What can the animals do for revolution?
May 26, 2011 4:59 AM Subscribe
Am I the only leftist that doesn't believe in the connection between social justice and animal rights?
I've read this, this, and this, and I just don't buy any of it. I see a host of fundamental differences between people and animals that don't exist between people of different colors or genders.
Yes, I agree that our society as it stands has a sick and awful way of consuming animals, and that the way in which most modern humans relate to animals has been wildly distorted in order to increase profits for agribusiness. And I agree that factory farming is despicable. I agree that Americans eat far too much meat. But I hold these positions mostly out of concern for workers and for the environment. The welfare of the animals themselves is a distant, distant third, and one that doesn't preclude eating them or experimenting on them for human benefit.
Animals as a species are vital to our ecosystem, our cultural traditions, and life on this planet, but as individuals, they can't contribute to dismantling capitalism or to ending systemic oppression of women and minorities. Moreover, I can't see how the fact of eating/wearing/experimenting on animals in and of itself is necessary for the continuation of capitalism and oppression.
So my question is two-fold: one, are there radical leftist social justice texts that make direct, non-allegorical arguments for animal rights, so that I might be able to understand; and two, are there any radical leftist social justice resources against animal rights, or at rather against the notion that they're essential for liberation?
I've read this, this, and this, and I just don't buy any of it. I see a host of fundamental differences between people and animals that don't exist between people of different colors or genders.
Yes, I agree that our society as it stands has a sick and awful way of consuming animals, and that the way in which most modern humans relate to animals has been wildly distorted in order to increase profits for agribusiness. And I agree that factory farming is despicable. I agree that Americans eat far too much meat. But I hold these positions mostly out of concern for workers and for the environment. The welfare of the animals themselves is a distant, distant third, and one that doesn't preclude eating them or experimenting on them for human benefit.
Animals as a species are vital to our ecosystem, our cultural traditions, and life on this planet, but as individuals, they can't contribute to dismantling capitalism or to ending systemic oppression of women and minorities. Moreover, I can't see how the fact of eating/wearing/experimenting on animals in and of itself is necessary for the continuation of capitalism and oppression.
So my question is two-fold: one, are there radical leftist social justice texts that make direct, non-allegorical arguments for animal rights, so that I might be able to understand; and two, are there any radical leftist social justice resources against animal rights, or at rather against the notion that they're essential for liberation?
Best answer: I strongly suggest you read When Species Meet by Donna Haraway. I think it's also worthwhile considering the growing field of posthumanism. By 'posthumanism' I don't mean a kind of transcendental transhumanism, but thinking critically, philosophically and politically beyond the category of the human. Cary Wolfe's new(ish) book is an excellent discussion of these issues.
It also might be worth reading critiques of biocapital, or the use of life itself to produce exchange value. Stefan Helmreich wrote an excellent review of studies on biocapital in the Science as Culture back in 2008 titled 'Species of Biocapital.' I loved, loved, LOVED Melinda Cooper's Life as Surplus.
I hope this helps!
posted by nerdfish at 5:17 AM on May 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
It also might be worth reading critiques of biocapital, or the use of life itself to produce exchange value. Stefan Helmreich wrote an excellent review of studies on biocapital in the Science as Culture back in 2008 titled 'Species of Biocapital.' I loved, loved, LOVED Melinda Cooper's Life as Surplus.
I hope this helps!
posted by nerdfish at 5:17 AM on May 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
If you will indulge me, I would like to offer some philosophical thoughts of my own, even though I am not quoting them from a radical social justice text. The issue of animal rights is largely one of where to draw the line. Some species are more intelligent than other species, and some individual members of any given species are more intelligent than other individual members of that species. As human beings, especially those who are leftists, we like to grant certain human rights to all human beings, no matter how intelligent or unintelligent they may be, or indeed, even if they are in a coma, having effectively the same intelligence as a potted plant. We know that there are some species of primates, such as chimpanzees, which can be trained to communicate in English by way of typing on a keyboard (since their vocal appartus does not allow actual speech) and that they have consistently demonstrated intelligence comparable to that of a five year old human child. We certainly would not want to say that a five year old, being so much less intelligent than a 20 year old, therefore should be deprived of human rights or treated as sub-human, yet many people do not hesistate to make that argument about primates. Of course, you could still argue that a five year old human has the potential to become a 20 year old human, whereas a chimpanzee will always be a chimpanzee, however, even if we are dealing with a mentally challenged individual whose intelligence will never exceed that of a normal five year old, that person would not be deemed unworthy of human rights. So where do we draw the line? The inclination of leftists would be to err on the side of being too generous in granting rights, rather than too stingy.
But then we have the opposite situation with regard to the rights of the human fetus, in the great pro-life vs. pro-choice debate which is central to the whole left vs. right philosophical divide. In the case of a fetus we do say, as leftists, that it has no actual intelligence, and it therefore does not take on the status of a human being even though it potentially can become a human being. But then, even a sperm cell has the potential, if it fertilizes an ovum and goes through the process of gestation and birth, of becoming a human being, yet we would hardly grant human rights to every sperm cell, nor would it be possible to do so even if we wanted to. Again, it is a matter of where we draw the line.
So, there are many complexities involved in these kind of issues.
posted by grizzled at 5:20 AM on May 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
But then we have the opposite situation with regard to the rights of the human fetus, in the great pro-life vs. pro-choice debate which is central to the whole left vs. right philosophical divide. In the case of a fetus we do say, as leftists, that it has no actual intelligence, and it therefore does not take on the status of a human being even though it potentially can become a human being. But then, even a sperm cell has the potential, if it fertilizes an ovum and goes through the process of gestation and birth, of becoming a human being, yet we would hardly grant human rights to every sperm cell, nor would it be possible to do so even if we wanted to. Again, it is a matter of where we draw the line.
