Beware of Surveys!
I received a letter of appeal the other day. It was from an organisation that promotes the ethical treatment of animals and spoke of the dreadful cruelty cats and dogs commonly suffer as they are tortured and killed for their fur in China each year.
The letter was well written and made its point well. It was designed to pull at our heartstrings - and it does that very successfully.
However, the rescue of animals from such cruelty wasn’t the only agenda behind this letter. If it was, I would be fully behind it. There was a second agenda, and it’s that agenda that I want to discuss here.
As the letter unfolded, there were three actions that they asked the reader to take.
- Never buy or wear fur.
- Complete an opinion poll that was enclosed and send it to them.
- Join their organisation by sending a donation.
Now, I don’t mind if people join their organisation. I think it has a role to play in reducing cruelty to animals.
In fact I don’t mind if people fill out the opinion poll or decide to never wear fur again. That’s an individual decision people are free to make.
What I do mind is the way our emotions are played with and our thoughts manipulated in order to achieve the desired results in the ‘opinion poll’. So let’s look at their first two ‘action steps’.
1. ‘Never Buy or Wear Fur’
So is the agenda to stop cruelty to the cats and dogs used in the China fur trade, or is the agenda to stop the fur trade altogether?
The letter of appeal focused on the cruelty but the first action step was aimed at crippling the fur trade. Now I realise that lowering demand for fur will help reduce the number of animals subjected to such cruelties, but this will only work as long as you can keep convincing people not to wear fur.
When God created man, He gave man a mandate. Genesis 1:28 says, “And God blessed them and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
The mandate to ‘subdue’ (conquer, control, tread down) the earth and have dominion over (rule over, subjugate) the animals, fish and birds, wasn’t withdrawn when man sinned. Man still has that mandate. That mandate isn’t a license for neglect, mistreatment or abuse. It is a command to tend to the earth and animals with care and responsibility. In fact, Proverbs 12:10 says, “A righteous man regards the life of his beast.”
At the same time though, this isn’t an edict to not kill the animals over whom we have dominion. God himself told Noah after the flood that, “Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.” (Gen 9:3).
So while I don’t believe that indiscriminate or gratuitous killing of animals, or cruel methods of killing animals is right, I also don’t believe that killing animals for our purposes is inherently wrong. If this were so, not only should we ‘never buy or wear fur’, but we’d better ‘never eat meat, poultry or fish’ (I can hear the vegetarians and vegans saying ‘amen’ to that) and ‘never buy leather goods’ - shoes, bags, wallets, saddles etc, for each of these also involves the killing of animals.
I believe we should focus on the real issue. It isn’t the killing of animals that is the issue, but rather the method of killing the animals.
Instead of being manipulated by emotional pleas, we need to see what God has to say about something. Because God doesn’t have a problem with the killing of animals, we shouldn’t either.
So the solution isn’t in killing the fur trade, but in bringing pressure to bear that will result in the regulations of the fur trade so that animals are killed painlessly.
2. Complete an Opinion Poll
This is the other ‘action step’ I want to discuss. It sounds innocent enough. Get people’s opinions about the animal cruelty that is involved in the Chinese fur trade.
But no, the agenda isn’t just to stop the cruelty. The agenda is to make people feel they have a moral obligation to never buy or wear fur.
If that wasn’t clear enough in action step 1, then perhaps you’ll see how that agenda is reinforced in action step 2.
The ‘Opinion Poll’ has seven questions each of which has a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ option which you tick as your answer. The first six all begin with ‘Were you aware…’, or ‘Did you know/realise…’ asking questions about people’s awareness - before reading the letter - of the methods used to kill animals in the Chinese fur trade. Most westerners would answer ‘no’ to all six questions.
Then comes the final question. ‘Do you think it is ever morally justifiable to kill animals so their fur can be used and sold as clothing, furnishings or trinkets?’
Now remember, the accompanying letter was designed to pull our heartstrings because of the unwarranted cruelty that cats and dogs are subjected to in the Chinese fur trade. However, this last question doesn’t ask us if we think it is ever ‘morally justifiable to cruelly and painfully kill cats and dogs for the Chinese fur trade’. Instead, it is aimed at taking advantage of two things:
- our heightened emotions and pity for the cats and dogs discussed.
- the proven opinion poll method of asking enough questions that are all likely to give the same answer (eg ‘no’) in order to prime people into answering the same for the last (or second last) question which is really the key focus of the whole opinion poll. The other questions are just ‘fill’ designed to manipulate us into giving the answer they want from us in that key question.
In this case, the questionnaire was designed to get us to answer ‘no’ to the last question even though it wasn’t specifically about the subject matter of the letter. Instead, it was a much broader question aimed at getting people to say that it is never justifiable to kill any animals for their fur.
Why? Because they are hoping that the bigger percentage of people will answer ‘no’ to the last question so the survey results can be used as a weapon against the fur trade generally.
Now, in defence of this organisation, there are some good things they have achieved. They are getting some worthy results.
And just to make it clear. I don’t condone cruelty to animals. However, letters like the one I have just read attempt to blur objectivity enough so the reader accepts things they wouldn’t normally accept. In this case the aim is to bring the reader to the point of accepting that ‘killing’ and ‘cruelty’ are one and the same - and they aren’t.
So next time you are asked to fill out a survey, ask yourself some questions first.
Does God say something on this subject? (Do some study if you have to.)
What emotions is any accompanying letter trying to manipulate?
What is the real purpose of the ‘survey’? Many surveys are simply designed to get the desired response in that key question near the end, and if you’re not careful, you’ll play straight into their hands without even realising it.
May God give you wisdom.