Thinking: April 2008 Archives

I want to use the following quote in two ways:

George Bernard Shaw said, "When a man wants to murder a tiger, it's called a sport; when a tiger wants to murder him, it's called ferocity."

#1):

This is an interesting quote; however, it seems that Shaw is equating the tiger's actions with the "sportsman's" on a moral level. Murder is the unjust taking of another's life, which the hunter most assuredly does when he kills the tiger, but the tigers' taking of the hunter's life is different in kind.

Consider a hypothetical: if a five year old human infant were to get his hand on a gun, point it at you and fire, would you say that the child was acting immorally? I would say that the child is not acting immorally because the child is incapable of acting morally or immorally: from Kant, having the capacity to bring impartial reason to bear on one's actions is the necessary characteristic to qualify as a moral agent (i.e., to be able to act morally or immorally). 

Applying this to the situation of the tiger killing the pseudo-sportsman (a.k.a., murderer for sport), it would seem that the term "murder" is incorrectly applied. As with the child, the tiger is not reasonably considered a moral agent, therefore, as in the case of the child shooting you, the tiger can't be said to have unjustly taken a life. Both the tiger and the human infant are moral patients.

And #2):

The news coverage on the recent shark attack in California allows us to consider the substance of Shaw's remarks. 

A situation is posited where an individual is gleefully enjoying all the ocean has to offer while a "real-life Jaws" awaits his opportunity to strike, unprovoked, with viciousness and rage. Indeed, "unprovoked" is the most commonly used term to describe this attack. Deconstructing this, however, reveals the absurdity of this description.

The ocean is the shark's natural environment - his home and refuge. As the shark is a natural carnivore, this environment is his supermarket: due to necessity, the shark must consume meat to survive; therefore, when he is hungry he hunts for prey. If I enter his environment I necessarily assume the risks of doing so; I am in fact, provoking a possible attack by entertaining myself in the shark's home. If I was attacked while having a swim in a river I knew to be populated with a school of piranha, it's hardly reasonably for me to argue that my attack was "unprovoked": piranha's are carnivorous, so it is in their nature - it's what they do to survive - to eat meat, as I am meat, I assume the risk of being attacked.

Calling an attack "unprovoked" shifts the focus (and blame) from the individual participant onto the animal, which is illogical and unfair. Indeed, while most argue that the shark has left the area, others are actively pursuing him so as to murder him. I say that the hunt for this shark constitutes the unprovoked attack: we freely decide to enter the shark's domain, he responds in a way natural to him, and we murder him for doing so. It's as if there exists some pre-determined standard for acting between non-human animals and human animals that is only broken when a surfer, for example, approaches a shark and punches him in the face. As the child ought to not be placed in prison for shooting you - she isn't playing by the same moral rules - the shark ought to not be punished for behaving naturally.  

The death of the individual is tragic, but we mustn't deflect blame from that individual, and all others who freely participate in these activities, onto a morally blameless animal.  

It is our species that creates these situations of conflict, and yet as a species, we are incapable of accepting our responsibility for doing so. We develop land heavily populated by raccoons, for example, and then argue that we must, as a matter of necessity, murder those raccoons that happen to find themselves on our property because they are "pests" or a nuisance. This is the height of infantile reasoning, and Speciesism.

"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

                                                                         - Schopenhauer (The Basis of Moral Duty)

Crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox. 

From Animal Person:

"As many of you know by now, as a result of the investigation at the Hallmark slaughterhouse, Congress is calling for cameras to be installed at slaughterhouses.

...[The author argues] that this is in no way related to animal rights and will not lead to animal rights...(because it's just about oversight (i.e., "cover your ass") not about respecting each individual as a sentient being, or to expose the torture of animals).

Perhaps the footage might lead to the alteration of some practices. Perhaps not. The cameras are meant to catch those individuals who think it's funny to sit on a turkey, or throw chickens against a wall for fun or sexually molest a pig. [Cameras are] meant to make sure that business goes as it should...  

