In my post on the chimp police I included a short paragraph on the “us against them mentality”. I know that it might seem a little strong to some but I want to discuss it a little further here.
There are two common objections to the equal consideration for the rights of animals; first, because we are human, it is right to value our interests more highly, cats would, and should do the same thing if they could theorise about these things. Second, we give humans special consideration because of our exceptional abilities; we are moral beings who are self conscious etc etc. I don’t think either justifies valuing animals interests less.
The first objection fails because I don’t think we really believe in the moral implications it entails. Consider H. G. Wells ‘War of the Worlds’ the aliens are much smarter than us, and they know a lot about us and our culture etc, yet they still chose to discount our interest in a brutal way. If we take species membership as so important then there is no problem with this, but surely that’s crazy, if the aliens don’t need to kill us to survive then they shouldn’t kill us, full stop! Besides I still think that one needs to provide a more concrete reason why the human category is so special, the moral intuition some cite is insufficient because so many people have used that same intuition to justify all the other unpleasant prejudices, like racism and anti-Semitism. It is not difficult to find chilling stories where colonists hunted the natives because they didn’t know that it was wrong to do so.
The second objection fails because we are not prepared to follow its implications when it comes to humans; we do not discount the interests of infants or severely retarded humans just because they are not moral, self conscious beings. If we can kill animals and eat them because they are dumb, why not dumb humans? We don’t do that because infants or retarded humans have interests and we would be wrong not to consider them.
Finally I’d like to point out that extending some principal of equal consideration of interests to animals is really quite a vague notion. One can argue all night what the relevant interests of different animals are. Perhaps some animals don’t have many interests, so we could continue to eat them, like oysters or mussels. What we can’t do however is claim that it is not in an animal’s interest to avoid the kind of suffering that is routinely inflicted on a factory farm.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
New arrival
Since you are probably an animal lover, and since this is my blog, I wanted to share the happy arrival of a new family member: Lucy. Lucy is nearly 9 weeks old and comes from the SPCA. Sadly, all her brothers and sisters were euthenaised, because at this time of year there are so many kittens and noone who wants them.
So far Lucy is all that one could hope for: sweet, loving, playful, curious and very domesticated.
Chimpanzee police
Some people justify the use of animals for our benefit on the grounds that we (humans) have special abilities that animals lack. While I am not convinced that this justifies animal exploitation, it is worth examining the claim itself. Several years ago some defined humans as tool making mammals. Later we discovered that chimpanzees, and even some species of birds also made (primitive) tools, so much for that. Language is also often cited as a distinguishing feature of humans. However we have known for many years that several species of primates can learn to use sign language and develop vocabularies of over one-hundred words. The next step seems to be the richness of human society, culture, religion etc. Of course humans are unique in the use of all these constructs, but recently I came across another article in the Economist that seems to further blur the distinction between humans and our nearest relatives. It seems that chimps have cops!
A study conducted suggests that in a society of chimpanzees, a few individuals will intervene, apparently impartially, in conflicts between others even though this can involve significant costs to the police chimp. As part of the study the policing indivduals were removed, resulting in more fights, less grooming and the formation of exclusive cliques. In other words the society became a more dangerous, unhappy place. It appears that these police chimps (who can be male or female) have the same effect that their human counterparts (are supposed to) have on society.
This is not to suggest that humans are not exceptional in many ways (as are chimps), I simply wish to make the point that many of the differences between human and non-human animals are more differences in degree than in kind. In general I am opposed to highlighting artificially exaggerated differences between “us and them”. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to do this, some think that “whites” are not only different from, but better than “blacks”, men better than women, heterosexuals better than homosexuals, etc. etc. etc... all of this may seem natural to these people, but is nothing more than bigotry.
A study conducted suggests that in a society of chimpanzees, a few individuals will intervene, apparently impartially, in conflicts between others even though this can involve significant costs to the police chimp. As part of the study the policing indivduals were removed, resulting in more fights, less grooming and the formation of exclusive cliques. In other words the society became a more dangerous, unhappy place. It appears that these police chimps (who can be male or female) have the same effect that their human counterparts (are supposed to) have on society.
This is not to suggest that humans are not exceptional in many ways (as are chimps), I simply wish to make the point that many of the differences between human and non-human animals are more differences in degree than in kind. In general I am opposed to highlighting artificially exaggerated differences between “us and them”. Humans have an unfortunate tendency to do this, some think that “whites” are not only different from, but better than “blacks”, men better than women, heterosexuals better than homosexuals, etc. etc. etc... all of this may seem natural to these people, but is nothing more than bigotry.
Stuart Torr
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Can they suffer?
