When dealing with traffic-law enforcement one gets no sense of President Lincoln’s notion that the government is ‘by the people and for the people’. It’s time to make traffic laws more fair, just and democratic, and we have the technology to do so. In a fair and equitable system if one breaks the law and is penalized then everyone breaking the law would be penalized as well—or none would be. This is surely impossible to accomplish, but it raises the bar considerably, giving us a worthy mark to shoot for. The system we have is unfair in many respects and insufficiently democratic for this age. Being of a democratic society, the will of the majority must dictate our laws; and just as important, the majority should determine how the laws are applied.

The basis for this idea is simple; traffic law should apply to all people equally, not just those unlucky enough to get caught. If we drive over the speed limit we break the law, thereby we become criminals, but most are not punished. This system fails us. As it stands it’s grossly unfair, not sufficiently effective and makes us all criminals, prosecuted or not.

Traffic law is for the protection of those using, and those affected by others using, our roadways. But we are penalized arbitrarily by it. Furthermore a good, contributing citizen can be treated the same as those who regularly abuse the system.

With our current system there is no consideration for the conscientious driver and no slack for the occasional misdeed, other than the discretion a police officer may choose to use. Even the police officers must be hurt by this system as it it likely they experience some cognitive dissonance because they are tasked with citing others for what they are guilty of doing themselves.

The most careful and considerate of us  may drive for a decade with no citations then inadvertently drive five miles over the limit and be cited and fined. This is not a just system as it doesn’t discriminate sufficiently between abusive behavior and honest mistakes. There is a difference you know!

Two vehicles may be speeding past the same point one minute apart and only one is cited. Car after car can make Calif. stops and arbitrarily a police officer sees ‘one’ and one is penalized. A rich person and a poor person fined the same for an infraction will experience a different effect from the penalty. In other words, a fine which could buy groceries for the month for a single mother and baby may be pocket change for another. A police officer can choose which people to cite and which not to, which undermines fairness. The legal system gives no credit to the good driver with the clean driving record; one small infraction and you can find yourself being sucked into the system—at least far enough to end up in court. And if you end up in court you are most likely going to pay a fine.

I pulled out of a store parking lot and crossed the street to park at another store. A policeman saw me and cited me for not fastening my seatbelt. My habit was to use my seatbelts as the law requires, but I didn’t think it would be important that time. Putting this into context, I had driven about 300 feet not exceeding ten miles an hour. Considering the relative insignificance of the infraction and my good driving record, along with the fact that I lived in and employed people in the community—made no difference. When I called the police station they told me they gave no preference to anyone—I had violated the law. There was a couple hundred dollar fine in court. The whole thing has a ‘Kill them all; let God sort them out’ quality to it.

I am not suggesting we do away with the laws or even change them at this time, but that we change the way the law is administered. This is not about making the traffic law better this is about treating humans fairly. We must keep in mind that most of the laws are made for us by law makers, not by a popular vote. It is clear in this case, based on the facts of our driving, that the law is not reflecting the will of the majority.

At some point I concluded there must be much better ways of administering traffic law, and this is why I chose to write this. The chance for an improved system to emerge someday strictly depends on how much we desire to live in a world which is more fair and equitable—a world less apt to exploit our good citizens. If we are going to have a chance at improving we must create and support improved institutions.

If you travel the highway regularly you see traffic laws violated and personal safety jeopardized. It is common to see vehicles tail-gating, speeding or changing lanes in a dangerous manner. At times there are multiple vehicles, which seem to be playing risky games. There is a minority which put themselves and others at unnecessary risk, and these need to be dealt with—harshly. But my focus for this essay is for those operating within the context of normal driving, albeit outside the strict letter of the law, while conforming with the majority.

Consider the facts of our situation; many people make Calif. stops and many drive the freeway at 70 or more, instead of 65. So penalizing for this is at least questionable, and most likely—not rational. To be able to recognize this as a mistake in our system requires that we accept that in a democratic society the ‘people’ make the choices, even if by demonstrating what we choose by the way we drive—this is a ‘vote’. It should be up to the bureaucracy to keep up with the people, not the other way around. If we can understand this we can move on to the implementation of a better system. We need a system which accounts for how most of our citizens drive. If most of us drive safely at 70 then some should not be penalized for doing so. If almost all of our citizens make rolling stops then we surely cannot penalize anyone for doing so. But the system does.

In an ideal system any violation of the law would be recorded. But here is where we must begin to discriminate. Whether violations occur within the context and range of normal driving (including driving moderately outside the limits of the law), or in the range of abnormal driving (including driving far outside the average and far outside the limits of the law), would determine how to deal with violations.

The overall change would include more automation and less enforcement personnel. A change of this sort should be relatively easy because cars already have computers. And as long as the vehicle computer system can recognize and record the driver and the relevant aspects of how the vehicle is used, the records would be valid. These records would provide the data for determining which are normal behaviors and which are abnormal. In this system all infractions are noted, but only those which merit such are penalized. And most of this could be done without enforcement personnel because of technology.

As it is, a grandmother driving home from the nursery on a quiet road on Sunday morning will be dragged into court, embarrassed and fined for allowing her car to roll an inch per second at a stop sign. Even changing the stops signs to yield signs would be a vast improvement.

It is readily evident that the system we use misses most violations of the law. We have the technology to improve this institution. Do we have the will?

I read comments in a local paper on the subject of possible similarities in people’s lack of regard for both the rights of slaves and the rights of animals. The first article I read was from a couple members of the community who suggested, ‘the mentality required for exploiting animals is similar to the mentality required for exploiting humans (slaves).’ In a later edition of the paper another person disagreed with them and responded ‘those who were enslaved were humans and were treated as if they had no rights, while the animals are ‘just’ animals, and in fact have no rights.’ I agree with part of this response; humans should not have been enslaved and abused. I am not minimizing the atrocities done to humans; I am trying to draw attention to the notion that animals have no rights.

Question, is there any similarity in the mentality required for human exploitation and the mentality required for animal exploitation? The dictionary defines slavery as, ‘subjection to a power, force or influence.’ And exploiting is, ‘selfishly using to one’s own advantage.’

Slaves were and are exploited. People learn and teach that slaves are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believed human exploitation (slavery) was condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Animals were and are exploited. People learn and teach that animals are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believe animal exploitation is condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Did this country willingly give up exploiting humans (slavery)? No! Has this country willingly given up exploiting animals? No! Exploiting animals and humans have given many people the wealth, power and/or pleasures they crave. And most people have been taught, and enjoy indulging in the consumption of animal flesh.

In early America people could force others to work on their property without pay; they could build a large plantation and become quite wealthy—at the expense of others (exploitation). You could go out and kill an animal, sell it or bring it home and cook it and eat it—again, at the expense of others (exploitation).

On the other hand you could get a job or build a business, perhaps with much more work and considerably less potential to become rich and powerful. And you could till the ground, plant a garden and care for it for a time and if all went well, harvest a crop of food. The people of this country did not willingly give up exploiting humans, and the people of this country have not shown signs they will willingly give up exploiting animals.

Many people justify the current treatment of animals by saying animals are inferior, they are not as intelligent and have no feelings. This was justification for slavery in early America. Keep in mind, as recently as 150 years ago, it was common knowledge that ‘women had limited mental capacity and could not be creative.’ And people in the medical community still adhere to the chilling notion that infants don’t suffer from pain ; watch a doctor perform a circumcision on an infant without anesthesia and see what you think.

One of the points in the articles I read had to do with whether animals are equal to humans? Whether animals are equal to humans depends on how you look at it; it depends on what ‘equal’ refers to. In the Declaration of Independence it’s stated that all men are created equal; all men have the right to life and to the pursuits of happiness. While this was being written, proclaiming the ideals of an ‘ideal’ nation, it wasn’t true to many, and this hasn’t changed. The men writing this document and making these claims for equality were the butt of jokes which originated in other countries regarding the abject hypocrisy of a people who claimed equality for all, while possessing slaves. The ones who are referred to as the ‘founding fathers’ were dead serious about being treated as equals by the British, even to the point of war and death, but did not sense the need to extend the same courtesy to others. Again, nothing has changed!

I wonder if some day there will be jokes about the people who claim to be humane and compassionate, but kill animals and then consume them. People will exclaim sadness when spotting a dead baby deer or condemn another for forcing a dog to fight or an elephant to perform and then stop at a restaurant and eat part of a cow or chicken that was brutally victimized. Some people will fight with another person to protect a wounded hawk or to protect the habitat of another animal and then go home and eat a pig. And there are some who will leave the room if an animal is being portrayed in a movie as being hurt and go to the kitchen and put a leg or rib cage from a lamb in the oven. There is a word for this type of contradiction in a person’s behavior!

‘They pity, and they eat the objects of their compassion! ~ Oliver Goldsmith, 1700’s

In exploring the equality of animals to humans you will find some interesting things. Animals have emotions, they show the effects of pain when hurt, they are conspicuously exuberant at times and obviously downhearted at other times and they learn from their experiences. We cannot know if their emotions are of the same intensity and meaning as ours, but does it make a difference in a meaningful way? We cannot know if any or all humans experience the same levels and meanings associated with their emotions, but does this make a difference?

As far as ‘equal’ goes, humans can do some things better than animals and animals can do some things better than humans. Think not? Try to arm wrestle a small chimp or try to beat the reflexes of a cat, try to detect a disease using only your nose. Animals are born into the world with little safety and many are immediately required to take care of themselves in every way. Some animals will defend their young at the risk of their own life and some animals, such as cows, will cry out all night when you take away their babies. And a lot of people know animals can be loyal beyond anything you can expect from the human species. Of course, if you were to test an animal to see if it can learn to solve crossword puzzles or simultaneous linear equations they may come up short. But take a pigeon for a long ride and release it, it will come back without the benefit of a map, compass or breadcrumbs—try that with a human!

Animals have lives similar to ours in many ways, but they are not the same. Because of the fact they are not the same as humans most people believe this makes them unequal with humans in the right to life? Is there real justification for this? Is there justification for using and abusing animals? Is there logical, reasonable justification for wearing and eating animals? Or, are there only the unsatisfactory, rationalizations humans make up to defend their actions? Actually, I have heard it said, ‘humans are rational beings—they can rationalize anything they do.’ We will always encounter people who take advantage when they have the power, but when their power is removed, when they are on the receiving end, they immediately beg for mercy.

All too recently it has been believed women are not equal to men and Chinese and Africans are not equal to Europeans. This is what was believed and many people suffered as a result of this belief; many people died as a result of this ‘truth.’ These myths were believed by many of our ancestors and they are still believed by many today; we are just a little more discrete; a little less blatant. Fortunately, I believe some people have ‘learned’ and believe these old ‘truths’ were incorrect and harmful to humans, just as some people believe the old ‘truths’ regarding animals are incorrect. My hope is these people can demonstrate the new truth they have in their minds, with the way they choose to live.

Humans seem to have a need to try to distinguish themselves from all others. Humans think they are better than others based on color, nationality, gender, intelligence, wealth, looks, length of fingernails, species…pretty much anything you can think of. And what this really means is the individual believes they deserve more; they are better than the rest. Or another way of saying it is the others are not equal to them—the others are different, therefore they do not have the same rights.

When people discuss whether animals are equal to humans it is about one thing, just as with slavery—it is about having control over the lives of others for the benefit of oneself—exploitation. Whether it is another color, gender, species or anything else it doesn’t matter. Just as long as it brings benefit to those who want it and are willing to sink low enough, no matter how grotesque, to obtain it. Interestingly, when an entire culture is willing to sink low enough to exploit others, the perception of the egregious behavior is mollified by the sheer number of participants. But the truth is evident in the extent of the damage done to everything and everyone. Like Bertrand Russell says,

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.”

It seems to me in the people who have been most affected by exploitation, blacks and women particularly, there would be increased sensitivity to all aspects of exploitation. But this doesn’t seem evident to me in the statistics I have seen. This indicates to me that humans do not abhor exploitation; they abhor the exploitation of themselves; their own nationality, their own gender, their own race and so on. Even then it is only because it may impact the individual. Humans don’t really care very much about the exploitation of others . . . any others. We care about ourselves!

It was stated in one of the newspaper comments that animals are just animals. Well yeah, this is what they are. Of course, I don’t mean it in the same way as the person who wrote it. They are horrifically animal like at times and they are very human like at times. But you can say the same thing about humans. The significant difference is the animals cannot choose how they will be—humans can! And animals cannot speak in their own defense—and most humans won’t. People can choose, but not enough do. Many just continue to do whatever they were taught as children, whatever is most comfortable. Sadly, most people use a level of thinking which is not rational when it comes to morality. They just do what makes them feel best, getting away with what they can, regardless of the consequences to anything else. It seems the human trend is to submit to desire rather than conscience.

Much of what people believe to be ‘truth’ in any particular culture is not necessarily based in fact or rational thinking; it is rooted in tradition, it is learned from family and has a huge emotional component. I have found, over many decades, it may be impossible to reason with anyone regarding anything which is learned in this way. This is why we are admonished regarding talking politics and religion in mixed company. Sports and diet can easily be added to this list also. And certainly, to discuss morality regarding animals is treacherous territory, just as was discussing the morality of slavery. President Lincoln, in one of his speeches, asked why it was, regarding slavery, they could not call a wrong thing wrong. He stated if slavery wasn’t wrong, nothing was wrong. I think an intelligent, compassionate individual can make the same claim regarding the exploitation of animals. We should ask the same question today, a century and a half later. Why can we not call a wrong thing wrong?

