There are various methods that people use to minimize the moral and political substance of the argument for animal rights. The vegan’s motive is painted as psychological: “You just love dogs and cats don’t you?” This argument tries to deflect away from the logic and appeal to consistency that ethical veganism is predicated upon.
Another method addresses itself to this appeal to consistency: “So, you must be perfect then?” Here’s a quick thought.
I don’t have to be consistent to level a criticism against an illogical or poorly reasoned argument: the reasoning remains valid (e.g. you are inconsistent if you believe both X and Y) even if I, myself, am a complete hypocrite. Nor do I have to be “perfect” (whatever that means), for the same reason.
This criticism is ad hominem, in other words, because it is directed at me, not the logic of my criticism of your reasoning. I’ll restate: You have to prove that my criticism of your reasoning is flawed, not that I am a bastard or whatever.
I wrote an article for The Scavenger about the Left’s blind-spot on the issue of animal rights. (I argue that the Left isn’t principled.)
Read it HERE.
If you decry Cesar Millan for “being cruel” (in his methods), or for preaching theories that are “downright dangerous and aggressive,” as I recently read, and you eat animals, then you are a hypocrite.
Now, I’m directing this at those who move beyond the criticism that Millan’s methods are “outdated”, and don’t work. If you believe that Millan is abusive, which must mean that the dog shouldn’t be harmed in such and such ways because it is bad, then it is you who I label hypocritical. Shift your judgment inward: those cows, pigs, chickens, and fish whose bodies you eat suffer far more terrible harms then Millan causes. How do you justify it? You can’t because you are just making a stupid distinction: this animal is “important”, but not this one. In the end, it is analogous to arguing that hitting black people is okay, but doing the same to white people is bad.
When people yell at other people for being “mutt makers” and tell them that instead, they should go out and find a “purebred”, “papered” dog to breed their dog to.
Backyard breeders and “quality” breeders alike, each dog you bring into the world is equal to a dog going out the the world via lethal injection or gas chamber. “Mutts” are dogs who love and play and feel too - and they deserve a life as much as a dog who is registered with a random, money grubbing, organization. Get down off your sanctimonious soapbox and realize you’re part of the problem too. It’s my damn soapbox and you’re cluttering it with your inability to think through your words using reason.
It is sometimes argued that because “we” are capable of inventing things that allow us to move beyond our physical limitations, for example, ”we” are superior to nonhuman animals. (This is generally in response to the criticism that citing the ability to do something like mathematics as morally relevant begs the question: Who decides what is relevant and what is not? A bird can fly; I cannot. Why isn’t that relevant?)
The use of the term “we” is what interests me right now. It’s made as a factual assertion, but it’s factually inaccurate. “We” is but a composition of individual human animals. Some, a small minority no doubt, of these individuals are capable of inventing things. Objectively, “we” cannot do such things; a handful of “we” can. This is a significant distinction, I think.
So it is factually wrong. What does this say about the moral implications vis-a-vis superiority to other animals? The obvious conclusion is that those human animals capable of inventing things are superior to those who are not. That is what necessarily follows if this characteristic determining moral worth is applied consistently. It is very simple logic.
The inevitable reply relies on the all-too-common invalid syllogism: some human animals can do X therefore all human animals are morally important therefore “we” are superior to nonhuman animals. First, it was the characteristic (being capable of invention) that mattered; then it was being a member of a species of which some of its members can invent things that matters. This slide obviously needs to be justified.