Practical concerns arise, as well: [The author writes,] "We don't know if all (or any?) of the footage will be for public consumption."  

Regardless of the above stated and well founded cynicism, this legislation ought to be supported as a means to the end of providing some level of protection against the most egregious displays of the human species' inhumanity.  

Indeed, having limited access to the goings on in a slaughterhouse may provide a justification for the exploitation of animals (e.g., "Look, the animals are treated "well"), which may make even the factory farm a producer of "happy meat."

However, maybe not. Perhaps it will force people to re-examine their own lives and their explicit support of these industries when they feel that moral pang as they watch a pig struggle for his life, which may engender a more inclusive worldview about the moral community. I don't know, but I still think that this legislation should be supported. 

One thing is certain, cameras in slaughterhouses will force these companies to adhere to regulations, which will cut into their profits because adhering to regulations (instead of ignoring them to keep our meat cheap and their profits high) costs money: more input into these processes means higher prices in the supermarket and a hit at the company's bottom-line, which is, of course, all they care about. Tyson doesn't want cameras in its slaughterhouses because when meat's expensive consumers are more apt to be shaken from their stupor.

This link will take you to a petition where you can show your support for this legislation.

Elaine Vigneault has two different posts about this on her blog, including a very well-written letter to her representatives asking for their support.

Every living organism exploits its resources for the basic goal of propagating the species. Human beings are one such organism; as animals are a "resource" to be exploited, as a species we have an evolutionary imperative - a programmed biological drive - to use our animal resources for this end.

• Carl Lewis is "one of the most prolific Olympic track and field athletes in U.S. history; Lewis has won 10 Olympic medals (9 Gold, 1 Silver)." 

Each year American doctors inject more than 3 million doses of Botox to temporarily smooth-out their patients' wrinkles and frown lines. But before each batch is shipped, the manufacturer puts it through one of the oldest and most controversial animal tests available. 

To check the potency of its product, Allergen Inc. injects mice with Botox until it finds a dose at which half of the animals die - a rough gage of potential harm to humans. 

Animal protection organizations consider "lethal dosage 50," as the test is known, to be the "poster child of everything that's wrong with animal testing...It's as bad as it gets, poisoning animals to death." 

Allergen officials say that they have no choice. Without a federally approved safety test that does not use animals..."lethal dosage 50" is by default the required test. 

This controversy highlights the slow pace of government efforts to replace or reduce the large number of animals used in testing. A decade after Congress created a panel to spur the development of non-animal tests, only four tests have been approved out of 185 reviews. Scientists in the U.S. say they have delayed or abandoned their proposals for non-animal tests because panel reviews are protracted and expensive. 

 
...critics point to Europe, where a similar panel has approved 34 alternatives with another 170 in its pipeline. Critics say the U.S. panel is slow and favors older animal tests that have never gone through the same rigorous scientific review...

Others argue that members of the panel have a bias in favor of animal testing. An email exchange between panel members and government scientists suggests that the bias in favor of animal testing has engendered resistance to alternatives. According to the Washington Post, "Copies of an email exchange between scientists discussing two recent papers by a prominent European researcher who has found evidence proving the viability of non-animal test alternatives, were uncovered. In this email exchange one scientist asked, "What could we do to combat these papers." The Chair of the panel responded, "What I see is them trying to build a case not to use animals in testing." 

As a result, critics argue, hundreds of thousands of mice, rabbits, hamsters and dogs continue to suffer and die needlessly in tests for pesticides, household cleaners, sunscreens and other products. Some contend that millions of animals are used for these tests, however, there are no federal reporting requirements covering mice and rats, who make up the majority of the animals used in product testing, so "official" numbers are at best low-ball estimates. 

Sentience is defined as "the ability to feel or perceive subjectively." Jeremy Bentham understood sentience as the "ability to experience suffering." Gary Francione argues that sentience is the means to the end of ensuring life (e.g., evolution has instilled in us the ability to experience pain, which is perceived as harmful to life and thus triggers the "flight response").    

