# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 12:53 PM
(0) Comments
Selective Concern
I've made a decision. Henceforth, when someone tells me that he or she
opposed the war in Iraq, I'll ask why. If the answer includes concern
for innocent Iraqis who were killed during the war, I'll ask whether
the speaker eats meat. If the answer is yes, I'll end the discussion.
How can I take seriously someone who professes concern for innocent
human beings but willingly inflicts terrible suffering on innocent
nonhuman animals? This is as flagrant an inconsistency as can be
imagined. That people don't notice it testifies to an almost infinite
human capacity for denial, delusion, rationalization, and
self-servingness.
Someone might say that there are morally relevant differences between
humans and animals. Of course there are. But to say that there are
morally relevant differences between X and Y is not to say that there
are no morally relevant similarities between X and Y. Two beings can
be alike in some respects but different in others. Suppose one of my
children has been bad and another good. There's a morally relevant
difference between them that would justify differential treatment; but
this doesn't mean the bad child loses all moral status.
Follow along with me. Sentient beings, i.e., beings who have the
capacity to suffer, have an interest in not suffering. Suffering is
intrinsically bad. Therefore, it's prima facie wrong to inflict
suffering. This means that, unless there is a good reason to inflict
suffering, it is wrong to do so. But what is the good reason for
making animals suffer? That you like the taste of their cooked flesh?
If that's a moral reason at all, it's extremely weak. Certainly it's
not strong enough to justify the infliction of pain! How would you
like it if someone put his or her trivial interests ahead of your
significant interests? You would be outraged. Morally outraged.
Meat-eaters are walking contradictions. They violate their own moral
principles. How can I take seriously someone whose heart bleeds for
innocent Iraqis but who happily kills and eats innocent animals? I
can't. Until meat-eating opponents of the war in Iraq change their
diets, they forfeit their right to be taken seriously.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:39 AM
(0) Comments
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 15
I'm always stunned to hear intelligent people defend meat-eating on
the ground that animals kill and eat each other. (See here.) To quote
Ronald Dworkin from another context, this is an "album of confusions."
First, not all animals kill and eat each other. Some animals are
herbivores. Perhaps we should emulate them rather than omnivores or
carnivores.
Second, what's the underlying principle? Is it that we may (morally)
do anything any animal does? But surely that's not acceptable, for it
implies, inter alia, that we may dominate other humans. Do we really
want to look to animals for moral guidance? Any less-inclusive
principle runs the risk of being self-serving. People who want to eat
meat will justify it by citing the fact that some animals eat meat;
but they won't cite animal behavior as justification for behaviors
they dislike, such as incest and conquest.
Third, even if it's in our nature as human beings to eat meat, it
doesn't follow that we may. It's in our nature as human beings to do
many things that are wrong, such as inseminate women against their
will, aggress on others, disregard the interests of those of other
races and religions, and deceive others. That something is natural for
humans goes no way toward showing that it's morally permissible. This
violates Hume's law, which prohibits inferences from "is" to "ought."
Fourth, there's a relevant difference between humans and animals. Only
humans are moral agents. (Animals are moral patients.) Only humans
have the capacity to reflect on their desires and act against them.
Only humans can act on the basis of principle. Only humans are
responsible for their conduct. To blame an animal for harming another
animal would be as absurd and pointless as blaming lightning for
causing a fire. Since humans can decide how to act, we must decide,
using reason, how to act. This difference between humans and animals
imposes a special responsibility on humans. With moral agency comes
responsibility. To say that we ought to act as animals do is to shirk
this responsibility and become mere animals. It is a rationalization
of something one wants to do but can't justify doing.
By the way, I wrote about this confusion on 26 April (see here), but I
keep getting letters from people that suggest that they haven't read
or understood it. Some things bear repeating.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:11 AM
(0) Comments
18 July 2004
PETA's Unsavoriness
I don't understand how anyone with any intelligence could have
anything to do with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals). If you care about animals, work in their behalf. You don't
need to belong to an organization to do this. Be independent. Avoid
entanglements. Think for yourself. See here for the latest instance of
PETA's unsavoriness.
