Animal Person’s “Bulletproof” Theory
Four things were swirling around in my head yesterday:
- During the Ideal Bite Debrief, Claudio wanted to know "why the idea of granting rights to all sentient beings is so heinous," and GrizzlyBear’s response was that it’s not heinous–it’s irrational. That made no sense to me, and I did read the material he referred us to.
- Emily’s comment (I’m paraphrasing) about the futility of abolition (on History Repeating Itself). That one does make sense to me.
- All the talk of "bulletproof" arguments.
- Property rights, and whether animals will ever have the right to not be our property (and I suppose this is related to Emily’s comment).
I understand Gary Francione’s intricate theory of property as it relates to animal rights. But I can safely say that that’s not why I’m a vegan. I’m a vegan because it’s simply not right to take someone’s life from them and use it for your own gain. Period.
Social contract? Who the heck needs a social contract? Who even thinks it’s possible for my greyhounds to enter into a contract with me? I can delude myself into thinking that’s the nature of the relationship, but the reality is that I’m the boss of them. I own them. Whether they live or die, eat or sleep, is largely–if not entirely–in my hands. (Of course the alternative, for them, isn’t so great, and this is the one area where I think some animals benefit from being owned by us for maybe a generation, as long as we deal with the real problem: breeding.)
Let’s say you’re not sure where you stand in the welfare vs. abolition debate. Fine. But you do have some facts that aren’t being refuted by anyone (reasonable) that you can base your own behavior on. I’m concerned, for now, only with what you do on a day-to-day basis. (This isn’t Gary Francione vs. PETA, it’s Claudio vs. GrizzlyBear or Boyd.) Some of those facts are that nonhuman animals, and I’ll even confine the discussion to "those with a central nervous system," like your cat or dog, or a cow, fish, deer, rat or chicken, express pain, boredom, pleasure, terror, and even humor and some level of moral code. Don’t you think that erring on the side of caution and behaving in a conservative manner by doing what you can to refrain from intervening in and interrupting their natural lives is wise, kind, and fair? Who cares about what they would do to you or how they treat you? That’s not the point. The point is how you treat them.
Furthermore, whether or not abolition of animal use will occur in our lifetimes (um, definitely not)–or ever–is also not the point. Remember, I voted for Ralph Nader. Twice. I don’t do things because I think the rest of the world will agree and follow suit; I do them because I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I didn’t do them.
Luckily, this discussion does happen to come around to abolition. If I believe as I do, why would I tell someone that buying "Animal Compassion Certified" (or whatever) is acceptable? That would be a lie.
And finally, to the bulletproof theory: getting people to think in terms of animal use (i.e., breeding an animal to completely rule their life, reproductive system and death) is of paramount importance. Once they begin to think about use, they realize that the only way to align their actions with the belief that we have no right to use animals, is to go vegan.
When the conversation is about cruelty, and someone says, "What can I do to stop the horrors of factory farming?" veganism, though the answer, is easily hijacked by someone claiming cage-free or free-range allows them to have their cake and eat it too. And it does, if they are permitted to continue to deny certain aspects of farming (the breeding to control/enslave to kill aspects).
Abolition may never occur, but what can most certainly occur is a massive decrease in the use of animals caused by a massive increase in the number of vegans. It’s economics, not the law, that can immediately cause the most damage to industries that create animals to use and slaughter.
Well, I guess where I would part ways with you is the thought that animals -wether wild or domesticated – have some sort of moral code. I don't believe they do. They are creatures of habit, not unlike humans I guess in that manner – who's existence is a constant quest for food, water, and reproduction. Where humans depart, what sets us apart, is that some of us can choose not to reproduce, or not to eat certain things, or not drink certain things, or develop new things to eat or drink or ways to reproduce, etc. Its not just our opposable thumbs, but the nature of our thought process, and ability to have free thought and understand the differnce between right and wrong that sets us apart from other creatures. Your dog will love you and do things for you, but at the end of the day its not because of any inherent free will on its part but because (1) you feed it and are responsible for its food and water and reproduction, and (2) it is within its nature a pack animal and will be close and defensive of those within its pack (and it learns that you are its pack). But have you ever witnessed what a pack animal will do to those not in its pack? Or those who's rank in its pack it desires? And speaking of which, what exactly are the horrors of what you call "factory farming"? What makes one farm a "factory" and another not a factory? Is it the size? The fact a corporation owns it?? (What if the corporation is just the farmer and his wife son or daughter??)?? In your case, at least, I'd understand that the horror is the desire to control animals as a means of raising them for consumption. That at least makes sense to me (and I do applaud you for being consistent in your beliefs and not simply falling into this delusion that somehow slapping on an organic or whole foods/hsus humane treatment label actually means anything). But I really don't understand what people are upset about (other than being self righteous urbane hypocrites) when they complain about meat coming from factory farms.