Sentience is important because if X is sentient he is the type of being who has interests. For example, if Jake the bull quickly removes his hoof from a hot surface, it is reasonable to infer that he has experienced pain (or an unpleasant shock); one can deduce from Jake's actions that he has an interest in not continuing to experience the pain of having his hoof on a hot surface - he has an interest in not being in pain or in removing himself from the unpleasant situation.

In practice (and theory), Speciesism is a prejudice against allowing Jake's interests any moral weight; in fact, due to his membership in a species different than Homo sapiens, Jake is viewed as having no relevant interests at all. In so doing, Jake the bull (a sentient being) move's from his proper [and natural] role as a person, to the role of a thing.  

A rock for example, as Peter Singer argues, is a thing: the type of thing that is incapable of having any interests at all. A rock does not have an interest in not being kicked down the street because the rock is not capable of "feeling or perceiving subjectively"; a rock does not care what I do to it because it is incapable of caring what I do to it. As a result of our Speciesism, we have two options. One, Jake the bull is forced to assume a role similar in kind to that of a rock: if Jake is "stunned" improperly and thus conscious while he is being skinned and gutted, like the rock, he doesn't have an interest in not experiencing this because it (Jake is no longer a he) is incapable of experiencing anything. Without interests, our moral responsibilities are absolved. Or two, Jake is rightfully viewed as sentient, which means he can subjectively experience what is happening to him, however, he is not a human animal; as such, our interest in pleasing our palate trumps his interest in not being tortured and murdered.

Both options leave a very bad taste in my mouth.

What if we were to substitute Jake the bull for 'Jake the family dog'? Would Jake be viewed in his proper form - as a sentient being? If so, is his ability to perceive pain (and pleasure in the absence of pain) of any moral significance?

Gary Francione has identified our "moral schizophrenia," meaning we view companion animals such as dogs and cats as relevant members of our moral community (see the collective outrage over Michael Vick's actions); indeed, a majority of our companion animals are viewed as another member of the family - like a child or loved one. Francione, then, would ask, what moral or empirical difference is there between 'Jake the member of your family' and Jake the bull whom you barbequed for dinner last night?    

It's an excellent question. Don't shy away from the answer because you feel stupid when you really think about it. It's at the same time so clear and undeniably irrational: there is no moral or empirical difference between these two sentient beings. Jake the bull, Jake the family dog, you, me, your mother, and your father are all sentient beings: we are all individuals who can subjectively experience what is happening to us, and we all have an interest in not suffering (in all its terrible forms).

Foolishness reigns when human animals simply negate their moral duties because it's inconvenient to be rational.   

Paul and Linda McCartney said, "If all the slaughterhouses were made of glass we would all be vegetarians."

We all remember this:

From Times Online

In late February, a representative of the Humane Society of the United States produced an undercover video shot at the abattoir run by the Hallmark Meat Packing Company documenting sick, hapless and crippled cows being dragged by the hoof behind a forklift truck, and distressed animals being lifted, rolled and shocked in an attempt to force them to stand. The video also showed workers kicking, forcing water down the throat of one cow in an attempt to get him to stand and otherwise maltreating injured cows so sick or injured that they are unable to walk.

I mention this as an example of direct activism - a form of activism that is often opposed by the authorities, members of the business and "scientific" communities, and other uninformed individuals.

Why the opposition to this activism?

I have been told that many University campuses have designed certain buildings for the specific purpose of shielding the animal testing that occurs in the departments of psychology or the "hard sciences" from the majority of the population. At my undergraduate University, the University of Utah, animal rights activists made many concerted efforts to force those groups who test on animals to provide access to and documentation about the animals being exploited, the methods employed, the ends sought, the use of veterinarians, etc.; efforts that were opposed by University officials, who continuously denied activists access to this information.  

Perhaps the McCartneys' words hold true when the exploitation of animals takes other forms?

