Animal Rights: Avoiding The Issue
by Philip Carter
Dr. O'Connor's article has succeeded in avoiding the issue at hand: video evidence of abusive treatment which would not be approved of, by the public at large. Rather than engage in a discussion on the merits of this and other damning video evidence, as indicative of general practices in the animal industries in general, and the need for reform, Dr. O'Connor engages in attacking the irrelevant philosophies and practices and failings of the ones who got the goods. If a corrupt cop gets evidence of criminal activity, the cop's corruption is not relevant to the prosecution of the crime. It's the evidence, stupid. No, just a slogan. Dr.O'Connor is not stupid, but he wants to change the subject. Why not reform the industry and welcome the evidence, and thank PeTA?
Of course they want more than you agree is right, but why not give them their due on an issue we can all agree is right?
However, in the process of leading us astray with these red-herrings, a dialogue has occured. This could be all for the good.
Dialogue should be clarifying. This dialogue appears to have reached a total impass. But perhaps this is in-appearance only.
The purposes of a dialogue include: to reach agreement, to change readers' thoughts and opinions. To clarify issues.
Some issues have been clarified, and we have some hidden points of strong agreement, as well:
- The author implies that he is not for needlessly cruel animal treatment which, he agrees, leads to suffering. This is hopeful! If he didn't care, or if he had held that animals can't suffer, then there could be no grounds for advancement. Hopefully, large numbers of the readership can agree with this kindly sentiment: Animals can suffer, and should not be made to needlessly suffer.
- Some AR writers agree that the killing of researchers,to which this researcher-author understandably would object, is not among their objectives or tactics.
- And the author writes that, if he felt or believed that animal and human suffering were of equal value, then he would agree with much of the AR logic, and with their ensuing conclusions. Perhaps, we might conclude, including violence.
Would that make him an extremist? Is it wrong to be an extremist, by his definition? Ie: having a belief which is contrary to current cultural beliefs and attitudes? Were Copernicus and Galileo extremists, for holding correct astronomical views, which opposed the faulty theology and astronomy of their times? They proved to be factually correct, though politically wrong. But here, on animal issues, we speak of values. Values cannot be proven correct or incorrect. So to value animal suffering equally with human suffering, cannot be established as right or wrong. And, similarly, neither can Dr. O'Connors's values, even if they are the prevailing values, despite his attitude that a high degree of caring for animals' well-being can only belong to a lunatic fringe. Or is one only an extremist, if involved in violence, and in upsetting the social order, which even he might do if he but agreed with the AR premises? Or under other provocation?
And here is my main point:
To further our points of agreement, could, should, would we substitute the words 'worthy of protection from wanton cruelty,' for the words 'equal in value?'
Could we begin to move toward a common-ground in this debate, on such a basis?
It seems like we might then agree!
Furthermore, could the author's having taken the trouble to turn his prodigious and valuable scalpel-like logic upon this issue, indicate anything about his conscience, and about the conflict inherent in his own feelings of agreement about 'unnecessary' animal suffering? Has he not, as a researcher, personally seen and participated in some of the atrocities, aka 'justifiable activities?' Or perhaps this view of his partial sensibilies is too hopeful. Perhaps he is merely irked by the consciences of his students and colleages. Or frightened and outraged by the death-threats. Or alarmed at society's increasing conscience?
Society, in general, has turned to face this issue. Do we see the bull turning to face his enemy because the lance-pricks begin to smart? Or because he agrees, in some part, with their thrust?
[I have heard that in a bull-fight, the bull is weakened and provoked, and is then lanced in his neck with splints, which keep his head from being mobile enough to gore the matador. Is that true? That without these splints, the brave matador would lose, would die? All for the sake of Human sportsmanship? Exciting! Heroic! Moral!]
