Your Turn: What Makes the Animal Rights Movement Different?

The conversations taking place on several of the recent posts are...umm...overwhelming. But some smart and thoughtful comments have prompted me to start a new periodic feature here, in which I present notable comments from readers; I really should have started doing this sooner. (And if you think you're going to go catch up on those conversations now, I wish you luck--and whole free day to do all the reading. The conversations themselves are long, and many of the comments inside those conversations are quite long themselves.)

Several readers' comments have caught my attention lately, but I'm going to share with you just one today (with the commenter's permission). It's fairly long, but it's absolutely worth reading. The title of this post refers to just one of several issues addressed by this reader. She discusses some of the ways that the animal rights movement differs from previous social justice movements, the issue of "respecting" different viewpoints, and how our ethical evolution should take precedence over our biological heritage, and she calls on us to see that we are not bound by this "global system built on oppression of animals and people alike."

First, here is part of one comment to which this reader was responding: "I take AR arguments with the same attitude as religious arguments. They come from people who sincerely want to convince me of the correctness of their POV. While the arguments may be very logical and compelling, the fact that I disagree with their basic premises cuts those arguments off at their knees." He also remarked that some (please note some) AR advocates have criticized him for, as a person with a disability, having a service dog.

From Change.org member Annie C., on the post "Ready to Attack Animal Rights Advocates? Consider This First" (all emphasis added):

I think it's unrealistic to ask anyone with any kind of belief system, ideology, cause, religion or whatever to be 100% consistent and to have all the answers. I do believe in animal liberation, but I have a dog and a cat. I do believe that taking the life of another unnecessarily is wrong, but I can't see myself attacking indigenous people for eating beetles. There is ideology, and then there is reality. I think we are all struggling to convince others of our point of view, and when we're unwilling to have serious conversations not only about that which we are sure about but also that which we are unsure about, we're not really making progress. Yes every social movement, every fight to expand the rights of a particular group, has been fought by people who were convinced that their point of view was 'right' enough to be worth fighting for, to be worth giving their lives for. Did those people doubt themselves, I'm sure. Did they fail to convince many of their points of view, certainly. I'd like to believe that when it comes to 'right' and 'wrong,' everything was very clear. But there are questions that I just don't have answers to yet when it comes to animal rights.

Nevertheless, there are just a couple of things I wanted to point out in response to your post. I think there is something that makes the animal rights movement different in some ways from a religion or any other ideology, and really from any other social movement in history. We are speaking out on behalf of billions of sentient beings that do not speak our language. They certainly must have their own POV, right? But they cannot express it to us. They also really have no ability to defend themselves against our tyranny. I mean really, do they? Not that I can think of. Occasionally you'll see an oppressed circus elephant rebel against her so-called 'trainers,' who've been abusing her for years to force her to perform, and trample them to death, but inevitably she'll be shot down or recaptured.

[Continue reading after the jump--that's an order! You don't want to miss the best parts!]

I always hear about 'respecting differing points of view,' and not 'forcing my beliefs on another,' but those who support the torture, imprisonment and death of animals, either through their words or their actions, or with their pocketbooks, are not respecting the 'point of view,' of each individual animal, which I would hesitate to guess is that they don't want to be tortured, imprisoned, experimented on, skinned alive, boiled alive, have their families ripped apart, and be beaten into submission, among a myriad of other horrors. If I'm wrong, then yes, animal rights is a mere ideology of a few delusional people. And as for 'forcing' my beliefs on others, if I saw someone beating a beagle puppy in the street, I would 'force' that person to stop. If I saw someone skinning a cat alive next door, I would 'force' that person to stop. I suppose that's the whole idea behind direct action. What right-minded person would stand by and watch someone beating a puppy? Few. But when the abuse is legally sanctioned and happening on a grand scale, somehow we must all accept it? But doesn't that almost make it worse?

