In fact, I am deeply troubled by the disparagement implied by a comparison between the direct saving of a nonhuman animal's life through rescue work and an opportunistic campaign like HSUS' call to boycott Canadian seafood until Canada bans the commercial seal hunt. I find this kind of opportunistic and misguided rhetoric to be damaging to an understanding of nonhumans as moral persons who call us to be honest, humble and diligent as their advocates, not to scene posturing.
There are, of course, moral complexities to adoption, rescue and sanctuary work and reasonable questions about its nature. However, we consider this work to be defensible. In fact, we consider it to be morally necessary, on the basis that nonhuman animals are rights-holders and that there are no morally acceptable alternatives to conducting rescue work with the present nonhuman animal population (even if some kinds of rescue work are preferable to others).
Further, we consider the vast majority of single-issue campaigns to be much closer to promoting vegetarianism, which we also consider to be morally and practically problematic. That is, in short, because it's possible to imagine a single-issue campaign that may be defensible from an abolitionist standpoint, it does not follow that all, many or most single-issue campaigns are either abolitionist or helpful to nonhuman animals generally or helpful to the species they purport to help. Adopting and restoring the personhood of another animal (another person) as best we can in a private home or shelter (and encouraging others to do the same) are qualitatively different actions.
Some additional thoughts follow:
First, it�s certainly possible that some adoption campaigns and virtually all single issue campaigns do reinforce societal prejudices about whether some animals are more valuable than others (even if that is not the intent of the authors). For example of the first, most people do already believe that cats and dogs are more morally important than other animals. Although not all rescue campaigns focus on dogs or cats for that matter, many do, and those may tend to reinforce a public perception that dogs and cats are more important than other animals, but it's not necessarily clear that this is the case. Adoption campaigns often focus on individual animals rather than on species, and that would tend to position them as individual persons who need saving rather than as species. For an example of the second, campaigns like HSUS� which position seals as more important than other marine animals almost certainly further convince the public that seals are more important than other marine animals.
Second, it�s also certainly possible that at least some adoption campaigns and very likely that many single issue campaigns, depending on how they are designed, may reinforce the notion that animals are our property or our resources. For example of the first, an adoption campaign with a headline like: �Need a new guard dog? Adopt today!� should be criticized because, obviously it unnecessarily reinforces the view that other animals exist for human use. For an example of the second, a single issue campaign that regulates the property status of nonhuman animals (the vast majority of single issue campaigns) by banning a particular use or treatment or by trying to improve treatment should also be criticized.
Third, and however, because people are left with the wrong impressions by some of our work, it does not necessarily follow that we should not fulfill our moral duties. For example, if I stop a pimp from beating a prostitute because I take nonviolence seriously, it may leave someone (Glenn Beck perhaps) with the impression that I support human trafficking. People often draw poor inferences. Of course, it would be best never to leave the public with the wrong impression, even if this is not always possible. Because it may be impossible to avoid confusing some people some of the time, however, it does not follow that we have a free pass to miseducate the public in any and all instances. There will be times when fulfilling our moral duties to other rights-holders outweighs the consequences of the public take-away. In our view, adoption, rescue and sanctuary work is often one of those exceptions.
Fourth, it does not follow from any of this that a campaign that addresses adoption or a campaign that addresses a particular species must (or should) reinforce either a sense that animals are our resources or that some animals are more important than others. It is simple enough to add language to any campaign to explain that animals are moral persons who have a right not to be used as property and that veganism is the moral baseline to taking that right seriously. That is, it is always possible to educate the public about abolitionist veganism and about particular actions with respect to nonhuman animals within context. In fact, it is likely that changes to the status of nonhuman animals generally and as individuals will be very up-hill until there are sufficient numbers of people who take animals seriously as moral persons.
That is, should we ever wish to make progress for nonhuman animals, the way to do so is to educate the public about rights and veganism as the practice of taking those rights seriously. Looking at the statistical evidence over the last 30 years in North America, animal use is growing faster than human population size in spite of intensive single-issue and welfare campaigning. Whether abolitionist outreach will be successful, regulationist approaches clearly aren't working in substantial ways to help nonhuman animals.
Fifth, single issue campaigns are frequently proposed as a way to get people into the movement. This is morally and practically problematic. It is misguided to think that we can, should or must "lure" or �trick� people into veganism. Moreover, this kind of activism promotes a view that because X attended an anti-fur demo once or just made a donation, X is an animal rights advocate. Unmistakably, this harms and muddies both the notion of animals rights and who is an animal rights proponent.
Further, single issue campaigning consumes resources that could be better utilized in a number of ways: SICs systematically miseducate the public only to have to re-educate them about what they owe other animals down the road, and it applies the same amount of effort to a single issue often for a single species rather than addressing all use at once and up front. Moreover, there is no meaningful moral difference between promoting a single issue campaign without promoting veganism and and promoting vegetarianism as "stepping stones". Neither is morally sound; neither is strategically or tactically sound. Adoption, however, is not a way to bring people into the movement either way; it is a way to save lives directly. An adoption campaign premised on "luring" people into the movement would be equally misguided.
