Is there anything wrong with animal abuse here?

[yasic]

The film 'Pink Flamingos' features a scene where a live Chicken has it's head cut off, then its bleeding body is used as a tool in an explicit sex scene. This scene was shot using a real chicken, making this one of the few films where the disclaimer 'No animals were hurt during the making of this film' does not apply.

Animal rights activists, predictably, jumped all over this film saying that the animal abuse is not justified, but the producers replied that the chicken in question was specifically farm raised in an open field with a good long life and was painlessly killed in a quick manner and after the scene was finished they cooked the chicken and collectively ate it making sure it did not go to waste.

The chicken in this situation suffered much less than the majority of store bought chicken and even died in a less painful and less stressful manner.

Ignoring the ethics of bestiality (sorta?) , Was it unethical to kill the chicken and desecrate its body in such a manner, or would you say that the producers acted more ethically than the average person buying a chicken dinner?

Would it be wrong for one to kill, perhaps even apply a little torture, to future chickens or cows if I they eat them afterwards given that these animals suffer less than the regular meals the person enjoys?

 

[MissElizabeth]

ummm, i haven't see the movie (by the sounds of it i am glad i haven't), so i'm not really sure what you are referring to. but i believe that under any circumstances animal abuse is totally wrong! of course they are here to be food, so i have nothing against killing for meat, but the animal should have had a good life (preferably free ranged) and be killed as quickly and humanely as possible.
torture is totally unnecessary!!!

 

[Cabal]

I'm not in favour of animals suffering when they're killed for food.

But only because it toughens up the meat.

 

[pgp_protector]

ummm, i haven't see the movie (by the sounds of it i am glad i haven't), so i'm not really sure what you are referring to. but i believe that under any circumstances animal abuse is totally wrong! of course they are here to be food, so i have nothing against killing for meat, but the animal should have had a good life (preferably free ranged) and be killed as quickly and humanely as possible.
torture is totally unnecessary!!!

From the description though it sounds like it was killed quickly & humanely.
The question arises after it's dead what was done with the dead body after killing, but before cooking it.

 

[MissElizabeth]

yeah, true.....

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So the sequence of events for the chicken is..

1. chicken raised on a free roaming farm for food.(About as good a life a chicken can have these days.)
2. the chicken is killed quickly. (Ending all awareness.)

End result a relatively good chicken life.
What happens after that has no effect on the chicken or its suffering for instance..

A. I've been known to play with my food while its on my plate.
B. Apparently some people have sex with their food.
C. Quite a bit of food spoils and is thrown away.(Usually not even in that order.)

So while I certainly wont be using any chicken corpse sex tools. I dont see any reason to be against this anymore then being against the step 1&2 to begin with.

If you add a step 1.5 "Torture it alittle first" then I'd say thats different, the animal is still capable of suffering.

I'm not sure comparing your mild torture chicken too your regular KFC chicken's suffering is an excuse to do whatever you want so long as the chicken suffers alittle bit less then the KFC chicken.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If I have dto choose between films like that and batterty farms, I would have to side with the films. Not that I would watch them, btw. But I think that an argument can be made that says the film might desensitise people towards animal violence, or inflame sadistic tendencies, or cause some unhelpful form of associative learning when it comes to animal welfare ethic intuitions.

 

[yasic]

So the sequence of events for the chicken is..

1. chicken raised on a free roaming farm for food.(About as good a life a chicken can have these days.)
2. the chicken is killed quickly. (Ending all awareness.)

End result a relatively good chicken life.
What happens after that has no effect on the chicken or its suffering for instance..

A. I've been known to play with my food while its on my plate.
B. Apparently some people have sex with their food.
C. Quite a bit of food spoils and is thrown away.(Usually not even in that order.)

So while I certainly wont be using any chicken corpse sex tools. I dont see any reason to be against this anymore then being against the step 1&2 to begin with.

If you add a step 1.5 "Torture it alittle first" then I'd say thats different, the animal is still capable of suffering.

I'm not sure comparing your mild torture chicken too your regular KFC chicken's suffering is an excuse to do whatever you want so long as the chicken suffers alittle bit less then the KFC chicken.

Lets go with the hypothetical that you are a movie producers assistant and you need to film a scene where your lead actor breaks the bones (mild torture) of and then kills a chicken. You have two options:

A) You can visit a farm and buy a live chicken who will be used in the shoot, you will then cook and eat the chicken afterwards.

B) You can hire a computer graphics team to fake the scene, then buy everyone KFC for dinner.

Which is the more ethical option?

 

[selfinflikted]

.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Lets go with the hypothetical that you are a movie producers assistant and you need to film a scene where your lead actor breaks the bones (mild torture) of and then kills a chicken. You have two options:

A) You can visit a farm and buy a live chicken who will be used in the shoot, you will then cook and eat the chicken afterwards.

B) You can hire a computer graphics team to fake the scene, then buy everyone KFC for dinner.

Which is the more ethical option?

Tough question, I'd have to say.

A.

Because the other would help to maintain an industry dedicated to the abuse of chickens, and have no reason to stop if we keep buying it anyway just because somebody else does the dirty work.

(Assuming KFC causes such arm, I would just like to say I have no knowledge of their methodes.)

 

[JadeTigress]

The animal scenes in Cannibal Holocaust bothered me way more than the chicken thing in Pink Flamingos.

 

[Paradoxum]

I see nothing morally wrong with what is described, nor do I can too much if people engage in sexual activity with animals. What I don't agree with is pointless suffering and definitely not torture of animals.

 

[acropolis]

The animal scenes in Cannibal Holocaust bothered me way more than the chicken thing in Pink Flamingos.

Yeah that one is pretty bad. As far is this chicken goes, I don't think corpses of any kind should be given moral consideration and so long as the animal was killed humanely then it's all good.

 

[Paradoxum]

Yeah that one is pretty bad. As far is this chicken goes, I don't think corpses of any kind should be given moral consideration and so long as the animal was killed humanely then it's all good.

Human corpses should be respected when possible.

 

[scrofford]

The film 'Pink Flamingos' features a scene where a live Chicken has it's head cut off, then its bleeding body is used as a tool in an explicit sex scene. This scene was shot using a real chicken, making this one of the few films where the disclaimer 'No animals were hurt during the making of this film' does not apply.

Animal rights activists, predictably, jumped all over this film saying that the animal abuse is not justified, but the producers replied that the chicken in question was specifically farm raised in an open field with a good long life and was painlessly killed in a quick manner and after the scene was finished they cooked the chicken and collectively ate it making sure it did not go to waste.

The chicken in this situation suffered much less than the majority of store bought chicken and even died in a less painful and less stressful manner.

Ignoring the ethics of bestiality (sorta?) , Was it unethical to kill the chicken and desecrate its body in such a manner, or would you say that the producers acted more ethically than the average person buying a chicken dinner?

Would it be wrong for one to kill, perhaps even apply a little torture, to future chickens or cows if I they eat them afterwards given that these animals suffer less than the regular meals the person enjoys?

Doesn't common sense tell you that it's wrong? ALL animal abuse is wrong! God created animals and loves them! How would you feel if someone abused your creation?