Activists Miss the Point on Animal Rights

by Brian L. O'Connor, Ph.D.

When I wrote my article Are Humans and Animals Separate But Equal, I expected a strong response from the Animal Rights community, and I was not disappointed.

I'm most gratified that none of those criticisms disputed my characterization of the central premise of Animal Rights: viz, that to an animal rights activist, the life of an animal and that of a human are equally valuable, and that to discriminate on the basis of species differences ("speciesism") is to an AR advocate every bit as immoral as to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, age or ethnicity. (I myself reject the AR premise.)

Our agreement on this crucial point means I can respond to my critics without fear of talking at cross purposes.

On to specifics.

1) Kelly Hayward objects to my having pointed out that PeTA paid for the legal defense of Fran Stephanie Trutt because, according to Ms Hayward, Ms Trutt was duped into attempting to kill Mr. Leon Hirsch (of U.S. Surgical) by someone paid by Mr. Hirsch, the alleged victim, to do so. This allegation surfaced long ago, but to the best of my knowledge, remains unsubstantiated. (The DOJ makes no mention of Mr. Hirsch having been implicated in any conspiracy to assassinate himself . . .)

Be that as it may . . . Ms Hayward missed my point, so I'll clarify and amplify.

PeTA contributes money to a wide range of extremists and extremist causes. For example, what on earth is PeTA doing paying for anyone's legal expenses, or contributing $45,200 to the "Rodney Coronado Support Committee," or lending Mr. Coronado's father an additional, as yet un-repaid, $25,000?

Why would PeTA take contributions under the pretense of caring for animals, and divert it into helping defray the expenses of accused felons, regardless of the merits (or lack of merits) of the accusations? (In the event, both Trutt and Coronado spent time in the slammer for the activities, and Mr. Coronado evidently continues to teach the fine art of fire bomb making.)

Now, I'd have little gripe with PeTA were they to include in their fund-raising campaigns a statement confirming that it is their policy to contribute some part of your donations to help defray the legal and other expenses of people accused of felonies, and that they would use some other part to support the Earth Liberation Front. But PeTA does not . . .

I would also expect PeTA to be honest, and to disclose to their donors that it has been PeTA's policy to kill over 75% of the animals they accept at their Norfolk shelter, over 12,400 animals in all, since 1999 (pdf) — even though they could become a no kill shelter overnight).

What is the argument against transparency?

The remainder of Ms Hayward's letter is an ad hominem attack on Mr. Hirsch using the demonizing language that remains a staple of AR rhetoric.

2) Rina Deych says that neither PeTA's current Animal Liberation nor their past Holocaust on Your Plate campaign is about comparing humans to animals, but to deploring suffering whether in animals or humans — which, she assserts, is comparable: suffering is suffering, and compassion is compassion.

Ms Deych's innocent-sounding letter is fraught with AR subtlties. First, being against suffering in animals and humans isn't a position unique to Animal Rights activists. Animal Welfare people are likewise against suffering and AW people support the humane treatment of animals.

So what's her point?

Nor does "being against suffering and for compassion" validate the core premise of Animal Rights activists: that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value, a premise which, if accepted, might form some basis for the AR rule of thumb that, if it would be cruel or immoral to treat a human in some way, it would be equally so to treat an animal in that way. One can be "against suffering" and "for compassion" and still reject the AR premise that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value, though one might not conclude that from a casual reading of Ms Deych's letter.

So what's her point?

This gets me to the important matter of definitions, which may help understand another subtlety of Ms Deych's letter.

AR people have their own definitions of cruel, suffering, abuse, etc.. True, AR people do use the definitions properly when they attack people who, for example, skin animals alive (see, for example, the staged video that PeTA exploits to recruit children to the AR cause, for brutality that defies description).

But AR people also expand the purview of such emotionationlly-charged words to include treating animals in ways one wouldn't treat humans: if you accept the core AR premise, that the life of a human and that of an animal are equally valuable, then it would be cruel and therefore immoral to eat animals, kill them for sport, use them in research, keep them as pets, use them in human service or for entertainment, etc., because it would be cruel and immoral to treat humans in those ways.

Ms Deych's case is perfectly logical, if you accept AR's core premise — and the AR definitions of value-laden descriptors. I accept neither.

3) Sandra Hays takes exception to my calling all animal rights activists extremists.

I stand firm. The AR ideology is extreme because it is based on the premise I outlined: that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value.

Irrespective of methods, both the violent and the non-violent extremists would take us to the same extreme Utopia: one in which animals are not eaten, kept as pets, kept in zoos, hunted, used for service (guide dogs for the blind), used in research (pharmaceuticals would go directly from the computer model or petrie dish to human testing . . .). A Utopia in which killing "N" scientists is morally acceptable if it saves "N + 1" animals, one in which a person would save his dog from a burning building before he'd save a human stranger . . . all lives are of equal value, human and animal alike.

If this isn't extreme, what is?

4) Leana Stormont first explains: "All animal rights activists want is for people to stop doing horrible things to animals. There is nothing radical about that."

Ms Stormont's bland statement takes on new meaning when you understand her premise: that the life of an animal is as valuable as that of a human, and that the same standard should be used to judge whether something is "horrible" to both.

In short, to Ms Stormont, if it is immoral (or "horrible") to do something to a human, it is no less so to do it to an animal: no pets; no eating of meat; no training animals for service (no guide dogs, no performing animals); no use of animals in research; no killing animals, unless for self-defense; no violation of an animal's body or his natural inclinations for human convenience or benefit.

It is this premise that clearly distinguishes between the positions of those who are Animal Rights people and those who are Animal Welfare people.

The AR premise requires more for piety than observing a list of prohibitions. It also places an ideological burden on animal rights people to act affirmatively, a burden which (thankfully!) most AR folks don't take to violent extremes.

But it is this pro-active ideological burden that provides some small percentage of AR acolytes with the justification to appease the darker angels of their hearts and commit acts of vandalism, coerce people, intimidate them and their families and, in the case of Jerry Vlasak, openly advocate assassinating scientists.

What is the argument against doing all those things, if after all, the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, and you can force the world to a better place by using such tactics?

(In passing, the PeTA2 website is geared specifically for recruiting young children to the AR cause and encouraging them to act, sometimes in illegal or borderline illegal ways. In other words, PeTA insures a ready supply of AR activists, some small percentage of whom, it can be expected, will resort to harassment, intimidation, coercion, arson and perhaps even murder, if Dr. Vlasak has his way.)

Ms Stormont then lapses into the tragedy of the many dogs and cats that are killed daily, as if only Animal Rights advocates care about such a heartbreaking situation, and only AR people are looking for ways to prevent it. That's foolish: Animal Welfare people are no less concerned than Animal Rights people, and it's disingenuous to suggest that this isn't the case. (But this is standard AR fair — see my response to Ms Deych's comments above.)

Next, Ms Stormont (and, after her, respondent Bayer) makes the point that the animals PeTA killed are un-adoptable, having being made that way by cruel humans, and PeTA had no other choice.

First, we have only PeTA's word for the state of the animals they killed. And it is a fact that PeTA's "kill numbers" are far higher than those of other shelters in their vicinity, both in absolute numbers and in percentage. How is it that impoverished shelters can succeed — and they are impoverished — when PeTA with its multimillion dollar annual budget cannot? (In 2004, PeTA collected nearly $29 million in contributions.)

But irrespective of this, we must ask ourselves: how can it be that AR activists claim that animals lose their right to life — the most basic, the most fundamental right of all — simply because they were abused by humans, or are for other reasons not adoptable? Does this most precious right, and all rights subordinate to it, evaporate on the basis of human whim, viz., a human's willingness to adopt them?

Why aren't such damaged animals precisely the ones most deserving of PeTA's protection?

Ms Stormont tries to deflect us (with a red herring) from the core principle of Animal Rights by claiming that no AR advocate would claim that animals have the same rights as humans, that cats shouldn't be allowed to drive.

As an attorney, Ms Stormont must appreciate that there is no such thing as a "right to drive" even for humans.

But whether or not cats should be offered the opportunity to drive isn't the issue: The issue in question is whether the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, which is the central premise of Animal Rights ideology.

Ms Stormont continues with a logical slight-of-hand when she states: "Any dialogue about animal rights must immediately dispense with the notion that animal rights activists believe animals and humans are equal and that animals and humans should have equal rights. The guiding principle of equality that permeates American jurisprudence requires only this: that we treat like beings alike." (This is Ms Stormont's assertion that discrimination on the basis of species is as immoral as discriminating on the basis of race, etc., and animals ought to have the right not to be discriminated against.)

But Ms Stormont's deeply-held anti-speciesist convictions have dark implications, and Ms Stormont remains tellingly silent on how she would apply her principle of "like deserves like treatment" when it comes to killing and spaying and neutering.

Would Ms Stormont apply the "like deserves like treatment" principle to the killing of humans for the same reasons PeTA kills animals (because nobody wants to care for them, and PeTA has other uses for its millions . . .)? Would AR people apply the "like deserve like treatment" principle to the forcible sterilization of humans, as they do to animals?

The logic of Ms Stormont's AR position dictates she take one of two ideologically disasterous paths: she must either admit that the life of an animal and that of a human are not of equal value, or she must treat humans as PeTA treats animals for the same reasons: kill 'em for convenience and to save money, and forcibly sterilize 'em for population control.

Beyond all this, of course, is the question: who should be the authority who decides what "likeness" is morally relevant, the "likeness" that should be the basis of "rights"?

The Pope, Ingrid Newkirk and my aunt Matilda have three fundamentally different ways of weighting moral "likeness." Why is the AR system to be preferred above all others? Why not a biologist, one who argues that the moral trump card should be the capacity of a "subject-of-a-life" to respond to aversive stimuli, and to communicate with other "subjects-of-a-life" over distance, a system of "rights" that if adopted would include some plants?

Ms Stormont has established that animals can have rights, but she overreaches when she claims that they do or that they should: the burden of proof is squarely on her and her colleagues to show why the Animal Rights system of morality should trump all other existing systems; it is not my burden or the reader's to show why the Animal Rights system doesn't pass muster.

The logic of Ms Stormont's appeal to past civil rights movements as justification for granting rights to animals, and her suggestion that for humans to exercise control over animals is an abuse of power, works just fine — if you accept the premise that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value.

I do not accept that premise — you make your own call.

In passing, it's worth noting that Ms Stormont has accepted a job in PeTA's legal department, or so an article by Kirsten Scharnberg and Tim Jones in the June 9 edition of the Chicago Tribune, as reproduced by the Animal Liberation front, reports. So it is not surprising that she defends PeTA and PeTA's actions.

But irrespective of that, I hope I've shown that her case fails on its merits, regardless of who pays her.

5) William McMullin defends PeTA's traveling display that likens the treatment of animals to oppressed people, particularly emphasizing PeTA's offensive comparison of animals to black slaves.

Like Ms Stormont, he cites as his authority the civil rights struggle that aimed to create equality of treatment for blacks, women and other humans. And like Ms Stormont, his argument is logical, if you accept the premise that the life of an animal is as valuable as that of a human. (Note to Mr. McMullin: neither the opinion of Mr. Gregory nor Mr. Gandhi are infallible . . . I could cite authorities to bolster my position, but the readership should be able to decide for themselves whose arguments carry the day.)

Discussing how animals are treated is fair game within the context of Animal Welfare. But to judge the treatment of animals by the AR standard (a human life and an animal life are of equal value) is a horse of a different color, and assumes as true the very premise that is itself the center of the present dispute.

6) Steven R. Bayer begins by pointing out PeTA president Ingrid Newkirk's statement: “Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on or use for entertainment.” But here again we see the disconnect between what PeTA says they stand for and what they actually do. And so it is that even as PeTA parades Newkirk's lofty claim before the world (see the banner on PeTA's web page), AR supporters rally to PeTA's defense when they (PeTA) were caught red-handed with the blood of at least 12,400 animals on their corporate hands — animals that were killed, evidently, when they lost their right to life after having been abused by humans! Go figure . . .

Mr. Bayer next parades a truism before the readership, as if it were relevant: movements-for-justice sometimes attract a variety of people to them, who adopt a variety of methods to achieve their ends. Just as some anti-abortionists embraced violence when they couldn't achieve their ends peacefully, so too have some in the AR community. As Mr. Bayer delicately puts it: "When the simple (?) request is ignored, some individuals believe that any end justifies the means."

So what? The fact that some anti-abortionists adopted violent means doesn't justify some Animal Rights people doing so (tu Quoque fallacy). If Mr. Bayer is trying to suggest that I support violence in behalf of anti-abortionists, let me disabuse him of that notion: I condemn it with every bit as much vigor as I condemn violence by Animal Rights activists. Period.

Mr. Bayer then creates a straw-man: "As 'the flagship Animal Rights organization,' PETA itself has never participated in any form of terrorist activity" but does engage in outrageous demonstrations to heighten awareness."

I did not claim that PeTA participated directly in "terrorist activity," though one might gather I did from Mr. Bayer's phrasing. (Still, you owe it to yourself to read the sentencing memorandum (pdf) of the Coronado trial, especially pages 8 — 10, including the footnote on page 9.)

But I did point out that PeTA supports terrorists and terrorist organizations. The facts are clearly written on PeTA's own tax records: PeTA contributed $45,200 to the Rodney Coronado "support committee" (

op cit) Mr. Coronado being a former ALF member who torched a lab at MSU, continues to teach bomb making and may well be indicted for doing so. Beyond this, PeTA loaned his family an additional $25,000 that has yet to be repaid (at least as far as I know) (op cit). PeTA also provided ELF with $1,500 (the Earth Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for over $100 million of damage). There's much more I could point to, but you get the point.

And so to Mr. Bayer I say this: Street theater is one thing, but actively supporting violent people and organizations with cash is something entirely different. (Note to reader: The FBI has designated both ALF and ELF terrorist organizations.)