So, there are many complexities involved in these kind of issues.
posted by grizzled at 5:20 AM on May 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
Its in my nature to eat animals AND seek personal and societal security through collective bargaining, affordable healthcare, education, and social programs.
One appeals to my need for security, and the other for need for food. Humans are just animals in the food chain. Picking up a pack of hamburger at the grocery store is a lot easier than dealing with the societal hurdles required to form a hunting party and raid the neighbor's farm.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:21 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
One appeals to my need for security, and the other for need for food. Humans are just animals in the food chain. Picking up a pack of hamburger at the grocery store is a lot easier than dealing with the societal hurdles required to form a hunting party and raid the neighbor's farm.
posted by Nanukthedog at 5:21 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I think the basic question you're looking for is whether maintaining a belief in some kind of metaphysical difference between humans and other animals is compatible with what you broadly call "leftist" political and/or social beliefs.
I submit as Exhibit A, the Roman Catholic Church, which has for the last century been one of the world's most consistent advocates for social justice* yet generally hold no truck with any concept of animal rights, for two reasons. First, Catholics believe pretty strongly in the Imago Dei, which gives them a theological reason to believe that humans and animals are different. Second, there are a bunch of Catholics who don't believe in rights at all, but that doesn't stop them from advocating for justice on other grounds. To the extent that they advocate for the humane treatment of animals--and some do!--they tend to be motivated by the idea that treating animals badly is bad for us, independent of the issue of whether or not animals have rights.
More broadly speaking, the idea that humans and animals aren't different is a lot more recent than the idea that they are, so you'll find that most leftist writing which dates much before the latter twentieth century to simply ignore animal rights as an issue. But again, that hasn't stopped progressive and left-leaning political, ethical, and philosophical thinkers from advancing their project.
Really, whether or not animal rights is part of any political project turns on the question of whether or not animals are metaphysically different from humans. Answer that question, and the rights question answers itself.
*Allowing for the fact that "justice" is something of a fraught term, that is. They've got their own definition of the term, a definition which is unsurprisingly somewhat different than most secular leftists' definition. But official Catholic social teaching has a distinctly leftist cant to it, particularly on the issues of health care, education, social programs, etc.
posted by valkyryn at 5:34 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I submit as Exhibit A, the Roman Catholic Church, which has for the last century been one of the world's most consistent advocates for social justice* yet generally hold no truck with any concept of animal rights, for two reasons. First, Catholics believe pretty strongly in the Imago Dei, which gives them a theological reason to believe that humans and animals are different. Second, there are a bunch of Catholics who don't believe in rights at all, but that doesn't stop them from advocating for justice on other grounds. To the extent that they advocate for the humane treatment of animals--and some do!--they tend to be motivated by the idea that treating animals badly is bad for us, independent of the issue of whether or not animals have rights.
More broadly speaking, the idea that humans and animals aren't different is a lot more recent than the idea that they are, so you'll find that most leftist writing which dates much before the latter twentieth century to simply ignore animal rights as an issue. But again, that hasn't stopped progressive and left-leaning political, ethical, and philosophical thinkers from advancing their project.
Really, whether or not animal rights is part of any political project turns on the question of whether or not animals are metaphysically different from humans. Answer that question, and the rights question answers itself.
*Allowing for the fact that "justice" is something of a fraught term, that is. They've got their own definition of the term, a definition which is unsurprisingly somewhat different than most secular leftists' definition. But official Catholic social teaching has a distinctly leftist cant to it, particularly on the issues of health care, education, social programs, etc.
posted by valkyryn at 5:34 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Brian Leiter is a leftist philosopher who doesn't believe in animal rights.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:37 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by J. Wilson at 5:37 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I have oft quoted the sentiment that if you want to know if someone is an ass or not, look at how they treat the people waiting on them at a restaurant.
I think the same sort of reasoning applies to how people treat animals. A society full of people long on willingness to kick a dog for no good reason is going to be short on social justice. And the argument has been made that violence against animals conditions people yadda yadda slippery slope yadda yadda.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:46 AM on May 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
I think the same sort of reasoning applies to how people treat animals. A society full of people long on willingness to kick a dog for no good reason is going to be short on social justice. And the argument has been made that violence against animals conditions people yadda yadda slippery slope yadda yadda.
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 5:46 AM on May 26, 2011 [6 favorites]
So, there was a line from Penn & Teller's Bullshit a few years back (not that they're leftist, but bear with me) in an episode about endangered species. I think. It's been a while. Anyway, it was something to the effect of "I would shoot every single orangutan on the planet if it meant we could save one junkie dying on the street." Which I tend to agree with--it's not like you're going out of your way to treat animals poorly, but if it comes down to saving an animal or saving a human?--I'm saving the human.
posted by phunniemee at 5:50 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by phunniemee at 5:50 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think a lot of liberally-minded people are more willing to deal with the nature of personhood itself, whereas on the right, this question is settled is (by scrpiture, tradition, what have you). This means you're more likely to get a variety of answers from a variety of influences: science, philosophy, new age-y ethics, etc.
