DOCSLIB.ORG

Animal Liberation: a Personal View

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Animal Liberation: a Personal View BEIWEEN THE SPECIES 148 t r r .. • ~-== - ... of them. Like most people, I disapproved of those who do not. cruelty to animals, but I was not greatly concerned about it. I assumed that the During these two months, Renata and I R.S.P.C.A. and the government could be relied read Ruth Harrison's pioneering attack on upon to see that cruelty to animals was an factory farming, Animal Machines. I also isolated occurrence. I thought of vegetari­ read an article which Ros Godlovitch had ans as, at best, other-worldly idealists and, recently published in the academic journal at worst, cranks. Animal welfare I regarded Philosophy. She was in the process of re­ as a cause for kindly old ladies rather than vlslngvising it for re-p.Jblicationre-p..1blication in a book which for serious political reformers. she, Stan, and John Harris, another vegetar­ ian philosophy student at Oxford, were edit­ The crack in my complacency about our ing. Ros was a little unsure about the revi­ relations with animals began in 1970 when I sions she was making, and I spent a lot of met RiC'l1ard Keshen. Our meeting was entirely time trying to help her clarify and streng­ accidental. Richard, a Canadian, was also a then her arguments. In the end, she went her graduate student in milosomY.philosophy. He and I own way, and I don'tdon I t think any of my sugges­ were attending lectures given by Jonathan tions were incorporated into the revised Glover on free will, determinism, and moral version of the article as it appeared in responsibility. They were stimulating lec­ Animals, Men and Morals--but in the process tures, and when they finished a few students of putting her arguments in their strongest often remained behind to ask questions or to possible form, I had convinced myself that discuss points with the lecturer. After one the logic of the vegetarian position was particular lecture, Richard and I were amongalTlong irrefutable. Renata and I decided that if we this smallsrrall group; when Glover had answered were to retain our self-respect and to con­ our queries, we walked out together, discuss­ tinue to take moral issues seriously, we ing the issue further. It was lunchtime, and should cease to eat animals. Richard suggested that we go to his college, Balliol, and continue our conversation over Through the Kershens and the Godlovit­ lunch. When it came to selecting our meal, I ches, we got to know other members of a loose noticed that Richard asked if the spaghetti group of vegetarians. Several of them lived sauce had meat in it and, when told that it together in a rambling old house with a huge had, took a meatless salad. So, when we had vegetable garden. Among the residents of talked enough about free will and determin­ this semi-communal establishment were John ism, I asked Richard why he had avoided meat. Harris and two otJlerot...'1er contributors to Animals, That began a discussion that was to change my Men and Morals, David Wood and Michael Pe­ life. ters. Philosophically, we agreed on little but the i.rmnralityi.rrm::>rality of our present treatment The change did not take place immediate­ of animals. David Wood was interested in ly. What Richard Keshen told me about the Continental philosophy, Michael Peters in treatment of farm animals, combined with his Marxism and structuralism, Richard' Keshen 's arguments against our neglect of the inter­ favorite philosopher was Spinoza, Ros Godlo­ ests of animals, gave me a lot to think vitch was still developing her basic position about, but I was not about to change my diet --she had not studied philosophy as an under­ overnight. Over the next two months, toge­ graduate and only became involved in it as a ther with my wife, .Renata, I met Richard's result of her interest in the ethics of our wife, Mary, and the two other Canadian philo­ relations with animals--and Stan Godlovitch sophy students, Roslind and Stanley Godlo­ refused to work on moral philosophy, re­ vitch, who had been responsible for Richard stricting himself to the philosophy of bio­ and Mary becoming vegetarians. Ros and Stan logy. I was nure in the mainstream of Anglo­ had become vegetarians a year or two earlier, American philosophy than any of the others, before reaching Oxford. They had come to see and in moral philosophy I took a much l1urenure our treabnenttreaonent of non-human animals as anala­ utilitarian line than they did. gous to the brutal exploitation of other races by whites in earlier centuries. This Also around Oxford at this time were analogy they now urged on us, challenging us Richard Ryder, Andrew Linzey, and Stephen to find a morally relevant distinction be­ Clark. Richard Ryder was working at the tween humans and non-humans which could jus­ Narneford Hospital in Oxford.OXford. He had written tify the differences we make in our treatment a leaflet on "Speciesism"--the first use of of those who belong to our own species and the term, as far as I know--and now was 149 BETWEEN THE SPECIES ~'''.' ~,': ,'- ··t.