It's outrageous that many people on both sides of the animal-rights
issue identify the animal-rights movement with PETA. PETA is no more
the animal-rights movement than the Republican party is conservatism
or the Soviet Union Marxism. It is a corruption of the movement. It
sets back the movement. PETA is the worst thing to happen to animals.
If you care about animals, stop supporting PETA.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 5:02 PM
(0) Comments
Richard Sorabji on Western Attitudes Toward Animals
Unfortunately, the Stoic view of animals, with its stress on their
irrationality, became embedded in Western, Latin-speaking Christianity
above all through Augustine. Western Christianity concentrated on one
half, the anti-animal half, of the much more evenly balanced ancient
debate. Although there were other strands in Western Christianity, I
think this accounts for the relative complacency of our Western
Christian tradition about the killing of animals. The ancient
philosophers were less complacent. In the eighteenth century the tide
began to turn, and in the last fifteen years it has accelerated, with
a widespread rethinking of our treatment of animals. But I do not
believe that the right defence of animals has yet been found. The
modern philosophical defences seem to me to be too one-dimensional.
What is clear, however, is that we should treat animals very much
better than we do. My own diet has changed as a result of reflecting
on the ancient texts, at least when I am choosing for myself, although
I still enjoy whatever food I am served by others. I do not mention
that as a particularly compelling position, and I have no wish to tell
anyone else what to do. I explain in the concluding chapter why I
think decisions must be complex, and suggest an alternative approach.
(Richard Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the
Western Debate, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 54
[Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993], 2-3)
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 12:20 PM
(0) Comments
17 July 2004
Shelbie
One of the worst things to happen to me in my forty-seven years of
existence was the loss of my beloved canine companion Ginger on
Thanksgiving day 2000. I was a zombie for weeks. I was deep into
marathon training when she died, but I knew I had to keep going. Near
the end of the marathon, seventeen days after her death, I started
thinking about Ginger and began to cry. That affected my breathing, so
I had to think about other things. Ginger was the sweetest, smartest,
most beautiful dog in the world, with the exception of Sophie, with
whom she was tied. I still talk to Ginger on every walk, as silly as
that may sound.
Sophie and I got on for nearly three years by ourselves. I knew we
needed a puppy, but I was afraid it would disrupt our lives and remind
me of Ginger. Okay, I felt guilty about trying to "replace" Ginger.
Finally, a year ago today, I drove to the North Texas Humane Society
in Fort Worth. I made the rounds of dogs and was about to go home
empty-handed. I wanted a particular age, sex, and breed, and no dog in
the shelter filled the bill. Before leaving, I decided to make one
more pass through the small-dog area. This time I saw Shelbie, a
three-and-a-half-month-old stinker. She had just been put in a cage,
probably because she had just gotten her shots. She walked toward me,
nuzzled my hand, and stole my heart. Within two hours, she was home
with Sophie and me.
The first couple of days were hard. As expected, I felt guilty, as if
I were dishonoring Ginger's memory. But mercifully it passed. Each day
brought more joy into our lives, replacing the awful sadness. The past
year has been one of the happiest of my life, and I've had many happy
years. Shelbie is every bit as sweet, smart, and beautiful as Ginger.
I love her dearly. She learns from and plays with Sophie, who, at
eleven and a half years of age, is kept young by the upstart's energy
and playfulness. How did I get lucky again? I am thrice-blessed. Here
is Shelbie the day I brought her home (eleven pounds) and here she is
today (45.5 pounds) with Sophie.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:00 PM
(0) Comments
Who Moved My Truth?
Ally Eskin has a thoughtful post about meat-eating. See here. To
answer Ally's question about what to do about the cows, pigs, and
chickens we stop eating, what happened to the horse-drawn carriages
and Edsels people stopped buying? Did their manufacturers continue to
produce them? No; they stopped making them. We'll stop making cows,
pigs, and chickens.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:16 PM
(0) Comments
16 July 2004
Tugboat
Tyler Hamilton is one of the best bicyclists in the world. He's
currently competing in the Tour de France. Sadly, his longtime canine
companion, Tugboat, died the other day. Not surprisingly, Tyler did
poorly today in one of the Tour's most important stages. Here is the
blurb that appeared at cyclingnews.com:
Not just a dog
Tyler Hamilton is in mourning for his friend Tugboat. For if the
old adage that a dog is man's best friend [is true], Hamilton's
big, friendly golden Labrador retriever was quite a buddy.
