Monthly Archive for March, 2008

Let’s keep the peace: Don’t talk about animal rights.

Published
by
Alex
on March 31, 2008
in Reading
. 0 Comments

During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the case for “bracketing a controversial moral question (i.e., slavery) for the sake of political agreement,” according to political philosopher Michael J. Sandel, was made by Stephen Douglas.

Sandel argues that whatever his personal moral views, Douglas claimed that, for political purposes at least, he was agnostic on the question of slavery; he did not care whether slavery was “voted up or voted down.” Lincoln’s reply was monumental in its moral significance:

It is only reasonable, Lincoln argued, to bracket the question of the morality of slavery on the assumption that it was not the moral evil he regarded it to be. Any man can advocate political neutrality, Lincoln continued, “who does not see a wrong in it; because no man can logically say he doesn’t care whether a [moral] wrong is voted up or voted down.”

Douglas’s political conception of justice (e.g., neutrality on difficult moral questions) depended for its plausibility, as Sandel writes, on a particular answer to the substantive moral question it sought to bracket (i.e., slavery). Lincoln rejected Douglas’s answer to this moral question, instead arguing that political (or moral) neutrality on the issue of slavery, even for the sake of the Union, was morally reprehensible.

Those who believe that the issue of animal exploitation is a substantive moral question, similar in kind to that of slavery, sexism, economic injustice, genocide, etc. argue that as the abolitionists of the past threatened the very stability of the Union by their beliefs and actions, they are willing to do things considered improper or impolite, lacking in tact, overly aggressive - things that indeed may challenge the very stability of their personal relationships, social status, or job opportunities. Indeed, in a perfect world all organizations that profit from the torture of animals would be relics of the past (would this include P.E.T.A.?), like the plantations of the South.

For example, when I broach the question of the rights of animals in my conversations with others, the most frequent reply is Libertarian in nature: ”You (Alex) live your life as you wish, I respect that, and I will live my life as I wish and you should respect that as well - be neutral and I will too.” Or “You have no right to force your beliefs on me.” If the issue is rightfully pressed, hostility is common.  

Consider the assumption being made in both responses. Quoting Lincoln, in part: ”It is only reasonable…to bracket the question of the morality of [animal exploitation] on the assumption that it is not the moral evil that it is.” [emphasis added]

To advocate neutrality in response to my questioning the morality of eating meat, for example, assumes that my negative answer to the substantive moral question of “Is the exploitation of animals moral?”, is wrong and that the non-vegan’s positive answer is correct or more plausible. As Lincoln argued, “Any man can advocate political neutrality…who does not see a wrong in it.” You are positing a belief, and one cannot simply assume the soundness of that belief. Critical analysis is a necessary requirement to move from the realm of prejudice or “tradition” to a position grounded in reason and logic.  

As Lincoln could not logically (or morally) bracket the substantive moral issue of slavery for the sake of political agreement, nor can I logically bracket the substantive moral issue of how individuals relate to nonhumans for the sake of agreement, or peace in my relationships with others.

Considered another way, John Stuart Mill’s ‘Harm Principle’ has been succinctly articulated with this simple maxim: “Your right to swing your fist stops where my face begins.” I believe this maxim appeals to a moral truth that is applicable in our dealings with nonhumans. 

If you eat an animal your behavior is what Mill called other regarding: to do what you want to do necessarily requires the invasion of another individuals physical integrity in a most fundamental way (e.g., an animal’s life is taken for your consumption). These actions cannot be explained away by an appeal to neutrality: you are harming another individual, which requires a justification. The right to have your desires satisfied, if it necessarily involves “other regarding” behavior, ends where the basic rights of other individuals begin.

One cannot bracket the substantive moral issue of “other regarding” behavior for the sake of dispute resolution, nor can I logically (or morally) say that I don’t care if it’s “voted up or down,” metaphorically speaking.         

Lincoln once said, “I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.” I couldn’t agree more.

Oh the controversy!