Personally, I don't care about non-persons, but I think we've seriously got to ask what exactly is going on in the brains of apes and ceteans. I think that on an objective standard, those creatures probably have personhood, and therefore deserve basic rights. Cows don't meet that standard; a leftist drawing from a different ethos might answer that question differently.
posted by spaltavian at 5:53 AM on May 26, 2011
Personally, I don't care about non-persons, but I think we've seriously got to ask what exactly is going on in the brains of apes and ceteans. I think that on an objective standard, those creatures probably have personhood, and therefore deserve basic rights. Cows don't meet that standard; a leftist drawing from a different ethos might answer that question differently.
posted by spaltavian at 5:53 AM on May 26, 2011
I too am generally of the "people first" camp. However, while not exactly what you're looking for, there are a number of resources that suggest that cruelty to animals (pets specifically) is linked to Domestic Violence.
posted by Gorgik at 5:56 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by Gorgik at 5:56 AM on May 26, 2011
nerdfish, those thinks ask for a login. Any way 'round that?
posted by henryaj at 6:24 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by henryaj at 6:24 AM on May 26, 2011
Best answer: Despite being both a vegan and a libertarian socialist I don't see great links between the two, and am very uncomfortable with arguments around 'speciesism'. With me it's more a welfare issue, and my diet doesn't stop me caring about humans.
I seem to remember this article, Ambiguities of Animal Rights as being a solid left wing critique of AR, though it's years since I've read it.
On the flipside someone else writing from a similar political tradition has published a pro-AR book, drawing on both social ecology and marxism, Making a Killing. Although I've a feeling it still slips back into speciesism arguments.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:28 AM on May 26, 2011
I seem to remember this article, Ambiguities of Animal Rights as being a solid left wing critique of AR, though it's years since I've read it.
On the flipside someone else writing from a similar political tradition has published a pro-AR book, drawing on both social ecology and marxism, Making a Killing. Although I've a feeling it still slips back into speciesism arguments.
posted by spectrevsrector at 6:28 AM on May 26, 2011
HenryAJ I don't think so. I couldn't find those books on other services like library.nu. But aaaarg is worth joining, imho.
posted by nerdfish at 6:32 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by nerdfish at 6:32 AM on May 26, 2011
Am I the only leftist that doesn't believe in the connection between social justice and animal rights?
Well, you and just about every orthodox Leninist, Maoist, etc. What exactly do you mean by "leftist" and how does it differ from American liberals?
I think that most socialists would consider animal rights bourgeois nonsense, historically associated with the feelings aristocrats had towards their horses and hounds (symbols of their power and rank, in the case of horses arguable back to the equites of Rome). Contrast with the utilitarian view taken by the robustly utilitarian working class.
Also, a political philosophy based on materialism isn't typically conducive to a discourse based on "rights" whether animal or human.
posted by atrazine at 6:33 AM on May 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Well, you and just about every orthodox Leninist, Maoist, etc. What exactly do you mean by "leftist" and how does it differ from American liberals?
I think that most socialists would consider animal rights bourgeois nonsense, historically associated with the feelings aristocrats had towards their horses and hounds (symbols of their power and rank, in the case of horses arguable back to the equites of Rome). Contrast with the utilitarian view taken by the robustly utilitarian working class.
Also, a political philosophy based on materialism isn't typically conducive to a discourse based on "rights" whether animal or human.
posted by atrazine at 6:33 AM on May 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields. - Tolstoy
It comes down to whether the welfare of humans is the supreme value.
Since we can hardly be objective in the matter, I think it's important to consider the situation as a well-meaning alien intelligence would.
In terms of whose existence contributes more good and less evil to the sum of life on this planet - me or the chickens who will have gone into the McNuggets I'll have for lunch today - I don't see how any objective observer could choose me.
posted by Trurl at 6:41 AM on May 26, 2011
It comes down to whether the welfare of humans is the supreme value.
Since we can hardly be objective in the matter, I think it's important to consider the situation as a well-meaning alien intelligence would.
In terms of whose existence contributes more good and less evil to the sum of life on this planet - me or the chickens who will have gone into the McNuggets I'll have for lunch today - I don't see how any objective observer could choose me.
posted by Trurl at 6:41 AM on May 26, 2011
I am one of those damn dirty hippies who believes in social justice and the like. I have also been an HIV researcher for the past 20 years. When it comes down to me or the mouse, the mouse goes.
Also, you may want to check out Pro-Test.
posted by Sophie1 at 6:56 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Also, you may want to check out Pro-Test.
posted by Sophie1 at 6:56 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Injustice trickles down according to power structures: The tyrant beats the lord; the lord beats the peasant; the peasant beats his child; the child beats his dog.
Empathy has no such limit. How about instead: The child loves his dog and the model of love from that relationship is extended to his own children. Children of lords and children of tyrants similarly may learn empathy from animals and animal rights and consciously or subconsciously extend it to others. I have trouble imagining a world where empathy is extended to the most vulnerable animals and not eventually to all people.
If anything, not everyone draws the same philosophical/metaphysical line between animal and human intelligence as OP does or even thinks about it at all. Certainly psychopaths and sociopaths rarely draw any deeper distinction than self versus other. Abusers test their way up the chain of what they can get away with and what is socially acceptable and social limits can persuede them to not continue up the chain sooner rather than later.
There are plenty of environmental justice connections to global warming and resource depletion that affects the most vulnerable people that living a much-much-much less animal-product dependent lifestyle makes a lot of sense no matter how you get there.
So what can animals do for the revolution? They can teach us about empathy. And without empathy your revolution is just a matter of the boot stomping on a human face changing to a different foot.
posted by Skwirl at 6:56 AM on May 26, 2011 [12 favorites]
Empathy has no such limit. How about instead: The child loves his dog and the model of love from that relationship is extended to his own children. Children of lords and children of tyrants similarly may learn empathy from animals and animal rights and consciously or subconsciously extend it to others. I have trouble imagining a world where empathy is extended to the most vulnerable animals and not eventually to all people.