Cyclingnews had the fortune to meet Tugboat a few years ago in
Paris at the end of the Tour de France when Ty's wife Haven brought
their beloved pet to the end of the Tour. Today we spoke to
Hamilton before Stage 11 where the usually stoic New Englander told
us about his emotional roller-coaster surrounding the loss of his
best friend.
"Tugboat was like a family member to me," he said. "A lot of people
don't know me or know the situation; they might think 'oh he's just
a dog' but for me, it's hard, it's hard . . . just as hard as
losing a family member. But life goes on and certainly (the loss of
Tugboat) is a hundred times harder than what I went through last
year." [Hamilton rode most of the 2003 Tour with a fractured
collarbone.]
When we asked Hamilton if he thought the spirit of Tugboat might be
with him during the rest of the Tour, Ty smiled and said "Yeah,
I've got his tag right here," showing us Tug's red ID tag held
around his neck on a white ribbon.
I send my condolences to Tyler and Haven.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 9:25 PM
(0) Comments
15 July 2004
From the Mailbag
Dear Keith,
I have enjoyed your columns on Tech Central Station from day one. I
often find my self rereading some of them, and your columns are one of
the reasons I am hooked on TCS. I am glad I found your blog. However,
I will probably skip over anything on your blog about animal rights
just as I skip over anything about same-sex unions on Andrew
Sullivan's blog.
Now exchanging views with a doctor of philosophy could be akin to
wrestling against Randy Savage but, I will stick my toe, perhaps my
foot into the ring (and not into my mouth) concerning animal rights
with this question-slash-statement:
Don't other animals eat other animals? Aren't there more animals
being consumed by non-human animals (including bugs, fish, etc; a
non-human is a non-human) than by humans? Don't they do it as a
function of biology and evolution? While they haven't evolved with
a moral sense as deep as ours don't they have some moral sense?
Isn't it possible that some animals know the difference between
life and death and some even show signs of grieving (such as the
elephant)? Don't we have some kind of duty to stop their immoral
behavior too since that is where most of the "killing" occurs?
Respectfully,
Christopher Pugh
Austin, TX
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:09 AM
(0) Comments
14 July 2004
Animals
I've received several letters from people who don't like my posts on
animals. Some of them are nasty. One reader said I was on the verge of
becoming Andrew Sullivan, who is obsessed with homosexuality. I
replied that, just as I stopped reading Sullivan's blog, he should
stop reading mine.
But I've been thinking. My decision to stop reading Sullivan's blog
was based on more than the fact that he writes a lot about
homosexuality. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that he
won't listen to reason. He tars opponents of homosexual "marriage" as
"the religious right," implying that the only basis for objecting to
homosexual "marriage" is religious. He knows better. Many of us oppose
it on secular grounds. I also think Sullivan is disingenuous in
calling himself a federalist (he's not) and in not taking seriously
the possibility--indeed, the high probability, according to many
constitutional scholars--that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the
Constitution will be used to force homosexual "marriage" on all
states. When I made this argument to him, he retorted, "It's never
been applied to marriage." I guess that means it can't be or never
will be.
In short, I object to Sullivan's irrationality, not to his interest in
homosexuality.
Am I as irrational about animals as Sullivan is about homosexuality? I
don't think so. I'm perfectly happy to argue about the moral status of
animals, which I've been doing for more than two decades. I teach the
subject. I've published essays on it. I don't resort to name-calling
or manipulative rhetoric, as Sullivan does. I take pains to make
relevant distinctions, to get my facts right, and correctly to
characterize my opponents' arguments before criticizing them. I'm
committed to rational persuasion as a means of social change.
I believe that meat-eaters have inconsistent beliefs. They believe (1)
that suffering is intrinsically bad; (2) that, as such, it must be
justified; and (3) that the animals whose flesh they consume were made
to suffer in its production. It follows logically from these beliefs
that meat-eating is morally questionable. In philosophical terms,
there is a strong prima facie case against consuming animal products.
