Brent Corrigan Movie Stream

Poor Christian Looks at the suffering of animals


long, long time ago, in zaprzeszłym century, and the system in 1980, appeared in 1918 issue of "Ethics" devoted entirely to the human-animal relations (among authors such as Peter Singer , Tom Regan , IJA Lazari-Pawlowska, Jacek Hołówka). According to my knowledge since then, until recently, no complete title of the writing instrument is not impressed devoted so much space issues in their pages. 2008 years for it brought up two solid blocks of texts on human-animal relationships in two different (in nominal terms, ideologically and politically) titles. The point is to June, "Mark" ( "The suffering of animals", No 637 ) and 15 issue of "Political Krytki (" Non-human politics "). Today the performance of the first block, on the day of the second.

Animal "Character" begins the text of historical Janusz Tazbir Fri "People against animals", for s posobu treatment of animals in man's history and its theoretical and ideological grounds. Professor, even though the "Mark" is not wrapped in cotton, pointing influence of Judaic and Christian dogmatics to justify atrocities against "lesser brothers". Throughout the Bible - writes - with great difficulty could be to find the places where it is forbidden, even in an indirect way, animal abuse . For this Christianity, giving people the soul (and the associated entity posthumous), only deepened the chasm between them and the animals. ( p. 18) Apparently no news to anyone even vaguely interested in the subject, but makes a big impression that publish similar content in the pages of the Catholic journal. Sure, "sign", however, "Character" and that in "Sunday" or "Frondy" liberal perversions of this type never never see (that was only postmodernism!). However, I feel that progress is progressing, that a redefinition of human-animal relationship is an issue that is waiting just around the Winkle on the scourge in the framework of Serene Nam Reigning Public Discourse - a framework much broader than those of even the most pofundowane rozspekulowane leftist fink-tanks. (Another basis for this courageous hope: the book "The dispute about the rights of animals" by Tomasz Pietrzykowski, of which the author can say different things, but not for the fact that he should sympathize however, defined the left.)

Tazbir Return to text. Apart from a few oczywistościami type above wynotowanych (which however are still not sufficiently clear and therefore it is worth repeating), it brings you many interesting relationships on the extent of permanent war against the humans to animals. For example, a paragraph about the deeply spiritual - in any case arising from certain decisions of the spiritual nature - man's relation to the cat as the incarnation of all evil:

In many countries, cats were burned on Ash Wednesday and Holy days. John and feast thrown Wniepowstąpienia them from the church tower (the latter has happened in Poland). In France, bag or basket of cats hanging over the pile, which is then lit. It's cruel spectacle, held June 24 (the day of St. John) took place from the time the Governments of Louis XI (1461) until at least the early eighteenth century. Honoring them with his presence successive rulers, usually in the company of dolphins. To make synkom pleasure, just let them kindle a fire. One of these cruel, in our eyes, performances remained at a certain view of Polish history. Namely, June 24, 1573, Charles IX, to celebrate the election of Henry of Valois to the throne of the Republic, personally lit the pile, which burned two dozen cats and foxes. (Pp. 22-23)

From these and similar historical episodes of scrappy, this is an interesting essay, shedding additional light on the strictly historical historical-philosophical analysis of the relationship of human-subhuman, which you can find a lot longer, even in Polish, and the stranger that more. Quietly, I hope that Tazbir article published in "Mark" is the beginning / the exception of the forthcoming monograph by a wide professorship. It would be great to be able to do such a historical book.

Okay, Tazbir passed, and behind him was a black hole or even a large size because of the two texts composed niekrótkich, fault theoretical writing. Waclaw Hryniewicz (I have a feeling that one day I read somewhere interesting articles from this author) in "Christianity and the natural world" and Albert Michalczyk in the "Holy Saint Francis of Assisi and the creatures' defenseless served to the reader such a dose blubrystycznej theological chatter, that is easily susceptible to indigestion. No, no, not in this thing, that theology, because theology - I imagine - may be substantively interesting and even more interesting formally. Gentlemen sent However, the "Mark" texts like nothing prepared for a boring press conference at which one does not hear anything, nobody wants to say anything, for which - save for the ritual reading readings - and nothing happens, and the least at the level of ideas and their exchange. For all that is missing Hryniewicz good impression after reading Tazbir, contradicting the obvious is not a registered quite obvious, and therefore worth repeating. Contradicts them and withdraw too good opinion of editorial magazine. It seemed during Tazbir that "Mark" is in question człowieko-animal matured, and after Hryniewiczu goes, that only a pluralistic, at any particular advantage in the era of the hegemony of pluralism is not.
Okay, okay, but what we talking about? Ano to, for example: Bible does not justify an absolute and ruthless attitude of man towards the rest of creation . (P. 31) As no excuse, if excuse? According to Hryniewicz is not the Bible is bad for animals, but the bad guys are / were for the latter canonically interpreters of the Good Book. I do not know, maybe I have a kosher copy of the Bible. Moreover, I do not intend to argue the facts. Hryniewiczowi in any event, I give good intentions, which paved his naive in my opinion and whatever taut reading of both Testaments. Still prefer I give him a sense of responsibility - as a Christian - for the state of things shaped by centuries:

Biblical faith in the creation of the world can not be an excuse for the absolute powers of man over nature. The Bible does not provide a command control unforgiving land. False turns out to be widespread in the consciousness of the Christian view that the words of Genesis (1.28) imposes an obligation on the man's unlimited dominion over the earth and nature. Traditional Christian theology zachodzniego proclaiming the word dominium terrae bears at least some complicity for the current ecological crisis. (P. 31)

Amen.

After two decidedly weak texts (which, I feel the glory days, "Mark" would not have the chance to appear in Superior) is just better. Barbara Chyrowicz publish a story entitled "The suffering of the people - the suffering of animals" and a story that holds up to a load of philosophical reflection disputes. Thesis: People are suffering and the animals suffer, but the animals suffer less. Why less? Otherwise there and their way of existence impregnates them to suffer only appropriate homo sapiens. animals is animal existence, the existence of people - personal. Personal beings are human beings, without exception. We do not know what the author embeds his belief in this topic, but (for whatever) inside is not allowed to voice any doubts:

pain inflicted by animals, humans can not be justified, because in relation to the perpetrator is not a sufficient reason, and for to the victim - none. I do not think that the man had no right to use animals for their purposes. The animal is not the subject, it is not a person. Provides value for the sake of it, that man can do something more useful, but due to the fact that exists. The existence of the animals, however, differs from the existence of humans. (P. 61)

Pal six non-personal status of the animals (for an additional twelve pole above inconsistency of the authors expressed the view pomieszczonym later in the text of the statement: we may assume that the higher animal species have some form of his "I", which links them survival and is the basis for individualising) , something else amazing in that inference. The man, according to him, has the right to use animals for their purposes, although there is no justification for causing them pain. How to reconcile with one another? In the face of inability to justify the animal suffering enough controversial author (with psychoewolucyjnej perspective) non-recognition of their personality to morally legitimize the pain, suffering and exploitation of non-human non-persons? It is not a cheap plea, but rather a question about the possibility of justification zastanego order of the human-animal while challenging the Christian-Cartesian theoretical basis of this order. And even if you really can not be granted the status of the animal (which is the impossibility is not a foregone conclusion, on the contrary, now researchers are explicitly suggest the adequacy of personal characterization of animals) to dismiss the prospects uprzedmiotawiającej it inevitably forces an ethical reinterpretation of all inter-relationships with humans as the dominant player.
Chyrowicz can not justify the animal suffering. However, justifies the use of animals by man for his benefit. Somehow she manages to move the agenda on the issue of justification of the use of animals, which usually involves asking them to unjustified suffering. He writes that there are different from animals and humans, as a result of further reading, this is for the fact prejudging the question of ethics of animal exploitation by man.

Every man is like a "white crow", his life is unique, priceless and unique. Each of us has experienced its uniqueness, reflected even in the statements: "This is my life," "I have the right to think differently," I'm somebody else. " Pets are only instances of the genre. As such, they live the life of a biological species, while a man lives his own life. This is because owners may have pets, man And is not anyone's property (...). (P. 71)

I have a right to think otherwise. I think otherwise. I think the author - although it raises important moral questions - wandering in the dark, drawing on knowledge of this part of the reality of the philosophical treatises of different ages and autoramentu, while not reaching the authoritative texts on this matter, ethological, socio-biological, psychoewolucjonistycznych. A pity, because - for example - "Through the keyhole" Jane Goodall read and happy, and with great benefit cognition. After reading it probably would be much harder Chyrowicz said that "animals are only copies."
And let there! Even if it were, after all, remains in przesłynne here and there (ie, between hers) benthamowskie: should ask is not about whether animals can reason, or if they can speak, but whether they can suffer . And in the end, this was supposed to be a text - under the title "human suffering - the suffering of animals" in the booklet "The suffering of animals" - the suffering, not a mental differentiation between species! Comes out that all reflective of the author, and so the robot crashes into the classical genre Prejudice, the basis of which at times seems to assert itself.