Sixth, it seems clear that many animal organizations do not use the funds they receive for single issue campaigns for animal care. That is, SICs typically function as fundraising tools that do not help nonhuman animals directly. HSUS� campaigns are probably the poster child example. However, that is not often the case with rescue work to my knowledge. There are, of course, examples of elephant sanctuaries that sell elephant paintings or farm sanctuaries that sell eggs or pony rides. These actions should be criticized insofar as they reaffirm nonhuman animals as property. It doesn't follow from this that all SICs or all rescues are undertaken for economic opportunism. However, this kind of opportunism is less the case with animal rescues and adoption centers; when it is the case, this should be criticized.
Fifth, single issue campaigns are frequently proposed as a way to get people into the movement. This is morally and practically problematic. It is misguided to think that we can, should or must "lure" or �trick� people into veganism. Moreover, this kind of activism promotes a view that because X attended an anti-fur demo once or just made a donation, X is an animal rights advocate. Unmistakably, this harms and muddies both the notion of animals rights and who is an animal rights proponent.
Further, single issue campaigning consumes resources that could be better utilized in a number of ways: SICs systematically miseducate the public only to have to re-educate them about what they owe other animals down the road, and it applies the same amount of effort to a single issue often for a single species rather than addressing all use at once and up front. Moreover, there is no meaningful moral difference between promoting a single issue campaign without promoting veganism and and promoting vegetarianism as "stepping stones". Neither is morally sound; neither is strategically or tactically sound. Adoption, however, is not a way to bring people into the movement either way; it is a way to save lives directly. An adoption campaign premised on "luring" people into the movement would be equally misguided.
Sixth, it seems clear that many animal organizations do not use the funds they receive for single issue campaigns for animal care. That is, SICs typically function as fundraising tools that do not help nonhuman animals directly. HSUS� campaigns are probably the poster child example. However, that is not often the case with rescue work to my knowledge. There are, of course, examples of elephant sanctuaries that sell elephant paintings or farm sanctuaries that sell eggs or pony rides. These actions should be criticized insofar as they reaffirm nonhuman animals as property. It doesn't follow from this that all SICs or all rescues are undertaken for economic opportunism. However, this kind of opportunism is less the case with animal rescues and adoption centers; when it is the case, this should be criticized.
In short, while it�s possible that some shelters or sanctuaries do use nonhuman animals for profit, it is certainly not to the breadth or depth that an organization like HSUS focuses on single issues campaigns for profit. This kind of corruption is undoubtedly damaging to public perceptions of advocacy generally. Further, the proposal that animal advocates should be untruthful by omission as to the rights of all animals in their work in order to suit a given organization is misguided.
Seventh, ideological problems aside, it�s always possible to campaign poorly (for any cause, including for veganism). For example, just because a campaign is well-intended, it does not follow that it is not unintentionally harmful. For example, advocates often promote veganism in ways that are probably more harmful than helpful (e.g., as a way to �reduce suffering� of other animals rather than as a daily practice of what we owe other animals). Any campaign can inadvertently confuse the public, and this is why they should all be subject to critical scrutiny and improvement.
Eighth, there may be times when defending our personal companions requires exceptions to all of the above. But these are atypical cases. For example, I would definitely save my cats from a burning building. Further, if one of the cats were to somehow to escape and get lost after this rescue from the burning building, and was then being held at the local Humane Society, I would definitely pay the shelter�s fee to release the cat to me.
It doesn't follow from this that I believe cats as a species are more important than other animals, just that my cats are very important to me as moral persons for whom I have taken responsibility. Further, my moral duties to my companions would outweigh consequences in terms of public perceptions. Finally, it is worth noting that there is a substantial difference between an advocate engaging in work to defend persons for whom they have agreed to care and a large animal �advocacy� organization creating a campaign to drive fundraising dollars around a single issue.
Ninth, because specific expressions of one type of activism may be problematic, it does not follow that we should never engage in it. Adoption/rescue/sanctuary work, for example, is a moral necessity. There are a number of moral complexities involved with adoption, rescue and sanctuary work. However, there is no morally acceptable alternative if we consider the nonhuman refugees we have either enslaved from the wild or bred for different purposes who are now dependent on us. We are not in any moral position to say: don�t adopt! Close the sanctuary! We also should not promote the �euthanasia� of healthy animals who could be housed in sanctuaries, and so on.
Finally, there is always a morally acceptable alternative to single issues campaigns, and that�s abolitionist vegan education. The notion that we should engage in the harm of reinforcing social prejudices against some animals to benefit the movement is exactly the kind of speciesism and anthropocentrism animal advocates are supposed to oppose. There may be cases when our options are limited, but single issue campaigning is rarely ever one of them. Many animals are dying unnecessarily because of human fancy. Some in factory farms. Some in shelters. Some in family farms. Some in the wild. Some on vivisectors� tables. Regardless of their species, if they are sentient, they are all equal in their right not to be used as property. All of this violence is morally wrong.
In that light, it would not only be perfectly morally acceptable, it would be morally preferable, to never engage in single-issue work and to promote abolitionist veganism exclusively as an end to all of this violence. There may be rare exceptions to this, but it doesn�t follow from this that we should base our typical activism around exceptional cases. That we may act in a particular way in exceptional circumstances, it does not follow that we are justified or excused in typical circumstances. Someone who eats a fellow castaway on a lifeboat with no hope of rescue would probably be excused. Someone who kills and eats a fellow shopper at Walmart because �they�re hongry!� would not be.
In contrast to single issue campaigns, however, it is incompatible to propose that we take nonhuman animals as rights-holders seriously on one-hand, but to treat those we have created or enslaved as moral burdens we can cast off and allow to starve or freeze to death. In short, proposing that we abandon rescue and sanctuary work would be morally derelict in terms of our obligations to nonhuman animals. To propose that we should abandon single issue campaigning does not cause similar moral or practical problems (in fact, it would eliminate many of the unnecessary moral and practical problems that surround single issue campaigns).
But the most important thing any of us can do to help other animals is to go vegan. If you�re not vegan, please go vegan today. If you are not an abolitionist, but want to learn more about the approach, please read through my other articles or visit www.abolitionistapproach.com.
Seventh, ideological problems aside, it�s always possible to campaign poorly (for any cause, including for veganism). For example, just because a campaign is well-intended, it does not follow that it is not unintentionally harmful. For example, advocates often promote veganism in ways that are probably more harmful than helpful (e.g., as a way to �reduce suffering� of other animals rather than as a daily practice of what we owe other animals). Any campaign can inadvertently confuse the public, and this is why they should all be subject to critical scrutiny and improvement.
Eighth, there may be times when defending our personal companions requires exceptions to all of the above. But these are atypical cases. For example, I would definitely save my cats from a burning building. Further, if one of the cats were to somehow to escape and get lost after this rescue from the burning building, and was then being held at the local Humane Society, I would definitely pay the shelter�s fee to release the cat to me.
It doesn't follow from this that I believe cats as a species are more important than other animals, just that my cats are very important to me as moral persons for whom I have taken responsibility. Further, my moral duties to my companions would outweigh consequences in terms of public perceptions. Finally, it is worth noting that there is a substantial difference between an advocate engaging in work to defend persons for whom they have agreed to care and a large animal �advocacy� organization creating a campaign to drive fundraising dollars around a single issue.
Ninth, because specific expressions of one type of activism may be problematic, it does not follow that we should never engage in it. Adoption/rescue/sanctuary work, for example, is a moral necessity. There are a number of moral complexities involved with adoption, rescue and sanctuary work. However, there is no morally acceptable alternative if we consider the nonhuman refugees we have either enslaved from the wild or bred for different purposes who are now dependent on us. We are not in any moral position to say: don�t adopt! Close the sanctuary! We also should not promote the �euthanasia� of healthy animals who could be housed in sanctuaries, and so on.
Finally, there is always a morally acceptable alternative to single issues campaigns, and that�s abolitionist vegan education. The notion that we should engage in the harm of reinforcing social prejudices against some animals to benefit the movement is exactly the kind of speciesism and anthropocentrism animal advocates are supposed to oppose. There may be cases when our options are limited, but single issue campaigning is rarely ever one of them. Many animals are dying unnecessarily because of human fancy. Some in factory farms. Some in shelters. Some in family farms. Some in the wild. Some on vivisectors� tables. Regardless of their species, if they are sentient, they are all equal in their right not to be used as property. All of this violence is morally wrong.
In that light, it would not only be perfectly morally acceptable, it would be morally preferable, to never engage in single-issue work and to promote abolitionist veganism exclusively as an end to all of this violence. There may be rare exceptions to this, but it doesn�t follow from this that we should base our typical activism around exceptional cases. That we may act in a particular way in exceptional circumstances, it does not follow that we are justified or excused in typical circumstances. Someone who eats a fellow castaway on a lifeboat with no hope of rescue would probably be excused. Someone who kills and eats a fellow shopper at Walmart because �they�re hongry!� would not be.
In contrast to single issue campaigns, however, it is incompatible to propose that we take nonhuman animals as rights-holders seriously on one-hand, but to treat those we have created or enslaved as moral burdens we can cast off and allow to starve or freeze to death. In short, proposing that we abandon rescue and sanctuary work would be morally derelict in terms of our obligations to nonhuman animals. To propose that we should abandon single issue campaigning does not cause similar moral or practical problems (in fact, it would eliminate many of the unnecessary moral and practical problems that surround single issue campaigns).
But the most important thing any of us can do to help other animals is to go vegan. If you�re not vegan, please go vegan today. If you are not an abolitionist, but want to learn more about the approach, please read through my other articles or visit www.abolitionistapproach.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment