Thinking: July 2008 Archives

Down in Louisiana there were three children swimming in a pond known - known - to be populated by alligators. One of the children was attacked by a large alligator. The boy was able to free himself from the animal; however, his arm was taken. You can predict what happened next: The alligator was hunted down by fish and wildlife employees, killed and cut open to retrieve the boys arm. The boy is currently in critical condition. According to recent reports, doctors were unable to re-attach the arm. 

What should we think about this situation? I certainly don't want to give the impression that I am cold to the boys suffering. I am not. Whenever nature causes pain it's always tragic. But it is, in fact, nature causing the pain isn't it. Nature is amoral; it cannot be judged "right or wrong." To label an avalanche "evil" is to make the concept meaningless. There is no intent or reason that animates nature; it just is. A storm doesn't decide to do what it does. The same is pretty much true (to the best of our understanding) of nonhuman animals, such as the alligator.

He (the gator) did not do anything wrong. He simply acted in accordance with his nature. It seems unreasonable to apply an ethical test here. To do so would mean that statements such as "Your natural aggression ought to be tempered by moral reasoning" would be relevant in the case of nonhuman animals, which, like in the case of some mentally challenged humans and all infants, is erroneous. Therefore, again, the alligator did not do anything wrong.

This necessarily raises a question about the actions taken in response to this attack. Is it ethical to take the animals life from him? If the issue is the recovery of the boys arm, isn't there another method that doesn't involve ending this animals chance at happiness? If there exists an alleged threat from this alligator, isn't relocation a more ethically defensible option? (This isn't "Jaws".) These are legitimate questions that ought to be raised in so-called civilized societies, but they are never asked for some reason. (A prejudice perhaps?) The gator was a ferocious monster, therefore, whatever means are available - not necessary, but available - the arm was going to be retrieved.

Upon some reflection, who is the true monster here, the animal necessarily acting out of pure instinct, or the human beings capable of moral reasoning who decide instead to act blindly (morally speaking), as though it was from instinct? I hope the boy survives and lives well. He should never forget, however, what resulted from his little swim in the alligator's home: his suffering and the unnecessary death of this feeling being.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox 

Breedism:

"Breedism is analogous to racism," Bernard E. Rollin writes, "in that all dogs of a certain breed are tarred with the same brush, as "killers." Just as racists see all members of a given race as instantiating the same negative traits, breedism sees all dogs of a given breed as identically a menace to society, despite the fact that animal behaviorists know full well that a given dog may differ markedly from a given stereotype."

This "canine racism" is illustrated in the following conversation I had recently with an individual in the management office of an apartment building. (Yes, this is truly an accurate reflection of the conversation. I couldn't help myself, and although I don't have a dog currently, I pretended for effect.)

Alex: "Do you allow dogs in your apartment building?"

Breedist: "It depends on the dog."

Alex: "How so?"

Breedist: "It can't be one of those aggressive, vicious types. What kind is it?"

Alex: "Well he is a mutt. I don't believe he has any Chihuahua in him. The meanest dogs I've

         known are Chihuahua's."

Breedist: "Well, I don't mean like small dogs; I mean the vicious kind."

Alex: "Right, you already said that. And as I said, he certainly doesn't have any Chihuahua in

         him - most Chihuahua's I know have a touch of "little-man" complex, and can be quite

         defensive. Just look at the "Dog Whisperer," right; lot's of people fear them. I do know

         two very friendly Chihuahua's, however. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question?

         Have you already decided what make's for a vicious dog?"

Breedist: "Well, I'm talking about certain breeds that make people feel uncomfortable."

Alex: "Oh, I understand. You mean like Pit Bulls and Dobermans. You've had a lot of

         experience with aggressive Dobermans in the building have you? Been mauled yourself,

         I'm assuming? I mean how else could you damn the whole group?"

Breedist: "No, I've never been attacked."

Alex: "But surely someone's been bitten or something in the building, or else why couldn't I

         be a tenant living with a Pit Bull whom I love? Quite irrational if you think about it."

Breedist: "There's just a negative impression out there about certain breeds, and...the policy

              of the building reflects it. We just don't want any attacks..."

