Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bless the Beasts (Should conservatives care about animal suffering?)
National Review ^ | 12/16/2011 | Claire Berlinski

Posted on 12/16/2011 7:29:56 AM PST by SeekAndFind

Some virtues are by accidents of history associated with utopianism, hostility to private property, anti-clericalism, and other core beliefs of the Left. I can scandalize a yoga instructor anywhere in the world by declaring myself an avid admirer of Margaret Thatcher, though I challenge you to read the yoga sutras and conclude from them that devotees must favor an overregulated financial sector.

Concern for the welfare and dignity of animals is such an issue, associated with nihilist leftists such as Peter Singer and local totalitarians who seek to regulate pets out of existence. But one need not believe that animals have been endowed with all the rights of humans to insist that they are more than a commodity that tastes good.

The conservative case against routine indifference to animal suffering has best been made by Matthew Scully in his 2002 book, Dominion. As I read it, the cat in my lap stretched out her paw and tenderly patted my cheek. “She would taste good,” I thought, was not a morally serious answer to the question, “Should I eat her?” And if it was not, how could it be a serious answer to this question: Should I eat an animal that has been separated from its mother at birth; confined its whole life to a pen in which it could not lie down to sleep or even turn around; castrated without anesthetic; force-fed; maddened by pain, fear, and sensory deprivation; and often inadequately stunned before slaughter, and therefore boiled and dismembered while still conscious?

Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of the Humane Society, is not notably a philosophical conservative. Nor has his record at the Humane Society been unimpeachable; Michael Vick remains — despite his apologies and Pacelle’s — as plausible a campaigner for his organization as O. J. Simpson would be for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. Pacelle has been too quick to praise animal shelters that are no more than killing machines. (There are better solutions: trapping, neutering, vaccinating, and releasing, for example.) He is not Scully’s equal as a prose stylist; his writing is a bit schmaltzy. But many of the arguments in his new book, The Bond, are compelling; some are new, and those that are not are cogently restated and worth restating.

Our instinct, he proposes, to care for animals is as much a part of our nature as our instinct to exploit them, and a better part of it. If Scully locates his argument, ultimately, in natural law and Christian theology, Pacelle appeals to the bond we instinctively feel with animals, one so ancient that to dismiss it as effete sentimentalism is surely to take the easy way out. This bond may be viewed through many modern prisms — genetic, evolutionary — but it has been observed from Aesop to Kipling. Children are born with a keen curiosity about animals; their horror at the thought that the animals are to be slaughtered must be trained out of them. It is well known that children who torture animals have something very wrong with them: They often grow up to practice this enthusiasm on humans.

I am happy to accept that animals are not humans and that the life of a human is more sacred than a cow’s. But it requires tergiversations of the mind and soul to accept that animals are thus like plants and their lives no more sacred than a carrot’s. We need not value animals more than children to ask, as Bentham did, whether they suffer, conclude that they do, and demand of ourselves that we limit the amount of suffering we impose upon them.

As Pacelle observes, it is not normal in human history to see animals as commodities much like plasma TVs even as we live in ever greater intimacy with them as pets. It is perverse to share our beds with cats and dogs as millions more of them every year are gassed or injected with sodium pentobarbital in animal shelters — a grotesque euphemism, as is the word “euthanasia,” for there is no shelter there, nor mercy in the killing of animals who are healthy, rambunctious, and young. They die terrified, and they die pointlessly: Very few are vicious, and most are capable of forming deep, affectionate bonds with humans. Revulsion at this is neither a left-wing sentiment nor a new one. “Though critics try to cast the animal-protection movement as something foreign, eccentric, and subversive,” Pacelle writes, “this cause has long been a worthy and natural expression of the great Western moral tradition.” William Wilberforce, he adds, is rightly remembered as a campaigner against cruelty to animals.

Pacelle’s tour d’horizon of the development of our understanding of animal nature raises important points. The Cartesian and Skinnerian views of the animal mind are dead. Since the cognitive revolution began in the 1950s, psychologists have grudgingly come to accept the obvious: Animals have minds. (No one without a Ph.D. in psychology could have failed to see this in the first place.) What kind of minds? We do not precisely know, but surely they have them.

