This opinion piece was published by the Philadelphia Daily News in 2007. I am reproducing it now to point out the moral schitzophrenia of those who continue to protest against Michael Vick at his NFL games (on the basis that his participation in dogfighting was morally reprehensible) and yet continue to consume animal products.
We're all Michael Vick
By GARY L. FRANCIONE*
MICHAEL VICK has, according to his lawyer, agreed to plead guilty to federal dogfighting charges against him.
Over past weeks, there's been an enormous amount of coverage of the dog-fighting operation sponsored by Atlanta Falcons quarterback Vick, who, along with three other men, has been indicted on federal felony charges.
The details of the charges claim that Vick sponsored illegal dog fighting, gambled on dog fights and permitted acts of cruelty against animals on his property. The talk shows have been filled with talking heads from the "humane community" condemning dog fighting and calling for Vick to be punished. Nike and Reebok have suspended products endorsed by Vick.
Please let me be very clear from the outset: I think that dog fighting is a terrible thing.
But I must say that the Vick case rather dramatically demonstrates what I call our "moral schizophrenia" about animals.
That is, if one thing is clear, it is that we do not think clearly about our moral obligations to animals.
In this country alone, we kill more than 10 billion land animals annually for food. The animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting.
There is no "need" for us to eat meat, dairy or eggs. Indeed, these foods are increasingly linked to various human diseases and animal agriculture is an environmental disaster for the planet. We impose pain, suffering and death on these billions of sentient nonhumans because we enjoy eating their flesh and the products that we make from them.
There is something bizarre about condemning Michael Vick for using dogs in a hideous form of entertainment when 99 percent of us also use animals that are every bit as sentient as dogs in another hideous form of entertainment that is no more justifiable than fighting dogs: eating animals and animal products.
There is something bizarre about Reebok and Nike, which use leather in their shoes, suspending products endorsed by Vick. They're not going to allow a guy who allegedly tortures dogs to endorse products that contain tortured cows.
In one of my books about animal ethics, I introduced a character named Simon the Sadist, who derived pleasure from blowtorching dogs. We would all regard such conduct as monstrous because we all agree that it is wrong to inflict "unnecessary" suffering on animals - and pleasure, amusement and convenience cannot count as satisfying the "necessity" requirement.
But then I asked the further question: How are those of us who eat animal flesh and animal products any different from Simon? He enjoys blowtorching dogs - we enjoy the taste of flesh and animal products. But we and Simon both kill sentient beings (although we may pay others to do the dirty work) because we derive enjoyment from it.
According to reports, authorities removed from Vick's property a "rape stand" used to hold dogs for mating. "Rape racks" are used to hold cows for impregnation. When a dog is involved, we are troubled - when a cow is involved, we ignore it.
Michael Vick may enjoy watching dogs fight. Someone else may find that repulsive but see nothing wrong with eating an animal who has had a life as full of pain and suffering as the lives of the fighting dogs. It's strange that we regard the latter as morally different from, and superior to, the former. How removed from the screaming crowd around the dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?
We are all Simon.
We are all Michael Vick.
*Gary L. Francione is Distinguished Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark. His latest book on animal ethics, "Animals as Persons," is published by Columbia University Press.
31 comments:
So it is not okay to kill dogs and cows, but perfectly acceptable to kill babies? BTW, you never replied to my comment.
Well Paul, I will start off by saying that I do not believe that anyone will go to hell regardless of whether they kill animals or babies (in vitro or full-term). The Christian dogma you subscribe to suggests that the subtitutional atonement relating to the sacrifice of one man's life 2000 years ago would be sufficient to wipe the slate clean for someone who slaughters a million babies. I find that, my friend, laughable. Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting Good Friday at Calvary was a day at the spa. However, many people have suffered more excruciating deaths and most parents would accept a crucifixion in a blink if it was necessary to save their children, let alone all of humanity.
Now, to address your question, I don't believe that it is morally correct to consume animals where that consumption is unneccesary. However, I do accept that there is a moral difference between using an animal for a circus (i.e. a trivial use) and using one to produce a life saving drug.
Do, I belive that it is morally acceptable "to kill babies". Of course, not. We agree on that. However, we differ on how to define a baby. Your absolutist dogma suggests that life begins at the moment of conception. Of course, if you accept that crap, nature is the biggest aborter of all. Zygotes don't have sentience and I afford them no moral consideration. At what point does a zygote acquire sentience? To be frank, I have no idea and I would be the first to support a conservative approach in this regard. However, if you want to afford moral consideration to a zygote in the first 8 weeks of life, then a compelling argument can be made to afford moral consideration to my fingernail because you could create a clone of me out of that.