Ok, to get back to your post. I'm challenging your argument for the purpose of learning more, as I try to navigate my way through the confusing territory of ethics. There are many other socially acceptable ways that 'ideology,' or 'ethics,' or 'propriety,' or compassion, or whatever you want to call it, has triumphed over biological reality. Yes, our ancestors probably ate meat occasionally (certainly not 3 times a day), but why are we bound by this? Supposedly, the instinct of the human male is to 'spread his seed,' right? So is the whole idea of monogamous relationships a triumph of ideology over biology? I suppose it is, and in fact, I've heard a lot of guys argue that (ha ha), but does that mean that any man in a monogamous relationship is an ideological betrayer of his biological reality? Human beings are not bound by our biological roots. We actually DON'T have to kill to survive. We DO, however, have to raise animals in a factory setting in order to feed the voracious appetites of billions of people the world round, so the idea of raising and slaughtering animals humanely is not a reality, not if we keep consuming them at the rate we are. And no, I’m sorry, but giving an animal enough space to turn around and spread it’s limbs is not ‘humane.’

Biological reality would also have us 'culling the herd,' wouldn't it? In 'nature,' whatever that is, no species would ever grow exponentially into infinity (without our interference anyway) as humans have. The idea of "survival of the fittest," which just as the human as hunter model is theory not fact, would have us killing off the weak and disabled rather than helping and protecting them. To keep a premature baby or a child with genetic defects alive would also then be considered a triumph of 'ideology' over biological reality, no?

Your argument that humans are omnivores and therefore there is nothing 'wrong' with eating meat is based on the ideas that (a) humans need to kill animals to survive, (b) humans are bound by the 'laws of nature,' (c) our biological heritage, such as our dentition, takes precedence over our ethical evolution and (d) we have no choice. I don’t believe any of these statements is true.

Since we do have a choice, there are many people who believe we should choose non-violence. That, I suppose, is our 'ideology.'

And for the record, I must say I'm sick of privileged Americans (not that you are one, Marc, at all, I'm totally just bringing this up because I've been talking about choice a lot) talking about how we don't have a choice not to eat meat and dairy when there really are millions of under-privileged people who actually don't, who can only afford a one-dollar burger at McDonalds on their way home from their first job of three. I mean seriously.

Okay, to finish off this novel that I'm writing (sorry!) . . . I really don't think that having a service dog is the same as eating meat. I've heard AR people say that we shouldn't adopt dogs and cats from shelters because it's like inviting a carnivore into your house and perpetuating the system of oppression [Note from Stephanie here: Most involved in AR have heard or read someone say this (and anti-AR folks love to accuse the AR movement of wanting to erase dogs and cats from existence), but in my experience, most AR advocates do rescue and care for the dogs and cats humans have domesticated, and this relationship and situation are complicated--worthy of a separate post], but I just have a hard time with that one. Yes, of course, we HAVE to stop breeding, and yes, animal liberation is the ultimate goal, but do I need to feel guilty for having my rescue dog as a companion? Well, I do feel guilty, because I've taken away his free choice and who knows if he really even wants to live with me anyways, and yes, I feel really bad when I have him on a leash, but should I feel guilty? I don't know the answer to that, I really don't, and I guess of all the battles I could be fighting as an AR activist attacking you for having a service dog to assist you with your disability is not my top priority.

What I do know, however, is that when I see a service dog, and I see how much animals add to our lives, how much they help us, how they don’t judge us based on the way we look, as we do each other, how even after horrible trauma they can learn to be happy and love life, how they save our lives and rescue us when we’re in trouble, and how much they teach us every single day, I can’t help but think . . . Why are we even fighting about whether we should have compassion for them? Why do people have to fight tirelessly to convince others of their ‘ideological’ viewpoint that animals have inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness just as we do? Well I know why. I could write another 10 page long post about why . . . that’s the reality of this profit-driven global economy etc. . . . but the question still remains. Just as we are not bound by our biological reality, we don’t have to be bound by the seemingly inescapable reality of a global system built on oppression of animals and people alike. That’s what the fight is about. So please just think about that.