Reading: October 2008 Archives

Oklahoma state senator Earl Garrison is promoting a change to the state constitution that would protect hunters and fisherman from animal rights activists, also known as the Hunters Bill of Rights.

"We're trying to put in our constitution the right for Oklahomans to hunt, fish and trap like we always have," he said. "For most Oklahomans it's a heritage we can pass on to our children and grandchildren" (emphasis added).

The practical purpose - it is, after all, purely instrumental - of the law is to constitutionalize an explicit ban on any sort of hunt saboteur activities.

Mr. Garrison doesn't seem to be relying on speciesism to justify killing another being for sport, which is so often the case, and therefore, he deserves the recognition. However, he does assume that because a practice has been apart of a community's tradition, it is good. Indeed, his argument premises the inherent goodness of "heritage." His defense of sport-killing tries to follow from this premise. To challenge this defense, then, we must consider the initial assumption that tradition = right.

Consider this assumption as it relates to our other "heritages." Slavery was once defended on these grounds; the subordination of women to men still is. It is undeniable that gender and racial discrimination is rooted in tradition. Does it follow that sexism is inherently good then? Of course not. If a practice is harmful or if it violates other ethical premises we hold, the practice ought to be challenged. Therefore, Mr. Garrison must either accept the conclusions that follow from his own argument and thereby regard Southern sentimentalists of the 'good ol'days' as advocating a valid argument, or reject his primary assumption out of hand and find another defense of killing a deer because it's fun.

Mr. Garrison mentions another defense as well - animal populations must be "culled" for the good of the animals themselves. However, this defense is superfluous because it has nothing to do with his primary premise, therefore, I'll leave it for another day.

Hunters don't need a Bill of Rights, they need a valid defense.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox   

Here's yet another example to counter the, "But animals are exploited to cure cancer," crowd. (Heed my warnings though when attacking these assumptions on this front.)

From PETA:

"In only a few days, children around the world will be ringing doorbells and looking for Halloween treats. As scary as some of their costumes might be, the true horror this holiday will actually be the M&Ms, Snickers, or Skittles candies that lie in your child's candy bag. All these candies, along with many other candies sold under household names, are manufactured by Mars Inc., a company responsible for the deaths of numerous animals in unnecessary animal tests.

The experiments funded by Mars, including the following examples, are truly the stuff of Halloween nightmares:

• Rats have been force-fed chocolate chemicals and had needles jabbed directly into their still beating hearts.

• Rabbits have been cut apart to determine the effects of cocoa on muscle tissue.

• Guinea pigs have had cocoa ingredients injected into arteries in their necks to measure the impact on their blood pressure.

And these are only a few of the tests that Mars has funded. Perhaps most disturbingly of all, not one of Mars' experiments on animals is required by law.

"But," the defenders of wanton animal exploitation argue,

"it's better that these animals suffer and die than cute little human babies who just want to enjoy a tasty piece of candy. So, I'm sorry, but humans are at the top of the hierarchy - they have to be."

Subtext: A) The interests, no matter how fundamental they may be (e.g., not being in pain), of animals don't count when weighed against human interests, no matter how trivial they may be (e.g., I want another flavor of jolly rancher). And B), it's clearly the only way to do it. My evidence: Because these industries continue to do so and they wouldn't unnecessarily torture animals. Right? Wrong: 

"Thanks to PETA's hard work and pressure, many of the world's major food corporations--including Mars' chief rival, Hershey's, and Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Co--have pledged not to fund or conduct experiments on animals."

Competing interests ladies and gentlemen: As our prejudice determines the outcome, "taste" trumps not "being in pain". Defend that. I await a response. 

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

"In the video footage from the investigation, workers at the Chinese farm pull rabbits out of cages by their ears and shoot the screaming animals in the head with captive-bolt guns, often multiple times. Rabbits with slit throats can be seen twitching and shaking, with their eyes wide open, before they die."

"...selective use of an argument we would reject in other contexts." From, The Ethics Of What We Eat. 

This single statement, it seems reasonable to argue, underlies the reasoning (Or lack thereof?) of all those, or at least the vast majority, who deny the existence of the rights of nonhuman animals.

For proof, let's consider some examples:

"The natural order dictates that some are predators and others are prey; therefore, as we exist within this "natural order," we are fulfilling our role. Ethics, then, cannot go to challenge our part in this order. Or put differently, this very nature of things answers the question, "What is ethical in this situation?""

