25.2.09

I consider myself a very logical person. When I feel emotions, I usually first analyze them to figure out if I should even be feeling them, then try to adjust how I react so that it is appropriate. Emotion is irrational, and I used to consider it a weakness. As I was reading the last paragraph of Coetzee's Disgrace, I found myself overcome with this weakness.
"'Come.' Bearing him in his arms like a lamb, he re-enters the surgery. 'I thought you would save him for another week,' says Bev Shaw. 'Are you giving him up?' 'Yes, I am giving him up.'" [1]
This passage struck me because I felt like I really understood how the man felt. I've never euthanized an animal or anything near that, but I know what it feels like to have to give up, knowing that there is a solution, but it is completely out of reach. Twice in my life, I have been faced with the decision to put an animal down. Once, on Christmas Eve when I was about 14, I found a kitten shivering at my backdoor. Since it was so cold outside, I let her in and tried to feed her. She was terrible thin and I pleaded with my dad to let us take her to the veterinarian. The vet said that she was so underweight she probably wouldn't stay alive more than a week, and the most humane thing to do would be to put her down. I completely rejected this idea, believing that it was wrong to euthanize animals, and told the vet that I would try to make her healthy again. She died the next night. The second time I was told a vet that I should choose euthanasia was a few years later. A had seen 'neighborhood' (homeless) cat mauled by two dogs, and knew she was going to die soon. I frantically drove her all over the city trying to find someone who would treat her cheaply, being turned down by each one. The last place I tried was right down the street from my house, and the vet calmly told me that treatment would be $2,000, and if I wanted instead to let her go, he would take care of it. Faced with the inevitable, I sat down and cried, in my nightclothes in the middle of the vets office. It was humiliating, but I couldn't help it. I knew that this cat could easily (but expensively) be saved, but it was impossible in this case. At that time, I was sad because I didn't want to let go of a cat that I loved, and so it was basically a selfish reaction. In fact, I believe that a lot of love, and emotional reactions to 'wrong-doing' is selfish, because we are reacting to the way the event makes us feel, and not the actual problem with the event itself. In Disgrace, Lucy says, "So if we are going to be kind, let it be out of simple generosity, not because we feel guilty or fear retribution." [2] I feel that this mirrors the way I feel about kindness: it shouldn't be for the sake of ourselves, but for the sake of kindness to others.

Every week I table for SACA, and nearly every week someone comes by the table and says, 'ooh! I love animals!' They might come to one meeting, but after realizing that our idea of "animal rights" extends far beyond puppies and kittens, they quickly disappear. If someone decides that they want to extend their love to animals, it should be to all animals and not just the animals that benefit them as pets, otherwise it is just more selfishness. Once animals are used to entertain us, that sympathy goes away. As Elizabeth Costello stated, "Once you are on show, you have no private life." [3] Kafka says, "If you go there [to the cage], you're lost." [4]. When animals are used for our pleasure, they become objects, their "body is just the engine shoving it forward." [5]

The two pictures below are at a protest I participated in at the Ringling Circus in Austin over the summer.


Many parent's see the zoo as a beneficial experience for kids because it lets them see "wild" animals that they wouldn't get to see otherwise. But like the picture above [6] suggests, seeing a captured animal does not give the same experience as seeing a wild animal.


I personally believe this is wrong because I love animals, but I am offended when people claim to love animals, but don't take the time or effort to figure out what they really love. Most of the time, it's simply the way animals make them feel. Tomorrow SACA is holding a rally against Puppy Mills, and I'm sure I'll run into one of these people. As hard as it is, I'll try to treat them with respect because I'm glad that they at least care, at some base level.

