The Return of The A-Word
First off, there will be an Animal Person Minute tomorrow, as I just returned home from Princeton and cannot locate some important items without which I cannot download my terrible photos.
I achieved my goal of refraining from using The A-Word, abolition, for at least a week. I feel compelled to use it today to respond to Bruce Friedrich’s guest blog at ANIMALBLAWG. Here’s how I look at the abolition vs. new welfare debate: How does it affect me? (It’s all about me, I guess.)
- It dictates which groups I give money to (don’t even start with me about Rural Area Veterinary Services. I won’t be giving to them again, as I’ve figured out a different way to help. I know some vets involved and I’ll pay their expenses).
- It dictates what I say to people on a day-to-day basis regarding what they could be doing to help animals.
Regarding #1: I don’t want to give money to an organization that believes part of their mission is to spend time working with exploiters to help them create products they can charge more for that make people feel better about eating animals. Period. I see daily evidence that more and more vegetarians are becoming flexitarians (read: they eat whatever they want), and it’s because they think if they buy at Whole Foods or eat at Wolfgang Puck’s, it’s okay.
Friedrich’s pitch largely hinges on the fact that he believes "that with welfare reforms comes a decrease, not an increase, in the number of animals eaten." I see absolutely no evidence of that. I see the opposite. Nearly every article I’ve blogged on in the past year (that’s related to this) says the opposite. My own life is filled with examples of people who think it’s okay to eat meat now. After all, PETA, HSUS, and Whole Foods have in no uncertain terms told them that it’s okay. That’s how the general public interprets the reforms and the labels. That’s my reality.
Where’s the study that shows people are eating fewer animals than ever, and veganism is spreading like wildfire, due to welfare reforms? More animals are dying than ever for food, and no one denies that.
Regarding #2: If I want people to go vegan because I believe we have no right to use animals, why would I add: But if you eat an animal from Whole Foods, or whatever, it’s okay. I’ve just made a complete fool of myself if I do that. What kind of dedication to my principle do I have if I’ll toss it for a shed that replaces a cage?
Here’s my advice: Follow the money. Who stands to gain financially from what someone is saying? Financial gain probably isn’t the only concern, but it’s a big one. Who stands to get more donations? More subscription money. A greater fee for services or for their time. An increased price for the product they offer. When you follow the money, you discover part of what motivates someone to say something. You discover who is investing in them. I believe Bruce Friedrich believes every word he says. But that doesn’t mean you should.
I'm glad you posted a link to my Blog, Mary, because your post replies to a paranthetical phrase in my post, not the central point of it, as you suggest.
My central point is that your argument is deeply speciesist and that you would never argue in the same way about human beings in similarly bleak conditions. I spell it out on the Blog, which I hope your readers will read. If you reply to the points in my Blog, I'd love to read what you have to say.
Cheers,
Bruce
Mary and Bruce,
I thought about this welfarist vs/ abolitionist last night and felt sick that since we all ultimately want the exploitation of animals to end that there is this division in the animal rights movement. At least 95% of the people I personally know don't care how the animals they eat are raised and those of us who quit eating meat for ethical reasons could never be convinced to eat meat no matter what humane labels exist on packaging. My mother-in-law has a friend who had a cow who broke her leg and had a vet come to her farm to euthanize the cow, just as we had our dog euthanized while holding her in our arms. They sent the cows remains to be converted into meat and my mother-in-law offered us some hamburgers saying the animal didn't suffer in a factory, transport or at a slaughterhouse. We refused and she was puzzled by the fact that since the cow didn't suffer why we would reject eating meat. Many veg people who quit eating meat for ethical reasons and have now gone back to eating meat didn't have a strong foundation or convictions to begin with. I was thinking last night if I was on death row for a crime I didn't commit in a tiny cell with little or no stimulation, how I would hope that someone on the outside would be trying to ameliorate my situation. So if I were given a larger cell with books, paints and other forms of stimulation I may still be executed, but my living conditions would be improved so that I would not go mad from the stress of lack of space and stimualtion. I feel torn between wanting improvements for animals living conditions, while at the same time not condoning the raising of animals for for food. When people tell me they eat humane meat, my reply is animals are not ours to eat and that they will still be murdered no matter how they are raised. When I see pigs chewing the iron bars of their cells, having been driven mad from the confinement, calves chained to crates with almost no movement possible , and hens in battery cages I pray for the day this barbaric torture ends.
I, too, am upset by the welfare/abolitionist infighting, Tricia. And Bruce, Dr. Jerry Vlasak calls me a speciesist, too, for a similar reason (if they were children I would be doing X, but in his case it's using violence). I'd like to think, however, that if we were talking about children, I'd be doing the same thing I am doing–arguing to get them out of their situation, not make it better. I'm not one who invokes the comparison often, as I find it doesn't really work for me. After all, the animals aren't imprisoned because they've done anything wrong. They're there simply because they're not human and we've deemed them tasty. Would I have argued for better treatment of people in the camps during the Holocaust? No. I would have argued for their release (and this is where agreeing with Dr. Vlasak is tempting, and using violence to liberate). Perhaps I am a speciesist. Calling me one won't stop me from doing what I do.
In his blog, Bruce Friedrich mentions the Golden Rule. While the Golden Rule obviously would apply to our personal actions in respect of non-human animals, strategically it doesn't always apply, not even in the case of humans.
Mr Friedrich asks: “If I were a calf in a crate or a hen being starved for two weeks or crammed into a battery cage, how would I want a human animal rights activist to behave?”
While it really is the case that if I were the calf or hen, I would perhaps care about my own personal individual welfare more than about the welfare of the species in general, this is not how ethics works.
