Where Do We Turn To Maintain Our Humanism?
It is a mistake to assume the worst when there is so much evidence of the best. My friends and I pass this idea back and forth whenever one of us is in danger of losing faith in people and their relationships with animals.
We talk about these things because we are exposed to so much cruelty in this work. Where do we turn to maintain our humanism?
For my part, I turn to Gracie and to Ardy. Gracie is eight. She was adopted from an orphanage in China. Ardy is two and she was adopted from an animal shelter in Washington. On some morning, I find they have divided the bed – dog at the foot and daughter at the head. Other times they share a pillow. They do not like being apart.
I think of how rich my life is with them in it. I think of impoverished it would be without.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
This argument from HSUS is not surprising considering what they stand for - that is: using animals as a means to our end is okay as long as we treat them 'well'. The 'Sr. VP of Communications' for HSUS mentions many ways in which pets are good for *us*. However, she or he does nothing to address the serious ethical issue surrounding the breeding of beings into a dependant life - not to mention the commodification of all non-human animals in the pet industry.
As Gary L. Francione mentions, the pet issue is really subordinate to the overall issue of animal use by humans. If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets. If your compassion has evolved to include all living creatures, then you'll see the inherent problem with the practise - no matter how warm and cuddly they may be (like my rescued rottweiler).
Evolution means that subsequent generations are different compared to their ancestors; nothing more and nothing less. To imply that said evolution leads toward some ultimate manifestation (i.e., god) assumes facts not in evidence.
As for ownership/property; in many ways everyone and everything is the property of something else. Humans as a species are the property of the environment that we live in. We as citizens submit ourselves to the government whose land we reside upon. To remove that dependence may be worse than the supposed disease. Either way, my ownership of an animal does not affect your life and our society as a whole has judge that it is not obliged to protect animals and afford them broad rights as individuals. Thus in granting our individuality we have let each member decide for themselves (for the most part) how to treat animals.
many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state.
"If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets"
I don't think animals are ours to use any way we please AND I think it's ok to continue having pets. I guess I don't fit into your black and white world view.
You say: "many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state."
Firstly, don t know what you mean by 'depending' on other animals. I imagine you are talking about symbiosis : An ecological relationship between two animals of different species for mutual benefit AND by mutual consent. With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent.
Second, even if I were to concede that wild animals do depend on others, this point is not relevant to pet ownership. "Pets" wouldn't depend on us naturally if we din't bring them in our society and leave them helpless in the first place. So basically, we artificially create their dependence on us and then use the self-righteous pseudo-argument of dependence. Thats like robbing a person of all his money, and then saying : "Well, we've gotta help the poor guy, you know? He depends on us for his very survival." and then taking the credit for satisfying his artificially created dependence on you.
"With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent."
I don't believe this is true in all cases. Many domesticated animals have much better lives as pets than they'd ever have in the wild. As I've said in other comments, I've personally known pets that choose to be pets and could have returned to the wild at any point.
Your second point is the naturalistic fallacy. X is natural therefore x is good and anything that is not x is wrong. What's funny is that you AR people claim that we are animals just like all other animals, but by making claims about "natural" you are putting us above other animals. If we are animals like all others then anything we do is by definition natural.
You may have seen some domesticated animals whose behaviour might have led you to think that they prefer being domesticated. How does that give us the right to bring other creatures into our society as domesticated? Secondly, a domesticated animal cannot survive the way its feral fellows do because they have been physically and psychologically mutated to suit our needs. So how do you expect a domesticated cow to step out of its patch and walk off into the forests ?
Next, your "naturalistic fallacy" counter is a straw man attack. Anyway, i never claimed that natural = good. Perhaps I should not have used the word "natural" because its intended meaning can easily be misunderstood. Essentially, my point was this: You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place.
Your attempt at a response to this latter point was a straw man argument, and I must say, with all due respect, I suspect its the best counter you can come up with.
"You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place. "
This situation does not apply to all pets or all breeding. My primary point is that the absolute lines you try to draw do not map cleanly to the real world.
Now the secondary points. I fail to understand your implicit premise which is that the only "right" state for animals is one devoid of man. I think it's clear that many pets have an advantage due to their status, if by advantage we mean survival of the species. Isn't that natural and the purpose of evolution?
As someone HAS already pointed out to you, neither I nor anyone else here claims to provide ABSOLUTE lines. Your repeated straw men attacks indicate to me an absence of valid recourse within your argument.
My response applies to the institution of pet ownership and not necessarily every individual case of pet ownership. I myself have a pet dog at home, whom I took in from the streets when he was 3 months old. Am I doing something immoral by owning him as my pet? I think not.
