Legislation
has been advanced that will make it more likely that horse slaughter
houses will return to our nation. The debate over horse slaughter has,
to date, been played on a playing field created by the biggest
agribusiness and factory farm interests. It is sad that so many people
that would otherwise be expected to stand up for horses have been lured
away from taking a strong stand against horse slaughter by a savvy media
and public relations strategy. This effort, designed to show that horse
slaughter is the best thing that could happen to the equine industry
and a practice so kind and humane that those who slit the throat of
horses should be lauded as humanitarians who only seek to end the
suffering of unwanted and abused horses, has found fertile ground.
We
must first look at the actual issue here. The factory farms and
agribusiness corporations that are funding the return to horse slaughter
do not have a financial stake in the slaughter houses. Only a handful
of such facilities will exist either way. They are looking down the
road and fear that efforts to end horse slaughter could one day lead to
efforts to end the factory farm system. Their ultimate concern is that
it could lead to the banning of the slaughter of other livestock. That
is what underlies this debate.
There is nothing unusual about
such a strategy. It has been employed through out our history by
institutions both of the right and left, both good and bad. The ACLU
supports the right of Nazis and Klansman to parade, not because of
support of either group but for fear of what their suppression could
lead to. The ACLU is open about its motivations. Other groups are not
always so open. The NRA opposes every effort at firearms regulation
because of the fear that the passage of one restriction, however minor,
could lead to the passage of more restrictions.
Of course, some
of the major horse registries that support slaughter have a direct
financial interest in the spilling of horse blood. Few of the other
entities that are funding the efforts to make the slaughter of horses
seems like the work of angels have such a direct financial interest, yet
they are spending a fortune on lobbying and public relations.
Make
no mistake about it, the concern that such groups have is not for the
good of horses today, but instead is aimed at protecting potential
threats to their coffers twenty to fifty years down the road.
They
have succeeded in causing too many opponents of horse slaughter to play
their game and engage their claims. I decline to do so. Of course, they
have completely mislead people into believing that the closing of
slaughter houses in America has had any impact on horse prices. The
simple reality is that the export for slaughter market coupled with the
extreme reduction in of breeding over the past decade has resulted in a
horse supply much smaller than it was when we still had slaughter
houses in America. The truth is that we had very few death houses and
they had a minimal impact on horse prices.
The remainder of their
policy arguments are equally vapid and I will not engage them because
each ignores the only issue that is relevant to the discussion--"Is
horse slaughter immoral?"
If slaughter of horses is immoral than
none of the other issues matter. Morality does not adjust itself to suit
practicality. If a practice is immoral it does not matter how many
advantages its acceptance would bring to society. That is why we do not
look at the economic advantages of euthanizing "unwanted senior
citizens."
If one accepts that the slaughter of other livestock
is not immoral one must either accept that horse slaughter is moral or
that their is a fundamental difference between eating a horse and eating
a cow. In short, one must assert that the life of a horse is of a
different value than the life of a sheep.
I believe that it is.
In making such a determination I look to several factors, religion,
tradition, reason, and the intangible recognition of what is.
It
is easy to look at the views of various religions on the issue. The
consumption of horse meat is banned by the Torah, the Koran, and has
faced condemnation by the Pope dating back several hundred years. I am
not a student of Eastern religions but I am not aware of the promotion
of equine consumption by humans in any of the larger Eastern systems of
belief.
In looking to tradition, western civilization has never
placed the consumption of horse meat on the same level as the
consumption of other livestock. The French fondness of horse meat is
relatively modern and dates back when horse meat was considered a food
of the people and not as "elitist" as the consumption of beef and
mutton. Eating horses was a political statement, not one based in
hundreds of years of tradition.
The most difficult case to make
against horse slaughter is to rely on simple reason. Reason tells us
that a horse is not a human and there is no logic in distinguishing
between the flesh of horses and that of any other beast. Such an
argument is compelling and were the issue only examined on that basis it
is impossible to argue against horse slaughter. But reason has its
limitations. The use of pure reason can lead, and historically has lead,
to justification for the most horrific acts of cruelty perpetuated by
man.
The ability to use reason is a great part of what makes us
human, but it is the ability to go beyond reason that harnesses the
brute that is our nature. It is that view beyond reason, the ability to
recognize what simply is, which, when coupled with reason, that brings
out what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.
The
recognition of what is must lead to the conclusion that the horse is
spiritually linked to us as is no other animal. Humanity is not
characterized by merely what we build or that which we create. The core
of the human experience, that which distinguishes us from the apes, is
our system of beliefs, dreams, aspirations, and ideals. The human body
rarely lasts over a century but those beliefs, hopes and ideals can
continue to last until the last human no longer does.
It is the
spread, advancement, refinement, and improvement of those ideals that
give us hope for a better future. It is our innate flaws as humans that
hamper that spread, that advancement, that refinement and that
improvement.
That which is "me" is not only that which I do, but that which I believe.
And those ideas, beliefs and ideals were brought to me and to all of us on the backs of horses.
Until quite recently in human history the spread of knowledge, culture,
and belief could travel no faster than could a horse. For two decades
now much of what is known has been communicated via computer. For
several millenia much of what was known was communicated via horse back
or horse drawn conveyance.
I do not suggest that we should not
eat horses because we owe them a debt of gratitude for their service. I
believe that it was the horses unique ability to form a bond with humans
that made that service possible. It is that bond that distinguishes the
horse from the sheep. I do not suggest that there are no other animals
to which some people can bond. Nor do I suggest that all people can form
such a bond with a horse.
I believe that the slaughter of
horses is immoral primarily because of that intangible recognition of
what is. The ability to reach into the human spirit and lift it is what
makes horses different than other livestock. This is not because of a
classification that people make regarding animals. It does not matter if
a horse was "raised for slaughter" anymore than it would matter if a
child was cloned for spare parts for future organ transplants. We cannot
classify. We cannot designate. We can recognize what is. We can deny
what is. We cannot designate what is. God has done so already.
The
intangible recognition of what is--the recognition of the spiritual
connection between humans and horses is what caused Crow chief, Plenty
Coups, to express in exasperation, "The white man, who is almost a god,
yet still a child, says that the horse has no soul. How can that be?
Many times I have looked into my horse's eye and have seen his soul."
Is
banning horse slaughter practical? Of course not. However, practicality
has no place in considering issues of morality. One must simply do that
which is right.
What gives me the right to say that horse
slaughter is immoral? I am bound to do so because, like Plenty Coups, I
have looked in my horse's eyes.