PETA's Unsavoriness

I don't understand how anyone with any intelligence could have anything to do with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). If you care about animals, work in their behalf. You don't need to belong to an organization to do this. Be independent. Avoid entanglements. Think for yourself. See here for the latest instance of PETA's unsavoriness.

It's outrageous that many people on both sides of the animal-rights issue identify the animal-rights movement with PETA. PETA is no more the animal-rights movement than the Republican party is conservatism or the Soviet Union Marxism. It is a corruption of the movement. It sets back the movement. PETA is the worst thing to happen to animals. If you care about animals, stop supporting PETA.

Richard Sorabji on Western Attitudes Toward Animals

Unfortunately, the Stoic view of animals, with its stress on their irrationality, became embedded in Western, Latin-speaking Christianity above all through Augustine. Western Christianity concentrated on one half, the anti-animal half, of the much more evenly balanced ancient debate. Although there were other strands in Western Christianity, I think this accounts for the relative complacency of our Western Christian tradition about the killing of animals. The ancient philosophers were less complacent. In the eighteenth century the tide began to turn, and in the last fifteen years it has accelerated, with a widespread rethinking of our treatment of animals. But I do not believe that the right defence of animals has yet been found. The modern philosophical defences seem to me to be too one-dimensional. What is clear, however, is that we should treat animals very much better than we do. My own diet has changed as a result of reflecting on the ancient texts, at least when I am choosing for myself, although I still enjoy whatever food I am served by others. I do not mention that as a particularly compelling position, and I have no wish to tell anyone else what to do. I explain in the concluding chapter why I think decisions must be complex, and suggest an alternative approach.

(Richard Sorabji, Animal Minds and Human Morals: The Origins of the Western Debate, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, vol. 54 [Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993], 2-3)

Shelbie

One of the worst things to happen to me in my forty-seven years of existence was the loss of my beloved canine companion Ginger on Thanksgiving day 2000. I was a zombie for weeks. I was deep into marathon training when she died, but I knew I had to keep going. Near the end of the marathon, seventeen days after her death, I started thinking about Ginger and began to cry. That affected my breathing, so I had to think about other things. Ginger was the sweetest, smartest, most beautiful dog in the world, with the exception of Sophie, with whom she was tied. I still talk to Ginger on every walk, as silly as that may sound.

Sophie and I got on for nearly three years by ourselves. I knew we needed a puppy, but I was afraid it would disrupt our lives and remind me of Ginger. Okay, I felt guilty about trying to “replace” Ginger. Finally, a year ago today, I drove to the North Texas Humane Society in Fort Worth. I made the rounds of dogs and was about to go home empty-handed. I wanted a particular age, sex, and breed, and no dog in the shelter filled the bill. Before leaving, I decided to make one more pass through the small-dog area. This time I saw Shelbie, a three-and-a-half-month-old stinker. She had just been put in a cage, probably because she had just gotten her shots. She walked toward me, nuzzled my hand, and stole my heart. Within two hours, she was home with Sophie and me.

The first couple of days were hard. As expected, I felt guilty, as if I were dishonoring Ginger’s memory. But mercifully it passed. Each day brought more joy into our lives, replacing the awful sadness. The past year has been one of the happiest of my life, and I’ve had many happy years. Shelbie is every bit as sweet, smart, and beautiful as Ginger. I love her dearly. She learns from and plays with Sophie, who, at eleven and a half years of age, is kept young by the upstart’s energy and playfulness. How did I get lucky again? I am thrice-blessed. Here is Shelbie the day I brought her home (eleven pounds) and here she is today (45.5 pounds) with Sophie.

Who Moved My Truth?

Ally Eskin has a thoughtful post about meat-eating. See here. To answer Ally's question about what to do about the cows, pigs, and chickens we stop eating, what happened to the horse-drawn carriages and Edsels people stopped buying? Did their manufacturers continue to produce them? No; they stopped making them. We'll stop making cows, pigs, and chickens.

Tugboat

Tyler Hamilton is one of the best bicyclists in the world. He's currently competing in the Tour de France. Sadly, his longtime canine companion, Tugboat, died the other day. Not surprisingly, Tyler did poorly today in one of the Tour's most important stages. Here is the blurb that appeared at cyclingnews.com:

Not just a dog

Tyler Hamilton is in mourning for his friend Tugboat. For if the old adage that a dog is man's best friend [is true], Hamilton's big, friendly golden Labrador retriever was quite a buddy. Cyclingnews had the fortune to meet Tugboat a few years ago in Paris at the end of the Tour de France when Ty's wife Haven brought their beloved pet to the end of the Tour. Today we spoke to Hamilton before Stage 11 where the usually stoic New Englander told us about his emotional roller-coaster surrounding the loss of his best friend.

"Tugboat was like a family member to me," he said. "A lot of people don't know me or know the situation; they might think 'oh he's just a dog' but for me, it's hard, it's hard . . . just as hard as losing a family member. But life goes on and certainly (the loss of Tugboat) is a hundred times harder than what I went through last year." [Hamilton rode most of the 2003 Tour with a fractured collarbone.]

When we asked Hamilton if he thought the spirit of Tugboat might be with him during the rest of the Tour, Ty smiled and said "Yeah, I've got his tag right here," showing us Tug's red ID tag held around his neck on a white ribbon.

I send my condolences to Tyler and Haven.

From the Mailbag

Dear Keith,

I have enjoyed your columns on Tech Central Station from day one. I often find my self rereading some of them, and your columns are one of the reasons I am hooked on TCS. I am glad I found your blog. However, I will probably skip over anything on your blog about animal rights just as I skip over anything about same-sex unions on Andrew Sullivan's blog.

Now exchanging views with a doctor of philosophy could be akin to wrestling against Randy Savage but, I will stick my toe, perhaps my foot into the ring (and not into my mouth) concerning animal rights with this question-slash-statement:

Don't other animals eat other animals? Aren't there more animals being consumed by non-human animals (including bugs, fish, etc; a non-human is a non-human) than by humans? Don't they do it as a function of biology and evolution? While they haven't evolved with a moral sense as deep as ours don't they have some moral sense? Isn't it possible that some animals know the difference between life and death and some even show signs of grieving (such as the elephant)? Don't we have some kind of duty to stop their immoral behavior too since that is where most of the "killing" occurs?

Respectfully,
Christopher Pugh
Austin, TX

Animals

I’ve received several letters from people who don’t like my posts on animals. Some of them are nasty. One reader said I was on the verge of becoming Andrew Sullivan, who is obsessed with homosexuality. I replied that, just as I stopped reading Sullivan’s blog, he should stop reading mine.

But I’ve been thinking. My decision to stop reading Sullivan’s blog was based on more than the fact that he writes a lot about homosexuality. That doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is that he won’t listen to reason. He tars opponents of homosexual “marriage” as “the religious right,” implying that the only basis for objecting to homosexual “marriage” is religious. He knows better. Many of us oppose it on secular grounds. I also think Sullivan is disingenuous in calling himself a federalist (he’s not) and in not taking seriously the possibility—indeed, the high probability, according to many constitutional scholars—that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will be used to force homosexual “marriage” on all states. When I made this argument to him, he retorted, “It’s never been applied to marriage.” I guess that means it can’t be or never will be.

In short, I object to Sullivan’s irrationality, not to his interest in homosexuality.

Am I as irrational about animals as Sullivan is about homosexuality? I don’t think so. I’m perfectly happy to argue about the moral status of animals, which I’ve been doing for more than two decades. I teach the subject. I’ve published essays on it. I don’t resort to name-calling or manipulative rhetoric, as Sullivan does. I take pains to make relevant distinctions, to get my facts right, and correctly to characterize my opponents’ arguments before criticizing them. I’m committed to rational persuasion as a means of social change.

I believe that meat-eaters have inconsistent beliefs. They believe (1) that suffering is intrinsically bad; (2) that, as such, it must be justified; and (3) that the animals whose flesh they consume were made to suffer in its production. It follows logically from these beliefs that meat-eating is morally questionable. In philosophical terms, there is a strong prima facie case against consuming animal products. And yet, when I point this out, I get everything from denial to evasion to ridicule to abuse.

In my judgment, the most important moral issue in the world today is the status of nonhuman animals. Nothing else, even war, comes close. Why, believing this, would I forbear to discuss it? That readers of my blog prefer not to hear me discuss it may signify discomfort on their part. They grew up eating meat and enjoy it. They don’t like feeling guilty as they consume animal flesh. I make them feel guilty, for I remind them that they’re not living up to their own moral principles about not harming others. Please note: I’m not imposing my values on you. I’m imposing your values on you. Don’t react defensively or angrily. I’m trying to help you. I want you to have a coherent set of beliefs. I want you to live up to your moral principles. I want you to be a good person. Ask yourself whether your values commit you to changing your behavior. Follow my reasoning. If there’s something wrong with it, say so.

Some people say that animals don’t count for as much as humans or that they don’t have the same rights as humans. That’s irrelevant. If animals have any moral status at all—if they’re anything more than objects—then it’s wrong to eat them, because eating them is unnecessary. But surely, as sentient beings, they have at least some moral status. Any being that can suffer has an interest in not suffering. Isn’t it a requirement of rationality, and therefore of morality, that one take all relevant interests into account before acting? Is your interest in satisfying your taste sensations more important than an animal’s interest in not suffering? That, ultimately, is the question you must confront. Don’t evade it. Confront it. The unexamined life is not worth living.

Len's Inconsistency

Len Carrier is my co-blogger on The Ethics of War. He opposed the war in Iraq. What would Len say if, during our discussion of the war, I said that Iraqis don’t count for as much, morally speaking, as Americans? He would deny it. He would say that Iraqis can suffer just as much as Americans, that their lives are just as valuable, and so forth. If I persisted, he would say that I’m racist, ethnocentric, or unacceptably nationalistic. He would say that I draw a moral line in an arbitrary place.

But that’s exactly what he’s doing with respect to animals. Len says he eats meat. But this inflicts terrible suffering on the animals whose flesh he consumes. If Len believes that suffering has moral significance, then its infliction must be justified. What is his justification for inflicting it on animals? Do his tastes for animal flesh justify it? Would my taste for Iraqi flesh justify killing and eating them? Would my interest in sport shooting justify my picking off random Iraqis?

People who discount or disregard the interests of other races are racists. People who discount or disregard the interests of the other sex are sexists. People who discount or disregard the interests of other nationalities are nationalists. People who discount or disregard the interests of other species are speciesists. If Len says that animals don’t matter, then I say that Iraqis don’t matter. If the former is rational, then so is the latter.

Len’s professed concern for innocent Iraqis rings hollow when he blithely inflicts terrible pain and suffering on innocent animals for his gustatory pleasure. And please, Len, don’t say that animals aren’t innocent. What are they, guilty? Animals are innocent in the same sense in which Iraqi children are innocent. If the interests of the latter must be taken into account in our deliberations, then so must the interests of animals be taken into account. Your eating meat shows that you do not take them into account. You are a walking contradiction who cannot be taken seriously. Before you respond to this post, read—and think about!—this essay by Mylan Engel.

Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 14

Every social movement has both moderates and extremists. The difference is what they are willing to do—or, more precisely, not willing to do—in pursuit of their objective(s). They share ends, but not means. Some extremists are willing to harm others to achieve their goals, thinking, perhaps, that nothing will ever change if one works within the system. This was the agonizing choice Dr Martin Luther King Jr faced. Given his goal of a colorblind society, which means were best calculated to bring it about? He could have worked within the system, but he believed that that would never change anything, since the system was rigged against people of color. So he decided to disobey the law. But this disobedience, he insisted, had to be nonviolent. It was a form of communication, an initiation of dialogue with those who stood in the way of a just society.