And yet, when I point this out, I get everything from denial to
evasion to ridicule to abuse.
In my judgment, the most important moral issue in the world today is
the status of nonhuman animals. Nothing else, even war, comes close.
Why, believing this, would I forbear to discuss it? That readers of my
blog prefer not to hear me discuss it may signify discomfort on their
part. They grew up eating meat and enjoy it. They don't like feeling
guilty as they consume animal flesh. I make them feel guilty, for I
remind them that they're not living up to their own moral principles
about not harming others. Please note: I'm not imposing my values on
you. I'm imposing your values on you. Don't react defensively or
angrily. I'm trying to help you. I want you to have a coherent set of
beliefs. I want you to live up to your moral principles. I want you to
be a good person. Ask yourself whether your values commit you to
changing your behavior. Follow my reasoning. If there's something
wrong with it, say so.
Some people say that animals don't count for as much as humans or that
they don't have the same rights as humans. That's irrelevant. If
animals have any moral status at all--if they're anything more than
objects--then it's wrong to eat them, because eating them is
unnecessary. But surely, as sentient beings, they have at least some
moral status. Any being that can suffer has an interest in not
suffering. Isn't it a requirement of rationality, and therefore of
morality, that one take all relevant interests into account before
acting? Is your interest in satisfying your taste sensations more
important than an animal's interest in not suffering? That,
ultimately, is the question you must confront. Don't evade it.
Confront it. The unexamined life is not worth living.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:49 AM
(1) Comments
13 July 2004
Len's Inconsistency
Len Carrier is my co-blogger on The Ethics of War. He opposed the war
in Iraq. What would Len say if, during our discussion of the war, I
said that Iraqis don't count for as much, morally speaking, as
Americans? He would deny it. He would say that Iraqis can suffer just
as much as Americans, that their lives are just as valuable, and so
forth. If I persisted, he would say that I'm racist, ethnocentric, or
unacceptably nationalistic. He would say that I draw a moral line in
an arbitrary place.
But that's exactly what he's doing with respect to animals. Len says
he eats meat. But this inflicts terrible suffering on the animals
whose flesh he consumes. If Len believes that suffering has moral
significance, then its infliction must be justified. What is his
justification for inflicting it on animals? Do his tastes for animal
flesh justify it? Would my taste for Iraqi flesh justify killing and
eating them? Would my interest in sport shooting justify my picking
off random Iraqis?
People who discount or disregard the interests of other races are
racists. People who discount or disregard the interests of the other
sex are sexists. People who discount or disregard the interests of
other nationalities are nationalists. People who discount or disregard
the interests of other species are speciesists. If Len says that
animals don't matter, then I say that Iraqis don't matter. If the
former is rational, then so is the latter.
Len's professed concern for innocent Iraqis rings hollow when he
blithely inflicts terrible pain and suffering on innocent animals for
his gustatory pleasure. And please, Len, don't say that animals aren't
innocent. What are they, guilty? Animals are innocent in the same
sense in which Iraqi children are innocent. If the interests of the
latter must be taken into account in our deliberations, then so must
the interests of animals be taken into account. Your eating meat shows
that you do not take them into account. You are a walking
contradiction who cannot be taken seriously. Before you respond to
this post, read--and think about!--this essay by Mylan Engel.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:54 AM
(1) Comments
12 July 2004
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 14
Every social movement has both moderates and extremists. The
difference is what they are willing to do--or, more precisely, not
willing to do--in pursuit of their objective(s). They share ends, but
not means. Some extremists are willing to harm others to achieve their
goals, thinking, perhaps, that nothing will ever change if one works
within the system. This was the agonizing choice Dr Martin Luther King
Jr faced. Given his goal of a colorblind society, which means were
best calculated to bring it about? He could have worked within the
system, but he believed that that would never change anything, since
the system was rigged against people of color. So he decided to
disobey the law. But this disobedience, he insisted, had to be
nonviolent. It was a form of communication, an initiation of dialogue
with those who stood in the way of a just society.