Again, let me refer back to my demolition crew analogy. Why are we destroying something, by the millions, that has a possibility(a very strong possibility), of having human life? There are countless doctors, biologists, and geneticists that support the claim that human life begins at conception. What about somebody in a coma, that are not sentient. You are willing to support the destruction of millions of fetuses, without any type of proof that do not have life.
I think it should be clear to you by now that I am both pro-choice and anti-abortion. I would not want abortion used as birth control but I understand that, once a zygote is conceived, there is no reason that why its rights should trump those of the woman whose womb it occupies. You see, this is where religion makes it easy: imposing and adhering to absolute rules requires no critical thinking. Follow the rules of your Church - no abortions, no contraception, no exceptions. The trouble with this kind of approach is that imposing absolute rules results in unspeakable injustice or, to use terminology you are more familiar with, evil. What do you want to do? Outlaw abortions so teenagers are forced to seek treatment from unlicensed practitioners? Have the state tell women that they are guilty of murder if they have an abortion? Force rape and incest victims to have the babies of criminals? Ban the sale of condoms so that HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can run amok? You religion gives you easy answers to these questions. I can only thank Zeus that your religion has no say in the public policy of my country.
Michael Vick engaged in criminal behaviour. He did his time and was released. He has a right to earn a living. He has a right to play football.
Donte Stallworth killed someone with his Bentley. He did his time and was released. He has a right to earn a living. He has a right to play football.
Commissioners of sports are not Judges. They should not be making amends for what they perceive to be lenient sentences by suspending players for the same conduct. That's "God's" job.
Is a fetus a human being? Because I'm pretty sure that a fetus has done nothing "bad" enough to deserve the death penalty, yet that is what you are supporting. Is it acceptable to kill an innocent human being? And is a fetus a human being? That is what the issue comes down to.
Paul, ethicists and moral philosophers have debated these issues for decades. You don't have to worry about it - your Church gives its sheep absolute rules and then tells them not to question or think about it. People like me have no such luxury. We try to do the right thing without someone telling us what is right and wrong.
I don't support abortion and would support any sensitive measure that would dissuade a woman from having one if the fetus could have a chance at living a good life. But if a rape/incest victim wants an abortion, I support their right to do so. If the pregnancy would endanger the mother's life, I support the procedure. In most other cases, I wouldn't "support" it but I certainly wouldn't want the state to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her own body until the fetus is viable. We can argue until the cows come home as to what "viable" means but it is unlikely to be in the first trimester.
Once again, I laugh at those who oppose abortion and then head home to eat their factory farmed steak. To me it is the ultimate in hypocrisy. To suggest that human life is "sacred" while all other sentient nonhuman animals can be consumed for the most trivial of reasons is absurd. A day will come when specieisim will be placed in the same category as sexism (still alive and well in the RC Church - have you seen any female priests lately?) and racism.
If you are wondering why I bring up the vegan issue, it's because I don't see human animal life as having more intrinsic value than nonhuman animal life. So, until people stop consuming billions of sentient animals each year, it's hard to get too worked up about abortion. To borrow your phrase, what did all those animals do to deserve the death penalty? And who gives us the right to impose it? Again, you have any easy answer - Lordy says it's ok. I don't get that cop-out.
"Ethicists and moral philosophers have debated these issues for decades," that is not an answer to my question. Is a fetus a human being? Here is a link from Princeton University with list of quotes from doctors, biologists, geneticists, and other scientists who state that a fetus is a human being. http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html
Is it "wrong" to kill an innocent human being? And is a fetus a human being?
Paul, I think you already know that I don't believe in absolute right & wrong and, no, I don't consider a fetus to be a human being in its early stages of development. However, I am interested to know what you rely on to conclude that the zygote is more worthy of moral consideration than the spermatozoon and/or the oocyte prior to conception. Or is a masturbator just as morally blameworthy as the abortionist?
"I don't consider a fetus to be a human being in its early stages of development." What is this based off of? Faith? Belief? Opinion? You support the destruction of millions of potential human beings based off of what?
Paul, I don't dodge your questions but you dodge mine. Anyone reading this thead can see that as plain as day.
I [to use your words] "support the destructions of millions" based on my OPINION that it is reasonable to draw a line between a bunch of multiplying cells and a viable fetus. Just so you know, I don't accept the suggestion that a fetus can't feel pain until the 3rd trimester. However, I can also tell you that the worm on the end of a fishing hook feels pain as well. You and I both afford moral consideration to the fetus - we just differ on the point where that moral consideration begins (my opinion differs from the rule you are given by your Church). I feel the worm is also entitled to at least some moral consideration but you would have no difficulty sacrificing every worm in the world to save a single human life.