If anything, not everyone draws the same philosophical/metaphysical line between animal and human intelligence as OP does or even thinks about it at all. Certainly psychopaths and sociopaths rarely draw any deeper distinction than self versus other. Abusers test their way up the chain of what they can get away with and what is socially acceptable and social limits can persuede them to not continue up the chain sooner rather than later.
There are plenty of environmental justice connections to global warming and resource depletion that affects the most vulnerable people that living a much-much-much less animal-product dependent lifestyle makes a lot of sense no matter how you get there.
So what can animals do for the revolution? They can teach us about empathy. And without empathy your revolution is just a matter of the boot stomping on a human face changing to a different foot.
posted by Skwirl at 6:56 AM on May 26, 2011 [12 favorites]
The Jain have what is I believe the most completely perfected philosophy in this regard.
I would start there, and the consider that most everyone else who is standing for this type stuff is really aiming toward Jainism but is too weak-willed to actually pull it off.
posted by roboton666 at 6:58 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I would start there, and the consider that most everyone else who is standing for this type stuff is really aiming toward Jainism but is too weak-willed to actually pull it off.
posted by roboton666 at 6:58 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Since we can hardly be objective in the matter, I think it's important to consider the situation as a well-meaning alien intelligence would.
In terms of whose existence contributes more good and less evil to the sum of life on this planet - me or the chickens who will have gone into the McNuggets I'll have for lunch today - I don't see how any objective observer could choose me.
In a way, OP, this response outlines the proper frame of the question:
Do you believe there is there any such "alien" third party observer in a position to evaluate the relative merits of human and animal life?
Or to put it another way, do you believe good and evil exist independantly from the context of human society? Is there or can there be an objective moral system which ought to govern the behavior of all beings?
Or to put it a slightly different way, from whence do rights derive? Jefferson believed humans were "endowed by their creator;" a Darwinian atheist is going to have to come up with a different explanation....are rights a form of contract, to which both parties must be capable of consenting? Does the capacity to experience the world consciously endow a being with rights, and if so, what degree of consciousness?
For myself, I think I'm an animal, and that morality is a system which has exploded for governing human social groups, which has severely limited applicability outside those groups. I hold it no more immoral for me to kill a cow than for a cat to kill a mouse.
posted by Diablevert at 7:05 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
In terms of whose existence contributes more good and less evil to the sum of life on this planet - me or the chickens who will have gone into the McNuggets I'll have for lunch today - I don't see how any objective observer could choose me.
In a way, OP, this response outlines the proper frame of the question:
Do you believe there is there any such "alien" third party observer in a position to evaluate the relative merits of human and animal life?
Or to put it another way, do you believe good and evil exist independantly from the context of human society? Is there or can there be an objective moral system which ought to govern the behavior of all beings?
Or to put it a slightly different way, from whence do rights derive? Jefferson believed humans were "endowed by their creator;" a Darwinian atheist is going to have to come up with a different explanation....are rights a form of contract, to which both parties must be capable of consenting? Does the capacity to experience the world consciously endow a being with rights, and if so, what degree of consciousness?
For myself, I think I'm an animal, and that morality is a system which has exploded for governing human social groups, which has severely limited applicability outside those groups. I hold it no more immoral for me to kill a cow than for a cat to kill a mouse.
posted by Diablevert at 7:05 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Mod note: A few comments removed, this needs to not be just an opinion poll situation. There's a concrete request for texts and resources that kind of needs to be the focus here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 AM on May 26, 2011
Most scientists would probably be leftists who have a complex view of non-human rights, especially with regards to experiments. In fact, one of my friends here is vegan (though I have to admit I don't know her philosophy) and sacrifices mice for her research.
For my own beliefs, I see humans at the predatory end of the food chain but we're not obligate carnivores. And I think we should act better than other animals who don't have as well developed empathy systems. We know that other animals feel pain and stress so we should work to minimize those responses. Watching one bird kill another is an unpleasant experience, so I'd like my chickens killed more humanely.
posted by hydrobatidae at 7:13 AM on May 26, 2011
For my own beliefs, I see humans at the predatory end of the food chain but we're not obligate carnivores. And I think we should act better than other animals who don't have as well developed empathy systems. We know that other animals feel pain and stress so we should work to minimize those responses. Watching one bird kill another is an unpleasant experience, so I'd like my chickens killed more humanely.
posted by hydrobatidae at 7:13 AM on May 26, 2011
I don't know that this is degenerating into chatfilter, although there are some citations above so I guess it's okay.
I work for a social justice organization which expends none of its resources on animal rights and wouldn't if we were asked to and if offered a grant to work on an animal rights project, we'd turn it down. It's not our mission; it's not related to our mission; we don't define "social justice" as including animal rights. If you asked our staff "is protecting animal rights an necessary component to achieving/striving toward social justice", most of us would say no / laugh at you / stare blankly. I imagine there is a continuum of belief among our interns (and staff) as to whether animals even have rights, much less whether protection of those rights is necessary to furthering social justice. I don't, unless you draw the argument out to an absurd length because I think it is immoral to cause suffering when you can avoid it. Want to eat that chicken? Don't treat it cruelly during its life and kill it mercifully. Do I define that as the chicken's right? No, I do not; I define it as your duty not to cause suffering.