There are many different arguments as to what degree we should value the lives of animals and what moral status they have. By moral status, I mean, how much moral consideration should be awarded to them. How much do their needs matter? What obligations do we have as humans to make sure their needs are fulfilled? (I’m not philosopher, so my interpretation of moral status is not a reliable definition.) Most of us will adopt an argument that confirms beliefs that we already had, which makes me wonder what the point of debating really is? But still, it is actually possible to change beliefs if we truthfully and thoughtfully tackle a problem. So let me continue with the issue at hand: animal moral status.
It is argued or believed that animals have little or no moral status because they are less intelligent and are not capable of leading the rich lives of humans, they don’t have the same hopes and dreams as humans, won’t be “missed” when they pass on, they are not spiritual beings, possessing no soul, etc. I will briefly argue against all of these statements. Firstly there are some humans who are born significantly less intelligent than others (in fact we are all born rather silly and mentally undeveloped) but noone would claim (these days) that their lives are not important and that we should just use, abuse and/or kill them! Secondly though animals may not have the same long-term hopes and ambitions that we do, they do appear to experience happiness and suffering. We all know the eagre anticipation that dogs show when we take them for a walk, also dogs long for their owners while away. Some animals like elephants show distress when members of their family die and many mother animals will sacrifice their lives to protect their offspring. As for not being spritual, how do we know that animals or humans have souls? I don’t believe that the soul is necessary to explain human existence, yet I still believe that the lives of human beings are meaningful. So to me, this assertion is not necessary for the debate either.
Whatever of the above beliefs you may have, it is actually not important in the question of: do animals have moral status? What we must ask ourselves is, “Can they suffer?”. Indeed most animals higher than the ameoba (and possibly insects and worms) certainly can and anyone who has lived near or with an animal will know this. This is all we require as a valid justification to consider the needs of animals to prevent their unncessary suffering.
It is argued or believed that animals have little or no moral status because they are less intelligent and are not capable of leading the rich lives of humans, they don’t have the same hopes and dreams as humans, won’t be “missed” when they pass on, they are not spiritual beings, possessing no soul, etc. I will briefly argue against all of these statements. Firstly there are some humans who are born significantly less intelligent than others (in fact we are all born rather silly and mentally undeveloped) but noone would claim (these days) that their lives are not important and that we should just use, abuse and/or kill them! Secondly though animals may not have the same long-term hopes and ambitions that we do, they do appear to experience happiness and suffering. We all know the eagre anticipation that dogs show when we take them for a walk, also dogs long for their owners while away. Some animals like elephants show distress when members of their family die and many mother animals will sacrifice their lives to protect their offspring. As for not being spritual, how do we know that animals or humans have souls? I don’t believe that the soul is necessary to explain human existence, yet I still believe that the lives of human beings are meaningful. So to me, this assertion is not necessary for the debate either.
Whatever of the above beliefs you may have, it is actually not important in the question of: do animals have moral status? What we must ask ourselves is, “Can they suffer?”. Indeed most animals higher than the ameoba (and possibly insects and worms) certainly can and anyone who has lived near or with an animal will know this. This is all we require as a valid justification to consider the needs of animals to prevent their unncessary suffering.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Volunteering for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
I attended a volunteer open-day event at the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) in Cape Town on Saturday. Like my previous dealings with them, I found them to be professional, welcoming and caring. The SPCA has an incredibly difficult job of trying to protect and care for all animals within the Cape Town area. Stray, abused, injured and abandoned animals are brought to their kennels and clinics. Last year over 100 000 animals passed through their doors. Primarily they seek to sterilize animals to prevent the massive over population problem in Cape Town. A shocking statistic revealed in the SPCA’s latest “Footprints” magazine, states that cats can have 5 kittens a litter, 3 times year, very rapidly producing 500 000 cats in just over 7 years! Similarly, one dog, her puppies and their offspring, can result in 60 000 puppies in 6 years. See why sterilization is so important! Besides this they rescue stray and abused animals, send mobile clinics into poor areas, look after animals in their kennels and clinics, and find loving homes for the animals. I am really impressed with the professionalism and effectiveness of this organization, entirely run by donations and no government funding. I hope that we can all assist in their work through donations, volunteering, and/or changing our culture into one that understands and cares about animals.
I am very excited to start volunteering, beginning next Saturday. I have registered for Animal Rehabilitation, which will also include training on understanding animal behavior. I’ll keep you informed on my experiences.
I am very excited to start volunteering, beginning next Saturday. I have registered for Animal Rehabilitation, which will also include training on understanding animal behavior. I’ll keep you informed on my experiences.