Boycotting Petland in Austin


Even though I used to see emotions as a weakness, for the past few years I have slowly begun to change my mind. Letting ourselves become emotional is not weak because it is irrational, it is simply scary because it can't be controlled. I believe that logic and reason are essential to a working world, but emotion is the base of happiness. It should never be used as a replacement for reason, but likewise should never be discredited. Although I still consider myself a rational person, I have changed the way I think. When I feel something, I don't focus so much on whether or not the reaction is reasonable, but rather why I feel that way in the first place. For me, it places my thoughts more on the outside world rather on the inside (where I have been for way too long), because I think of what exactly it was that prompted the emotion. This way of thinking has deeply extended my compassion for others, and has really changed the way I feel about animals. I have always considered myself an "animal lover," but instead of being the person who cares about dogs because they make me feel good, I have become the person who cares about all animals because I have founded my beliefs on morality. I feel that there is an essential difference between these two things, and emotion shouldn't always be disqualified. For me, it has contributed to real growth of spirit and mind.

[1]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: "Disgrace," Coetzee, pg. 349
[2]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: "Disgrace," Coetzee, pg. 334
[3]: Elizabeth Costello, 33
[4]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: A Report for an Academy, pg. 324
[5]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: Ted Hughes, a Second Glance at a Jaguar, pg. 331
[6]: http://www.dawnwatch.com/PhillyZooElephant.jpg

18.2.09

The Holocaust and Animal Treatment

"Whether the Holocaust could ever be part of any analogy, much less this one, has been regularly debated and disputed. It is the event beyond analogy, many people say." [1]
I think this statement is both valid and invalid. The Holocaust was an event that we, as those who can only study it, will never feel for ourselves. Thus, making a comparison between the feelings of Holocaust victims and any other event, such as slaughterhouse victims, is partially unfounded, because we are not feeling either of these things. What can be compared is the outside perspective- such as the patterns we see in treatment and behavior. I do not think this is wrong; as described in Earthlings, "one group of living beings anguishes beneath the hands of another." [2] This is a true parallel, it does not suggest that the Holocaust victims were any less victims, nor that animals are any more equal to humans, rather it simply states patterns of behavior. An analogy such as this serves more as an eye opener to patterns of behavior than a factual compare/contrast between two events. The point isn't to say that animals are Holocaust victims, but to suggest that our treatment of animals is wrong, as was the treatment of Jews. As Elizabeth Costello states, "Each day a fresh holocaust, yet, as far as I can see, our moral being is untouched." [3] This seems a desperate attempt to get people to listen, because when it comes to topics that suggest problems with our moral behavior, it is oftentimes easiest to stubbornly resist. Likewise, Derrida describes a different sort of holocaust, much like the treatment of animals, where it is humans that are "more numerous and better fed... [to be] destined in always increasingly numbers for the same hell.." [4] Again, I don't believe that Derrida is trying to say that the holocaust is equal to our system of animal treatment. He replaces the animals in our system with humans as an attention grabber- a way, successful or not, to get people to take the situation more seriously. Once again, Costello attempts to get her audience to sympathize with animals, to attempt to become them for an instant: "I can think my way into the existence of a bat or a chimpanzee or an oyster.." [5] Although I think this is a great strategy to create caring feelings towards another being, it does not necessarily create an accurate representation of their lives. I usually try to stay away from comparisons between events such as the holocaust or slavery and animal treatment. Although I think the comparisons are valid, many people do not. I talk to people so that they listen to me, not shut me out, and if people are offended, then I am not reaching out to them properly.

As these pictures show, the treatment of animals is serious enough to be described in itself. It does not need to be compared to the holocaust in order for people to care about it.
picture 1: [6]

picture 2: [7]


Endnotes:

[1]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: The Lives of Animals, pp. 297
[2]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: Earthlings Screenplay, pp. 164
[3]: Elizabeth Costello: pp. 80
[4]: Animal Humanities Course Packet: "The Animal that therefore I Am" pp. 226
[5]: Elizabeth Costello: pp. 80
[6]: http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c212/luvrich/monkey2.jpg
[7]: http://www.all-creatures.org/anex/chicken-slaughter-02.jpg

16.2.09

Rational Animal Ethics

Every year in mid April, my mom would take me and my brother to the small town of Poteet where would enjoy the yearly strawberry festival. Every year was the same; we would visit the cultural booths, eat creative food, and pet the animals, and nothing seemed wrong. One part of the festival that I particularly remember was a section where children could ride ponies, like the ride pictured below. I had been doing that for several years until I was about eight years old, when it started to feel different. That year, I was riding a pony when I noticed how slow she was moving. I looked around and noticed for the first time the course she was insisted to walk, a small path that takes no more than four minutes to finish. Her head hung low, and she stopped several times during the brief ride, to which the caretakers detachedly responded by tugging her forward. Noticing these things bothered me, but what disturbed me most was looking up, and seeing another child contently bouncing on his horse. The gratification that he felt using the horse to entertain a small portion of his day disgusted me and I immediately got off. Although I didn’t truly understand the emotions I was feeling until years later, I chose not to ride horses at carnivals anymore. [i]

The use of animals in our society is extensive So why did animals become a resource at the total disposal of human desires? Is it ok to use animals for our needs, so long as humans are benefitted? If a cure for cancer is discovered by subjecting countless animals to pain, is it worth it? Many people believe so. What if a new brand of mascara is developed after blinding thousands of animals in labs, and subjecting them to the same pain as the cancer research? I believe that many people, choosing between animal welfare and new makeup, would morally disagree. Likewise, slaughterhouses often evoke much more antipathy than agricultural farms where animals are raised more ‘humanely.’ Deciding which situations are morally acceptable and which are not is very complex, and depends largely on the human making the decision. I believe that the issues involving animals used for food, entertainment, and research are a few of the most pressing issues specifically because they involve such a high number of participants. This link[ii] directs to a youtube video of animal experimentation. Many people believe that animal experimentation is morally acceptable, not knowing what it entails. Exposing ourselves to the real things that occur every day is essential in order to make decisions about them, rather than be blinded by the milk "containers showing 'contented' cows, whose real lives we want to hear nothing about, eating eggs and drumsticks from 'happy' hens, and munching hamburgers advertised by bulls of integrity who seem to command their fate."[iii] If we do not know what is going on, then how can we decide if they need to change?
As an advocate for animal rights, these situations really sadden me. Seeing any animal suffering, even a small spider drowning in a pool of water, tugs at my heart. However, death and suffering are a part of life, and each of these individual cases of suffering animals is not a reason for animals to have rights. As far as the animal rights spectrum is concerned, I’m closest to the “Jain vegan animal liberation warrior,” minus the Jain because I’m not religious. But as for my beliefs, I think in a perfect world animals would not be controlled by humans, and in the current world, a gradual disintegration of the animals-as-resources view would be ideal. Seeing animals suffer and feeling empathy for them is an entirely human reaction, and determining rights based on these feelings is erroneous: the inherent value of animals is entirely separate from any emotion humans feel towards them. So as for each of these situations, none of them is the true problem. There is no decision to be made in these situations because the real issue is something much larger. The real problem is the system that grants humans complete control over animals, the system that turns sentient beings into economic resources.[iv]
Emotional defenses are not necessarily rational arguments, so as I defend my position as an animal rights advocate, I will attempt to remain as logical as possible. I believe that animals have the same value as humans. Many attempt to argue that because animals are less intelligent or cannot rationalize they do not possess value. However, many people are less intelligent than other people, and many people are affected with mental disorders that hamper their abilities to rationalize. If animals are denied rights simply because they lack certain abilities that we decide are important, then humans who lack those abilities must also be denied rights, or at least must have reduced rights. The mere trait of being Homo Sapiens Sapiens is also another invalid reason to grant higher value to certain beings, but it took me a long time to understand why. Earthlings compares speciesism to racism and sexism, because it assigns different values to members based on the group that they belong to, in this case, their species. However, biologically, as with all animals, humans have evolved to care about their own above all other species, it is simply survival. Since the human race is not at risk for extinction, and since there are alternatives to all of uses animals serve to us, it does not matter that the animals we use are of a different species. Essentially, our desire for economic resources does not trump the value of animals because these uses are readily served through non-animal sources. Emotionally, we care more about humans and human interests because we have evolved that way, but logically, humans are not worth more than any other species. Nature treats us no different than the animals we share the earth with: “Like us, these animals embody the mystery and wonder of consciousness. Like us, they are not only in the world, they are aware of it. Like us they are the psychological centers of a life that is uniquely their own. In these fundamental respects humans stand ‘on all fours,’ so to speak.”[v] Therefore, it is not the differences in our abilities or traits that denies certain beings rights, but rather it is the similarities we all share that grants us all the same value. The value of life is inherent.
My idea of animal rights[vi] essentially recognizes that animals should be free to pursue their own interests with minimal interference from humans. This includes separating animals from our economic interests, recognizing the natural habitat of other animals and respecting the land by living sustainably so that it may be used mutually between all species, and finding and using alternates to other uneconomic uses of animals, including research and diet. These are the goals which I think people should strive for, but I do not expect immediate results or agreement. In order to implement these goals, awareness first needs to spread concerning the specific details of animal exploitation. This alone will create action because many people care about the welfare of animals, even if they do not agree with complete animal liberation. When laws begin to pass that grant animals better treatment, the entire issue becomes more important because it has entered politics. Basic laws, such as better factory farm treatment and cage-free eggs[vii]


[viii](pictured above), a law which passed in California, only begin the process that enables people to validate the inclusion of animal interests in politics. As women’s rights were eventually recognized, animal interests will slowly gain importance until they are granted rights. Large institutions can also play a role in quickening the process that I hope is someday achieved. For instance, the National Institute of Health could become a leader in outlawing the use of animals for research by refusing to participate in vivisection. Universities, such as UT, who include vegetarian options in their dining programs[ix] recognize the importance of the choice to be vegetarian, which trickles down to other people who use the cafeterias. Eventually, the choice to be vegetarian ceases to be taboo, and may even become widespread. It is small changes in the way people perceive their relationships with animals and the choices that they can make that really determines outcomes. When people realize that the choices they make have a direct impact on animals, and when they decide that they do not want to have these impacts, then things easily change. In this way, people vote for the kind of world that they want through the way they spend their money, as Anna Lappe said, "Every time you spend you're money, you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want."[x] It is facilitating these realizations that is hard. The way to begin to achieve the goal of liberating animals is through outreach and education.
Of course, just as there are still racists and sexists, not everyone will agree that animals deserve to be free from human constraint and exploitation, or that they have any sort of rights. Regardless, I believe that the biggest obstacles to animal liberation are not due to differences in moral opinion, but rather the stubbornness to change. This stubbornness is evident in all radical ideas, and is usually overcome by the will to change. If a small number of people who really care work intensely, the change is much easier. As Margaret Mead said,“Never underestimate the power of a few committed people to change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”[xi]
Word Count: 1,420
Endnotes

[i] Jubilee Farm Ponies.<http://jubileefarmponyparties.com/images/hpim1531_jdwx.jpg>.
[ii] Animal Experimentation- Cold Hard Footage (the truth). Youtube.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5lUm30AX3A>.
[iii] Animal Humanities Course Packet: Am I Blue? pp. 245F
[iv] Tom Regan Animal Rights Archive. North Carolina State University.
[v] Animal Humanities Course Packet: Earthlings Screenplay pp. 163
[vi] Vegan Video. Youtube.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05zhL1YUd8Q>.
[vii] Uncaged-YES on Prop 2. Youtube.<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPJsfjjyZU>.
[viii] Metaphorical. "What's humane about hunger, disease, and cannibalism?" Weblog post. Politics, Technology, and Language. 12 Aug. 2007. 16 Feb. 2009 http://metaphorical.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/whats-humane-about-hunger-disease-and-cannibalism/318/.
[ix] "Winners for peta2's Most Vegetarian-Friendly Colleges." Peta2.com // Interviews, Giveaways, and Free Stickers. 16 Feb. 2009 <http://www.peta2.com/college/c-vegschools-winners.asp%3E.
[x] Anna Lappe, O Magazine, June 2003
[xi] PlanetThoughts. 16 Feb. 2009 <http://www.planetthoughts.org/?pg=pt/Whole&qid=2449>.

