This is a thoughtful article, but I found myself waiting for it to follow the shepherd metaphor beyond animal husbandry.
Once the shepherd and the flock become metaphors for human society, religion and political authority enter the discussion almost inevitably. The shepherd promises protection and peace, while the flock pays in obedience, money and, at times, blood. Yet the one who calls for sacrifice often stands beside the cross rather than beneath it.
This may be the deepest paradox of the shepherd metaphor: the shepherd claims to exist for the flock, but his position also depends on the flock remaining dependent, obedient and unable to determine its own direction.
I have not eaten meat for twelve years, primarily for ethical reasons, but I do not believe that every relationship between humans and domesticated animals must be based on killing or absolute ownership. I can imagine husbandry founded on guardianship rather than ownership: calves remaining with the herd, slaughter being prohibited, and humans taking only a genuine surplus after the needs of the animals have been met.
Perhaps the real ethical distinction is therefore not simply between keeping animals and rejecting animal husbandry, but between care that serves life and care that conceals possession.
This is a thoughtful article, but I found myself waiting for it to follow the shepherd metaphor beyond animal husbandry.
Once the shepherd and the flock become metaphors for human society, religion and political authority enter the discussion almost inevitably. The shepherd promises protection and peace, while the flock pays in obedience, money and, at times, blood. Yet the one who calls for sacrifice often stands beside the cross rather than beneath it.
This may be the deepest paradox of the shepherd metaphor: the shepherd claims to exist for the flock, but his position also depends on the flock remaining dependent, obedient and unable to determine its own direction.
I have not eaten meat for twelve years, primarily for ethical reasons, but I do not believe that every relationship between humans and domesticated animals must be based on killing or absolute ownership. I can imagine husbandry founded on guardianship rather than ownership: calves remaining with the herd, slaughter being prohibited, and humans taking only a genuine surplus after the needs of the animals have been met.
Perhaps the real ethical distinction is therefore not simply between keeping animals and rejecting animal husbandry, but between care that serves life and care that conceals possession.