Animal Rights and Young People (Response to Shelby)

Shelby asked "Did you ever have the revelation of realizing that the meat you were eating was an actual, once living animal? How did this affect your diet?". I can't remember when I made the connection about what meat actually is, but when I was 8 or 9 I became a strict vegetarian (without the help of my parents, something that I now realize was probably dangerous) as a protest of the meat industry. I was very vocal about animal rights, but for some reason people never took it seriously. My parents tried to be respectful, but my brothers, cousins, friends, and even aunts and uncles would taunt me about my decision. They would shove meat in my face, chase me around the yard with it, and make rude "jokes" about my vegetarianism. People also always tried to talk me out of my decision. They would say things like "Oh come on, it's already dead, what difference does it make if you eat it now?" Somehow they couldn't understand that I didn't want to participate in a violent and abusive tradition. When I was ten, I wrote a complaint letter to McDonalds for using animal fat in their french fries. I also "protested" outside of McDonalds with posters I made. Even though I think it's important for young people to start becoming passionate about issues, and even though those things I did were significant in my development as a political and opinionated person, people again treated me as if I was silly for caring so much.

Question 1: Why are people concerned with animal rights often not taken seriously?

Question 2: Why are young people concerned with anything not taken seriously?

Response to "In Defense of Lady Gaga"

Becca wrote a post defending Lady Gaga's "meat dress" because in some sense, it was subversive and challenging to our social norms. She argued that one interpretation of the dress is that it brought attention to the objectification of both women and animals. In a way, I see Becca's point, because this dress probably caused a lot of people to think about the way we treat both animals and women, but just because something generates good discussion doesn't mean it is good in itself. The fact is, Lady Gaga objectified both herself and animals. If that starts a discussion about the objectification of animals and/or women-while those discussions are important to have-it doesn't justify the dress itself. I always wonder why people think things like this are subversive; she is not truly challenging our society for objectifying women, she herself is participating in the objectification of women and animals. Just because she brought attention to this issue doesn't mean it was an appropriate way to protest it.

It is very common for people to use shock value in order to get a message across. I have already blogged about PETA's horrible tactics for raising awareness to their issues. People go to shock value because it is easy. Doing something shocking will catch people's attention; educating people on the issue you are interested in is a lot harder. Keane posted this quote recently: "noble things are difficult." I think this is usually true. It is hard to promote change for important issues, but you have do it the right way in order for it to have any merit.

Question 1: Are there any redeeming qualities about using a "shock value" tactic?

Question 2: Is Lady Gaga's meat dress any worse than wearing leather or fur?

Hierarchical Thinking

When we talk about issues such as animal ethics, the discussion about who deserves rights often leads to hierarchical thinking- that is, ranking things in order of how much they matter (often in relation to the person doing the ranking). It may be human nature to want to categorize everything and place a certain value on everything, but that does not mean it is correct to do so. It is important to recognize that things we cannot directly relate to, such as animals, are simply different than us, not necessarily better or worse, smarter or stupider, more important or less important. Somebody said in class that is impossible to get rid of our human bias, and it's not wrong to have it. While this is true, we need to keep in mind that since we can't think independently of our experiences as human, we also can't truly judge the value of an animal, because we are not objective (and never will be). We can all probably agree that the quote "better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied" is speciesist, but no human would trade their life for a pig's because we will always prefer our own species over another. It's not our fault that we have this bias, but we have to be aware of it and we shouldn't categorize things in relation to us. We show preference towards animals that are more like humans (such as apes) over animals that don't have many human-like qualities (such as ants). These preferences rely on the premise that human-like traits are the criteria for moral consideration. This is problematic because it is a form of prejudice; it is favoring sameness over difference. We need to accept differences as just that: differences, not deficiencies.

Question: If animals have some skills that humans lack (such as a dog's sense of hearing), why do we still place humans at the top of the hierarchy?

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.