I received an email today from a member of the animal rights movement on the campus of George Mason University describing attempts by some to oppose the free expression of outrage over yet another form of sanctioned animal abuse. Some exerts follow:

"As many of you know, Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus is at the Patriot Center...Numerous individuals, including GMU students, have been demonstrating against Ringling Brothers'...documented history of abuse.

On April 6...protestors were in front of the Patriot Center, standing on the sidewalk with signs and chanting, when Virginia State Troopers and members of the campus police department surrounded three activists by forming a tight circle around them, and threatened immediate arrest if they did not leave...The activists were standing on public property without impeding individuals attending the circus - a legal protest.

...the protestors were asked to remove their masks (because they were not allowed to conceal their faces), when the activists agreed the police officer changed the subject by claiming that he was the "caretaker" of public property and again threatened immediate arrest - which is illegal.

On Friday, Saturday and Sunday, GMU police took photos of activists, videotaped activists, and finally followed the animal rights activists to their cars after the demonstration..."

I ask again, why the opposition? It's curious that those people who defend the exploitation of animals so ardently are often the most adamant in their opposition to the forms of direct activism described above. The federal government has passed laws that would describe any act that potentially hinders the profitability of a business that benefits from the exploitation of animals as Eco-Terrorism. Protesting outside of a McDonalds would fall into this category. The fear is almost pathetic; but their power is undeniable - a power only reinforced by the ignorance of the masses.    

The fear that engenders this often illegal opposition is well-founded: "If slaughterhouses and, animal testing laboratories, circuses, fur farms, puppy mills, zoos, factory farms, hunting events, etc. were made of glass we would all be vegans. 

... as myself and the person who organized the event discussed the issue with an individual who had approached us, this person expressed an anger about the process of "factory farming," and other forms of animal exploitation; indeed, this person offered support for our attempts to raise consciousness about our species' irrational exclusion of non-human animals from the moral community. However, as the conversion logically progressed and the issue of vegetarianism and veganism was raised, this person changed from sympathetic and understanding to argumentative and dismissive. 

What motivates such a shift in attitude is simple: discourses about the immorality of animal exploitation are 'popular' - a sign of one's enlightenment and capacity for empathy - those actions that logically follow from these discourses, however, are unpopular, a challenge to one's selfish desire to please their palate. 

The argument employed by this person was of course baseless in light of his earlier support of our arguments opposing Speciesism, however, they bear mentioning. Essentially, this person defended eating meat because human animals are superior to non-human animals due to our species' elevated consciousness, capacity to reason, and rationality. Notice, it is not membership in the species Homo sapien that is morally relevant, but the capacity to reason, or to be conscious, etc. In response, this person was asked if he ate human babies because human babies cannot reasonably be argued to have a higher rationality or capacity to reason than an adult cow, or pig; substitute "human babies" for the mentally handicapped and the same argument holds as well. We continued by arguing that 'rationality', 'consciousness', or the 'capacity to reason' are not truly considered morally relevant because those human animals who lack these abilities are not viewed as morally worthless or morally worth less than those human animals with those abilities. For example, 'we' wouldn't eat the mentally handicapped because they have no moral worth. This person was taken-aback by this response, reasonably so; however, when presented with this counter argument a pure Speciesism was exposed.    

Moving from ability X, Y, and Z as important distinguishing features justifying consuming animal flesh, this person argued that human animals and non-human animals belong to different species and 'we' nor 'they' "normally" eat members of our own species. (This assumes that one necessarily needs to eat meat to be healthy, which is not accurate, but that's not important. Also, animals of all species, including our own, do in fact eat members of their own species - but again, that's not important.) Species membership, then, is the notable difference of moral significance. 

So the argument goes, "Yes, The animal is forcibly conceived, treated utterly disgracefully, coerced to exist in an unnatural environment, and killed at a point in their life that far precedes their natural life span" (or some variant of this scenario). However, to exist is better than non-existence: "We are doing the animal a favor by allowing her to live life, regardless of the nature or length of the life; being able to experience life is better than never being born at all." So, as the argument concludes, "Our actions, no matter how unnatural and inherently cruel they are, allow animals that wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to exist, to have a life."