Ethics at their worst
I was reading a book 'What is Good?' by A.C Grayling where he discusses at length what makes for a good life and the views of some of the greatest minds in history. A great read.
As with all such books the subject turned to the issue of the holocaust. Specifically he raises the issue of Adolf Eichmann who is well documented as stating his disgust at the events which he himself instigated and controlled.
About his visit to Chelmno where they were still gassing people in trucks he said "I did not stay to watch the whole maneuver. I couldn't stand the screams: I was too anxious..."
As for his trip to Auschwitz he said "I preferred not to watch the way they asphyxiated people... They burned the corpses on a gigantic giant iron grill.. I couldn't stand it: I was overcome from nausea".
The main thrust of the argument (although Grayling questions this he never provides an explanation) is how can someone at the same time be so disgusted and horrified by what they see and yet be responsible and do nothing about it. And Eichmann was clearly involved. In many ways his open disgust for the activities he was responsible for makes him even more loathsome.
I noted a parallel in a current book I am ready regarding. It replays the story of "Pig' by Roald Dahl. I will not relate the whole story but it was the story of a kid who did not eat meat all his life due to his aunt but when she dies he tries it and, curious, makes his way to the slaughterhouse where he is disgusted by what he sees. I will not spoil the ending.
This story in itself is not the relevant part. His disgust at the processing of a live pig into meat was. The author of the book discussing this tale spent his life moving between vegetarianism and eating meat.
What got me thinking was there are few adults now who do not understand what goes on in a slaughter house, who do not know in many cases how poorly animals are kept and of course that many of the resulting animal products are simply not required. Most people would be nauseated by the sites we see in a slaughterhouse and few would care for the cries of the animals. Few would approve of watching a pig being bled to death.
And yet today I ate meat. Yesterday I ate meat and I have no doubt tomorrow I will eat. I am not making the argument that the killing of animals is in any way parallel to the killing of animals. Simply that knowing my reaction to seeing animals killed would be similar to Eichmann's to seeing the deaths of humans and yet I still eat meat. A parallel I for one feel very uncomfortable about.
As with all such books the subject turned to the issue of the holocaust. Specifically he raises the issue of Adolf Eichmann who is well documented as stating his disgust at the events which he himself instigated and controlled.
About his visit to Chelmno where they were still gassing people in trucks he said "I did not stay to watch the whole maneuver. I couldn't stand the screams: I was too anxious..."
As for his trip to Auschwitz he said "I preferred not to watch the way they asphyxiated people... They burned the corpses on a gigantic giant iron grill.. I couldn't stand it: I was overcome from nausea".
The main thrust of the argument (although Grayling questions this he never provides an explanation) is how can someone at the same time be so disgusted and horrified by what they see and yet be responsible and do nothing about it. And Eichmann was clearly involved. In many ways his open disgust for the activities he was responsible for makes him even more loathsome.
I noted a parallel in a current book I am ready regarding. It replays the story of "Pig' by Roald Dahl. I will not relate the whole story but it was the story of a kid who did not eat meat all his life due to his aunt but when she dies he tries it and, curious, makes his way to the slaughterhouse where he is disgusted by what he sees. I will not spoil the ending.
This story in itself is not the relevant part. His disgust at the processing of a live pig into meat was. The author of the book discussing this tale spent his life moving between vegetarianism and eating meat.
What got me thinking was there are few adults now who do not understand what goes on in a slaughter house, who do not know in many cases how poorly animals are kept and of course that many of the resulting animal products are simply not required. Most people would be nauseated by the sites we see in a slaughterhouse and few would care for the cries of the animals. Few would approve of watching a pig being bled to death.
And yet today I ate meat. Yesterday I ate meat and I have no doubt tomorrow I will eat. I am not making the argument that the killing of animals is in any way parallel to the killing of animals. Simply that knowing my reaction to seeing animals killed would be similar to Eichmann's to seeing the deaths of humans and yet I still eat meat. A parallel I for one feel very uncomfortable about.
posted by So long and thanks for all the fish at
8:52 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home