To see this more clearly, consider this hypothetical: Suppose there are two terrorists. One terrorist holds a gun to my head, while the other is strapped with bombs and is holding a hundred humans hostage. The first terrorist, still holding a gun to my head, gives me a knife, and tells me that I have a choice to make. Either I kill one hostage myself, or the other terrorist blows up all the others (a hundred). This terrorist also wears a metal vest, so I cannot knife him.
If the golden rule would apply here, I would not kill the one hostage, as I would not like him to knife me. However, if I do not, 100 people will be blown up.
I will not go into whether welfarist reforms help (enough has been said, and I believe they only serve to make people comfortable about eating meat). However, I wished only to point out that the Golden Rule does not always apply.
Ken, I think the Golden Rule still applies. I'd want you to stab me to death to save the other 100. I think just about everyone would.
Mary, your post and response prove my point.
Bruce,
My post and comment demonstrate that my priority is to get rid of the institutional use of nonhuman animals rather than to regulate the use and make people feel better about using animals. I'd be a hypocrite if I ever endorsed eating/buying animal products of any kind, including those with a compassion certified or any other kind of label. For me, sitting at the table with exploiters to help them exploit in a different way and profit from it is not an option. If that makes me speciesist, that's fine with me. Better that than a hypocrite.
Mary, your Blog "in response" to my Blog doesn't bother to respond to my Blog, but only to one paranthetical phrase in it.
Then, you imply that I "endorse eating/buying animal products…with a compassion certified or any other kind of label," when I explicitly did the opposite in the Blog. I'm not sure who you're replying to, but it's not me!
Folks who want to see what I said should check it out, at http://www.AnimalBlawg.com.
Cheers,
Bruce
Bruce: In my hypothetical, I would like you to place yourself in my (the person given the knife) position, and not the position of the one who is going to get stabbed.
I don't suppose you would call yourself a murderer if you stabbed an innocent to save the 100 other innocents.
And yet, you call us speciesists because we do not agree with campaigning for welfarist regulation which might spare some animals some suffering but creates an environment where people are comfortable with eating meat and animal products, and therefore actually more animals are exploited and killed. Unfortunately we're talking numbers here, and the trend now is for people to go for "humane" meat and animal products instead of going vegan. And you can't blame them, can you? After all, the AR organisations are telling them that it's ok.
Some abolitionists really need to figure out that peta really isn't the enemy … there actually is a group of real animal abusers out there.
since we were talking about children, consider witnessing child abuse. do we a) do something about it right away or do we b) run to find a legal expert who will alter the law so that people will be reluctant to abuse children?
one would think that the appropriate algorithm to implement would be a) followed by b). certainly, it would be insufficient to do just one or the other.
when you have suffering, you try to do what you can to reduce that immediately AND ALSO work to eliminate it. all this is mistakenly presented as being an either/or situation.
well put, prad!! however, i must also point out that while it makes sense to acknowledge efforts by animal abusers to do so more humanely, it is inappropriate to publically endorse their products (even if doing so generates some of that much sought after publicity).
"My central point is that your argument is deeply speciesist and that you would never argue in the same way about human beings in similarly bleak conditions."
It's worth noting that this is an implicit ad hominem fallacy (not to mention, unnecessarily divisive): it already assumes something about the speaker (that s/he would never argue the same about human beings) and confuses the ethical consequences of the content of an argument (X is wrong; Y is wrong), with the ethical consequences of an individual's act in making that argument.
Moreover, and more troubling, to posit that an animal's positive rights to welfare are more important than their basic rights to life is highly problematic. It would require not only that we extend the welfare state to include all animals, first, and that we consider whether or not they have a basic right to their lives, second. Not only does that put the cart before the horse, it trivializes the very real suffering of animals as well as the very pressing ethical need to end their exploitation as immediately and as unconditionally as possible.
Am I reading this wrong, or did Prad reply to Prad?
I was with a client for a couple of hours and I just got back and it sure looks like prad replied to prad. And for the record, I personally wouldn't say PETA is the enemy, although they do kill sentient beings. Enemy's a tough word and I'd save it for exploiters of nonhuman animals (not of women, otherwise I'd have to call PETA the enemy). I would say that, to use a popular word these days, PETA has a "problematic" message (and I think I'm being kind) as they promote veganism and use some definitely abolitionist language (animals aren't ours to eat, wear, etc…), then promote Burger King and Whole Foods and gave an award to Temple Grandin. They send two different messages simultaneously. I have a problem with that. But that's me.
And another problem, which is really a success of PETA's, is that most people equate PETA with animal rights and animal rights activists, while PETA doesn't in fact represent all people interested in animal rights. I certainly can't blame PETA for this as I'd imagine it's one of their goals. But I do spend a considerable amount of time talking about PETA campaigns to people because they assume my money went to those campaigns. It's a nuisance for me.
ok prad confesses! prad did reply to prad, because prad was possibly feeling lonely or neglected or in a pradicularly praditory mood at the time. but do not conclude from this that he is always so pradictable.
mary, i think it is perfectly alright for you to have a problem with peta promoting bk, wf and becoming an award agency. imho, a simple recognition that some badguys have taken some steps to reduce some suffering would be ample (not to mention the opportunity for extra publicity perks!).
however, some abolitionists do view peta as the enemy and spend considerably more time than you bashing the organization because 1) they think peta put aw ahead of ar (which peta really doesn't do), 2) they feel as ar activists, they have to answer to some of peta's rather more absurd campaigns (which they really don't), 3) they equate their own view with animal rights and animal rights activists (forgetting that ar is a rather big pond with a fairly hefty amount of theory).
i think it is a good idea to question what peta does just to keep them on their toes. however, i think we can do it nicely, acknowledge their substantial accomplishments (you don't have to give them an award) and all the while recognize that they along with numerous other organizations have made ar a significant force the badguys really do have to reckon with.