Moderates face a dilemma. Either they repudiate their extreme
colleagues or they do not. If they repudiate them, they risk
alienating them and losing their energy and resources. If they do not
repudiate them, they risk alienating their audience. Many people favor
social change but are not willing to endorse or accept just any means
to that change. They are, in philosophical terms, deontologists. They
believe that evil may not be done that good may come. They believe
that the end does not justify the means.
Many people, such as my Ethics of War co-blogger Len Carrier,
sincerely believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. They may believe
that some good has come from the war, but not enough to justify the
costs. Others take it to absurd extremes, propounding conspiracy
theories about why the United States went to war, making personal
attacks on those who waged it, and doing everything possible to
undermine the war effort. When presidential candidate Wesley Clark was
asked to repudiate some of the wild assertions made by one of his
supporters, Michael Moore, he refused to do so. This was unfortunate
(and telling), for it made it seem as though he were just as
irrational as Moore, and nobody wants an irrational president. I know
I don't.
You're probably wondering why I'm talking about war in Iraq in a post
ostensibly about animals. It's because there's a parallel. Many people
believe that factory farming and other horrific practices must be
abolished. But by what means? Some people advocate working within the
system, trying to muster support for enactment, amendment, or repeal
of laws. Others are impatient with this, thinking, as King did, that
nothing will ever change by working within the system. Some of the
impatient ones take extreme measures, such as destroying property or
injuring or killing persons. This is a serious problem for the
animal-liberation movement. If the aim is to change minds, resorting
to violence may be counterproductive.
I'm a moderate when it comes to animal liberation. I believe that in
the long run, the most effective means to social change is rational
persuasion. Not force, not coercion, not manipulation. The people I
persuade will manifest their changed attitudes and beliefs both in
their personal lives (by changing their diets, for example) and in
their political behavior. We live in a democracy. Each of us is
entitled to vote our consciences. My goal is to work on consciences. I
believe this is also the goal of Peter Singer. Perhaps we philosophers
are na�ve, but we are committed to reason. We would rather not
persuade at all than persuade by nonrational means.
Some people are frustrated by the slowness of this process. But look
how much progress has been made in the past hundred years. The moral
and legal status of nonhuman animals has improved considerably. No, it
hasn't changed nearly enough. There is a great deal of work yet to be
done. It breaks my heart to see how animals are abused and neglected
day in and day out. But I'm convinced that resorting to violence
against person or property in the name of animals is not the way to
go. It may be personally satisfying, but it doesn't ultimately help
the animals we profess to care about.
I hereby repudiate organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front
(ALF) and Earth First! to the extent that they advocate, endorse,
tolerate, or engage in violent actions. Everyone who cares about
animals should do the same. This is not a betrayal of the cause. It is
fidelity to the cause. The betrayers are those who, looking only at
the short run or their own satisfaction, undermine public support for
the goal of protecting animals.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:46 AM
(0) Comments
11 July 2004
David Hume (1711-1776) on the Impotence of Reason
Since morals . . . have an influence on the actions and affections, it
follows, that they cannot be deriv'd from reason; and that because
reason alone, as we have already prov'd, can never have any such
influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions.
Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of
morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.
(David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce
the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects, Book III
["Of Morals"], Part I ["Of Virtue and Vice in General"], Section I
["Moral Distinctions Not Deriv'd from Reason"], Paragraph 6 [1740])
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:14 PM
(0) Comments
Conservatism and Animals
See here for my lengthy post on whether conservatism is compatible
with concern for animals.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 6:06 PM
(0) Comments
From Yesterday's Dallas Morning News
Bans on cattle feed debated
Officials say new limits not needed; critics say consumers are at risk
By KATIE FAIRBANK
Six months after promising to remove chicken waste, food scraps and
blood from cattle feed systems, federal officials said Friday they
aren't sure whether the bans are needed.
The restrictions were announced in January soon after mad cow disease
was found in a Holstein in Washington state.
But the rules were not instituted and are now up for public comment
along with other possible feed restrictions, including bans on animals
that die on farms or can't stand up when they're taken to a
slaughterhouse.
The earliest any of the rules under consideration could be instituted
would be the end of the year.
