This Blog considers assisted suicide/euthanasia, bioethics, human cloning, biotechnology, radical environmentalism, and the dangers of animal rights/liberation. My views expressed here, as in my books and other writings, reflect my understanding that the philosophy of human exceptionalism is the bedrock of universal human rights. Or, to put it another way: human life matters. (The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of any organization with which I am affiliated.)
UK animal liberationists have commenced an arson campaign against companies that do business with Huntingdon Life Sciences. If the company is driven out of business by this tactic, not even McDonald's will be safe. And the silence from the "peaceful" animal rights believers is deafening.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 10:26 PM
8 Comments
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
8 Comments:
I wouldn't have thought that activists were silent, let alone, deafeningly so.
Many animal rights activists/theorists (to take one obvious and visible example, Tom Regan) have openly and regularly condemned violence as a means to promote the cause. I don't think they have to denounce every violent action to be opposed to the use of violence.
What do you think the appropriate response would be? How often need they repeat their objections?
The problem is similar to those who are dismayed that anti-abortionists don't condemn acts of violence against abortion clinics, abortion doctors, etc. Since there is rarely a peep (well, at least few are reported by the media), pro-abortionists assume that all anti-abortionists support such tactics, if not openly, at least in their hearts.
Unfortunately, we all have a propensity to think the worst of those who disagree with us, especially about some idea or behavior we think important. It would be nice if we could learn to treat others not as moral monsters, but as decent people with whom we happen to disagree. Listening to others doesn't make the ideas less important, or our convictions less firm. However, it does mean we acknowledge that we are fallible, and we realize that the only way to have meaningful and public discussion is to be civilized.
BTW, if anyone is interested, J. Glenn Gray's discussion of "Images of the Enemy," in _The Warriors_ is appropriate not just to the ways that we view enemies in wartime, but the way we view adversaries in everyday life.
Have a good day.
You imply you oppose the violence. Thank you. I have repeatedly asked my correspondents who believe in animal liberation to do so, and you are the first.
There are, of course, some liberationists who do not support violence. Gary Francione, whom I have debated, is another. But stating so in subdued ways is utterly inadequate to the task. PETA is a huge culprit in this regard by explicitly REFUSING to condemn such tactics. And PETA, in many ways, is the public face of animal liberation.
If the animal libertion movement is not to be completely taken over by the whackos, those who oppose these tactics are going to have to become very organized and vocal, and yes, issue angry press releases after every illegal act. It's time to take back your movement before it is too late.
Thanks for writing.
I find it surprising that you think activists should "issue angry press releases after every illegal act."
To me that seems excessive.
Since you do think that, I assume you issue similar denunciations when anti-abortionists use violence. Good for you.
To your question. Yes, I oppose violence. I think violence is either never or rarely justified -- for this or any other purpose.
However, unlike you, most people I know sympathetic to "animal rights," few express any sympathy for the use of violence.
Finally, as someone who has received death threats because of my stance on animals, I know first hand the effects of violence and threats of violence.
It is not something we want or need in a civilized world.
Agreed.
I am not involved in the abortion issue but unequivocally condemn any threats or violence in that or any other area of cultural contention.
Wesley, hhl is not the first person involved in advocating for animals who has denounced violence on your blog. I am and I have. This brings to the fore the questions: How well are you listening? How willing are you to adjust your theses in accord with new information as it becomes available? As I have also said before, I would like to see an open public conversation on the proper use of animals, instead it looks like we are going to get something polarizing., Like "denounce violence or you aren't credible!)" Then you don't hear it when we do denounce violence. You might pray about it.
I have written about this beyond on my blog and plan a book on it, which will include the very discussion you propose. I support animal welfare and its advocacy. I oppose animal rights vehemently, for reasons I have written about extensively.
The violence issue though is crucial. As I see it, the more radical liberationists are growing increasingly bold and nasty. Unless they are reined in, and hard, by other animal rights advocates, somebody is going to be seriously hurt or killed.
The only people who they might listen to are other animal liberationists. The only people who may know who they are so that law enforcement can be alerted, are other animal liberationists. But PETA winks at them, refusing to condemn, raising the suspicion that its leadership doesn't oppose the violence even though they might not participate personally. That's disgraceful. Well meaning folk like yourself need to fill in the breach.
I appreciate ccepdx’s comments. Most public debate is highly polarized. That is regrettable. Debate in which neither side is open to (nor capable of) moving or changing isn't real debate. It is acting.
Debate in which parties vilify one another isn't real debate. It is name-calling.
Of course I understand the desire to name-call. I feel the urge to use biased language, innuendo, and ad hominem, to drag out red herrings, and to misdescribe my opponent’s position. Something I get so exasperated with "the other side" that I want to dismiss (or even demonize) them.
That is an urge I should resist. It is an urge most of us must resist if we are going to have open, candid, and vigorous – yet civil – discussion.
That is not what we have. Far too much public debate is uninformed, uncivil, and unproductive. That may be great theater; but we shouldn’t dare call it debate.
We must learn to value, encourage, and participate in genuine, open discussion. Unless we do, I fear democracy cannot survive, truth cannot triumph, and moral sympathy cannot blossom.
You'll get no argument from me on that score, pal.
Post a Comment
<< Home