11.2.09


Picture 2: Blackface, the traits of blacks are exaggerated to seem less human (reminds me of theriomorphism).

In the last few chapters of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, Rick Deckard is faced with twisted emotions towards androids, becoming attached to one, Rachel, who is helping him kill other androids. When they're together in bed, Rachael tells Rick not to "think too much about it...if you think too much, if you reflect on what you're doing- then you can't go on...from a philosophical standpoint it's dreary" (page 194). Essentially, she tells Rick to lie to himself, to pretend that she is a woman. The ambiguity of the real world seems to be a recurring idea throughout the book; it is hard to tell what is real and what is not. Towards the end of the book, Rick doesn't even know what he believes is right and wrong. He consults Mercer, who tells them that he "will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity" (page 179). In other instances, Buster Friendly reveals to everyone that Mercer, and thus Mercerism, is not even real. To this, Irmgard and the other androids decide that Mercerism exists only to separate humans from Androids based on a feeling that only humans can prove exists.

based on the anthropomorphic bases for the arguments. For example, some argue that since it cannot be proven that animals want to be free, or that they cannot feel pain like humans, that they do not have the right to be free, or to feel comfort. Those who argue that they do possess these qualities are participating in anthropomorphism. Others, utilitarians, argue that animals should be treated with respect, but there is a limit, "actions are not right or wrong in themselves, but only insofar as they bring happiness or cause pain" (page 177). Others believe man haThe complexity of reality obviously extends to the world we live in, outside the book. In Chapter 7 from Ecocentrism by Greg Garrard (the course packet) analyzes what humans know, what they think they know, and how they think of animals compared to the cultural context animals have in society. The first few pages detail some of the ways that groups of people think about animals, including liberationists, ecocentrists, utilitarians, and those who criticize them. It seemed that the arguments for animal rights (especially the liberationists) were disqualifieds the right to be in complete control of animals (based on divine power, reason, intelligence, etc,) Mostly, all of these arguments, like most other arguments, can be falsified in some philosophical way. Once again, what is right and what is wrong (reality) is lost. What I believe falls somewhere along the liberationist-ecophilosophy line; in the complex food web system, there are points where humans kill and eat animals (and the other way around), it is natural and sustainable, and probably has been happening for thousands of years. However, I believe it is wrong to mass produce, chemically alter, and routinely slaughter animals in unnecessary abundance and at the stake of the environment. The system that currently exists is damaging to our health, to the environment, and (in my opinion) to the welfare of animals. The concepts of intelligence, empathy, reasoning, etc. are just human-created ideas that are used to justify behavior that we would otherwise consider immoral. It has been used before, with other races and genders, and it is being used again now. This way of thinking is full of error though. Firstly, the true abilities of others can never really be known. Furthermore, these abilities differ among the human race, let alone among other species. There are humans who are far more intelligent, far less empathetic, or far more reasonable than others. Yet the common belief is that all humans have equal rights (even if they are not granted). If we grant rights based on superior qualities, then we must also rate these traits among humans.

