Temple Grandin’s reply to those who have identified the inherent contradiction in the statement “I design slaughter houses and I love animals,” is: “some people think death is the most terrible thing that can happen to an animal.” It follows according to Ms. Grandin that “the most important thing for an animal is the quality of its life.”
Ms. Grandin’s argument is derived from an underlying ontological worldview that assumes a dualism between “human” and “animal.” This is a factual inaccuracy. Biological “animality” exists on a continuum: a human animal is a member of a species of bipedal primates in the family Hominidae – “higher primates.” It is from this invalid assumption that Ms. Grandin’s argument tries to follow. Her claim, then, is baseless and open to the challenge of blatant selective reasoning.
If it is wrong to do A to X, then it is wrong to do A to Y if Y is similar to X in the relevant ways. For example, if causing me pain for “sport” is wrong because of the pain then the wrongness of the action is intrinsically tied to my capacity to suffer. Therefore, if A, B, and C can also suffer, and it’s wrong to cause me pain for “sport” because I can suffer, then it is wrong to cause A, B, and C pain for “sport.” This argument follows from collapsing the false duality so fundamental to Ms. Grandin’s unfounded conclusion.
On the issue of death, the following moral form takes shape: If it is wrong to kill me for a triviality such as “taste,” regardless of the “quality of my life,” then it is wrong to kill a cow for a similar reason, regardless of the “quality of his life,” if the cow is like me in the ways relevant to the situation.
Some philosophers argue that death is experientially neutral – it is neither “good” nor “bad.” Therefore, the death experience is not the worst thing that can happen; it just is. Others’ believe that death is “bad” – it is the absolute harm – because one’s opportunities for future “good” experiences are irrevocably ended. Many regard death as a harm if the being in question has certain cognitive capacities that allow for the planning of future “good” experiences. On this view, for some animals, human and nonhuman, death isn’t harmful. (This list is not exhaustive.) However one chooses to view death, a categorical dichotomy between “human” and “animal” doesn’t follow because they each assume as a necessary condition the beings’ sentience. As some animals other than human are the kinds of beings who care about what happens to them (i.e., they have interests and a welfare), the harm of death may be relevant to them.
If death is neutral for Ms. Grandin, then her logic should be extended to human animals, which would, I suppose, go to justify painlessly killing me in my sleep tonight. If death is a harm because it ends one’s chances for future “good” experiences, then Ms. Grandin has arbitrarily and self-servingly excluded a class of beings who necessarily ought to be included because they can and will experience these future “goods.” Finally, if the harm that death is relies on a cognitive function, then Ms. Grandin must include human animals in the group of beings who are only concerned with the “quality of its life,” versus death qua death. This group of humans would include, but is not limited to, every human baby ever born, some mentally handicapped individuals, and the severely senile.
Ms. Grandin’s cognitive dissonance, then, is not rectified by her reply.
Will be crossposted @ Vegan Soapbox
Somehow I think Temple Grandin would protest if someone tried to eat her after keeping her as a “happy slave.”
You think
Thanks for stopping buy Louche.
Why do you hate autistic people?
Interesting question Tim. I don’t hate autistic people; it’s just basic reasoning, that’s all. Indeed, I disagree with what must be Ms. Grandin’s own conclusions. That’s why I am a vegan in fact.
As a vegan myself, I agree with what you wrote. I’m actually listening to Temple at this moment on npr and it seems very clear to me that she is an omnivore first and an animal right activist second. I have friends like that. They want to “feel better” about their “choice” to eat meat because they want to keep eating it.
While I commend Temple’s ingenuity and attempt to better animals lives before they are needlessly slaughtered, I no longer believe in such measured compassion. I believe in total compassion to the point that I will not eat, wear, or exploit animals to the very best of my ability and to whatever personal inconvenience and sacrifice.
Nate,
Here’s a great essay about “compassionate” eaters-of-animals of Grandin’s stripe:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/06/compassionate-carnivore.html
I agree wholeheartedly with what you’ve said here.
I just watched some videos on Temple Grandin and was surprised to learn she has such a connection with animals, but still eats them. I don’t claim to have a connection with most animals (example: I love dogs but am terrified of cats and have no affection towards birds, or really anything little), yet I choose to eat no animal flesh, and prefer no dairy or eggs.
For those who choose to eat anmimals and their products, I’m happy Ms. Grandin has made the strides she has in slaughter houses. I have been to some slaughter houses recently, and it was much louder and more chaotic than what I saw on the films, but…ok.
I don’t think it has to be all or nothing, for while I respect animals rights activist, I think many people come to plant-based living for different reasons. I just hope that more and more people will see that eating plants isn’t a sacrifice, and I hope everyone will consider elminating so many animal products from their diet, and animal “bi-products” from their life. It really is no sacrifice.
By taking even baby steps, this will effect factory farming, and will encourage agriculture, as well as all other industries to look to other resources, and provide higher standards for consumers.
I would only add one qualification to your comment Salli Ann. Our advocacy is NEVER “all or nothing,” strictly speaking, when it comes to animal rights. For example, I wouldn’t bemoan, in the sense of claiming that they are doing something useless, someone for going vegetarian, or trying to buy flesh from “happy farms.” Causing less harm is always good. But for whatever reason they choose to base their decision, I would be unequivocal about the moral foundation of animal rights, which logically leads to veganism.
As in Grandin’s case, the issue being her blatant inconsistent reasoning, the basic premises for animal rights cross ideologies, world-views, etc. because it is really just about the badness of harm.
I seems perfectly reasonable to point out inconsistencies. This is what most people call “all or nothing,” but that’s not fair, anymore than it is “all or nothing” to criticize the sexist for making “sex” so morally important while being a racist (making “race” so morally important).
Here’s the flaw in your reasoning: while humans and animals do exist on a continuum, you aren’t taking evolution into account. Most domesticated animals (such as those we use for food) would not have existed without human involvement. Today’s cows and chickens are the result of a symbiotic relationship with humans, in the same way that dogs and cats are. While on a individual level, no animal wants to die, the fact is that cows evolved to be docile because it benefited them evolutionarily to trade their milk and meat in order for the care and protection of humans. Yes, today’s system of meat production is inhumane and needs to be changed (I abhor factory farming), but I encourage you to base your argument not on “avoiding harm” but on “providing happiness.” When animals are raised for food humanely (on traditional farms), we provide them a happy, comfortable life that they would not have had otherwise. Cows would not exist if we didn’t eat them.
Chris,
Your argument doesn’t describe a flaw in my reasoning AS IT CONCERNS “temple grandin’s dilemma.” My criticism of her still holds because any attempt to collapse the distinction, empirically or ontologically, between human and non-human animals doesn’t hold. Therefore, if the “happiness” or quality of life is what matters, morally, and that is the premise we should be reasoning from, then the same is true for our deliberations about human animals. In other words, Grandin’s reasoning begs the question Chris. If death doesn’t matter to them, why does it matter to me?
Now, I tried to systematically refute, point by point, what you’ve ACTUALLY criticized here in this article from some time ago:
http://animals.change.org/blog/view/on_prior_existence_and_sophistry_nonexistence_not_a_rights_violation
Nonexistence is not a harm or a rights-violation. Even if it were, and we ought to bring animals into this world because it benefits them, it wouldn’t follow, logically, that killing them, even if they are “happy”, is therefore okay. (If it were, our babies would be shit-out-of-luck wouldn’t they.)
By the way, your appeal to evolution is an is/ought fallacy.
I find it funny that you all are arguing against this woman. The simple fact is that she is smarter than you and you just don’t get it. I feel sorry for all of you. HAHAHA!
Perhaps you can highlight the error in my reasoning Michelle?
Alex, this is a very well articulated exposition of Grandin’s hypocrisy. It delights me to see philosophical terms used fluently in your text.
In reply to Chris, certain terms are misused and abused in your response (humane and evolution). Humane means to treat with sympathy, compassion, kindness, and mercy (when it is required). Humane slaughter and animal exploitation are oxymoronic.
Furthermore, evolution does not make trades; it is neither cognizant, nor pre-meditative, nor is it even progressive. Cows didn’t trade anything with us (as a species). Human beings took what they wanted, even at some points needed, from these animals. Evolution doesn’t involve trades, especially when it’s artificial selection. Normally, such flowery language may be interesting, even poetic; here, however, concerning the deaths of what will be trillions of sentient beings, we must understand that there is no trade. Humans set the terms of this evolution. The domesticated animals that are alive presently do not then fall to our fancy because of the servitude which humans constructed in the past (again, you seem to be confusing an is with an ought, as Alex pointed out). Like Grandin, your reasoning also begs the question. Although you attempt to contend otherwise, your position still assumes that death is not a big deal. Perhaps that is a part of your confusion.
Death is something I FEEL very strongly about, as does every other animal I have ever encountered. We cling to this exquisite existence. Why wouldn’t we? Although that feeling may not serve us well in deductive reasoning, inductively it has some power. It tells us something important.
One final I would like to mention is concerning the matter of suffering. Alex, I’m sure you understand this, but it is an important distinction (or at least it seems to me). Suffering is another term that is widely misunderstood. To suffer means to incur a loss or disadvantage. It is not just about experiencing physical pain. This is a fundamental understanding for our ontology. With this understanding death is the tremendous loss that we feel (by our avoidance of it, by our ritual, and ultimately underlying our claims that life should be valued and even protected)it to be.
@Ben: Great comment! I may, however, have some differences with you as it pertains to the harm of death. But “vegan logic”…a great idea for a blog.