Published
by
Jennie
on March 31, 2008
in Daily
. 0 Comments

Alex and I love Caesar Milan. Maybe it’s his incomplete grasp of the English language, or his neon white smile. Or maybe it’s because he seems to have an understanding that, while dogs aren’t human, that doesn’t mean they don’t have their own methods of communication, their own thoughts, desires, their own psyche. They’re not just witless beings responding to stimuli - they’re not lower than humans, they’re just different. And I quote. 


However, Caesar is not without his critics. And his critics can be rather harsh. Recently, he’s been called out for ‘inhumane’ training methods, for being ‘unscientific’, for refusing to rely on ‘tried and true’ methods, for ’setting dog training back into the middle ages’. I mean, he’s just a glorified DOG WALKER! He doesn’t have a certificate to train dogs! And he doesn’t rely on SCIENCE. God help us all. There is a man on TV practicing dog training without the proper documentation. 

Okay, so it may be more serious than that. I have to give credit to people for at least attempting to think critically about the treatment of animals. However, it seems like a lot of people offering criticism fall into one of two categories: ‘professional’ trainers, and those who fail to do right by animals on a daily basis. There are several blogs out there representing the first, none of whom have ever actually spent any time with Caesar observing his work in first person. Obviously, these trainers have a personal stake in this - in their opinion, if he’s right they’re wrong and possibly out of a job. You can find them by doing a Google search, if you’re so inclined. The other category includes people like veterinarians and ‘animal behaviorists’ who use science to explain everything, and who don’t like to be questioned. 

So who is right? Caesar, a lovable man who loves dogs and wants them to be happy and healthy? Or is he just another crazed quack looking for his fifteen minuets? I honestly don’t have an answer because I’ve never met the man, or seen him work. Here’s what I do know. 

When it comes to animals, science is notoriously biased. We perform experiments on animals left, right and center without questioning the reason why or even how effective such experimentation is. What’s more, science has been a tool for finding reasons to deny animals basic rights. Did you know that many scientists and animal behaviorists claim that animals lack the capability to feel emotion? These scientists include people who work exclusively with animals, even veterinarians. And yet when it comes to how we treat animals, we rely almost exclusively on ’science’ to tell us what is what. We assume they have some authority, that they aren’t biased, that they care enough about animals to step outside their culture and tradition and be really, truly objective. 

I don’t believe they do. 

I believe that many of these people are incapable of thinking outside the box when it comes to conventional ‘wisdom’, regard animals as lesser and unworthy of respect, or merely as disposable property. I believe they are simply an extension of how we view animals as property - they are the fixers of property, and if it cannot be fixed, no need to keep it. Simply get rid of it through ‘humane measures’. 

I applaud and credit people for trying to prevent human beings for kicking, beating and abusing dogs. I don’t believe that the people attacking Caesar know enough about him to be able to make that judgement. I haven’t seen any evidence that they have worked with him, met him, spoken with him. I believe those are necessary steps before attacking someone for trying to do good. 

I also applaud and credit people for trying to save dogs from being killed simply because the people they live with are incapable. These same vets and trainers may be the same ones recommending euthanasia for Caesar’s “red light” cases. These caring and compassionate people may be the ones saying “Kill him, he’s unsalvageable” to a dog simply because their science and common knowledge tells them this is so. Like those who advocate immediate ‘euthanasia’ for fighting dogs, they rely on what they have been taught rather than thinking for themselves. 

I do not know Caesar Milan. Like his critics, I have never seen him in person nor seen his methods except on television. I would not practice some of his methods on my own dogs. I think research into his methods is warranted. I do believe that he has looked at dogs not as lesser beings, not merely as property, but as unique individuals who think, feel, are troubled and happy and excited and upset and who deserve to live, no matter what humans may have done to them. 

What’s really interesting is that these dog trainers, these veterinarians, probably wouldn’t balk at eating a pig who had been tortured a thousand times worse than what they’re attacking Caesar for, and then killed. A pig who is remarkably like a dog, except in looks. So what do they really care about? 

