IN DEFENSE OF THE ANIMALSI might as well come right out with it: Contrary to some of my mostcherished prejudices, the animal-rights people have begun to get to me. Ithink that in some part of what they say they are right.I never thought it would come to this. As distinct from the old-styleanimal rescue, protection, and shelter organizations, the more aggressivenewcomers, with their "liberation" of laboratory animals and periodicchampionship of the claims of animal well-being over human well-beingwhen a choice must be made, have earned a reputation in the world I livein as fanatics and just plain kooks. And even with my own recently (rela-tively) raised consciousness, there remains a good deal in both their cri-tique and their prescription for the virtuous life that I reject, being notjust a practicing carnivore, a wearer of shoe leather, and so forth, butalso a supporter of certain indisputably agonizing procedures visited uponinnocent animals in the furtherance of human welfare, especially experi-ments undertaken to improve human health.So, viewed from the pure position, I am probably only marginally betterthan the worst of my kind, if that: I don't buy the complete "speciesist"analysis or even the fundamental language of animal " rights" andcontinue to find a large part of what is done in the name of that causeharmful and extreme. But I also think, patronizing as it must sound, thatzealots are required early on in any movement if it is to succeed inaltering the sensibility of the leaden masses, such as me. Eventually theyget your attention, and eventually you at least feel obliged to weigh theirarguments and think about whether there may not be something there.It is true that this end has often been achieved—as in my case—bymeans of vivid, cringe-inducing photographs, not by an appeal to reasonor values so much as by an assault on squeamishness. From the famous1970s photo of the newly skinned baby seal to the videos of animalsbeing raised in the most dark, miserable, stunting environment as theyare readied for their life's sole fulfillment as frozen patties and cutlets,these sights have had their effect. But we live in a world where the animalprotein we eat comes discreetly prebutchered and repacked so theoriginal beast and his slaughtering are remote from our consideration, justas our furs come on coat hangers in salons, not on their originalproprietors; and I see nothing wrong with our having to contemplate theoften unsettling reality of how we came by the animal products we makeuse of. Then we can choose what we want to do.The objection to our being confronted with these dramatic, disturbingpictures is first, that they tend to provoke a misplaced, uncritical, andhighly emotional concern for animal life at the direct expense of a moresuitable concern for human suffering. What goes into the animals'account, the reasoning goes, necessarily comes out of ours. But I think itis possible to remain stalwart in your view that the human claim comesfirst and in your acceptance of the use of animals for human bettermentand still to believe that there are some human interests that should nottake precedence. For we have become far too self-indulgent, hardened,careless and cruel in the pain we routinely inflict upon these creatures forthe most frivolous, unworthy purposes. And I also think that the morejustifiable purposes, such as medical research, are shamelessly used ascover for other activities that are wanton.For instance, not all of the painful and crippling experimentation that isundertaken in the lab is being conducted for the sake of medicalknowledge or other purposes related to basic human well-being andhealth. Much of it is being conducted for the sake of superrefinements inthe cosmetic and other fril1 industries, the noble goal being to contriveyet another fragrance or hair tint or commercially competitive variationon all the daft, fizzy, multicolored "personal care" product for the medi-cine cabinet and dressing, table, a firmer holding hair spray, that sort ofthing. In other words, the conscripted, immobilized rabbits and otherterrified creatures, who have been locked in boxes from the neck down,only their heads on view, are being sprayed in the eyes with differentburning, stinging substances for the sake of adding to our alreadyobscene store of luxuries and utterly superfluous vanity items.Oddly, we tend to be very sentimental about animals in their idealized,fictional form and largely indifferent to them in realms where our livesactually touch. From time immemorial, humans have romanticallyattributed to animals their own sensibilities—from Balaam's biblical asswho providently could speak and who got his owner out of harm's wayright down to Lassie and the other Hollywood pups who would invariablytip off the good guys that the bad guys were up to something. So wesimulate phony cross-species kinship, pretty well drown in the cuteness ofit all—Mickey and Minnie and Porky—and ignore, if we don't actuallycountenance, the brutish things done in the name of Almighty Hair Spray.This strikes me as decadent. My problem is that it also causes me toreach a position that is, on its face, philosophically vulnerable, if notabsurd—the muddled, middling, inconsistent place where finally you aresaying it's all right to kill them for some purposes, but not to hurt themgratuitously in doing it or to make them suffer horribly for one's owntrivial whims.I would feel more humiliated to be standing on this exposed rock if I didn'tsuspect I had so much company. When you see pictures of peoplelaboriously trying to clean the Exxon gunk off of sea otters even knowingthat they will only be able to help our: a very few, you see this sameoutlook in action. And I think it can be defended. For to me the biggestcop-out is the one that says that if you don't buy the whole absolutist,extreme position it is pointless and even hypocritical to concern yourselfwith lesser mercies and ameliorations. The pressure of theanimal-protection groups has already had some impa.ct in improving theway various creatures are treated by researchers, trainers, and food pro-ducers. There is much more in this vein to be done. We are talking aboutrejecting wanton, pointless cruelty here. The position may be philo-sophically absurd, but the outcome is the right one.[At the time this was written, 1989, Meg Greenfield was a regularcolumnist for
View Full Document
Unlocking...