-cJ",~,~:·';':'ot:;·::t;·c,.-<:;",t':·::7.~,,~_t:~:;:o,:-;;;:.:_';~.;:,~;.:", ._.'.;. "c' _;."')~:::_Y'k.'_"'~'",i'J:,;'·_"·,)",:,,,".""»;·:)P%·ii"'::'i_n1,,.,.""",,,;~.;, ";;;,." .."'.,;,''''c,~,, <".,•.>••_"~, '~--.,''C~_' writing an essay on animal experimentation some better news: Taplinger had agreed to for Animals, Men and Morals. Later, he de­ publish an American edition. But would the veloped this work into his splendid attack on book get more attention in America than in animal experimentation, Victims of Science. Britain? I determined to do my best to see He was also organizing a "ginger group" with­ that it did. I had, in any case, been want­ in the R.S.P.C.A., with the aim of getting ing to write something to make people more that then extremely conservative body to aware of the injustice of our treabnent of eject its fox-hunters and take a stronger animals but had been deterred from doing so stance on other issues. That seemed a very by the feeling that since so many of my ideas long shot, then. I was introduced to Richard had comecame from others, and especially from Ryder through Ros Godlovitch, and from him I Ros, I should allow her to 'publish them. learnt a lot about animal experimentation. Now, I thought of a way to satisfy my own At the time, our positions were the mirror desire to do something to make people aware image of each other--I was a vegetarian but of the issue while at the same time helping not a strong opponent of animal experimenta­ to get my friends' ideas the attention they tion, because I naively thought most experi­ deserved but had not received. I would write ments were necessary to save lives and were, a long review-article, based on Animals, Men therefore, justified on utilitarian groLU1ds. and Morals but drawing the views of the se­ Richard Ryder, on the other hand, was not veral contributors together into a single then a vegetarian but was opposed to animal coherent philosophy of Animal Liberation. experimentation, because of the extreme suf­ There was only one place I knew of in Ameri­ fering it often involved. ca where such a review-article might appear: The New York Review of Books. Andrew Linzey was interested in the I wrote to the editors of the New York animal issue fromfram the point of view of -- --- Christian theology, which was not the concern Review, describing the book and the review I of most of the group, for we were a non­ would write. I did not know what answer to religious lot. His book, Animal Rights, was expect, since I had had no previous contact published by the SCM Press in 1976. Stephen with them, and they would never have heard of Clark was a Fellow of All Souls College, me. I knew that they were open to novel and Oxford, during this period, but I did not get radical ideas, but did they, perhaps, accept to know him until much later, after he had contributions only from people they knew? written The Moral Status of Animals, which Would the idea of animal liberation seem appeared in 1977. ridiculous to them? Animals, Men and Morals, the first of Robert Silvers' reply was guardedly all these books, appeared in 1971. We had encouraging. The idea was intriguing, and he great hopes for it, for it demanded revolu­ would like to see the article, though he tionary change in our attitudes to and treat­ could not premise to publish it. That was ment of non-hum:m animals. I think Ros God­ all the enoouragement I needed, however, and lovitch, especially, thought that the book the article was soon written and accepted. might trigger a widespread protest movement. Entitled "Animal Liberation," it appeared in In the light of these expectations, the April, 1973. I was soon receiving enthusi­ book's reception was profoundly disappoint­ astic letters fromfram people who seemed to have ing. The major newspapers and weeklies ig­ been waiting for their feelings about the nored it. In the Sunday Times, for example, mistreatment of animals to be given a coher­ it was mentioned only in the "In Brief" col­ ent philosophical backing. umn--just one short paragraph of exposition, without a corrment. Our ideas seemed to be Among the letters was one from a leading too radical to be taken seriously by the New York publisher, who suggested that I staid British press.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Are Illegal Direct Actions by Animal Rights Activists Ethically Vigilante?
