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Now, I’m directing this at those who move beyond the criticism that Millan’s methods are “outdated”, and don’t work.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.
While I agree in spirit and wish that everyone with a criticism were completely and fully consistent - the reality often is that none of us are fully consistent and beyond hypocrisy. A criticism is valid whether or not the critic is consistent in his or her actions. We need to look at the truth of the criticism and evaluate that rather than evaluating the person making the criticism. Anything else is, so to speak, a copout.
Glenn,
What you’ve said here is no way inconsistent with my position, so I agree. The critique is intended to illuminate the inconsistency, and thus help them to bring their principals in line with their actions. It is really quite simple. Perhaps I will address the criticism itself in another post.
However, one thing: you seem to assume that pointing out an inconsistency is predicated on the “perfection” in the one doing the criticizing. But that’s clearly a straw man Glenn (used often against “animal rights” proponents). A vegan who argues that some vegetarians are inconsistent in that they often assume a qualitative difference between flesh and milk doesn’t do so on the assumption that she, the vegan, is “perfect”. She is simply applying the vegetarians logic in light of inconvenient evidence; the conclusion is that there is a contradiction.
Actually, I was hoping to point out that no one is completely consistent - not us and not them. I worry that basing a criticism on consistency may be weak because no one can be completely consistent. “More consistent” or “less hypocritical” may be possible, but simply being a hypocrite is a state that we all share, to a greater or lesser extent. Do you get what I mean?
Glenn,
I’m not certain I based my criticism on complete consistency; indeed, the label “hypocritical” was intended to illuminate a *manifest* inconsistency in their reasoning as a means, I suppose, to help them be “more consistent.” But again Glenn, this is neither here nor there because *I* don’t have to be “completely consistent” to level such a criticism: the reasoning remains valid, i.e., inconsistency, even if the person proffering it is a hypocrite. The principle itself isn’t challenged.
Your assumption seems to be that complete consistency isn’t possible, but I’m not certain that’s correct. The question would turn on the availability of evidence that would allow one to make their actions consistent with their principles. However, there seems to be a difference between A) one can never have *all* the evidence and B) with the evidence one *does have*, consistency within that framework is possible. It would be the latter that morality or ethics is concerned with, while the former would set-up an easy straw man.
Just because everyone else is doing something doesn’t make it right. You could equally say that no one should campaign for better welfare standards in farming because there will still be animals in the wild freezing and starving to death.
I completely oppose the training techniques used by Millan. I have been a professional handler/trainer for well over 20 years and the techniques he uses is outdated and heavy handed. I have also been an activist and die hard vegan for well over 20 years and have incorporated my firm beliefs in companion animals (to me family members) into every training session I have even done. I don’t preach but I do teach the fine art of communicating…not dominating! Right now I live with 2 Dobermans, 2 Wolfdogs and a Dalmation, all rescues from some of the worst enviroments imaginable…we live in harmony because we completely understand pack behavior. Millan has set back rehabilitation and training at least 20 years!
I agree that it is hypocritical to complain about Millan’s techniques while choosing to eat meat, but I also agree that focusing on inconsistencies doesn’t get any of us very far. In fact, if I speak to a meat-eater who makes these criticisms it means, to me, that this is a person who is capable of feeling for animals. The view may be limited at this time to family pets but such feelings can extend. This is a plus and this person may even move closer to eliminating meat over time.
At Liz,
Your analogy doesn’t follow because the suffering occurring in the wild doesn’t necessary implicate human beings (i.e., we cause the harm and death in factory farming).
At Judith,
I would suggest that the person advancing this criticism of Millan is the rule, not the exception moving towards animal rights. Francione is correct on this point: it is merely an example of our culturally sanctioned moral schizophrenia. Pointing out manifest inconsistencies is always a useful tool…for the intellectually honest that is.
I’ve studied Cesar Millan for years, and have concluded that his approach is very narrow. It excludes many more positive approaches. Therefore, it is cruel in the sense that it could be less negative (punishment based).