Next in line for a careful reading of the text is "Forest and its suffering people," Adam Wajrak . Heavy text to reflect on mental suffering of animals.

This kind of suffering is very often overlooked when talking about animals. Perhaps because it is still possible at our disposal in the field of physical abuse are so great, that what we might call mental suffering, seems slim. Maybe this is because the animals as beings refuse to "lower" the right to such sensations like pain other than physical.
I am convinced that animal mental suffering need not necessarily be associated with death, lacerations and corrupting. It may also be suffering due to the loss of the environment or the lack of contact with the representatives of their species. Yes, animals can suffer, because they are lonely, for example. (P. 75)

Wajrak below shows some interesting examples in support of its position. He writes, among others about living in his crow and his behavior, which clearly demonstrates the increasing social need in the bird. Another issue worthy of mention in a very fajowskim well-known and liked an essay (not by all - you know, Election!) naturalist a cry for growth, dissemination and awareness about animals. Wajrak peroruje rightly, that knowledge has the power to multiply happiness (in this case the animal, in this case by minimizing the disaster) and the stupidity of the contrary. (...) By

see [animal suffering - Reb.] Need not so much empathy as knowledge about what animals are and what their life. (P. 78)
(...) even the best rules will not work if the majority of the population will have little or no knowledge of the animals. The more we know about some of the species - as dead as it propagates, how to care of offspring, as food gets - the more rights we are willing to admit it. (Pp. 79-80)

something to it, but not everything is true. The pigs, cows and hens we know almost everything, but these animals do not enjoy any special rights, among other species. Why? The answer is obvious. Perhaps this is also the question of knowledge, knowledge is by no means biological. From the history of man in any case that empathy knows no substitute, however, can not rest.

After Wajraku the (bitter, but cooked perfectly) dessert Michal Olszewski text serves Fri "A winding path carnivores." If someone would write a history of animal suffering, it would be the history of human hypocrisy . So begins this essay, Hiczkokiem total, so it takes quite subsequently spicy. Author - tragic, because the reflective carnivore - sketched out on a dozen pages of text, "a set of elementary logic derailments in parallel with the ongoing struggle for the dignity of animals." Only mixing of these two currents - justifies his project - can bring about as complete, but certainly a paranoid picture of our relationship to suffering "lesser brothers" (p. 83)

We assigned the animals to feel right. For many years, on the occasion of Christmas, the struggle for a dignified death, carp, by all means correct, because the greatest enemy falls do not wish that He performed his last breath, suffocating in a plastic bag or tub filled with water poimieszaną with blood. The average citizen realizes a much greater extent than ever aware of the ordeal of Polish horses for slaughter, which Italy arrive with broken legs, racing with fear. He knows that keeping a dog on a short chain with no food or water, is cruelty. Disclosed by the media, cases of cruel neglect toward animals are extremely emotionally accepted if we see a real change in sensibility.
views disappear tightly fused with the rural landscape. EU rules meant that the slaughter of more and more frequently transferred from backyards to the slaughterhouse. Melting of dogs and cats, has gained an alternative in the form of sterilization. It is more hygienic, more and cleaner, less suffering, played out before our eyes.
cleared space in such a humanity is intertwined with hypocrisy. We want to reduce animal suffering, not eliminating the actual causes. In the language of specialists in environmental protection, this method is called "end of pipe". Of course, the question whether the pig will die a horrible death, or rapidly, is of great importance. Karp, who dies for hours in a little water, is suffering more than the carp skillfully put to death with a hammer.
But the big question is whether the carp at all must die? (Pp. 83-84)

author's reply, with all the subtle objections, reads: needs. This mousse comes not from theory, however, constructed to justify (and here I am full of admiration for the author, who after all has a wide range of mięsożerczych autousprawiedliwień shacks for better or worse. None of them have not yet ostaje what is true under the blows animalsiarskiej ethical criticism, however, always be able to make up a good face and even better humor vide "right for the cows, and that you good!"). Rather, it launches an existential malaise. Olszewski understands and accepts rations formulated by the ethics of animal rights, but can not put them in your life. Hence the sentence passed on the carp.
Back. Judgement for carp was issued not by the impotent Olszewski. Olszewski is rather a victim of his own reflection in the world is not accustomed to reflection. Custom, culture, social context, tradition, religion - all this is against the thoughts, ideas, which tended to his incarnation. At stake, of what is at stake, is to be ultimately the quality of life, followed by the same force of sentient beings. Meanwhile, at a rate that, regionally and historically, it is only a gesture of defiance, a personal break from the practice of humiliation and killing of non-humans. Perhaps it is the reason for this rather than another sentence? Vegetarianism is a choice right from an ethical point of view. It is also a choice that from the perspective of a pair of vegetarian (or not) the eye does not change the world iota. As noted by Gary Francione somewhere at a time when vegetarians come twice, the world's consumption of meat and dairy products increased fourfold. The effectiveness of the consumer boycott of the slaughterhouse is practically zero. Okay. Snag is that it does not justify immoral moral choice. And that's why Olszewski writes his text. Declaring respect for animals and the simultaneous acceptance of their killing is just fake. Death descends to the underworld, but a corpse remains. (p. 84)

I do not love animals but do not deceive myself, at least that this sincerity allows me to avoid blindness. With the growing awareness is made about the process because otherwise - we reduce our knowledge of inconvenient for us as a compassionate and humane beings, the chain of events, so here is that between a pig in a sty charming and apetycznym cutlet on a plate stretches the great expanse of intermediate stages marked by pain. Disappears awareness of shared responsibility for the killing. Suffering disappears in the spaces planned, according to standards HACCP, takes place not on the floor and manure, just with a sterile stainless steel and white tiles. Ceases to affect us. Drop a self-evident complicity, even though we - carnivores, amateur leather jackets, fur boots and good - we are principals. (Pp. 1984-1985)

I do not remember ever reading the text written so much about the exploitation of animals is not deleted by hand-vegetarian. The mere fact that the author eats meat, is paramount for me, ethically defined vegan, nurzającego the theories under the sign of animal liberation with pleasure and satisfaction not that is weak-funded places wegańsko światoobrazu. (I know, just that the term overview of the lack of weaknesses, is its weak point. Once I found the same weak point but I can calmly go back to the point.) If anything, what and how Olszewski wrote, wrote, say Peter Singer, podpadało by the ideological manipulation of the plea (plea materially poor, but the carrier publicystycznie).
last thing you want to write, is a proposal out of the moral stalemate, which formulates Olszewski (not the first anyway). If for some reason can not / do not want to be a vegetarian while not able to come to terms with an existing state of human-animal relationships, trying to minimize animal suffering by withdrawing from the consumption of large farms, feed lot, slaughter - of everything that can be reduced to a common denominator factories animals for meat / dairy. Wielkoprzemysłowy livestock is in fact the fundamental problem of ethics of liberation / animal rights. Industrialization is the idea of \u200b\u200bsentient creatures devilishly, a grim side effect of the industrial revolution, which brought with it the institution of the production line. In a dairy cow or a pig in a pigsty for producers milk or ham tool against which to behave more or less as a producer of corrugated sheet metal is harassing the press. What are the moral implications of this development? Numerous. I do not generally perceived, therefore - not taken into account in making consumer choice situations. Once, however, the question inevitably wmyśleć scheming up a way out of the system dependencies.

mięsożerstwo Consent does not necessarily imply acceptance of the scandalous conditions in which they are transported across Europe Polish horses, or fattening, and industrial sites where the pigs spend their entire effect on metal grates. You can refuse the foie gras , ask yourself the trouble and go to town farmer who keeps animals in decent conditions. You can kill him, had not asking unnecessary suffering. (Pp. 1986-1987)

This strategy may work, but in my opinion, contrary to appearances, is much easier to just go vegetarian. It is easier to dochowywać their principles when they pass unnoticed in the eating habits than to constantly renew investigation into the origin of this here piece of meat, eggs, this here, this milk.
This question I hope Michael Olszewski worry, when it reaches the Kalisz with the promotion in the spring of the forthcoming book, which addresses the issues outlined in this article. I expect much from herself, after her book, finally, promised by the author about it and discuss it.

Resume. The two texts does not make sense, some interesting, at least two very important. And the mere fact of a decision by the release of a number of animal "sign" sensational. Well, the topic is pursued by more and more boldly and more widely, what stirs hope for real change of paradigm and overcome prejudices widely accepted genre, which to this day considerably manages the sphere of their terms and conditions of interspecific relationships. Sure, not a week and not next year. But since even the "sign" ...