Mr. Bayer defends PeTA's Holocaust on Your Plate campaign (as does Ms Deych), and similar such PeTA efforts (like their recently renamed and restarted Animal Liberation campaign). His defense is grounded in a civil rights history that has been directed towards gaining equal consideration under the law for blacks, women and the aged.

His defense of PeTA's position is, as I've pointed out before, perfectly logical — if you accept the AR premise, viz., that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value. But the premise he relies on is precisely the one that is in dispute!

Beyond that, Mr. Bayer conflates "could" with "should." Sure — we could commit to the AR cause the same effort and resources that we use to bring equal rights to humans. But should we? If you begin with the premise that the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal value, then we should. Otherwise, we should not.

It's your call — is my cat's life more important than your child's live?

Mr. Bayer then tucks into his criticism the observation that I refer to my own blog Animal Crackers a great deal, and that many of the links on Animal Crackers direct the reader to the Center for Consumer Freedom.

So what? If the facts are true and representative (and the reader can check for himself) and the logic is sound, my argument is with merit. Of course, it can still be rejected on ideological grounds alone . . . but is that really what Mr. Bayer is suggesting? That facts and logic be discarded in favor of ideology?

Mr. Bayer then demonizes the Center for Consumer Freedom, and then damns me by asociation for being in agreement with much of what they (the CCF) stand for. But again, so what if we agree? Even if the CCF and I are as bad as Mr. Bayer would like the readership to believe — even if we were worse than he ever imagined — how does that cleanse PeTA, or answer the questions I've raised about the coherence of the AR message?

Mr. Bayer ends his missal by trying by defending PeTA's surreptitious record of euthanasia: "Beaten, burned, crippled, and abused in ways that would sicken the stomach of even the most fervent PETA critic, the majority of animals PETA euthanized were not adoptable, nor was there room in shelters to place them."

Well! Colorful prose, that.

Once again we must take PeTA's word for how the animals were treated before they found their way to PeTA's killing shelter, but even the casual reader will note that Mr. Bayer hedges his bets by using the qualifier "majority".

How big a majority is that? PeTA killed 12,400 animals in 5 years, so is the "majority" 6,201, and the "minority" 6,199? What is PeTA's excuse for killing any animals who were adoptable? How does Mr. Bayer account for the fact that other shelters in PeTA's vicinity killed far fewer animals, and a far lower percentage of animals they took in, than did PeTA? Why should we trust PeTA?

Having said that, from the point of view of an AR zealot, the numbers are trivial — mere technicalities — when compared to PeTA's violation of the core principle underlying Animal Rights ideology: that the life of a human and that of an animal are of equal value — unless PeTA would operate on Ms Stormont's "like deserves like treatment," and forcibly sterilize and kill humans for the same reason PeTA kills and sterilizes animals.

If the AR "principle" of anti-specieisism is more than a self-indulgent whim masquerading as a lofty moral principle in the fantasy world of a privileged few, how can Mr. Bayer so cavalierly dismiss PeTA killing animals in their "shelter," and how can he turn a blind eye towards PeTA's strong advocacy of spaying and neutering?

And to repeat a question I raised with Ms Stormont, why, precisely, aren't the damaged "majority" of animals killed by PeTA — the 6,201 dogs and cats, or whatever number it is — the most deserving of PeTA's protection, not the least?

Again I ask: how important are an animal's "rights" if they evaporate simply because the animal "rights-holder" has been abused, through no fault of his own, to the point where no human will accept him as a pet?

Finally, Mr. Bayer points to PeTA having contributed to worthy causes, as if this exonerates them from their ideologically incoherent acts. It does not. One can be a model citizen for 364 days out of the year, giving to charities right and left, but that does not give him license to kill on the 365th day. And in passing, Mr. Bayer points to PeTA having spent $240,000 in North Carolina to better the plight of animals.


But what he neglects to mention is that the $240,000 is a miserly sum when measured against PeTA's multimillion dollar annual budget, and even this sum was distributed over "a few years". For my part, I'd argue that doing "good works" is only to be expected from an organization that prides itself on its ethical superiority — it is not something one should marvel at. Beyond this, one can be a perfect citizen for 364 days out of the year, but become a criminal if he robs a bank on the 365th.

And so it is with PeTA: spending a paltry $240,000 over "a few years" doesn't buy them immunity from having betrayed the core premise of their own ideology.

In conclusion, let there be no mistake about my position: I do not pretend to occupy the moral high ground myself. I am merely asking those who have claimed the moral high ground for themselves — the AR advocates — to defend it.

Brian L. O'Connor, Ph.D.

Dr. O'Connor is Professor Emeritus of the Indiana Univ. School of Medicine, Grants Pass, OR.
http://brianoconnor.typepad.com/animal_crackers/