Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation

Brian Luke Virginia Polytechnic Institute

Editors' Note: The following paper by Profe.~or Luke and commentary by Professor Menta were presented at the Eastern Division meetings of the Society for Regan attempts to move the reader from a commit­ the Study of Ethics and Animals, held in ment to the respectful treatment of humans to a like New York City, New York, December, 1991. commitment to the respectful treatment of normal adult mammals. (Regan 1983) Regan points out that we do not in general think it justifiable to harm one human to benefit others-we would object, for example, to killing a healthy man against hjs will in order to use his organs to save three sick people. We do, however, think it appropriate to harm one animal to benefit other animals, human or otherwise; at least this is the way that vivisection, hunting, and animal farming Carol Gilligan bas described justice and caring as are usually justified. two distinct moral frameworks or orientations to ethical Regan argues that we are being inconsistent in concerns. (Gilligan 1982) The justice framework is treating humans and other mammals differently in this characterized by abstraction, the application of general respect. The notion of inconsistency here is not self­ rules ofconduct, an emphasis on restraining aggression, contradiction but contradiction with the formal principle and a concern for consistency and the fair resolution of of justice, according to which like individuals should conflicting claims and interests. The caring framework, be treated alike. Now we protect humans against being on the other hand, is characterized by its focus on the vivisected, fanned, or hunted, presumably because such concrete and particular, its emphasis on the maintenance treatment would harm them through the infliction of and extension of connection, and by its concern for pain and death. But Regan has shown in the first three responsiveness and the satisfaction of needs. Animal chapters of his book that pain and death are also harms liberation is often framed as a justice issue, though, I to normal adult mammals. So these animals are just as will suggest, it may more appropriately be understood deserving of protection from vivisection, farming, and in terms of caring. hunting as are humans. Because both humans and other By "animal liberation" I mean opposition to mammals are harmed by pain and death. the two groups institutions of animal exploitation such as vivisection, are relevantly similar, and we are inconsistent to treat hunting, and animal farming. Two prominent them so differently. philosophical defenders of animal liberation are Tom Regan and Peter Singer. Both work exclusively within the justice framework, presenting animal liberation as a matter of consistency and fair treatment, rather than in terms of responsiveness and the satisfaction of needs. We can start to see how the justice approach is ill-suited PHILOSOPHY for animal liberation by considering the arguments of Regan and Singer.

Between the Species 100 Spring 1992

Species Species the the Between Between 101 101 1992 1992 Spring Spring

reasons: reasons: then then He He 1983:97) 1983:97) (Frey (Frey humans. humans. marginal marginal of of the the give give to to tend tend we we because because only only practices practices acceptable acceptable

vivisection vivisection the the condone condone or or vivisection vivisection animal animal oppose oppose considered considered are are maintains, maintains, Singer Singer vivisection, vivisection, and and

either either dilemma: dilemma: a a present present argument argument to to cases cases marginal marginal the the farming farming animal animal But But consideration. consideration. equal equal of of principle principle

takes takes He He this. this. does does Frey Frey G. G. R. R. humans. humans. marginal marginal protect this this of of scope scope the the from from excluded excluded be be should should they they why why

to to commitment commitment the the up up giving giving by by simply simply circumvented circumvented Singer, Singer, to to according according reason, reason, no no is is there there so so interests, interests,

be be may may argument argument the the hand, hand, one one the the On On rights. rights. have have have have pain, pain, or or pleasure pleasure feeling feeling of of capable capable those those all all least least

animals animals that that proving proving in in arguments arguments main main Singer's Singer's and and at at animals, animals, But But sex. sex. or or race race their their of of regardless regardless people, people,

Regan's Regan's than than successful successful more more no no is is cases," cases," marginal marginal all all of of interests interests the the to to consideration consideration equal equal give give must must we we

from from argument argument "the "the called called thought, thought, of of line line This This which which to to according according consideration, consideration, equal equal of of principle principle

liberation. liberation. animal animal support support thus thus a a of of basis basis the the on on so so does does sexism sexism and and racism racism opposes opposes

and and animals animals nonhuman nonhuman include include also also will will subjectivity) subjectivity) who who anyone anyone that that argues argues Singer Singer sexism. sexism. and and racism racism to to

or or sentience sentience (e.g., (e.g., humans humans marginal include include to to enough enough opposition opposition with with but but humans humans for for respect respect with with not not starts starts

broad broad criterion criterion any any But But considerability. considerability. of of criterion criterion Singer Singer 1) 1) chapter chapter 1975, 1975, (Singer (Singer animals. animals. of of treatment treatment

inclusive inclusive more more some some of of adoption adoption the the and and Kantianism Kantianism appropriate appropriate the the concerning concerning commitments commitments similar similar

of of rejection rejection the the entails entails humanity humanity of of cases" cases" "marginal "marginal to to humans humans of of treatment treatment appropriate appropriate the the concerning concerning

so-called so-called these these protect protect to to commitment commitment a a Thus, Thus, comas. comas. in in commitments commitments from from consistency, consistency, of of considerations considerations

or or damage damage brain brain with with people people and and individuals, individuals, retarded retarded through through reader, reader, the the move move to to attempts attempts Singer Singer Regan, Regan, Like Like

mentally mentally infants, infants, as as such such humans, humans, nonrational nonrational many many liberation. liberation. animal animal for for argument argument Singer's Singer's of of rejection rejection

to to permission permission gives gives also also it But harm harm enough). enough). narrowly narrowly allows allows maneuver maneuver of of type type same same the the Essentially Essentially

defined defined is is rationality rationality (if (if animals animals to permission permission one one harm harm rights. animal animal for for case case Regan's Regan's

1 1

give give does does considerability considerability moral moral for for condition condition necessary necessary reject reject consistently consistently can can they they whole, whole, a a as as argument argument his his to to

a a as as rationality rationality Taking Taking 1990) 1990) Singer Singer 1979, 1979, Regan Regan crucial crucial is is move move this this Since Since animals." animals." other other and and humans humans

1975, 1975, Singer Singer (see (see arguments. arguments. their their of rebuttals rebuttals Kantian Kantian both both for for justification justification same same the the require require pain pain inflicting inflicting and and

for for response response following following the the have have Singer Singer and and Regan Regan "killing "killing to to are are animals" animals" other other and and humans humans both both for for harms harms

alone. alone. reason reason by by established established be be cannot cannot pain pain and and "death "death from from move move Regan's Regan's reject reject inconsistency inconsistency

similar, similar, relevantly relevantly are are animals animals other other without without can can humans humans they they tl:tat tl:tat theories, theories, and and these these embrace embrace to to willing willing

arguments, arguments, their their in in step step crucial crucial the the But But conclusions. conclusions. are are readers readers Regan's Regan's as as long long as as that that saying saying only only am am I I

liberationist liberationist animal animal their their establish establish to to emotion, emotion, capacities. capacities. human human uniquely uniquely are are there there that that idea idea the the with

not not and and alone, alone, reason reason on on or or relying relying are are they they Kantianism Kantianism that that with with insist insist agree agree I I that that saying saying not not am am I I

writers writers Both Both terms. terms. own own their their on on fail fail arguments arguments Singer's Singer's killed. killed. being being by by harmed harmed are are both both though though even even

and and Regan's Regan's that that showing showing just just am am I I anin:tal, anin:tal, here. here. nonrational nonrational a a Kantianism Kantianism for killing killing for needed needed not justification justification

endorsing endorsing not not am am I I that that emphasize emphasize I I Again Again special special require require would would human human rational rational a a killing killing Thus, Thus,

humans. humans. of of capacities capacities rationality. rationality. victim's victim's the the upon upon impingement impingement its its from from

rational rational the the lack lack they they tl:tat tl:tat holding holding only only by by arises arises harm harm the the consideration, consideration, of of wrongness wrongness the the tl:tat tl:tat but but animals, animals,

moral moral from from nonhumans nonhumans exclude exclude other other and and consistently consistently humans humans to to then then both both harm harm a a killing killing is is that that hold hold

could could One One sex. sex. and and races races oppressed oppressed could could the the of of Kantian Kantian A A members members wronged. wronged. directly directly be be can can individuals individuals

of of rationality rationality the the of of disrespectful disrespectful are are rational rational they they only only because because theories, theories, Kantian Kantian to to according according fact, fact, In In

objectionable objectionable are are racism racism and and sexism sexism that that nonhumans. nonhumans. on on however, however, imposed imposed be be can can which which one one is is question question in in

maintain, maintain, could could One One interests. interests. of of of type type consideration consideration the the when when equal equal even even harm harm individual, individual, that that harming harming of

of of principle principle the the on on based based must must be be racism racism and and justif:tability justif:tability the the sexism sexism relevant relevant is is to to to to individual individual an an in in capacities capacities

opposition opposition tl:tat tl:tat presumes presumes Singer Singer human human inconsistency. inconsistency. uniquely uniquely of of without without presence presence the the that that conceivable conceivable

is is argument argument and and entire entire humans, humans, it it to to Singer's Singer's reject reject unique unique can can be be view view may may Kantian Kantian a a capacities capacities

accept accept certain certain that that willing willing to to allows allows anyone anyone Regan Regan harms. harms. however, however, common common Regan, Regan, with with these these of As As status status

moral moral the the speciesism. speciesism. assessing assessing not not to to respect respect with with similar similar relevantly relevantly

are are animals animals other other and and but but humans humans that that racism racism show show and and not not sexism sexism does does oppose oppose to to inconsistent inconsistent are are we we

itself itself by by this this But But animals. animals. other other that that and and shows shows humans humans both both argument argument for for his his thinks thinks he he and and "speciesism," "speciesism,"

harms harms are are death death and and pain pain that that calls calls admit admit would would Singer Singer us us of of species species Most Most of of basis basis the the on on solely solely interests interests

similarity. similarity. relevant relevant to to harms harms of of kinds kinds same same from from move move of of devaluation devaluation This This humans. humans. of of interests interests similar similar the the

the the is is emphasize emphasize to to wish wish I I argument argument this this in in flaw flaw The The than than consideration consideration less less much much nonhumans nonhumans of of interests interests

Liberation Liberation Animal Animal and and Caring, Caring, Justice, Justice, Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation

[V]ery few people indeed would look in the any unavoidable inconsistency in supporting the face the benefits which medical research in exploitation of animals in vivisection and in farming particular has conferred upon us, benefits while rejecting any similar exploitation of humans. which on the whole have most certainly Animal liberation is not a matter of consistency. involved vivisections .... [11berefore, we may fmd ourselves unable to make the choice in As arguments, justice-based approaches to animal favour of antivivisectionism .... Accordingly, liberation fail. The justice orientation also fails to we are left with human experiments. I think capture the moral outlooks of many in the animal this is how I would choose, not with great glee liberation movement. Justice-oriented writers cast the and rejoicing, and with great reluctance; but issue as, fundamentally, a comparison between the if this is the price we must pay. to bold the treatment ofhumans and the treatment ofother animals. appeal to benefit and to enjoy the benefits According to Regan, we harm animals to benefit others, which that appeal licenses, then we must, I we do not do this to humans (generally speaking), but think, pay it. (Frey 1983:97) there is no relevant difference between humans and animals to justify the dissimilar treatment. Thus animals Frey forgets that "we" academics, presumably are treated unfairly by comparison to the treatment of (hopefully?) escaping classification as marginal, would humans. For Singer, the comparative unfairness is in not be the ones to pay the real price for a choice in opposing sexism and racism but not opposing favor of vivisection. speciesism, when again there is no relevant difference Even those ofus not quite able to match Frey's noble between humans and other anim~ls to support the sacrifice of other humans to vivisection can still distinction. For both Regan and Singer, and other writers consistently evade the marginal cases argument, if we within the justice framework, the basic moral judgment are so inclined. Suppose we '1ustify" the vivisection of concerns the discrepancy between the treatment of animals by reference to their supposed lack ofrationality. humans and the treatment ofother similar animals. What And suppose we allow that some humans also lack this is called into question is the fairness, or what they more rationality. This does not imply that we must vivisect often refer to as the consistency, ofa society which treats marginal humans, only that we may. Thus, the protection two relevantly similar groups of individuals in such of marginal humans could be made consistent with the totally different ways. vivisection ofanimals possessing comparable degrees The emphasis on the consistency of the agent and of rationality by interpreting that protection as the focus on comparing the treatment of humans and supererogatory. According to this line ofthought we may the treatment of other animals are quite distant from vivisect marginal humans, because, like nonhuman my motivations and those of others in the animal animals, they lack a right to protection, butfor nonbinding liberation movement. My opposition to the institu­ reasons we decide only to vivisect the nonhuman animals. tionalized exploitation of animals is not based on a This stratagem is employed by Bonnie Steinbock: comparison between human and animal treatment but on a consideration of the abuse of the animals by itself. I am willing to admit that my horror at the I respond directly to the needs and the plight of the thOught of experiments being performed on animals used in vivisection, bunting and farming. In severely mentally incapacitated human objecting to these practices I am not comparing the beings in cases in which I would find it treatment of humans and animals and thinking "this is justifiable and preferable to perform the same unfair because humans are protected from such usage." experiments on non-human animals (capable I am appalled by the abuses in aud of themselves­ of similar suffering) may not be a moral shooting, trapping, and poisoning; branding, castrating, emotion. But it is certainly not wrong of us to forcibly impregnating, separating mother and young, extend special care to members of our own tail docking, debeaking, confining, transporting in cattle species. (Steinbock 1978:256) cars, and slaughtering; burning, cutting, gassing, starving, asphyxiating, decapitating, decompressing, So like their main arguments, Regan's and Singer's irradiating, electrocuting, freezing, crushing, paralyzing, backup argument from marginal cases fails to show amputating, excising organs, removing parts of the

Between the Species 102 Spring 1992

Species Species the the Between Between 103 103 1992 1992

.. .. it.. it.. under under still still stood stood heart heart my my that that anguish anguish animal animal which which on on reactions reactions the the from from essentially essentially differ differ

mental mental extreme extreme such such of of wave wave a a me me over over not not do do describe describe they they reactions reactions the the but but liberationists, liberationists,

swept swept there there and and presence, presence, actual actual its its in in time time first first animal animal as as themselves themselves identify identify not not do do students students

the the for for then then myself myself found found I I vivisection, vivisection, about about these these Now Now caring. caring. of of elements elements hamburger"--all hamburger"--all into into

day day that that before before written, written, even even and and said, said, and and turned turned animal animal big big "a "a of of waste waste the the and and loss loss the the of of sense sense

heard heard had had I I as as Much Much listened. listened. and and alone alone down down a a friends, friends, animal animal of of memories memories life, life, his his for for struggling struggling

I I and and me, me, left left he he Therewith Therewith ...... laboratory." laboratory." sat sat animal animal an an for for pity pity bloodshed, bloodshed, at at revulsion revulsion rather, rather, but, but,

Beclard's Beclard's Monsieur Monsieur in in vivisected vivisected being being dogs dogs humans," humans," to to that that do do don't don't we we because because wrong wrong is is head head

the the only only is is grin, grin, a a "It "It with with replied replied He He meant. meant. it it steer's steer's this this off off "cutting "cutting as, as, such such justice justice of of judgments judgments

what what asked asked and and him him museum, museum, the the of of charge charge in in comparative comparative not not are are here here described described reactions reactions The The

porter porter the the called called I I building. building. of side side the the another another

on on chamber chamber some some from from proceeding proceeding convey, convey, 130) 130) 1983: 1983: McGee McGee & & (Herzog (Herzog hamburger. hamburger.

can can words words than than distressing distressing more more character character into into turned turned animal animal big big a a seeing seeing bad bad It's It's cow. cow.

a a of of screams, screams, of of burst burst frightful frightful a a by by disturbed disturbed the the for for bad bad really really feel feel I I all all Plus, Plus, day. day. heaves heaves

suddenly suddenly Museum, Museum, History History Natural Natural the the the the dry dry having having like like don't don't I I gross. gross. pretty pretty It's It's

in in alone alone studying studying while while morning, morning, one one was was I I

wrote: wrote: man man 19-year-old 19-year-old A A

1991:134) 1991:134) (Adams (Adams "sausage." "sausage."

or or "bacon," "bacon," "bam," "bam," eating eating or or buying buying people people 1983:129-30) 1983:129-30) McGee McGee & & (Herzog (Herzog them. them.

witness witness when when information information I I this this visualize visualize I I butcher butcher them-but them-but to to I I attached attached quite quite . . don~ don~

vegetarian, vegetarian, a a and and consumer consumer a a As As wretched. wretched. so so became became and and home home at at 4-H 4-H for for calves calves raised raised I I

seems seems experience experience nursing nursing whose whose and and denied denied because because person person usual usual the the than than more more me me affects affects

been been have have freedoms freedoms reproductive reproductive whose whose slaughtering slaughtering guess guess left. left. so so it it do do I I couldn't couldn't I I I I

sow sow the the with with empathize empathize mother, mother, lactating lactating I I saw. saw. a a with with head head the the off cut cut to to me me told told Mr._

a a As As ...... pets pets as as popularity popularity increased increased animals' animals' ceiling. ceiling. the the at at look look to to had had so so up, up, pointing pointing feet feet I I

these these by by evidenced evidenced is is sociability sociability extreme extreme his his and and open open eyes eyes its its with with steer steer that that at at look look to to

whose whose pig, pig, each each with with sympathize sympathize and and to to feeling feeling awful awful an an was was blood. blood. of of It It amount amount the the

subjected subjected is is pig pig individual individual each each what what at at horror horror at at amazed amazed was was I I slaughter.room slaughter.room the the to to walked walked

with with level level emotional emotional an an on on respond respond ...... sheds I I I I when when Then Then away. away. get get to to anything anything doing doing

confinement confinement windowless windowless near-dark, near-dark, indoor, indoor, was was He He him. him. to to happen happen to to going going was was what what

in in raised raised now now are are pigs pigs of of all all percent percent Ninety Ninety sensed sensed steer steer that the the that tell tell could could I I line. line. waiting waiting

the the into into steer steer a a pulled pulled and and haltered haltered just just had had

1988:113) 1988:113) (Lorenz (Lorenz time. time. long long a a for for of of care care I I room room slaughter slaughter 1 the the into into went went time time first first The The

taken taken one one that that animal animal bas bas any any to to do do to to difficult difficult

is is very very This This cow. cow. a a slaughter slaughter to to myself myself bring bring wrote: wrote: woman woman 19-year-old 19-year-old

never never could could ...... I I veal veal rarely rarely but but One One meat meat eat eat I I curriculum. curriculum. their of of part part as as farm farm a a on on worked worked

it. it. from from who who profit profit students students derive derive college college from from quotes quotes contains contains slaughter slaughter

who who people people those those of of enough enough of of had had have have psychology psychology will will the the on on study study 1983 1983 A A about. about. talking talking

you you then then help, help, for for cry cry calf's calf's am am the the I I understand understand responsiveness responsiveness direct direct of of sort sort the the show show clearly clearly

which which can can you you if if discourse discourse of of bleating, bleating, examples examples calves calves of of some some give give me me hundreds hundreds Let Let

heard heard have have and and fattened fattened being being fairness. fairness. of of are are animals animals considerations considerations

where where stable stable a a before before stood stood not not ever ever and and have have you you sympathy sympathy of of out out again, again, but but that, that, to to too, too, object object

If If culture. culture. human human in in I I chapters chapters ways ways shameful shameful these these in in most most treated treated also also are are humans humans that that extent extent the the

and and darkest darkest the the of of one one doubt doubt To To a a abuse. abuse. without without is is such such ...... from from protected protected are are humans humans whether whether

of of animals, animals, question question of the the of of maintenance maintenance independent independent is is production-line production-line and and [T]he [T]he animals, animals,

the the for for sympathy sympathy my my from from directly directly arises arises acts acts the the of of

condemnation condemnation moral moral My My animals. animals. the the to to do do they they what what completely: completely: or or partially partially either either

of of because because repellant repellant are are acts acts liberation, liberation, disease-these disease-these animal animal imposing imposing support support do do who who people people by by statements statements

and and addiction, addiction, inducing inducing isolating, isolating, following following the the socially socially brain, brain, Consider Consider based. based. often often is is liberation liberation

Liberation Liberation Animal Animal and and Caring, Caring, Justice, Justice, Justice, and Animal Liberation

And then and there, burying my face in my I will now describe why they believe this and why I hands, with tears ofagony I prayed for strength think they are mistaken. and courage to labour effectually for the Regan questions whether an ethic of care can "go abolition of so vile a wrong, and to do at least far enough." (Regan 1991:95) He asks: what one heart and voice might to root this curse of torture from the land. (Anna [W]hat are the resources within the ethic of Kingsford, quoted in Vyvyan 1988:122-23) care that can move people to consider the ethics of their dealings with individuals who No comparisons ofhuman and animal treatment, or stand outside the existing circle oftheir valued fixation on one's own consistency; upon seeing or interpersonal relationships?... [U]nless we hearing how the animals are abused, there is an supplement the ethic of care with some other immediate reaction directed against that treatment, motivating force-some other grounding of and based on that reaction, a moral judgment and our moral judgment-we run the grave risk decision to act. that our ethic will be excessive} y conservative In response to the criticism that their justice and will blind us to those obligations we have approach misses the fundamental importance of direct to people for whom we are indifferent sympathetic responsiveness in the actual motivations Nowhere, perhaps, is this possibility more of activists, Regan and Singer could point out that their evident than in the case of our moral dealings work is not descriptive but nonnative, that is, that they with nonhuman animals. The plain fact is, most are not trying to describe animal rights activists and people do not care very much about what their psyches (ala Susan Sperling (1988) or Keith Tester happens to them .... (1991)) but, rather, to set out the best reasons we have And thus it is that a feminist ethic that is for accepting the animal rights position. Such a response limited to an ethic of care will, I think, be would be inadequate in two ways. First, it is doubtful unable to illuminate the moral significance of that justice-based arguments do present the best reasons the idea that we (human) animals are not for animal liberation, given that those arguments are superiortoallotheranimals. (Regan 1991:95-6) unsound, as I have shown above. More importantly, this response would incompletely characterize the projects To remedy this supposed limitation ofthe caring approach Singer and Regan take for themselves, since, besides Regan suggests the marshalling of "consistency" attempting to construct sound arguments, both writers arguments such as those I have already discussed. explicitly indicate that they also want to further the Singer does "not think that an appeal to sympathy animal liberation movement. This second part of their and goodheartedness alone will convince most people project, I would suggest, makes it incumbent upon them ofthe wrongness of speciesism." (Singer 1975:255) He to attend to the actual motivations of activists. places his distrust of the caring approach within a Arguments with little relation to the ethics of those who sociobiological framework. In The Expanding Circle already affmn animal liberation are unlikely to bring (Singer 1981), be argues that humans are disposed new people into the movement or to help present towards kin altruism, reciprocal altruism, and group activists maintain their commitment. Those of us who altruism, and that these dispositions can be explained write or speak to move others should make presentations in evolutionary terms. Singer sees the capacity to reason consonant with the real processes by which individuals and the practice of reason-giving as evolving come to reject animal farming, vivisection, and hunting. independently of the evolution of our sympathetic In fact, Regan and Singer believe that they are dispositions. Reason, however, can act to override taking these processes sufficiently into account in narrow sympathies, to expand our considemtion beyond constructing their justice-based arguments. Each that yielded by kin, reciprocal, and group altruism. believes that sympathetic responsiveness to animals Singer argues that is an insufficient basis for the development of an animal rights perspective in most individuals. They altruistic impulses once limited to one's kin feel that justice-based argumentation, or what they call and one's own group might be extended to "reason," is necessary to augment people's sympathies. a wider circle by reasoning creatures who

Between the Species 104 Spring 1992 Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation

can see that they and their kin are one group impel their interlocutors to animal liberation through among others, and from an impartial point charges ofinconsistency. This is precisely Regan's and of view no more important than others. Singer's justice-based strategy. (Singer 1981:134) Now, I can understand how one might conclude that people do not care about animals, given the So, for Singer, humans have evolved instinctive existence of such horrendous institutions as vivi­ capacities to respond sympathetically only to a few section, factory farming, and sport bunting. Regan's individuals closely similar to or associated with and Singer's accounts, however, involve an overly themselves. Therefore reason, in the form of the simplistic understanding of the limitations of people's principle of equal consideration of interests, must be sympathies. For Regan it is a "plain fact" that people applied for consideration to be extended to other clans, do not care about animals, while for Singer it is a races, and species. genetic fact. On the contrary, I contend that this state of affairs is not "plain" but rather ornate, and it is not genetic but socially constructed. Animal exploitation thrives not because people fail to care but in spite of the fact that they do care. The disposition to care for animals is not the unreliable quirk ofa few, but is, rather, the normal state of humans generally. AsAndree Collard puts it: "Our common bond with animals is natural (of nature), normal (of the norm), and healthy (wholesome)." (Collard 1989:70) If we shift our attention away from animal exploitation to other cultural phenomena, we can see the strength and depth of the human-animal bond. I will just mention four examples.

(1) Pet-keeping. The practice of keeping animals as companions, in its cross-cultural prevalence and its frequently avid pursuit, demonstrates the strength and depth of human interest in and affection for nonhuman animals. Approximately halfofall contemporary Americans and Europeans have pets at any given time. Many theories of pet­ keeping downplay affectional ties, instead characterizing pets as, for example, status symbols or objects ofdomination. While this may accurately characterize some human-pet relationships, companionship and affection are by far the most important elements motivating pet-keeping in our society. In one survey, for example, pet-owners Given their low estimation of the human capacity ranked companionship, love and affection, and to sympathize with nonhumans, we can understand why pleasure, respectively, as the top three "advantages" Regan and Singer might feel that their justice-oriented of owning a pet. (Quigley, et a/1983:271) And as approaches to animal liberation are essential. Ifpeople James Serpell has shown, the common practice of do not care for animals, then supporters of animal pet-keeping among tribal cultures, like pet-keeping liberation cannot presume that such affections are in industrial Europe and America, is characterized present in those they are trying to persuade. At best, by strong affection for pets, great efforts to keep they can assume the presence of some concern for pets, and views of pets as family and community humans and use this concern as a fulcrum, trying to members. (Serpell1986, chapter 4)

Spring 1992 105 Between the Species Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation

(2) Therapy. Many people either socially withdrawn or victim's ear: "This deed was done by all the gods; I in depressed states have been helped through the did not do it" (168); the Nuer people of the Sudan companionship of animals. These people were justify their consumption of cattle blood by claiming unable to interact positively with other humans that periodic bleeding is beneficial to the animals' but could establish a connection with a friendly health (153), while the Ainu of Japan also claim to animal, often a dog or a cat. (see Beck & Katcher benefit the bears they eat, by maintaining that bears 1983, chapter 8) This reinforces what most of us want to return to the spirit realm from which they already recognize, that bonds with animals are came (148). Western civilization bas its own sometimes easier to establish and maintain than expiatory myths, most outstandingly the biblical bonds with humans. fable of divinely granted dominion over animals, and the scientific denial of animal subjectivity (3) Rescue. You may recall from 1988 the plight ofthree (originally expressed as Cartesian animal autom­ California gray whales off the coast of Point Barrow, atism, now more circumspectly maintained as Alaska. The ice-boles through which the whales operational behaviorism). were surfacing to breathe were in the process of freezing over; which would result in the whales All these rituals and myths serve in some way to drowning. A rescue attempt was mounted, which reduce the guilt-feelings of those who harm animals. ultimately cost $5.8 million and directly involved The general occurrence of guilt-mediating mechanisms all the following: local subsistence whalers, around systems of animal exploitation contradicts the professional biologists, environmental activists, 150 notion that humans are naturally ~ndifferent toward journalists, the oil industry, U.S. National Guard, animal welfare. People are generally inclined against and the American and Soviet federal governments. harming animals: otherwise, there would be no need (Rose 1989) If we ask why the rescue was pursued for social mechanisms which make killing somewhat atsuch great lengths, a cynical answer in terms of more bearable-the exploitation of animals would be the self-interest of the participants would be to some as psychologically straightforward as, say, drinking extent correct But to leave it at that would give a water or breathing air. very superficial and distorted understanding of the Attention to social phenomena such as pet-keeping, final cause of the rescue. The participation of these animal rescues, therapeutic human-animal relationships, groups in the whales' rescue served their interests and the ubiquity of expiatory mechanisms around only by virtue of a deep and widespread concern animal exploitation brings a realization of the depth for the whales' well-being among people generally. of the human-animal connection. This realization The media, for example, cannot play to emotions shifts the question, from Regan's and Singer's "How people do not have: whale rescues boost ratings can we get people to oppose animal exploitation, given because people care about whales, especially whales that they don't care?" to "How does animal exploi­ that have become individualized through their tation continue, given that people do care?'' The special circumstances. answer I would give to this latter question is that animal exploitation continues with great difficulty. (4) Expiation. James Serpell describes the almost Enormous amounts of social energy are expended to universal presence, in cultures which hunt or forestall, undermine, and override our sympathies for slaughter animals, ofmechanisms for mediating the animals, so that vivisection, animal farming, and sport guilt which such exploitation engenders. (Serpell bunting can continue. 1986: chapters 10 and 11) Mechanisms which Let me mention just a few of the myriad practices soothe the consciences of those who harm animals our society has developed to overcome opposition to take many forms. Consider the following: many harming animals. African tribes perform elaborate cleansing and There is a great deal of concealment and distortion purification ceremonies after killing an animal, of what is done to animals in laboratories and on farms. others apologize to the slain (Serpell 1986:145); Vivisectors self-consciously conceal the effects of their ancient Babylonian priests, as part of the rite of activities from the public, through such measures as animal sacrifice, would whisper in the slangbtered removing the vocal cords of vivisected dogs (so their

Between the Species 106 Spring 1992 ------·------,---­

Justice, and Animal Liberation

tortured howling does not attract sympathy) and vivisected animals from taking a political stand against disposing of carcasses surreptitiously. Special animal exploitation.2 terminology blunts awareness of what is done, such as Finally, numerous systems of reward and punish­ "terminate," "dispatch," and "sacrifice" for killing. The ment insure that complicity with animal exploitation meat industry also employs euphemisms, preferring, for takes precedence over compassion. Children who are example, "meat-packing" to "slaughtering." And the aghast at discovering the true origin ofmeat are forced images of farm life presented in advertising and by their parents to continue eating the dead flesh; children's books consistently show contented animals aspiring vivisectors fmd that the lure of professional living in harmony with human guardians, rather than acclaim and financial comfort overcomes their initial the nightmarish reality of the factory farm and the inhibitions against killing and imposing disease; and slaughterhouse. slaughterhouse employees, hating every minute on the Beyond obscuring what is done to animals, there job, stomach it when no other jobs pay decent wages. are also social mechanisms for negating the existence (see Thompson 1983) of the animals themselves. I have already mentioned To sum up: Justice-based arguments for animal the denial of animal subjectivity which has become liberation fail. But my own experience and the reports intrinsic to scientific "objectivity." Our everyday of others lead me to believe that direct responsiveness language also removes the individual intentionality of to need is more central to animal liberationism than exploited animals from awareness, through terms such concerns about consistency anyway. And contrary to as "livestock" (meaning "animals ... for sale and the suppositions ofjustice-oriented writers, the capacity profit"-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary), and to respond to animals is a deep and recurring feature of "game" ("animals ... pursued or killed in sport"). humans. That is precisely why societies which Animals referred to by such terms have come to be institutionalize animal exploitation must and do find defined solely in terms of the purposes of their human ways to override our sympathetic capacities, or to exploiters. It is now of the essence of a "guinea pig" to prevent their actualization. be vivisected. This denial ofthe animal's own purposes The lesson I draw from this analysis is twofold, part is sometimes purposefully advocated: heartening and part sobering. Heartening is the realization that the ethical basis of animal liberation is Forget the pig is an animal. Treat him just like very simple and generally moving. A straightforward a machine in a factory. Schedule treatments presentation of what the animals are like and what is like you would lubrication. Breeding season done to them on the farms and in the labs can stir people, like the first step in an assembly line. And especially if the ideologies which block sympathy are marketing like the delivery offinished goods. simultaneously debunked. (Hog Farm Management, Sept. 1976. Quoted But sobering is a grasp of the nature of the social in Mason and Singer 1990:1) forces allied against a true perception ofanimals, against an understanding of what is done to them, against the Apart from devices which prevent sympathy, such possibility of acting from compassion. The substantial as denying animal subjectivity or covering up bow power ofinstitutionalized animal exploitation sustains animals are harmed, there are also social mechanisms ignorance, promotes fear, rewards cruelty, and punishes for overriding those sympathies which do become kindness. So, though the ethics ofanimal liberation are engaged. Perhaps the most potent of these is the inherently appealing, the obstacles placed in the way myth of necessity-the idea that we must exploit of radical social change based on sympathy are animals for our own well-being. Both the meat industry daunting. This is not to say that those obstacles are and the vivisection industry actively promote the insurmountable. Moving away from unsound and notion that they are serving essential human interests. irrelevant justice-based arguments, taking instead a Their largely false teachings-that human health caring perspective which expects a human-animal bond, depends upon programs of animal vivisection, and and which challenges any hindrances to this natural, that meat, eggs, and dairy products are good for normal, and healthy bond, allows us to continue moving you-generate the kind of fear that prevents even toward a society in which animals have been liberated those disturbed by the harms done to farmed and from human tyranny.

Spring 1992 107 Between the Species Justice, Caring, and Animal Liberation

Notes Robbins, John. 1987. Dietfor a New America. Walpole, NH.: Still point Publishing. 1 I should note that Regan does not neglect this response Rose, Tom. 1989. Freeing the Whales: How the Media Created to his argument: section 5.5 of his book is a rejection of the Worlds Greatest Non-Event. New York: Birch Lane Kantianism. Close examination, however, reveals that his Press. argument against Kantianism is question-begging. See this author's doctoral dissertation. Serpell, James. 1986. In the Company ofAnimals: A Study of Human-Animal Relationships. New York: Basil 2 Convincing arguments that these are false appear in Blackwell. Sharpe (1988) and Robbins (1987). Sharpe, Robert. 1988. The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research. Wellingborougb, England: Thorsons Publishing Group. References Singer, Peter. 1975. Animal Liberation. New York: Avon Books. Adams, Carol J. 1991. "Ecofeminism and the eating of Singer, Peter. 1981. The Expanding Circle: Ethics and animals." Hypatia 6: 125-145. Sociobiology. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux. Beck, Alan, and Aaron Katcher. 1983. Between Pets and Singer, Peter. 1990. "The significance of animal suffering." People: The Importance ofAnimal Companionship. New Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 9-12. York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. Sperling, Susan. 1988. Animal Liberators: Research & Collard, Andree, with Joyce Contrucci. 1989. Rape of the Morality. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wild: Mans Violence against Animals and the Earth. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Steinbock, Bonnie. 1978. "Speciesism and the idea of equality." Philosophy 53: 247-56 Frey, R.G. 1983. ''Vivisection, morals and medicine." Journal ofMedical Ethics 9: 94-7. Tester, Keith. 1991. Animals & Society: The Humanity of Animal Rights. London: Routledge. Gilligan, Carol. 1982. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women s Development. Cambridge: Harvard Thompson, William. 1983. "Hanging tongues: a sociological University Press. encounter with the assembly line." Qualitative Sociology 6: 215-37. Herzog, Harold A. Jr., and Sandy McGee. 1983. "Psychological aspects of slaughter: reactions of college Vyvyan, John. 1988. In Pity and in Anger. Marblehead, MA.: students to killing and butchering cattle and bogs." Micah Publications. International Journal for the Study ofAnimal Problems 4: 124-132. Katcher, Aaron, and Alan Beck, eds. 1983. New Perspectives on Our Lives with Companion Animals. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lorenz, Konrad. 1988. On Life and Living. New York: St. Martin's Press. Mason, Jim, and Peter Singer. 1990. Animal Factories. New York: Harmony Books. Quigley, Joseph, Lyle Vogel and Robert Anderson. 1983. "A study ofperceptions and attitudes toward pet ownership." In Katcher and Beck: 266-275. Regan, Tom. 1979. "An examination and defense of one argument concerning animal rights." Inquiry 22: 189-220. Regan, Tom. 1983. The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press. Regan, Tom. 1991. The Thee Generation: Reflections on the Coming Revolution. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Between the Species 108 Spring 1992