I can't think of any social justice organization that we work with who does place any emphasis on animal rights. Certainly none of them have policies concerning it or devote any program resources toward it.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:13 AM on May 26, 2011
I work for a social justice organization which expends none of its resources on animal rights and wouldn't if we were asked to and if offered a grant to work on an animal rights project, we'd turn it down. It's not our mission; it's not related to our mission; we don't define "social justice" as including animal rights. If you asked our staff "is protecting animal rights an necessary component to achieving/striving toward social justice", most of us would say no / laugh at you / stare blankly. I imagine there is a continuum of belief among our interns (and staff) as to whether animals even have rights, much less whether protection of those rights is necessary to furthering social justice. I don't, unless you draw the argument out to an absurd length because I think it is immoral to cause suffering when you can avoid it. Want to eat that chicken? Don't treat it cruelly during its life and kill it mercifully. Do I define that as the chicken's right? No, I do not; I define it as your duty not to cause suffering.
I can't think of any social justice organization that we work with who does place any emphasis on animal rights. Certainly none of them have policies concerning it or devote any program resources toward it.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:13 AM on May 26, 2011
I think the two should be separate. I'm on the far left with most issues and I'm a vegetarian and I despise factory farming. I also believe that fundamentally there is no difference between factory farming and cube-farming/treating workers as nothing more than a means to an economic end rather than as partners working together toward a shared goal (especially itinerant farm workers) --- follow the money.
But I don't believe human/civil rights and animal rights should be conflated when talking about legislation or regulation. They are separate battles. People who don't care enough about fellow human beings to treat them humanely are not going to be swayed by an argument that says "animals are people too!" The reality is that the result of treating migrant workers fairly is a huge increase in the cost of produce, and people aren't willing (or able, in many cases) to pay that cost. If we can solve that dilemma, then it can be applied to factory farming as well. But combining the two dilutes the human/civil rights argument.
Also in my observation people who conflate human/animal rights tend to be arguing more from an emotional point of view than a practical one. Guilt is not an effective motivator.
posted by headnsouth at 7:15 AM on May 26, 2011
But I don't believe human/civil rights and animal rights should be conflated when talking about legislation or regulation. They are separate battles. People who don't care enough about fellow human beings to treat them humanely are not going to be swayed by an argument that says "animals are people too!" The reality is that the result of treating migrant workers fairly is a huge increase in the cost of produce, and people aren't willing (or able, in many cases) to pay that cost. If we can solve that dilemma, then it can be applied to factory farming as well. But combining the two dilutes the human/civil rights argument.
Also in my observation people who conflate human/animal rights tend to be arguing more from an emotional point of view than a practical one. Guilt is not an effective motivator.
posted by headnsouth at 7:15 AM on May 26, 2011
Sorry, I didn't make any recommendations. It's not a radical leftist organization but a scientific approach to animal rights can be seen in any country's animal care regulations (see here for Canada's).
posted by hydrobatidae at 7:16 AM on May 26, 2011
posted by hydrobatidae at 7:16 AM on May 26, 2011
Best answer: The contemporary relationship human beings have with animals is the very definition of tyranny (an arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power). We're the dominant species on this planet, and we have power over animals expect in rare cases where the power relationship switches and animals have the upper hand -- a mountain lion who kills a runner, a sting ray who kills a tv personality, a dog who bites a toddler, etc -- and those cases fascinating examples of the triumph and wildness of nature. We can dismiss that disproportionate power structure as unimportant, but that would be because we are looking at it from the perspective of the tyrant, not the oppressed. This power is only possible through our collective massive physical presence on the planet, through modern technology, through social conditioning to desire to become benevolent owners, through all kinds of circumstances. In the premodern world, we lived according to the rules of the food chain and survival of the fittest, so animal rights didn't matter, because we were already on an equal playing field. We have changed those rules and won the contest of survival and become the king of all species (but the revolution still brews, perhaps viruses will triumph in the end). With dominance comes accountability, and the discussion of the "rights" of our subjects, whether we think they are deserving of those rights or not.
posted by mmmcmmm at 7:21 AM on May 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
posted by mmmcmmm at 7:21 AM on May 26, 2011 [9 favorites]
I have trouble imagining a world where empathy is extended to the most vulnerable animals and not eventually to all people.
Well, empathy for animals and animal rights can be quite different things depending on what you mean by "rights". Like Peter Singer I don't really believe in rights at all, but that doesn't affect my capacity for empathy.
Contrast animal welfarism which believes that animals should not suffer unnecessarily in the course of their use by humans with the animal rights belief that humans have limited to no rights to infringe on the rights of animals.
I'm not sure that for the purpose of this thread it's a useful distinction because a lot of commenters are using "animal rights" to encompass a broader idea and I'm not interested in being a pedantic philosophy jargon prescriptivist, but you might wish to take this into account if you go digging for further writing on this.
posted by atrazine at 7:23 AM on May 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Well, empathy for animals and animal rights can be quite different things depending on what you mean by "rights". Like Peter Singer I don't really believe in rights at all, but that doesn't affect my capacity for empathy.
Contrast animal welfarism which believes that animals should not suffer unnecessarily in the course of their use by humans with the animal rights belief that humans have limited to no rights to infringe on the rights of animals.
I'm not sure that for the purpose of this thread it's a useful distinction because a lot of commenters are using "animal rights" to encompass a broader idea and I'm not interested in being a pedantic philosophy jargon prescriptivist, but you might wish to take this into account if you go digging for further writing on this.
posted by atrazine at 7:23 AM on May 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Eating Animals, by Jonathan Safran Foer includes some information on animals feeling pain and forming social bonds - I think it's different from allegory to consider the biological basis for animals feeling pain and distress. Peer-reviewed literature would be another way to go at this - you can probably find some cites by searching the EU's recent acceptance of new standards for care of vertebrates and cephalopods in laboratories.