Moderates face a dilemma. Either they repudiate their extreme colleagues or they do not. If they repudiate them, they risk alienating them and losing their energy and resources. If they do not repudiate them, they risk alienating their audience. Many people favor social change but are not willing to endorse or accept just any means to that change. They are, in philosophical terms, deontologists. They believe that evil may not be done that good may come. They believe that the end does not justify the means.

Many people, such as my Ethics of War co-blogger Len Carrier, sincerely believe that the war in Iraq was a mistake. They may believe that some good has come from the war, but not enough to justify the costs. Others take it to absurd extremes, propounding conspiracy theories about why the United States went to war, making personal attacks on those who waged it, and doing everything possible to undermine the war effort. When presidential candidate Wesley Clark was asked to repudiate some of the wild assertions made by one of his supporters, Michael Moore, he refused to do so. This was unfortunate (and telling), for it made it seem as though he were just as irrational as Moore, and nobody wants an irrational president. I know I don’t.

You’re probably wondering why I’m talking about war in Iraq in a post ostensibly about animals. It’s because there’s a parallel. Many people believe that factory farming and other horrific practices must be abolished. But by what means? Some people advocate working within the system, trying to muster support for enactment, amendment, or repeal of laws. Others are impatient with this, thinking, as King did, that nothing will ever change by working within the system. Some of the impatient ones take extreme measures, such as destroying property or injuring or killing persons. This is a serious problem for the animal-liberation movement. If the aim is to change minds, resorting to violence may be counterproductive.

I’m a moderate when it comes to animal liberation. I believe that in the long run, the most effective means to social change is rational persuasion. Not force, not coercion, not manipulation. The people I persuade will manifest their changed attitudes and beliefs both in their personal lives (by changing their diets, for example) and in their political behavior. We live in a democracy. Each of us is entitled to vote our consciences. My goal is to work on consciences. I believe this is also the goal of Peter Singer. Perhaps we philosophers are naïve, but we are committed to reason. We would rather not persuade at all than persuade by nonrational means.

Some people are frustrated by the slowness of this process. But look how much progress has been made in the past hundred years. The moral and legal status of nonhuman animals has improved considerably. No, it hasn’t changed nearly enough. There is a great deal of work yet to be done. It breaks my heart to see how animals are abused and neglected day in and day out. But I’m convinced that resorting to violence against person or property in the name of animals is not the way to go. It may be personally satisfying, but it doesn’t ultimately help the animals we profess to care about.

I hereby repudiate organizations such as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth First! to the extent that they advocate, endorse, tolerate, or engage in violent actions. Everyone who cares about animals should do the same. This is not a betrayal of the cause. It is fidelity to the cause. The betrayers are those who, looking only at the short run or their own satisfaction, undermine public support for the goal of protecting animals.

David Hume (1711-1776) on the Impotence of Reason

Since morals . . . have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be deriv'd from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already prov'd, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.

(David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature: Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects, Book III ["Of Morals"], Part I ["Of Virtue and Vice in General"], Section I ["Moral Distinctions Not Deriv'd from Reason"], Paragraph 6 [1740])

Conservatism and Animals

See here for my lengthy post on whether conservatism is compatible with concern for animals.

From Yesterday's Dallas Morning News

Bans on cattle feed debated

Officials say new limits not needed; critics say consumers are at risk

By KATIE FAIRBANK

Six months after promising to remove chicken waste, food scraps and blood from cattle feed systems, federal officials said Friday they aren't sure whether the bans are needed.

The restrictions were announced in January soon after mad cow disease was found in a Holstein in Washington state.

But the rules were not instituted and are now up for public comment along with other possible feed restrictions, including bans on animals that die on farms or can't stand up when they're taken to a slaughterhouse.