So, please answer my questions:
1. What do you rely on to conclude that the zygote is more worthy of moral consideration than the spermatozoon and/or the oocyte prior to conception?
2. Do you want pregnant teenagers seeking abortions forced to seek treatment from unlicensed practitioners?
3. Do you want the state to find women guilty of murder if they have an abortion?
4. Do you want to force rape and incest victims to have the babies of those criminals who inseminated them?
5. Do you want to ban the sale of condoms so that HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases can run amok?
6. Do you want to outlaw masturbation and recreational (i.e. not for procreation) sex and, if not, why not?
7. What do you rely on to suggest that human life is intrinsically more worthy of moral consideration than sentient nonhuman animal life?
I await your answers. I'm sure you'll find them all in your Catechism.
If you look back to the beginning of this discussion you will notice that I asked the original question. So, please make sure I have this correct, in your opinion a human fetus is not a human being. Even though that opinion is contrary to the science I have presented, while you have only presented your opinion. Oh wait, your whole definition of morality is solely based the Atheist Missionary's opinion(even though there is no science to support his opinion). Did I get that all right?
Your opinion is that a human fetus is not a human being. What is this opinion based on? You are risking the lives of millions of human beings based on what?
Paul, you have now started repeating yourself.
Yes (I repeat), my moral decisions are solely based on my opinion. There is no science to suggest that a week old zygote can "feel" pain or "feel" anything. If you can provide some authority for that proposition, I'd be interested to see it. In fact, I might even change my opinion on how conservative we should be about setting cut-off dates for abortions. You see, I have an open mind and am not hamstrung by religious dogma.
Please answer the 7 questions listed above or, at the very least, give me the courtesy of confirming that you have no intention of answering them.
When did I ask you if a fetus feels pain? I bet some of the Jews gassed by the Nazis did not feel any pain when they died either. Pain is not the issue, never was. I make the claim, and have backed it with evidence, that a human fetus is a human being, and therefore deserving of basic human rights. You make the claim, backed with your opinion, that a human fetus is not a human being, and therefore can be killed arbitrarily by the millions. I know you think very highly of your opinion, but it should not be used as evidence in an intelligent discussion. The video you posted stated that anybody who disagrees with legalized abortion does not use rational thought to come to that conclusion. When it is coming to light that it is rather your conclusion that does not contain rational thought. Normally I would not give a crap, but I start to care when it affects the lives of millions of children.
So I will repeat myself again. Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being? And is a human fetus a human being? Please use something worth more than your ever depreciating opinion this time.
I'll be happy to provide a more elaborate response to your question after you answer the 7 questions posed above. Otherwise, please don't waste my time or that of the others who find this space worthy of their time.
You posted a video that represented your opinion on the subject of abortion. I have challenged that opinion, and you have refused to give a viable defense. Instead of giving a defense you have proceeded to question me on subject matter irrelevant to the original topic. The verdict now is that you have no defense, making your opinion on the subject worthless.
I will leave it others reviewing this thread to determine whether my 7 questions are irrelevant. What is clear is that you are can't answer them or are afraid to answer them.
I love how you turned an intelligent discussion into a bartering match worthy of any five-year-old. Since you have reduced the conversation to this level, "lets make a deal." I will answer one of your questions now, then you can finish our discussion, then I will answer the rest.
"4. Do you want to force rape and incest victims to have the babies of those criminals who inseminated them?"
Yes.Why should the newly conceived baby be punished, with the death penalty, for the man's crimes? It is the same thing as making it legal to shoot your brother because your neighbor broke into your house.
There you go. My answer to your question, based on my opinion, backed up with the evidence I have previously provided and reason. Your turn my friend.
"So I will repeat myself again. Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being? And is a human fetus a human being? Please use something worth more than your ever depreciating opinion this time."
I haven't read any of the comments, but I'd like to say that even as a former vegan, the assertions that eating meat is like watching dog fights is just absurd. Michael Vick was fighting dogs for his own entertainment, whereas people eat meat for sustenance. Its silly to think that every single person on earth, with different blood type, body types, metabolisms, ancestry, etc all could eat one type of diet. I tried to live as a vegan, eating a nutritious & whole foods diet with plenty of protein, good fats, etc. I felt like absolute crap for 3 months. Now that I am eating meat, eggs, & dairy again (all in grass fed, humane, & organic form), I feel much, much better. My husband is still eating a mostly vegan diet--only animal product is backyard chicken eggs--and is doing absolutely fine on it. We are just different people with different needs.
