University of Texas at El Paso DigitalCommons@UTEP Open Access Theses & Dissertations 2016-01-01 A Theory of Animal Oppression Sharon Stephania Murillo University of Texas at El Paso, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Murillo, Sharon Stephania, "A Theory of Animal Oppression" (2016). Open Access Theses & Dissertations. 705. https://digitalcommons.utep.edu/open_etd/705 This is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UTEP. It has been accepted for inclusion in Open Access Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UTEP. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A THEORY OF ANIMAL OPPRESSION SHARON STEPHANIA MURILLO MELCHOR Master’s Program in Philosophy APPROVED: Steven Best, Ph.D., Chair Deepanwita Dasgupta, Ph.D. Pratyusha Basu, Ph.D. Charles Ambler, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School Copyright © by Sharon Murillo 2016 Dedication I want to dedicate this MA thesis to my family and colleagues who have been truly supportive throughout the process of this project. A THEORY OF ANIMAL OPPRESSION by SHARON STEPHANIA MURILLO MELCHOR, B.A. with Magna Cum Laude in Communication, Philosophy, and Psychology. THESIS Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at El Paso in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Philosophy THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT EL PASO August 2016 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis committee, Drs. Steve Best, Deepanwita Dasgupta and Patryusha Basu. Thank you for the useful comments, remarks and engaging through the learning process of this master thesis. Furthermore, I would like to thank Steve Best for his continuous work and efforts in animal liberation. Also, I’d like to thank Dr. Joseph Ulatowski and Kim Diaz, who were supportive of this process. Dr. Marc Moffett without our meaningful conversations on animal rights. I would have not been so interested in developing more arguments. During the period of two years Dean Patricia Witherspoon gave me her support in traveling to conferences and presenting my work on animal rights. I am grateful to the Liberal Arts College, and Ms. Cast, who was the one who arranged and planned all the administrative paperwork during my two years at this university. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................v TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... vi INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Section 1. Background on the Animal Rights Discourse ........................................................4 CHAPTER 1. THEORY OF JUSTICE ...........................................................................................7 Section 1.1 Two Principles of Justice .....................................................................................8 Section 1.2 Counterargument..................................................................................................9 Section 1.3 The Capabilities Approach ................................................................................13 CHAPTER 2. FEMINIST THEORIES..........................................................................................19 Section 2.1 Five Faces of Oppression in the Animal Realm ................................................20 Section 2.2 The Sexual Politics of Meat ...............................................................................23 Section 2. 3 Male-Centered Language and Marginalization ................................................26 Section 2.4 Overlapping of Oppression ................................................................................28 CHAPTER 3. ANIMAL OPPRESSION, NOT SPECIESISM .....................................................33 Section 3.1 Speciesism..........................................................................................................33 Section 3.2 History of Man’s Dominion over Animals ........................................................35 Section 3.3 Blatant Racism and Blatant Speciesism .............................................................36 Section 3.4 Racism, Exploitation, Slavery and Animal Rights ............................................37 Section 3.5 Animal Welfare vs. Animal Rights ....................................................................39 Section 3.6 Understanding Oppression .................................................................................40 CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................46 WORKS CITED ............................................................................................................................51 VITA ..............................................................................................................................................50 vi INTRODUCTION American society is characterized by indifference toward the notion of animal rights.1 Americans are unaware or often ignore the fact that “more than 9,000,000 farm animals die each year in the U.S. and exceeds 70 billion globally.”2 More than 6,000,000 animals die every hour, and die every second in slaughterhouses around the world. 3 These numbers reflect the reality of American meat consumption. Also, the treatment of animals in slaughterhouses and factory farms has been the subject of much debate amongst animal rights activists and ethicists. Videos have been posted online showing the reality behind the slaughterhouses. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) released a documentary titled, Glass Walls, with the slogan, If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian, because it shows the reality behind the slaughterhouse walls. The unethical treatment of animals can also be seen in circuses, zoos, and laboratories. Acknowledging that animals do not belong in laboratories or zoos has increased in past years. In animal research, the argument for experimenting on animals, and the suffering and death it causes them, is a "necessary evil" vital for human medical progress. As Peter Singer states in Animal Liberation, the medical knowledge derived from these experiments is questionable.4 Documentaries have targeted the unethical treatment and confinement of orcas at Sea World, leading to an increase of protests and the possible closure of Sea World.5 The food products that we eat today are nothing compared to the food products that were produced years ago. The increase in the consumption of animal products has led to the use of hormones and other drugs in animals that increase the supply of animal products for consumers. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was created to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply.6 Not only has the FDA failed to do so, it has also approved thousands of chemicals, such as synthetic hormone growth chemical to increase the production of meat.7 1 Different perspectives arise when we talk about animal rights. On the one hand, we talk about having empathy for dogs, cats, and other "domestic animals." This empathy does not always extend to cows, turkeys, chickens, pigs, and other "farm animals." Many say it is bad that they suffer, but when it is lunchtime, a steak sits on our plate. In Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It Is So Hard to Think Straight about Animals, Melanie Joy analyzes the animal-human interaction, the moral complexities and most of the time our paradoxical relationship between humans and non-human animals.8 For instance, Joy talks about most Americans’ supporting the right to hunt and shoot some creatures, while protecting domestic animals. Despite more regulations and acknowledgment of the impact of killing animals and the ethical considerations behind it, "the number of animals killed each year for our dining pleasure has tripled from 3 billion a year to over 70 billion since the rise of the animal rights movement in 1975."9 Despite different studies showing the connection between various chronic diseases and meat consumption (see Micha, Wallace, & Mozaffarian; Jiang, Paik, Hankinson & Barr; Leo, Lawrence & Walker). Studies have also shown the connection between global warming and meat consumption (see Carlsson-Kanyama & Gonzalez; Marlow; McMichael, Powles, Butler, & Uauy), humans still continue to eat animal products. There has been an increase in meat production in the past years, however, justification of whether or not one attends circuses, zoos, Sea World, or a delicious steak for dinner, varies. 10 In this thesis, I will argue that individuals often ignore the impact of animal exploitation and as the “oppressors”, such that we do not even realize that we are oppressing animals and committing an injustice. We have the false belief that animals are inferior and that they serve a purpose in our lives. They live and die for our satisfaction. As we have been mentioning animal 2 rights, our behavior towards animals as a result of false superiority, and an axis of oppression known as speciesism.11 I want to talk about animal oppression as a subject of justice. When people have the option to eat alternatives to animal products and yet still choose to