An allegorical perspective that differs from those above is The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams - she looks at how misogyny and meat eating are interwoven.
posted by momus_window at 8:19 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
An allegorical perspective that differs from those above is The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams - she looks at how misogyny and meat eating are interwoven.
posted by momus_window at 8:19 AM on May 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: No you're not alone, and your question is a little odd to me, because the radical left has historically been virulently opposed to any notion of animal rights -- well, when it has thought about animals at all. "Humans are everything, animals are nothing" is the prevailing position of the old school Marxist left and has been since the earliest days, as atrazine points out. Here's a typical screed against AR from prominent British socialist group, the Socialist Workers Party. This sort of argument has been the standard party line from at least the 90s, and probably since Singer. It seems to accord pretty neatly with your own position -- you both believe that speciesism is acceptable because it is somehow natural and an established cultural tradition; and you both believe that animal liberation is sort of a sideshow to the revolution because animals cannot liberate themselves or because their liberation won't help liberate women/minorities/workers.
The first argument is simply the naturalistic fallacy (rape and abuse of women is also natural and the subject of many cultural traditions). The second also implies radical leftists have no place defending young children, or the intellectually disabled, or elderly people with dementia).
posted by dontjumplarry at 9:09 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
The first argument is simply the naturalistic fallacy (rape and abuse of women is also natural and the subject of many cultural traditions). The second also implies radical leftists have no place defending young children, or the intellectually disabled, or elderly people with dementia).
posted by dontjumplarry at 9:09 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
There is a rational argument for much greater defense of human rights than animal rights: people have greater intelligence and power and are in a position to perpetuate harm done to them. Tens of millions of animals died in the wars of this century, some if not all of which could be avoided if there was more social justice (or other kinds of justice) and equality.
On the other hand, I always thought it's a bit odd to claim that humans have some special status viz. suffering. Consider this thought experiment: a Richard Feynman and a retarded dude with an IQ of 50 are locked up and their index fingers are chopped off. Will Feynman experience a greater or deeper pain because of his greater intelligence, or because he now can't point at an equation on a blackboard? It's pretty reasonable to say that the pain will be equal and intelligence will have no bearing on it. Likewise, if you think back to your own experiences when you were 2 or 3 years old, it's fair to say that getting hurt then was just as painful, if not more so, than it is now.
I think it's pretty obvious that, as societies developed, it was something of a taboo to kill or harm other people largely because they can get back at you or their families or clans can catch you with your pants down at a later time. And then of course the intelligent thing to do is to turn into virtue that which you must do out of necessity.
posted by rainy at 9:33 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, I always thought it's a bit odd to claim that humans have some special status viz. suffering. Consider this thought experiment: a Richard Feynman and a retarded dude with an IQ of 50 are locked up and their index fingers are chopped off. Will Feynman experience a greater or deeper pain because of his greater intelligence, or because he now can't point at an equation on a blackboard? It's pretty reasonable to say that the pain will be equal and intelligence will have no bearing on it. Likewise, if you think back to your own experiences when you were 2 or 3 years old, it's fair to say that getting hurt then was just as painful, if not more so, than it is now.
I think it's pretty obvious that, as societies developed, it was something of a taboo to kill or harm other people largely because they can get back at you or their families or clans can catch you with your pants down at a later time. And then of course the intelligent thing to do is to turn into virtue that which you must do out of necessity.
posted by rainy at 9:33 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Of course not all leftists believe that animals have moral status. But of those that do, I'd say that outside of weird lit crit circles, hardly any think that the REASON they have moral status as anything to do with "dismantling capitalism" or "ending systemic oppression of women and minorities".
A couple of people have mentioned Singer, but no one has spelled out his basic claim. He's a utilitarian, and thus thinks that the moral status of an action entirely derives from its net contribution to overall pain or pleasure (not just of the person doing the action, but overall). Any creature that is sentient -- feels pain or pleasure -- counts in the utility calculus. Period. Might the pain of an animal be outweighed by other benefits? In some cases, sure. But not in the case of factory farming under tortuous conditions to make cheap meat.
That's a bit simplified, of course. And note that it only directly and clearly says that factory farming is wrong, and that's not the same as saying that eating meat is wrong (some meat is not factory farmed). And utilitarianism is a controversial moral doctrine. But hopefully it's clear why Singer thinks animals matter morally: he has an underlying ethical theory -- a theory about what makes ANYTHING count as right or wrong -- that entails that sentience is what matters, not intelligence, nor membership in a particular species.
This is one of his early articles on the subject.
posted by kestrel251 at 9:41 AM on May 26, 2011
A couple of people have mentioned Singer, but no one has spelled out his basic claim. He's a utilitarian, and thus thinks that the moral status of an action entirely derives from its net contribution to overall pain or pleasure (not just of the person doing the action, but overall). Any creature that is sentient -- feels pain or pleasure -- counts in the utility calculus. Period. Might the pain of an animal be outweighed by other benefits? In some cases, sure. But not in the case of factory farming under tortuous conditions to make cheap meat.
That's a bit simplified, of course. And note that it only directly and clearly says that factory farming is wrong, and that's not the same as saying that eating meat is wrong (some meat is not factory farmed). And utilitarianism is a controversial moral doctrine. But hopefully it's clear why Singer thinks animals matter morally: he has an underlying ethical theory -- a theory about what makes ANYTHING count as right or wrong -- that entails that sentience is what matters, not intelligence, nor membership in a particular species.