Federal regulators say that if cows with suspicious symptoms are kept
out of the system, there should be no worries about specific products.
"Based on all of the measures that have been offered, if we did some
of these, would we need to do all of them?" asked Dr. Steven Sundlof.
The director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine with the Food and
Drug Administration spoke during a news conference in Washington, D.C.
Critics of the feed practices say the government has caved in to the
meat industry and the exceptions put consumers at risk of mad cow
"This is something that could have a health impact," said Tom
McGarity, a professor of food safety law at the University of Texas
Law School and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation.
"American consumers will remain unprotected as ranchers and feedlots
continue to feed cow blood to calves and potentially contaminated
chicken litter to cattle for the foreseeable future."
Calves are fed blood because the milk that is produced is sold to
human consumers.
Chicken litter is a cheap, readily available feed, and plate waste is
food left over at restaurants that is sent to rendering plants and
added to feed.
Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy director of the Consumer Federation
of America, said she didn't understand why the government didn't ban
poultry litter and cows' blood as cattle food now and make adjustments
later if more stringent rules are put in place.
"Instead they choose to do nothing," she said.
Richard Wortham, executive vice president of the Texas Beef Council,
said the meat industry is just "trying to protect the food supply. If
there are any additional safeguards that need to take place, they need
to be based on science."
The FDA did enact one ban Friday: Brains and other cattle parts that
could carry mad cow will no longer be used in cosmetics and dietary
supplements.
Those cattle parts are not in the food supply because of an
Agriculture Department ban.
The ban affects products made from animals 30 months of age and older,
which the government says are more at risk.
A loophole for tallow remains. Tallow is a processed fat made from
cattle that is used in cosmetics, but the FDA said that the high heat
and pressure used to make it minimize the risk.
Consumer groups applauded the cosmetic and supplement decision.
"I think taking the steps to keep specified risk materials out of
FDA-regulated food and dietary supplements and cosmetics is a
worthwhile thing to do," said Ms. Tucker Foreman.
"But if you're talking about reducing risk, it would reduce risk a lot
more by dealing with the feed issues."
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:29 AM
(0) Comments
10 July 2004
Animal Rights
Some time back, Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a list of essays on the moral
status of animals. I've been linking to the essays one at a time. Here
is an essay on animal rights.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 7:49 PM
(0) Comments
08 July 2004
Reading Material
Here is an essay that may be of interest.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 11:45 PM
(0) Comments
07 July 2004
Justice
My friend Butch had to euthanize his ten-year old canine companion,
Justice, who developed a prostate problem that affected other organs.
Having lost my Ginger nearly four years ago, I know how Butch feels.
If it's any consolation, Butch, you gave Justice a great life. You
were loyal to him to the end, as he was to you throughout his life. He
is no longer in pain. Don't reflect on what you lost or on what might
have been. Reflect on what you and Justice had--the quiet times you
spent together, the things you did, the joy and comfort each of you
gave the other. Rest in peace, Justice.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:34 PM
(0) Comments
06 July 2004
A Puzzle
Anyone who cares about the amount of suffering in the world and wants
to do something about it should be concerned about nonhuman animals.
Nothing humans do to one another comes close to matching the enormity
of what they do to animals. If you eat beef, for example, you are
contributing quite directly to a practice that treats sentient beings
as little more than flesh-making machines. If you don't believe me,
read this story from The Washington Post. (Here is the same story on a
different site.) If you're not crying by the end of it, you're not
functioning properly.
I'm puzzled by people who care a great deal about the feelings and
social status of homosexuals but not at all about animals. Even if you
think animals count for less than humans, this is irrational. No
homosexual is confined, castrated, and chopped to pieces while alive,
the way the cow whose flesh you eat was. All you have to do, if you're
a feeling, thinking person, is stop contributing to the horror. Stop
rationalizing your behavior. Stop pretending that the animals whose
flesh you eat lived happy lives and died painless deaths, for it's
almost certain that they did not.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 4:08 PM
(0) Comments
05 July 2004
Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 13
There's a difference between having a right and being able to assert
it. I sometimes hear it suggested that, since animals can't assert
rights, they don't have any. But this is a non sequitur. Babies can't
assert rights, but surely they have them. The senile can't assert
rights, but surely they have them.
