Nickolas Kristof Illustrates Media Ignorance About Animal Rights
Nicholas Kristof is a famous New York Times columnist who has now weighed in on animal rights. Except he hasn't. Animal rights is not the same thing as animal welfare, e.g. improving the humane treatment of animals, a good and noble cause. Rather, it is an ideology that equates human and animal moral worth and further, holds that human beings have no right to own animals, use animals, or eat animals. Indeed, the true animal rights advocate doesn't believe there should be any domesticated animals at all.
Besides using terms too loosely--which adds to the power of animal rights ideologues because they get conflated in the public's mind with being nicer to animals--who does Kristof turn to for an education about animal rights? Why of course: Peter Singer. But Singer doesn't really believe in animal rights. He is a utilitarian who believes that the outcome which best serves the interests of the individual or group with the highest "quality of life" is the proper course. Which is why he believes that infants can be murdered by parents--because he asserts they are not persons and hence if the baby interferes with the interests or happiness of the parents, or even hypothetical as yet unborn siblings, they can be done in.
But Singer is also a slippery character, in that he often masks the hardness of his true beliefs in the popular media. As in this exchange. From Kristof's column:
I asked Mr. Singer how he would weigh human lives against animal lives, and he said that he wouldn't favor executing a human to save any number of animals. But he added that he would be troubled by the idea of keeping one human alive by torturing 10,000 hogs to death.
Here's the point about believing in human exceptionalism: You don't need to be slippery. You can just say what you mean and let the hate mail come pouring in. For example, Peter Singer's life is worth more than that of any animal, and would be even if he developed serious problems with his frontal lobe, and, from his perspective, was thereby rendered a lower "quality of life" form than a pig.
Labels: Animal Rights. Media Ignorance. Nickolas Kristof. Peter Singer.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:41 PM
12 Comments
12 Comments:
SHS is defining animal rights from the outside, according to its own perception of its ideology, and as usual from a defensive polemical standpoint. I can say that, knowing what I'm talking about, as an animal rights advocate. Yes "human exceptionalism" can say what it stands for without equivocation. But that doesn't make it any less obviously self-serving, unfounded, and circular, or any less demeaning to humans. "I'm the king because I say I'm the king and besides I'm the only one who can say I'm the king and no one else can say anything" doesn't justify the crown -- or reflect well on royalty.
lanthe, usually your responses are eloquent, but I must say that this last one is a bit...erratic?
Someone's position on the topic (interior or exterior) does not make their values any more or less correct. For example, if I take your statement and alter it a bit.
SHS is defining Christianity from the outside, according to its own perception of its ideology, and as usual from a defensive polemical standpoint. I can say that, knowing what I'm talking about, as a Christian.
My position as a Christian does not automatically lend credence to what I say on the correctness of the issue. Rather, that position inherently lends itself to bias, as you pointed out with your statement on being the king. :)
In any event, I believe the point that Wesley is hinting at is the ever growing cult of animal rights. As pointed out in other posts, many PETA activists would rather see every dog, cat and hamster dead that living as a pet. There's a large difference between opposing animal exploitation and seeking a total removal of the idea of animals as potential companions. Of course, the latter is an extreme position, which isn't even supported by what is seen in nature (inter-species companionship is a well documented phenomena). However, it does point to an overriding idea that humans have no inherent right to utilize the world around them, which is not only nonsensical (all species use portions of nature for their own benefits) but leads to Voluntary Human Extinction.
I can say that knowing the animal rights movement from the inside, as SHS does not.
Yes, a question mark does belong after "erratic" -- at the very least. Are you sure of what you're saying, or not? Sort of mirrors Wesley's comments about what he says the animal rights movement says. Which starts to become hearsay, at the least.
The "overriding idea" is not that humans have no right to use the world around them, but that humans have been and continue to be less than humane, and animals have rights. If they didn't have rights, humane treatment of them wouldn't be an issue.
In fact, as we are animals ourselves, respecting the other animals, and their rights, also results in benefit to ourselves.
I consider both Singer and Christianity part of the death culture, and antithetical to animal rights as well as to the best state of humanity.
I consider both Singer and Christianity part of the death culture, and antithetical to animal rights as well as to the best state of humanity.
Christianity is not a portion of the death culture. You can make statements upon specific adherents, but the religion itself does not advocate such actions. I can say that knowing Christianity from the inside, as you do not.
Obviously, the supposed animal rights movement is a hot button issue for you. I'd kindly suggest you turn your aggression down a notch rather than jumping to conclusions over my internet-specific use of punctuation to convey the intended tonality of my comment. Conversational usage of interrogative tonality in regards to a specific word implies an inability to nail down the exact word desired, not an uncertainty about the concept.
You present a false dilemma in regards to humane treatment of animals. Humane treatment does not inherently require rights. As my father would say, my car has no rights but I don't abuse it. Animal welfare is, as pointed out by Wesley, a far cry from animal rights.
At present, I agree, our culture is highly inhumane to animals. Factory farming, for example, is an atrocious practice fostered by an overly controlling state. The answer to these dilemmas is not granting animals rights as we grant to citizens, but rather expecting humans to utilize their exceptional natures to treat all living creatures with respect. The notion that a granting of rights will somehow foster an attitude of respect is, at best, naive and, at worst, knowingly dishonest.
As an afterthought, I'd vigorously suggest you explore the teachings of Buddhism, including the many exceptional Buddhist philosophers of our time. The most notable tenet, which my husband and I seek to teach our children each day, is to respect the life that was given for our sustenance - whether it be animal or vegetable - in an understanding that such life taking is unavoidable. "Rights" - a construction unique to our human society - do not factor into this.
Becky,
I agree that "rights" are a construct. The term itself is attempting to describe something fundamental about humans (when used in the phrase "human rights") and that *something* is beyond what can be explained by the word.
Furthermore, there is no possibility for "rights" to come into play at all without *cognition* of the level that goes beyond oneself and grasps infinite or absolute concepts.
This level of cognition is NOT achieved by any other animal. If one would try to argue that other animals have some other complex language that doesn't need "rights", then that whole construct is expendable, useless, and not applicable to animals, humans or anyone else.
Animal rights is a logical fallacy. REspectful and humane treatment of animals, however, is logically supportable.
Becky: Pretty presumptuous and not to mention limited and self-righteous, to suggest I don't know Christianity from the inside, or understand either it or Buddhism. Take a closer look at history, and at the history of science. What I'm saying is indeed profound. What's erratic is going off on someone the minute religion is mentioned, and in the process proving my point.
SHS: By focusing on "ideology" you're missing the whole point of the animal rights movement, and regarding the animal rights in the same way those who regard feminism as a movement of radical lesbian misathropists who want to do away with all men, or civil rights as a movement of violent black supremicists who want to kill whitey, or even the South as a bunch of kukluxklanners and ignorant rednecks, regard those movements and entities. Meanwhile, you're creating a split in the war against the death culture, and thus sabotaging the united front needed to fight the COD, by labelling incorrectly the many who value life and would join SHS in the fight against the COD otherwise. At stake are actual lives, not ideologies, and the animal rights movement understands that. The death culture did not arise as a result of the animal rights movement, which in fact was born after and in reaction to it. The death culture is more closely entwined, in fact, with the premises of human exceptionalism, which now blames animal rights when it itself is logically inconsistent and based on circular reasoning. No wonder it confuses Singer, whose utilitarianism parallels that of human exceptionalism, with the animal rights movement, which Singer does not represent and which rejects him, and does not understand what PETA is doing or what motivates animal rights workers. While SHS does great work, it also presents the fight against the death culture in a way that makes obvious the defensiveness and logical fallacies of "human exceptionalism," as I've seen Dark Swan point out here in the past.
Happy holidays to those who celebrate them. I have work to get done this weekend that wouldn't have to be done if it weren't for what human exceptionalism condones that helped to create the culture of death. Human, scientific, and medical arrogance share ground with human exceptionalism. Can't have cake and eat it too.
p.s. If you're going to beat the culture of death, Singer and his ilk can't be given the same status as other humans. That's what enabled the culture of death to take hold in the first place and enables it to advance. Is it a war or not; it is going to be won or not. Nothing wrong with hoisting them by their own petard. You can't protect the innocent and vulnerable by being courteous and according equal rights to those who would destroy them. Give them those rights, and they will take them from those we see them taking from already. They see life as only so many rooms at the inn and they want the room at the inn occupied by the more deserving, and they don't play fair; human exceptionalism gives it to them rather than shutting the door in their face and putting them out in the cold where they belong. Want to shut singer up and stop him, instead of his having a chair at Princeton? Tell him you'd favor the 1,000 pigs over his life. That's the only kind of thing his type understands, and it's what "human exceptionalism" can't and won't do, and that's why his ilk are running amok. It has nothing to do with the relative status of human and other animals -- that's a total red herring, and not even a relevant issue. The war against the culture of death is a matter of survival, and survival is a matter of winning, not of ideology.
Incredible...
lanthe, I have not "gone off" on you. Rather, you have ostensibly read my words and embarked on a complete tangent to the initial argument.
holyterror, thanks for summing that up so well. :)
I would be very willing to torture as many hogs as it took to keep one person alive. That will never happen because it's not a real scenario, but that's how PS gets off the hook.
Becky: No, the moment religion is mentioned, or the rights of animals, those who define themselves in terms of the former and, as part of the same mind-set, oppose the latter spin off with pre-conceived conclusions and unfounded assumptions.
Holyterror: That's why I'm more concerned about euthanasia than about abortion. But pro-lifers would call that a logical fallacy.
SAFEpres: The whole issue of relative status of human and non-human animals is a red herring. Status has nothing to do with it. That's why Singer's hypothesis about the 1,000 hogs is bogus and why it's not a real scenario. The issue is ethics, not status.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home