This is one of his early articles on the subject.
posted by kestrel251 at 9:41 AM on May 26, 2011
Best answer: It seems like your question isn't so much looking for a set of beliefs or principles to adopt so much as an authority who will back up your pre-existing philosophy. If that is the case, I'm not going to be of too much help because I don't have a great deal of knowledge about famed leftist thinkers. However, if you're looking for help in developing a logical rationale for your own thoughts, I'd offer the following two things:
1) It's hard to come up with a consistent set of beliefs about this, or anything else, without being thoroughly aware of your own foundational beliefs. For example, you may be a leftist because you have determined that life and its ultimate potential are, for you, sacred. You may be a leftist because your religious beliefs include a deity who commands that all humans are created equal. You may be a leftist because, deep down, your own personal life experiences have given you a general sense of fairness or right and wrong. So, when you're constructing your philosophy and you can't figure out why you believe what you believe (about animal rights, for example) take it as an opportunity to explore your most basic founding principle. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you've already got one that explains your thoughts on animal rights, and that if you explore it you'll be able to articulate your rationale for yourself.
2) I think that every foundational belief describes a beautiful, but impractical ideology. I would suggest that in order to accomplish anything you've got to draw a line somewhere to be able to proceed.
So basically, you've got to know the root of your beliefs and then you've got to be able to make a tactical decision, guided by that root, about which of your resultant beliefs you will care about/act upon. So, as a leftist, you may decide that your foundational belief, when brought to its logical conclusion, demands that animals do not have rights or that they have rights but that those rights are less than the rights of humans. Then, the pragmatic side of you may step in and say that, since so much of humanity is currently suffering gross violations of their rights, you will focus your efforts completely on the more important goals of humanism. In other words, you may say, as a leftist, that every dollar being donated to PETA or the Humane Society is a dollar that is not given to [insert human focused leftist group here].
Anyway, good luck!
posted by Quizicalcoatl at 9:42 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
1) It's hard to come up with a consistent set of beliefs about this, or anything else, without being thoroughly aware of your own foundational beliefs. For example, you may be a leftist because you have determined that life and its ultimate potential are, for you, sacred. You may be a leftist because your religious beliefs include a deity who commands that all humans are created equal. You may be a leftist because, deep down, your own personal life experiences have given you a general sense of fairness or right and wrong. So, when you're constructing your philosophy and you can't figure out why you believe what you believe (about animal rights, for example) take it as an opportunity to explore your most basic founding principle. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that you've already got one that explains your thoughts on animal rights, and that if you explore it you'll be able to articulate your rationale for yourself.
2) I think that every foundational belief describes a beautiful, but impractical ideology. I would suggest that in order to accomplish anything you've got to draw a line somewhere to be able to proceed.
So basically, you've got to know the root of your beliefs and then you've got to be able to make a tactical decision, guided by that root, about which of your resultant beliefs you will care about/act upon. So, as a leftist, you may decide that your foundational belief, when brought to its logical conclusion, demands that animals do not have rights or that they have rights but that those rights are less than the rights of humans. Then, the pragmatic side of you may step in and say that, since so much of humanity is currently suffering gross violations of their rights, you will focus your efforts completely on the more important goals of humanism. In other words, you may say, as a leftist, that every dollar being donated to PETA or the Humane Society is a dollar that is not given to [insert human focused leftist group here].
Anyway, good luck!
posted by Quizicalcoatl at 9:42 AM on May 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Are there radical leftist social justice texts that make direct, non-allegorical arguments for animal rights
Try reading Gary Francione -- Animals as Persons or Your Child or the Dog? He's also got a lot of writing available on the web. He's completely different from Peter Singer.
Moreover, I can't see how the fact of eating/wearing/experimenting on animals in and of itself is necessary for the continuation of capitalism and oppression.
It comes from the same root/attitude, which is ignoring the suffering of others as you use them for your own ends. Lack of empathy. Belief that superiority entitles one to use or cause pain to others.
I see a host of fundamental differences between people and animals that don't exist between people of different colors or genders.
Interesting. Not sure how it's possible to say that humans have completely unique traits than other kinds of animals without resorting to religious beliefs. I don't think that's really rational.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2011
Try reading Gary Francione -- Animals as Persons or Your Child or the Dog? He's also got a lot of writing available on the web. He's completely different from Peter Singer.
Moreover, I can't see how the fact of eating/wearing/experimenting on animals in and of itself is necessary for the continuation of capitalism and oppression.
It comes from the same root/attitude, which is ignoring the suffering of others as you use them for your own ends. Lack of empathy. Belief that superiority entitles one to use or cause pain to others.
I see a host of fundamental differences between people and animals that don't exist between people of different colors or genders.
Interesting. Not sure how it's possible to say that humans have completely unique traits than other kinds of animals without resorting to religious beliefs. I don't think that's really rational.
posted by Ashley801 at 10:50 AM on May 26, 2011
Response by poster: [Is it] possible to say that humans have completely unique traits than other kinds of animals without resorting to religious beliefs.
Exactly. A recent panel discussion of neuroscientists, biologists, and philosophers was unable to come up with a conclusive answer to what exactly set us apart from other animals, but all agreed that there was some ineffable quality unique to humans.
In the social justice project that I work with, there was a request for our assistance by an animal rights group, and the overwhelming group attitude seemed to be that animal rights was in fact a dimension of social justice. It was really jarring, and I got a lot of dirty looks for saying that I disagreed.
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:34 AM on May 26, 2011
Exactly. A recent panel discussion of neuroscientists, biologists, and philosophers was unable to come up with a conclusive answer to what exactly set us apart from other animals, but all agreed that there was some ineffable quality unique to humans.
In the social justice project that I work with, there was a request for our assistance by an animal rights group, and the overwhelming group attitude seemed to be that animal rights was in fact a dimension of social justice. It was really jarring, and I got a lot of dirty looks for saying that I disagreed.
posted by Jon_Evil at 11:34 AM on May 26, 2011
So, there was a line from Penn & Teller's Bullshit a few years back (not that they're leftist, but bear with me) in an episode about endangered species. I think. It's been a while. Anyway, it was something to the effect of "I would shoot every single orangutan on the planet if it meant we could save one junkie dying on the street."
I'm not sure what endangered species have to do with "animal rights", but this is just Penn and Teller appealing to emotions with a dumb false choice. There are certainly species of non-humans on this planet whose loss would impact humans to a significant degree: honeybees, for example, whose existence we rely on for a huge amount of our food. No doubt P&T would spray every honeybee on the planet if it meant they could save one junkie, but in the real world losing honeybees means losing crops, which means losing food, livelihoods, and you can figure out the impact of that on people. The pending extinction of songbirds in Europe threatens food crops, as insects are not kept in check. Loss of opossums in fragmented habitat means an increase in white-footed mice, a Lyme Disease vector:they carry the pathogen and the tick. Lyme disease can be fatal for humans if not treated. What if you shoot every opossum to save a junkie, and then a child gets Lyme disease and dies? What if Penn Jillette gets Lyme disease and dies? Oh wait, that's a stupid hypothetical query that has no basis in real life issues.
Anyway, this is pretty much a derail. It's true people without food, water, or jobs are certainly ripe for revolt. But that's a tenuous link to the subject at hand, other than the case could be made that people with a regard for animals in general may be more understanding of ecological science and the significance of animals' role in our lives, whether we eat them, use them for research, ride them, pet them, &c. However, that's a level of sensitivity, curiosity and nuance that is nearly exempt from politics, left or right, by definition.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:16 PM on May 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
I'm not sure what endangered species have to do with "animal rights", but this is just Penn and Teller appealing to emotions with a dumb false choice. There are certainly species of non-humans on this planet whose loss would impact humans to a significant degree: honeybees, for example, whose existence we rely on for a huge amount of our food. No doubt P&T would spray every honeybee on the planet if it meant they could save one junkie, but in the real world losing honeybees means losing crops, which means losing food, livelihoods, and you can figure out the impact of that on people. The pending extinction of songbirds in Europe threatens food crops, as insects are not kept in check. Loss of opossums in fragmented habitat means an increase in white-footed mice, a Lyme Disease vector:they carry the pathogen and the tick. Lyme disease can be fatal for humans if not treated. What if you shoot every opossum to save a junkie, and then a child gets Lyme disease and dies? What if Penn Jillette gets Lyme disease and dies? Oh wait, that's a stupid hypothetical query that has no basis in real life issues.
Anyway, this is pretty much a derail. It's true people without food, water, or jobs are certainly ripe for revolt. But that's a tenuous link to the subject at hand, other than the case could be made that people with a regard for animals in general may be more understanding of ecological science and the significance of animals' role in our lives, whether we eat them, use them for research, ride them, pet them, &c. However, that's a level of sensitivity, curiosity and nuance that is nearly exempt from politics, left or right, by definition.
posted by oneirodynia at 6:16 PM on May 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
all agreed that there was some ineffable quality unique to humans
Perhaps that quality is "wanting to believe in an ineffable quality unique to one's own group." See also: religious sects, nationalistic zealots, racists, and sports fans.
posted by orangejenny at 8:42 PM on May 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
Perhaps that quality is "wanting to believe in an ineffable quality unique to one's own group." See also: religious sects, nationalistic zealots, racists, and sports fans.
posted by orangejenny at 8:42 PM on May 27, 2011 [2 favorites]
There's also similarity in the idea that difference, in and of itself, is justification for using/harming others. There may be more of a difference between a human and an ape than between two people of different social classes, genders, nationalities. But why is being different than another being, the fact that that being is not in "my group," justification to harm that being? That's another idea out there.
posted by Ashley801 at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2011
posted by Ashley801 at 11:28 AM on May 28, 2011
Seconding mmmcmmm's comments about accountability of the Dominant. As the (largely unnoticed) leftist philosopher Uncle Ben said to a young Peter Parker,"With great power comes great responsibility." Social justice recognizes that the Powerful can and should help the least of us, especially since the positions of power generally came at the expense of exploiting the least of us. But what is "us" is key. "Us" didn't used to include the disabled/mentally ill, the women, the differently colored, the differently cultured (etc.), but as time marches on, so we become more aware that our ingroup/outgroup bias prohibited us from recognizing that these variations are, in fact, sentient, and should be included under the umbrella of "us". We look back in amazed horror that some (most!) seriously believed that, say, women or blacks were non-sentient....objects to be traded, bought, sold, and exploited like chattel. There were indications surely, but it was an inconvenient truth so the Powerful willfully ignored those indications. Similarly, as we learn more and more about the cognitive capabilities of animals, hitherto ignored or unrecognized, isn't it possible we will look back in horror to see what we have been willfully ignoring as an inconvenient truth?
Anyway, Jane Goodall has some interesting things to say about primates. Maybe they, at least, are "us"?
posted by Jezebella at 9:44 AM on May 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Anyway, Jane Goodall has some interesting things to say about primates. Maybe they, at least, are "us"?
posted by Jezebella at 9:44 AM on May 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by gjc at 5:14 AM on May 26, 2011 [4 favorites]