Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote,
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right" (emphasis added).
Might makes right. Why does this principle implicitly guide our dealings with the wider Earth and all its nonhuman inhabitants, when this same logic would be (and has been) rejected as a matter of ethics throughout Western society?
Consider the foundation of the argument: We possess an evolutionary "right" - heritage (in the archaic sense)? - which justifies our instrumental use of nonhumans and the environment as tools for humans' ends. How can this be described without appealing to might? Would this argument similarly hold in those patriarchal societies that relegate women to the status of children because of their "natural inferiority," as Aristotle argued? (Remember, Aristotle was assuming a type of "might.") The might principle would certainly suggest that it follows.
If this argument of 'evolutionary right' is accepted as valid, thereby assuming that "might" is a characteristic that can ethically determine an outcome, weren't the actions of white European colonizers throughout Africa beyond moral reproach? If superiority in strength can ethically justify domination then the humanitarian crises affecting more than two million people in the Darfur region of Western Sudan ought to be considered, what, acceptable? Or is "might makes right" valid in situations involving A,B,C,D,E,F and G but not (some) Z?
Or are these comparisons not appropriate because there really isn't a difference between humans therefore any attempt to claim otherwise is just false? This, of course, is untrue because humans are in fact different - some are stronger, smarter, better looking, etc. So, who gets pushed to the bottom of the pedestal? It's interesting because this same argument - "No, with this group of people, there really are differences" - was and still is made to justify the infantilism of women. But this aside, I must ask, does it really matter that this individual is stronger than that individual (or group) along some arbitrarily defined characteristic when we are talking about something as intrinsically evil as suffering?
To what principle can you appeal when defending this sort of arbitrariness? That is the task for the ardent speciesist. I think, however, that like the racist, sexist and bigot, it is an effort doomed to logical inconsistency and baseless assumptions - another failed attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Leave a comment