Gary Francione on Peter Singer and "Vivisection"
Animal rights law professor and vegan activist Gary Francione has now weighed in at some length in his Blog about Peter Singer and his support for invasive brain research using monkeys. It is very hard hitting, and, it seems to me, hits a home run regarding amoral Singer-style utilitarianism:
"If you read what Peter Singer has been writing for 30 years now, it is absolutely clear that he regards the use of nonhumans--and humans--in vivisection as morally permissible. Indeed, Singer explicitly rejects animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation; he does not regard eating animals or animal products as per se morally wrong; he maintains we can be 'conscientious omnivores;' he claims that we can have 'mutually satisfying' sexual relationships with animals, and he claims that it is morally permissible to kill disabled infants.
"In short, rather than asking 'can you believe what Singer has said?,' it is more appropriate to ask: Can someone please explain how Singer got to be the 'father of the modern animal rights movement'?"
There is much more about Singer in the post, some of which I knew (killing infants, sex with animals) and some of which that I didn't (the permissibility of being a conscientious omnivore), and it is all worth reading.
I disagree with Francione completely about animal rights. For example, human beings are omnivores, and so its seems to me that eating meat is both nutritious and natural. But I respect him and his totally justified disdain for the "ethics" of Peter Singer.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:25 PM
9 Comments
9 Comments:
Whoa, wait... sex with animals?
Look, the thought of infantacide of any stripe is repulsive to me, but at least I can comprehend it from, say, a third world perspective, or an aboriginal one, where having too many babies can mean the death of all of them, so a starved mother may kill one child to save the life of the one more likely to live. I totally and completely disagree with that notion - everyone currently alive should be struggling to ensure that mother has all the adequate nutrition so she doesn't feel she has to make that choice. But I can at least understand it from one angle.
But sex with animals just defies my ability to comprehend. I knew Singer was reprehensible. I didn't know he went so far off the map of what we call "normal" as to be on another continent. This is just too weird.
I have written about it. Singer did an essay in an on line pornographic magazine. To him, it would just be two animals rubbing body parts. I think you can find it by going to my articles archives or using the search function here at the site.
The link is on Francione's site in the post Wesley just linked.
I have to say that I find Singer's falling out with the animal rights people almost amusing. My inclination is to laugh and hope they waste a lot of time bashing on each other.
As a philosopher, I find it especially funny because it reveals that the animal rights people are what we call "deontologists" or "absolutists." I am, too. It's just that my absolutes (like, "abortion is always wrong") are different from theirs (like, "eating animals is always wrong"). But Singer is just a consistent utilitarian. He doesn't think _anything_ is always wrong. It always depends on the total happiness or unhappiness to persons, etc. I'm kind of surprised this family squabble between him and the other folks hasn't happened sooner.
Right, Lydia. And in Singer's view there is no such thing as a right, whether possessed by animal or person. Hence, none of us is safe if we become a hinderence to the interests of the majority. Not ethical at all.
Wesley Smith: Peter Singer is indeed an ethical person: it's just that his ethics are different from yours. "Ethical" does not mean "agrees with me". The fact that Singer gets into hot water with many people comes from his insistence on trying to follow his utilitarian principles where they lead. He doesn't always live up to his ideals, though. For example, he gives more than 20% of his annual income to charities like OXFAM and UNICEF, but berates himself for not giving more to help the world's poor and unfortunate.
Lydia McGrew: Singer has not just now "fallen out" with proponents of animal rights; those familiar with the philosophical literature on the moral status of animals -- which by now comprises many hundreds of books and articles by professional philosophers -- are aware that Singer's position is only one of many competing philosophical strands, and that the differences among and within ethical theories with regard to the animal issue have been debated vigorously, and often with great subtlety, for many years.
aeolus: No. Singer's following his "ehtics" where they lead would result in barbarism and horrendous human rights abuses against those deemed to have interests less worthy of consideration than others. He (meaning his beliefs) isn't unethical just because I don't agree with them. Otherwise, we could say that racism is also ethical, even though a racist taking his beliefs to their conclusion results in lynchings.
Thank you all for the link to that post. Gah. And given that Singer has apparently shared this belief that it's okay to engage in beastality, you'd think the Animal Rights types would have ditched him long ago. I thought PETA specifically said it wanted total separation of Humans and Animals?
Tabs: Gary Francione and David Martosko, who are mirror opposites on animal rights, say PETA won't do that because it would cost them $.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home