Welcome...

You've reached the shared blog of Michael Mckay and Todd Frederick. Two friends who have worked together in ministry and labored in similar educational endeavors. Please join us as we consider the interaction of Christianity with modern culture...

Friday, October 1, 2010

Whipping pigs for tastier bacon?

I am currently teaching an Ethics course at Indiana State Penitentiary. It has been a fun course to teach to that audience. Last week I brought in some ethical dilemmas so that we could test a few ethical theories and see where they took us. One of the dilemmas was whether it was morally acceptable to whip pigs to death if the result was tastier pork meat. Tastier meat would make eaters of pork happy. So, for example, utilitarian ethical theory would state that whatever brings happiness to the most amount of people is the ethically correct thing to do. If the group is pleased by tastier bacon then whipping pigs to death is the right thing to do. What is interesting here is that utilitarians cannot ultimately answer the question of, "is this decision morally correct?" until after they have tasted the bacon. The reason being is that they wont know if the happiness the group experienced from eating the bacon outweighed the potential pain their consciences may feel at torturing pigs. It is very possible that a group would salivate over tasty bacon and then as the whipping goes on, feel nauseated at what they are doing. As they eat the bacon, they may regret what they have done. So what started out as a "moral" thing to do (because the group thought it would make them happy), has now become immoral because of the pain it brought (the group is very unhappy). This is an incredible weakness in the utilitarian argument. If I cannot know my decisions are moral until after the event, then what help is it in deciding which course of action to take before the event?

From a Christian perspective, we are able to utilize God's commands which are based off of his revealed character in His Word. One of the problems for this ethical theory is that the Scriptures do not address every single ethical decision we might need answered. We often have to extrapolate God's ancient commands to today's situations (i.e. think hermeneutics and application of Scripture). I am curious to know how Christian readers of this blog would answer the question, "is it morally correct (from a Christian perspective) to whip pigs to death if it produced tastier pork?" Since the Scripture is quiet about this specific act, what should we base our decision on? I have some thoughts that I will post later.

12 comments:

  1. Ok. So this is haa been the first post I can handle. Not because what you're writing isn't interesting or well written (they are actually very well written in my opinion...as if THAT matters). I simply couldn't handle the previous posts because by the time I get around to reading blogs my brain is usually fried from entire days spent discussing adolescent psychology and other similar topics (shouldn't that be enough to fry someone's brain...adolescents).

    That having been said, I could not personally eat the bacon (or whip the pigs...obvsiously). My husband is a hunter and yes I've watched the whole process, which I don't actually find cruel or immoral. However even when asking him if he ever has remorse, his response is always "No, unless it wasn't a clean kill and I know the deer (or duck, or pheasant, or goose...we have lots of meat in our house) suffered."

    I think there is something about us as people that don't like to be the source of suffering upon something innocent, in this case an animal. There are exceptions to this, but usually they are viewed as deviants to our society.

    I will also add that the above experience of seeing the process of hunting, gave me a greater respect for the food I eat. I wouldn't want to know that something (in this case a pig) went through suffering so I could eat it.

    One final evangelistic thought I would add is that presently in or culture (at least my current peer group) there is a social movement toward responsible farming and handling of animals. Being associated with the torturing of animals is at least culturally viewed as immoral. It would really only hurt my influence and repuation as a Christian in the lives of those around me to be involved in the eating of the bacon or the torturing of the pigs.

    This is by no means a biblical response to this questions (isn't there some verse in Leviticus or somewhere in the Pentateuch about treating your animals well???) but there it is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. wow. my comment was almost longer then your post. thats ridiculous. sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would first off by saying that even though the Bible is unclear about this issue of morality, it is equally silence about how much "care" and "concern" we have to extend to God's creation.

    If evangelicals argue that we shouldn't abuse animals to make tastier food because it is abusive and cruel to God's creatures I would ask them "Do you feel comfortable in you house that cut down, mangled, and destroyed several of God's trees?"

    Trees are just as equally a part of God's creation as pigs are.

    On the other side of the coin man is told that he has been given the earth to subdue and rule over. What does that mean? To me that seems to indicate that man can use the creation put under his charge in any way he chooses to in order to make his life more comfortable and enjoyable.

    Since there is no moral line drawn in the sand on these types of issues it all comes down to your preferences and opinions. If you are a member of PETA and a vegetarian you need to realize that not all people live that way and they don't have to.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pigs don't have souls, but they do respond to pain, which trees don't. We are given biblical permission to eat meat (Genesis 9:3-4), including pigs (Acts 10:13-15), but as we see how God cares about his creation, it doesn't fit that he would be okay with whipping pigs to death.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Michael,
    Good post. For a while I worked in a butcher shop and would often have to hold pigs down while they bled out. From personal experience I can say that even the most "humane" methods of killing pigs are still quite gruesome. We cannot pass judgment upon a moral issue without assuming some moral absolute. What makes shooting pigs in the head any better than whipping them? It would be difficult to state that God is fine with us killing them, but only a certain way when he never prescribed what that way was.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A couple thoughts & responses:

    First, Proverbs 12.10 puts a link between righteousness and how a person cares for their animals. Whipping an animal to a slow, tenderized death doesn't count as 'having regard for the life' of an animal. As quick a death as possible/practical for the procurement of meat is the ideal, I would say.

    Secondly, @Dennis Sutherby and @ddunk: Animals indeed are as much a part of creation as trees. So are we and so are angels and dirt, etc. That said, there seems to be a scriptural difference in the categorizing of living things that have blood (See Gen. 9.4, Lev. 17.11-14, etc.). While we are to care for the earth, I'm not aware of any place in Scripture that encourages us to be kind to grass and vegetables like we are to animals. In the proverb & Pentateuch passages mentioned above (as elsewhere in Scripture), "life" translates the Hebrew "nephesh" which is also translated soul. You & I have a "nephesh" and so do the animals. A soul is more than simply part of a person that goes to heaven when we die - it is that which gives life and animates the body, our blood & breath. Do we have souls? Yes. Do animals have souls? Absolutely. Does that play into how we slaughter our meat? I think it should.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mike,

    Like any philosophical topic it requires a review of the utilitarian ethic. In accordance with the principle of utility the consequences take precedence over the motive and act itself. So the motive to whip the pigs is for tastier meat. The act is actually whipping the pigs to death and the consequence is that the pig's die and we have some tasty bacon. Now as we evaluate this moral theory we need to examine what it is about this act that we find morally offensive. We certainly appreciate the bacon that the whipped pig provided but the manner in which the act was committed seems cruel. The
    underlying issue is that does the pig have moral worth? If we believe it does as our biblical mandate seems to dictate since we are caretakers of creation then it does in fact seem cruel. So how then can we be justified in eating meat at all since killing the animal itself seems like the ultimate cruelty?

    As Christians we can appeal to our moral authority and we know that we have permission to eat meat (as someone already pointed out). We know that the utilitarian ethic seems to be implied because a great number of people enjoy eating tasty whipped bacon and since that brings the greatest number of happiness or pleasure the act goes unobjected. I agree mike that the utilitarian ethic breaks down as it seems callous to life altogether. I believe Kant's moral theory seems to off a better solution with the same consequence. Motive and act are more important than the consequences. We know that the slaughter house owners have no resentment towards the pigs and when they whip them to death the are not doing so out of Malice. They do so knowing that the end result brings about tastier bacon. The end result still ends in the pigs dying we have simply rationalized it in a way that is palatable (haha... I wanted to say tasty) and morally justified.

    Lastly i think a clarification needs to be made in your statement "If I cannot know my decisions are moral until after the event, then what help is it in deciding which course of action to take before the event?" I believe a utilitarian would argue that utilitarianism is empirical by nature and would draw moral worth from experience. They would know if their decision is morally justified by what has happened from previous utilitarian decisions and if those decisions brought about the greatest amount of happiness. I think... I don't know mike... danget its 12:30 at night... you had to get me thinking =)

    -Chris F.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hey thanks for all the useful comments. It puts breakfast in a whole new light. While we may not have a biblical passage that makes this a slam dunk, I think we should consider that all of creation is God's property and not our own. Just as Adam was placed to tend the garden, so we also are to act as stewards of God's creation. Since He explicitly allows the consumption of meat, we know that killing animals is moral. So I think the act of killing the animal is less relevant to the question than the manner of killing the animal. When it comes to manner, the Bible does make some comments. So I frame the question like this: does Scripture prescribe the manner of an animals death and does it seem to allow or disallow an increase of pain?
    When the ancient Israelites did not redeem a firstborn animal, they are told to break its neck. Considering the available options, death by exsanguination (slowly or quickly), starvation/exposure or interruption of the nervous system through a broken neck. The broken neck seems to be the least tortuous manner of death available (Ex. 13:13, 34:20, Deut. 21:4). Exsanguination is probably a close second and found in Lev. 5:8. The exact manner of killing the offerings in Lev. 1-6 is unclear.
    So the Scripture, when prescribing the manner of an animal's death, prescribes interruption of the nervous system or exsanguination. The increase of an animal's pain prior to its death would violate the stewardship of God's creation.

    How can bacon possibly be any tastier anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wow! Thanks for all the truly excellent posts. It is great to hear from some of you who I have not seen in a while. There is some good thinking in here, which has caused me to ask further questions. My thoughts are already found in some of the posts above so I won't attempt to repeat or respond to everyone.
    1) It seems that the creation mandate (Gen 1:26-27) definitely puts us in charge of the earth. How we rule is just as important as the fact that we are delegated authority (as Dunkerton above). I liken this to house sitting for my neighbor. I can use the house, maybe even eat out of the fridge, but I should treat the house at least as well as the owners do. God created animals and delegated their care to us. It seems that torture for better bacon flys in the face of that.
    2) I think the "nephesh" link is helpful for seeing the distinction between animals/people and plants. We all have "life". I am not so sure that the Hebrews would have construed the "soul" to be what the Greeks later (and Christians after them) have come to see it as. So I see that I and pigs have "nephesh" but I am not sure that pigs have souls in the same way that I define my soul. Adam, if you have further thoughts on this I would be interested in thinking through this more.
    3)@Fennel - Good thought, but I wonder if the utilitarian can ever really use a past experience's result to determine if a future one will make them happy? It seems that they would need to calibrate "happiness" for each new situation because new people are involved. Therefore they still can't decide if an action is moral until after they have done it.
    4) One final thought. The dilemma ultimately is not whether we kill pigs or eat them. It is whether it is okay to torture an animal in order to increase our pleasure. A more crass dilemma could be worded, "Is it okay to torture infants for fun?" This one is much easier to answer from a biblical perspective, but amazingly causes the utilitarian heaps of problems.
    5) Okay, I lied. One more thought. I like what Ali said her husband believes about a good/bad hunt. That seems to be where the balance is (yes Todd I used "balance" for you).

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was thinking it was more of an integration: satisfying both need (to eat) and morals (to please God). I am pleased to see your balanced response.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow! I can’t let this one go. The mere thought of tastier bacon (if it’s possible) just makes me drool uncontrollably. The temptation of such a decadent treat is the stuff of culinary urban legends. Again, I am not sure there is a way to improve the miraculous transformation of pretty much anything a pig will consume into glorious tidbits like spare ribs, side pork, or pork rinds. Did I mention my salivation?
    First, the logistics of a pig’s death- there is no clean way to go about it. No matter what “humane” method one should choose to employ, you don’t want to be wearing your Sunday duds. The perfectly placed shot, flawlessly executed blow to the head, or lightning fast shanking to the jugular is still going to elevate the rating to something above PG-13. I can only imagine the scene at the tabernacle or temple as the blood would spill out from the manifold payment of Israel’s transgressions. I think we probably sterilize the brutality of this continuous sacrifice to the point that we can make it suitable for Sunday school curriculum. The reality is that the perpetual bloodshed was probably nauseating. What a great picture of the cost of our sin-debt that we have thankfully lost in the perfect sacrifice of the Lamb.
    All this to say that death to a pig is messy. Perhaps a better solution to better bacon would be the example of Kobe beef- special diet, lots of beer preceding the judgment day, and of course…daily massages. More work, fewer PETA picketers, and an eased conscience (if the whipping even bothers you) are the implications. Besides, if such a thing as better bacon were to become a reality, then it would probably be taxed, outlawed, or require special permits to be issued by the Bureau of Rediculously Tasty Bacon (BRTB)- a newly formed appendage of the bureaucratic behemoth. Speaking of Hebrew words, a few thoughts on the word nephesh. I remember someone teaching me something about semantic range. Clearly nephesh can refer to the immaterial part, a life-breath if you will, of either man or beast. To equate it with an immortal soul would be a clear violation of foundational theology. Context is king. Genesis 2:7 explains that mankind is unique in that God breathed into us life. The rest of creation was simply spoken into being and even given a certain level of “living-ness.” Only man was created in God’s image and given the mandate to have dominion over other living creatures. Proverbs 12:10 tells us that a righteous person is even concerned about the well-being of his livestock. This is contrasted to the wicked person- who knows no mercy.
    In conclusion to this already voluminous work, the thought of a quick flogging to get some juicy pork does entice my palate. The morality of said act is in serious question. I can’t imagine a person who would cause death to any animal (except perhaps a cat) via whipping and not have other sadistic tendencies. There is good evidence that especially brutal murderers began venting their rage upon stray animals or even their own pets. We clearly have the freedom to eat meat which requires killing, even the killing of pigs. The method chosen does perhaps indicate where a person’s moral compass points.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Will the bacon taste just as good if we beat the swine postmortem?

    ReplyDelete