# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 12:42 PM
(0) Comments
16 May 2004
A Defense of PETA
Here is a short essay in support of People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 4:06 PM
(0) Comments
Ambrose Bierce
Reverence, n. The spiritual attitude of a man to a god and a dog to a
man.
(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, c. 1911)
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 12:43 PM
(0) Comments
Harlan B. Miller on Philosophical Paralysis
The ethical incoherence of our customary treatment of nonhumans has
been demonstrated time and again by [Peter] Singer, [Tom] Regan, [S.
F.] Sapontzis, [David] DeGrazia, [Evelyn] Pluhar, and others. Almost
every member of the American Philosophical Association would agree
that all mammals are conscious, and that all conscious experience is
of some moral significance. But somehow this has no connection with
one's choice of food. Like the undergraduate who listens to, and
actually understands, the refutation of naive relativism, and still
writes in the final exam that "no one can judge another person's
morality," many philosophers suffer from a sort of inferential
paralysis.
(Harlan B. Miller, review of Ethics into Action: Henry Spira and the
Animal Rights Movement, by Peter Singer, Ethics: An International
Journal of Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy 110 [January 2000]:
441-3, at 443 [italics in original])
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:03 AM
(0) Comments
From the Mailbag
KBJ
I remember seeing a TV documentary interview with Peter Singer, set in
his family home. Singer at that time lived here in Australia and the
family had a cat. All members of the family were strict vegetarians,
except the cat, of course. It was a cause of some angst to the Singers
that puss would only eat canned cat food.
regards
TG
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:19 AM
(0) Comments
14 May 2004
PETA
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is both loved and
hated, both celebrated and excoriated, both supported and opposed. It
might be said that those who love PETA do so because they accept its
ends, while those who hate it do so because they reject its ends. PETA
has a stake in promoting this view, for it diverts attention from the
organization's strategies and tactics.
I think the view being promoted is mistaken. There are many people who
accept PETA's ends but reject its means. There are many people who
genuinely care about animals and would gladly throw their support
behind a reputable organization, but who believe that PETA adopts
reprehensible and counterproductive tactics. How do I know this? I
teach. I receive letters. I read newspapers. I watch television. I've
had over twenty years of experience with this issue. I know whereof I
speak.
Can we agree that it's wrong to degrade women (or any other group) in
order to promote a goal? If so, then we can ask whether PETA's
campaigns degrade women. I believe they do. Can we agree that rational
persuasion is superior to manipulation? If so, then we can ask whether
PETA prefers the latter to the former. I believe it does. Can we agree
that commercialization is bad? If so, then we can ask whether PETA is
commercialized. I believe it is. Can we agree that a serious
organization, devoted to long-lasting social change, should not rely
on celebrity? If so, then we can ask whether PETA relies on celebrity.
I believe it does.
I'm trying to reach agreement on moral principles so that we can
discuss facts. Sometimes I get the feeling that, to PETA, the end
justifies the means. If manipulation works better than rational
persuasion, then by all means manipulate! If tactic A gets more
attention than tactic B, thus getting PETA into the news, then tactic
A is preferable to B. If degrading women or cozying up to powerful
commercial interests helps animals, then it must be done.
I despise this sort of result-oriented thinking. It appalls me.
Animals do not benefit, in the long run, from anything but rational
persuasion. It particularly galls me to find philosophers supporting
PETA. No self-respecting philosopher would manipulate an audience,
however important the end. Philosophers are concerned with knowledge,
not mere belief. Their objective isn't to change people's beliefs but
to provide good grounds for belief. This rules out appeals to emotion,
for example. It rules out buckets of blood, paint-throwing, rudeness,
and other vile, self-defeating tactics. PETA turns off more people
than it recruits. I'm convinced of it. Is this good for animals? With
friends like PETA, animals don't need enemies.
Philosophers must remain independent. They must avoid affiliation,
association, and membership. Philosophers (think Socrates) are devoted
single-mindedly to the acquisition of knowledge, which means, among
other things, having rational grounds for belief. Nothing must
interfere with this objective. The philosopher, as such, would rather
not change beliefs at all than change them through disreputable means.
Philosophers are deontologists, not consequentialists. Philosophical
argumentation is constrained, not free.
I call upon my philosophical friends (they know who they are) to sever
ties with PETA. Immediately. Regain your lost independence and
self-respect. Come home to philosophy. Come back to what attracted you
to philosophy in the first place: its integrity, its honesty, and its
methodological purity. You can't be both a philosopher and a shill.
You can try to be both, but you can't succeed at it.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:45 PM
(0) Comments
From the Mailbag
Keith,
A friend pointed out your blog to me noting that while she appreciates
reading your Animal Ethics blog, there is a lot of anti-PETA rhetoric
in it. I read through some of your blog and enjoyed a lot of your
articles. I only discovered two anti-PETA posts (one calling them
"jerks" and another citing Gary Francione's essay).
Getting involved with PETA and becoming a member has changed my view
of them quite a lot. I used to think very negatively of PETA. This
weekend my husband and I attended their "Helping Animals 101"
conference. I found them to be very effective and consistent in their
approach to helping the animals. I don't agree with everything they
do, nor do I think every tactic they use is the best one, but overall
I am very impressed with the level of their commitment and success. I
also have a lot of respect for the PETA staff members; those I know
and concerned for humans and animals alike.
PETA is constantly misrepresented and taken out of context. And PETA's
tactics reveal more about society and the media than they do about
their seriousness regarding animal cruelty. PETA does what works to
get their message across. Unfortunately we live in a society in which
often, what works, is less than ideal.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:15 AM
(0) Comments
13 May 2004
Canis Familiaris
See here for some dog lore.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 5:13 PM
(0) Comments
12 May 2004
Society of Ethical and Religious Vegetarians
A reader named Eileen sent a link to this site. I'm delighted to hear
about this organization and wish it success. I will put a permanent
link on the left side of this blog.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:49 PM
(0) Comments
Eggs
Yesterday I found a new source of free-range eggs. I was in Whole
Foods Market in Arlington, Texas, to buy yeast flakes and Vegemite.
Here are the eggs I bought. Before you jump on me for eating eggs,
please note that Peter Singer eats free-range eggs (and dairy
products) when he is away from home. He told me so.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:04 PM
(0) Comments
11 May 2004
Harming Animals
A student who should be studying for her Ethics examination sent this
to me. Make of it what you will.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 9:26 PM
(0) Comments
Huckleberry
Huckleberry died five years ago today. See here.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:43 PM
(0) Comments
10 May 2004
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 5
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who is considered by many contemporary
philosophers as one of the greatest philosophers of all time, thought
that all and only humans have dignity, by which he understood moral
worth or value. This view can be challenged either by showing that
some humans lack dignity or that some nonhumans have it. I believe
some nonhumans have it. Indeed, I believe that all nonhuman animals
have it.
Kant's mistake was in locating worth in agency. But this is not part
of the concept of dignity; it's a normative position that one can
consistently reject. Strictly speaking, dignity is the state of being
worthy of honor or respect. It says nothing about the basis of worth
or respect. A being can be worthy either in virtue of what it is or in
virtue of what it does (or both). Thus, even if animals lack moral
agency, they can still be worthy in virtue of what they are.
Let me give some examples. Have you been to a circus? What did you
think when you saw bears wearing tutus and moving about on skates? Did
you sense that it was undignified? Or what about mules who are trained
to dive into pools? Or chimpanzees made to wear clothing and smoke
cigars? Be honest. You felt sorry for the animals. You felt as though
they were being degraded. Trust your feelings. They don't lie.
Dignity does not require possession of the concept of dignity, much
less the ability to defend oneself from affronts to it. That is a
crude (but common) mistake. Having one's dignity violated is not the
same as being embarrassed or humiliated, so the fact (if it is a fact)
that the aforementioned bears, mules, and chimpanzees are neither
embarrassed nor humiliated is neither here nor there as far as having
their dignity violated is concerned. Dignity is a condition, not a
mental state or attitude.
Each animal species has a telos, or end. It has characteristic ways of
behaving and feeling in response to environmental stimuli. When we
take wild animals out of their natural habitats and train them to
engage in unnatural behaviors for human amusement, we rob them of
their dignity. This is no more acceptable in the case of animals than
it is in the case of humans.
If you value dignity, you will boycott rodeos, circuses, bullfights,
and zoos, all of which degrade and violate the animals they use and
display. If you wouldn't want your dignity violated, don't violate the
dignity of others, including our animal brethren.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:35 PM
(0) Comments
Dogliness
One of my colleagues just sent a link to this beautiful essay from the
San Francisco Chronicle.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 2:39 PM
(0) Comments
09 May 2004
Veganism in a Nutshell
I'm not a vegan, but I'm close. The only animal products I ingest are
(1) fish and (2) eggs from free-roaming hens. I hope it will not seem
hypocritical of me, therefore, to plug the vegan diet. It's a diet to
which I aspire, even if I am not yet there. See here.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 9:16 PM
(0) Comments
08 May 2004
From Today's New York Times
More Mad Cow Mischief
The federal Department of Agriculture is making it hard for anyone to
feel confident that the nation is adequately protected against mad cow
disease. At a time when the department should be bending over backward
to reassure consumers, it keeps taking actions that suggest more
concern with protecting the financial interests of the beef industry
than with protecting public health.
Just a few weeks ago, the department refused to let a small private
company test its cattle for mad cow disease to satisfy Japanese
customers. That decision was incomprehensible, unless it was driven by
a desire to protect the beef industry from pressure to conduct such
tests on all 35 million cattle slaughtered annually in this country.
Now the department has been caught refusing to test a cow that
collapsed at a slaughterhouse in Texas; such a collapse could be an
indication of mad cow disease. The department's own inspectors at the
site wanted to take a brain sample for testing but were overruled by
their regional office.