Our ‘Pet Property’

Published
by
Alex
on March 29, 2008
in Thinking
. 4 Comments
Our beloved pet’s are our property. As an undeniable matter of fact, the family dog is a piece of property, not unlike the family lawnmower. Look at the world around you (Animal Planet is an excellent source) and consider the validity of the following examples (I owe some examples to Gary Francione):

  • If I choose to deprive my cat of food to make him a more determined hunter of house mice, I would not be prosecuted for cruelty.  
  • If I choose to beat my dog to make him a more efficient “watchdog,” I would not be prosecuted for cruelty. 
  • If my “watchdog” was inefficient or aged beyond his peak I could have him “put down” legally; I could do the same thing for various reasons to my cat. (I could even do the “putting down” myself, in my own backyard.) 
  • If I suddenly find no more use for my once-beloved dog, I could merely give him away to any Tom, Dick or Harry, the pound, or perhaps the random street corner or tire pile will take him. (It’s as simple as putting out the trash.) 
  • Horses, pigs, chickens, or any other not-so-respected animals, feed and water them if you would like. However, if you forget and an enormous wound on the neck of the horse for example, happens to go untreated, he (the horse) may be removed from you by the authorities, but you will have the opportunity to make the case that you have suddenly changed your ways and that you will now treat your property in keeping with public norms - we don’t want to offend your neighbors’ sensibilities. 
  • If a horse owner continued to ride his mare after it was discovered that she had foundered (the pain would be unimaginable), what might occur? After three warnings the horse would be removed, however, due to the tremendous damage done as a direct result of the owner’s actions, she would have to be euthanized. Nothing would be done to the owner - nothing. Why? Because the horse is his property, and save for those examples of extreme AND public abuse (e.g., Michael Vick) the law does not prosecute people for damaging their own property.      
Those who reject this view and argue instead that they “love their kitty-cat like a member of the family” are irrationally giving affection to a mere thing. “You are placing more value on your property than the market dictates,” as Gary Francione argues. This is the reality of the situation. 

Please, continue to love your pet and treat them all with the respect that they are owed as a matter of justice and morality, but do not delude yourself into believing that your companion animal is any better respected by our society, culture and the law than the cow whose body parts you cook at an afternoon barbecue. 

Those who are not vegan have simply irrationally chosen to make morally relevant (i.e., acquaintance with the animal in question) what is not morally relevant; you have decided to show some respect to this arbitrarily selected group of animals (i.e., companion animals), while freely exploiting another arbitrarily selected group of animals (i.e., those who please your palates or particular “fashion-sense”). 

Arbitrariness of this kind is the result of nonsensical and infantile reasoning processes. We vegans have a moral duty to point this out and challenge the institution of ‘pet property.’ 

Non-vegans and vegans alike should respect all animals because each one is a unique, feeling individual, with their own histories, desires and interests. This includes the family snake, and the pig who is being exploited at this very moment to put a slice of its flesh on the plate of the non-vegan.      

Hens: living beings or mere commodities?

Published
by
Alex
on March 29, 2008
in Thinking
. 0 Comments

A Washington Post article, “Egg Prices Leave Consumers Clucking,” is surprising in its candor. The article’s central premise is:

“On Easter weekend, even the humble egg can’t escape the nation’s economic angst. A surge in egg exports, the weak dollar, pricey grain, oil at more than $100 a barrel and cuts in the national chicken flock have contributed to the fortunes of the region’s farmers and to supermarket sticker shock.”

With unique honesty, a brief description of the industry is provided, which allows the reader to gain some insight into what actually occurs, what processes are involved, and the underlying worldview being espoused. Given the articles candor, each individual reader is able to gain knowledge, reflect on what has been learned, and perhaps ask further questions.

Some examples (quotes from the article) of possible questions seem appropriate.

#1) “…U.S. farmers, feeling pressure from animal welfare advocates at home and in Europe, have been voluntarily cutting the number of birds kept in a typical 24-inch by 20-inch cage.”

  • Most standard sized pieces of paper, measured lengthways, are around twenty inches end-to-end. Given that knowledge, try to visualize what a “24-inch by 20-inch cage” looks like. How many hens could one conceivably fit into a cage that size? Now, how is it even possible to reduce the number of individual birds whom are forced into a cage smaller in length and width than two pieces of paper?
  • How many individual birds were in those cages previously?

