2007_12_01_archive

A Good Use of Our Princeton Education

Since PAWS was featured on the mtvU show Cause Effect, we've received

lots of emails praising our dedication to animals. Of course, we've

also met some critics. For example, today I got home from a long day

of classes to read this email from "Dave":

"I sure am glad that you are putting that high dollar Prinston [sic]

education to some use. Have you ever given some thought to all of the

suffering PEOPLE in this world? It is no different than the treatment

of animals. Women are beaten Children are born into this world with

HIV, Crack Cocaine in their system and Meth in their system. There are

homeless people and people freezing in the streets. Go Girl save those

chickens. Must have been the easiest choice for a project

assignment!!"

It would be easy for me to dismiss this email, because we hear this

argument all the time, and we think it is self-evidently wrong. Our

automatic response is that eating humanely does not take any time away

from your other causes, and hey, what are you doing to save the world

with all your free time, anyway? By eating meat, are you able to spend

more time helping people? Probably not. It often seems that the people

who are the most critical of our activism are the people who have

never been activists themselves, and have no desire (it would seem to

me) to make the world a better place. PAWS activists, on the other

hand, tend to be the exact same people who participate in a variety of

other positive, progressive activities on campus. Many of us

participated in the anti-torture protest last year, many of us care

about enacting universal healthcare in this country, alleviating

global poverty, and fighting AIDS. We are compassionate, ethical

people who care about reducing suffering--no matter who is suffering.

In short, fighting for animals and fighting for people are in no way

mutually exclusive. And because of global warming and health, they are

actually complementary.

But let me look at this criticism a bit more seriously. While it

doesn't take any more time to be a vegetarian, Dave is actually

correct: it does take time to be animal activist. When I'm out setting

up demonstrations, leafleting around town, and writing blogs like

these, I'm fighting for animal rights when I could be fighting for

human rights.

But does that imply that I implicitly put a higher value on animal

life than human life? Am I saying that I care about animals more than

humans? That seems to be what Dave is accusing me of. Believe it or

not, I do think that would be wrong. In general, humans are more

self-conscious, more rational, and more emotionally attached to their

loved ones than animals can be, so I would have no basis for saving

one animal life over one human life. But I don't think that's what I'm

doing.

Instead, I'm using my unique passion, skills and motivation to make a

difference exactly where I can make the biggest difference. Other

people who feel passionately about other issues should fight for those

causes. In no way am I saying that animal rights is the most important

cause--just that it's my most important cause.

For a thought experiment, let's say that it was possible to estimate,

empirically, the magnitude and intensity of the suffering inflicted by

current global problems. We could then rank world atrocities and

potentially name the worst atrocity in the world right now. Now, let's

assume that global poverty towered over all the other problems in the

world right now--far worse (empirically, remember) than genocide, air

and water pollution, AIDS, the US healthcare system, the Iraq War,

animal exploitation, and all other problems. If a ranking like this

came out, should all activists stop what they are doing and switch to

fighting against global poverty? Would that even be effective?

I think the answer is clearly no. We bring about the most change by

fighting for what we care about. If everyone worked on one issue (or

if everyone worked on "human" issues) then less positive change would

occur--spreading out our efforts offers the largest marginal benefit.

Everyone making the free choice to pursue her own passions will be

what makes the world a better place, even if some problems are clearly

worse than others.

Yes, I agree: there are many serious issues facing the world today.

While crusading for animal rights won't fix all of them, criticizing

us for taking on this issue won't solve any. At least we're doing

something.

Posted by Jenny Palmer at 1:34 PM 2 comments