Several days ago two pit bulls and a labrador attacked a nice young Mormon man on his way to work in Orem, which is about 45 miles south of Salt Lake. The story was on the news the other day, and they showed a shot of the male pit bull, the only one who didn't get picked up and taken home after the attack (the female and the lab were both taken home by their people). The show shows him huddling at the back of a small concrete cage, devoid of food, water, cushion or toys. In fact, devoid of anything to offer him the remotest comfort, all alone in a strange and scary place.
Regardless of whether the dog 'meant' to do this, does he still deserve to be treated worse than the worst of murderers? Even people like Jeffery Dahmer have a bed, and a sink, and access to water. And yet here sits a dog who both victims say shouldn't be held responsible, sitting on a concrete floor, plainly terrified.
Were this the human world, and this a man who had attacked another man, perhaps he would get a five year jail sentence. Perhaps less, especially with his victims speaking out for him. Instead, this dog's life is at stake, teetering on the edge. Were he a child, or even mentally handicapped, he would be allowed to live. Even if he was on death row, he would have some small comforts. All because he's a pit bull, and in our racist, prejudice world, that's enough to send him to death. Reminds me of a by-gone (and good riddance) era in which Black people were killed for even looking at White women.
I agree that the animal could and should have been treated more kindly and also that if it had been treated with kindness it's whole life then the attack most likely would not have happened. And that as a whole as humankind we can improve by leaps and bounds in the way we treat animals but from a larger perspective I propose the question where should we as society and we as voices for change put our time and energy? As one illustration I look at your counter of animals slaughtered and I think about a similar counter about child mortality published by the WDM http://www.wdm.org.uk/deathcounter/
I personally would give priority to the child mortality counter but I also think that compassion is interlinked so that justice and compassion applied to the underprivileged and poor would translate or at least make more willing to consider the justice and compassion we show to animals as a society.
Those are my thoughts.
Thanks for commenting :)
I don't understand your argument though Dave. Are you suggesting that one cannot challenge two, or three or four injustices at once? For example, could I be a feminist and an anti-poverty advocate all at the same time? Is it reasonable to argue that I can be an effective advocate for both at once? If I write about feminism, but I do direct advocacy for the labor movement, am I implying a hierarchy of "what matters more"? I think not; I think that's absurd.
We respond to this in a brief statement in the FAQ section:
"Why don't you focus your efforts on humans! Don't you know there are starving children/people being killed/human rights being violated?
I don't live in a bubble. The short answer is that the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are even organizations that promote both simultaneously, like Food Not Bombs. I can care about both human animals and non-human animals, and I do. Including more individuals in your moral community makes you a better person. Also, taking "sentience" as the only necessary requirement for attributing moral worth to an individual better ensures that the most vulnerable amongst us (e.g., ethnic minorities, the mentally handicapped) will be protected from great injustice and moral harms."
As you argued, "compassion is interlinked"; therefore, it follows that this is not a zero-sum game, as you are implying in your comment.
Suffering is suffering Dave. I disagree with those who are demonstrably arbitrary when they argue that X's suffering ought to count, but not Y's; or my suffering should count more than yours. Suffering is intrinsically evil. Therefore, our efforts to decrease an amount of suffering unlike any other we've ever seen in this world - the current plight of nonhumans - would necessarily translate into aid for the poor and starving amongst us. Consider the numbers on turning plant protein into animal protein as an example of this.
Indeed, as an empirical observation, many of the most aggressive grass-roots organizations who concern themselves with genocide in the Sudan, or refugees from the former Soviet block, or the homeless in our cities, are also actively involved in the movement to extend our moral community beyond the arbitrary species-barrier.
Sorry I didn't see your response, you need a little subscribe to comments checkbox.
No real argument, in the contentious way, I think we see eye to eye in the ideal vision of compassion towards human and non-human alike and can both recognize the interconnectedness. I do question our messaging and how we perhaps silo our advocacy. I personally think if a message constantly stresses kindness to animals with a passion and vigor that it seems to place itself superior to the suffering of human ailments then you are guaranteed to alienate the majority of your listening audience. Ultimately it turns people away and lessens the number of people we can influence.
Basically I would love to see the messages more integrated. A couple months ago at work we had the founder of CTPH-Conservation through Public Health come through the office. She is a conservation biologist in Uganda working to preserve the mountain gorilla population but is doing so in a unique way. She is not delivering a message of guilt nor is chaining herself to trees or whatnot but she is pursuing her conservation goals by addressing the public health problems of the human communities that live near the national park. In so doing she has cut back of the species to species interchange of diseases and created entire communities of conservation advocates. It is a beautiful blending of compassion for the poor and education of the poor to become conservation champions with the end result being the health and thriving of the gorilla population.
But my main point is that I think her blended message is key to the support she has attracted. I think that blended message will ultimately be more effective is changing minds and hearts and create greater impact in results.
Dave, if I spend my time advocating for survivors of rape, does that mean I feel their right not to be raped is more important than say, a child's right not to be abused, simply because I have chosen to advocate for rape survivors and not abuse survivors?
I don't believe it does, but thousands of people do this and are never questioned or asked if they feel their cause is more important than another. They are never called down or ignored for supporting social justice in one form or another, and nor should we be. This works on the assumption that humans do indeed matter more than animals, and that we (i.e. animal rights activists and advocates) believe the contrary - that animals are more important than people, which simply isn't true.
I believe that every person (i.e. sentient being) deserves rights. I stress this. However, I also believe that were I to advocate for human and animal rights simultaneously (which I wish I could on a more regular basis - I've worked on a couple campaigns which stress both) that people would ignore the message about animal rights and focus instead on the message about human rights, or become offended that I had 'dared' to place animal rights on a level with human rights. We should always stress both whenever possible, I agree, but many people don't.
Working on a level of guilt is never appealing to anyone, and I wish that we could do as the founder of CTPH has done. However, conservation is a very different matter than rights. Conservation implies that the animals are still resources, if well protected ones. Programs like this one are EXCELLENT for situations like that, but not effective when trying to prevent cattle from going to slaughter.
What about campaigns who stress only human rights/human suffering? Shouldn't they too begin to integrate animal issues into their programs?