Returning to the statement quoted above, we find a simple rebuke founded on solid reasoning: "But this "argument from nature" can justify all kinds of inequities, including the rule of men over women and leaving the weak and sick to fall by the wayside." Therefore, are we willing to accept the logical conclusions of our own premises, such as, for another example: Social Darwinism dictates that all welfare programs ought to be abolished because, as in nature, natural processes will select out the weak - those individuals putting downward pressure on our society - from the gene pool, which will result in a stronger population as a whole. This, the argument concludes, is the natural order of things. If we are not willing to accept this, we must define a sound principle that separates the two situations. Reason demands that we defend this inherent contradiction.

"It is Western tradition to exploit nonhuman animals. Indeed, many of our cultural practices are predicated on the notion that this exploitation is "good." Therefore, because animal flesh, for example, is so significant to us, there's something intrinsically okay about the practice."

"But," as Singer and Mason write, "when cultural practices are harmful they should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Slavery was once part of the culture of the American South" (and still is throughout the world today). They continue, "Biases against women...have been, and in some places still are, culturally significant." Therefore, it follows from our reliance on "Because it has always been this way" as a moral defense of torturing a bull to death for entertainment, for example, that similar claims can be made to justify a policy that homosexuals ought to be socially chastised into submission, and refused entrance into the public sphere. It follows, but should we accept this logic? 

"Yes, nonhuman animals have interests in not being harmed, however, human interests, because we are human, always trump the interests of nonhumans, no matter how fundamental (e.g., a cows interest in not suffering simply because I happen to enjoy the taste of his flesh), because they are not human."

Singer replies: "If we ignore or discount [nonhuman animal] interests simply on the grounds that they are not members of our species, the logic of our position is similar to that of the most blatant racists or sexists - those who think that to be white, or male, is to be inherently superior in moral status, irrespective of other characteristics or qualities." If we accept speciesism as valid, how can we reasonable reject other forms of bigotry?

"Okay, but nonhuman animals cannot reason, or do mathematics, or speak human language..."

A response to this is as simple as it is persuasive: What of human infants, those in the advanced stages of senility, or the severely mentally handicapped? Surely they are less self-aware, and more unreasonable, than an adult hog. Therefore, how can we use these criteria to draw a distinction between all humans on the one hand and all nonhuman animals on the other? We cannot, lest we accept demonstrable arbitrariness as ethically valid or we reject "intellectual capacity" as a necessary characteristic for entrance into the moral community (i.e., distinguishing those who count from those who don't).

"Nonhumans were bred specifically for our ends. Such is the reason (and cause) of their existence. So, as long as we aren't unnecessarily harming them, because this isn't rational given that it's not the best use of them as things, it doesn't make sense to argue that we shouldn't be using them."

This same defense, verbatim, was employed by Southern plantation owners when defending their "right" to enslave Africans and black Americans. Further, would we accept this claim if the 'slave' were a child and the 'plantation owner' a mother: "I specifically bred," the mother argues, "this child for X, Y, and Z purposes. So I will exploit her accordingly"? There are clearly some missing premises here: What justifies the breeding in the first place? and How does the act of bringing a being with interests into the world justify refusing to acknowledge and respect those interests? Doesn't it, in fact, work the other way: Because of the mothers actions, she must accept the duties or obligations associated with bringing a defenseless being into this world. Such as, for example, protecting her child from harm.

This list could go on, however, my intent isn't to exhaust our excuses but to illuminate the underlying contradictions in the hopes that we can look internally and try to avoid these logical and ethical traps ourselves.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox

POINT:  "All this talk about animal liberation, animal rights, and speciesism is an insult to women and minorities. How can you equate sheep and women, cows and blacks? How can you compare raising animals for food to denying our fellow human beings the attainment of their most fundamental aspirations. Farms animals can't feel humiliated. They can't feel robbed of their dignity. They can't feel the outrage that humans feel when denied recognition of their worth. They can't know what it's like to be treated like a thing instead of a person. They have no idea what it means to be a person, to have rights, to be treated fairly." 

COUNTERPOINT:  "My point isn't to compare animals just to women and minorities, but to all humans - and that includes white men. It's not to insult anybody either. Nobody wants to demean humans. I just want to give nonhumans the respect they deserve. And all that stuff about a sense of dignity and the the rest is irrelevant. All it shows is that some things that matter to us don't matter to them. But other things do. Avoiding pain, for instance. And freedom. And to many of them, their lives. Animals want to roam free, have enough space to do what comes natural to them, and lead pain-free lives. Their aspirations may not be precisely the same as ours, but they're equally real."