A charge that is often made by Objectivists and other anti-animal folks, against animal rights advocates is that the ARA's only make emotional arguments. I think people who make this charge have not read the literature. So, I think this charge needs to be addressed:
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Allen wrote (3/10):
>Now, one needn�t accept [Rand's]characterization, but might instead
>show that it is lacking, or propose an alternative. However, I am unaware
>of any such approach on the part of animal rights advocates. They seem to
>evade any definition, or source, of rights, while appealing to feelings
>about animals as though they were human. By this mechanism, their
>position avoids refutation, for they do not define what it is.
I replied:
I just can't let this sort of nonsense go unchallenged, again. There is a large
body of work done by serious philosophers in the area of animal rights. I
have read approximately 40 scholarly books last year alone and more are
produced every day, not to mention hundreds of articles. Most of these
pro-animal rights works present carefully thought out logical arguments.
In contrast, the books by anti animal rights advocates like Carl Cohen,
R. G. Frey, and Peter Caruthers contain some of the worst philosophical
arguments that I have ever read.
Additionally, there is an abundance of recent scientific literature on
animal intelligence, cognition, and culture, which should demonstrate
to any rational person that man's anthropocentric views about his
superiority to other animals are misguided to say the least. There is
so much literature out there, that its hard for me to believe that anyone
who considers himself to be informed enough to proffer an opinion in
this matter, could be unaware of it.
Therefore, I must conclude that people who make the "emotionalism"
charge against animal rights advocates are either carelessly negligent
in reading the literature or wantonly negligent, and thus, they are the
ones who are guilty of _evasion_, if there is such a concept.
Below is a list of philosophical books I recommend.
"Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy" Julian H. Franklin
"Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights" Steven Wise
"The Moral Status of Animals" Steven R. W. Clarke
"Moral Status" Mary Anne Warren
"Introduction to Animal Rights" Gary Francione
"Animal Rights & Human Morality" Bernard Rollin
"Animals Like Us" Mark Rowlands
"Animal Rights" Mark Rowlands
"Rain Without Thunder" Gary Francione
"Created from Animals" James Rachels
"Brute Science" Hugh LaFollette & Niall Shanks
"The Case For Animal Rights" Tom Regan
"Animals and Ethics" Angus Taylor
"Empty Cages" Tom Regan
"Food for Thought" Steve Sapontzis
"Animal Rights-Current Debates and New Directions"
Edited by Cass Sunstein & Martha Nussbaum
"Morals, Reason, and Animals" Steve Sapontzis
"Beyond Prejudice: The Moral Significance of Human
and Non-Human Animals"- Evelyn Pluhar
"Animal Rights": A Historical Anthology- Andrew
Linzey & Paul Barry Clarke
"Dominion" Mathew Scully
"Animal Liberation" Peter Singer
And Singer's forthcoming book:
"In Defense of Animals- The Second Wave"
"Slaughterhouse" by Gail Eisnitz
And the above short list doesn't even include the numerous articles
written by academics all over the country or legal scholars like Henry
Mark Holzer, Ayn Rand's attorney, a long time animal rights
advocate, who is also Special Counsel for the International Society
For Animal Rights, Director and Chairman of the International Society
For Animal Rights, and Trustee and President for the Institute For
Animal Rights Law.
I suggest that those who are inclined to make baseless charges of
emotionalism against animal rights advocates should spend less time
at the PETA website and more time at the library.
Gayle Dean
"The most perfect ape cannot draw an ape; only man can do that; but,
likewise, only man regards the ability to do this as a sign of
superiority."G. C. Lichtenberg (1742-99), German physicist, philosopher.
_______________________________________________________________
Russ wrote:
> Your task is a hopeless, and simply declaring that "other bases" for rights are possible that would result in >"some form of animal rights" is simply wishful thinking designed to bolster a purely emotional response (an >emotional response, by the way, that I would equally have, i.e., to try to stop the bastard).
Ellen replied:
But, Russ, why would you have this emotional reaction if you really
believe that that dog is simply "property"?
I don't think that the idea of animal "rights" makes sense because
animals don't have the mental capacity for a conceptually held
ethical code. Neverthelss, the idea of thinking of animals as
"property" I find questionable. I keep remembering, when I see
that description -- animals as "property" -- a scene from my
favorite of the Star Trek movies, the one Leonard Nimoy directed,
where they've time traveled back to current earth and there's
this marine biologist who oversees a whale in an aquarium and
upon becoming upset with Spok's communing with the whale says,
"What are you doing to my whale?" (or something like that),
to which Spok responds, "Gracie isn't *your* whale." It seems
to me a category error to think of animals as in the same
classification as one's, e.g., house or even one's plants.
Animals are sentient and have the capacity of locomotion --
they can move on their own steam. So why would they be someone's
"possession"?
I wonder what your case is for thinking that the category "property"
can precisely be applied to animals.
Ellen
______________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ellen
Date: Fri Sep 24, 2004
Subject: Animal Rights
Russ writes:
> Bad behavior such as cruelty to animals is no different than any other bad behavior
>that does not violate the rights of other people.
There's a point of divergence (along with speaking of animals --
in relation to the animals -- as "property"). I think it IS
different because animals are sentient. There's a victim in the
case of cruelty to animals, which there isn't in the other examples
you give of behavior which disgusts you.
Ellen _________________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________________