Emotional abysses: Butchers reveal the suffering of animals!

Emotional abysses: Butchers reveal the suffering of animals!

A recent study from the Technical University of Dortmund sheds light on the emotional challenges that butchers face while killing animals. Dr. Marcel Sebastian, research associate at the Chair of Environmental Sociology, conducted interviews with butchers to understand their emotional experiences while killing animals. This research is seen as urgently needed because the inner workings of meat production often remain outside of public and scientific attention. TU Dortmund reports that in the study, “disruptive emotions” occur in rare episodes, particularly when killing young animals or during extraordinary mass slaughters such as during the BSE crisis.

The results make it possible to close previous research gaps on the emotional work of butchers and take a critical look at social relationships with animals. The relevance of the study grows in view of the ongoing controversies regarding animal, climate, health and occupational safety that are being discussed in the media and the public. Dr. Sebastian addresses the need to examine the emotional effects of animal husbandry and their killing from various sociological perspectives.

Perspectives of the butchers

The interviews show that the butchers surveyed are mostly trained professionals who have chosen this profession voluntarily. They often come from families with a tradition of slaughtering or farming. These imprints lead many butchers to develop patterns of justification in order to relieve the emotional burden of killing animals by saying: “That’s what the animals are there for.” As well as Dortmund highlights that these mechanisms can be harmful to the psyche of society in the long term.

Another notable finding is that some butchers report feelings of compassion, particularly when killing calves or when stunning does not work as intended. These emotional conflicts highlight the moral dilemmas the butchers face while carrying out their tasks. At the same time, they reject the idea of ​​slaughtering certain animals such as dogs, indicating deep-rooted, pre-reflective categories that distinguish permitted behavior from scandalous action.

Social and ethical implications

Social perception of animal husbandry and killing is increasingly being questioned. This is how he criticizes Time the inadequate political measures, which are often reactive to animal welfare scandals, and the opinion of the German Ethics Council, which is considered inadequate because it does not contain any ethical recommendation for plant-based nutrition. In addition, the idea of ​​“species-appropriate animal husbandry” is viewed as a contradiction because there are no non-violent killing methods.

Overall, the study by Dr. Sebastian that it is time to listen to radical views and stand up for the freedom and lives of non-human animals. This discussion is in the context of a broader social debate on animal protection, ethical issues and the responsibility in dealing with animals, which play a central role in modern agriculture and meat production.