07 June 2016

From Today's Los Angeles Times

To the editor:

The gorilla Harambe’s killing at the Cincinnati Zoo surely calls our society to ask if it is moral or just to keep animals in a prison to be used, at worst, as objects of entertainment or, at best, under the guise of “education.” (“Harambe the gorilla dies, meat-eaters grieve,” Opinion, June 5)

Is there no accountability on the part of the parents of the child who found himself in the gorilla exhibit? The zoo, surely, carries responsibility for deficiencies in its enclosure. In light of this horrible incident, is it right for the zoo to carry on a breeding program that subjects more animals to such unnatural lives?

Finally, what of the audience? The hysteria of the crowd surely played a part in escalating an already frightening situation. Further, did those who reacted so strongly to Harambe’s killing go home and serve meat to their children?

This horrible incident has raised some tough questions indeed. In my opinion, neither Harambe nor the child should ever have been at the zoo.

M. Michelle Nadon, Aurora, Canada

To the editor:

Bars? What? Have op-ed article writers Peter Singer and Karen Dawn not seen the beautiful natural habitat at the L.A. Zoo?

It is estimated that due to conflicts with humans, the bushmeat and body parts trade, disease and habitat destruction, large mammals in Africa may be extinct by the end of this century. Many sanctuaries do not permit breeding.

As an intelligent primate, I’d much rather be an ambassador for my species in a secure environment—served the best food and tended to by top-notch veterinarians—than take my chances in a national park where poverty and corruption result in little or no protection for the non-human residents.

Lisa Edmondson, Los Angeles

05 June 2016


This blog had 1,338 visits during May, which is an average of 43.1 visits per day. A year ago, the average was 42.3.

Animal Rights

Good leftist that he is, Peter Singer doesn't let a crisis go to waste.

Addendum: The argument seems to be as follows:
  1. It is inconsistent both (a) to eat meat and (b) to condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe;
  2. I condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe; therefore,
  3. I may no longer eat meat.
Here are some objections:
  • The first premise is false.
  • The first premise is true, but I don't care about inconsistency.
  • The first premise is true and I care about inconsistency, but, since I am going to continue to eat meat, I no longer condemn (or mourn) the killing of Harambe.
Singer and his coauthor do nothing to reply to these (obvious) objections. They should have addressed at least the third objection, for I suspect that most readers of their op-ed column, if forced to choose, would stop condemning (or mourning) the killing of Harambe rather than stop eating meat.

04 June 2016

Ten Years Gone

Here are the posts from June 2006.