Alex: "A preconceived 'negative impression' about an entire group? I think that's called a

        prejudice. Well, nothing to fear, he is certainly not one of those aggressive, vicious

        types. Although perhaps you should re-think your policy about Chihuahuas. There's just

        something about them as a group that I don't like."

According to Rollin, this "social stupidity" is derived from our failure to understand each individual animal, which necessarily results in our inability to stimulate them effectively or provide outlets for their natural propensities, to institute certain limits to their conduct, to structure their activity, etc.

We must better understand our dogs as individuals and respect this individuality. Indeed, there may be natural proclivities (instinct to protect his/her person, for example); however, our failures become "manifest," as Rollin so succinctly states it, when we make baseless assumptions about breeds - when we collapse all dogs into groups and thereby negate individual differences.

Our actions magnify instinct, which in turn can develop into problems. (The same is true of humans; let's never forget that.) Punish the human, maybe the deed, but not the breed.  

If you think about it, it's no different then saying "All blacks, by their nature, commit crime; therefore I don't want them in the building." I use to say ridiculous things about Pit Bulls, half in jest but with a lot of sincerity also. I was wrong, and so is our society.  

Simone De Beauvoir wrote, "One is not born, but becomes a woman." Cultures have elaborated on biological differences to reinforce patriarchy, therefore feminist thinkers, such as de Beauvoir, question assumptions about "natural femininity." We must do likewise to counter these preconceptions about certain breeds. Presuming knowledge without sufficient evidence, experience or reason leads to erroneous conclusions. It's illogical and just wrong.   

One is not born, but becomes an aggressive, vicious dog. As de Beauvoir argued, biology isn't destiny.

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox 

Tom Regan writes,

"Being kind to animals is not enough. Avoiding cruelty is not enough. Housing animals in more comfortable, larger cages is not enough. Whether we exploit animals to eat, to wear, to entertain us, or to learn, the truth of animal rights requires empty cages, not larger cages." 

Misinformation, infantilism, and negative imagery aside, ethical veganism

"unmasks the rhetoric of these industries (e.g., factory farming) and shows why what their spokespersons say about their treatment of animals (these industries treat animals "humanely") is not sometimes false. It is always false."

Note: Ad hominem "arguments" are fallacious:

1) Person A makes a claim;

2) Person B makes an attack on Person A;

3) Therefore A's claim is false.

"The character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made - or the quality of the argument being made."

What this method of argumentation amounts to is the strategic avoidance of having a discourse about our premises, opting instead to rely on childish antics and attempted character assassinations such as the following:

"Of course you believe that nonhumans shouldn't suffer merely because we believe they taste good, you're an atheist; ergo nothing you say in support of your position counts because, again, you're just a godless heathen (and you hate humans and Jesus)."

Thanks go out to Before Wisdom

Listen closely to Dienna Capers' words: She is an omnivore who make's an emotional appeal that can only reasonably end with her going vegan (or at least stop sanctioning the murder of Maxine's brother because he tastes good).

 

 

All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. (Dhammapada, 129-130.)

In this statement "the Buddha explains that we should not kill out of consideration for the feelings of fear and the love of life that beings experience. Moreover, he says all beings share these attributes, suggesting that the word which has been translated as "beings" implies "sentient beings.""

 

He who for the sake of happiness hurts others who also want happiness, shall not hereafter find happiness. (Dhammapada, 131.)

From RosemaryAmey.ca

Ignorance is not bliss:

 

 

P.E.T.A.

Recently, an individual posted the following comment responding to an anti-vegetarian article:

"I'll admit that I haven't entirely made up my mind on this subject. Having said that I will confess to being a meat eater. While I do not like causing other animals harm, I cannot accept that feeling pain is the only criteria for my acceptance of another being as being worthy of my altruism. Were this the case, I would never harm mosquitoes or arguably even bacteria (which will also attempt to flee harmful conditions and so might be said to experience pain) and would likely die of an infection rather quickly...Until then, I plan to enjoy the meat."