Specism
I wanted to write about a bit about specism today. Specism is a term, analogous to racism and sexism. It is a form of bigotry and prejudice which causes one to discriminate against another without reason except their gender, race or species, while favouring one’s own gender, race or species. Most of us simply assume that because pigs are pigs and not humans, it is justifiable to eat them. So if you ask someone “why don’t you eat humans?” they’d be shocked and say well, “because they are human of course!”. If you asked them “so why do you eat pigs?, they’d say well “they’re only pigs! " But what is the real reasoning or assumptions underlying this statement, “only pigs”? We are making assumptions about the intrinsic value and moral status of other animal species based simply on their species.
There are many, many animals that we take for granted, the least of which being wild animals which have received much attention in the media and from scientists and activists. But domestic animals, farm animals and even those right under our noses (our pets) are very little understood or considered. Most modern farms do not provide proper care for these sentient beings, and fortunately for farmers it happens out of the public eye, thus hardly entering our consciousness. We need to become more questioning about all our cultural norms, especially those, that without consideration, cause suffering to people and animals. We as consumers do have enormous group power through our ability to choose which products to buy. Insist on cruelty-free products.
There are many, many animals that we take for granted, the least of which being wild animals which have received much attention in the media and from scientists and activists. But domestic animals, farm animals and even those right under our noses (our pets) are very little understood or considered. Most modern farms do not provide proper care for these sentient beings, and fortunately for farmers it happens out of the public eye, thus hardly entering our consciousness. We need to become more questioning about all our cultural norms, especially those, that without consideration, cause suffering to people and animals. We as consumers do have enormous group power through our ability to choose which products to buy. Insist on cruelty-free products.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Why vegetarianism?
So why have I started a blog about vegetarianism? Primarily, because I want to increase consciousness and discussion around the issues of animal rights, and also to distract myself from work.
There have been various phases in my life where I have had a nagging conscience that eating animals was not right. I either ignored it, justified my lifestyle through various vague arguments or even attempted vegetarianism. Most of my attempts at vegetarianism failed because I lacked conviction and because noone else around me was vegetarian. The main reason why I lacked conviction was due to the fact that I enjoyed eating meat considerably. Roast lamb, bacon, salmon... yumm! And it was too difficult to give up such a pleasurable activity.
It is easy to disconnect ourselves from the act of killing animals that brings tasty meat to our dinner plates, since we have nothing to do with it. And generally, the animal is nicely chopped and presented to us, hardly resembling the cute little lamb or gentle-eyed cow that it used to be. But though ignorance can be bliss, unwillingness to consider the truth behind a matter is not an excuse to continue with a bad habit or tradition. Since I know that I would not kill an animal myself, nor do I require meat to be healthy, I realised there was no way I could justify eating meat at the expense of so many poorly treated animals. My attempt to become vegetarian in 2004 still failed however, but fortunately in 2005 my partner indicated his desire to become vegetarian. With the support of him and my mother (who also became vegetarian at the same time) we have managed to be fully vegetarian since July 2005 and with no regrets.
Becoming vegetarian does require a little research into eating properly and some courage to face sceptical and offended friends and family, but it all smooths out over time.
Consider: Does specism exist? Like sexism or racism.
More on that next time....
There have been various phases in my life where I have had a nagging conscience that eating animals was not right. I either ignored it, justified my lifestyle through various vague arguments or even attempted vegetarianism. Most of my attempts at vegetarianism failed because I lacked conviction and because noone else around me was vegetarian. The main reason why I lacked conviction was due to the fact that I enjoyed eating meat considerably. Roast lamb, bacon, salmon... yumm! And it was too difficult to give up such a pleasurable activity.
It is easy to disconnect ourselves from the act of killing animals that brings tasty meat to our dinner plates, since we have nothing to do with it. And generally, the animal is nicely chopped and presented to us, hardly resembling the cute little lamb or gentle-eyed cow that it used to be. But though ignorance can be bliss, unwillingness to consider the truth behind a matter is not an excuse to continue with a bad habit or tradition. Since I know that I would not kill an animal myself, nor do I require meat to be healthy, I realised there was no way I could justify eating meat at the expense of so many poorly treated animals. My attempt to become vegetarian in 2004 still failed however, but fortunately in 2005 my partner indicated his desire to become vegetarian. With the support of him and my mother (who also became vegetarian at the same time) we have managed to be fully vegetarian since July 2005 and with no regrets.
Becoming vegetarian does require a little research into eating properly and some courage to face sceptical and offended friends and family, but it all smooths out over time.
Consider: Does specism exist? Like sexism or racism.
More on that next time....