The earliest any of the rules under consideration could be instituted would be the end of the year.

Federal regulators say that if cows with suspicious symptoms are kept out of the system, there should be no worries about specific products.

"Based on all of the measures that have been offered, if we did some of these, would we need to do all of them?" asked Dr. Steven Sundlof. The director of the Center for Veterinary Medicine with the Food and Drug Administration spoke during a news conference in Washington, D.C.

Critics of the feed practices say the government has caved in to the meat industry and the exceptions put consumers at risk of mad cow disease, also known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

"This is something that could have a health impact," said Tom McGarity, a professor of food safety law at the University of Texas Law School and president of the Center for Progressive Regulation. "American consumers will remain unprotected as ranchers and feedlots continue to feed cow blood to calves and potentially contaminated chicken litter to cattle for the foreseeable future."

Calves are fed blood because the milk that is produced is sold to human consumers.

Chicken litter is a cheap, readily available feed, and plate waste is food left over at restaurants that is sent to rendering plants and added to feed.

Carol Tucker Foreman, food policy director of the Consumer Federation of America, said she didn't understand why the government didn't ban poultry litter and cows' blood as cattle food now and make adjustments later if more stringent rules are put in place.

"Instead they choose to do nothing," she said.

Richard Wortham, executive vice president of the Texas Beef Council, said the meat industry is just "trying to protect the food supply. If there are any additional safeguards that need to take place, they need to be based on science."

The FDA did enact one ban Friday: Brains and other cattle parts that could carry mad cow will no longer be used in cosmetics and dietary supplements.

Those cattle parts are not in the food supply because of an Agriculture Department ban.

The ban affects products made from animals 30 months of age and older, which the government says are more at risk.

A loophole for tallow remains. Tallow is a processed fat made from cattle that is used in cosmetics, but the FDA said that the high heat and pressure used to make it minimize the risk.

Consumer groups applauded the cosmetic and supplement decision.

"I think taking the steps to keep specified risk materials out of FDA-regulated food and dietary supplements and cosmetics is a worthwhile thing to do," said Ms. Tucker Foreman.

"But if you're talking about reducing risk, it would reduce risk a lot more by dealing with the feed issues."

Animal Rights

Some time back, Khursh Mian Acevedo sent a list of essays on the moral status of animals. I've been linking to the essays one at a time. Here is an essay on animal rights.

Reading Material

Here is an essay that may be of interest.

Justice

My friend Butch had to euthanize his ten-year old canine companion, Justice, who developed a prostate problem that affected other organs. Having lost my Ginger nearly four years ago, I know how Butch feels. If it's any consolation, Butch, you gave Justice a great life. You were loyal to him to the end, as he was to you throughout his life. He is no longer in pain. Don't reflect on what you lost or on what might have been. Reflect on what you and Justice had—the quiet times you spent together, the things you did, the joy and comfort each of you gave the other. Rest in peace, Justice.

A Puzzle

Anyone who cares about the amount of suffering in the world and wants to do something about it should be concerned about nonhuman animals. Nothing humans do to one another comes close to matching the enormity of what they do to animals. If you eat beef, for example, you are contributing quite directly to a practice that treats sentient beings as little more than flesh-making machines. If you don’t believe me, read this story from The Washington Post. (Here is the same story on a different site.) If you’re not crying by the end of it, you’re not functioning properly.

I’m puzzled by people who care a great deal about the feelings and social status of homosexuals but not at all about animals. Even if you think animals count for less than humans, this is irrational. No homosexual is confined, castrated, and chopped to pieces while alive, the way the cow whose flesh you eat was. All you have to do, if you’re a feeling, thinking person, is stop contributing to the horror. Stop rationalizing your behavior. Stop pretending that the animals whose flesh you eat lived happy lives and died painless deaths, for it’s almost certain that they did not.

Confusions and Fallacies About Animals, Part 13

There’s a difference between having a right and being able to assert it. I sometimes hear it suggested that, since animals can’t assert rights, they don’t have any. But this is a non sequitur. Babies can’t assert rights, but surely they have them. The senile can’t assert rights, but surely they have them.

Rightholders can be represented by others. This is done every day when people hire attorneys (or when guardians are appointed for the incompetent). An attorney, literally, is someone who works at the turn of—i.e., in behalf of—another. Actually, attorneys both work in behalf of their clients and speak on behalf of their clients. There are plenty of people who are able and willing to work in behalf of and speak on behalf of animals. Thus, animals’ not being able to assert their rights has nothing to do with whether they have rights to be asserted. Don’t confuse the two.

Sometimes I think animals get shafted because they can’t stand up for themselves. It’s a case of might makes right. When humans are abused, they cry “injustice,” “exploitation,” “oppression,” and “unfairness.” This rallies others to their cause. Animals don’t speak this language. But they have interests, like humans; and their interests can be wrongfully set back. The law is changing, albeit gradually. A hundred years from now, the legal status of animals will be very different from what it is today. Wrongs that now go unrecognized and unremedied will be seen for what they are and dealt with accordingly.

If you’re skeptical that this will happen, look at slavery. It took a long time for people to see the evil in human chattel slavery, evil that seems as obvious to us as that there are people. It required a paradigm shift. It’s only a matter of time before people see the evil in treating animals as property.

Peter Singer

Pablo Stafforini, creator of Peter Singer Links, has posted some new material. Here is a newspaper column from a year or so ago entitled "Some Are More Equal."

Texana

I lived the first twenty-six years of my life in Michigan, followed by five in Arizona and now sixteen in Texas. Some things were the same in these three states, but many—including climate, geography, flora, and fauna—were different. I’m blessed to have lived in such different environments. If I never live anywhere else, and I probably won’t, I can say that I experienced three distinct regions of the United States: the Great Lakes, the desert Southwest, and the Southern Great Plains.

One of the animals I never saw until I came to Texas in 1988, and which seems to be identified with Texas in people’s minds, is the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). According to my Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals (1980), this is “the only North American mammal armored with heavy, bony plates.” The armadillo is a little tank. When threatened, it curls into a ball, too large to be eaten and too hard to be bitten into. Who says evolution isn’t ingenious?

The field guide contains this bit of lore: “The Spanish conquistadors first encountered this strange creature and named it the ‘little man in armor.’ It spends most waking hours digging for food and building burrows, grunting almost constantly.” The map shows a range from West Texas northward into Nebraska and Missouri and eastward to the Atlantic coast, with all but the southernmost tip of Florida covered. While I’ve never touched an armadillo or been close to a living one, I see them flattened on highways quite often. The other day, while returning home from an errand, I narrowly missed either an armadillo or an opossum.

The field guide says that, “For such a clumsy-looking animal it is surprisingly swift. It can swim short distances, gulping air to inflate its intestines for increased buoyancy, and can cross small streams by walking underwater on the stream bed.” And then, disappointingly, there is this: “Its meat tastes somewhat like pork, and its decorative shell is used to make bowls or baskets.” Who would eat such a cute little critter?

The Rest of the Story

Keith, below is the story that should have accompanied the catfish images I sent yesterday (see here). I accidentally deleted the text while trying to import it into the flash document. My friend kindly resent it to me this morning, so here it is. Sorry about that . . . Joanna

FISH STORY FROM WICHITA EAGLE NEWSPAPER

This story was published in the Sunday Wichita Eagle newspaper a couple of weeks ago. It happened in a housing development around 119th Street South and Maple. A resident in the area saw a ball bouncing around in the development's pond and, when he went to investigate, he saw a flathead catfish who had obviously tried to swallow a child's basketball which had became stuck in its mouth. The fish was totally exhausted from trying to dive but unable to because the ball would always bring him back up to the surface. The resident tried numerous times to get the ball out but was unsuccessful. He finally asked his wife to cut the ball in order to deflate it and was then able to release the catfish.