It is not ethical and not right for family members in China to sit around a banquet table and eat a live golden monkey because it is illegal, harm biodiversity in terms of killing endanger species, and cruelty, instead, as civic citizen, one should obey the law, protect biodiversity, and treat the animals as what ‘he’ or ‘she’ would like to be treated.
I am going to first describe the real monkey eating scenario which was tragedies that had already happened in China around the Guangdong area 10 years ago. My first major argument that supports my thesis is this: The Chinese family eating the monkey was enjoying the white fresh monkey brain because they believed that monkey brain would make them smarter people and gave them more money in the future. In addition to the fortune belief, the restaurant servant was enjoying serving it because he knew he would earn a lot of money and the restaurant caught the Golden Monkey for free from their habit, their home. The Chinese Culture Relativists encouraged the eating of any kind of animals in China because there were always starvations in China due to the population size. The cultural relativists don’t see why eating a live monkey’s brain is wrong because it is just a sub-cultural within the Chinese culture that has preexist in the past, and there is nothing wrong about it based on Daoism. I am going to attack and convince the Chinese Culture Realists to stop encourage the eating of any kind of animals through several fallacies of Cultural Relativism and Bentham’s argument on animals, and then provide a more fair treatment of animals. Eventually, I want this paper to raise awareness for animal treatment and stop what people are doing in China of eating all kinds of animals that they can catch, and be able to have debates on including animals into the social contract in China in the future.
Monkeys are among the closed related to humans because of evolution and they can feel pleasures and pains and they have backbones, so they have rights to be protected by human beings, and more legislative reinforcement due to more value effective citizens, the increase of civic virtue of Chinese citizens, and more attention and budget to animal and environmental movements will help correct the tragedy that I have described in this paper from happening again, and benefit Chinese people in the future in terms of sustainable future biodiversity, and food resources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Does your hypothesis extend to the eating of other animals, or only the golden monkey? It seems as if every culture has traditional dishes, what makes some of these okay to consume and some morally reprehensible?
ReplyDeleteFrom the restaurant owner's perspective, how could they debate the support of this delicacy using Cost-Benefit analysis?
ReplyDeleteDoes the belief that good luck will come only apply if the animal is alive? If it is really a "live" monkey we are discussing, it seems that it would adhere to Western ethical standards if the monkey were simply killed first.
ReplyDeleteAre there other ways to gain "good luck" in Chinese traditions? Would outlawing this cause a public uproar, in regards to butchering a major Chinese tradition? What ethically sound alternatives can be offered to the Chinese population to mitigate the upset?
ReplyDeleteHey, my discussion section is Friday. But everyone is encouraged to leave a question.
ReplyDeleteRespond to Amanda Sicoli, I am using the case of the golden monkey to criticize the eating of other animals. In Chinese culture, what makes a dish eatable is determined by how close the animal is related to human, how abundant the number of animals available in a given area, is there a food shortage, and it really depends on which city as well
ReplyDeleteRespond to Mary Reindl, the alive has nothing to do with the smartness and good luck, Chinese people like to eat fresh food. What makes it good luck is the color gold which means wealthy in Chinese, and monkey is treated as a very smart animal in China by the 4 classic Novel "Journey to the West", and the 3rd factor is that the golden monkey is an endanger species as the panda. It is hard to catch one since the law prevents it. And but when a restaurant caught one and serve it, the rationing behavior which says only the people have the most power that are on top of the Chinese government are getting the golden monkey brain, makes the monkey more attractive to eat and creates a high feeling for people who are eating it.
ReplyDeleteGood question, Jacqueline. I can see from your question that you learned a lot of culture differences when you were in Denmark. There are many many other way to gain good luck such as go to a Buddhist temple and knee down to ask for a good fortune, asking for a Daoist to predict your future, climb a high mountain on a Chinese festival, and etc. This case happens 10 years ago, and it was outlawed at that time, what the restaurant and the eater are doing are totally illegal, it is like eating a panda under the scene. So in this case, nothing is needed to mitigate the upset. And if something upsets the Chinese public, the government would do nothing because China is such a large country and it will only upset a few people. They have more important things to be worried about.