Some of our seeming disagreements might dissolve, if seen less technically, less abstractly, and more in terms of tactical objectives, related to agreed-upon goals: How would the author effectively prevent the unnecessary cruelties he dislikes? And promote the animal welfare he respects? We can, should, will argue later, about which suffering is 'unnecessary,' and other technicalities, but could, should, would we start with the practical issue, analogous to [not the same as] that of how to stop our former national enemies such as Communist, Nazi and Japanese forces. Partly, it was thought, by demonizing and trivializing those forces. Propaganda was considered essential to the achievement. Violence was needed. It worked!
Now, if the author can agree that boiling pigs alive, skinning minks alive, beating dogs to death so that their meat will taste better, are examples of the many extremely wide-spread rampant, unnecessarily-cruel practices, something which he opposes, then how do we, how would he, how can one, successfully oppose the huge wealthy powerful agriculture lobby on these points? Couldn't AR help? Even if not essentially philosophically-correct, by his logic?
Would Dr. O'Connor rather be right than effective in stopping some atrocities?
If the last Presidential election was any indication, fair arguments and logic are not politically effective. Slogans and attacks, sensation and attention-grabbing, religious/moralistic appeals to create a fear of literal perdition, all must go into the successful campaign. Unfortunate. Lamentable. But true. What of the animal-welfare movement to which he refers? Legislative campaigns for basic humane protections, such as Pasado's campaign to protect pet donkeys and other companion animals from wanton sadistic and arbitrary cruelty and harm, were accepted by legislators in our Pacific North West, until the farm-lobby brought in its big guns, at the last hour, to insure its members' rights to their heinous-but-justified acts.
[ See www.PasadoSafeHaven.org . Go to the Pasado's Story page, and see their history, and their struggle with this. ]
So the vital and heroic animal-welfare movement is necessary but not sufficient for dealing effectively with these issues. Which is why they are preferred by the animal industries, over the AR movement. And that is why some would like PeTA to spend its resources on AW shelters, and to get off their backs about AR. What about Agriprocessors' abuses against US and Kashrut laws? How do you get public sentiment to support enforced compliance?
My own answer, in part, is to begin with verification: There should be webcams on, at all times, monitoring slaughter-houses, farms, labs, etc. to verify total compliance! Publicly accessible. Why not? Something to hide? Why start with the difficult extremes which the author raises, which can't be agreed upon, like eating meat? Why not start with the easy extremes which we can agree upon, by defining 'unnecessary cruelty?' Obviously, by raising the impasses, he derails the potential agreements. And I am sure that the good Doctor doesn't mean to do that! He's not the dismissive type. What makes a value correct? One can say it is an individual matter, or that there is an innate moral compass which is the same in all of us, but ignored by some, or that God sets the rules. Either way, no logic can coax belief in a value. It must, if at all, be changed by evocation, generally by personal exposure to its violation.
But values can change. History has led us to feel that they can, should, and will change. History shows an evolution of the human cultural mind-set toward inclusiveness and kindness. Toward less acceptance of unnecessary cruelty and exploitation.
These nightmares still exist, in fact are immeasurably increased in severity and in quantity, but increasingly have to be more disguised to be accepted.
However paradoxical, we call this change-in-spirit, 'progress,' and 'human evolution.' We export it. Sometimes violently. Hypocritically?
It is good for people. They become more inclusive of diverse ideas, diverse groups and of diverse species, and encompass them into their identification and concern.
Is the AR comparison between Holocaust victims, slaves and animals, offensive? Yes, if misunderstood, and no, if interpreted as intended.
The author's characterization of AR comparisons between racial-indignities and species-indignities, as offensive, is correct only in-so-far as these comparisons are mistakenly seen as comparisons between the abused populations. No! The intended comparison, is that between the abusive mind-set of the abusers then, and the abusers now, which has always been a mind-set of a natural entitlement to be abusive, because of the lack of merit of the abused. The lack of worthiness of protection from wanton sadistic cruelty and suffering.
This is what could / should / would .... must change.
Philip Carter
Brooklyn, NY
O'Connor's original 8/24/05 article, "Are Humans And Animals Separate But Equal?":
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com
the readers' responses:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog
his follow-up article of 9/21 entitled "activists miss the point on animal rights."
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home