As a display of this individuals failure to grasp the ethical principles on which veganism is predicated, the question of bacteria is raised. Remember two things: One, "fleeing harmful conditions" is but one indicia of sentience - prior to making the assumption that a being can experience pain one must consider its evolutionary history, its reaction to stimuli I (or you) would experience as painful, and its physiology (e.g., central nervous system, biochemical functions) - a criterion that bacteria (or germs, mosquitoes, blades of grass) do not satisfy; and two, (assuming a beings sentience) inflicting pain on a feeling being cannot be justified for any and every reason, which is why murdering a baby cow because you enjoy the taste of his flesh is absolutely not justifiable. (We can debate what makes a "good" reason; however, as Francione often argues, if unnecessary pain for example, is to mean anything at all, "taste," "entertainment" or "convenience" cannot justify suffering harm on another individual.)

Therefore, not only has the first condition - assuming sentience - not been satisfied, but the case of bacteria, as it relates to the second condition, is markedly different than that of consuming meat: some types of bacteria kill human beings; and unlike any other situation between nonhumans and most humans, in our day-to-day lives bacteria cannot simply be avoided - it exists all around us, all the time. How many bears do you encounter while watching television? Is your "struggle" with the birds of this world tooth-and-nail? Such encounters are easily avoidable, while bacterial infections, or colds, the flu, etc. are common: in these situations there exists a true conflict of a most fundamental sort - health, life - whereby some harm, assuming that bacteria can be "harmed," is justifiable. Of the billions of nonhumans we murder or torture annually, none present a threat of harm to you - it's laughable to suggest otherwise.

It is a mischaracterization (purposefully?) of veganism to suggest absolutes: no suffering can ever be justified; all harm, in all curcumstances, ought to be avoided; all life, sentient or not, should be preserved. This is absurd. I've yet to hear an argument supporting ethical veganism that proffers a theory wherein such absolutes are foundational. Pure pacifists may agree that these absolutes are objectively right (although most "pacifists" fail to account for the limitless suffering of nonhumans). But these pacifist principles aren't necessarily implied in ethical veganism; indeed, most vegans may agree that violence ought to be avoided as best we can. However, if confronted with an angry mother crocodile, the situation becomes "life or death," and different principles may apply.

Most people would agree that human life ought to be sustained; however, when encountered with an extreme case - direct self-defense against a rapist, for example - if the attacker were to be harmed or even killed most would agree that an ethical principle was not violated. "Innocent shields," "innocent threats," and "secondary self-defense" would also be cases where different principles, which may include harm, would be reasonably assented too.

Given that the case of bacteria (and germs) creates a true "burning house" question - a situation of true conflict between "needs" - the ethical dilemmas (if any) that arise when treating a bacterial infection with antibiotics is qualitatively different than that of "training" a lion to jump through a ring of fire for our entertainment. Mosquitoes, given certain conditions, raise similar dilemmas - West Nile virus. Bacteria? Some types of bacteria aid its human hosts, however, others cause pneumonia and tuberculosis.

So, even assuming the sentience of bacteria (which is unfounded), one cannot plausibly deduce from the ethical principles on which veganism rests an ethical constrain on our dealings with the bacteria that causes syphilis. Likewise, ethical veganism cannot be criticised by appealing to the situation of bacteria, or germs, or dust mites.

Interestingly enough, this individual actually makes this point well when he/she says,

"I would never harm mosquitoes or arguably even bacteria (which will also attempt to flee harmful conditions and so might be said to experience pain) and would likely die of an infection rather quickly."

But again, it's merely a failure to consider the issue in any real depth. Instead, relying on baseless assumptions and mischaracterizations of the argument for veganism seems to be the method being employed here - by most people actually.

I'm going to make an assumption and argue that this flawed counter-argument has less to do with a misunderstanding of our position, and more to do with this: "Until then, I plan to enjoy the meat." Oh how people expose their true motives so unknowingly - "It tastes good so I don't want to think about it."

I went ahead and labeled my assumption as such therefore it's easily critiqued. Our critics, however, don't extend us such favors because often they don't realize they are making assumptions that ought to be defended, or because they're simply dishonest and willfully fail to take their beliefs to a logical conclusion. Stopping short is far easier - nobody likes to acknowledge their own hypocrisy or bad deeds. I didn't for a long time...until I stopped exploiting nonhumans for food, etc. - but I'm still working on it.

P.S. It's not "altruism," it's justice!

Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox