapefruit: I am talking about Whales here because that is what the topic (from Astroboy) was about. I work in conservation for all living creatures, I am vegan and I love all animals and would not kill a tiny bug. I am not superior to anything, I have utter respect for all life, all innocent life.

Those causing pain I have no respect for. Let me make it clear, I am not talking about other topics here because it annoys me when people say "why don't you care about child poverty" on a site which is dedicated to "saving the Whales".

 

[Tanya47]

"Plenty of animals kill their own kind. Bears will eat other bear cubs wherever they find them. Wolves kill wolves, for pack dominance or territory. Chimps fight wars with other chimp bands.

Animals kill for survival, bears eat other bears where competition is high and food is scarce, eliminating numbers means more food. Wolves and chimps kill their own where their territory is threatened, it is to protect the whole pack pack...and again for survival.

Animals don't rape, are not paedophiles, and do not kill for greed.

Humans (with a "higher intelligence") are capable of killing their own family members for money, raping children for filthy lust, blowing up innocent people in the name of religion, torturing animals for money.

There is a stark difference here. Don't put animals in anywhere near the same light as some humans, they do what nature intended.