One of my favorite sayings comes from Thomas Paine ‘A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial illusion of being right . . . ’

People develop belief systems based on what they learn in the early years of their life. Anything learned during the early developmental stages may be very difficult to change, perhaps impossible for most people. And the enigma is whatever you learned to be ‘truth’ is the reference you use throughout your life to determine what is right and wrong. Question—how do you make right choices with incorrect information? It is a loop, and very difficult, nearly impossible to break out of—only a small percentage of people do. It reminds me of some experiments in which they put flying insects into a jar and cover it for awhile. When they remove the lid most of the insects stay inside. They are conditioned, so they continue to do the same thing even though they don’t have to. When I heard one speaker citing this type of experiment he commented that a few pioneers do escape, but most are captive to their own minds. They, like humans, have their reality defined for them and then they live with it, doesn’t matter if it is correct or not.

History reveals that the race, class, gender or species with the power will take advantage of all others in all cases. This is even a problem in a pure democracy in that the majority will always take advantage of the minority, unless checked through a system of protection. But this has been the way of life always. The abuse and use of people and animals for the pleasure of the more powerful has been the norm for the human species. It is all about who has the power at the time, and then who is willing to follow along, doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. What puzzles me is even when people are aware that what they believe and do may not be right, they tend not to face it if it may create discomfort for them. Those with the power to do so, prey on those who have less power—just look anywhere. And then those who are preyed on—prey on those they can. Sounds like I’m describing the animal kingdom; I’m not!

One person wrote in and responded, ‘Animals are just animals’! By what authority can anyone say this? The answer is ‘arbitrary authority’, arbitrary—human—authority! The same authority which is responsible for atrocities throughout history; the slaughter of Christians and Jews, genocide throughout the world, the suffocation of infants which aren’t boys, the testing of radioactive materials on unsuspecting citizens, the constant stream of lies we are told by governments and corporations—and the list goes on. Who gave the humans the right to do this? The answer is ‘humans’! Just as the new settlers on the North American continent in the seventeenth century gave themselves the right to say the Native Americans, Africans and Chinese were not equal to them. Just as men have said women are not equal to them. Why do they do this? Because they can—it’s just that simple.

The ruling class of people in all nations, including the United States, at all times believes themselves to be better people than the ruled. Just as the man gave himself the right to claim women are inferior to men; not rational, not creative and not strong; people give themselves the right to say animals are not equal and have no rights. Even in the leadership levels of society, the top government officials will refer to the working class Americans, as ‘them.’ We are not quite equal; they think they are superior—and—we keep voting for them.

On the surface most people need to believe the myths; it is necessary to try to justify the incorrect belief of superiority over others; people, animals and the earth. It is necessary so people can live with these warped morals. But, in my lifetime I have come to understand there are some people who feel we need to do better. But societal pressures and family are enough to keep most of them from doing what is right.

Another person once eloquently stated a very revealing truth about humans. He said, “Humans can reconcile themselves to any atrocity.”

If the realities of animal exploitation were to be judged openly and fairly, the support of this practice could be seriously reconsidered by many—especially those who are young enough to not have been brainwashed yet. But it is an integral part of our culture and our economy, as was slavery. A lot of people would surely not want things to change, as they know it would be less comfortable or less profitable for them.

The people of early America, the ancestors of many here today, did not stop slavery. Slavery was sacrificed to this nation’s war to preserve its union. If such a hideous institution as slavery was able to exist in a nation full of so-called religious, freedom-seeking people, how does ‘animal rights’ have any chance at all today? We are emotional beings and we like to be comfortable, and it seems as though it is easier to sacrifice integrity and compassion before comfort. For too many people, in their quest for comfort, the concepts of right and wrong are not as important as are the concepts of legal and acceptable.

Science has informed us the production and consumption of animals is destructive. It is destructive to the animals, the environment and to humans. Fact is at least half of the suffering and death of the American population is related to the production and consumption of animals. And much of environmental degradation is from the production of these animals.

Humans have an almost unalterable tendency to believe, without question, what they were taught as children. Later, these ‘truths’ become the basis from which most adults make their decisions. Everything, every bit of information that stimulates an individual’s nervous system, is then internally modified so it will fit into the individual’s established belief system. This helps me to understand why so many people cannot accept truth when it is presented to them, no matter how well it is supported. But, it makes me wonder how we will ever be able to know the truth when we are not taught it from the beginning, and most cannot overcome what we were taught.

The human species has always been on a roller coaster existence of abusing and being abused. It has been this way and it appears it is going to continue this way. Today we are a little more sophisticated in this country, but here and throughout the world terrible things are happening all the time. I just bring this up to point out we need to change and nothing important will change until we do. I do not believe the human species will ever be able to evolve past its dark tendencies; aggression, anger, conflict, fear, greed and selfishness, until we overcomes the belief we are better and more deserving than anyone or anything else. It is impossible for an individual to be truly compassionate and caring about some things while causing suffering and death to others.

We need to change to become the humans we should be. If we cannot understand and make the right decisions about things as simple and conspicuous as the subject matter here, we don’t have a chance with the complicated stuff.

I feel some sadness for anyone who believes animals are just animals—but even more so—I feel sorry for the animals!

I oppose the death penalty. But I don’t oppose it in principle as there are behaviors for which it seems some should be put to death. I do oppose it in practice though; for two reasons. First, there is the well known chance of error. We surely don’t want to punish an innocent person and even more don’t want to execute anyone who doesn’t deserve it. Second, even in the most ideal circumstance where there would be no chance of error, we should not use the death penalty. In a case in which everyone knows the accused is guilty, the accused admits it, there are no unanswered questions and the criminal is competent and completely responsible for his/her actions, there is a problem . . . and this problem may be insurmountable. It is the effect that implementing the death penalty has on the non-criminal members of society. So hypothetically, there could be circumstances in which I would say a person should be put to death. In principle I would admit it’s right, but in practice I could not support its implementation because of the damaging effects to those participating in the deed.

I want to preface this exploration by saying, I respect the fact that a person who has personally experienced the trauma of crime will have a view that others will not, and cannot, have. I am not trying to take away from or diminish the feelings of any victim of crime or any desire for retribution. I would just like to present some points for consideration as our society has and will continue to wrestle with the ethics of this matter. How we collectively deal with the death penalty has a direct bearing on people’s lives, both the ethical and the criminal in our society. And if it’s not obvious in my writing, I’m not trying to defend the properly convicted criminal. I am trying to defend the innocent—on both sides of the law. The bottom line being, wrong choices in this matter are disastrous. As it stands now, when errors are made, innocent lives may be ruined. And even if there were no errors in convicting and punishing criminals, innocent lives would still be damaged.

I am strongly convinced, based on justice, fairness and cost, we can reach and maintain the goal of the justice system without the death penalty; therefore without the risk of executing an innocent person and without burdening the good people in society with such an egregious task. Furthermore, eliminating capital punishment would eliminate the additional expense of billions of dollars as the conviction process is even more critical.

Maimonides said “It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent man to death.” I think we can take that one notch higher by not requiring the good citizens of our communities to participate in the death penalty process.

Most likely we all agree on one thing, the horrible crimes some people commit are beyond our capacity to comprehend. The thought of these revolt and sicken a normal person. Just hearing about them has scarred some of us for life. Consequently, to consider the elimination of the death penalty is asking a lot, from anyone. But this is one of those things we really need to get right.

Emotion plays a big part in our reaction to violent crime; as retribution does to our judgment of what should be done about it. To rationally examine such an emotional subject is difficult. To do this we must consider, detached from the emotional component of violent crime, the goal of the penal system. I hope to explore this subject with sufficient objectivity to determine if we are doing the right thing when executing another. In light of the fact, innocent fellow humans are convicted and executed; we must continue to address this flaw in our society until it is corrected. Lives depend on it!

This is a complex issue. In fact so much so that only recently are we able to begin to grasp the complexity. Even now in the 21^st century the factors affecting the commission of a crime and those affecting the proper resolution of a conviction are just barely on the radar screen. Once upon a time it was easy. If someone did something the majority, or those in power didn’t like . . . they were killed. In fact you could kill them any way you chose. As ‘fair’ punishment for crimes people have been: skinned, flayed, burned, boiled, drawn, pressed, drowned, eaten, beheaded . . . you get the idea. There seems no end to what humans will think up and inflict on others in the quest for justice, perhaps more to the point—retribution.

Also beyond my capacity to understand is the way people have historically acted about executions, and gruesome sights in general. Exactly what is being revealed about the minds of some people when you consider the ambiance created by complete strangers gathering to see someone executed? Or what should we think of those who choose to be and are executioners? It may be very revealing for psychologists to study some of these aspects of human nature.

It wasn’t until well into the Age of Reason that our attitudes regarding the death penalty started changing significantly. And it is only in the last few hundred years that the idea of long term incarceration in prison as punishment developed. Prior to this development, jails were more of a temporary holding area where people were detained until trial or execution. In those days not only was it easy, it was cheap. Exorbitant cost in the justice system is relatively new.

The changes in attitude in the last couple centuries toward criminals and punishment have realized improvements in the penal system. There is a lot to do yet, but we have climbed up from what appears to me to have been a cesspool of demented, superstitious, black-hearted pseudo-humans. Incidentally this string of adjectives isn’t describing the criminals, but those exacting horrible atrocities under the guise of justice, law and religion.

Today it costs a lot more to manage a death penalty homicide case than a non-death penalty case, and this is due to human diligence, within and without the system, trying to eliminate irredeemable errors. The proportionally greater cost for maintaining the death penalty, assuming the needs of the justice system may be met without it, affords sufficient justification for abolishing the death penalty. In researching this part of this subject it appears that 1 to 1.5 million dollars per execution is common, with some going much higher. A death penalty case contrasted with the cost of a LWOP (life without parole) case is as much as 70% more. With over 3200 people on death row in the U.S. this quickly becomes billions of dollars that could be put toward much better use. But this is strictly a financial consideration by which one could reasonably justify abolishing the death penalty. Since some people think that retribution is justifiable regardless of the exorbitant cost, I will explore the question from a moral perspective.

Some of the important questions I hope to answer in this essay are: What is justice in a case of criminal homicide? What does the notion of justice demand of us; and what does ethical propriety allow us? Once we identify the answers to these questions, we can answer the question this essay is concerned with:

Should we abolish the death penalty?

In my quest to find the ‘right’ answers to this question I have read other’s arguments. Some of these are well articulated defenses of the death penalty. They contain the arguments of deterrence, justice and retribution. I understand these terms and had the typical attitude toward the death penalty before I started thinking very much about this subject.

An article that I read most recently was by a judge and it was quite convincing on an emotional level. He gave specific instances of gruesome crimes in meticulous detail. No doubt this works on a lot of people. Unfortunately, it is all the emotion stimulating information many people need to be convinced, even on matters of such importance that errors may cost innocent people their lives. Fact is, this style of argumentation stirs my emotions, but it is most important to try to consider this objectively. His method of argumentation fell mostly on the persuasion end of the argumentation spectrum, its goal to convince the audience. But with persuasion, it doesn’t matter if there is truth or if it is good for humanity. In this mode of argumentation a person is successful when they have convinced their audience of their perspective—period.

Here’s some I thought inadvertently, articulated how much dominion emotion has in this arena. “The rule of law does not eliminate feelings of outrage, but does provide controlled channels for expressing such feelings. As the Supreme Court has recognized, society has withdrawn, both from the victim and the vigilante the enforcement of criminal laws, but [it] cannot erase from people’s consciousness the fundamental, natural yearning to see justice done—or even the urge for retribution.” The urge for retribution is emotional, very emotional. It is the emotion-driven desire that someone be punished for perceived wrong-doing. And it is because of this very strong emotional response that we must use our intellect to properly control our actions regarding the administration of justice. The second one. As Professor Walter Berns has explained: “In a country whose principles forbid it to preach, the criminal law is one of the few available institutions through which it can make a moral statement …. To be successful, what it says—and it makes this moral statement when it punishes—must be appropriate to the offense and, therefore, to what has been offended. If human life is to be held in awe, the law forbidding the taking of it must be held in awe; and the only way it can be made awful or awe inspiring is to entitle it to inflict the penalty of death. This one decries the judgment of the thinkers in this country who choose not to mix religion and law. It seems readily evident that we would not benefit from a Pentecostal government using biblical texts to discern right from wrong to administer justice. It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what the consequences of this could be.

There’s no doubt, if we make our choices from an emotional level we will have the death penalty. And from an emotional position it would then be easy to justify the most horrific techniques for killing violent criminals just as slowly as we can. But there is a problem with this notion; we have the ability to think rationally. And we need to continue to get better at it if we have any hopes of a better culture for ourselves and posterity.

My preferred method of argumentation is nearer the opposite end of the argumentation spectrum—truth seeking. The best goal is always to arrive at the truth. In this mode I am successful when I have tested my beliefs against relevant information. I am not trying to convince anyone . . . except myself. For this reason I encourage argumentation about life’s important issues; it forces me to evaluate my beliefs. I am glad to consider other ‘truths’ in the process of trying to find whatever is closest to the actual truth, and I invite others to do likewise.

The death penalty has been around since the early days. There is record of it from at least Draco’s time, around 621 BCE. Apparently Draco was an ardent fan of the death penalty and applied it to pretty much all crimes, hence the term draconian. Proponents will suggest that the death penalty has some credibility just because it has been around throughout history (appeal to tradition) and most people have supported it. But the fact that it has been around for a long time has absolutely no bearing on whether it is right or whether we should maintain it.

We have responsibility to the present as well as the future. Bad or delayed choices now surely hurt these generations, but will also have detrimental effects on those coming. So, what is our responsibility to justice?

There is a lot to get right in a criminal case, and a lot that can go wrong. In capital cases this is even more so. When considering justice various facets are deemed important: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence. Some of these are modern ideas (rehabilitation) and some ancient (retribution). The question before us is whether the death penalty is a legitimate choice for today’s population. So a major theme for this essay is ‘How do we best serve justice?” I want to consider this and more. There are facets of the justice system which aren’t accepted the same way they used to be e.g. retribution. And there are facets which just don’t seem to be considered at all e.g. what capital punishment does to the good people functioning as part of the system; employees, jurors, etc. In order to decide objectively whether the death penalty is right one must consider the goal of the justice system and the best way to accomplish that goal. Justice, by dictionary definition, must be considered from a moral perspective as well as a legal one. ‘Administration of the law; moral rightness.’ My goal, and my plan, is to cover enough of the subject matter to make my point—so I will not try to cover all aspects of justice or all of the facets of the death penalty.

In a death penalty case it must first be determined whether the suspect has committed the crime. And if so, it has to be decided to what degree the suspect would be responsible for his or her actions. Then the appropriate consequence of the crime would have to occur to satisfy the five facets mentioned previously: retribution, rehabilitation, restoration, incapacitation and deterrence, of meeting out justice.

Just as important, we need to consider what society needs to get out of this process. First, we want to know we’re doing the right thing. We also need to feel a sense of safety. And we need to know we’re improving the present and the future for those we want to protect. Then, we would want to get on with our lives.

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Some claim there are reasons for this: poverty, prejudice, ignorance, violent entertainment, consumerism, drugs, alcohol, diet and many more. Considering this, if we really want to improve, we will need to remedy the flaws in these conditions.

Each of these are important points in a just society. And as we consider whether the death penalty should be abolished, each point, being integral to the success of the process, bears on this question.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ACCUSED?

Properly determining a person’s innocence or guilt is paramount. If this can’t be done then any decisions based on this part of the process are suspect, in fact not legitimate. Anything that jeopardizes the integrity of this part of the criminal justice system renders it all ineffective. And there are plenty of obstacles to getting this part right:

• Mistaken eyewitness testimony
• Coerced verdicts, false concordance
• Inadequate legal representation
• Police and prosecutorial misconduct
• Perjured testimony
• Prejudice
• Suppression and/or misinterpretation of mitigating evidence
• Community/political pressure to solve a case

At this stage of the criminal justice process errors start costing innocent people their lives. The statistics indicate that the error rate is significant. And when you consider the possibility of executing an innocent person, one mistake is too much. There have been approximately 138 people released from prison since 1973 because of exonerating DNA evidence. This doesn’t bode well for the way people have been prosecuted in the past. This leaves us with another troubling fact—there are a lot of people in prison who can’t be helped because there is no biological evidence in their cases. It also forces us to ask, how many of the cases tried without biological evidence are incorrect? And . . . how many innocent people have died because of errors in the process? DNA tests will no doubt make the results of trials better, but cases which have biological evidence are the small minority.

I realize there is a dilemma here that has to be the source of indescribable frustration, anguish, and anger. That is, when not able to adequately prove guilt—having to release someone who may be guilty. This comes down to trashing the rights of society in favor of the rights of an individual. This is surely one of those ineffable situations—anguish and anger just don’t get it, but the philosophical position which seems to make the most sense is to support the rights of the individual. No reasonable human being wants an innocent person to suffer, so this must be done right.

In a study by Wells (1998) they examined the first 40 cases in which DNA exonerated wrongfully convicted people. Mistaken eyewitness identification played a major role in 90% of these cases. Ninety percent! That is almost every case in this particular sample. Interestingly, as far back as 1896 psychologist Albert Von Schrenk-Notzing claimed that a witness testifying about a crime would not be able to sufficiently distinguish between what they had seen and what had been reported in the press.

Today’s science admits of cognitive errors in the trial process. A study (cited in Loftus and Doyle, 1992) recorded verdicts in mock trials with two separate sets of jurors. They each heard evidence differing only in the presence, or not, of an eyewitness. With no eyewitness, 18% of jurors found guilty verdicts. With an eyewitness the guilty verdicts increased to 72%. From this example it is evident that jurors, and others, give unprecedented credibility to eyewitness accounts. And this is easy to understand when considering the circumstance. A witness, presumed to have pertinent knowledge and sworn to truth, responds to questions . . . albeit questions specifically designed to suit a particular purpose. Whether the line of questioning is designed to clear or designed to condemn the suspect—you can be sure the witness is being steered—just exactly where the questioner wants the witness, and the jurors, to go. Add to this the fact that people don’t naturally want the responsibility of making important decisions and you can be sure the outcome will be somewhat tainted—at least.

Psychologists have demonstrated that even educated people will knowingly answer incorrectly when it is apparent their (correct) response will be rejected in a particular situation. Experiments have shown intelligent people freely giving wrong answers when those before them gave the correct answers, but were told they were incorrect. This was only under the minimal pressure of university experiments, nothing like a criminal trial.

Is it possible to avoid bias when the suspect is accused of criminal activity by people, presumably interested in justice? Is it possible to avoid prejudice when the accused is from a different group: race, nationality or ethnicity? Once someone is charged with a crime can anyone avoid being prejudiced by that charge? It is plain the deck is somewhat stacked to begin with.

I should take a minute here to admit that if I were to have the unfortunate experience of losing someone to a violent crime I suspect I would vote for the death penalty and would want to be the executioner. But this doesn’t take anything away from the argument to abolish the death penalty. In those conditions my desire to slowly torture the criminal would be understandable. But I also suspect that if that were to happen I would, subject to strong emotions, have created my own terrible memories and the experience would have altered me in a way that would not be beneficial to me or society. I think it is reasonable to support this notion with fact that many come home from the military permanently damaged by what they have seen, and most importantly, according to psychologists, by what they have done. But the fact is I would be responding from an emotional place. This response wouldn’t even require thinking as I suspect it would take place at a level of mental processing which does not engage rational, controlled thought.

The fact that I would want to be the executioner is why we need to resolve the controversy over the death penalty. The situation is further complicated by the fact that some people have been scarred by violence and their perception of right and wrong is probably, likewise, scarred regarding decisions about punishment. And there are people making decisions about punishment who have not experienced the indescribable trauma that comes from being a victim. So how can we hope to ever reach a reasonable decision in how to manage this part of living in a world where awful things occur?

If we don’t believe a normal person is capable of beating an old person to death just for fun, then we have to admit, those who do so must be abnormal.

Once a person is convicted of a crime we must know whether the convicted individual was sufficiently, in the sense that a normal person would be, responsible for their action. Perhaps the consensus is that a criminal needs to die for what they did and we just don’t care about why. But if we do care about why, if we realize that it could be someone we care about being tried for a crime, then we need to find the correct answers.  

The general notion has been that everyone, except for the very obvious exceptions, is responsible for their choices. So what about those with abnormal intelligence or abnormal morality? Should they be held to the same standards as those considered normal (the majority)? Environment, genetics and free will are all variables influencing the problems we must overcome regarding crime, particularly violent crime.

When dealing with criminal behavior, societies have proceeded from the assumption that people are completely responsible for their actions and deserve to pay for their violations of law and morality and thereby, based their penal systems on this assumption. But science seems to be confirming what some have suggested, that some people are incapable of understanding and controlling their horrific behaviors. If this is true we must decide how to deal with those who don’t fit into a reasonable definition of culpable with regards to their actions.

To avoid any misunderstandings about what I am saying, my position is—I want criminals out of society. I am just arguing that we need to change how we deal with them. As more is learned about the factors affecting a person’s ability or inability to discern, or do right or wrong, it is evident the system needs considerable change. In the areas of genetics, environment and free will a lot is being discovered. But it may be a long time before anything definitive can be said about free will. Consequently, being aware that there is real possibility that extended knowledge into these areas will change how the penal system works, we should be convinced to be cautious and to choose the course least likely to produce the undesired result of punishing innocent people. This is certainly our responsibility to the accused. 

According to the experts genetics and environment are crucial in the proper development of a child’s brain and personality. Genetics go so far, then, the environment works to shape the child’s mind. It is believed that genetic influence reduces some people’s ability to control their emotions and their behaviors. And studies also seem to prove that what a child sees and hears and learns to believe, will have an effect on their decisions later in life. Weak family bonds, as well as financial instability, abuse and neglect are correlated with the development of aggressive and criminal tendencies. Proper environment is important for a child to develop into a normal adult.

Using four separate measures of antisocial behavior, including convictions for violent crime, the research team found that each measure was significantly increased in the group that had both low MAOA activity and a history of severe maltreatment. In contrast, for participants with high levels of MAOA, no significant increase was found in any of the antisocial measures, even when they had experienced the same level of maltreatment. The overall impact of this gene-environment interaction can be judged from the fact that the 12 percent of the cohort that had both low MAOA and maltreatment accounted for 44 percent of the cohort’s convictions for violent crime. Looked at somewhat differently, 85 percent of the males with both risk factors developed some form of antisocial behavior. ~Psychiatry Serv 56:25-27, January 2005
© 2005 American Psychiatric Association

From this research it is obvious that genetics and environment are important components in any argument about punishment. This notion has received attention from thinkers in history at least as far back as Aristotle, but seems to have had little impact on any penal system prior to the modern era. In fact it is only recently that the Supreme Court has taken action that provides some protection for the retarded.

No person shall be convicted, sentenced, or otherwise punished for any crime committed while suffering from a physical or mental disease, disorder or defect such that the disease, disorder or defect prevented that person from knowing the nature of the criminal act or that it was wrong.

Thus, the court said, the objectives of capital punishment – deterring murder and exacting retribution for it – do not apply to persons of well-below-average measured intelligence.

Although the notion of free will has been considered since ancient times it is only just becoming amenable to the scientific method—so even science is working on it. As our sciences improve we will be better able to answer such questions. But in the meantime we still need to avoid making irrevocable mistakes.

In criminal law it is presumed that behavior is a consequence of free will. For this reason it is, as a general rule, believed that severe punishment can deter crime.

With the modern day developments in neuroscience the concept of free will and responsibility for one’s actions have become real variables in the discussion about the death penalty, and punishment in general. It’s only within the last generation that states began to make laws prohibiting the execution of retarded people. Currently the decision on whether a person is retarded is based on I.Q. tests. Evidently it has been decided that a person’s ability to discern right from wrong is proportional to their ability to figure out puzzles in a test. It does raise a question though. Are there factors which adversely affect a person’s moral fitness without affecting their intelligence? There are terms in this argument which may not be familiar, such as moral retardation or moral imbecile, which figure prominently in what is important to this part of our understanding of what’s going on. Is it possible for a person to be intellectually normal and morally retarded? If so testing for intelligence alone isn’t sufficient.

On her view, an agent acts freely only if he had the ability to choose the True and the Good. For an agent who does so choose, the requisite ability is automatically implied. But those who reject the Good choose freely only if they could have acted differently. ~ Susan Wolf 1990

As I stated it may be a long time yet before the notion of free will is understood and we are able to determine whether or not a person acted of their own volition. To compare another’s actions to our own to determine if they are responsible for what they have done is not sufficient. Admittedly, this may have been the only metric available in the past; but now it is understood by science that there are things going on at the level of the mind which dictate different realities for some than for the ‘majority.’ The fact is another person may not understand that torturing someone is wrong or that it is hurtful. Or they may know it is wrong intellectually, but not know it is wrong emotionally. And tests have shown that when brain scans show specific activity for empathy in a normal person, the same test may reveal deficient activity in the brain of a convicted criminal. It seems apparent that the facts reveal an important point; some people may not get as much feedback from their brain regarding incorrect behavior as an animal may get. If some people are devoid of relevant brain functions how can we punish them? Perhaps they don’t know and can’t know—just as a shark can’t know. They absolutely need to be removed from society—permanently, but how can we justify making their life miserable, let alone killing them? This would seem to be the reasonable, rational position for a sophisticated society to take—until we know for sure.

WHAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SOCIETY?

The reality is that we have to deal with crime and criminals. But while dealing with this reality it is our responsibility to protect the good citizens of our communities as much as possible. So throughout the process of apprehending, convicting and punishing criminals we need a process that gives us a high level of assurance we have done what was needed to eliminate the threat to society and deter future crime. And we need to do this without damaging the good citizens of our communities so we can live with a clear conscience.

In all of the cases in which the condemned is to be punished for a crime, someone must apply the punishment. In our society those persons are not the people who are directly affected by the crime. In fact the law does everything it can to keep people who have a direct emotional attachment to the crime uninvolved. So people who are not affected directly by the crime make the decisions and apply the punishment. Ultimately, innocent people are drawn into the world and behaviors of criminals; and paradoxically, if you don’t go willingly, you may find yourself in contempt . . . then prosecuted—as a criminal!

What do these experiences do to us? What happens to a juror when they stand up in court and set the condemned on the path to their execution? What happens to an individual when they slip a noose over another’s head and pull the lever or push a button to deliver a dose of poison or thousands of volts of electricity? Some can’t forget the smell of burning flesh or the sounds of death. Do these individuals deserve this for some reason? What happens in the minds of police officers who line up five in a row and, from 25 feet away, shoot a condemned person who is securely strapped in a chair? I suspect something happens.

It’s long been accepted that military personnel returning from battle have been negatively altered by the experience of killing and seeing others killed—in fact, to the point that they take their own lives. There is every reason to suspect that normal people required to condemn others to death, and for some, to actually kill them, there is going to be a change—for the worse.

Psychologists offer an explanation for how humans try to deal with this.

The gravest moral predicament if faced by executioners who have to kill. Unless they suspend moral self-sanction for the intentional taking of a human life they would be burdened by a troublesome legacy. Zimbardo, Bandura and Osofsky examined, in three penitentiaries, the pattern of moral disengagement in three subgroups of prison personnel. Prison guards who had no involvement in the execution process exhibited little moral disengagement. Members of the execution team enlisted all the modes of moral disengagement.

‘People ordinarily refrain from behaving in ways that violate their core moral standards because such conduct will bring self-censure. In some institutional role functions, such as military combat and state executions, the taking of human life presents a grave moral predicament. Moral sanctions do not come into play unless activated, and there are a variety of psychosocial mechanisms by which such sanctions can be selectively disengaged from lethal conduct. Psychological mechanisms which allow us to suspend moral sanctions include; biblical imperatives, the notion of deterrence and protecting society. Euphemistic language sanitizes taking life as simply a legal penalty and comparison renders execution merciful when contrasted with heinous crimes.’ ~From Moral Disengagements in Executions, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law.

I think we have to ask where the immorality is in the death penalty. Is it in putting criminals to death—or is it in requiring non-criminals to participate in the death penalty process? Perhaps both, but for me it is more important to consider the implications to the innocent people in our society. From the language used in the previous statements about moral disengagement it becomes evident that capital punishment is though by some  to be immoral.

If in fact we are scarred by interacting with the violent criminal element in our society we must curtail this activity. Do we want bad people out of society? Yes! Do we want the memories and nightmares associated with killing someone? No! At least I don’t. So the only reasonable answer seems to be to remove the violent criminal from society permanently—without behaving in the way they do. Psychologists have determined that our behaviors modify our attitudes just as our attitudes modify our behaviors. So, if we accept this we don’t want to behave violently as we will be inclined then to think violently.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “All crime is a kind of disease and should be treated as such.” Crime is a cancer. Increasingly research points to brain disorders in offenders. For instance, Dr. Stuart Yudofsky, Chairman, Department of Psychiatry, Baylor College of Medicine writes, “We view people who are violent in the same way we used to view people who were mentally ill. In the old days, schizophrenics, manic-depressives and others were thought to be bad people who had to be punished. When we reconceptualize violence as involving the brain, then we are really going to start making progress. The brain is left out of the whole paradigm in the criminal justice system. We got nowhere punishing mentally ill people and we’re getting nowhere with our population of criminals. We’re just building more prisons.”

DOES SOCIETY HAVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OCCURRENCE OF CRIME?

Finally, we have to ask if society has any responsibility for the behaviors of these criminals—and if so what do we need to change. The United States is at the top of the list for homicides in the world. Here is a sampling of some of the many factors that when combined can lead to criminal behavior: poverty, lack of education, genetic deficiencies, the desire for attention and recognition, a society that stresses consumerism and materialism, lack of values, sense of entitlement, lack of empathy and conscience, negative role models, availability of drugs and handguns, childhood neglect and abuse, unemployment, thrill-seeking to numb the pain caused by hopelessness, alienation, single parent home, neurochemical imbalances, physical and head injuries, toxic environment, pesticides in food, heavy metals and bacteria in water, food allergies and intolerances, birth trauma, mental illness, low I.Q., hormonal problems, peer pressure, victim of bullying, mineral and vitamin deficiencies, maternal smoking and drinking, alcohol and drug abuse, paranoia, premature birth, memory and behavior problems, learning disabilities, attention deficits, poor language skills, compulsions, speech and vision problems. If these factors can contribute to crime how many of them can we change? How many should we change? There is little doubt, we have a lot to do, because these are all factors we have to take responsibility for. To add to this list I should mention violent media and in particular violent games.  

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) seldom results in violent criminal acts, and US Bureau of Justice Statistics research indicates that veterans, including Vietnam veterans, are statistically less likely to be incarcerated than a nonveteran of the same age. The key safeguard in this process appears to be the deeply ingrained discipline which the soldier internalizes with military training. However, with the advent of interactive “point-and-shoot” arcade and video games there is significant concern that society is aping military conditioning, but without the vital safeguard of discipline. There is strong evidence to indicate that the indiscriminate civilian application of combat conditioning techniques as entertainment may be a key factor in worldwide, skyrocketing violent crime rates, including a sevenfold increase in per capita aggravated assaults in America since 1956. Thus, the psychological effects of combat can increasingly be observed on the streets of nations around the world.

In conclusion, this subject is considerably more nuanced and complex than I imagined when I started this essay. And it is obvious that today’s sciences dealing with the mind are insufficient to answer some of the questions which need to be answered, but our knowledge is significantly improved in the last century. Hopefully some day we will have the answers and the wisdom to effect meaningful change. But there is no doubt that we could make vast improvements with the knowledge we have now, if we want to.

I know I haven’t touched on all the important questions, to do so would fill a book. But for the purpose of determining and expressing my position on this matter I think I have broached some of the more obvious points to consider.

Again, I think it is important to reiterate, our lack of change or lack of ability to implement the right solutions will continue to cost people too much—both those falsely accused and those required to participate in an unnecessary part of the legal  system.

An actual headline from 21^st century American news:

“Wisconsin father kills daughter by praying instead of seeking medical help”.

Killed by prayer? Think about this ‘father kills daughter by praying’. I’m quite sure this isn’t even possible, but apparently there are some who think this is within the domain of reality. Not only is this not possible, it isn’t even close to what happened in this particular case. Those slandered by this misrepresentation of possible truths were surely harmed, and so are the rest of us. It should bother us that this could be written in our modern country and displayed in the media for others to read. A headline convicting people who hadn’t even been in court by this time. This is beyond my ability to understand; I can only shake my head in disbelief. But this should worry us—it should worry all of us—because it means that any of us can be slandered in this way. Consider what this kind of language would do to anyone connected with the ensuing trial. This causes one to wonder:

Can anyone get a fair trial in such cases as this?

Historians tell us of people in the old world being prosecuted and executed, for visiting death and destruction on their neighbors with the Evil Eye. But I thought the world’s most powerful, most enlightened nation was centuries removed from such primitive thoughts. When considering this headline only casually, you get an immediate sense of the mentality one can be confronted with in such important matters as this and, in this case, what a young girl’s parents were likely to have been hobbled with as the judicial process played out in their case.

From what I’ve read of this case, they may have been seriously underserved by the justice system. And until we improve significantly, any similar case will be handicapped in the quest for fair and unbiased judgments. My goal with this essay is to support this premise. To be clear, I am not speaking for these parents in particular; I am speaking for our right to be safe from improper prosecution.

Serious critical thinking is required to get past the initial rush of emotions which inhibit many from being able to make a rational judgment about what happened. To be sure, I am saddened because of the possibility this young girl suffered at all. But I am also saddened for the parent’s loss. Finally, I am saddened for our loss if we can’t collectively figure out how to cope with such complex and emotional situations. So here’s the story as I understand it.

This story starts with a young girl becoming ill. Her parents could have done what many parents do at the first sign of distress and turned their child over to a doctor. On the other hand the parents could have done what many parents do; care for their daughter in their home. So this is what they did! But the young girl’s condition worsened. It was at this point that they turned their child over to their god; as they believed God heals. Were they wrong? Did they legally and morally have a choice? There was a failure here. Was what they did a sign of failed parenting or failed culture? Considering the facts of the case, legal and ethical, it appears that what they did made sense, not that I would do the same . . . but I’m not motivated by the same beliefs. And this is an important distinction to keep in mind while considering what families do in such situations, and why. Her parents called family and friends because her condition worsened, and they joined together and prayed because this is what they believed would be the best thing they could do for her.

The people who knew them spoke highly of the family, but just couldn’t get past their own beliefs that these parents made the wrong choice.

“Parents chose to pray rather than get medical help for sick child.”

This is the type quote you find in the articles about this family and other families like them. Apparently a lot of people don’t understand what it is like to believe in a miracle performing god. But this is ‘the’ key to understanding human behaviors which some seem to think are bizarre. This story is about a family of Christians, living in a Christian country, practicing Christianity and following the dictates of the Bible. The Bible; the first English translations from the 14^th century, is the most widely sold book in the world. Some forms of religion have been around for millennia, with evidence of rituals going back hundreds of thousands of years. We’re not particularly dealing with crackpots here; we’re dealing with humans which have a different, or stronger, connection to some of humanity’s oldest beliefs. If you can’t open your mind to this you won’t be able to understand what is really happening.

Comments in the papers said the parents chose to keep their child home and pray—instead of taking her to a doctor. This is also inaccurate. To choose is to pick one instead of another. But if going to a hospital is not a realistic prospect in a person’s mind, there is no choice to be made. In such cases the parents may only have one reality—and it requires no choice. This may be easier for some to accept by considering the opposite view. Consider a parent which is a firm believer of medical science and an atheist. If their child gets sick it is most likely that praying will not happen. If this person ‘really’ believes there is no supernatural help for the child praying is not considered; no prospect. If there is but a single path to follow—there is no choice. In this case one does not choose what to do—one does what is believed to be right.

In American culture were these parents wrong?

When the media found out the young girl died in her parent’s home the frailty of human sensibilities became evident again. From the early reports one easily understood; rationality and compassion weren’t going to play a big part in this community while the outcome of this event unfolded. These parents were going to pay for their indiscretion!

Simply trying to avoid sending the wrong signals here; I’m not advocating for or against religion. I’m looking for a rational way to explain the irrational behaviors we exhibit in such instances as this one. For this commentary I, respectfully, refer to the god of the Christians as God because this is common in the Christian community in this country. As an atheist I am not defending religion, I’m defending the right of Christians to do what Christians should based on their particular creed as long as it doesn’t violate any rights or laws. In this case it may be that what these parents did was right, according to their creed and the law.

The facts are simple, the questions obvious, the answers difficult—but forthcoming to rational inquiry. I think most rational people, particularly parents, will agree ‘normal’ parents should have the right to raise their children the way they believe is best. Furthermore, as an evolving society we have learned to respect the rights of children; this has not always been so. And very important in this case; this country boasts the right to freedom of religion and in fact . . . guarantees it. This case is easy to misunderstand and easy to misrepresent. So for everyone’s sake, we need to be open-minded and rational as we consider it. Unfortunately, from what I’ve read about this case and the personal comments from others, most people aren’t considering the complexity of it, but as usual, are making judgments based on their emotion laden feelings—and not much more!

This case brings head to head religion and science. It pits the rights of the parents against the rights of society in determining the rights of children. It warrants that we consider our fitness to make such important decisions and our ability to judge others for theirs. And, it shines a light into a murky area—the Christian’s belief about God when applied to real life, as is revealed in the sharp contrast between Christian behaviors. Finally, the facts in this case point to the guilty! But here’s where it gets tough. We have to consider the facts and the effects of human nature and culture if we want to get anywhere near an informed, intelligent understanding of the truth in this case. We must consider only the factors which are truly relevant in such a serious case, not our feelings. Some religious, and some non-religious, have said the parents must be prosecuted and others claim the choice belonged to the parents.

Sadly, the young girl died and for their part in this the parents have been prosecuted. This result brings to the fore a simple truth—it seems most people think these parents deserved to be punished for their actions. Did they? Were these parents wrong; or did they have the right to do what they did? What if this was the young girl’s choice as well; and what is society’s business in this anyway?

These Wisconsin  statutes help shed some light on a parent’s prerogative in such cases.

948.03 (6) TREATMENT THROUGH PRAYER. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.
448.03 (6) PRACTICE OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science. A person who elects Christian Science treatment in lieu of medical or surgical treatment for the cure of disease may not be compelled to submit to medical or surgical treatment.

Nobody, other than the parents, can know the motivation for their actions, but from what I’ve read it appears the parents ‘really’ believed God would provide for their family, but they lost their daughter! And if that’s not enough, they had to face prosecution and jail. A very important fact in this case is, to those who do believe, the sole factor, the only factor which would determine whether this girl would live or die, was the will of God—regardless of whether she was being treated by doctors or being prayed for by family. There is no doubt; the Bible instructs believers to pray for healing. (James 5; 14, 15) So if the parents were wrong . . . then  Christianity is wrong!

As this country formed and then flourished those before us decided it was important to ensure freedom of religion; so they did. Now it seems there are people who want to take this away. But on the other side of the coin, there are people who will be happy to create laws forcing religion on everyone, and some of these people are lawmakers. It makes sense to me that the scientific faction in this debacle would lean toward invalidating religion, as would I, but when self-proclaimed religious prosecute the religious, it’s time for serious reflection.

So, we’re a blend of religion-based, technology-enthusiasts, trying to figure out which way is up. I’m atheist, but I came from a religious family and I was a Christian at one time. I’m also from one of the generations whose parents grew up using kerosene to soak a cut or whose neighbors grew up using spider webs to wrap a laceration; the time just before the medicine we know exploded onto the scene. Point being; the medicine we know is a new phenomenon. The religion we and our ancestors have all depended on . . . it’s been around for millennia.

If you were born in the first half of the 20^th century you may easily think science is our salvation; it will save us from all our shortcomings and recklessness. Within the current population there are some who experienced this recent evolution of modern medicine and the progress of the modern medical model. To some this would have seemed nearly miraculous because of what it was like before, but my suspicion is it will be considered post stone-age medicine in the not-too-distant future. There are good aspects of technology and medical institutions, but in historical fact; they were bleeding people not too long ago. And we know that millions die each year while in medical care and because of medical care, but probably just as many die while being prayed for. So there are pros and cons on each side; or so it would seem. Unfortunately people get hurt, even die–on both sides. So neither philosophy seems to be good enough.

In a society which claims to believe in God and miracles, and teaches their children to do so, is a parent praying for their child any less responsible than a parent taking their child to a medical institution? If my grandparents had diabetes, their parents wouldn’t even have had the choice to take them for insulin treatment. As recently as the early 1900’s diabetic children lay comatose in hospital wards while their parents watched them slowly die. Furthermore the use of antibiotics wasn’t wide spread even in my mother’s day. Would praying for your child at those times have been acceptable? Would those who didn’t pray feel the scorn of their neighbors and be prosecuted for doing nothing for their children?

So how do we know which is right, how can we rationally choose the best for our children? During the time I professed to be a Christian I firmly believed God could, and would, take care of my family. During that time I had more faith in prayer than medicine so I understand how powerful faith can seem. We do irrational things; in fact little of what we do is based on rational thinking. The majority of the time we follow the dictates of our predecessors; we do what we were taught and, for the most part, we repeat what we did yesterday.

The stats I looked up indicate approximately 90% of the population claims to be Christian. In this same 2003 poll 93% of the professed Christians claimed to believe in miracles. Statistics like these make the following example one of the unexplainable paradoxes in American culture. By the statistics this is a predominately Christian country but Christianity can’t be taught in schools. If you want to be successful running for government office you’d better claim to be Christian. When you talk to someone who claims to be Christian they will tell you God is the creator, the giver of life, the all powerful healer. Surely these Christians will pray if they suspect they are ill, but just as surely—it will be on the way to the doctor for diagnosis and treatment. The parents of this girl chose to believe the Bible; to trust God to give or take–as only God can. Please notice, I’m identifying a vast disparity in the way Christians live their faith. Does this make the act of obeying God’s instruction in the Bible wrong? This should be a tough question for a population of over 80% miracle believing Christians.

Presumably the parents were tried by a group of their peers. If the jury selection was legitimate and the profile of the jury representative of society, then based on the statistics shown, nine out of ten people on an average jury would be people claiming to believe in God, and most of those believing in miracles. This says something very important:

Miracle believing Christians condemned the Christian parents for actively believing in a miracle performing God.

Most children are enculturated with the concept of God, but also learn that science and medicine will provide the important remedies. Still, in public, most claim to be miracle believing children of God. Many claim our morals are based in religion and will fight to defend the inscription on our currency claiming ‘In God We Trust.’ And many take the same stand to justify ‘One Nation Under God’ in the pledge. But, when parents really expected God, which most claim to believe in, to take care of their family, they not only lost their daughter—they were persecuted by a predominately Christian society.

There are people trying to use this incident to forge new laws which will dictate to all parents when they must take their children to medical institutions. This should truly scare all clear thinking individuals. I did an online search and found that in the last 25 years approximately 300 children in the U.S. have died of diabetes while their parents chose not to take them to a hospital; this is around 12 a year. I am not making light of this loss, but according to the statistics it’s clear that diabetes claims a lot of lives of those in medical care as well. The CDC reports that in 2007 diabetes was the cause, or contributing cause, in approximately 300,000 deaths in the U.S. (www.cdc.gov/diabetes . . .)

From what I have seen of religion and medicine in the last sixty years, both leave humanity suffering and hurting too much of the time. This case seems to have brought to the surface a blatant disparity in American culture. When a child dies in the care of a physician the parents and doctors are blameless, even consoled. When a child dies in the care of the ‘omnipotent’ God, who everyone claims to believe is the creator of life, the parents are branded as unfit and are persecuted and imprisoned for being so evil and foolish as to believe the word of God.

So who can we blame for this fiasco? Well, if we can believe the statistics from the poll—almost everyone.

The guilty party is . . . society!

Is this not a country in which 90% (2003) of the citizens claim to be Christian? Doesn’t the population of this country claim to believe in miracles? Aren’t there churches everywhere you go? Are you not the oddball if you’re atheist? Do the math!  But, it’s way easier to just blame a couple parents now and then, rather than society! Almost an entire society claims to believe in God but prosecutes people for demonstrating they believe in God and God’s word—the Bible. The only rational conclusion is this behavior is not rational! Is society at fault? No doubt about it!

When a society’s culture influences its population to believe the tenets of religion and people do just that; isn’t it wrong to blame them for doing what they were taught? When a child develops diabetes in a society which spends billions teaching children and parents to indulge in a junk food diet, shouldn’t there be blame assigned to those responsible for the plight of the sick children? When a child becomes obese on a diet which is sure to produce obesity, shouldn’t we blame somebody? Should we punish the child for doing what it was taught, or would it make more sense to punish the parents for teaching the child to eat incorrectly? And might it make even more sense to punish those in the industry which mass produces and ferociously markets the junk food? But maybe we can’t blame anybody, or maybe we need to blame everybody. But then, how could we call this—civilization?

The easy way out of this conundrum is to just blame a couple people, like the young girl’s parents. It happens that when we make someone else appear to be wrong—it has the desirable affect of making the rest of us appear to be right! Whether we are or not!

The parents of this young girl, if they are typical of the majority, learned about God starting in childhood. It usually starts at home, and then people hear about it and read about it throughout their lives. They could hear about it from those in government and may have been required to swear an oath on a Bible somewhere along the way. They would learn about it in church and from relatives and friends. They certainly could have heard about God through TV and radio—all day long! Bottom line folks, these people are nothing more or less than the product of their culture. Just give them some apple pie, a cup of coffee and turn on the TV after church on Sunday and you have—Americans. If they were wrong—American culture is wrong!

In the midst of this situation emerges a paradox; most people claim to believe in God, most people teach their children about God—then most people condemned these parents for putting God before Man. There’s no way to rationally explain this. At least I can’t figure it out! Our society seems to halfheartedly support two philosophies, which can’t help but lead to the very point to which this case took this family and society—pseudo-justice. This was so wrong it’s hard to imagine such dichotomy existing in an intelligent species! Generation after generation society perpetuates the environment in which this happened and will happen again. It’s ambiguous and convoluted, it’s irrational and unexplainable—and it stays this way. Then periodically, someone suffers for it.

I’m atheist. But I claim these parents acted correctly when judged according to Christian beliefs, American culture and the laws in their community. After the fact, it’s easy to say their daughter would probably have been better off at the hospital, and I agree with this. But based on the preceding statistics, we don’t really know. While on the other hand, if I were a Christian, and I was at one time, I would claim ‘it was God’s will this girl died’ and would claim to be happy she is with God, or soon will be.

As a society we need to either accept religious freedom or not. If it’s a religious country and if it’s predominately Christian and still uses the King James Bible as a guide, then prayer should be legitimate. If it’s not legitimate to pray for God’s care then there’s only one rational solution for our society—get rid of religion. That’s it, a rational choice! This probably sounds ridiculous to the majority, but if you’re a Bible reader you know how God feels about ‘lukewarm Christians’ anyway (Rev. 3:16). I have to say, the aphorism in this verse is one instance in which I agree with the Bible.

The outcome of the trial was the parents were sentenced to 10 years probation with a requirement they serve one month a year in jail for the first six years. They were to do some community service and they are supposed to take their other children in for regular checkups. In sentencing the parents this way the judge said he wanted them to spend one month a year in jail so they could contemplate the lesson God is trying to teach them.

I read an article titled “Why I Farm” in the Mother Earth February 2007 edition. In his article Bryan Welch explains his animals are his friends and they live wonderful lives on his farm in the spring, and in the fall he kills his friends and eats them. As for me, I much prefer the morals of George Bernard Shaw who says,

“Animals are my friends and I don’t eat my friends.”

Later I read a section in the Mother Earth June 2007 edition titled “Is it kinder to not eat meat?” In this section one of the readers of  Welch’s article states that after not eating animals for some time he decided, but with questions, to resume eating animals. He went on to praise Welch for his wonderful article in which he especially liked the phrase, ‘caring but not sentimental,’ regarding those who raise animals for their flesh. It’s a good thing there are leaders for followers to follow.

Another reader stated  Welch’s attempt to justify his actions on spiritual grounds defies all logic. In my opinion, trying to understand or explain the things humans believe and do logically isn’t the best strategy. Welch responds to her letter and suggests her choice to not kill animals is admirable, but reminds her that creatures die even when we grow food. He points out animals die because of plowing fields and planting food. This, says Welch, deprives many animals of their homes and furthermore deprives many more animals of being born because their would-be parents have been displaced by fields of food. HUH? What peculiar thinking. Ten billion animals are slaughtered in the United States each year. I wonder if billions of animals are run over by tractors in the fields, perhaps millions, well—maybe thousands. It is obvious to a thinker that there is no comparison in the fields and the slaughter houses.

He also points out people ask him how he can eat his own animals. This keenly illustrates that it’s common for people to think there’s a difference in eating animals and killing them. In this culture people have managed to convince themselves the bad person is the one who does the killing and the ones who buy them in plastic wrap and eat them are guilt free. This is not unlike the slave owners who despised the slave traders for what they did.

Finally he poses a question asking if his lifestyle choice is ‘more or less egregious’ than the vegan lifestyle choice. Let me think about this—in the fall he finds his friends, slits their throats, peels off their skin and eats them.

For some reason Welch decided to write and publish his article on his lifestyle; and at least one person was encouraged to go back to eating animals–although he indicated he is still not sure it is right for him. I thought it only reasonable to elaborate on the opposite perspective; the perspective which is rooted in the ideal that we don’t have the self-given right to exploit other living creatures. A superior morality is based on ethics which are not human-centric, but rights-centric. This ethic allows us to recognize animals have lives, they have emotions, they raise families and they are our companions on this planet. It allows us to understand that although animals are not the same as us they have the same right to their proper life. Just ask a serious pet owner, vegetarian or meat eater, what they think about their pet. You will usually find they will identify and describe a life similar to ours. In fact if you didn’t know you may find it impossible to differentiate between a story about an animal and a story about a human. I chose not to eat animals in my first year of adulthood. I don’t contribute to the farming of animals because for me…it’s wrong; and it’s indefensible, no matter how many people say it’s right.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” ~Thomas Paine.

In this commentary I would like to elaborate on the reasons I think are most important.

Ethics: The first is ‘morals.’ I choose not to take advantage of others. Of all the species on this planet we are the only ones able to choose; and with this privilege is the responsibility to make a rational choice. To me it comes down to a single virtue and a single rule which can only exist in humans—but this virtue is not sufficiently evident in most humans, and seems to be missing in some. Humankind must embrace this virtue and learn to live by this single rule if our species is ever to achieve its potential. And if this ever happens there would be no corruption, no killing and no poverty and we won’t need government, the police or the military. The virtue I speak of is ‘fairness,’ and the rule is, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ People complain if anyone bigger, stronger or smarter takes advantage of them, but the same people don’t seem to hesitate to pick on those weaker than they.

“For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.” ~Pythagoras.

If Pythagoras was right I guess some people aren’t going to know real love and joy.

Health: The second reason is for better health.  It’s common knowledge the consumption of animal products is a significant contributor to disease and death. Heart failure, stroke and cancer, the major causes of death in this country, are related to people eating animals. And it is extremely common to read in books regarding children’s health, that a major cause of ear infection and allergy are dairy products. I have read most of the antibiotics used in this country are used on animals, and we are approaching a serious crisis because many bacteria have developed antibiotic resistance; if a family member gets an infection which could be life threatening, the chance of fighting it with antibiotics is diminishing. The medical community reports indicate many thousands of people die from antibiotic-resistant infections. Animals carry disease causing organisms which cause sickness and death in the human population. Tens of millions of people become ill and thousands die due to consumption of foods contaminated because of the animal industry. As I am writing this many tons of contaminated animal products are being recalled—again; and as these animal products are being returned through the back door people are walking in the front door to buy more to feed their children.

Environment: The third reason would be in favor of a better environment for our children. The production of animals for consumption is damaging the environment; it’s polluting the air, the water and the land. Universities are researching some of these problems, such as the high concentrations of manure particles in the air getting into the lungs and then the blood stream. This can cause adverse reactions in humans; coincidentally problems with asthma have increased in epidemic proportion. Land is being ruined and waterways are being polluted with runoff from untreated manure. There are mountains of manure spread out across the country, but if one person was caught dumping solid waste from humans on the ground, they would be prosecuted. Animals produce much more waste than humans and it is more toxic to the environment. Statistics from EPA indicate over 70% of the rivers are polluted beyond safe levels. A recent tragedy with spinach contamination was reported to be the result of animal runoff getting to the fields where the food was growing. If you look at some of the large feedlots you will plainly see why there are such problems, but most people don’t see these.

“Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.” ~Albert Schweitzer.

Animal production is also very inefficient. It is common to hear comparisons like sixteen times more land is required to produce a pound of beef than a pound of grain. This wastes a lot of land and water which is bad news when you hear talk of critical water shortages by the years 2020-2025. Large corporations are already trying to gain control of water supplies, and it’s not so they can properly manage it to the best interest of the population.

Humanity: The fourth reason is for the sake of improving humanity. My personal belief is humankind will never evolve to its potential until we can choose to stop exploiting. Humans always have and apparently will continue to exploit humans, animals and everything else possible. Personally, I suggest to anyone who would like to live in a world without war, violence, corruption, fear, poverty, sickness and exploitation to consider whether participating in the constant violence perpetuated against the animal kingdom and the environment is the right course to follow. People are taught the contradictory behavior of claiming to be compassionate and at the same time abusing the animal kingdom. It seems this would cause a somewhat  sociopathic perception to be able to live with such dichotomy.

“The highest realms of thought are impossible to reach without first attaining an understanding of compassion.” ~Socrates (470- 399 BCE) Philosopher and Teacher.

I know a lot of people aren’t fully aware of what happens in the process of bringing animal products to the plate, and to what extent, but it is cruel, wasteful, polluting, inefficient, dangerous and degrading. Our culture teaches children to be nice to animals, then to kill animals and eat them. Is that conflicting? Parents tell their children there’s a tooth fairy and a Santa Clause; that rabbits lay eggs for Easter and everybody needs milk. And now they are learning a modern fairy tale—hamburgers grow on plants. But eventually the children learn the truth, although usually from someone else. And usually that someone else is a neighbor’s eight year old child. The bulk of our society looks their children in the eyes and lies to them and eventually another child tells them the truth? When I have talked to adults about this the response so far is 100%, ‘My parents told me those stories and it didn’t hurt me, and I will continue to do the same.’ But, there is no way to know if it hurts us or not.

Only 150 years ago the United States Government proclaimed the slaves emancipated. Too bad the general populous of that time couldn’t have taken credit for understanding the inhumanity of slavery and choosing to abolish it. Turns out, human slavery was sacrificed by the government to aid the effort in the Civil War. How do you explain the behavior of those Americans? The same way you explain the behavior of today’s Americans. Where those Americans wrong? There were some voices against slavery, but not enough. Are today’s cultures wrong? There are some voices against animal abuse, but again—not enough! The fact is people born into each generation are taught, and accept whatever is acceptable to their culture—right or wrong. And the majority never changes, even when they suspect it is wrong.

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.” ~George Bernard Shaw.

From a strictly rational viewpoint producing animals for humans to consume is foolish; it is inhumane, unhealthy, expensive and wasteful. It’s not rationally defensible! I haven’t personally met anyone who could defend their choice to eat animals in a rational manner. I have met many who said they don’t eat much or they would like to give it up. And I have met a few who only had emotion and ego to support their desire to eat animals. You can usually pick that up in the level of hostility in their response. In four decades of being vegetarian several people have told me they would like to stop eating animals, but there was always someone in their family who would make it difficult for them. It was usually women who made this statement. Perhaps women are more sensitive to being exploited for obvious reasons, but don’t feel able to stand up for what they feel is right, for obvious reasons also.

This summarizes the type of information I have used to support my beliefs. But I have learned, over very many years, this approach generally does very little to persuade others. Fact is most of the points I make; ethical, health, environmental and humanitarian are virtually impossible to argue against—rationally. Most informed people don’t attempt to argue them, but many still get very emotional about it.

Actually if you want to try to influence someone’s choices your best and most effective approach is a predominately emotional appeal. Once a person makes a decision, which is usually emotional, then facts and figures do a wonderful job of justifying and supporting their decision. If someone reads this whose belief system is already in tune with it, they will readily accept it, but if someone reads it who doesn’t already believe it, then their existing belief system will filter it such that it will be rejected, classified irrelevant or at least unimportant, whether it is true and sensible or not. The point is it will be accepted by one and rendered null and void by the other, pretty much as their current belief system dictates, regardless of facts and figures and good old-fashioned common sense and compassion.

The average person just doesn’t have a lot of control over their beliefs and therefore, their choices. I once wondered why people seemed to be locked into the social strata into which they were born. I think it is because whatever image a person develops of his or herself, based on their culture, is a part of their belief system. This belief system and self image filters their reality in such a way as to keep them in their status quo, in their box. And this includes decisions of morality and spirituality as well.

But is one right and one wrong? One person raises friends, kills them and eats them and the other cultivates the soil, raises vegetables and eats them. Is one right, are both right? I have this sneaky suspicion if you randomly selected 100 children between 5 and 10 years of age, put them in a room with one person peeling potatoes and carrots and another person skinning sheep and calves, more of the children would think less of the animal butcher. I think that would be a safe bet.

“Put a rabbit and an apple in a crib with a child. If the child eats the rabbit and plays with the apple I will buy you a new car,” ~Harvey Diamond.

Is there absolute right and wrong? Most will say no, as they are inclined to treat right and wrong as relative concepts. I think this is probably okay as long as no harm is done. But I think there is a point at which an absolute wrong can be done. Can you call someone wrong when they are just doing what they were taught is right? If it’s not wrong to do what you are taught, to do what your culture does, then would it be okay to eat other people as long as it is a cultural choice? Would it be okay to eat an animal while it is still alive? Would you consider a person wrong for beating a dog to death with a bat before eating the dog to enhance one’s virility? How about a tribe raiding a village, murdering the men and stealing and raping the women? What might we think of people whose culture allows drowning baby girls in favor of having sons? In some cultures tying up chickens and pulling off their heads for entertainment is perceived to be okay and in some a crowd of people will carry a goat up several stories and throw it out a window to watch it splat. How about a family sitting down at the table in their nice suburban home to share a sliced up baby cow? Are some of these okay and some not? What if a cannibal comes to this country and eats somebody, is it okay because he was taught it’s okay? Ugly stuff…but real! But, as normal as it is to those raised with it, is it right or is it wrong? If it isn’t wrong for people to do these things, because it’s what they were taught, then it must be right. If it’s right then we should be okay with it—shouldn’t we? Perhaps this is another one of those situations where our ‘relative’ wrongs are okay but theirs aren’t.

In the process of trying to figure out the correct way to live I have developed a vague perception of right and wrong. And I have learned and developed a variety of theories to help understand the actions of humans, myself included. These are theories I consider when trying to understand human behavior, in this case that described by Bryan Welch. Humankind is always in the unique process of creating its own perception of right and wrong. This is done by structuring and restructuring belief systems supporting whatever has evolved to be considered truth. The really interesting point is that once a ‘truth’ is established the belief system will support it, right or wrong. This happens to be part of a mechanism we are born with which aids the survival process. One of the difficult lessons I have learned is ‘truth’ is whatever a society accepts as truth. If you are born into a culture which believes your teeth should be chipped into points with a rock, then your teeth will be pointed and when you have a child your child’s teeth will be pointed. If you are in a family believing you should be Catholic then there is a good chance you will Catholic, and later your children will be too. If you are part of a society which eats a variety of bugs, guess what you’ll eat for snacks. We tend to do just what we are taught; very few search for truth and even fewer change. And it gets worse because societies divide and subdivide truths anytime it is convenient. Just go to a couple dozen of hundreds of different churches, it will soon become evident. So this creates a dilemma for a few, how does one determine what is absolutely right, if there is such a concept, once it is understood that anything we believe may be, in an absolute sense, wrong?

Does this seem far fetched? At different times and places people have believed, taught and died for incorrect beliefs, or correct beliefs not accepted by society. Did you know Earth is flat; it is supported on the back of a tortoise? You know this is ridiculous because the tortoise would fall down. But actually the tortoise is standing on the back of other tortoises all the way down. Did you know Julius Caesar is part god? Yeah! His mother told him so when he was young. And, as it turns out, Zeus was quite a womanizer in his time. Well, it was all true at one time. ‘Their truth is our literature.’ George Washington contracted some sort of bug that probably wasn’t lethal, but none-the-less he died. He had about three doctors draining his blood until he was too weak to stay alive. The doctors surely thought they knew the truth, but without their intervention George Washington may not have died at that time. There is an infinite supply of what we may now perceive to be foolishness in history, but sadly there is also an infinite supply of the same foolishness in contemporary cultures everywhere. Turns out this ‘historical foolishness’ I refer to was at one time ‘contemporary truth.’ It seems through all time and all places, people are generally only able to detect the foolishness in others. Surely the people of every epoch believe they have the ‘truth.’ Just as do the people of the current epoch. And just as surely as the people of each succeeding epoch realize their predecessors were not as wise as they may have thought—so will our successors. Think about it!

The development and maintenance of the belief system is affected by the combination of an innate need to survive, the wish to feel safe and secure and the desire to answer life’s questions. An innate mechanism, controlled by the primitive brain, helps ensure the survival of our species. Another, virtually innate mechanism, the belief system, is passed to us through memes from our environment. This belief system affects our sense of security and our ability to make some sense out of life. It affects our choices and our actions.

During early childhood when the belief system is developing we are almost completely open to anything new. Once the belief system is developed we are almost completely closed to everything new. The brain and nervous system then function to support the belief system by modifying any stimulus which enters the nervous system. The frightening thing is it doesn’t matter if what we believe is based in truth or not. What matters is that it suits us! So ultimately we end up with myriad belief systems, each seeming to be correct and worth dying for. But, they can’t all be right; and possibly can all be wrong. So is it possible to rationally debate the virtues of different lifestyles? Only if there is a point at which it can be agreed there is a difference between right and wrong and it can be defined and agreed to.

Our history is one in which every conceivable wrong has been done and for the most part condoned, even by religion.  For me and the minority who believe along the same lines, there is a definite point at which an action is wrong. It is an absolute point. It is at the point of harm. Harm comes in degrees so let’s say ‘wrong’ starts at the point at which the best possible good is not the goal. So, whether the perpetrator knows it is wrong or not—the cannibal eating a neighbor, a rancher slitting an animal’s throat, a corporation polluting the environment or a government official taking money to vote contrary to the public’s best interest—it is wrong, it is causing harm. How can we know if we are doing wrong? One easy test, if you do anything to another you wouldn’t want done to yourself.

One of the difficult lessons I have learned is from a societal perspective to behave ‘correctly’ doesn’t necessarily mean to behave ‘right.’ In a seminar I attended the speaker asked the group to participate. Some of the things she wanted us to do seemed a little too ridiculous to me, so I didn’t participate. I looked around the room and everyone else was doing what she asked. The interesting thing was one of my coworkers said that by not doing what the speaker asked, I appeared to be the oddball, the one in the wrong. Could it have been that I, the oddball, was the only one who was right? Expanding the point a little begs the question, is having a majority agree on something sufficient to call it right?

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible. There is no impersonal reason for regarding the interests of human beings as more important than those of animals. We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy us; that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority.” ~Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Humanitarian, Author, Nobel Prize for Literature 1950

Interestingly, even though this group of adults was being coerced to do foolish things, the individuals chose to follow. Certainly, it seems there was no blatant harm done there, but we all know group mentality is not necessarily the best at times, and problems do arise from people just following. So maybe there was harm in that action. I think it is better to be true to oneself than to follow the crowd. In another meeting with this same group of peers another lady told me, although she didn’t think the comments I made on the topic of discussion where politically correct, she agreed with me. Too many of us seem to be more concerned with whether we are speaking something acceptable than speaking something truthful.

Why are people able to live such different lifestyles and why are each able to defend their lifestyle as being right—even to the point of death? Simply—it’s because of our unique beliefs. Our brain and nervous system support our beliefs based on what we are exposed to as children. These beliefs are created for us by our parents, teachers, ministers, television, corporations and so on. Everything we have contact with and how we are taught to perceive our experiences affects the belief systems we develop during childhood. It is not about what we choose to believe, it is about what others teach us to believe. And our brain doesn’t discriminate between true and false or good and bad, it just integrates a belief system. And with this we pursue life, making decisions we think are based on facts and truth and good. A question which troubles me is, ‘how do I have any confidence my choices are good when I know the very basis of my beliefs may be incorrect?’ Some will say ‘why worry about it’? But, I don’t suppose for a moment anyone being acutely harmed by their culture would agree we shouldn’t worry about it.

Can people change their core belief system? Is it impossible or does it just seem that way? I consider the beliefs we are given during childhood to be core beliefs. The set of beliefs we carry into adulthood seems somewhat indelible, and seems to remain a component of our character for life. When a person, after childhood, makes what appears to be a radical change in a belief it may be just an intellectual override. A friend of mine, a vegetarian for thirty-five years once stated if his children were starving he would kill animals to feed them. I wonder; if we took his scenario to the extreme and assumed all the animals had been killed and his children were going to starve would he kill the people next door and feed them to his children. Seems ludicrous at first, but it illustrates a point. He had stated to protect his children he would do what he had decided, as an adult, was wrong—kill and eat animals. He was stating he would go back on his own choice—his own morality. He had made the decision to stop eating animals when he was 21 years of age, although he had never made the decision to eat animals as a child—it was made for him. And very importantly, the decision was made when his belief system was developing. He felt he could kill animals even though as an adult he had made the rational choice that killing and eating animals was wrong. The reason I use the example of killing the people next door is because it has been my experience that ‘normal’ people will only go to the point which their core beliefs allow. This is the point which is set for us in childhood. In his particular case the point set during childhood is, ‘it’s okay to kill animals but not okay to kill humans.’ It seemed on the surface he is willing to do what would be necessary to keep his children from starving, but this is most likely not the case. Not unless he is willing to go all the way and kill people to feed to them. Would he kill the neighbors? I don’t think so. So in actuality he was only willing to do what his mother told him was okay in order to protect his children. In all the years in which I have heard of millions of children starving in other countries, I have never heard of the parents going next door, killing a neighbor and bringing back a leg for the kids to gnaw on. I suspect if you confronted a reformed cannibal with the same scenario you would get the same result. Surely he would revert to killing his neighbors to feed his children. Why? Because his mother told him it was okay when he was a child. Is it impossible to change the core belief system which we are taught as children? We can learn and we can modify our perceptions, actions and reactions, but can we change the belief system our parents gave us? I don’t know, they are very strong.
Some research supports the notion that changing beliefs is nearly impossible. Researchers have concluded that once a child reaches a certain age, their nervous system is pretty much permanently structured and one of its major functions is then to support the beliefs developed in childhood and carried into adulthood. It doesn’t matter if what was learned is right or wrong. Our minds, in accordance with the beliefs we have, will make adjustments that affect how we perceive information, so it will fit the existing belief system.

So, exactly what is it that determines our moral baseline? Is it what we decide as informed adults or is it what mother tells us as children? In the previous example I think the answer is evident, ‘morals seem to be based on what mother says is okay more so than on what we decide as adults.’ I think it may be impossible or nearly impossible to change a belief transcribed into the nervous system during childhood. But if beliefs cannot be changed, then our only hope is to intellectually override our flawed beliefs and teach new and better beliefs to our children. Perhaps someday children will grow up with only the truth and none of their morals will be influenced by tradition, culture and the consumer industry. Until then as we continue to condition the minds of our children to match our belief systems, we will continue to perpetuate the myths.

What is this conditioning and how effective is it? One of my brothers once insisted that we not tell his young daughter where her food was coming from, and it wasn’t the vegetables he was worried about. We have to be taught at an early age to behave a certain way, to eat the specific animals we eat; those unique to each individual’s culture. It is interesting that people in one culture will spurn those in other cultures for eating animals they decide shouldn’t be eaten. That seems blatantly hypocritical, but it is common. I met a lady who will stop watching a movie if an animal is portrayed as being hurt, and then go to the kitchen and put a rack of ribs in the oven. I knew a fellow who would fight with you to defend an owl or an eagle and then go home and eat a chicken. I have seen people sitting at an event promoting the protection of greyhound dogs, while eating a hotdog. A woman was seeking donations to save the Mustangs and handing out coupons to a beef restaurant in town. And I have heard parents tell a child to be nice to the cat or dog; then tell them to eat the chicken, fish or pig on their plate. How can anyone not perceive this as hypocritical? In a culture such as ours shouldn’t a child be allowed to bring home an abandoned dog or cat, stab it in the chest, peel the skin off and throw it on the BBQ? Shouldn’t the child be able to do this in a society which eats animals every day, especially a child who has graduated from FFA? Shouldn’t this be okay in a society where people make a vocation out of mass producing, killing and preparing animals for consumption? At least the child wouldn’t be hypocritical. Fact is, it would be terrible, but so is the rest of it. Most people have learned to look at it through a specific cultural filter. A filter which turns this wrong into a ‘perceived’ right.

The mind has to be conditioned for the exploitation of animals or humans. Considering slavery, there has always been some who believed it wrong, but obviously there have been enough people who thought it sufficiently correct to maintain this horrific institution throughout history. The fact no well-balanced, right thinking person could condone such a practice is obvious, but it existed just the same, and it still does. So what is the answer to this puzzle? How is it, a new country made up largely of freedom seekers, the majority of which claimed to be Christian, supported such an institution? The answer is quite simple—childhood conditioning. The correct perception has to be created at an early age for the child to fit into the acceptable societal pattern. Just as those who participated in or otherwise supported slavery had to be conditioned from childhood, our children have to be conditioned to slaughter and eat animals. Why do they put animal flesh in infant’s food, if not to condition them to the taste? Yes, the taste buds need to be conditioned also. Researchers have demonstrated that the tastes infants learn to like influence what they prefer throughout life. What is the purpose of organizations such as FFA and 4H, if not to condition tender hearts to carry on the merciless task of exploiting innocent animals? Why are the medical and educational institutions able to promote eating animals? The people in these institutions have been conditioned by what their mothers taught them so their judgment is also skewed in that direction by their belief systems. What a mother teaches her child is powerful. Doctors can be educated on and observe first hand the detrimental effects of poor diet, smoking and drinking and still participate in that lifestyle. Why? Because their belief system tells them it is okay. The information that comes their way will be classified as worthwhile or not worthwhile based on their early training.

Some think we are in the age of enlightenment; humankind has arrived at the pinnacle. And those before us were by comparison, ignorant and devoid of the opportunity for true happiness which is ours alone because we live in the age of technology and understanding. Well, I suspect in a few hundred years our successors will think the same about us. Their history books will tell them we aren’t anywhere near the advanced, civilized humans we think we are. And they will conclude they are the enlightened generation. Are we enlightened? Are we any better off than people were a couple hundred years ago? We have wonderful x-ray machines, but some suggest using these machines for medical diagnostics and treatment may be causing disease. Antibiotics are becoming useless from misuse. The energy being generated by communication technology is interfering with radio astronomy. We have fast food and we have obesity, heart attacks, strokes and diabetes. We have the most food and the major killers in this country are related to diet. We have disease and unsatisfactory health care. We have a few rich and way too much poverty. And we have the internet with stats which indicate most of the top 100 search categories are related to sex. Medical science is still treating breast cancer the way it did in 1800—mastectomies. And dentists are still drilling holes and packing them with something, hopefully not as bad as mercury. There is uncontrolled corruption in government and business, countries continue to make war, there is on going genocide, mobs, gangs and domestic violence. We haven’t arrived anywhere; we just have more stuff. And I’m not so sure we are all that enlightened or happy. In fact, maybe we have less to be proud of because we should know better now.

So what about those people who sense their morals to be less than satisfactory? What about all those people who told me they would like to stop eating animals? Will they be able to do what they claim they want? In a world where right and wrong seem to be relative and subject to change with time and place—and the wind, is there any virtue in trying to do right? It’s not like you will be praised for doing the right things. But, you will be praised if you figure out how to make yourself rich producing some gadget that is interesting to play with for awhile, even if producing it causes destruction to life and environment. In this country a person doesn’t have to strive for moral excellence, but a few will. Personally, I am thankful for the few who do because if humankind ever looses what little humanity and compassion it has, this will soon be an unfit place to live.

I know this; society is what we and our predecessors have made of it. There are a lot of problems in this country. There is poverty, disease, crime, fear and insecurity. After the people in America came through the depression and WW2 there may have been a special time in America’s history. Perhaps the government wasn’t so big and so corrupt it couldn’t function somewhat on behalf of the public. Perhaps the mood was right. I think I grew up in America’s heyday, the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. It was a time when one adult working was common and was enough to raise a family of seven in comfort. I know I was fortunate. Although my father was a relatively poor man we went to new schools, lived in a new home and could go get jobs in local manufacturing businesses. We could buy things ‘made in America.’ In those days you had to work for what you wanted, and if you did you could do okay. Well it has changed and I blame about 90 percent of the problems on our politicians and the rest on us. And this is because I think most of us realize whatever is going on in the higher levels of government and big business stinks—but we do nothing about it.

Most of the problems humans are facing are due to the inability of societies to do what is right, regardless. A lot of people are willing to take advantage of others, but they shouldn’t. Unfortunately, there are many who take advantage of animals and people. We in the working class, the tax paying citizens end up paying for all the unchecked white collar crime and corporate welfare. Huge corporations poison our water, air, land and food, while making their families wealthy, and people still idolize the CEO’s. Our educational institutions sell out to the highest bidding advertisers. The medical and pharmaceutical industries are a fearful combination. American businesses buy from foreign countries, where it is suspected work conditions may resemble slave camps, and then sell the products to working class Americans. All the while the working class is thinking they are doing quite well because they can, seemingly, afford to by all this ‘inexpensive’ stuff. Meanwhile the corporation owners are becoming the richest people in the world. How many instances of this kind of inhumanity are there? Our world has lots of problems. In the case of animal farmers the contribution to pollution, disease, suffering and inhumanity is part of the choice. There is more to the choice to farm animals than just treating your friends nicely until you slit their throats and eat their flesh. This is an industry that does harm to animals, humans and the environment. But, for and industry to exist there has to be people willing to do what has to be done to provide the product and there has to be people willing to buy it. And there seems to be plenty of both.

With all the problems of mankind from birth defects, poverty, violence, crime, corruption, disease, suffering and early death, it seems we need to ask if we are right or wrong. It must be obvious to us something is peculiar about the way we view life when in the midst of all the negative things I have mentioned, and I only scratched the surface, we tend to go through the days saying, ‘have a nice day,’ or ‘it’s a wonderful world.’ You don’t have to look very far to figure out it just isn’t so. Should we continue to contribute to our own demise and the demise of posterity or should we change?  Change starts with the individual. If individuals can’t do the right things then neither can the government, corporations or any country. Where does this leave humankind? If you pay attention to what is going on then you already have the answer to that.

“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” ~Count Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910) Russian Novelist, Poet, Ethicist.

The things which were familiar to me over fifty years ago are pretty much gone. And that will be okay, if the future holds something better—but I don’t see it. It’s somewhat scary for me to watch this country make the changes it has because I have children and grandchildren. If it worries you, perhaps you may ask if you are doing the best you can. Does it matter? I absolutely believe there is no person or body of persons who are capable of doing what is right for their country, their business, their society or their family while exploiting others; animals or humans. I do not believe anyone can detach from the abuse and suffering in one area of their life and be truly caring and compassionate in another.

“As long as human beings shed the blood of animals, there will never be peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la Stalin. All such deeds are done in the name of ‘social justice.’ There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is.” ~Isaac Bashevis Singer (1904 – 1991) Author, Nobel Laureate for Literature 1978.

I know of no justification for raising and killing animals. We don’t need to exploit them for anything; of this I am absolutely confident. But we do need them for something, their companionship and their help. Over the last four decades I have met many people who participate in the misery of the animal killing industry as consumers, and most of these people don’t share the confidence that what they do is right. I have a few relatives who will say, “Gimme meat to eat, yeah I need to kill something.” But I attribute that to their attempt to act manly or tough—you would have to meet them.

In this country we are free to pretty much do what we want within the framework of our laws and morals. And that is what we do, pretty much what we want. But look at where it has gotten us. In our culture we like to think we are compassionate and caring. But in reality we aren’t much different than our predecessors, just a little more technological. We learn to view our cultural choices and actions through our cultural belief system. This system of beliefs is designed to allow us to fit into our culture. It filters our reality so it is possible to justify whatever is normal for the time and place, whether it be white supremacy, male superiority, slavery or animal exploitation. That is what we are given so our conscience can survive. No one asks us how we want to be, we are taught how to be. Sure we can go out and choose a religion or a vocation and we think we are free to be whatever we want. And we are…as long as it fits in the confines of whatever we are taught. But if you look carefully you will notice people don’t stray too far from what they were taught, whether it be the religion or the class of work they choose. I used to wonder why people tended to stay in the financial strata they were raised in. Now it is clear, it is where we ‘believe’ we belong.

We are not alone in the folly of our ways. For example, there are other cultures where the thought of fornication is almost ‘taboo’ but in truth fornication is quite common there. Unfortunately for those people AIDS is at epidemic proportions because they’re doing what everyone acts like they’re not doing. What is worse is when someone is afflicted, usually women, they may be ostracized by their own family as if they were doing something out of the norm. Such a shame, and they want to act like there is nothing going on. Sadly, they con only themselves in this way. Just as we con only ourselves in the way we do.

So I think we should consider whether we want to follow along with what we were taught as children or make our own choices based on the desire to achieve the best outcome for ourselves and children. We should face the facts; we live in a consumer society and what we learn more than anything are consumer ethics. I don’t approve of this and I choose to not participate when possible, although it is getting tougher all the time. Just try to buy American. The American companies head for other countries and the store buyers buy foreign. What can you do?

It may be impossible to rationally answer the question, is there right and wrong? If it is true that the very definition of right and wrong is redefined for each generation by itself, how can we know? But for me, I will continue to do the best I can, I will try to do no harm to people or animals. And maybe my only justification is I wouldn’t want anyone or anything taking advantage of me, but for me this is enough. Perhaps some can better understand the concept of taking advantage by considering those who are getting wealthy at our expense. What do you think of a huge corporation that will knowingly damage the health of the people in a community in the process of making their billions of dollars? Or CEO’s who will take multi-millions of dollars from a corporation while the employees can barely afford to pay rent? How do you like the government that will do what it wants while ruining our way of life? What do you think of a 240 lb. man who will beat up a 150 lb. woman? What about a person who will take advantage of a helpless animal?

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” ~Albert Einstein.

In the book Animals in Translation the author claims to believe she has a special connection or at least a special understanding of animals because she is autistic. I do admire her accomplishment with her book—I know it’s a lot of work. I enjoyed the anecdotes and found some of the current theories about animals and humans interesting. In her book the author states she can identify the problems in the slaughter houses easier than a non-autistic person. She thinks the autistic person’s brain malfunctions in a way that creates some similarities in the way autistic persons and animals, perceive their environment. This is based on the theory that the frontal lobes of the autistic person’s brain are not functioning properly and the effect is similar to the inferior frontal lobe development of the animal brain. She also explains the human thought process functions in a very general manner, tending to miss details. And the animal brain, as well as the brain of the autistic person, functions in a very specific manner, to the point of getting overwhelmed by the details. In her analogy, as the number of trees increase a non-autistic person will eventually perceive a forest. But in the case of an autistic person or an animal, more trees will just be more trees. It is this kind of difference that allows her to perceive an environmental snafu which is bothering an animal when an experienced farmer cannot see the problem—even when standing in front of it.

My first thought was her book was going to explain how she is saving the animals. But that may not be the case. She seems to perform two roles. One role is to make the slaughtering process easier, which benefits the factory. The second role is to eliminate some stress for the animals. So the bottom line seems to be, this woman who claims to be able to think more like the animals, earns her living by using her ability to make the slaughter of the animals more efficient for the business man and less terrifying and painful for the animal. There’s no way I can know from her book what motivates her, so I cannot judge her motivation—but I can judge her work. And at this point I think I disapprove of what she does at the animal factories.

I have been vegetarian all my adult life, over forty years, and vegan for the last ten of those. Some people don’t understand why I listen to people whose ethics and morals are so different from mine. My reasoning is it tests my belief system. If I argue a point it is generally a learning experience, either for me or the other person, and sometimes both. Although more often I seem to be the one learning, even though it is usually about the unexplainable beliefs and behaviors of the human being. The way humans continue to cling to and pass on all sorts of destructive habits is perplexing and confounding to people who view life and our place in it as I do. The normal way of life in our society includes way too much; exploitation, poor diet, pollution, dangerous drugs and medications, abuse, corruption, greed, war, custom, superstition and myth. This all seems to be impossible for me to understand. I think most people don’t understand their own beliefs, they take them for granted. They absorb whatever is passed on to them by their parents and teachers. Sure, a lot of people spruce up or complicate their beliefs and even try to justify them with ‘so called’ facts, but they are still just the basic morality they were taught as children.

My comments on this book are just my opinions, and I am not trying to put down the author, I am just being critical of what she does because I think it’s wrong. And I admit I am not sure there isn’t some virtue in what she does, but it isn’t necessarily a justification for doing it. One may conclude that if the animals have to go through what they go through it may as well be with a little less suffering. But I remember reading one author stating that the people who took good care and showed kindness to their slaves were wrong. They were wrong because they were only obscuring the true depth of the hideous institution of slavery of people.

In my reality animals shouldn’t go through what they go through; they shouldn’t be raised for exploitation at all. And the hideous institution of cultivating animals for human use and consumption needs to be seen for what it is. Does making it easier to get the slaughtering process done help or hinder? The author suggests that in some functions of the slaughter process 100% success is just not practical and it is better to be satisfied with 95% success–sounds like she is working for the farmers. Does reaching a 95% success rate in these slaughter houses allow the public to think the process is something less than horrific? Does it allow people to think it is really humane and okay? If you were in a group of people to be executed and they let you know you were in the 5% that was going to slip through the crack, not be rendered unconscious first, because 100% is just too hard to accomplish, what would you think?

One of the problems humans have is we can be just as good at doing the wrong things as we can the right things. I know that because I also was indoctrinated by my culture. I learned all the basics that make a good, law abiding, consumer that goes to work regularly, eats animals and exploits the earth’s resources, votes and attends church at least once a year (on Easter) and doesn’t ask questions that come under the heading ‘taboo.’ This helps keep the masses content and the economy chugging along adequately.

Early in the book the author commented on anthropomorphizing. At first I thought this indicated she had learned well the lessons of her professors. Yet throughout the book I heard references to animal emotions and actions as if she could have been talking about humans. She even points out that people who work with animals use the same words to describe animal behaviors as those used for human behavior. And she uses plenty of anecdotes which support the notion that animals are like humans. But, by my way of thinking this is bound to happen because no matter how hard science and social conscience tries to convince us otherwise, there is a legitimate reason for anthropomorphism. And that reason is– animals are like us–that’s it, just that simple. And we are like them. Is that possible? Sure, they came from the same place we did and evolution had the same effect on the other animals it had on us. They too have brains and they too have needs, just like us. Why is this so hard for people to accept? Just because they aren’t exactly the same or we can’t figure them out doesn’t give us any right to exploit them. But I can see where this can be a monumental problem in that people will slaughter others just because their skin is a different color. The truth is each person has to either try to justify exploiting animals or not support the animal industry.

Should men exploit women, or whites exploit blacks? Should the rich exploit the poor; the strong exploit the weak or the smart exploit the stupid? I say no! But ask the same question of a white person, a male of any race or a rich person. If you can get them to answer honestly many will probably give a different answer than mine. Then, should a human exploit an animal? I say no! But ask your friends and relatives. Look in the mirror and ask yourself. I would like to ask the author the same question; although she has already answered it in her book. She said she tried to avoid eating animals, but it didn’t work for her–so much for her being able to empathize better because of her autism.

If a puppy, a cow and a child are jumping around ‘apparently’ having a good time one may quite easily determine they are feeling some kind of joy—and leave it at that. Or, like the author, you can go to school, get your head filled with the same theories as everyone else in your class, and like a well trained automaton, proclaim ‘the child is having fun, but the two animals are developing the functions of their hypothalamus for self-preservation.’  For the average human the second route makes a lot more sense in the long run because it works better in conjunction with the ongoing facade of ‘righteous exploitation’ and ‘humane slaughter.’ You can believe what you are told to believe or you can believe what you see, this is one of the advantages of growing up and being able to make your own choices.

I think it is somewhat hypocritical for a person who earns a living by making it easier for farmers to exploit animals, to lament the hobbling of a horse for mating purposes. This reminds me of people asking you to sign a petition to stop the abuse of greyhound dogs while they’re eating a hotdog. The author expressed sadness over horses being treated this way and apparent revulsion when telling of killer whales singling out a baby whale, eventually killing it and eating its tongue. Doesn’t it seem a bit odd that someone working for slaughter houses and eating animals a couple times a day would be the least bit bothered by such things. In the environment the author is in, humans do the same kinds of disgusting acts over and over—and then teach their children to do the same. And unless the author has never eaten a hamburger, what has she to say about what whales do? The whales singled out a helpless baby, hurt it, killed it and ate it. In fact, aren’t the author and others, indulging in the animal exploitation culture, singling out the helpless, hurting them, killing them and eating them? But that is different, right?

“I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come when  men such as I look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men.” ~Leonardo da Vinci

The author uses the term ‘humane slaughter,’ when explaining what she does. This phrase is known to some of us to be oxymoronic. If she could briefly step out of her reality and consider the implication of such a phrase she might have to agree that it is nonsensical.

Humane = compassionate, tender, sympathetic. Slaughter = violently or brutally kill. Conclusion, ‘humane slaughter’ = ‘tenderly and sympathetically-brutally kill.’ Some of us just don’t make sense of this. Unfortunately we are in the minority. Those who comprehend ‘humane slaughter’ are in the majority. Does being in the majority make a person right? Because if it does I am so far wrong it can’t be measured.

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more often likely to be foolish than sensible. There is no impersonal reason for regarding the interests of human beings as more important than those of animals. We can destroy animals more easily than they can destroy us; that is the only solid basis of our claim to superiority.” ~Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) Humanitarian, Author, Nobel Prize for Literature 1950.

We all know our immediate ancestors found ways to try to justify exploitation as well. But they went even further, they blatantly exploited humans. And people today still use the same excuses they used generations ago when exploiting humans; they aren’t human, they don’t feel, they are here for us to use as we please, and so on. They justified what they were doing to humans and people justify what they are doing to animals.

In the book the author stated she doesn’t approve of experimenting on animals unless something worthwhile may be learned. Who decides what is worthwhile–her– you? Is it worthwhile to put chemicals in the eyes of restrained animals to test products for makeup? Is vivisection worthwhile? Is it worthwhile to break the bones of animals for students to practice on or to shoot animals with high powered weapons for military research? People who think these are worthwhile probably think it was worthwhile to land a man on the moon and now to try to get a man on Mars. If you are one of these I will remind you that we are not shuttling valuable resources from the Moon and we don’t have scientists up there concocting valuable cures in low gravity. But there were billions spent, lives lost and resources wasted just proving it could be done. Great thinking!

Who has the right to make these decisions? What gives humans this right? Answer, human might, and that is all! Has nothing to do with intelligence, it’s all about power; and it seems that everyone has some degree of craving for power—you can even see it in children.

“There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their mental faculties. Like man, they manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness, and misery. Sympathy for the animals is one of the noblest virtues with which man is endowed.” ~Charles Darwin

In her book the author spends some time elaborating on farmers masturbating their animals to collect sperm and tells how the farmers must pay attention to how each animal likes to have its penis played with. To me the whole concept of masturbating an animal is disgusting. I am thankful my lifestyle doesn’t require this bizarre behavior, but to provide for the average person’s lifestyle it is apparently necessary. To do this well is important and even admired from what was stated in her book. But when the author explained that farmers will even play with the animal’s anus to help them climax, I realized even more so how warped some of the behaviors in the animal consumption culture really are. I wonder what a young person thinks when he or she walks into the barn and sees one of his or her parents playing with an animal’s penis. The fact that the author lies down in pastures and lets cows lick her sounds a little strange too. Farmers fondling animals is sick, but in this book it is made to sound normal. I thought there are laws prohibiting this stuff. Think of it, people who are considered great farmers, probably looked up to by young, aspiring farmers; excel at ‘masturbating animals.’ And it is referred to as if it is normal and respectable. The fact is our minds will filter input to appropriately fit our personal belief systems so that even this information will not cause any change in most people that consider it.

How can a person ever begin to understand and accept anything that doesn’t fit into his or her established paradigm? The sad truth is we are taught wrong from the beginning, and the lessons we learn are inscribed deeply and almost indelibly into each of us. It is no wonder most people can’t change, even when they know they are wrong. So how can we ever get anywhere near our potential.

All cultures, if allowed, evolve their own paradigm. It doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong, it only matters that it satisfies the needs of society and individual, whatever those may be. And from what I can make out from studying the human species, survival and pleasure are the key factors. And it appears that humans have proven over and over again, they will do whatever is necessary to satisfy these needs. Sure, we can pretend like we are compassionate and spread this rumor generation after generation, but it is not the case. Life is ugly and so is human nature—and humans always have and apparently always will do their best to keep it that way.

“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right.” ~Thomas Paine.

I wonder if people, like the author, feel any responsibility for the fact that many of the diseases we deal with; HIV,  mad cow, swine flu, avian flu, etc. affect animals and humans. There are many dozens of diseases which afflict humans because of close contact with animals–so raising billions of them for consumption seems  counterproductive to health.

How about all the contamination of the land, air and water? Are there any feelings about the people that die because of contamination of our food crops by animal runoff, such as the recent spinach problem in central California? What about all the animal-protein/fat diet-related disorders that inflict the human population such as; cancer, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, etc? While the ‘developed’ world is struggling with all the pollution, disease, misery, waste and destruction inflicted on the planet by the production of animals, I wonder why so many people close their eyes, as if it isn’t so.

“To close your eyes will not ease another’s pain.” ~Ancient Chinese Proverb

I know I am just testing my own belief system here, but I still hope that on occasion it will cause someone to scrutinize their beliefs as well. The human species is an interesting bunch. Most think we have evolved, but in actuality, not much has really changed. Humans still kill each other, and are still greedy, selfish and barbaric. Humans exploit whatever they can for their pleasure whether it is the resources, the environment, other humans or animals.

We think we have made improvements in human lives, but if you compare the lifespan of the early Presidents to the later you will not find much difference. If you check you will find they were performing mastectomies in 1800 and in 2007. And you can find that they too thought they were living at the best of times. You may notice we are not plagued with the same diseases as our relatives were in 1800–we have new ones. And the major reason we aren’t inflicted with the diseases of early America is due to the addition of plumbing, not because of medical miracles as they try to teach us. Still, knowing that our predecessors brought a lot of misery and death upon themselves by mixing their waste with their water doesn’t seem to have impressed us sufficiently. Society seems to think nothing of dumping the bodily wastes of tens of billions of animals on the ground, in the air and into the water. We think we are so smart, but we aren’t much different than our distant relatives, we just have cell phones now. I could go on for awhile in this vein, but I think I have made my point.

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity; and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.” ~George Bernard Shaw.

It is beyond my capacity to understand how someone can spend so much time explaining to us just how smart animals are and how she can relate to them better than most and still–continue to be part of the problem.