A Lesson for PETA in Biology and Ethics

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and others of their ilk, claim to be concerned about the ethical treatment of animals.

Let us talk about science. Animals can be classed as carnivores, herbivores or omnivores. It is natural for carnivores to eat meat, herbivores plants, and omnivores both.

People are animals. To be more specific, people are primates, mammals and omnivores.

Let us talk about ethics. It is highly unethical to try to make an animal go against it's own nature. For example, to try to force feed a herbivore meat or a carnivore plants. It is equally as unethical to try to coerce people into going against their own nature and eat only plant matter, and extremely unethical to suggest that it is immoral for people to act in a perfectly natural way, as the omnivores that they are.

And while I may enjoy PETA's rather sexist topless protests I find it rather odd to see the “I'd rather go naked than wear fur” protesters dressed in high “leather looking” boots. I can only assume that they are synthetic and that PETA, who try to claim to be environmentalists, believe it is better to wear boots made from petrochemicals from the tar sands, than wear boots made from natural renewable animal products.

We need to send PETA, and their followers, back to school for some basic lessons in biology and ethics. I have selected a few sources that might help them understand.

Omnivores - Kid's Corner - Sheppard Software

Carnivore, Herbivore, or Omnivore?

What is an omnivore?

Atheists Have Faith Too

Atheists, myself included, like to distinguish ourselves from the religionists by the fact that we base our opinions and decisions on facts, rather than blind faith in religious dogma. But some of us have faith too. It may not be based on blind adherence to religious dogma written thousands of years ago, or spouted by self-appointed spokespersons for god, but it is faith of its own kind.

Our faith is based on our own world view that is developed through our experience and sense of ethics and morality. It cannot always be backed up by hard facts.

For example, I “believe” that all people are inherently equal. I cannot back that up with empirical evidence. In many ways the evidence proves our inequalities. We are clearly not all as intelligent or as strong or as athletic or as healthy as everyone else. There are many ways of measuring our differences and inequalities. There is no way of actual calculating a persons total worth to compare it to others. And that is a good thing. For instead it allows us to decide that we are all of equal value and have an equal right to be here and are entitled to equal treatment and opportunities. And that makes for a better world.

I also “believe” that man, as a species, is essentially good. Many will disagree with that and provide ample evidence of bad deeds committed by people. There is no way of calculating the good and bad in men and women and comparing it. And that is a good thing. With a little deeper analysis we can see that much of the bad is a result of poor decision making rather than real malice toward others, and that the vast majority of people are capable of doing great good when given the means and opportunity to do so.

My last example is our basic values of what is right and wrong. For example, one of the most important ethical values to me is honesty. This value is not based on a cost-benefit analysis that shows I will benefit more from being honest than from being dishonest. It is simply based on an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Many of us do not base our sense of values on what we are told by religious leaders but on what we learn through life.

Above all, I “believe” and have faith that we all can build a better world together.

The Problem With Hockey

If Canadians are supposed to be so polite and Americans so aggressive why is their national game a gentlemens game and our national game a thugs game.

This is just the most recent example of thuggery in Canadian hockey.

Is it the big money involved at the highest level that has removed any semblance of ethics and sportsmanship from hockey, where experts and commentators routinely talk about “good penalties” and where it considered acceptable and even good strategic play to break the rules if the benefit is worth the penalty time. If you can wipe someone out for the season and not get caught it is even better and you can probably expect a bonus somewhere down the line.

Some will argue (why do I have visions of gawdy sports jackets when I type this) that fighting is an intrinsic part of the game and is required to reduce tensions and prevent even more dangerous infractions. If that is so there is something extremely wrong with the game where the most basic ethical principle has become winning at all costs.

In light of this most recent incident some have argued that fighting should be “banned” in junior hockey. By “banned”, I assume they mean that the “powers to be” should actually take the rules against fighting seriously with serious consequences such as not allowing participants in fights to continue to play.

However, junior hockey is the training ground for the NHL where players learn the skills necessary to play in the big league and fighting is an “essential” part of the NHL. Hockey players of all ages are always going to aspire to be like their NHL heroes. If you “ban” fighting at the lower levels players will still aspire to the day they can make it into the NHL and fight like real hockey players.

It has to start at the top in the NHL. As long as hockey players aspire to be like their heroes there will always be fighting at all levels until it is no longer acceptable at the highest level. Players who insist on continuing to participate in thuggery should no longer be allowed to play in the NHL, forever.