Countertop, wolves, birds, and other animals adopt orphans. Some animals care for needy members of their group. Have you read the threads relating to Ideal Bite? More examples of their sense of right and wrong are listed there, in response to Grizzly Bear.
Free-living animals choose their mates, and sometimes don't mate at all. Primates have learned to use certain plants as 'medicine'. My dogs are very selective about food. Speaking of plants, they'll eat some, but not others. They also have a live and let live attitude toward other species. Though they've chased squirrels in the city, they've never tried to harm them. I provide their food, but animals who must hunt to survive would see squirrels as a meal.
Grizzly spoke of free will. You speak of free thought. What does that mean? Seems to me, any animal who can think has free-thought, and of course some thinking is more complex than others. Free will of itself is not culpability, though that's often how it's understood. In my view, any living being who is free to act or not act on their thoughts has free will. Some would say animals are creatures of instinct. I disagree.
But I do agree with you about "humane" labels. I think people are being duped by a marketing ploy– and groups like HSUS, the ASPCA, and PeTA are largely responsible, because they promote the idea animals are treated kindly by businesses that wear the labels. Imo, this is feel-good/meaningless activism, which works to edify the groups, but does not help (and can even harm) animals. If people really want a compassionate diet, they should start by not eating animals.
(I'll also post a link to a discussion that relates to activism.)
Countertop, if you're interested, here's the link. It begins with a discussion on PeTA's ad (under Alicia Silverstone's photo), but then goes on to so-called compassionate animal products.
http://www.grist.org/etc/gristlist/2007/09/21/index.html#3
This list is on the Grist link, but here's a copy of the actual letter from Peter Singer and a list of 17 groups, which endorsed Whole Foods' "Animal Compassion Foundation". (I know Friends of Animals refused to endorse it. The ASPCA is not listed, but has previously endorsed the "Certified Humane" label from another animal enterprise.)
http://www.friendsofanimals.org/programs/vegetarianism/Humane-Meat/Wholefoods_letter.pdf
Animal Rights International (ARI)
Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)
Animal Place
Animal Protection Institute (API)
Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR)
Bay Area Vegetarians
Christian Vegetarian Association
Compassion Over Killing
Doris Day Animal League
East Bay Animal Advocates
Farm Sanctuary
Humane Society of the United States
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
Mercy for Animals
Northwest In Defense of Animals
Vegan Outreach
Viva!USA
I still haven't heard any reply one why an animal treatment should rest on it having language encoded morality? And having been on industrialised farms the difference is in the stress placed on the animals. It is concrete and tangible.
As for the whole welfare abolition thing. I think the differences between the two are clear, one is looking 3 inches ahead and the other at the horizon. I still feel we are pulling in the same direction and the mutual emphaiss on reducing animal use can be a basis for combining efforts–perhaps a more sensible one than the welfare/suffering issue. Reducing suffering may indeed not reduce use and sometimes increase it, but the reverse is rarely true. Reduced use is encoded in many welfare statements such as the 3Rs.
Yes I see– the bloggers who agree with animal use haven't answered the question. I've been posting examples of animal altruism, but I really don't think it matters if animals have a moral code or not. The only thing that matters is they have personal interests. Insisting they be moral, or intelligent, or whatever is just an excuse to continue animal use.
As you know, I don't think welfare measures are a good idea. Are there any that reduce animal use?
Also here's a link to Peaceful Prairie on the Free Range Myth:
http://www.peacefulchoices.com/free-range.html
http://www.peacefulprairie.org/freerange2.html
There are cases where good animal care reduces numbers used. For example well cared for animal have higher survival/growth rates and are more valid scientific models, so a smaller group will achieve the same productivity goal (x tonnes of meat, finding a drug with x effect). But is it really part of the abolitionist's mandate to be involved in that? I can certainly see that it might not be.
You're right, it's not abolitionist because it regards animals as tools. Imo, that's a big part of the problem with animal welfare, though I prefer to call it animal husbandry activism, as I don't think animal welfare can be served by farming or research.