    260 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Is the Radical Animal Rights Movement Ethically Vigilante? ABSTRACT Following contentious debates around the status and justifiability of illegal direct actions by animal rights activists, we introduce a here- tofore unexplored perspective that argues they are neither terrorist nor civilly disobedient but ethically vigilante. Radical animal rights movement (RARM) activists are vigilantes for vulnerable animals and their rights. Hence, draconian measures by the constitutional state against RARM vigilantes are both disproportionate and ille- gitimate. The state owes standing and toleration to such principled vigilantes, even though they are self-avowed anarchists and anti-stat- ists—unlike civil disobedients—repudiating allegiance to the con- stitutional order. This requires the state to acknowledge the ethical nature of challenges to its present regime of toleration, which assigns special standing to illegal actions in defense of human equality, but not equality and justice between humans and animals. Michael Allen East Tennessee State University Erica von Essen Environmental Communications Division Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences Volume 22, Issue 1 Fall 2018 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 261 Michael Allen and Erica von Essen Introduction We explore the normative status of illegal actions under- taken by the Radical Animal Rights Movement (RARM), such as animal rescue, trespass, and sabotage as well as confronta- tion and intimidation. RARM typically characterizes these ac- tions as examples of direct action rather than civil disobedience (Milligan 2015, Pellow 2014). Moreover, many RARM activ- ists position themselves as politically anarchist, anti-statist, and anti-capitalist (Best 2014, Pellow 2014). Indeed, the US and UK take these self-presentations at face value, responding to RARM by introducing increasingly draconian legislation that treats them as terrorists (Best 2014, McCausland, O’Sullivan and Brenton 2013, O’Sullivan 2011, Pellow 2014).
    [Show full text]
  • It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: the Laterial Shift to Liberation
    Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 It's a (Two-)Culture Thing: The Lateral Shift to Liberation Barry Kew rom an acute and, some will argue, a harsh, a harsh, fantastic or even tactically naive F naive perspective, this article examines examines animal liberation, vegetarianism vegetarianism and veganism in relation to a bloodless culture ideal. It suggests that the movement's repeated anomalies, denial of heritage, privileging of vegetarianism, and other concessions to bloody culture, restrict rather than liberate the full subversionary and revelatory potential of liberationist discourse, and with representation and strategy implications. ‘Only the profoundest cultural needs … initially caused adult man [sic] to continue to drink cow milk through life’.1 In The Social Construction of Nature, Klaus Eder develops a useful concept of two cultures - the bloody and the bloodless. He understands the ambivalence of modernity and the relationship to nature as resulting from the perpetuation of a precarious equilibrium between the ‘bloodless’ tradition from within Judaism and the ‘bloody’ tradition of ancient Greece. In Genesis, killing entered the world after the fall from grace and initiated a complex and hierarchically-patterned system of food taboos regulating distance between nature and culture. But, for Eder, it is in Israel that the reverse process also begins, in the taboo on killing. This ‘civilizing’ process replaces the prevalent ancient world practice of 1 Calvin. W. Schwabe, ‘Animals in the Ancient World’ in Aubrey Manning and James Serpell, (eds), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (Routledge, London, 1994), p.54. 1 Animal Issues, Vol 4, No. 1, 2000 human sacrifice by animal sacrifice, this by sacrifices of the field, and these by money paid to the sacrificial priests.2 Modern society retains only a very broken connection to the Jewish tradition of the bloodless sacrifice.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Redfame Publishing: E-Journals Studies in Media and Communication Vol. 7, No. 1; June 2019 ISSN: 2325-8071 E-ISSN: 2325-808X Published by Redfame Publishing URL: http://smc.redfame.com Climate Change Impacts on Free-Living Nonhuman Animals. Challenges for Media and Communication Ethics Núria Almiron1, Catia Faria2 1Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain 2Centro de Ética, Política e Sociedade, ILCH, Universidade do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal Correspondence: Núria Almiron, Department of Communication, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Roc Boronat, 138 08018 Barcelona, Spain. Received: April 21, 2019 Accepted: May 21, 2019 Online Published: May 29, 2019 doi:10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 URL: https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v7i1.4305 Abstract The mainstream discussion regarding climate change in politics, public opinion and the media has focused almost exclusively on preventing the harms humans suffer due to global warming. Yet climate change is already having an impact on free-living nonhumans, which raises unexplored ethical concerns from a nondiscriminatory point of view. This paper discusses the inherent ethical challenge of climate change impacts on nonhuman animals living in nature and argues that the media and communication ethics cannot avoid addressing the issue. The paper further argues that media ethics needs to mirror animal ethics by rejecting moral anthropocentrism. Keywords: media ethics, egalitarianism, climate change, wildlife, anthropocentrism 1. Introduction Since evidence of climate change was brought to light by the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1990, concerns regarding the issue have focused almost exclusively on preventing the harm humans suffer due to global warming.
    [Show full text]
  • One Issue: Animal Liberation
    One Issue: Animal Liberation We are occasionally asked why the Animal Rights Coalition is a “multi-issue” organization, instead of working solely on helping people to adopt a vegan diet. The Animal Rights Coalition mission states that ARC is “dedicated to ending the suffering, abuse, and exploitation of non-human animals through information, education, and advocacy.” One of the most important things about ARC is the consistency of our message and actions. ARC started out as, and has firmly remained, an abolitionist animal rights organization – which means that we challenge the dominant conversation that humans have about our relationships with other species. Most people view other animals as commodities for humans to use and own, and we view other animals as persons who are here for their own reasons and deserving of personal and bodily integrity. So, while some may consider us a multi-issue organization, the reality is that there is only one issue – animal liberation – and no matter what subject we’re talking about, we’re having essentially the same conversation again and again – emphasizing that animals matter in their own right, outside of what they can provide for humans, and that it is not justifiable for us to exploit or abuse them for any reason. As one facet of the conversations we have with people, we encourage them to adopt a plant-based (vegan) diet. However, we believe that veganism is about more than what one does and doesn’t eat. Veganism rejects the commodity status of animals, and with animals as commodities in more than just the food production system, we have a moral imperative to protest the use of animals in labs, circuses, the clothing industry, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap
    bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Philosophy,Vol.31, No. 2, 2014 doi: 10.1111/japp.12051 The Scope of the Argument from Species Overlap OSCAR HORTA ABSTRACT The argument from species overlap has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics and speciesism. However, there has been much confusion regarding what the argument proves and what it does not prove, and regarding the views it challenges.This article intends to clarify these confusions, and to show that the name most often used for this argument (‘the argument from marginal cases’) reflects and reinforces these misunderstandings.The article claims that the argument questions not only those defences of anthropocentrism that appeal to capacities believed to be typically human, but also those that appeal to special relations between humans. This means the scope of the argument is far wider than has been thought thus far. Finally, the article claims that, even if the argument cannot prove by itself that we should not disregard the interests of nonhuman animals, it provides us with strong reasons to do so, since the argument does prove that no defence of anthropocentrism appealing to non-definitional and testable criteria succeeds. 1. Introduction The argument from species overlap, which has also been called — misleadingly, I will argue — the argument from marginal cases, points out that the criteria that are com- monly used to deprive nonhuman animals of moral consideration fail to draw a line between human beings and other sentient animals, since there are also humans who fail to satisfy them.1 This argument has been widely used in the literature on animal ethics for two purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Living with Animals Conference Co-Organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N
    Living with Animals Conference Co-organized by Robert W. Mitchell, Radhika N. Makecha, & Michał Piotr Pręgowski Eastern Kentucky University, 19-21 March 2015 Cover design: Kasey L. Morris Conference overview Each day begins with a keynote speaker, and follows with two tracks (in separate locations) that will run concurrently. Breakfast foods and coffee/tea/water will be available prior to the morning keynotes. Coffee breaks (i.e., snacks and coffee/tea/water) are scheduled between sequential groups of talks. Thus, for example, if one session is from 9:05-10:15, and the next session is 10:40-11:40, there is a coffee break from 10:15-10:40. Drinks and edibles should be visible at or near the entry to the rooms where talks are held. Book display: Throughout the conference in Library Room 201, there is a book display. Several university presses have generously provided books for your perusal (as well as order sheets), and some conference participants will be displaying their books as well. Thursday features the “Living with Horses” sessions, as well as concurrent sessions, and has an optional (pre-paid) trip to Berea for shopping and dinner at the Historic Boone Tavern Restaurant. Friday features the “Teaching with Animals” sessions throughout the morning and early afternoon (which includes a boxed lunch during panel discussions and a movie showing and discussion); “Living with Animals” sessions continuing in the late afternoon, and a Conference Dinner at Masala Indian restaurant. Saturday includes “Living with Animals” sessions throughout the day and Poster Presentations during a buffet lunch. In addition, there is the optional trip to the White Hall State Historic Site (you pay when you arrive at the site).
    [Show full text]
  • Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics
    Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva Sophia International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions ISSN 0038-1527 SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”. 1 23 Author's personal copy SOPHIA DOI 10.1007/s11841-017-0597-6 Against Animal Liberation? Peter Singer and His Critics Gonzalo Villanueva1 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017 Keywords Animal ethics . Moral status of animals . Peter Singer. Animal liberation Peter Singer’s 1975 book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals has been described as ‘the Bible’ of the modern animal movement.1 Singer’s unrhetorical and unemotional arguments radically departed from previous conceptions of animal ethics. He moved beyond the animal welfare tradition of ‘kindness’ and ‘compassion’ to articulate a non-anthropocentric utilitarian philosophy based on equal- ity and interests. After the publication of Animal Liberation, an ‘avalanche of animal rights literature’ appeared.2 A prolific amount of work focused on the moral status of animals, and the ‘animal question’ has been given serious consideration across a broad range of disciplines.
    [Show full text]
  • What a Jew Should Do
    I If You Really Care About Animals, You Need to Read The ANIMALS' AGENDA WHAT A JEW SHOULD DO Roberta Kalechofsky Kalechofsky Jews for Jesus Jesus Editors' Note: This article is a response to an article by Sidney Gendin, "What Should a Jew Do?", published in Between the Species, To say you love animals is one vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25-32. thing, but it's important to know what you're talking about if you're really going to do something to help them. idney Gendin's review of Richard Schwartz's Covering a range of issues from fac­ book, Judaism and Vegetarianism and of tory farming to Native trapping, § Rabbi Bleich's article in Animal Sacrifices: from endangered species to com­ panion animals, we have been a Religious Perspectives on the Use ofAnimals in Science is valuable resource for nine years. We premised on the mistaken idea that what separates are your best connection with the Richard Schwartz's involvement in vegetarianism people and events that are making and animal rights from Rabbi Bleich's apparent animal rights one of the major movements of the twentieth century. indifference to them is that the former represents the Reform position in Judaism while the latter ~~~~ represents the Orthodox posture. &®rn~A To begin with, Richard Schwartz himself is not a The International Magazine Reform Jew. Though he eschews labels like of Animal Rights & Ecology '-------------­'-------------- "Orthodox" or "Conservative" and prefers to call ~ himself simply "committed," the congregation he ' I want to subscribe to ~ belongs to is Orthodox, and his practice would be • The ANIMALS' AGENDA.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Fischer's CV
    BOB FISCHER [email protected] Department of Philosophy bobfischer.net Texas State University orcid.org/0000-0001-9605-393X 601 University Drive 512.245.2403 San Marcos, TX 78666 EMPLOYMENT Texas State University: Associate Professor of Philosophy 2019-present Texas State University: Assistant Professor of Philosophy 2013-2019 Texas State University: Senior Lecturer 2011-2013 EDUCATION University of Illinois at Chicago, Ph.D., Philosophy 2006-2011 Dissertation: Modal Knowledge, in Theory Director: W. D. Hart State University of New York at Geneseo, B.A., English & Philosophy 2001-2004 PUBLICATIONS BOOKS AUTHORED What Do We Owe Other Animals? Under contract with Routledge. (w/ Anja Jauernig) Wildlife Ethics: Animal Ethics in Wildlife Management and Conservation. Under contract with Blackwell. (w/ Christian Gamborg, Jordan Hampton, Clare Palmer, and Peter Sandøe) Animal Ethics — A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge, 2021. The Ethics of Eating Animals: Usually Bad, Sometimes Wrong, Often Permissible. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Justification via Theories. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. BOOKS EDITED A 21st Century Ethical Toolbox, 5th Edition. Under contract with Oxford University Press. (w/ Anthony Weston) Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues That Divide Us. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (1st Edition: 2017) The Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics. New York: Routledge, 2020. Modal Epistemology After Rationalism. Synthese Library. Cham: Springer, 2017. (w/ Felipe Leon) The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. (w/ Ben Bramble) ARTICLES & BOOK CHAPTERS “Animal Agriculture, Wet Markets, and COVID-19: A Case Study in Indirect Activism.” Food Ethics, forthcoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Animal Rights Movement
    Animal Rights Movement The Animal Protection Movement. Prevention of cruelty to animals became an important movement in early 19th Century England, where it grew alongside the humanitarian current that advanced human rights, including the anti-slavery movement and later the movement for woman suffrage. The first anti-cruelty bill, intended to stop bull-baiting, was introduced in Parliament in 1800. In 1822 Colonel Richard Martin succeeded in passing an act in the House of Commons preventing cruelty to such larger domestic animals as horses and cattle; two years later he organized the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) to help enforce the law. Queen Victoria commanded the addition of the prefix "Royal" to the Society in 1840. Following the British model, Henry Bergh organized the American SPCA in New York in 1866 after returning from his post in St. Petersburg as secretary to the American legation in Russia; he hoped it would become national in scope, but the ASPCA remained primarily an animal shelter program for New York City. Other SPCAs and Humane Societies were founded in the U.S. beginning in the late 1860s (often with support from abolitionists) with groups in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and San Francisco among the first. Originally concerned with enforcing anti-cruelty laws, they soon began running animal shelters along the lines of a model developed in Philadelphia. The American Humane Association (AHA), with divisions for children and animals, was founded in 1877, and emerged as the leading national advocate for animal protection and child protection services. As the scientific approach to medicine expanded, opposition grew to the use of animals in medical laboratory research -- particularly in the era before anesthetics and pain-killers became widely available.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of the Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications
    147 BETWEEN THE SPECIES Review of The Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications Aaron S. Gross Columbia Univ. Press 2015 p. 292, pbk. A.G. Holdier Colorado Technical University [email protected] Volume 20, Issue 1 Summer, 2017 http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/bts/ 148 A.G. Holdier In The Question of the Animal and Religion: Theoretical Stakes, Practical Implications, Aaron S. Gross breaks new ground in contemporary animal studies by tracing the recent history of critical religious approaches to animals before fram- ing several new horizons for further study in an interdisciplin- ary field ripe for exploration. The book aims to broadly “expose the absent presence of animals in the history of the study of religion and clear a space for their future” (7), a task Gross sets to by tracing the lineage of Western animal studies through the work of Émile Dur- kheim, Ernst Cassirer, Mircea Eliade, and Jonathan Z. Smith to reveal Western culture’s tendency to replace animal concerns with human ones, even when animals are the supposed focus of one’s analysis. In each case, Gross points out how the theo- rists purport to elevate animals as examples in their various frameworks, only to mutate them into totemic representations of ultimately human concern, thereby evacuating the “animal- ity” of animals and replacing it with purely anthropocentric values. As the Durkheimian sacred/profane binary has been maintained in the development of critical studies, animals have been discussed philosophically, but primarily as foils for hu- man religious practices and never on their own terms.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature*
    Zoopolis, Intervention, and the State of Nature* OSCAR HORTA Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Abstract In Zoopolis, Donaldson and Kymlicka argue that intervention in nature to aid animals is sometimes permissible, and in some cases obligatory, to save them from the harms they commonly face. But they claim these interven- tions must have some limits, since they could otherwise disrupt the struc- ture of the communities wild animals form, which should be respected as sovereign ones. These claims are based on the widespread assumption that ecosystemic processes ensure that animals have good lives in nature. How- ever, this assumption is, unfortunately, totally unrealistic. Most animals are r-strategists who die in pain shortly after coming into existence, and those who make it to maturity commonly suffer terrible harms too. In addition, most animals do not form the political communities Zoopolis describes. The situation of animals in the wild can therefore be considered analogous to one of humanitarian catastrophe, or to that of irretrievably failed states. It matches closely what a Hobbesian state of nature would be like. This means that intervention in nature to aid nonhuman animals should not be limited as Donaldson and Kymlicka argue. Keywords: animal ethics, animal rights, intervention, sovereignty, specie- sism, state of nature. 1. INTRODUCTION Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights is a novel, brilliantly argued and very instructive book. It addresses some of the most important topics in ani- mal ethics in a fresh and original way, and opens new lines of inquiry. This paper focuses on what I consider the most significant problemZoopolis tack- * For very helpful comments, I thank Paula Casal and three anonymous referees, two of who later revealed themselves to be Lori Gruen and Andrew Williams.
    [Show full text]