The institution of pet ownership on the other hand, involves breeding of pets solely for satisfying our need for companionship from non-human beings. So, in that regard, it is basically slavery because we never pause to consider the interests of the being at the receiving end.
I have also responded to your second argument (which you repeat btw) elsewhere. If you tell me that you see nothing troublesome about the idea of a human being brought up humanely by Martians as a slave companionship (or as a "pet"), then I'll stop right there.
I have also already responded to the 'natural' and 'evolution' pseudo-arguments.
P.S: I am responding to you further unless you put up a genuine counter-argument.
If Martians were breeding humans as "slaves" I, as a human in my current form, would abhor the practice and I would gather other like minded humans to challenge and if necessary kill those Martians and free our enslaved cousins. From my human POV I would find that situation immoral but my labeling the Martians actions as such does not make them "unethical" - a property that I state clearly makes no sense. The Martians are free to claim anything they wish but it is the actual of of enslavement that I would challenge. If I could find a way to free our cousins without killing the Martians I would possibly pursue that solution, appealing on moral grounds if necessary, but I would recognize that either I will probably need to give/withhold something that the Martians want from the human species or enforce our beliefs by force of arms.
Quote:
"If I could find a way to free our cousins without killing the Martians..."
Why would you not kill the martians?
I assume that we tolerate their presence for some reason, most likely the exchange of knowledge and goods. Also, I assume that by declaring war on the Martians (generally necessary to kill them in meaningful enough numbers to affect social change) then human life would be lost as well. As a member of a society who agrees with and abides by the decision to not kill other members of my society my natural tendency is to not have those same members killed in the imposition of our beliefs upon other groups.
Just as I disagree with the claim of moral license on the part of those who wish to support the abolishment the pet/mean industries you disagree with those who claim the same in their ownership of pets and meat. In either case who is granting the license? I do not claim, nor need, a moral license (other than a self-granted one) to eat meat or own a pet in my country. See my other recent comments for more details.
I suppose I should allow for those who refuse to see that the breeding of animals into a dependant life is "using" them. The same as those people who eat meat and don't really think about the fact that it comes from an animal who was killed for their taste buds.
I contend that that if you feel it is okay to breed animals into master-pet relationships, then you *do* feel that they are our to use as we please. I can't see how you can deny this, unless, as mentioned above, you refuse to see the logic.
As for your comment on evolution, that has no basis on morality. It's the same flimsy logic that people use to defend the eating of animals - by saying that such an act is performed continually in the wild.
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
but you do believe that animals are ours to use, and you still fail to explain how this is morally justifiable.
And don't worry, I'm not stalking you. It's just this very topic seemed to stem directly from the debate you and I had on the previous topic.
I continue to stand by the fact that neither this nor the meat question works to answer the most fundamental one: by what right can we justify using other species? Successfully argue that point, and I'd logically have to concede on all issues: food, clothing, entertainment, and pets.
Do sharks have to justify their use of (tasty) seals and other animals to some committee?
What about hawks? Is it necessary for them to appeal to some moral "authority" in order to eat mice and other rodentia?
Do bullfrogs feel constrained to explain why they eat insects, fish, other frogs?
Would you have felines (of any stripe) petition to be allowed to follow their nature as obligate carnivores, lest it impinge on the rights of some other species not to be eaten?
I could go on and on...
"but you do believe that animals are ours to use"
I think this is a red herring. I don't not believe that animals are commodities that we have absolute control over and I won't fall into the trap of framing this as a false black and white dichotomy.
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
One that is void of our tradition-entrenched predisposition. Give me an example with human beings.
You seem to suggest that these arguments are trickery, when in fact it is your views on the welfare of beings that are not allowed to make fundamental decisions for themselves for their entire lives that I call into question.
There can be an enormous (and perhaps an ever-growing) difference between how a small town farmer treats his heifer and how a factory farm milks them dead within a fifth of their life expectancy. THAT has never been my argument. What I came to realize, though, is that the mentality of using animals to any degree is what will keep us, as a species with incredible potential to control with seemingly unending might, from ever recognizing our speciesist attitudes. It is these very attitudes that makes arguments for the betterment of welfare for animals that we enslave moot.
To what authority would such a justification be submitted? It appears that the two fundamental authorities for US citizens, the congress and the UN, while publicly deploring cruelty to animals, have accepted that the persons under their authority have the right to own (use) animals.