Rightholders can be represented by others. This is done every day when
people hire attorneys (or when guardians are appointed for the
incompetent). An attorney, literally, is someone who works at the turn
of--i.e., in behalf of--another. Actually, attorneys both work in
behalf of their clients and speak on behalf of their clients. There
are plenty of people who are able and willing to work in behalf of and
speak on behalf of animals. Thus, animals' not being able to assert
their rights has nothing to do with whether they have rights to be
asserted. Don't confuse the two.
Sometimes I think animals get shafted because they can't stand up for
themselves. It's a case of might makes right. When humans are abused,
they cry "injustice," "exploitation," "oppression," and "unfairness."
This rallies others to their cause. Animals don't speak this language.
But they have interests, like humans; and their interests can be
wrongfully set back. The law is changing, albeit gradually. A hundred
years from now, the legal status of animals will be very different
from what it is today. Wrongs that now go unrecognized and unremedied
will be seen for what they are and dealt with accordingly.
If you're skeptical that this will happen, look at slavery. It took a
long time for people to see the evil in human chattel slavery, evil
that seems as obvious to us as that there are people. It required a
paradigm shift. It's only a matter of time before people see the evil
in treating animals as property.
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 8:23 PM
(0) Comments
03 July 2004
Peter Singer
Pablo Stafforini, creator of Peter Singer Links, has posted some new
material. Here is a newspaper column from a year or so ago entitled
"Some Are More Equal."
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 10:40 PM
(0) Comments
02 July 2004
Texana
I lived the first twenty-six years of my life in Michigan, followed by
five in Arizona and now sixteen in Texas. Some things were the same in
these three states, but many--including climate, geography, flora, and
fauna--were different. I'm blessed to have lived in such different
environments. If I never live anywhere else, and I probably won't, I
can say that I experienced three distinct regions of the United
States: the Great Lakes, the desert Southwest, and the Southern Great
Plains.
One of the animals I never saw until I came to Texas in 1988, and
which seems to be identified with Texas in people's minds, is the
nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). According to my Audubon
Society Field Guide to North American Mammals (1980), this is "the
only North American mammal armored with heavy, bony plates." The
armadillo is a little tank. When threatened, it curls into a ball, too
large to be eaten and too hard to be bitten into. Who says evolution
isn't ingenious?
The field guide contains this bit of lore: "The Spanish conquistadors
first encountered this strange creature and named it the `little man
in armor.' It spends most waking hours digging for food and building
burrows, grunting almost constantly." The map shows a range from West
Texas northward into Nebraska and Missouri and eastward to the
Atlantic coast, with all but the southernmost tip of Florida covered.
While I've never touched an armadillo or been close to a living one, I
see them flattened on highways quite often. The other day, while
returning home from an errand, I narrowly missed either an armadillo
or an opossum.
The field guide says that, "For such a clumsy-looking animal it is
surprisingly swift. It can swim short distances, gulping air to
inflate its intestines for increased buoyancy, and can cross small
streams by walking underwater on the stream bed." And then,
disappointingly, there is this: "Its meat tastes somewhat like pork,
and its decorative shell is used to make bowls or baskets." Who would
eat such a cute little critter?
# Posted by Keith Burgess-Jackson at 10:37 PM
(0) Comments
01 July 2004
The Rest of the Story
Keith, below is the story that should have accompanied the catfish
images I sent yesterday (see here). I accidentally deleted the text
while trying to import it into the flash document. My friend kindly
resent it to me this morning, so here it is. Sorry about that . . .
Joanna
FISH STORY FROM WICHITA EAGLE NEWSPAPER
This story was published in the Sunday Wichita Eagle newspaper a
couple of weeks ago. It happened in a housing development around 119th
Street South and Maple. A resident in the area saw a ball bouncing
around in the development's pond and, when he went to investigate, he
saw a flathead catfish who had obviously tried to swallow a child's
basketball which had became stuck in its mouth. The fish was totally
exhausted from trying to dive but unable to because the ball would
No comments:
Post a Comment