On a quick environmental note, humans dominate animals and the Earth under the philosophy that we are something separate and better, that we have the right to dominate because we have the ability to. But, what species that dominates has ever been able to survive long? Using our "intelligence" (or reason) that makes us so separate from animals, shouldn't we realize that an Earth without biodiversity is an unhealthy Earth? On page 279, the reasoning of ecophilosophers is described: "in some cases, exploding populations of a certain species must be culled if they threaten a local environment as whole." The human species seems to be the one most fit for this description. Are we lacking in retrospect? The truth is that we are just a part of the biological system called Earth as plants and animals; the truth is, humans are treated no differently by nature than any other beings.




I couldn't really give an excellent philosophical argument like the ones we read, so I could only try to verbalize what I thought when I read these arguments. Basically, I think that the belief in human supremacy is wrong because it is unsustainable and because it attempts to justify suffering in other, sentient beings (who I believe can feel pain and happiness, if not more complicated emotions). I also think that when we can see pain and suffering, we should do all we can to try to stop it. As Jeremy Bentham said, "the question is not can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer?"

3.2.09

We are all Animals

The recurring idea of the importance of animals and empathy towards them in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was really interesting to me; caring for an animal is considered virtuous and a reflection of higher moral status. Specifically, the abundance of technology and the rarity of living things forces people to appreciate life. Here, In our world, the use and value of technology is steadily increasing, and people rely less on themselves and others. In the book, however, technology is used to try to replace the feeling of living things (like electric animals) and emotions (like the mood box), and is worth much less than life. While we praise and push technological development, Rick Deckard thinks of "The tyranny of an object... it doesn't know I exist. Like the androids, it had no ability to appreciate the existence of another" (page 40).

The fact that this value of animals was not created until they were nearly extinct shows that empathy is conditional. In the definitions of empathy, there is a quote from Ducasse: "For the most part we empathize inanimate things only in so far as we are interested in them aesthetically" (page 242). I think this exemplifies out attitude towards many things. Yes, humans can feel love, empathy, caring, and a wide range of other emotions, but usually only when it affects us in some way. Maybe this is why we care so much more about "cute" things, like puppies and kittens, and not "ugly" things, like cockroaches. I think this is why so many people have a hard time applying basic standards of humaneness to their own lives. One example that always comes to mind is the fact that choosing not to support the torture and slaughter of animals, simply over pleasing the appetite is a hard choice for many people to make. Bentham notes the connection between the merciless attitudes of people towards animals and racism. "The day has been.. in which the greater part of the species, under the denomination of slaves, have been treated by the law exactly upon the same footing as... the inferior races of animals are still" (page 245). Like previous behaviors towards other races or the opposite sex, many people still find it easy to exclude animals from their circle of empathy. Hopefully however, the majority of people will realize that as sentient beings, animals deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

Many people like to argue that empathy is specifically a human quality, and in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," animals and androids are not considered to be empathetic, and it is this fact that allows humans to distinguish androids from humans. One of the definitions of humane is "behavior or disposition towards others such as befits a human being" (page 232). However, I disagree with this idea. I believe that animals too can feel empathy, and that Dick's view of empathy as a "biological insurance" (page 29) applies to other beings also. In the definitions of empathy, Ogden's idea that "The chimpanzee is able to empathize.." is included. (page 242). When people pretend to know that animals lack certain things that humans possess, I usually see the statement as ignorant or at least flawed. Obviously, no one can know for sure who (of any type of animal, including humans) feels what. In "The Animal That Therefore I Am," Derrida writes "to the naive assurance of man: How does he know, by the force of his intelligence, the secret internal stirrings of animals? By what comparison between them and us does he infer the stupidity that he attributes to them?" (page 218). Humans like to pretend that because of their superior intelligence (which I also disagree with), they have the right to judge who is treated humanely, and who isn't. I don't think we have this right, and the idea that animals can be treated as objects for our use needs to change. Sadly, because humans are so self absorbed, I think that this realization will only happen and people will take action only when something horrible begins to happen that directly affects humans (mass extinction of animals, disease, starvation, etc.).