Morrissey interview in Hürriyet Kelebek (Turkish)

Thanks for posting.

 

[cal]

Only if you consider the life of a pig to have equal worth to the life of a human being.

The question of the worth of an individual's 'life' is philosophically difficult. There are so many factors. It is obviously worse to kill a person who has children than a person who doesn't have children. By killing a person who has children, you're taking away a parent -> you're creating suffering. And so on, and so on.

When it comes to animal rights, it's really more about suffering than life/death. Does intelligence matter? An average pig is significantly smarter than a small human child or a person who's mentally severely challenged. Intelligence matters to some extent. But when it comes to species as smart as humans or pigs, it's fair to say that biologically, all individuals are pretty much equal in their ability to experience mental and physical suffering. The really stupid ones suffer if you hurt them, just like the really smart ones. From a scientific viewpoint, hurting a pig is as bad as hurting a human being. The subject of death is more complicated, and eventually, secondary.

Btw, giving pigs moral value doesn't take any moral value away from humans. By admitting that pigs share our capacity to suffer we're not belittling our capacity to suffer, we're simply saying that others suffer too. We're facing facts and admitting that these beings that don't look like us should matter too.

(...Which forces us to question the industry that tortures dozens of billions of them every year, just because just a couple of billion of us apes can't be bothered to eat something else...)

If it came down to shooting a person or shooting a pig, there is only one choice unless you are an utter sociopath. Pretending otherwise is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Well, culturally, of course. Most people would also prefer to shoot somebody else's child than their own. It's not because their child actually is more important than the other kid. It's just people being, well, naturally self-centered. In the end, it's not a philosofically rational thing. And it has a lot to do with culture. In some cultures humans and other animals have been considered equal, and in other cultures black people have been considered 'less' than white people. People are not rational beings. We're cultural beings. That's just the way it is.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

The question of the worth of an individual's 'life' is philosophically difficult. There are so many factors. It is obviously worse to kill a person who has children than a person who doesn't have children. By killing a person who has children, you're taking away a parent -> you're creating suffering. And so on, and so on.

When it comes to animal rights, it's really more about suffering than life/death. Does intelligence matter? An average pig is significantly smarter than a small human child or a person who's mentally severely challenged. Intelligence matters to some extent. But when it comes to species as smart as humans or pigs, it's fair to say that biologically, all individuals are pretty much equal in their ability to experience mental and physical suffering. The really stupid ones suffer if you hurt them, just like the really smart ones. From a scientific viewpoint, hurting a pig is as bad as hurting a human being. The subject of death is more complicated, and eventually, secondary.

Btw, giving pigs moral value doesn't take any moral value away from humans. By admitting that pigs share our capacity to suffer we're not belittling our capacity to suffer, we're simply saying that others suffer too. We're facing facts and admitting that these beings that don't look like us should matter too.

(...Which forces us to question the industry that tortures dozens of billions of them every year, just because just a couple of billion of us apes can't be bothered to eat something else...)



Well, culturally, of course. Most people would also prefer to shoot somebody else's child than their own. It's not because their child actually is more important than the other kid. It's just people being, well, naturally self-centered. In the end, it's not a philosofically rational thing. And it has a lot to do with culture. In some cultures humans and other animals have been considered equal, and in other cultures black people have been considered 'less' than white people. People are not rational beings. We're cultural beings. That's just the way it is.

This motherf***er nailed it.

 

[Amy]

The question of the worth of an individual's 'life' is philosophically difficult. There are so many factors. It is obviously worse to kill a person who has children than a person who doesn't have children. By killing a person who has children, you're taking away a parent -> you're creating suffering. And so on, and so on.

When it comes to animal rights, it's really more about suffering than life/death. Does intelligence matter? An average pig is significantly smarter than a small human child or a person who's mentally severely challenged. Intelligence matters to some extent. But when it comes to species as smart as humans or pigs, it's fair to say that biologically, all individuals are pretty much equal in their ability to experience mental and physical suffering. The really stupid ones suffer if you hurt them, just like the really smart ones. From a scientific viewpoint, hurting a pig is as bad as hurting a human being. The subject of death is more complicated, and eventually, secondary.

Btw, giving pigs moral value doesn't take any moral value away from humans. By admitting that pigs share our capacity to suffer we're not belittling our capacity to suffer, we're simply saying that others suffer too. We're facing facts and admitting that these beings that don't look like us should matter too.

(...Which forces us to question the industry that tortures dozens of billions of them every year, just because just a couple of billion of us apes can't be bothered to eat something else...)



Well, culturally, of course. Most people would also prefer to shoot somebody else's child than their own. It's not because their child actually is more important than the other kid. It's just people being, well, naturally self-centered. In the end, it's not a philosofically rational thing. And it has a lot to do with culture. In some cultures humans and other animals have been considered equal, and in other cultures black people have been considered 'less' than white people. People are not rational beings. We're cultural beings. That's just the way it is.

Yes it is, and I tried to avoid bringing up religious notions about the sanctity of life and other philosophical ideas about who we are and what it means to be human because those thoughts are so vague and subjective. Truly a minefield that could be discussed forever.