Any higher authority is either imagined or, if real, does not publicly enforce any judgments upon the persons under its authority. Given the absence of physical proof of its existence I would conclude that said authority is either imagined or does not in fact judge the actions of the persons under its authority and instead lets them lead lives as they and others sharing their physical world see fit. If I am wrong and will be sentenced to "hell" for owning an animal then that is a consequence that affects only myself and which I am solely at fault in my ignorance and disbelief.
I don't believe that an authority figure is needed for moral consistency. The effort to identify a behavior as "just" does not need to then be presented to a judging body. Punitive measures are not the primary modifier of human behavior. It's important to believe that once the truth is exposed, people will choose to do what is right.
Morality must be one of these fundamental authorities you speak of, and it must transcend legislation. We've seen it before. A majority of people had to believe that black Americans should vote before legislation had any real authority over the matter. When the people disagree, loopholes will forever be utilized.
I do understand your belief system, since it is one that many people whose parents follow Christian teachings learn. I also accept that you cannot understand mine because it requires that you discard many of the foundations your belief system is founded upon. I am fine with this and actually find many merits in having such a moral absolute. But in my observations of reality and history I find that your system of beliefs, while appealing, do not fit and thus I "reject" it; mainly the implied assertion that humans are imperfect and that there exists some perfection that we can and should aspire to.
As for truth, the main/only truths that can really be exposed are physical truths. Physical truths simply are and do not imply good or bad. Humans die, gravity exists a force of 9.8 m/s; these are physical truths. Metaphysical truths cannot be so measured even if they do exist.
Your nihilistic world view is just too difficult to support and I don't feel you have. While I admit I struggle with the potential metaphysical implications of recognizing seemingly absolute truths, being the atheist I am, I'm not worried. I recognize that there is one consistent trait in us all that works to explain why the Holocaust was wrong. It's called empathy. Perhaps a truth such as this does not exist outside of humanity, by must it in order for it to make sense to those of us with this innate ethical characteristic?
You can try and marginalize my arguments by suggesting that I am similar to those raised with dogmatic religious ideals, but I'd prefer if you simply point out the actual flaw in my reasoning: 1) all sentient beings have interests 2) we should be consistent in recognizing rights that stand to protect those interests
Don't rebut by simply saying that "I believe there is no morality and change can never happen." That sounds to me like a leap of faith. :-)
The only "flaw" that I could possibly find in your reasoning is that they do not hold true. If they did then, by your logic and reasoning, our society would likely be a society of vegans without pets. I guess that "incomplete" would be a better description (and one that necessarily applies to my and others assumptions). You appear to have a strong degree of empathy as part of your character but empathy and emotion in general is not have/have-not but exists in a matter of degree. Do you feel that the stronger degree of empathy makes for better a person?
Consider that we as a species have empathy because it allows the weaker amongst us band together and live in a society that withstands the intrusions of stronger groups.
Change can and does happen and it happens because a society comes to believe that either the status-quo is bad or that the desired change is better than the status-quo. Arguing that the status-quo is bad is more difficult that presenting an alternative that is better. The very fact that the status-quo exists means that it at some point was either considered better than a previous status-quo or it naturally occurred. Many of my points simply presented a rationale for why the status-quo exists and understand what assumptions it is not considered bad.
I would be perfectly fine living in a world such as you describe, and would actually welcome it; but we don't. We've haven't addressed the core issue, however, which is: given our current reality how/should we move toward the abolishment of the pet and mean packaging industries (with "we should not" being a valid option).
We both have base assumptions that are being made (though you call yours truths) in order to begin our logical and reasoned analysis and come to our respective conclusions. I guess what I am saying is that in reality is doesn't really matter what our assumptions are other than their impact on our resultant conclusions. Taking either of our conclusions as being a possible reality then what matters is which one is in-fact real. By your admission my conclusion is reality and thus working backwards my assumptions are one of many possible reasons that such a reality exists.
I agree with reckoner on this point. The HSUS does indeed fail to consider the point of view of the animal in most of their arguments. Even in the case in which the animal's perspective is considered, it is a very shallow perspective. Nonetheless, the dependency vs autonomy issue is not clear-cut. I can see the value in either case, depending upon circumstances. In an uncertain world, autonomy would appear to be more beneficial, while in a less dangerous world, autonomy would not be as important and therefore might ultimately be less stressful and more enjoyable. Even humans might enjoy dependency, though we tend to argue for autonomy because otherwise we are likely to be taken advantage of. If we have laws and sufficient enforcement to treat animals well and not let them be taken advantage of, should we stop the practice of giving animals very pleasurable lives? Perhaps this is not yet the world we live in, but we could work towards it.