#2) “…bills are higher for the fluorescent henhouse lights.”

  • Why is it necessary to provide an artificial source of light? In those buildings where these animals are kept, is there no access to sunlight - none? (If yes, why is it necessary to light the enclosure at night?)

#3) ”The females, beaks clipped so they don’t tear one another apart, are fattened up and start work at eighteen weeks.” 

  • Are the birds naturally inclined to “tear one another apart”? Is this something that occurs in their natural environment, if yes, it seems highly unlikely that the species would have survived its evolution.
  • “Fattened up”? Are these birds like athletes who voluntarily prepare for an event, or are they like a car being modified for human use and enjoyment? Is there anything morally problematic about forcefully modifying a living being for the end of more efficaciously exploiting it?
  • Why is the phrase “start work at eighteen weeks” employed? If you were forced into an unnatural environment, enclosed in this environment, where you are not allowed to leave nor are you allowed to act autonomously at the most basic level (e.g., consuming food when you feel hungry), would you consider this “work”? The term most often employed in such circumstances is enslavement, not work.  

#4) “(Male chicks are sent to a high-speed grinder or fed to zoo animals; the breed isn’t considered meaty enough to raise for drumsticks.)”

  • Is it even possible to describe this process in a more callous way?
  • Are these infant birds alive when one of these two options are selected for them by human beings; are they actually killed in this way, “a high-speed grinder or fed to zoo animals”? If not, how are they killed?
  • The article seems to imply that these two options are the only available options for these infant birds. Does that sound accurate?

#5) “…the chickens are placed in 13,920 cages stacked four high, above a large manure pit cleared twice a year.”

  • Substitute the hens in this situation for your family dog or cat: [the dog(s) or cat(s)] are placed in 13,920 cages stacked four high, above a large manure pit cleared twice a year. Is there any moral or quantifiable difference between your beloved companion animal and each individual hen, save for the fact that you happen to be acquainted with the companion animal?
  • If acquaintance is relevant, if one of these many birds had a human companion, would the exploitation of them at the hands of human beings be immoral?

#6) “The..hens…started their harried lives fifteen months after a shipment of embryos arrived in Canada from a breeding facility outside of…Germany.”

  • The author uses the word “harried,” which means “bothered, anxious, or distressed.” This is an explicit admission that these birds are the types of beings whom are capable of feeling such emotion, and having both a mental and physical reaction accordingly. Is it moral to dismiss the interests of a being that can feel, and continue to exploit this individual for economic gain?

#7) “Chains drag a crushed-corn mixture to the birds, and a conveyor system with white rubber gloves eases the eggs away.”

  • On the assumption that this type of environment is unnatural to a bird (a sound assumption, I believe), try for a moment to imagine what one hour in an environment so contrary to your nature would be like.
  • Do you believe that these producers, who have turned each individual animal into a mere renewable resource for human exploitation, considers anything beyond what mechanisms are the most economically efficient?

Words have tremendous power. Many individuals will have perused the Washington Post article without even the slightest emotional response to the processes being described, the disturbing honesty, and the underlying coldness. I just can’t understand why or how this is even possible?

After all of the information contained in the article, consider the following quote and ask yourself if you are capable of NOT questioning both the validity of the claim being made and the humanity of the human-animal making the claim:

“Seizing the opportunity, Hibberd says he enjoys working with the birds; they bob and squawk all day like scratchy chorus singers. At night there’s no sound, Hibberd says, I always loved that…you walk in after dark, and they’re sleeping. They purr.”

It’s enough to make me cry, if only because Mr. Hibberd attempts to justify the blatant cruelty staring him in the face by appeals to his lighter side - this is blind self-interest baselessly wrapped in a package of “I really care.”    

Why pescatarians annoy me.

Published
by
Jennie
on March 28, 2008
in Random and Thinking
. 19 Comments

You being a pescatarian is like me wearing a button that says “Registered To Vote!” and then never, ever voting in an election. It doesn’t mean anything.


Instead of calling yourself a ‘pescatarian’, just say “Beef? No thank you. I’d rather masticate a less appealing animal.” And then pat yourself on the back for caring.