SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Seeing the Suffering We Cause
Mar 30, 2007
The South Carolina legislature is still considering a bill--passed by the State Assembly last week--that would require those who want abortions to see an ultrasound image of the fetus to be aborted. This proposal reminds us of the importance of seeing what we do. It is a good idea to make sure that the consequences of all of our actions are made visible. To make good judgments we need all the information we can get.
However, while it might seem reasonable that women should have to fully face what they are choosing to do in having an abortion, such a requirement is unfair. No one else is forced to confront images that show the consequences of what we do. But perhaps we would all be better off if we were completely honest about the suffering we cause.
Our daily lives are built upon a foundation of suffering, although our culture protects us from seeing it. To see, on a daily basis, the suffering caused by our lifestyle choices would be unbearable to many of us; but it might force us to change our ways. Imagine for a moment what life would be like if we were forced to confront the suffering that we cause every day.
Let's begin with the most obvious example: war. Perhaps we should be required to see the death and destruction of the wars we support. Images of flag-draped coffins are not enough. We should be required to see the battle scenes, the carnage, and the dismembered bodies. Indeed, perhaps we should also be required to hear the screams of those killed and wounded. This should not only focus on our own dead and wounded soldiers. We should also be required to see the mutilated bodies and hear the dying cries of the women and children killed in the wars we fight. At the very least, these images should be on the front page of the newspaper and in the national news everyday. But a more forceful measure might require citizens to review the year's casualties--perhaps via a DVD provided by the IRS--at tax time, since those taxes pay for war.
Maybe we should also be required to see the carnage of the slaughterhouse. Every package of hamburger sold in the supermarket should have on its label a series of photos that shows the process through which the cow is butchered. Fast food restaurants should have to display pictures of headless chickens with their necks draining blood next to the pictures of tasty chicken nuggets for sale. And in fancier restaurants, each menu should include pictures that show how veal or sausage is made.
A further proposal might require people who use cosmetics or medicines that are tested on animals to watch a video that shows how these products were tested. Women who use mascara or eye make-up should be forced to watch animals being slowly blinded by the application of these substances directly to their eyes. At the very least, drug companies should be required to disclose on medicine bottles the numbers of animals who were tortured and killed during the process of research and development.
We might also demand that citizens be shown images from crime scenes and prisons. The news should contain explicit images of murder, rape, and assault. That way we would know why we need to punish criminals. The news should also include regular updates about the living conditions of those in prison. In this way, we would know whether prisoners are actually being punished or whether they are really only watching TV and lifting weights. Finally, when prisoners are executed, the news should be required to show the prisoner's march to the gurney and the process by which the lethal drip ends his life.
In considering these examples, I am not suggesting that any of these practices are wrong or right. It takes quite a lot of deep thought to argue that war, meat-eating and animal testing, the death penalty, or abortion are right or wrong. To reach good conclusions about these tough practices, we need detailed knowledge about them. But for the most part we lack this knowledge because the "wet work" happens behind closed doors, where we cannot see it or judge it.
Full disclosure is always helpful in making better judgments. However, unless we are willing to disclose the horrors of all of our practices, it certainly seems hypocritical to single pregnant women out for this sort of treatment.
Andrew Fiala is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fresno.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The South Carolina legislature is still considering a bill--passed by the State Assembly last week--that would require those who want abortions to see an ultrasound image of the fetus to be aborted. This proposal reminds us of the importance of seeing what we do. It is a good idea to make sure that the consequences of all of our actions are made visible. To make good judgments we need all the information we can get.
However, while it might seem reasonable that women should have to fully face what they are choosing to do in having an abortion, such a requirement is unfair. No one else is forced to confront images that show the consequences of what we do. But perhaps we would all be better off if we were completely honest about the suffering we cause.
Our daily lives are built upon a foundation of suffering, although our culture protects us from seeing it. To see, on a daily basis, the suffering caused by our lifestyle choices would be unbearable to many of us; but it might force us to change our ways. Imagine for a moment what life would be like if we were forced to confront the suffering that we cause every day.
Let's begin with the most obvious example: war. Perhaps we should be required to see the death and destruction of the wars we support. Images of flag-draped coffins are not enough. We should be required to see the battle scenes, the carnage, and the dismembered bodies. Indeed, perhaps we should also be required to hear the screams of those killed and wounded. This should not only focus on our own dead and wounded soldiers. We should also be required to see the mutilated bodies and hear the dying cries of the women and children killed in the wars we fight. At the very least, these images should be on the front page of the newspaper and in the national news everyday. But a more forceful measure might require citizens to review the year's casualties--perhaps via a DVD provided by the IRS--at tax time, since those taxes pay for war.
Maybe we should also be required to see the carnage of the slaughterhouse. Every package of hamburger sold in the supermarket should have on its label a series of photos that shows the process through which the cow is butchered. Fast food restaurants should have to display pictures of headless chickens with their necks draining blood next to the pictures of tasty chicken nuggets for sale. And in fancier restaurants, each menu should include pictures that show how veal or sausage is made.
A further proposal might require people who use cosmetics or medicines that are tested on animals to watch a video that shows how these products were tested. Women who use mascara or eye make-up should be forced to watch animals being slowly blinded by the application of these substances directly to their eyes. At the very least, drug companies should be required to disclose on medicine bottles the numbers of animals who were tortured and killed during the process of research and development.
We might also demand that citizens be shown images from crime scenes and prisons. The news should contain explicit images of murder, rape, and assault. That way we would know why we need to punish criminals. The news should also include regular updates about the living conditions of those in prison. In this way, we would know whether prisoners are actually being punished or whether they are really only watching TV and lifting weights. Finally, when prisoners are executed, the news should be required to show the prisoner's march to the gurney and the process by which the lethal drip ends his life.
In considering these examples, I am not suggesting that any of these practices are wrong or right. It takes quite a lot of deep thought to argue that war, meat-eating and animal testing, the death penalty, or abortion are right or wrong. To reach good conclusions about these tough practices, we need detailed knowledge about them. But for the most part we lack this knowledge because the "wet work" happens behind closed doors, where we cannot see it or judge it.
Full disclosure is always helpful in making better judgments. However, unless we are willing to disclose the horrors of all of our practices, it certainly seems hypocritical to single pregnant women out for this sort of treatment.
Andrew Fiala is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fresno.
The South Carolina legislature is still considering a bill--passed by the State Assembly last week--that would require those who want abortions to see an ultrasound image of the fetus to be aborted. This proposal reminds us of the importance of seeing what we do. It is a good idea to make sure that the consequences of all of our actions are made visible. To make good judgments we need all the information we can get.
However, while it might seem reasonable that women should have to fully face what they are choosing to do in having an abortion, such a requirement is unfair. No one else is forced to confront images that show the consequences of what we do. But perhaps we would all be better off if we were completely honest about the suffering we cause.
Our daily lives are built upon a foundation of suffering, although our culture protects us from seeing it. To see, on a daily basis, the suffering caused by our lifestyle choices would be unbearable to many of us; but it might force us to change our ways. Imagine for a moment what life would be like if we were forced to confront the suffering that we cause every day.
Let's begin with the most obvious example: war. Perhaps we should be required to see the death and destruction of the wars we support. Images of flag-draped coffins are not enough. We should be required to see the battle scenes, the carnage, and the dismembered bodies. Indeed, perhaps we should also be required to hear the screams of those killed and wounded. This should not only focus on our own dead and wounded soldiers. We should also be required to see the mutilated bodies and hear the dying cries of the women and children killed in the wars we fight. At the very least, these images should be on the front page of the newspaper and in the national news everyday. But a more forceful measure might require citizens to review the year's casualties--perhaps via a DVD provided by the IRS--at tax time, since those taxes pay for war.
Maybe we should also be required to see the carnage of the slaughterhouse. Every package of hamburger sold in the supermarket should have on its label a series of photos that shows the process through which the cow is butchered. Fast food restaurants should have to display pictures of headless chickens with their necks draining blood next to the pictures of tasty chicken nuggets for sale. And in fancier restaurants, each menu should include pictures that show how veal or sausage is made.
A further proposal might require people who use cosmetics or medicines that are tested on animals to watch a video that shows how these products were tested. Women who use mascara or eye make-up should be forced to watch animals being slowly blinded by the application of these substances directly to their eyes. At the very least, drug companies should be required to disclose on medicine bottles the numbers of animals who were tortured and killed during the process of research and development.
We might also demand that citizens be shown images from crime scenes and prisons. The news should contain explicit images of murder, rape, and assault. That way we would know why we need to punish criminals. The news should also include regular updates about the living conditions of those in prison. In this way, we would know whether prisoners are actually being punished or whether they are really only watching TV and lifting weights. Finally, when prisoners are executed, the news should be required to show the prisoner's march to the gurney and the process by which the lethal drip ends his life.
In considering these examples, I am not suggesting that any of these practices are wrong or right. It takes quite a lot of deep thought to argue that war, meat-eating and animal testing, the death penalty, or abortion are right or wrong. To reach good conclusions about these tough practices, we need detailed knowledge about them. But for the most part we lack this knowledge because the "wet work" happens behind closed doors, where we cannot see it or judge it.
Full disclosure is always helpful in making better judgments. However, unless we are willing to disclose the horrors of all of our practices, it certainly seems hypocritical to single pregnant women out for this sort of treatment.
Andrew Fiala is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at California State University, Fresno.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.