The big news in Australia this past week was the reports of cruel treatment of Australian cattle exported to Indonesia -
http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/01/export-footage-prompts-outrage-ipswich-cattle/
The reports sparked a massive backlash of public opinion directed towards Indonesia. Scouring the readers' comments of a few different online publications, including The Jakarta Post revealed a large portion of respondents criticising Indonesians for their apparent culture of cruelty towards animals.
Playing the Devil's advocate in my workplace lunch room, I asked a couple of colleagues, rhetorically, if another culture views animals differently from us, such that to them, the apparent cruel acts as displayed in the recent coverage shown on Australian national television were a normal part of their collective psyche, who are we to criticise? After all, aren't we a nation of civilised, progressive multiculturalists who strive to promote tolerance of other cultures?
In this light, upon what moral grounds do we therefore claim superiority to the extent that we willingly berate another nation for their treatment of cows we willingly sold them?
If it only comes down to a majority consensus, that is, that over time, the majority deem that such behavior is wrong, there may be some ground to stand on. But which majority do we count? If the majority of the non-western world have a different view of animal rights than we do, does that mean we are wrong?
I don't think the majority consensus is valid. Who ultimately says that what the majority says is right, is in fact right? Pol Pot would never have thought so. He obviously thought he was more right than the majority. In his mind, and the minds of his followers, he was more right than anyone else. Cultural relativism at work. There is no absolute morality. That is why we must be tolerant of other cultures.
Once we start criticising the practices of other cultures, we step into the realm of absolute morality and intolerance.
Unless we firmly believe in a clear set of absolute moral principals which have been established apart from any form of public opinion, we cannot safetly assume we have the right to impose our view of morality on others. To many, beating cows over the head with chains may be ok. How can we criticise that unless we believe we have a higher and absolute ethic which annuls the ethics of others?
http://www.qt.com.au/story/2011/06/01/export-footage-prompts-outrage-ipswich-cattle/
The reports sparked a massive backlash of public opinion directed towards Indonesia. Scouring the readers' comments of a few different online publications, including The Jakarta Post revealed a large portion of respondents criticising Indonesians for their apparent culture of cruelty towards animals.
Playing the Devil's advocate in my workplace lunch room, I asked a couple of colleagues, rhetorically, if another culture views animals differently from us, such that to them, the apparent cruel acts as displayed in the recent coverage shown on Australian national television were a normal part of their collective psyche, who are we to criticise? After all, aren't we a nation of civilised, progressive multiculturalists who strive to promote tolerance of other cultures?
In this light, upon what moral grounds do we therefore claim superiority to the extent that we willingly berate another nation for their treatment of cows we willingly sold them?
If it only comes down to a majority consensus, that is, that over time, the majority deem that such behavior is wrong, there may be some ground to stand on. But which majority do we count? If the majority of the non-western world have a different view of animal rights than we do, does that mean we are wrong?
I don't think the majority consensus is valid. Who ultimately says that what the majority says is right, is in fact right? Pol Pot would never have thought so. He obviously thought he was more right than the majority. In his mind, and the minds of his followers, he was more right than anyone else. Cultural relativism at work. There is no absolute morality. That is why we must be tolerant of other cultures.
Once we start criticising the practices of other cultures, we step into the realm of absolute morality and intolerance.
Unless we firmly believe in a clear set of absolute moral principals which have been established apart from any form of public opinion, we cannot safetly assume we have the right to impose our view of morality on others. To many, beating cows over the head with chains may be ok. How can we criticise that unless we believe we have a higher and absolute ethic which annuls the ethics of others?
The debate over animal cruelty in Indonesia really pisses me off. Those who are up in arms against this horrific animal treatment in Indonesian abattoirs take the matter in a very narrow-minded sense.
ReplyDeleteTo large extent, public opinion is clouded by racial sentiment in which disparaging terms such as 'barbaric' and 'uncivilised' are produced to denote the seemingly common practice of animal slaughter in Indonesia. In fact, only few people really look into Indonesian laws and a differing opinion coming from clerics and others in reference to animal slaughter.
Four Corner's report also leads Australians to marshal their national spirit into the campaign for banning life export. We've got to save our cattle from barbaric act. I call this campaign a hipster form of Jingoism, in which urban middle class and their political belief, which is not necessarily associated with the left of the right, come to dominate nationalist discourse over the slaughter of Australian cattle in Indonesia. These urban hipster do not talk cattle in a speciesist context, but rather local context: Australian cattle.
Yes, I agree with you that cultural relativism may work best in this matter. But people tend to assume that cultural product is not malleable. So they think that most Indonesian will agree with such cruel act. Unfortunately some idiots in Indonesia also jump into the fray, comparing what these abattoirs have gruesomely done to these animals with the treatment of Indonesian fishermen arrested in Darwin or the White Policy against Aboriginal Australians. While nationalism in Australia is driven by their pride over cultural value and belief as well as concern over Australian products and identity represented by the cattle, xenophobia and anti-Western intervention is the core of nationalism in Indonesia.
I was sent this link to a great article which highlights this: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/talkingpoint/post/41/comment/1/.
ReplyDeletePeople seem to care more about a few cows than the thousands of starving children worldwide!