ReplyDeleteIf this has been a part of chinese culture for a long time, what can be done to stop this? If we look at this issue in the cultural relativist way. Other countries cannot convince the Chinese to stop because cultural relativism cannot deal with different moral codes and doesn't account for disagreements between cultures. So who are we to tell the chinese to stop this action if they believe it is right and does this actions effect the environment in any way? What about the treatment of animals in other cultures do you think what China does to the monkey is equivalent to other societies treatments of animals?
ReplyDeleteSince you are arguing against a nation's cultural tradition, are you suggesting that we should have universal ethics and morals in relation to the treatment of animals? Can these types of morals possibly be universal considering every country has different animals that they value?
ReplyDeleteYou say, "The Chinese Culture Relativists encouraged the eating of any kind of animals in China because there were always starvations in China due to the population size." However, you then say that the monkeys (and perhaps other animals in the future) should be given the same rights as human beings. What would you say to the cultural relativists of China that say that the starvation of the Chinese is more important than the monkey's life and that it is unethical to cause some humans to starve in order to save the monkeys? Or are you simply providing alternative ways to treat the animals so that they are not caused pain?
ReplyDeleteWhat would the libertarian approach say about this issue? How much precedent does a religious or cultural tradition have when it comes to issues of the environment? To what extent should those traditions be honored?
ReplyDeleteAlso, you stated in the abstract that some people used these practices during times of dire need (starvation). Do moral rules and policies vary across individual situations? Would it be morally acceptable for an individual who is close to death to engage in this practice? Why or why not?
Is this act wrong because animals have intrinsic value or is it wrong because you need to preserve biodiversity which will benefit humans? Are you making an anthropocentric claim?
ReplyDeleteYou say what determines how eatable a dish is in China is determined by how closely the animal is related to human. Is there any other criteria that factors into how "eatable" a food is (e.g., intelligence, appearance)or are you solely talking about genetics? Also what about other animals? Do other animals deserve the same treatment (if yes how would you pick which one's. A pig worth the same as a cow?) or should they be excluded because they aren't genetically related to us?
ReplyDeleteIf you are to use utiliatrianism and Bentham's argument for the rights of animals, then the proposition of it being morally incorrect to eat animals would only include those animals that have backbones. So, what about the animals that do not have backbones? Every living creature, no matter how primitive has some kind of nerveous system that allows it to sense, perceive and interact with the environment around it,so wouldn't it be speciesist (yes, its a word)of you to claim that some animals are worth more than others. Wouldn't it be morally just as wrong to set a starfish out on the sand to let it dry out and die in the hot sun (I acually saw someone do this once so they could have them as souveneirs. It was despicable) than to trap a monkey and kill it? Another thing, how could you refute the cultural relativist belief that some animals are "good luck" and therefore acceptable to eat in such a way, if there are no real moral facts in light of this relativism?
ReplyDeleteIt's so disgusting to eat monkey's brain! I think this was a rarely thing happended in China. At least, i never see anyone eating monkey's brain. people who ate monkey's brain can not represente most chinese citizenS, it is like 0.0005% of the whole population.why you mentioned that chinese citizen's civic virtue need to be improved? i disagree with your opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic. However, I believe that not everyone in China eats monkey brain. This small part of the population exists in most of the other countries as well. Either way, I think it is stupid to eat another animals brain to get smarter. That is like falling asleep on a book to get smarter. One could argue, however, that eating monkey brain is no different to eating chicken breast. Are you stating that there is a difference in the importance of animals? Who is to decide this?
ReplyDeleteHow can an ethical argument against the eating of monkey brains stand when, to some extent, you're going against their culture?
ReplyDelete