Further evidence of lax regulation emerged when the department quietly
expanded the range of beef products that could be imported from
Canada, where mad cow disease has been detected, only to be stopped
short by a lawsuit.
There is no evidence yet that mad cow disease has invaded American
cattle and thus no reason for inordinate worry. The task ahead is to
make sure that our herds remain free of the disease. No one can be
confident if the department remains so blatantly protective of the
American meat industry.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 4:39 PM
(0) Comments
06 May 2004
Dolphin Intelligence
I grew up watching Flipper, so naturally I love dolphins. See here for
an interesting and informative essay.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 9:08 PM
(0) Comments
05 May 2004
From the Mailbag
You need to check out and link penn and teller's show/ PETA episode
from this season of "Bullshit" on Showtime. I wish more people would
see this, then maybe they would stop funding the jerks at PETA.
If you have never seen this show, it is on Thursday nights at 9 cst 1
new and 1 older episode each week . . . tackling issues like
environment, recycling, peta, bottled water, etc.
Season 1 is on dvd for sale and rent.
Artur Oczko
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 10:50 PM
(0) Comments
04 May 2004
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
I just came across your website and wanted to let you know how
incredibly excited I was to find someone with conservative political
views who is still pro-animal rights. So rarely do I find someone who
has the same values, morals, and beliefs as I do. Furthermore, I
enjoyed your article on liberal anger immensely (in addition to
laughing sooo hard at the core truth involved) and forwarded it to
several of my liberal and conservative friends. Thanks for voicing
your opinion.
Kelsey
California Lutheran University
Class 2007
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 9:58 PM
(0) Comments
03 May 2004
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 4
Some people (including readers of my blogs) appear to think that in
our dealings with animals, it's enough to refrain from making them
suffer. This explains why people think it's acceptable to raise
animals for food, provided they are not made to suffer along the way
and provided they are killed painlessly. Some would insist, further,
that any animal put to death be replaced by an equally happy animal,
thus keeping the total happiness of the world the same.
We don't think this way about humans. Suppose I had a taste for human
flesh. Would it be acceptable for me to raise happy humans, the way
Smallholder raises happy calves (see here), and then kill them
painlessly? What's the difference? Why the double standard? Why do we
think like consequentialists with respect to animals but insist on
deontology for humans? Why do we view animals, but not humans, as
interchangeable and (therefore) replaceable?
Think about why it's wrong to kill humans. (Here I draw on Don
Marquis's essay on abortion, from which I have learned much.) To kill
a human is to deprive him or her of a future that contains activities,
enjoyments, projects, and experiences. Life is the precondition for
these things. Without it, they cannot exist. Even a painless killing
deprives a human of these valued things.
But animals have futures that contain activities, enjoyments, and
experiences, although perhaps not projects in the strict sense. Their
lives are the preconditions for these things. Without their lives,
these things cannot exist. Even a painless killing deprives an animal
of these valued things.
The cases are parallel. You might object that humans and animals are
different. Of course they're different. But are the differences
morally relevant? Humans differ among themselves, but not all the
differences are morally relevant. We don't let skin color, for
example, affect one's rights. Why is species membership morally
relevant? How could it be, since it's a biological concept? Species is
no more relevant than race is, and you don't think race is relevant.
Your life is the most important thing you have, since it's the
foundation on which everything else you value is built. This is as
true for cows, pigs, and chickens as it is for you. What makes it
wrong for someone to kill you is that it deprives you of these valued
activities and experiences. That's precisely why it's wrong to kill
animals. Apply the same standard to both cases. Be a consequentialist
through and through, like Peter Singer, or be a deontologist through
and through, like me. Don't be a consequentialist with respect to
animals and a deontologist with respect to humans. That's irrational
and self-serving.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 10:33 AM
(0) Comments
02 May 2004
Tough but Not Cruel
Joanna Lucas also sent a link to this animation about veal. Thanks,
Joanna.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:21 PM
(0) Comments
Bullfighting in Barcelona
Joanna Lucas sent a link to this report, which says that Barcelona,
Spain, has declared itself a nonbullfighting city. Surely Spaniards
can find a replacement for this barbaric form of "entertainment." What
I don't understand is how Spain could oppose capital punishment, which
upholds the dignity of persons, and allow bullfighting, which degrades
it. Europeans, in general, have things backwards.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:11 PM
(0) Comments
01 May 2004
From the Mailbag
Keith,
Just a note to let you know that the "Peaceable Kingdom" screening,
that you so graciously announced on your blog earlier this month, went
exceptionally well. We had over 80 people in the audience, unanimously
positive comments on the survey cards and nice proceeds to contribute
to our local farm sanctuaries.
Peaceable Kingdom is a beautiful film--a remarkable work of art and
philosophy--I encourage you to see it if you haven't already.
No comments:
Post a Comment