![]() ![]() |
Animal Defenders of Westchester |
|
![]()
Home Page We advocate on all animal protection and exploitation issues, including experimentation, factory farming, rodeos, breeders and traveling animal acts. Animal Defenders of Westchester |
Articles What We Owe What We Eat Why, Matthew Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling
and cruelty to livestock by the billions a matter of social indifference?
By George F. Will July 18 issue - Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President
George W. Bush, is the most interesting conservative you have never heard
of. He speaks barely above a whisper and must be the mildest disturber of
the peace. But he is among the most disturbing. If you value your peace of mind, not to mention your breakfast bacon, you
should not read Scully's essay ''Fear Factories: The Case for Compassionate
Conservatism�for Animals." It appeared in the May 23, 2005, issue of Pat
Buchanan's magazine The American Conservative�not where you would expect to
find an essay arguing that industrial livestock farming involves vast abuses
that constitute a serious moral problem. The disturbing facts about industrial farming by the $125 billion-a-year
livestock industry�the pain-inflicting confinements and mutilations�have
economic reasons. Ameliorating them would impose production costs that
consumers would pay. But to glimpse what consumers would be paying to stop,
visit factoryfarming.com/gallery.htm. Or read Scully on the miseries
inflicted on billions of creatures ''for our convenience and pleasure": "... 400- to 500-pound mammals trapped without relief inside iron crates
seven feet long and 22 inches wide. They chew maniacally on bars and chains,
as foraging animals will do when denied straw... The pigs know the feel only
of concrete and metal. They lie covered in their own urine and excrement,
with broken legs from trying to escape or just to turn ..." It is, Scully says, difficult, especially for conservatives, to examine
cruelty issues on their merits, or even to acknowledge that something
serious can be at stake where animals are concerned. This is partly because
some animal-rights advocates are so off-putting. See, for example, the Feb.
3, 2003, letter that Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals�animals other than humans�sent to the terrorist Yasir
Arafat, complaining that an explosive-laden donkey was killed when used in a
Jerusalem massacre. The rhetoric of animal "rights" is ill-conceived. The starting point,
says Scully, should be with our obligations�the requirements for living with
integrity. In defining them, some facts are pertinent, facts about animals'
emotional capacities and their experience of pain and happiness. Such facts
refute what conservatives deplore�moral relativism. They do because they
demand a certain reaction and evoke it in good people, who are good because
they consistently respect the objective value of fellow creatures. It may be true that, as has been said, the Puritans banned bearbaiting
not because it gave pain to the bears but because it gave pleasure to the
spectators. And there are indeed degrading pleasures. But to argue for
outlawing cruelty to animals because it is bad for the cruel person's soul
is to accept, as Scully does not, that man is the only concern. Statutes against cruelty to animals, often imposing felony-level
penalties, codify society's belief that such cruelty is an intrinsic evil.
This is a social affirmation of a strong moral sense in individuals who are
not vicious. It is the sense that even though the law can regard an
individual's animal as the individual's property, there nevertheless are
certain things the individual cannot do to that property. Which means it is
property with a difference. The difference is the capacity for enjoyment and suffering. So why,
Scully asks, is cruelty to a puppy appalling and cruelty to livestock by the
billions a matter of social indifference? There cannot be any intrinsic
difference of worth between a puppy and a pig. Animal suffering on a vast scale should, he says, be a serious issue of
public policy. He does not want to take away your BLT; he does not propose
to end livestock farming. He does propose a Humane Farming Act to apply to
corporate farmers the elementary standards of animal husbandry and
veterinary ethics: "We cannot just take from these creatures, we must give
them something in return. We owe them a merciful death, and we owe them a
merciful life." Says who? Well, Scully replies, those who understand "Judeo-Christian
morality, whose whole logic is one of gracious condescension, or the proud
learning to be humble, the higher serving the lower, and the strong
protecting the weak." Yes, of course: You don't want to think about this. Who does? But do your
duty: read his book ''Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals,
and the Call to Mercy." Scully, a conservative and hence a realist, knows
that man is not only a rational creature but a rationalizing creature,
putting his intellectual nimbleness in the service of his desires. But
refraining from cruelty is an objective obligation. And as Scully says, ''If
reason and morality are what set humans apart from animals, then reason and
morality must always guide us in how we treat them." You were warned not to read this. Have a nice day. � 2005 Newsweek, Inc. Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
Your comments and
inquiries are welcome
This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since