"It's not about intelligence; it's about the capacity to feel and to suffer." The argument from sentience. I am familiar with this and it is fertile ground for debate - but "An equal capacity to suffer and feel pain" is not what the Nazi comparison implied, nor was it what Morrissey said in this interview or what CG was arguing earlier. The Nazi comparison was the direct equivalence of a human life with a pig's life, no nuance at all. It was simply grotesque shock tactics, employed because the argument from sentience doesn't generate the newspaper coverage that casual mentions of the Holocaust do.

Is the suffering of an animal a good thing? No. Is it truly equivalent, morally, to the suffering of a human being? From my lefty, British, meat-eating cultural perspective - no. Not ever, not for a second. I would like to think I'm not a sadist, but I will never give an animal priority over a human being, nor anything close. And if you, or Morrissey or any member of the animal rights lobby think that puts me on the moral level of a camp guard at Auschwitz, then there is nothing more I can say to you. There are ways to advance the argument for animal rights in a measured and intelligent way - but spewing poorly thought-out comparisons to atrocities against humanity ain't one.

 

[Amy]

This motherf***er nailed it.

If this was the argument you wanted to put forward, why didn't you?

 

[CrystalGeezer]

If this was the argument you wanted to put forward, why didn't you?

Because I'm busy doing other stuff. I still want to address your snail story which has a classic Mulla Nasrudin setup, but I took my mom to the nail salon and my nails where too wet to type and copy and paste on an iPhone so I couldn't. And now I gotta do other stuff, but I like the way you think, Amy. You actually do think, you don't spout shit like a robot. It's refreshing.

 

[LizSK2]

Quite hard to take someone who posts anonymously seriously. On the lam are you?

I am against eating animals and against animal testing for any reason. But he knows what he's doing by invoking the Holocaust and not, say, any of the hundreds of other conflicts where humans have been mass murdered - Rwanda, Darfur, Cambodia, Stalin's Russia, Native Americans, the former Yugoslavia and so on. He knows that the Holocaust holds a unique place in human history for its planning. It wasn't just soldiers running into villages and murdering humans. It was calculated in a unique way and stands alone. And he KNOWS that and that's why he uses it, to get publicity for his views on animals. He doesn't realise he's doing more damage than he is helping.

Statements like that are knee jerk and you will notice that none of the established animals rights organisations would touch the Holocaust with a f***ing bargepole - there is a reason for this. It's because invoking Hitler is really stupid to make a point about animal welfare. But he does not live in the real world where there are consequences.

We'll see how influential he is on Saturday - the o2 will sell meat and there's nothing he'll do about it, I suspect. Much of what he says about animal welfare has the exact opposite effect. It makes him look like an idiot and does not in any way have a positive effect on people's attitudes.

If you already like him, you'll listen. I became a vegetarian because of him!! But if you don't like him, he's easily dismissed as a crank and on you go, eating meat every day...

 

[Juliusmonk]

Thanks Amy and Liz - from your different points of view, you both explained perfectly what I, in a much more convoluted way, was trying to express. It is great to see that this level of debate is possible these days.

 

[Billtwasreallynowt]

If you already like him, you'll listen. I became a vegetarian because of him!! But if you don't like him, he's easily dismissed as a crank and on you go, eating meat every day...

It is also possible to like him AND think he's a crank. To admire his passion on this, whilst feeling that it's misplaced.

 

[Detritus]

We'll see how influential he is on Saturday - the o2 will sell meat and there's nothing he'll do about it, I suspect. Much of what he says about animal welfare has the exact opposite effect. It makes him look like an idiot and does not in any way have a positive effect on people's attitudes.

I agree with the general sentiment of your post, particularly the assertion that Morrissey does more harm than good these days with his extreme and hyperbolic statements (often without much elaboration or clarification), but I'd like to point out that the O2 will apparently be going vegetarian the night of Morrissey's show. I am not signed up for their newsletter, so I can't confirm this, but if it's true I imagine we'll be hearing more about it shortly.

 

[Anonymous]

The world is not that black and white. In theory, zoos are horrific; however, the natural habitat of many animals is far more dangerous and cruel ( thanks to humans), and pet ownership could be considered a form of enslavement, but I have four cats who were rescued from a kill shelter or were found abandoned on the street. What if the pig was a beloved family pet and my children were screaming in anguish, begging me not to kill it, and the person was a child rapist/murderer? I would definitely shoot the human. On the other hand, I may be a vegan, but if an animal were attacking one of my children, I would kill it with my bare hands if it meant I could save my child. Inevitably, everyone has to make their own choice on the matter.

I look at it this way: there is nothing that tastes so good or looks so good that I would intentionally contribute to the torture, torment, or murder of a defenseless, helpless animal. Also, there are often distinctions made based on how " cute" the animal is. Look at how your food or clothing is manufactured and then imagine that it's your pet cat or dog being treated that way. If you can still eat it or wear it, then vegetarianism/veganism is probably not in your future. Just don't use the argument that animals kill each other, so it is a natural thing. Humans claim to be the most superior species because of their higher cognitive function; this means that they have the ability to understand the suffering of other creatures, while animals just act on basic instinct. Humans have the ability to find alternative choices that don't inflict pain. Most of us have the benefit of free will and advanced critical thinking; what you do with it is your choice.

lynnda