Do they suffer? Of course. Do they love? Everyone who has lived with a cat or a dog knows the intensity of their emotions. Not just the cats and dogs, either; the natural world is bursting with stories of animals who have formed loving bonds with humans — lions, tigers, elephants, all the way down the phylogenetic tree to octopi. What are we to make of the sight of a monster crocodile who slobbers his way toward the edge of his pool, snorting with satisfaction, in order to be chucked under his chin by his trainer? That is a reptile, after all, one whose ancestors were on the planet millions of years before humans appeared. The capacity for this behavior appears to be at least latent throughout the animal kingdom. Is it right to observe this and conclude that our behavior toward animals is morally unimportant, or, as Pacelle characterizes the arguments of critics, that “animal welfare is ultimately a trivial matter — the product of effete modern sensibilities?” No, I agree with Pacelle: Our treatment of animals is a measure of our character, and to mistreat an animal “is low, dishonorable, and an abuse of power that diminishes man and animal alike.”

In any event, I’ve not yet noticed that anyone who cares for animals is diminished in his capacity to care for humans. To the contrary, in fact. Surely our compassion is not in such finite supply that we must measure it out in teaspoons lest there be none left.

The book ranges over a horror of commonplace cruelties, from puppy mills to sport hunting, but common sense suggests to me that of all these cruelties, industrial farming is both the worst and the one we least wish to think about. It is good, many conservatives will respond, because it is efficient: The world needs cheap food. Profits are good, and wealth is good — but most will allow that some industries are profitable and vile. That it is possible to make a fortune as a pornographer does not mean it is noble. That it is possible to become rich by making music that glorifies gang culture and cop-killing does not mean we ought to admire those who do so.

Still: It is immensely difficult to arrive at a position of personal decency untainted by contradictions or hypocrisy. Animals, when left to their own devices, often die of disease or eat one another. It is absurd — if only because ought implies can — to suggest we must do something about that. Perhaps here the principle should be Arthur Hugh Clough’s: “Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive / Officiously to keep alive.”

Still: Many animals, my beloved cats included, are obligate carnivores. I feed them meat — yet I have rescued and liberated mice from their clutches. No reason for this, I know; just sentiment.

As for laboratory animals, I’m willing to leave the moral gray area as a gray area and concentrate on the obvious abuses. Only the obtuse would endorse torturing primates, for example, to do research that serves no higher purpose than to put out a paper no one will ever read establishing for the 50th time that primates don’t seem to like being tortured. I’m more willing to accept sport hunting and medical research on certain animals, under limited circumstances, than I am factory farming. The way the animals are cared for is important, as is the point of the research. That the answers to these questions are difficult, and that our principles come into conflict, does not mean we should shrug at the questions or say that they do not exist.

All farming, not just the industrial production of meat, causes harm to animals. Plowing and harvesting cause immense suffering to field animals; as Barbara Kingsolver aptly put it, “I’ve watched enough harvests to know that cutting a wheat field amounts to more decapitated bunnies under the combine than you would believe.” “Cruelty-free” is a marketing slogan, not a serious argument. Yet the fact that some animals must suffer is not an argument for absolute license. We are not obligate carnivores, and we have a great deal of choice about how much meat we eat and how we treat the animals we eat before we slaughter them, if to slaughter them we are determined. At least we might ask ourselves whether they were permitted to run; sleep unmolested; enjoy the company of their own kind; experience sunlight, daytime, and nighttime; and express the instincts with which they were endowed by their creator. We choose to impose the hell of factory farming upon them so that we can eat something that tastes good and costs less. The word for this, as Matthew Scully remarked, is gluttony; it is not a virtue.

Although it is not precisely the argument Pacelle makes, one seems to me implied: The more an animal has the capacity to love us, the more shameful it is to mistreat it. It is partly that dogs love and trust us so that makes our betrayal of them so shameful; it is morally relevant that no one has ever said, “He’s loyal as a snake.” Unlike Pacelle, I support comprehensive No Kill legislation of the kind promoted by Nathan Winograd, and hope to see it enacted in every American city.

As for factory farming, I doubt the practice can be changed until widespread moral revulsion takes hold. I encourage the stirring of conscience. To me, those cows and pigs in factory farms look a lot like the cats and dogs who have laid their heads on my chest.

Before you object, ask yourself: Are you sure? Really? Are you sure you are not twisting yourself into rhetorical knots to justify your impulse to do anything you please to creatures who cannot object? After all, if you come across a paper bag in the gutter and it seems something’s in it and you don’t know if it’s alive, you don’t kick it, do you?

— Claire Berlinski is a freelance journalist who lives in Istanbul amid a menagerie of adopted animals. She is the author of There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 112th; animal; animalcruelty; antihunting; bang; barfalert; claireberlinski; kittyping; liberalnutball; suffering
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last
To: knarf
Great books:

Wagging Tails In Heaven: The Gift Of Our Pets Everlasting Love

Cold Noses At The Pearly Gates

...with Biblical references....

21 posted on 12/16/2011 7:49:05 AM PST by Fawn (NEWT FOR PRESIDENT 2012~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: svcw

I work in the environmental field, so I see all too often who sick and twisted environmentalism is at the up close level. You, FRiend, see how right and important conservationism is - and bless you for it. Hopefully more will see the light.


22 posted on 12/16/2011 7:51:04 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack

Very good post. I also immediately thought of St. Francis.

In addition, I reject the title (at top of thread) because it assumes that conservatives do not care about animal suffering. RIDICULOUS!

The same type of lie about conservatives not caring about the poor is being deliberately promulgated by the left.

It’s way past time to strongly refute this nonsense via intelligent PR campaigns! ....particularly before the election!


23 posted on 12/16/2011 7:53:16 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Hegewisch Dupa

“I see all too often who sick and twisted environmentalism is” - makes (mildly) more sense if ‘who’ = “how”


24 posted on 12/16/2011 7:53:22 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
I think you misunderstood ...

I meant that the underlying motivation of animal rights people could be the desire to have less humans (less cruelty to animals)

Either that ... or I'm misunderstanding your reply.

25 posted on 12/16/2011 7:53:22 AM PST by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

God put animals here for three reasons: To feed us, to do our work, and to entertain us. If you deliberately mistreat them, they don’t taste as good, don’t work as hard, and terrorize rather than entertain.


26 posted on 12/16/2011 7:54:03 AM PST by South Hawthorne (In Memory of my dear Friend Henry Lee II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Numbers 22 (KJV) gives an indication of what G*D thinks of people who abuse animals(or ANY weaker being).


27 posted on 12/16/2011 7:54:31 AM PST by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Exactly - I can’t see a Higher Being who created us lowly life forms being all that impressed if we in turn mistreat even lower life forms He gave us.


28 posted on 12/16/2011 7:58:24 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

- Mohandas Gandhi

_________________________

Makes me wonder how India ranks among his “greatness” scale based on this quote. How about America?


29 posted on 12/16/2011 7:58:43 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle

You speak with the wisdom of the first half of your name, and the sight of the second


30 posted on 12/16/2011 8:00:26 AM PST by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: knarf

Oh, I didn’t understand that your comment was supposed to be what the liberals were doing......


31 posted on 12/16/2011 8:00:48 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fawn

Define “suffering”, some would say separating a dog or cat from its’ mother to make it a household pet, constitutes “suffering.”


32 posted on 12/16/2011 8:03:44 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

33 posted on 12/16/2011 8:04:06 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (FOREIGN AID: A transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Being conservative has nothing to do with treatment of animals. Believing in euthenasia whether animals or humans is a domain for liberals. I’m as conservative as they come, and have a new companion dog, after I spent a month carrying my dying friend in and out of the house, and it was a 70-pound German Shepherd, not a lap dog. I grew up on a horse tending cattle and was always taught that the animals all got fed and watered before we ate, and I still do that to this day. A lib would have taken her to the vet and killed her rather than go to the trouble of caring for her, and considered themselves superior for having done so. They always want someone else to do their dirty work, the meat they eat doesn’t come from animals, it comes from the store in other words. The leather on their shoes doesn’t come from a cow, but from the store. They are removed from reality in every way.


34 posted on 12/16/2011 8:06:48 AM PST by nobamanomore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
don’t cut the social programs

Government social programs in the long-run, hurt the poor, more than help.

35 posted on 12/16/2011 8:06:48 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Slings and Arrows; Glenn; republicangel; Beaker; BADROTOFINGER; etabeta; ...

36 posted on 12/16/2011 8:08:47 AM PST by Slings and Arrows (You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Why do you want to parse it? I just hope when you see it, you recognize it and follow your conscience...


37 posted on 12/16/2011 8:11:22 AM PST by Fawn (NEWT FOR PRESIDENT 2012~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I love animals and cannot bear to see them suffer.


38 posted on 12/16/2011 8:12:04 AM PST by patriot08 (TEXAS GAL- born and bred and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

We have free range chickens that are very happy. We love them and treat them well. They provide us with entertainment and a daily basket of eggs. We give thanks to God for this blessing. When in the course of their life it becomes time to give their life so that we can eat them then that is what happens. This is not cruel, it is life. We will give thanks for each chicken and carry on another day.


39 posted on 12/16/2011 8:12:04 AM PST by gcraig (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: americanophile

We have free range chickens that are very happy. We love them and treat them well. They provide us with entertainment and a daily basket of eggs. We give thanks to God for this blessing. When in the course of their life it becomes time to give their life so that we can eat them then that is what happens. This is not cruel, it is life. We will give thanks for each chicken and carry on another day.


40 posted on 12/16/2011 8:12:30 AM PST by gcraig (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-134 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson