The ethics of flogging a dead horse

[Steve3007]

Isn't that a bit like judging humans according to their height, or skin colour?

I don't think it is like that, no.

A living thing remains a living thing regardless of its size, doesn't it?

It does, yes. But I don't treat all living things equally.

[BobS]

I suggest that your reaction to this story is a bit excessive; it lacks sympathy, empathy and understanding, but that's just my opinion. I may be quite wrong; it's happened before.

It's "excessive" to suggest that there's a difference between thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse and running over a living human being (or even a living horse)? Say what?

And lacking "sympathy, empathy and understanding" for whom? The dead horse? Are you really suggesting that that overshadows my suggesting sympathy, empathy and understanding for the horse trainer?

Really?

Yes, really.

Do I correctly understand you to be saying "yes" to both questions? That is,

(1) You think it's excessive to suggest that there's a difference between thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse and running over a pedestrian.

And

(2) You think it's excessive to suggest that sympathy, empathy and understanding for a dead horse should not overshadow sympathy, empathy and understanding for the horse trainer whose livelihood was threatened merely for sitting on a dead animal?

In neither case is there anything to debate further. I'm just seeking confirmation that's your actual position, because it seems so extraordinary to me.

You seem to place no priority on treating an animal, even a dead animal, with dignity and respect.

"No priority." OK, where did I say that?

The entire exchange between you and me stems from my single assertion: that thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse isn't as bad as running over a pedestrian. My other messages were mostly directed to the village duh-meister, where the underlying issue wasn't really dead horses at all, but his implied assertion, in his typically angry style, of his moral superiority, which it amused me to controvert (and in the course of which, in any event, I never said that I was against treating animals with respect, as opposed to approaching the matter with some degree of proportion).

If you think that my contesting the duh-meister's smug superiority was excessive, so be it. But you started this exchange of messages with me on an entirely different subject: your assertion that I was being "excessive" by not accepting the equivalence of a dead animal and a living pedestrian. So please explain how you've managed to convert my single assertion, that thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse isn't as bad as running over a pedestrian, into an assertion that I place "no priority" on treating animals with respect.

Others have a different priority. The part that is excessive is your reaction to the fact that others do not share your priorities.

Wait a minute. You''re now changing your claim entirely. That betrays a loss of confidence in your original position.

Once again, your started this exchange in response to my assertion that driving a car into a pedestrian wasn't the equivalent of sitting on a dead horse. Your asserted that such a position was excessive. I questioned your assertion, and now you defend it by completely changing the subject to how I reacted “to the fact that others do not share [my] priorities." A nifty move, I suppose, had it gone undetected.

Well, after your back-pedaling, your point now seems to be this: by claiming that thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse wasn't as bad as running over a pedestrian, and continuing to adhere to that view, and by not meekly accepting the duh-meister's ex cathedra pronouncements, I engaged in a excessive reaction to those who didn't share my priorities. Got it.

By the same token, I suppose that if, in a discussion of ethics, for the purpose of illustrating the unedifying concept that "it is most unwise to act 'without thinking,'" some wit had compared thoughtlessly sitting on a dead animal to thoughtlessly causing a nuclear explosion, my claiming that there's a big difference between the two cases would be an "excessive" reaction "to the fact that others do not share my priorities"?

Sigh.

[BobS]

PLONK!

See? I said that you wouldn't be able to resist responding.

Duh.

[BobS]

A defense of thoughtlessness. Wonderful!

As opposed to suggesting that perhaps the mature thing to do is keep things in perspective?

It certainly can be no surprise that there are wars when one sees how riled up people get over trivialities.

By golly, surely you then see no problem if there is **** in your food!

Let's see: a suggestion to "keep things in perspective" equals a suggestion never to see a problem.

I don't think that Aristotelian or any other kind of logic that I've ever encountered gets you there. Was it your own? What do you call it?

[Count Lucanor]

The example given appears to confusingly mix two individual issues that I believe can more easily be addressed individually.

1. Concerns of non-human animal welfare, such as torturing or non-defensively killing non-human animals.

2. Concerns of the treatment of a dead body, such as sitting on a dead human body while talking on a cell phone.

I don't see how this could be related (even in confusion) to the welfare of an animal, given that the animal is dead.

The true and only issue here is whether animals must be treated as humans or not. That will make a difference between sitting on a dead human body or a dead animal.

Advocating for a world without honor.
Finding endless justifications for dishonorable behavior.


And people wonder why the world is going to hell.

Is there an argument there? If so, addressing exactly what? To whom?

[Atla]

It's humane to respect life, especially highly sentient life like horses. Sitting on a dead horse is a few degrees less bad than sitting on your dead grandmother.

[BobS]

My thoughts are that folks have opinions, so what? No one is arresting the guy, which would be ridiculous...

He may not have been arrested as such, but there are serious consequences for him.

I've haven't noticed it mentioned elsewhere in this thread (or maybe I've just forgotten and have been either too lazy or incompetent in my search to find it), so here it is:

He was given a one-year ban, with half of it suspended. So, a half year's loss of income for sitting on a dead animal. As one newspaper column put it, a result of "the modern eagerness to condemn, swiftly and utterly."

[Tegularius]

It's a low-life thing to do even if the horse is dead. It's not really about the horse. It's all about having a disgusting sick attitude so prevalent among humans. What would be wrong if informing this prime example of vulgarity that when he croaks his ashes are going to be flushed down the toilet or put in a plastic bag and disposed of in a landfill?

You're a vegetarian I presume?

Vegetarian or not - I'm not - has nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Sculptor1]

PLONK!

See? I said that you wouldn't be able to resist responding.

Duh.

You are the one that said you needed to stop responding not me.

[Steve3007]

It's a low-life thing to do even if the horse is dead. It's not really about the horse. It's all about having a disgusting sick attitude so prevalent among humans. What would be wrong if informing this prime example of vulgarity that when he croaks his ashes are going to be flushed down the toilet or put in a plastic bag and disposed of in a landfill?

You're a vegetarian I presume?

Vegetarian or not - I'm not - has nothing to do with what I wrote.

I'm just curious to know if you regard sitting on the dead body of a horse as disgusting and sick but hanging the dead body of a cow from a hook and wrapping bits of it in plastic to sell in supermarkets as acceptable? I'm not saying you shouldn't find that acceptable. I get why people have what might appear to be double standards on these kinds of issues. It's basically because, despite their similarities in terms of sentience, we have an entirely different historical relationship with horses than we do with cows.

But I'm just curious as to whether you do regard this as a double standard or not, and whether you think it's possible to clearly identify a nebulous concept like "dignity" or "respect" when it comes to the treatment of non-human animals. Why might we think it disrespectful to sit on an animal's dead body but not disrespectful to keep it in a cage, kill it, hack it up, wrap in clingfilm, sell it and eat it? If we do think that, does it make our concept of "respect" a strange one?

[Pattern-chaser]

I suggest that your reaction to this story is a bit excessive; it lacks sympathy, empathy and understanding, but that's just my opinion. I may be quite wrong; it's happened before.

It's "excessive" to suggest that there's a difference between thoughtlessly sitting on a dead horse and running over a living human being (or even a living horse)? Say what?

And lacking "sympathy, empathy and understanding" for whom? The dead horse? Are you really suggesting that that overshadows my suggesting sympathy, empathy and understanding for the horse trainer?

Really?

Yes, really.

Do I correctly understand you to be saying "yes" to both questions?

The two cases are similar in that the actor acts thoughtlessly; they give no thought to the consequences of their actions. The consequences themselves are quite different, and therefore difficult to compare.

You seem to place no priority on treating an animal, even a dead animal, with dignity and respect.

"No priority." OK, where did I say that?

As you know quite well, you didn't use those words. But your text seemed to communicate that sentiment, quite clearly, I would say.

[Pattern-chaser]

He was given a one-year ban, with half of it suspended. So, a half year's loss of income for sitting on a dead animal. As one newspaper column put it, a result of "the modern eagerness to condemn, swiftly and utterly."

He also lost business, as owners took their horses elsewhere. Perhaps his livelihood has disappeared, as a result of the public reaction to his actions. He may never work again. Consequences.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm just curious to know if you regard sitting on the dead body of a horse as disgusting and sick but hanging the dead body of a cow from a hook and wrapping bits of it in plastic to sell in supermarkets as acceptable?

The former is disrespectful, and little else. The latter displays our need to eat, but is, perhaps, also disrespectful. That is the difference, subtle though it is. It would be better if we displayed a little more respect for the creatures we rear in captivity for the purpose of eating their flesh. In years gone by, tribal hunters thanked the Gods for the gift of food, before they fired their arrows. But they still ate the food-animal. Perhaps that is a more suitable attitude?

[Steve3007]

...But they still ate the food-animal. Perhaps that is a more suitable attitude?

I guess some might think so. My personal view is that ideally we take a more pragmatic view of what constitutes respect for a non-human animal and attach it more directly to their capacity for suffering and distress. So I think "respect for the creatures we rear in captivity for the purpose of eating their flesh" would mean minimizing their suffering when alive. In the case of that dead horse, I'd be much more interested in looking at how it was treated when alive than at who sat on it when it was dead. Likewise, I'd be more interested in looking at how we treat cows when alive then at how their carcasses are treated after we've slaughtered them. I'd regard that a a reasonably self-consistent approach. Expressing outrage at someone sitting on a dead horse while tucking into a beef burger made from intensively reared beef is something I'd regard as a less self-consistent approach. But, as I've said, I can see why that approach exists.

[Steve3007]

The latter displays our need to eat, but is, perhaps, also disrespectful.

Just as an incidental point, I'd see the need to eat beef, as opposed to some other kind of food, as roughly equal to the need to sit on a dead horse, as opposed to some other kind of chair.