Moral Schizophrenia

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare

When
I heard that foxhunting had been banned by the Scottish Parliament
on Wednesday, I thought “Has a fox has been making suspiciously
large donations to Labour Party funds?”.

I
then cast my mind back three thousand years to Samson and how he
tied the tails of three hundred foxes together with flaming torches
and sent them into the Philistine corn fields to burn them up. I
then wondered how such a delaying tactic would have been fared with
the pro-hunting protest groups as they displayed their wrath on
that day. But, seriously, I don’t think burning Parliament to the
ground would have helped their case.

As
a Christian, finding a Biblical injunction forbidding cruelty to
animals was like looking for the doctrinal needle in a scriptural
haystack. The entire Old Testament is awash with the blood of goats
and bulls. Indeed, the subject only became a matter of law if a
beast was owned by a person in a case law regarding property and
compensation rights. And the New Testament, though forbidding such
slaughter on theological grounds, does not shirk to enjoin the killing
and eating of any animal according to one’s conscience.

Conscience,
now there is a thing most prominently and corporately displayed
by the State as we find it embodied in the Scottish Parliament.
Despatching foxes in a less than clinical manner bothered the conscience
of these parliamentarians and I think that a visit to the local
slaughterhouses would probably have confirmed them in their views
(albeit with the outflow of steak and bacon undiminished).

But
I am not here to argue whether killing vermin in such an inefficient
manner is a moral problem or not. I personally believe there is
no moral evil in killing animals, which prey on farmers’ lambs and
hens and the question of suffering is one of degree rather than
kind since no kill is ever so clean and rapid.

What
I am bringing to the fore here is the sheer moral schizophrenia
of a modern State which carries the burden of a thousand and one
single issue pressure groups. It is unacceptable to government that
dogs should dismember another dog limb from limb yet it is perfectly
acceptable to them for humans (doctors) to dismember another human
(the unborn) limb from limb.

One
must understand that the two extremes start from different bases.
Anti-hunt pressure groups are allowed to have their garish images
of savaged foxes plastered across the entire media spectrum. Anti-abortion
pressure groups are forbidden by the State-owned BBC TV organisation
from using the same tactic on aborted foetuses on the grounds of
“decency and taste” and yet pictures from every other type of invasive
surgery can be seen on their television channels. If there is much
emotional mileage to be gained from pictures of dismembered foxes,
then how much more from those of the unborn dead?

In
a TV-driven culture which places great emphasis on images rather
than substance, the stakes are high and the liberal left holds the
deck just now. Thank God for the unregulated Internet where the
results of these life-destroying operations can be clearly viewed
and the debate assumes a more level playing field.

So,
where does the inconsistent State go from here? Ban fishing? No,
too many members of parliament love fishing. Ban owners of cats
from letting them out to wreak havoc on the local mice and bird
population? Not very likely. In a parliament dominated by working
class socialists, it was inevitable that this form of upper class
activity would come under the axe of economic envy. Why do I think
that? Simply because more “working class” hunting activities such
as using ferrets to terrorise and maul rabbits out of their burrows
were untouched. Moral schizophrenia and hypocrisy are writ large
in this whole episode.

In
a society where the rights of private property are honoured then
it is down to the conscience and judgement of the landowner whether
to allow a foxhunt to be conducted over his land. If enough landowners
exercise the right of banning then foxhunting will die out as a
consequence and other less entertaining forms of pest-control will
have to be found.

As
it stands, the State itself has ensured that such a scenario is
not likely because of the huge land grants it dispensed to loyal
followers over past centuries. Such acts of largesse guarantee that
it only takes one large landowner to ensure a complete fox run which
cannot be broken up at the borders of hostile owners.

What
we need is a final and decisive reform to the pseudo-feudalism we
see today and not an agenda driven by the animal wing of the politically
correct.

February
16,
2002

Roland
Watson [send him
mail
] writes from Edinburgh, Scotland.

©
2002 LewRockwell.com

Roland
Watson Archives

LRC
needs your support. Please donate.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts