John Benson on Peter Singer's Argument

Singer's supreme principle is that all sentient beings are entitled to equal consideration of their interests. A being has interests if it is capable of suffering and enjoyment. This capacity is a prerequisite for having interests at all, and the actual interests that a being has are determined by the particular kinds and degrees of suffering and enjoyment of which it is capable. Equal interests must be equally respected, without regard to the species of the creatures whose interests they are. One may treat two creatures differently because one is less sensitive than the other to some kind of suffering, but two equally sensitive creatures may not be treated differently merely because they belong to different species. If my dog and I both have headaches then the dog should have the one available aspirin if it has the worse headache. To treat the dog's pain as less important because it is a dog not a man is speciesism (a nasty word for a nasty thing).

(John Benson, "Duty and the Beast," Philosophy 53 [October 1978]: 529-49, at 530)

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) on Deliberation

When in the mind of man, Appetites, and Aversions, Hopes, and Feares, concerning one and the same thing, arise alternately; and divers good and evill consequences of the doing, or omitting the thing propounded, come successively into our thoughts; so that sometimes we have an Appetite to it; sometimes an Aversion from it; sometimes Hope to be able to do it; sometimes Despaire, or Feare to attempt it; the whole summe of Desires, Aversions, Hopes and Fears, continued till the thing be either done, or thought impossible, is that we call DELIBERATION.

Therefore of things past, there is no Deliberation; because manifestly impossible to be changed: nor of things known to be impossible, or thought so; because men know, or think such Deliberation vain. But of things impossible, which we think possible, we may Deliberate; not knowing it is in vain. And it is called Deliberation; because it is a putting an end to the Liberty we had of doing, or omitting, according to our own Appetite, or Aversion.

This alternate Succession of Appetites, Aversions, Hopes and Fears, is no lesse in other living Creatures then [sic] in Man: and therefore Beasts also Deliberate.

Every Deliberation is then sayd to End, when that whereof they Deliberate, is either done, or thought impossible; because till then wee retain the liberty of doing, or omitting, according to our Appetite, or Aversion.

In Deliberation, the last Appetite, or Aversion, immediately adhaering to the action, or to the omission thereof, is that wee call the WILL; the Act, (not the faculty,) of Willing. And Beasts that have Deliberation, must necessarily also have Will. The Definition of the Will, given commonly by the Schooles, that it is a Rationall Appetite, is not good. For if it were, then could there be no Voluntary Act against Reason. For a Voluntary Act is that, which proceedeth from the Will, and no other. But if in stead of a Rationall Appetite, we shall say an Appetite resulting from a precedent Deliberation, then the Definition is the same that I have given here. Will therefore is the last Appetite in Deliberating.

(Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, rev. student ed., ed. Richard Tuck, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought, ed. Raymond Geuss and Quentin Skinner [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996], chap. 6, pp. 44-5 [italics in original] [first published in 1651])

Vegan Goes Mainstream!

Oprah Winfrey goes vegan for 21 days. See both Oprah's blog and this story for details.

On Day 1 of her 21-day experiment with veganism, Oprah aptly asked: "How can you say you're trying to spiritually evolve, without even a thought about what happens to the animals whose lives are sacrificed in the name of gluttony?"

On Day 2, Oprah reported: "Wow, wow, wow! I never imagined meatless meals could be so satisfying. I had been focused on what I had to give up—sugar, gluten, alcohol, meat, chicken, fish, eggs, cheese. 'What's left?' I thought. Apparently a lot. I can honestly say every meal was a surprise and a delight, beginning with breakfast—strawberry rhubarb wheat-free crepes."

On Day 4, Oprah wrote: "I just cleaned my dinner plate, down to the last grain of brown rice left under my oh-so-delicious seasoned soy 'chicken.' I can not believe how tasty, spicy and wonderful it all was. I'm ever more surprised at how I don't miss anything and feel so satisfied at every meal."

Oprah is discovering just how delicious a heart-healthful, cruelty-free, environmentally-friendly vegan diet can be. She is experiencing firsthand the synergistic benefits that come from a vegan lifestyle. Why not join Oprah in her experiment? Try a cruelty-free vegan diet for 21 days and see how you feel. If you're like most people, you'll feel better physically, spiritually, and ethically, almost immediately.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Monkeys Think, Moving Artificial Arm as Own” (front page, May 29):

The brain really is a fascinating organ. I was also intrigued to read that “in previous studies, researchers showed that humans who had been paralyzed for years could learn to control a cursor on a computer screen with their brain waves.”

So why were the monkeys used? It seems to me that the most fruitful route to go in this sort of research that could have very important implications for humans with severe motor deficits would be to study humans and leave the monkeys alone.

Marc Bekoff
Boulder, Colo., May 29, 2008
The writer is in the department of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of Colorado.

Actors and Others for Animals

Here is an interesting website. I will add it to the blogroll.

From the Mailbag

Hello,

I am a volunteer for 1-800-Save-A-Pet.com, which is North America's largest non-profit pet adoption website, and I'm trying to get the word out about homeless pet adoption.

I am looking at your site and thought you might like to add a link somewhere to 1-800-Save-A-Pet.com. Save-A-Pet is a totally free service where 5,000 animal shelters have 80,000 pets listed who need homes today, and a link from your website would be a great way to help get the word out!

Please let me know if this is possible and thank you so much!

Sincerely,
Andrea Rasmussen

Peter Singer on the Wrongness of Killing Animals

In setting out to write this paper, my intention was to fill a gap in my book Animal Liberation. There I argued that the interests of animals ought to be considered equally with our own interests and that from this equality it follows that we ought to become vegetarian. The argument for vegetarianism is not based on any claim about the wrongness of killing animals—although some careless reviewers read this claim into my book, no doubt because they assumed that any moral argument for vegetarianism must be based on the wrongness of killing. Instead the argument for vegetarianism is based on the suffering that is, and as far as I can see always will be, associated with the rearing and slaughtering of animals on a large scale to feed urban populations. I explicitly avoided taking a position on the wrongness of killing animals, for I wanted the book to reach non-philosophers, and the issue of killing cannot be dealt with briefly and simply.

(Peter Singer, "Killing Humans and Killing Animals," Inquiry 22 [summer 1979]: 145-56, at 145 [italics in original; endnote omitted])

Betty White

Actress and animal activist Betty White is on the Tavis Smiley Show tonight. See here for details.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

I noticed that the sustainability house at Oberlin College enjoys barbecues with burgers and grilled corn.

Is it possible that for all their water-saving tactics, the students have overlooked a way to save huge amounts of water: cutting out beef?

It can take an estimated 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Oberlin students can time showers all they want, but one burger will cost them the equivalent of a 45-minute shower every day for a week!

I don’t necessarily advocate vegetarianism, but those looking to improve the sustainability of their lifestyles should take a look at their diet. Reducing meat consumption, particularly of beef, is one of the simplest and most rewarding things we can do.

Nadia Eghbal
Tübingen, Germany, May 26, 2008

John Rodman on the Paradox of Animal Experimentation

Beneath all else, slumbering but soon to awaken, is the paradox—old as the seventeenth century—intensified by recent studies of animal behavior: certain beasts are "human" enough (similar to man) that experimentation on them seems justified (to man) by the possible benefit to man; yet these same beasts are "inhuman" enough (different from man) that experimentation on them (in ways that would not be allowed on man) is morally permissible. Jane Goodall lamely concludes that chimpanzees should be housed and fed better in the labs.

(John Rodman, "The Dolphin Papers," The North American Review 259 [spring 1974]: 13-26, at 18)

Wolves

Here is a New York Times editorial opinion about the removal of the gray wolf (Canis lupus) from the endangered-species list. The editorial board of the Times is intellectually dishonest, so please don't let this be your only source of information about the delisting. Here, for example, is a news release from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Here are questions and answers. Here is the management plan of Idaho's Fish and Game Commission.

Leonard Nelson (1882-1927) on Animal Rights

If we apply the criterion of duty, the question of whether animals have rights can be readily answered: we have merely to ask whether, in considering an action affecting an animal, we could assent to such an action after abstracting from numerical determination. In other words, we have to ask whether we would consent to be used as mere means by another being far superior to us in strength and intelligence. This question answers itself. The fact that man has other beings in his power, and that he is in a position to use them as means to his own ends, is purely fortuitous.

(Leonard Nelson, System of Ethics, trans. Norbert Guterman [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956], 141 [first published in German in 1932])

Using Animals as Mere Means to Human Ends

How many of you think this experiment is justified? If you think it's justified, would it be justified if the experimental subjects were orphaned children?

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Biotech Company to Auction Chances to Clone a Dog” (news article, May 21):

Cloning animals to “replace” treasured companions is a boondoggle. These beloved animals’ personalities and charming quirks cannot be so easily reproduced. And when one considers that millions of dogs and cats are killed each year in shelters because there are no homes for them, cloning becomes unethical as well.

Kathy Guillermo
Director
Laboratory Investigations Department
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Norfolk, Va., May 21, 2008

Hampton L. Carson (1852-1929) on the Punishment of Animals

In the open square of the old Norman city of Falaise, in the year 1386, a vast and motley crowd had gathered to witness the execution of a criminal convicted of the crime of murder. Noblemen in armour, proud dames in velvet and feathers, priests in cassock and cowl, falconers with hawks upon their wrists, huntsmen with hounds in leash, aged men with their staves, withered hags with their baskets or reticules, children of all ages and even babes in arms were among the spectators. The prisoner was dressed in a new suit of man's clothes, and was attended by armed men on horseback, while the hangman before mounting the scaffold had provided himself with new gloves and a new rope. As the prisoner had caused the death of a child by mutilating the face and arms to such an extent as to cause a fatal hemorrhage, the town tribunal, or local court, had decreed that the head and legs of the prisoner should be mangled with a knife before the hanging. This was a mediæval application of the lex talionis, or "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." To impress a recollection of the scene upon the memories of the bystanders an artist was employed to paint a frescoe on the west wall of the transept of the Church of the Holy Trinity in Falaise, and for more than four hundred years that picture could be seen and studied until destroyed in 1820 by the carelessness of a white washer. The criminal was not a human being, but a sow, which had indulged in the evil propensity of eating infants on the street.

(Hampton L. Carson, "The Trial of Animals and Insects: A Little Known Chapter of Mediæval Jurisprudence," Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 56 [1917]: 410-5, at 410)

John Passmore (1914-2004) on the Moral Status of Animals

One restriction on the absolutism of man's rule over Nature is now generally accepted: moral philosophers and public opinion agree that it is morally impermissible to be cruel to animals. And by this they mean not only that it is wrong to enjoy torturing animals—which few moralists would ever have wished explicitly to deny, however little emphasis they might have placed on cruelty to animals in their moral teaching—but that it is wrong to cause them to suffer unnecessarily. "The Puritan," Macaulay once wrote with condemnatory intent, "hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators." In other words, what they hated—and by no means perversely—was the enjoyment of animal suffering; to the mere fact that the bears suffered as a consequence of human action they were indifferent. That, on the whole, is the Christian tradition. But now the situation has changed; not only cruelty—the enjoyment of animal suffering—but callousness, indifference to animal suffering, not taking it into account in deciding how one ought to act, is morally condemned.

Controversies no doubt remain. But they now turn around the question what is to count as "making animals suffer unnecessarily," whether, for example, vivisection or fox-hunting are, in these terms, morally justifiable. By looking in some detail at the way in which the general moral principle that it is wrong to act callously has gradually won acceptance, we can hope to see revealed, first, how reluctantly Western man has accepted any restriction whatsoever on his supposed right to deal as he pleases with Nature and, secondly, how changes in his moral outlook have nevertheless come about.

(John Passmore, "The Treatment of Animals," Journal of the History of Ideas 36 [April-June 1975]: 195-218, at 195 [italics in original; footnotes omitted])

From Yesterday's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “A Disgraceful Farm Bill” (editorial, May 16):

While the farm bill recently approved by Congress deals with enormous agricultural policy issues, it also includes three important provisions to protect animal welfare.

Because the Agriculture Department enforces the Animal Welfare Act, this authorizing bill deals with a broad range of subjects regarding the humane treatment of animals.

The bill contains sweeping new penalties against animal fighting, included after the Michael Vick case revealed the pervasiveness of this crime.

The bill also bans the importation of puppies from foreign puppy mills, and increases penalties for violations of the Animal Welfare Act from $2,500 to $10,000. Enforcement has been inconsistent at best. These new penalties would give the law some much needed teeth.

The Humane Society of the United States and other animal protection organizations support the farm bill because of these achievements for animals. We hope Congress will vote to override the president’s veto.

Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive
The Humane Society of the United States
Washington, May 21, 2008

Henry S. Salt (1851-1939) on the Fallacious Appeal to Nature

Of the many dense prejudices through which, as through a snow-drift, Vegetarianism has to plough its way before it can emerge into the field of free discussion, there is none perhaps more inveterate than the common appeal to "Nature." A typical instance of the remarkable misuse of logic which characterises such argument may be seen in the anecdote related by Benjamin Franklin, in his Autobiography, of the incident which induced him to return, after years of abstinence, to a flesh diet. He was watching some companions sea fishing, and observing that some of the fish caught by them had swallowed other fish, he concluded that, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we may not eat you"—a confusion of ichthyology and morals which is ludicrous enough as narrated by Franklin, but not essentially more foolish than the attempt so frequently made by flesh-eaters to shuffle their personal responsibility on to some supposed "natural law."

(Henry S. Salt, The Logic of Vegetarianism: Essays and Dialogues [London: The Ideal Publishing Union, 1899], 36)

Note from KBJ: Here is Franklin:

I believe I have omitted mentioning that, in my first voyage from Boston, being becalm'd off Block Island, our people set about catching cod, and hauled up a great many. Hitherto I had stuck to my resolution of not eating animal food, and on this occasion consider'd, with my master Tryon, the taking every fish as a kind of unprovoked murder, since none of them had, or ever could do us any injury that might justify the slaughter. All this seemed very reasonable. But I had formerly been a great lover of fish, and, when this came hot out of the frying-pan, it smelt admirably well. I balanc'd some time between principle and inclination, till I recollected that, when the fish were opened, I saw smaller fish taken out of their stomachs; then thought I, "If you eat one another, I don't see why we mayn't eat you." So I din'd upon cod very heartily, and continued to eat with other people, returning only now and then occasionally to a vegetable diet. So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.

Never underestimate the human capacity for rationalization!

Animal Rights

A few years ago, philosopher David Oderberg published an essay entitled "The Illusion of Animal Rights" in The Human Life Review. A few months ago, having belatedly discovered Oderberg's essay, I wrote a critique entitled "Oderberg on Animal Rights," which I duly submitted to The Human Life Review for publication. The editor rejected it, which means Oderberg gets the last word as well as the first. It's unlikely that any other periodical would publish my essay, since it's a critique rather than a stand-alone essay, so I decided to "publish" it here. Enjoy!

Global Warmism

Al Gore will dismiss these scientists as ideologues. In doing so, he will prove that he is the ideologue. Ideology is imperviousness to countervailing evidence.

Levi and Bandit

Levi Leipheimer is one of the world's top cyclists. Here he is with his rescued companion Bandit. Here is a story about Levi on the web page of Helping Animals. Here is an interview with Levi.

R. G. Frey on Animal Rights

The question of whether animals possess rights is once again topical, largely as a result of the recent surge of interest in animal welfare and in the moral pros and cons of eating animals and using them in scientific research. If animals do have rights, then the case for eating and experimenting upon them, especially when other alternatives are available, is going to have to be that much stronger; and those who engage in and support these practices are going to be increasingly beleaguered. Animal rights may not give vegetarians and animal liberationists all that they want, but the existence of such rights would unquestionably strengthen the cases of both camps. Arguments to show that animals do have rights, therefore, are at a premium.

(R. G. Frey, "Animal Rights," Analysis 37 [June 1977]: 186-9, at 186 [italics in original; footnotes omitted])

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “On the Ground, Counting Deer” (New Jersey and the Region, May 4) and the efforts of Essex County officials to justify the deer hunt in South Mountain Reservation:

When I moved to New Jersey from New York City 13 years ago, I was enchanted to encounter deer in a forest two blocks from my house in South Orange (which abuts the reservation).

People who move out here from the city generally feel the same way. It tends to be the Jersey natives who drive too fast and refuse to build fences in their backyards who view wildlife as the enemy.

You report that Susan Predl, a senior biologist with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, uses “distance sampling” to count the deer that managed to survive the recent county-organized, taxpayer-financed slaughter.

You also note that “counting deer is an imprecise science” and that an aerial survey is expensive, “but some believe it yields the most accurate count.” Grid searches are the best, although that would require patience and commitment, which seem in short supply in Essex County.

The article’s observations regarding “rutted roads” and “long-neglected picnic groves and campgrounds” more accurately describe the pitiful condition of the reservation. The lack of maintenance and patrol is staggering under the stewardship of Joseph N. DiVincenzo Jr., the county executive. The fault does not lie with the deer.

Kelly Bishop
South Orange, N.J., May 5, 2008

From the Mailbag

Keith,

Here is a photo of a little guy we found across the street. It was chewing on the remains of a little bird that had fallen out of its nest. It was right on the curb and I was concerned about it getting run over. My son and I put it in a box and took it to a ditch area behind our house. Usually possums this small are with their mothers. This little guy appeared weak and the wound on its head is very apparent. The heart in me wanted to take him in and get him up to strength. What to do? During this season, a lot of little birds will be falling from the trees. There is really nothing you can do for them. A young bird, yet to reach flight, is extremely vulnerable to pet cats and dogs. Feeding and caging them from your own pet, is impossible. Birds, possums, same problem.

I regret that I didn't leave that little fellow with some dog food or a can of tuna. However, my son and I did remove him from the dangers of man (cars). We took positive action. We did leave him in nature in a more secure location than when we found him. Nature has already been cruel.

We did our part. There is a philosophical lesson here somewhere.

Regards,
Christopher

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Another Horse-Racing Horror” (editorial, May 6):

Thank you for adding your voice to the many who are demanding that the welfare of racehorses should come before profits. But let us also give thought to the thousands of horses that are bred every year for racing and don’t make the cut or outlive their usefulness to the investors and owners.

Most wind up auctioned off for a few dollars each and sent to the foreign slaughterhouses to be made into pet food or dinner for someone overseas. Even the 1986 Kentucky Derby winner Ferdinand ended up in a Japanese slaughterhouse because he wasn’t proving his monetary value as a stud.

It’s not just the injured horses that suffer. It’s the thousands of faceless colts and fillies we never see that suffer from this so-called sport.

Jane Shakman
Ossining, N.Y., May 6, 2008

From the Mailbag

Keith,

Here is an online ethics and animals class I developed for the Humane Society of the United States. Perhaps its content would be useful for your readers.

Thanks
Nathan Nobis, Ph.D.

Farm Sanctuary

Let's take a roll in the hay.

Babies and Animals, Part 2

Seven months after R. G. Frey's essay was published, philosophers Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan replied to it. (Dale Jamieson and Tom Regan, "Animal Rights: A Reply to Frey," Analysis 38 [January 1978]: 32-6.) They make the following points:

1. Nobody makes the argument Frey criticizes. It is certainly not an "important argument," as Frey claims.

2. Frey claims that there are only three grounds for premise 2 of the argument: potentiality, similarity, and immortality. None of these grounds, he says, applies to animals. Jamieson and Regan reply that some animals are potentially rational. If so, then it is not the case, as Frey claims, that every ground for affirming premise 2 renders premise 1 false. At least one ground for affirming premise 2 renders premise 1 true.

3. The three grounds Frey supplies for premise 2 are not exhaustive. There is at least one other ground—namely, sentience—for the proposition that babies have rights. Unfortunately for Frey, this ground, unlike the three he supplies, does not preclude animals from having rights. Since both babies and animals are sentient, both have rights.

I think point 2 is shaky. Animals are not rational in any meaningful sense, and if they are not rational, then they are not potentially rational. Point 3 is a good reply, in my opinion. The right not to be made to suffer derives from (i) sentience and (ii) the intrinsic badness of pain. As for point 1, I don't see why it matters whether anyone has made the argument. It's an argument in favor of animal rights. Those who deny that animals have rights (e.g., Frey) must find fault with it. As for whether it's an "important" argument, I don't know. Nothing hinges on whether it is.

Babies and Animals

Here is a common argument in favor of animal rights:

1. If babies have rights, then animals have rights.
2. Babies have rights.
Therefore,
3. Animals have rights.

In 1977, philosopher R. G. Frey argued that at least one of the premises of this argument must be false, and hence that the argument is unsound. (R. G. Frey, "Animal Rights," Analysis 37 [June 1977]: 186-9.) This doesn't show that animals don't have rights, for an unsound argument can have a true conclusion; but it does show—if Frey is right—that there must be some other basis for animal rights than the one provided by this argument.

What is Frey's argument? Frey claims that (i) there are only three grounds for ascribing rights to babies and (ii) none of them applies to animals. Thus, what makes premise 2 true makes premise 1 false. What are the three grounds?

1. Potentiality. Babies may not be rational, but they're potentially rational. If we ascribe rights to babies on the basis of their potential rationality, we thereby deny rights to animals, for animals are not even potentially rational.

2. Similarity. Babies may not be rational, but they're similar in many other respects to "other members of our species." If we ascribe rights to babies on the basis of their similarity to other human beings, we thereby deny rights to animals, for animals are not similar in many other respects to human beings.

3. Immortality. Babies may not be rational, but they have immortal souls. If we ascribe rights to babies on the basis of their immortality, we thereby deny rights to animals, for animals are not immortal.

One way to challenge Frey is to show that (i) there is a ground other than these three for ascribing rights to babies and (ii) it applies to animals. Can you think of such a ground?

Plant Rights

Here is an essay by Wesley J. Smith. There is no inconsistency in rejecting plant rights while accepting animal rights. If Smith thinks that plant rights and animal rights stand or fall together, then he is confused, for there is a morally relevant difference between plants and animals, namely, that only the latter are sentient.

Addendum: Smith appears not to understand the animal-rights movement. He writes:

The animal rights movement grew out of the same poisonous soil. Animal rights ideology holds that moral worth comes with sentience or the ability to suffer. Thus, since both animals and humans feel pain, animal rights advocates believe that what is done to an animal should be judged morally as if it were done to a human being. Some ideologues even compare the Nazi death camps to normal practices of animal husbandry. For example, Charles Patterson wrote in Eternal Treblinka—a book specifically endorsed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—that "the road to Auschwitz begins at the slaughterhouse."

Animal-rights advocates do not believe "that what is done to an animal should be judged morally as if it were done to a human being." What they believe is that animals matter, morally. Animals have weight on the moral scale. Morally speaking, animals are something, not nothing. Inflicting pain on animals must be justified. This is not to say that it can't be justified, only that it must be.

Addendum 2: Smith wants the circle of moral concern to be the same as the circle of biological humanity. In his view, neither animals nor plants have rights. He seems to think that if we expand the circle to include animals, we will have to expand it, on pain of inconsistency, to include plants. This is false, for there is, as I say, a morally relevant difference between animals and plants that justifies drawing a line between them. The circle of moral concern should include all sentient beings, not all living organisms.

Addendum 3: When I was a law student at Wayne State University in the early 1980s, I took a graduate philosophy course in ethics with Bruce Russell. He allowed me to write a term paper entitled "Do Plants Have Rights?" Little did I know that I'd be coming back to that topic a quarter of a century later!

Addendum 4: Smith should grapple with the biocentric arguments of Paul W. Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986). It is one of the best books I've read. It sounds to me as though Europeans are taking Taylor's theory seriously.

H. J. McCloskey on Animal Rights

The issue as to who or what may be a possessor of rights is not simply a matter of academic, conceptual interest. Obviously, important conclusions follow from any answer. If, for instance, it is determined that gravely mentally defective human beings and monsters born of human parents are not the kinds of beings who may possess rights, this bears on how we may treat them. It does not settle such questions as to whether it is right to kill them if they are a burden or if they are enduring pointless suffering, but it does bear in an important way on such questions. Even if such beings cannot be possessors of rights it might still be wrong to kill them, but the case against killing those who endure pain is obviously easier to set out if they can be shown to be capable of possessing rights and in fact possess rights. Similarly, important conclusions follow from the question as to whether animals have rights. If they do, as Salt argued, it would seem an illegitimate invasion of animal rights to kill and eat them, if, as seems to be the case, we can sustain ourselves without killing animals. If animals have rights, the case for vegetarianism is prima facie very strong, and is comparable with the case against cannibalism.

(H. J. McCloskey, "Rights," The Philosophical Quarterly 15 [April 1965]: 115-27, at 122 [footnote omitted])

Animal Prosthetics

Here is the story of Albie the goat.

Statistics

I almost feel guilty about not posting more often (and more substantively) on this blog, given its expanding readership. This past month, there were 5,208 visitors to the blog, which is an average of 173.6 per day. The previous records (set in March 2008) were 4,200 and 135.4. I have a number of posts about animals waiting in the wings, but I have been saving them for summer, when I have more time. One of them is a long critique of philosopher David Oderberg's argument against animal rights. Mylan and I appreciate your interest in our blog. Perhaps Jonathan will post some items this summer as well. He has been busy with his studies at UT-Austin.

Eat It or Lose It

Here is a New York Times story about "eater-based conservation."

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “PETA’s Latest Tactic: $1 Million for Fake Meat” (news article, April 21):

The commercial development of meat from animal tissue won’t result in “fake meat” any more than cloning sheep results in fake sheep.

Quite the contrary, lab-based techniques have the potential to yield far purer meat, uncontaminated with growth hormones, pesticides, E. coli bacteria or food additives. A more accurate name for the end result would therefore be “clean meat.”

In addition, clean meat has a key advantage not mentioned in your article: it’s much more climate-friendly than traditional meat.

More greenhouse gas emissions are generated by current methods of meat, dairy and livestock production than by driving cars, so we need to reduce meat consumption and develop alternative food production technologies just as urgently as we need to reduce driving and develop alternative fuel technologies.

Scott Plous
Middletown, Conn., April 21, 2008

To the Editor:

Re “Million-Dollar Meat” (editorial, April 23):

In vitro meat might not appeal to everyone, but I am guessing that the day PETA awards its prize money will be a happy day for the billions of land animals bound for slaughter.

We can treasure the cultural and historical bond between animals and domesticated animals only by ignoring the emotional bond. Children naturally love animals, but the many “uses we have found for them” lead us to teach our children to save their compassion for companion animals exclusively.

We encourage kids to gently pet baby lambs, cows, chickens and pigs, but we deny them this loving connection when we serve animals for dinner by surreptitiously calling them chops, hamburger, nuggets and bacon.

There is no happy ending for even the most humanely raised animal. And there is no good reason to breed, confine and kill animals for food unless we believe that economic benefit justifies killing. More and more people do not. We call ourselves vegetarians.

Patti Breitman
Fairfax, Calif., April 23, 2008

To the Editor:

You suggest that the raising of animals for food should be done “in ways that are both ethical and environmentally sound.” This is asking for the impossible.

More than nine billion chickens are slaughtered each year in the United States. When you treat animals as objects on an assembly line, it is not possible to provide for their basic needs.

You argue that we must treasure a “cultural and historical bond” between us and those we eat. But that bond is based on exploitation and abuse.

If domesticated animals “exist only because of the uses we have found for them,” let me ask you: Would you have recommended 150 years ago that we preserve and treasure the bond between whites and their black slaves—and develop a more humane slave trade?

Vadim Liberman
New York, April 23, 2008

Baseball

Prince Fielder of the Milwaukee Brewers is a moral vegetarian.

Using Animals as Mere Means to One's Ends

The editorial board of the New York Times weighs in on in vitro meat. I can't be sure, since the editorial opinion is so jumbled, but the board seems to be arguing that people should continue to eat meat, provided the animals whose flesh they consume are not made to suffer. Would the board say the same thing about humans? Is it permissible to eat human flesh, provided the humans whose flesh one consumes are not made to suffer?

Leonard Nelson (1882-1927) on Duties and Rights

All so-called duties to oneself, in so far as they deserve the name of duties, are indirect, and as such presuppose duties to other persons. With this finding we are safeguarded against the error of fallaciously extending the scope of our duties. But an opposite error is possible, that of fallaciously restricting the scope of our duties. If we designate a being in relation to whom we have duties as an "object of duties," we may say that only other persons can be objects of duties. In addition, we assert that all other persons, in so far as we affect them by our actions, are objects of duties for us. For every person, being a subject of interests, has rights, i.e., has a claim to respect of his interests under the law of equality of persons.

Failure to understand this leads to the above-mentioned false restriction of the scope of duties—a dangerous error far more prevalent in ethics than the opposite error of fallaciously extending the scope of duties. If we assume the existence of more duties than there actually are, we at least do not directly violate any duty; but if we assume that there are fewer duties than we actually have, we are directly led to such a violation. The proposition asserting that all persons can be objects of duties is therefore of greater practical significance than the proposition asserting the nonexistence of duties to oneself.

To recognize the full import of the former proposition, we must sharply distinguish between the concepts "subject of duties" and "subject of rights": for we cannot rule out a priori the possibility that some subjects of rights are not subjects of duties. Under the moral law, all beings who have interests are subjects of rights, while all those who in addition to having interests, are capable of grasping the demands of duty, are subjects of duties. Only rational beings are capable of such an understanding. Accordingly, we may classify all duties remaining after exclusion of duties to oneself into duties in relation to rational and to nonrational beings. If we designate as an animal a being that is a subject of rights, but is by its nature incapable of attaining rational self-determination, and as a man a being that is a subject of rights and at the same time potentially endowed with reason, we may state briefly that duty is always either to an animal or to a man. It is my contention that we have duties to animals, and that these duties are direct, i.e., that they are not derived from duties to men, or rational beings.

(Leonard Nelson, System of Ethics, trans. Norbert Guterman [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1956], 136-7 [italics in original] [first published in German in 1932])

Note from KBJ: Nelson's "subject of duties" is what philosophers now call a moral agent. The defining characteristic of moral agency is autonomy ("rational self-determination"). His "subject of rights" is what philosophers now call a moral patient. The defining characteristic of moral patiency is the possession of interests. To see the relation between the concepts, draw two partially overlapping circles. Let the left circle represent the class of moral agents and the right circle the class of moral patients. This creates four mutually exclusive and logically exhaustive categories: (1) things that are moral agents but not moral patients; (2) things that are both moral agents and moral patients; (3) things that are moral patients but not moral agents; and (4) things that are neither moral agents nor moral patients. Category 1 is empty. Normally functioning adult human beings are in category 2. Nonhuman animals (even apes) are in category 3. Plants, rocks, chairs, and other things are in category 4. Nelson says that we have duties to both animals and humans. Our duties to animals are grounded in their possession of interests. Our duties to humans are grounded either in their possession of interests or in their possession of autonomy. Already, by 1927, Nelson had laid the conceptual groundwork for two types of rights: interest-rights (which humans share with animals) and autonomy-rights (which only humans have).

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

In his past comments about protecting animals and nature, Pope Benedict XVI is building upon the Roman Catholic Church’s tradition of promoting faithful stewardship of all creatures (“A Cat Lover in the Vatican Strikes a Chord With Cat Lovers Around the World,” news article, April 20).

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic catechism affirm that compassion for animals is a matter of human dignity. The Catholic Church is not alone among major religions on this issue.

The Episcopal Church embraces a resolution that specifically addresses puppy mills and factory farms. The United Methodist Church supports the humane treatment of farm animals and calls for the protection of endangered species. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America asserts that “God’s command to have dominion and subdue the earth is not a license to dominate and exploit.”

The Assemblies of God position on stewardship reflects that of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. The Central Conference of American Rabbis “advocates the strengthening of humane legislation,” and the list goes on.

Christine Gutleben
Washington, April 21, 2008
The writer is the director of animals and religion at the Humane Society of the United States.

In Vitro Meat

PETA is offering a $1,000,000 reward to anyone who creates commercially viable in vitro meat. I don't see any ethical problem with producing or consuming such meat. Do you?

Addendum: Here is a New York Times story about the reward.

Are Animals Sentient?

Here is a passage from John Rodman's classic essay "The Dolphin Papers," The North American Review 259 (spring 1974): 13-26, at 24:

St. Augustine [354-430] had long ago decided that beasts were incapable of suffering pain, because otherwise God would be unjust. (Assume that beasts share neither in original sin nor in eternal life; then for them to suffer pain seems to contradict the principle that "God being just, no being suffers undeservedly"; therefore, animals must not be thought to suffer pain.)

As I interpret the argument, it goes like this:

1. If (a) animals are sentient (i.e., capable of suffering), (b) animals are innocent (i.e., not afflicted by original sin), and (c) animals lack immortal souls, then there is undeserved suffering.

2. If there is undeserved suffering, then God is unjust.

Therefore,

3. If (a) animals are sentient, (b) animals are innocent, and (c) animals lack immortal souls, then God is unjust (from 1 and 2, hypothetical syllogism).

4. God is not unjust.

Therefore,

5. It is not the case that [(a) animals are sentient, (b) animals are innocent, and (c) animals lack immortal souls] (from 3 and 4, modus tollens).

Therefore,

6. Either (a) animals are not sentient, (b) animals are not innocent, or (c) animals have immortal souls (from 5, DeMorgan's theorem).

7. Animals are innocent.

8. Animals lack immortal souls.

Therefore,

9. Animals are not sentient (from 6, 7, and 8, disjunctive syllogism).

The argument is valid, so everybody must either reject 1, reject 2, reject 4, reject 7, reject 8, or accept 9. Augustine accepts 9. I reject 4, which falsely presupposes that God exists. How do you respond?

Addendum: I read Rodman's essay for the first time on 18 January 1981, when I was 23 years old and in my second year of law school. It has influenced me more than almost anything else I have read. If you'd like a PDF version of it, let me know.

Chocolate

If you like chocolate, you may want to consider purchasing it from this company.

Should We Legalize Dog Meat?

Should we legalize dog meat for human consumption? For a discussion of the issue, see William Saletan’s recent post at the Human Nature Blog.

Saletan discusses some reader reactions to his first post on legalizing dog meat here.

What's next? Soylent green?

Weigh in. What do you think? Should we be eating dog meat?

Henry S. Salt (1851-1939) on the Appeal of Vegetarianism

It cannot be too strongly stated that the appeal of Vegetarianism, as of all humane systems, is not to heart alone, nor to brain alone, but to brain and heart combined, and if its claims fail to win this double judgment they are necessarily void and invalid. The test of logic no less than the test of feeling is deliberately challenged by us; for it is only by those who can think as well as feel, and feel as well as think, that the diet-question, or indeed any great social question, can ever be brought to its solution.

(Henry S. Salt, The Logic of Vegetarianism: Essays and Dialogues [London: The Ideal Publishing Union, 1899], 3)

Beef

Here is a New York Times story about the St Paul Stockyards.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

In answering the question “What should be done?” about the world food crisis, Paul Krugman doesn’t mention an obvious and important solution: Eat less meat. The 700 calories’ worth of animal feed he says it takes to produce 100 calories of beef contributes nothing to the well-being of consumers.

With a little experimentation, anyone can find satisfying substitutes for meat that will improve personal health and the health of the planet at the same time. I urge your readers to give it a try.

Nancy Dorfman
Belmont, Mass., April 8, 2008

Growing Meat vs. Going Vegetarian

In today's Dot Earth post "Can People Have Meat and a Planet, Too?," Andrew Revkin explores the brave new world of growing meat cultures in vitro as a more humane and possibly more environmentally friendly way of producing meat.

In his post, Revkin cites Jesse Ausubel, Director of the Program for the Human Environment at Rockefeller University. Ausubel expresses pessimism about the ability of humans to change their diets from environmentally destructive meat-based diets to environmentally sustainable plant-based diets on the grounds that the desire for meat is somehow hard-wired into "our little snake brains." While by no means optimistic, I'm certainly less pessimistic than Ausubel. First of all, people can change. Every day, some people switch from meat-based diets to vegetarian diets. Every day, some people make the switch to entirely plant-based vegan diets. Some people make the switch for ethical reasons, others for health reasons, others out of concern for the environment, and some for a combination of all these reasons. (As Keith and I have repeatedly pointed out, the case for plant-based diets is overdetermined.)

Admittedly, one is forced to ask why more people don't make such life- and planet-affirming choices. It could be "our little snake brains," as Ausubel suggests. But then again, it could be due to the fact that we are constantly bombarded with billion-dollar advertising campaigns from the meat industries, the dairy industry, and the egg industry, as well as from myriad restaurant chains that promote and sell these very animal products. These industries and corporations don't spend their huge advertising budgets for no reason. They do so because they know that doing so stimulates and reinforces demand for their health- and planet-destroying products. I suspect that such advertising has far more to do with our dietary choices than a biologically hard-wired craving for meat and diary products, especially since in other parts of the world, consumption of meat is rare to nonexistent. (Consider, e.g., the traditional low animal-protein diets in rural China and the vegetarian diets of 15 million Jains.)

Couple the fact that the average TV viewer is exposed to some sort of pro-animal-product ad every ten minutes or so, with the lack of accurate information about the genuine health and environmental benefits of plant-based diets, and it's no wonder that more people haven't switched to plant-based diets.

Why do so many people lack accurate information about the health and environmantal benefits of plant-based diets? In part, because of media obfuscation. Yes, the media who profit from these animal-industry advertising dollars are complicit in not reporting information that would potentially hurt the sales of their major advertisers. How many people know, e.g., that University of Chicago researchers have reported that by switching to a vegan diet, a person can reduce her/his carbon footprint by 1.5 metric tons per year? That's more than switching from an SUV to a Prius.

Fortunately, a growing number of blogs, like Dot Earth, Animal Ethics, and many of the other blogs linked to in our blog roll, are getting out accurate information to a wide audience, information that can help readers make informed responsible choices regarding both their and the planet's health.

I conclude with a challenge. I challenge you to try the following experiment: Turn off your TV for an entire month. Don't watch it at all. Not once. See whether your desire for meat doesn't wane in the absence of larger-than-life images of animal products flashing across the screen. At the same time, try a vegetarian diet for a month. Get a good vegetarian cookbook—preferably one with full-page enticing photos of succulent vegetarian dishes. Find a few recipes that intrigue you. See whether you enjoy the food that you are consciously choosing to prepare and eat as much as the food you've been manipulated into consuming by industry advertisements. To your health and the health of the planet!

From the Mailbag

Dear Professor Burgess-Jackson,

The Michigan Law Review’s companion journal First Impressions this week published an online symposium on Agricultural Animals and Animal Law.

If you would like to post about the symposium on the Animal Ethics blog, please feel free either to link to the recent post at Concurring Opinions or to post something new, perhaps based on the content of the announcement, below. The symposium includes contributions that discuss the moral status of nonhuman animals.

Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or require additional information about the symposium.

Best regards,
Bradley Moore
Executive Editor of First Impressions
Michigan Law Review

Free the WPZ Elephants

See here.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

While businesses that rent dogs may be well intentioned, they’re unlikely to benefit the overall welfare of pets, and may actually do harm to the individual dogs they “rent” (“For a Temporary Best-Friend Fix, Rent a Dog (Kibble Included) for a Day,” news article, March 30).

A dog is a lifetime friend and companion—not a two-hour rental. Dogs form attachments to their families and thrive on consistency. Frequent and abrupt changes in location, routine, discipline and attention are confusing and stressful. Moving them from person to person, home to home, can induce problems such as anxiety and depression.

Dog lovers who are unable to make a lifelong commitment to a pet can volunteer with animal shelters and rescue groups, and provide foster care in their home for an animal awaiting permanent adoption.

There are better and more fulfilling options for these animals and people who need a doggie fix.

Michael Markarian
Washington, March 31, 2008
The writer is the executive vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

The Family Farm

Here is a New York Times story about traditional farming, which is a darn sight better for animals than factory farming.

Statistics

There were 4,200 visits to this site during March. That's an average of 135.4 visits per day, which is a record. The previous best month was November 2007 (3,836 and 127.8). I assume that many of the visitors have come here from Dot Earth. Mylan and I are grateful to Andrew Revkin for the link.

Drugs

Here is a New York Times story about animal-based drugs.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “With More News of Abuse, a Harder Search for Homes for Pit Bulls” (Westchester and the Region, March 16):

As a member of the League of Humane Voters of Westchester, I thank you for covering the efforts by the police and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to stop the dog fighting and animal cruelty in Westchester County.

The Westchester chapter of the league is calling on the county executive, Andrew J. Spano, and the mayor of Yonkers, Philip A. Amicone, to establish a task force dedicated to ending the dog-fighting in Westchester, and specifically in the City of Yonkers, site of most of the fights.

Yonkers prides itself on its gentrification and revitalization efforts. It is a blight on Westchester to have a city consistently in the news for such an odious activity.

The Michael Vick case shed light on the disgrace of those who cause dogs to fight each other, an event often accompanied by drug sales and prostitution. The animals are forced to fight through beatings, starvation, being thrown at each other, being made to attack smaller animals thrown at them, and worse.

We are tired of our dogs being bloodied, broken, scarred, crippled, killed and thrown into garbage cans. We are tired of our Westchester community being shown on TV in such an ugly light.

Let’s send a message to dog fighters: You are not welcome here.

Julie Serenson
Yonkers, March 23, 2008

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Thinning Yellowstone’s Bison Herd” (news article, March 23):

Yellowstone National Park bison, executed when they migrate outside the boundaries of the park, have plenty of company. Around the world, animal migrations are disappearing because of conflicts with development, agriculture and other human activities.

In the greater Yellowstone ecosystem alone, over half of the elk migratory routes and three-quarters of the antelope routes have been destroyed by sprawl, oil and gas development, and farming.

Earlier this month, NASA released new satellite photographs showing continued illegal cutting of the Mexican fir forests where virtually all of eastern North America’s monarch butterflies spend the winter.

And bird watchers across the United States and Canada face the prospect of a quieter, less colorful spring as a combination of climate change, tropical deforestation, mountaintop mining in the Appalachians and other activities destroys key wintering, breeding and stopover habitats.

The loss of migration is of more than aesthetic importance. Migratory birds protect forests and crops from insect pests; butterflies, bats and other migratory species are important pollinators.

Indeed, migratory animals are useful indicators of the health of the global environment; their safe passage is in our best interest.

David S. Wilcove
Princeton, N.J., March 24, 2008
The writer is the author of a book about the decline of the world’s great animal migrations.

From the Mailbag

I wanted to let you know about a website called AnimalAttraction.com where animal lovers come together to meet and oftentimes find love. We have many great stories from all over the country where folks had given up on having any romance in their life until they met at AnimalAttraction—everyone says it is much easier to get to know someone with your dog on the date too!

I was just contacted by a new couple who emailed me pictures of their wedding at the American Kennel Club where they tied the knot in the Best in Show ring. Where else? The bride was walked down the aisle by her standard poodle, John.

Also Animal Attraction is donating at least $100,000 to various animal charities next month (April is animal cruelty prevention month) to give back to the community we all adore—our pets!

Thanks for your time and please feel free to contact me with any questions!

Joanne Poesch

Recipe Idea!

For those of you who think that vegetarian cuisine must be bland and boring, think again. You'll find the recipe for Spaghetti con Rucola e Ricotta here. There's even an alleged aphrodisiac effect associated with arugula. That should inspire all but the most hardened meat-eaters to give it a try!

Bon Appetit!

Note: This dish will be much more healthful and just as tasty if you omit the ricotta cheese or replace it with crumbled firm tofu.

From the Mailbag

Hi there :)

I was hoping that we could do a link swap! I run a store called CutiePaws. I make animal plushies and donate 60% from each sale to AnimalsAsia's China Bear Rescue. :) My goal is to raise at least $1,000 this year, and you would be really helping me out by swapping links with me. :)

Let me know if you're interested!

Thank you very much,

Jenn Hartnoll
CutiePaws
60% of each sale is donated to AnimalsAsia's China Bear Rescue!

Global Warming

According to Yahoo! News, recent satellite pictures reveal that a chunk of Antarctic ice 7 times the size of Manhattan has collapsed and broken apart. The 160-square-mile chunk broke apart in Western Antarctica in what is called the Wilkins Ice Shelf. See here for video footage of the event.

Note from KBJ: I have a question for you, Mylan. Do you believe that a warmer globe would be bad for animals, all things considered? If so, what is the basis of your belief? Before answering, read this.

Bullfighting

Here is a New York Times story about bullfighting.

Bison Bison

Here is a New York Times story about Yellowstone National Park's bison herd.

Thugs

Somebody explain to me how this helps animals.

A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes

In 1792, Englishman Thomas Taylor (1758-1835), a prominent translator of Plato and other Greek philosophers, published a satirical pamphlet entitled A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. His aim in this anonymous work was to mock Mary Wollstonecraft's books A Vindication of the Rights of Men (1790) and Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), as well as Thomas Paine's Rights of Man (1791). Taylor's argument may be reconstructed as follows:

1. If women have rights, then animals have rights.
2. Animals do not have rights.
Therefore,
3. Women do not have rights.

In effect, Taylor is claiming (correctly) that the following three propositions are inconsistent:

A. If women have rights, then animals have rights.
B. Animals do not have rights.
C. Women have rights.

To say that these propositions are inconsistent is to say that not all of them can be true. At least one, therefore, is false. Taylor thinks C is the false proposition. I think B is the false proposition. What do you think?

Addendum: Here's another way to look at it. As between B and C, Taylor thinks B more likely to be true. Indeed, he thinks B is obviously true and that its denial is laughable. I think C more likely to be true. Indeed, I think C is obviously true and that its denial is laughable. One person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens.

Addendum 2: To give you a taste of Taylor's wicked prose, I quote the final paragraph:

And thus much may suffice, for an historical proof, that brutes are equal to men. It only now remains (and this must be the province of some abler hand) to demonstrate the same great truth in a similar manner, of vegetables, minerals, and even the most apparently contemptible clod of earth; that thus this sublime theory being copiously and accurately discussed, and its truth established by an indisputable series of facts, government may be entirely subverted, subordination abolished, and all things every where, and in every respect, be common to all.

It's a good thing Taylor didn't live to see Paul W. Taylor's book Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), in which his namesake defends biocentrism (a life-centered, as opposed to human-centered, ethic). Four beliefs form "the core of the biocentric outlook" (99):

(a) The belief that humans are members of the Earth's Community of Life in the same sense and on the same terms in which other living things are members of that Community.

(b) The belief that the human species, along with all other species, are integral elements in a system of interdependence such that the survival of each living thing, as well as its chances of faring well or poorly, is determined not only by the physical conditions of its environment but also by its relations to other living things.

(c) The belief that all organisms are teleological centers of life in the sense that each is a unique individual pursuing its own good in its own way.

(d) The belief that humans are not inherently superior to other living things.

Ibid., 99-100. Sadly, most of what is being published in environmental ethics (in periodicals such as Environmental Ethics) is rubbish. Some of it is obscure to the point of incomprehensibility. Much of it is progressive politics masquerading as philosophy. I highly recommend Paul Taylor's book.

Between the Species

Here is an online journal that should be of interest to readers of this blog. I will add a link to the blogroll.

From the Mailbag

Hi Keith,

Below is a calendar listing for Farm Sanctuary's annual Country Hoe Down at our Orland, California Shelter. We would be very appreciative if you would please list and help us raise awareness about this inspirational and educational event for farm animal advocates.

Please let me know if you would like more information.

Warm Regards,

Natalie Bowman
Communications Coordinator
Farm Sanctuary
P.O. Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891

From the Mailbag

Hi! I am a long time vegetarian, now vegan for 10 years, and animal lover.

I wanted to pass on these amazing groups I'm a part of for possible features/links on your blog:

I run Etsy for Animals: Artists Helping Animals, a group of artists and
artisans helping animals, many are veg/vegan and donate to animal charities thru
sales: http://etsyforanimals.com/

Our shop w/100% to animal charity: http://etsyforanimals.etsy.com/

Vegan Etsy: Creating Without Cruelty: http://veganetsy.blogspot.com/

Cruelty Free Etsy: http://crueltyfreeetsy.blogspot.com/

Etsy Veg: http://etsyveg.blogspot.com/

My own vegan friendly shop giving 10% to animal charities: http://mvegan5.etsy.com/

Please let me know if you feature any of the above,

Thank you,
Michele Glick

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Thank you for publicizing the plight of satos—street dogs—in Puerto Rico in “Scrutiny for Puerto Rico Over Animal Treatment” (news article, March 9).

Sadly, the situation in Puerto Rico is replicated in countries around the world where hundreds of millions of dogs live as strays, abandoned by the humans they have come to depend on for food, shelter and companionship.

Change will take place only when governments work with local and international animal welfare groups and concerned individuals to address the root of the problem through education and humane methods of population control, such as spaying and neutering.

As one animal advocate put it, “we need to work together and keep the finger in the side of government.”

Thank you for doing just that, by telling the American public what’s happening in Puerto Rico through your compelling article and photographs.

Allan Kornberg
Boston, March 11, 2008
The writer is executive director of the World Society for the Protection of Animals.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “Oceans at Risk” (editorial, March 9): We are in danger of ruining the world’s oceans and endangering marine ecosystems. You are right that what is needed is “a sustained effort by world governments and other institutions to do something about it” and that “the problems are global and so, in the end, are the solutions.”

One key solution, as you note, rests with the United States Senate: the Law of the Sea Convention. But without the political muscle of President Bush to illustrate the importance of this treaty to holdouts in his own party, the treaty will languish and our oceans will continue to be degraded.

As a nation, we value responsibility and cooperation. Ratification of the Law of the Sea would send an important message to the more than 150 countries that have already joined the treaty, including all of our allies, that we are committed partners in protecting the planet and its people.

Howard Salter
Director of External Relations, Citizens for Global Solutions
Washington, March 10, 2008

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “A Case of Abuse, Heightened,” by Joe Nocera (Talking Business column, March 8):

Mr. Nocera tells us that most slaughterhouses don’t mistreat animals or funnel sick downer cows into the food chain. Oh, really?

If Mr. Nocera actually had such clairvoyant powers over the meat-packing industry, why didn’t he put them to use last autumn and blow the whistle on the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant? He would have saved us the necessity of sending an undercover investigator to film the shocking mistreatment of animals. He might have prevented the recall of 143 million pounds of beef.

Mr. Nocera is anything but a soothsayer. He has simply rehashed the party line from the slaughterhouse industry. Most Americans, by contrast, join with us in demanding better regulations to safeguard farm animals and more credible inspections of our food.

Wayne Pacelle
President and Chief Executive
The Humane Society of the United States
Washington, March 8, 2008

Thwarting Progress

Here is a New York Times story about the short-eared owl.

Global Warmism

Bad news for animals: The globe is cooling.

Housekeeping

As unbelievable as it may sound, I still get comments without full names. Can you people read? Here is what it says on the editorial page of my local newspaper, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

LETTERS POLICY

Verification: Letters must have a printed full name, address and daytime phone number.

Frequency: Writers are limited to one letter a month.

Content: Be concise, to the point and original. Length is subject to editorial judgment, and letters will be edited to comply with Star-Telegram style and standards.

Think of this blog as a newspaper. Full names only. When a comment comes in without a full name, I reject it without reading it.

From the Mailbag

Dear Keith, Mylan, and Jonathan,

My name is Miry and I’m from Potomac, Maryland. First of all, I want to tell you how much I enjoy Animal Ethics. It is beautifully written with wonderful perspective. I read it all the time. I especially liked your posting from Gardner Williams’ “The Moral Insignificance of the Total of All Value.” I found this very inspiring, and would have never have seen it if not for your blog, so thank you for that.

I want to tell you about a website I just launched, called AnimalWork.org. It’s a job-matching site for all jobs related to animals, like training, grooming, veterinary medicine, caretaking, zoo positions, and much, much more. What makes the site special is that a portion of every sale is donated to animal rights and rescue organizations. If the majority of your blog readers are animal lovers like me, then I know they’d love my site.

I would love if you could mention AnimalWork.org on Animal Ethics to let your readers know about it. The link would be really helpful for spreading the word, and supporting the fantastic organizations that work endlessly to make this world a more animal-friendly place. I would also be happy to post a link to Animal Ethics on the AnimalWork.org blog.

Feel free to get in touch with me if you have any questions about AnimalWork.org, just want to say hello, or to recommend an animal-friendly non-profit that you think we should support. I am attaching our “Blog Pawsitive” newsletter that will give you more information about why AnimalWork.org is so awesome. Thank you!

Be Pawsitive!

Miry Whitehill
Director, AnimalWork.org

Activism

Here is a New York Times story about animal-rights activists.

From Today's New York Times

To the Editor:

Re “To Revive Hunting, States Turn to the Classroom” (front page, March 8):

Shame on West Virginia if it approves a bill that allows hunting education classes in public schools to become law.

We should not use public schools to try to reverse the inexorable decline in the “sport” of hunting.

The killing and maiming of animals for sport is a cruel and violent activity that is the antithesis of what schools should be teaching. Furthermore, in the context of a dramatic increase in school violence in recent years, to teach hunting is ludicrous.

We should be teaching our children how to be better citizens of the community, and that certainly does not include taking up arms against other living beings.

Brad Goldberg
President, Animal Welfare Advocacy
Mamaroneck, N.Y., March 8, 2008

From the Mailbag

I just wanted to pass on a link to a recent national geographic article on Animal Minds. Some of the material may be of interest.

Thanks,
Jayme

Water Worries—How We're Drugging Other Species

People used to worry that water fluoridation programs were part of a Communist plot. Today, people have to worry about much more than fluoride in their water. Traces of analgesics, antidepressants, antibiotics, antihistamines, anti-hypertension drugs, anti-seizure medications, and birth control hormones are turning up in the Nation's municipally-delivered drinking water and also in our rivers, lakes, and streams. While many city water departments are aware of the problem, most of them aren't sharing that information with their customers. See this AP story for details.

Pharmaceutically-laced water isn't just a problem for humans. It's a problem for animals, particularly aquatic animals, as well. Here is an AP story highlighting the impact these pharmaceutical substances are having on aquatic and avian species. For example, exposure to these substances is negatively impacting the reproductive abilities of some fish species, threatening their extinction. According to the column, more than 100 different pharmaceutical compounds have turned up in surface water around the world. Closer to home, the AP story reports that:

fish collected in waterways near or in Chicago; West Chester, Pa.; Orlando; Dallas; and Phoenix have tested positive for an array of pharmaceuticals — analgesics, antibiotics, antidepressants, antihistamines, anti-hypertension drugs and anti-seizure medications.

When one eats these fish, one is not only being exposed to these substances from one's drinking supply, but also from one's food supply. Since it's a good idea to limit one's exposure to these substances, you might want to rethink eating fish. We already know that tuna is turning up with unsafe levels of mercury residues. Now, we're learning that other fish species have residues of the above array of pharmaceutical substances in their tissues.

Play it safe. Switch to a plant-based diet. You'll spare the fish, and you'll reduce your exposure to these unwanted pharmaceutical compounds.

Back to water. With drugs turning up in tap water, you might think that purchasing bottled water is a safer bet. But think again. Much of the bottled water available for purchase comes from municipal sources at a cost 100 times greater than tap water. Plus, all those plastic bottles are an environmental nightmare. More information on bottled water is available here.

It would be better for all if we could simply trust our local water departments to provide safe affordable drinking water with full disclosure of all contaminants contained therein. Here's an organization working to ensure the safety and affordability of our water supply.

Till then, you might want to switch to biodynamic organic wine. Cheers!

Global Warming Is Good for Animals (Including Humans)

See here. (Sorry, Mylan.)

Global Warming

Global warming is an animal ethics issue. As the planet warms, fragile habitats that countless animal species depend on for survival will be destroyed. We have already witnessed radical changes in the polar icecap, changes that threaten numerous arctic species. Recently published research suggests that the situation is even more dire than previously predicted. This Washington Post column highlights the gravity of the situation [Also available here.].

Most scientists agree that a 3.6°F (2.0°C) increase in global average temperature could have serious negative environmental consequences. According to the Post story, computer modeling conducted by Andreas Schmittner (College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University) indicates if we continue "business as usual" and do nothing to curb greenhouse gas emissions, average temperatures are likely to increase 7.0°F by the year 2100. This increase in temperature is likely to last hundreds (if not thousands) of years, threatening to dry up sources of water worldwide. Loss of potable water threatens countless animal species including Homo sapiens.

In independent research published in Geophysical Research Letters 35, Damon Matthews (Department of Geography, Planning and Environment, Concordia University) and Ken Caldeira (Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington) have found that:

a single pulse of carbon released into the atmosphere increases globally averaged surface temperature by an amount that remains approximately constant for several centuries, even in the absence of additional emissions.

Matthews and Caldeira also find that:

to hold climate constant at a given global temperature requires near-zero future carbon emissions.

They conclude:

Our results suggest that future anthropogenic [human-generated] emissions would need to be eliminated in order to stabilize global-mean temperatures. As a consequence, any future anthropogenic emissions will commit the climate system to warming that is essentially irreversible on centennial timescales.

Matthews and Caldeira's findings suggest that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recommendation that industrialized nations need to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 (limiting CO2 emissions to 450 ppm) to prevent severe climate change may not go far enough.

