Regarding Matthew Scully's DOMINION
I received this request from a reader: "Dear Wes: I'm interested in your take on Dominion--a thoughtful book on the nature of our relationship with animals. I am reading it presently and find that he strikes a good balance so far- his view may be the elixir for those of us who oppose cruel and unusual industrial type 'farms', but hardly consider an animal pup to be equal to our human children. I do see the intrinsic value in giving all living creatures their "due", without crossing over into siding with animal rights extremists. Do you have any comments? Feel free to use my email as a lead-in to your larger audience blog."
Fair enough: I gave Dominion a mixed review in the Weekly Standard. I think the book--while excellently written--is unduly emotional, does not sufficiently consider the human benefit aspect of the animal welfare approach, and unduly demonizes elephant hunters--whose culling license fees pay the bulk of expenses associated with maintaining the African wild animal parks. However, he does a very good take down of Peter Singer. Here are a few excerpts from that review, the full text of which can be accessed here: "Once we've rejected Singer-style animal liberation as the antihuman nihilism it is, however, we still need a principled rationale to guide our commitment to the humane treatment of animals. Dominion demands from us greater mercy and kindness toward animals--and who could disagree? But the book does little to strengthen the intellectual case for those who want to ease the burden on animals without surrendering to the disaster of animal rights. Indeed, Scully states explicitly, 'You will find no theories in this book.'
...
"Dominion should have been the text that taught us how to practice kindness without falling into the trap of Peter Singer. Unfortunately, Dominion fails at that task, mostly because Scully will not temper his emotional fervor long enough to explore the good humans receive from animals or the consequences that would befall us if we ceased to benefit from them. Animal suffering is crucial to a proper analysis, but so is human welfare.
...
Matthew Scully is clearly an intelligent man whose big heart has found a just and noble cause. He is a powerful and sometimes even inspired writer, and his devotion to his subject is so great that he left his job at the White House to promote the message of the book. But Dominion is unlikely to motivate many readers who are not already committed to Scully's position. Unfortunately, he is unable or unwilling to bring his intelligence and his heart together. In the end, Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy does little to help us embrace our duty to animals while keeping Peter Singerism at arm's length."
Post Script: Scully's book had a greater impact than I thought it would back in 2002 when my review was written, but I think my criticism remains apt. While calling attention in a very emotional way to the abuse of animals--which is why so much of the animal liberation movement embraces the book even though he takes a welfarist approach--in the end, Scully offered little to help us decide how to go about crafting a proper balance. Being emotionally committed is not enough. We also have to have principles that we can apply to help us decide the proper ethical course. And that takes "theories," the precise thing that Scully admits he does not offer.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:50 AM
5 Comments
5 Comments:
What do you mean by "welfarist" ?
I think your comments about the need for theory which helps break the Singer type spell are interesting and true. It seems to me that largely through laziness much current thinking is reified into a materialistic and utilitarian default mode that lends power to Singer type desacralization projects. Thank you for doing something.
Animal welfarists acknowledge that it is ethical and right to use animals for our benefit. However, they also argue that we have a duty to do so in a humane manner and to never cause animals gratuitous pain or suffering.
This is in contrast to animal rights that sees a moral equality between humans and animals, as a consequence of which, we should not be able to make use of animals for any purpose.
The problem with developing a theory is trying to find some foundation for a new approach. The only theories that I have found that are good starting points are the Christian and Jewish notions of Stewardship (God owns the animals, we're just borrowing them) and the Hindu and Buddhist approaches of mercy toward all (which means that anyone who does harm in the name of "animal liberation" is acting out of order).
How do you form a secular approach out of something like that? The problem is that the easiest theory to blend into secular living - the Buddhist ideal of mercy - can be interpreted too strictly, and all of a sudden you end up with Liberationist nuts again, this time claiming they're following the wise teachings of Buddha instead of comparing themselves to the benevolence of Jesus Christ.
On the right hand, Judeo-Christian stewardship doesn't flex very well, either. We say, "We don't own the earth and animals, and so we can only use them as we're permitted to do so by God," but what about non Judeo-Christians? They either take a look at that and object to the God part of it, or else they say, "Well, if we take out the God part, that means that animals own themselves, so we're stewards that way," and that opens up the whole can of worms about how if they own themselves then they're on par with humanity, etc. etc. ad nausium.
Clearly developing an ideal theory of animal welfare that is totally secular is going to take some work. Ideas?
Well, Tabs, however we got to be this way, we are moral beings. We empathize. We understand pain. We protect. We even sacrifice our own well being for others. These are parts of the concept of human exceptionalism. Part of being exeptional beings, and moral beings, is the assumption of duties. Humans are the only species who have duties. I submit one is to treat animals humanely.
It isn't enough, in my view, to screech about mercy. We must also take into account the human good that we are seeking to serve. Hence, we must weigh and balance in determining what are the proper and improper use of animals, and in determining how to go about using animals in ethical and moral ways.
I appreciate your input. Overall, however, your review is just as ineffective as you deem Scully's book to be. I enjoyed how you mentioned that the culling fees of the elephant hunters goes to "preserve" African wildlife. Truly, conservation, preservation, and reconciliation ecology strategies, at least the legitimate ones, will never advocate murder to benefit ecosystems (are African Elephants not a part of African wildlife?). Elephant hunting should be banned. Period. I'm sure we can generate far more effective, humane, and productive strategies to preserve African wildlife. Additionally, you say Scully fails to address the human benefit from animals. Scully believes, that we still are superior beings because of our rational and moral capabilities. This, in and of itself, is flawed logic. The creates oppressive conceptual framework that establishes human superiority over all other animals based on rational and moral capabilities. However, the logic is flawed because one cannot establish superiority based on characteristics that are not present in other animals. It is foolish to claim that X has moral and rational capabilities and Y does not. Thus, X is superior to Y. Until we change from an anthropocentric view of animals and the environment to a biocentric view (a view which recognizes the intrinsic value, interests, and teleological center of all other species that rejects speciesism and flawed logic to support superiority), we will continue to see animals, plants, land, water etc. and means to our ends, and the onslaught will continue. Animals benefits to us? Trivial pleasures to our pallet maybe. Protein? Whole wheat bread, chick peas, baked beans, tofu, Cow's milk, lentils, Soya milk, muesli, boiled egg, peanuts, and hard cheese to name to good sources. Thanks for the review, your opinion seems to have some credibility among many. Thanks
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home