Animals and Language

I know this is a little off topic from this weeks discussion of zoos, but I have been thinking a lot about language and animals lately. In Carol Adams' piece, "The Rape of Animals, The Butchering of Women", she says that phrases like "treating women like animals" or "pieces of meat" is damaging to the respectful treatment of animals. I am wondering if this is true. To compare a human to an animal is insulting. Animals are less intelligent than humans. We often say things like "you are acting like an infant" or "you're behavior is childlike" when we mean they are being immature. Is this insulting to children and infants? Is it offensive to compare humans to animals when we are insulting their intelligence?

Response to Skyla, "Animals as Clothing"

Skyla asked why our culture uses animals for clothing when there are so many other alternatives. I agree with Skyla that, in a society where there are plenty of alternatives, there is no moral justification to use animal skin for clothing. However, there are some explanations for this.

As Skyla stated, many people are not aware that they are wearing an animal product or byproduct. Most sneakers are made from leather unless otherwise stated. I know I did not know I was wearing sneakers made from cows until long after I became a vegetarian. So, a possible reason that people wear animal products is because they are not aware of what is in their shoes/clothing/etc.

As for more obvious uses of animals for clothing, such as fur, it is often a status symbol. This blog post really made me think about fur as a status symbol. The author argues that, for so long, White women wore fur because it was luxurious and fancy, and Black women were always denied this. Now that Black women may be able to afford the luxury of wearing fur, it can be symbolic for progress Black women have made. While I still do not think these explanations for the use of animals of clothing are morally sound, I think the contextual implications need to be considered.

Question: Is wearing fur morally justifiable?

Response to Todd's Argument For Hunting

Todd argued that subsistence hunting is the only morally defensible type of hunting. If people cannot get food from any other source, then we have no right to tell them they can't hunt. I agree with Todd that if hunting is necessary for some people to survive, then it is morally defensible for them to do so. However, I do not agree with how he got to that conclusion. Todd states that "An animal would kill to survive, so I justify it here on that basis" regarding hunting for food. In the beginning of the semester we discussed the fact that animals are moral patients and humans are moral agents. As moral agents, we can make "right" or "wrong" decisions. However, animals, being moral patients, cannot be held accountable for their actions. So, yes, an animal would kill to survive. And I happen to agree that humans can also kill to survive without being morally wrong. But you cannot make the jump from "animals do it" to "so we should do it too" without assuming that animals and humans both have the same capabilities of moral reasoning.

Question: Are there degrees of moral agency?

Response to Sarah, "Sliding Scale of Ethics"

Sarah argued that we should accept our family and friends for having different opinions than us. I think that there is a line where you shouldn't tolerate a family member or friend's views. As somebody else said in their blog, if the person is abusing an animal, you are obligated to speak up about that. I also believe that if somebody holds views that are ignorant and potentially dangerous, you should say something. You can challenge someone's beliefs politely without attacking them. In the case of hunting, it is most likely a hobby that people won't want to give up no matter what reasons you give. But I think you owe it to yourself to be honest about how you feel. It is hard to talk about touchy subjects, because people often get defensive and feel personally attacked. However, I think it's good to at least have conversations about these issues.

Question: Has anyone ever had a successful conversation with someone about animal rights?

Trophy Hunting: Harmful to Humans

Regardless of whether trophy hunting might be beneficial towards animals, the economy, or the population, trophy hunting is harmful to the hunter. Killing an animal and using it's body for food or clothing may be acceptable, but proudly displaying the dead body of an animal is not morally justifiable. Killing a human in self-defense is usually considered okay, but it would not be acceptable to hang up the head of someone you killed in self-defense on your mantle. There is no reason to use the body of an animal you killed as a "trophy". Trophy hunting places value on dominance, violence, and ownership of other bodies.

Kant argued that our duties towards animals are actually just duties towards humanity. Kicking a dog is not bad because it harms the dog, but because it harms the character of the human kicking it. While I don't agree with this line of thinking in every context, I think it can be applied to the issues of trophy hunting. Alastair Gunn gave good justifications for hunting in Zimbabwe, but I am still not convinced that the glorification of this violent act is justifiable. Using the dead body of an animal you killed as a trophy is harmful towards humanity.

Question: What is a good justification for the "trophy" aspect of trophy hunting?

Response to Shelby's "For Whom is Vegetarianism Morally Obligatory?"

Shelby argues that most people in developed countries could afford a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle if they sacrificed other "luxuries". Shelby also argues that food should be a top priority for humans, even more important than shelter. What do you consider a "luxury"? I don't think it's ethical to tell people, including poor people, how to spend their money. I can agree with you that food is very important, but it's not fair to expect everyone to feel the same way. If a poor family decides to spend money on Christmas presents for their children to make them happy instead of high quality food for a few months, then that is their choice. I personally don't know what it's like to live in poverty so I don't feel like I have the right to say what should be the top priority for a poor person, since I have never lived it.

Furthermore, as we briefly discussed in class, one must have access to knowledge about food, health, and the meat industry to make these informed decisions about their diet. So, even if people in poverty were making food a top priority, they still might not be able to maintain a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle. These disadvantages are much more than "inconveniences".

Question: Why have people stopped spending as much money on food?

Preference

We tend to prefer people that are our family or friends over people who aren't. We also tend to favor people who are from our communities over people who aren't. More controversially, humans tend to favor other humans that belong to their race, religion, gender, or country over people outside of these larger communities. These preferences are unfair because people are not more or less valuable based on how similar they are to us. We prefer people who are like ourselves because we can empathize with them more easily than people who are different from us. For example, when there is a news story of a white kid who brought a gun to school, or committed some type of violent crime, it is treated differently than when a young person of color commits a violent crime. When it is a young white person, everyone says "how could this be happening to our children?" When it is a young person of color, it is some "other" type of person that we feel no connection to. This happens because the media is generally controlled by white people, and people feel more empathy towards others that are "like them". This example of preferring beings that are more like oneself is wrong, and so is preferring a species that is more like oneself. Can our species bias be unlearned, or is it natural?