Meanwhile, Republican Presidential candidate John McCain is only calling for a 60% reduction by 2050. Lucky for him, he won't be around to witness environmental damage caused by his proposal, though he will have kept his current constituents happy. The Democratic Presidential candidates' proposals are only somewhat better where global warming is concerned. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are calling for 80% reductions by mid-century, which, while better than the 70% reduction plan currently before the Senate, is still at the low end of the IPCC's recommendations.

As the World's leading contributor of greenhouse gases, the United States should be taking the lead in the charge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S.'s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are twice that of Europe and nearly 8 times that of China. As such, it is incumbent upon the U.S. to make radical reductions in CO2 emissions.

Fortunately, we don't have to wait for our elected officials to implement federal legislation curbing greenhouse gas emissions to start reducing our own contributions to global warming. Here are some simple things you can do to reduce your carbon footprint. When it comes time to replace your current vehicle, buy a hybrid. Until then, keep your current car tuned up, keep your tires inflated to the maximum safe level as specified on the tires, and avoid jackrabbit starts. [Switching to a fuel-efficient vehicle is in your self-interest anyway with average gas prices in the U.S. at their all-time highs and projected to increase 20-30 cents per gallon next month!] Take public transportation when possible. Walk or ride a bike for short errands [Doing so will improve your fitness level and waistline to boot.]. Turn off electrical appliances, including computers, when not in use. Turn down the thermostat in winter to 68°F or even 66°F and turn up the thermostat in summer to 80°F or even 82°F. When lightbulbs burn out, replace them with compact florescent bulbs.

I'll be discussing other ways to reduce your carbon footprint in subsequent posts. In the meantime, you can measure the size of your ecological footprint by taking the ecological footprint quiz. Think you're "green"? You might be surprised by how brown your footprint is. This quiz is interactive and will explain steps you can take to reduce the size of your footprint on planet earth.

Note: The quotes from Matthews and Caldeira were taken from the abstract of their article "Stabilizing climate requires near-zero emissions." The complete abstract of their article is available here. The abstract of Schmittner's article can be found here.

Latest Dot Earth Post on Current Whaling Wars

Here is Andrew Revkin's latest post on the current whaling controversy near Antarctica.

Golf with Malicious Intent

Thanks to Adrian Seeley for calling to my attention this story about PGA Tour golfer Tripp Isenhour, who allegedly intentionally killed a red-shouldered hawk with a golf shot. According to the report, Isenhour repeatedly hit balls directly in the hawk's direction until he hit the hawk. After impact, the hawk, a protected migratory bird, fell to the ground bleeding from the nostrils. The bird was buried on the golf course—perhaps in an effort to hide the evidence—but was later dug up by Florida investigators.

Now, an ever so remorseful Isenhour wants you to be respectful of his privacy and leave him alone. Ironic, isn't it, since Isenhour wasn't willing to respect the hawk's privacy. Far from leaving the hawk alone, Isenhour (allegedly) took it upon himself to take repeated potentially-lethal potshots at the innocent bird, apparently thinking it funny at the time (according to Jethro Senger as quoted in the story).

Isenhour is charged with cruelty to animals and killing a migratory bird. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 14 months in jail and $1,500 in fines.

Weigh in: Should Isenhour receive the maximum penalty allowable by law? Is the maximum penalty too light? Should Isenhour be banned from the PGA Tour for a period of years the way Michael Vick was banned from the NFL? What say you?

Would you feel differently if Isenhour had driven golf balls at your cat or dog until he succeeded in killing your pet? If so, why? If Isenhour had killed your cat or dog with the same kind of wanton disregard for your pet's life that he allegedly displayed toward the hawk's life, what kind of penalty would you want imposed on him?

As for myself, I hope that Isenhour receives the maximum penalty allowed by law. I would also like to see the PGA ban him from the Tour for a period of years. As a society, we should not tolerate such wanton acts of cruelty. We should make an example of Isenhour the way we made an example of Vick. Sadly, I suspect that Isenhour will receive no penalty at all. I hope I'm wrong.

Addendum

Here is another take on Isenhour.

Comments

People are still trying to post comments on this blog without using their full names. I reject those comments. Once again, you know who Mylan and I are. We want to know who you are. If you don't like this policy, go elsewhere.

Ends and Means

How do actions such as this promote the cause of those who performed them? I can't think of anything more self-defeating. There are, in general, four ways to achieve an end. The first is to use force. The second is to use coercion (i.e., the threat of harm). The third is to use manipulation (e.g., deception). The fourth is to use rational persuasion. Only the fourth is respectful of persons, which is a moral imperative. I would argue, from a consequentialist point of view, that only change brought about in the fourth way has any chance of long-term success. The first three means generate resentment, alienation, and backlash. Many people who accept the ends reject the means. Eventually, they come to identify the end with the means and reject the end itself. When that happens, what has been accomplished? Precisely nothing. Indeed, things are worse at that point than they were at the outset.

Everyone who cares about the environment must emphatically denounce these actions. Everyone who cares about animals must emphatically denounce (as well as renounce) the use of force, coercion, or manipulation to improve the lot of animals. I hate it when someone refuses to denounce extremists. When someone from PETA, for example, refuses to denounce those who use violent means to pursue their ends, it links PETA with those means. Why would someone even hesitate to denounce those who use violent means, other than misplaced solidarity? I am not in solidarity with thugs. Anyone who cares about the environment or about animals will be judicious in the selection of means, and will not hesitate to condemn those who use inappropriate means. How often does it have to be said that the end does not justify the means?

Shooting Oneself in the Foot

Somebody explain how this helps animals.

Gardner Williams (1895-1972) on Wronging Animals

Love demands, as every interest demands, that it should dominate life completely. And, in a world where there is too much hate, the judgment of many earnest moralists is overwhelmed by the charms of love; and there are those who come to accept it at its own valuation and are thus led to assert that people have an obligation to increase the collective total of all value in the universe. But sound reason denies that love is the whole duty of man. Its validity is limited by other moral imperatives. Two of these are the interests in nourishment and in gustatory pleasure. These are selfish; but they are, within reason, legitimate, important, and usually essential elements in a good life. That is, they contribute to increasing, in the long run, the quantity of satisfaction which an individual experiences.

The interests in nourishment and in gustatory pleasure lead man to kill and eat cattle, fish, and fowl. This cuts down on the long-range satisfactions of the cattle, the fish, and the fowl. But enlightened public opinion in human society approves of man's carnivorous behavior. And I believe that in most cases man is morally justified in thus reducing the satisfactions of the food animals. Anyone who loves little lambs in a personal way more than he loves lamb chops in a gustatory way ought to forego the latter delicacies. But few people do this. The moral issue, when a man eats lamb chops, is not: Does he gain more value than the lambs have lost by dying so young? The issue is: Does he gain more value than he would experience if he let them live? Letting them live will satisfy whatever personal affection he has for them. And eating them will frustrate this love. An accurate quantitative comparison of the value he gains with that which the lamb loses is really impossible. If a man's duty depended on that, he never would know what his duty was. But an accurate quantitative comparison of how he feels about eating them and about letting them live is made every time he chooses between these alternatives. And his choice is right from his point of view, in case it and its consequences are more satisfactory to him in the long run than the alternative would be.

Most people eat lamb chops, and their consciences are clear on this score when they demand that slaughter-houses shall kill food animals as painlessly as possible. Moreover, very few ever feel the need of taking active steps to enforce this demand.

Some will say that all true values which have any moral significance are confined to humanity and that reducing the satisfactions of food animals is not really evil. But such an argument is just another expression of man's ruthlessness toward lower organisms which he has in his power. He often ignores their values and rides roughshod over them. If an animal's foot is crushed, that is bad for the animal, just as, if a man's foot is crushed, that is bad for the man. Good and bad, value and disvalue, apply to all conscious organisms which experience satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Whoever deliberately lowers the long-range satisfaction in another conscious being does a wrong to it. Man commits many wrongs against the food animals, but he is usually right, from his own point of view, in doing so.

(Gardner Williams, "The Moral Insignificance of the Total of All Value," Ethics 55 [April 1945]: 216-21, at 219-20 [italics in original])

Statistics

There were 3,689 visits to this blog during February. That's an average of 127.2 visits per day. The best month, in terms of both overall visits (3,836) and average visits per day (127.8), was November 2007. So February just missed being the best month ever. Thanks for visiting. What would you like Mylan and me to write about?