Response to Kim (Pets)

Kim asked if it is morally acceptable to own a pet. I haven't read Cavelieri's piece yet, but I do not think it is morally acceptable to own a pet. Using an animal for food or clothing is usually done in an unethical way, but at least there is a logical motivation for doing these things (obviously we don't need animals to eat or wear clothes, but all I am arguing here is that we are using animals for basic human necessities). However, animals used as pets are being taken out of their natural environment and lifestyle to keep humans company. The domestication of animals is/was unethical because, as Kim said, it is a major interference with their lives, and the reason for doing this is not justifiable. With that being said, I would be open to an argument saying that companionship is a basic human necessity, and it is ethical to use animals to suit this need of ours. I would probably argue, though, that while companionship is necessary to humans, we don't need animals to be our companions, though I'm sure that for some people, animals are all they have. Is the need for companionship a good justification for the domestication of animals?

Animal Testing

Both Singer and Donovan addressed the issue of experimental testing on animals, but I felt that both authors sort of danced around the issue without getting to the heart of it(at least in the excerpts we read). Both authors acknowledged that animal testing is often done cruelly and is not always necessary, but there must be some things that we need to test on animals. I understand that essentially torturing an animal just to see what happens is wrong and needs to end. However, what about the cases where animal testing really does help save many human lives? While these circumstances may not be as common as we would like to believe, don't they still happen sometimes? Most people would probably agree that it is unethical to experiment on an animal if it is not necessary, or if it is done cruelly, but is it unethical to test on animals otherwise? Alex said in class that every FDA-approved drug must be tested on animals (correct me if I am remembering this fact wrong). In that case, there are many important drugs that must have been tested on animals. Is it ethic to test on animals if it is for a good cause and isn't done cruelly? Is it even possible to test on animals without cruelty?

Response to Skyla

Skyla pointed out that "meat is masculine", and our society essentially "genders" food. While this is true, I would like to argue that both sides of the "meat" debate use sexism, and other forms of prejudice, as a tactic to push their agenda. There is a book that just came out entitled "Meat is For Pussies". It is exactly what it sounds like; it argues that men can be "real men"(strong, tough, "kick ass and take names", etc) by going vegetarian (I haven't read the book, but I got all of my information about it from its official website: http://www.meatisforpussies.org). This is problematic because not only is it enforcing gender roles on men, but it is sinking to the extremely low tactic of comparing something to female genitalia in order to make it look bad. More well known, though, is PETA(People for Ethical Treatment of Animals)'s use of sexist, racist, sizeist, and probably many other bad tactics to protest the unethical treatment of animals. I'm not going to post any of their ad campaigns here, because I find them disturbing and others might too, but if you google "peta" and the '-ism' of your choice you will find plenty. Their ads are humiliating, degrading, and insulting towards whoever they are targeting (though it is most often women, from what I have seen).

In the introduction of "The Animal Ethics Reader", the authors describe the "Extension Thesis"-the idea that people who are concerned with one oppressed group will often extend their concern to other oppressed groups. I believe that, when someone is concerned with one oppressed group they should be concerned with others, and they can't logically justify only defending one group. However, time and time again people have essentially thrown one group under the bus in order to push their own issues (and this is not just in the animal rights movement. It can be found in the women's rights movement, the civil rights movement, and the contemporary gay rights movement). Instead of everyone being concerned with oppression in general, they are often only concerned with the only oppression they personally have experienced. My question is, if the Extension Thesis makes sense in theory, why is it not usually accurate in mainstream resistance to oppression?

EDIT: I just want to add a quote from Audrey Lourde: "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. " To me, this is saying that you can't end oppression using the same "tools"-humiliation, degradation, disrespect- the oppressor uses.