There is quite a leap from eating factory farmed meat to eating grassfed meat. Yes, I hate the idea that someone had to die for me to eat. I really struggle with it. But at the same time, I know that this is what I need to be healthy. I can only take comfort in the face that the meat I eat is raised in the way it was meant to live, & killed quickly and humanely (no torturing involved there.)
ihugtrees, I'm sorry to hear that your experience with veganism did not go well. I guess where you and I depart is on the necessity of consuming nonhuman animals (I should add that my wife agrees with you!).
I subscribe to the abolitionist approach that we do not have the right to consume other sentient beings. In my opinion, veganism is a moral baseline.
If you check with the American Dietary Association and a local (unbiased) nutritionist, you will find that a vegan diet can be quite healthy provided it is properly supplemented. However, you will never hear me claim that veganism is healthier than an omnivorous diet because I don't know enough to make that claim. I just find the moral argument compelling.
I should also add that your consequentialist views are in good company - Peter Singer would agree with you.
Paul, I want you to know that I hold 5 year olds in high esteem and much prefer their company to that of adults.
Now, to answer your questions: Is it wrong to kill an innocent human being? And is a human fetus a human being?
I don't believe in absolute right and wrong so it is difficult to answer your question. I don't have a God who sets up a holy rule book for me. If pressed, I would have to say that I am a preference utlitarian and I would agree with the views of applied ethicist Peter Singer on the issue of abortion. This position has been described as follows:
Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:
First premise: It is wrong to take innocent human life.
Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.
Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.
In his book "Rethinking Life and Death", Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.
Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life: Singer writes: "[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognise that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life."
Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view, a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion, therefore abortion is morally permissible.
Suffice it to say that Singer is not on the Pope's Christmas card list. Nor am I.
So if somebody is in a coma, do they have the right to live? What about a gas chamber that painlessly puts people to sleep, permanently. Again, you are risking the lives of millions of human beings based on a purely subjective opinion. What makes your subjective opinion any better than my subjective opinion? What makes your belief in morality being based solely in one's opinion any more valid than the belief that morality is based in the love of a divine being? Also, morality, by definition, is an ethical system shared by a community. How does a "morality" based solely in an individual's opinion function?
As promised, I will answer another question.
"6. Do you want to outlaw masturbation and recreational (i.e. not for procreation) sex and, if not, why not?" No. I believe these are morally wrong, but, in my opinion, it is not a matter for the state to dictate. It is the state's job to protect citizens. Consensual "recreational" sex can be immoral and still remain outside the realm of a legal system.
Paul, I believe that all sentient beings have an intrinsic right to continue their existence. Patients in comas present an interesting case because their sentience has been temporarily (and perhaps permanently) removed. In cases where someone is permanently in a coma, I would absolutely support euthanasia if that person had consented to being euthanized before falling into the coma. As you are likely aware, most common law juridictions allow people to create living wills which set out their wishes in circumstances like these. For example, my power of attorney for personal care provides as follows:
I do not wish to have my life unduly prolonged by any course of treatment or any other medical procedure which offers no reasonable expectation of my recovery from life threatening physical or mental incapacity, except as may be necessary for the relief of suffering.
Speaking of rights, what right does your Church have to tell me that I shouldn't be able to request euthanasia in advance?
You ask What makes your belief in morality being based solely in one's opinion any more valid than the belief that morality is based in the love of a divine being? Easy - I exist. The divine being (at least as conceived by Judeo-Christians) most likely does not.
You ask How does a "morality" based solely in an individual's opinion function? It functions in a free and democratic society by majority rule and thank Thor we live in an ever increasingly secular society.
Paul, since you ahve kindly explained that you seek to outlaw abortion and not masturbation, I look forward to hearing your answer to question #1 above. Since you seem to be just answering one at a time, please answer that one. However, I wish you would answer them all and save us the agony.
Whoever taught you that masturbation is morally wrong is a moron.
"It functions in a free and democratic society by majority rule..." Please give me an example of a truly democratic society. Germany pre-WWII, the majority of german people voted in the Nazi party. Early United States, the majority of people have zero qualms with slavery. Does that make these things morally correct? Social constructs made up by the majority opinion have failed miserably throughout history. The vast majority of people have the opinion that it is perfectly okay to kill animals, yet you do not "believe" that is moral. It seems to me that something is morally correct only if you agree with it.
"1. What do you rely on to conclude that the zygote is more worthy of moral consideration than the spermatozoon and/or the oocyte prior to conception?" Both the sperm and the egg can be described as "dead" cells. Neither of them feed or reproduce themselves, whereas a zygote is the exact opposite. It receives nutrients from the mother, it reproduces itself on a massive scale, and it contains all the genetic code to create a human adult. A zygote has genetic code completely different from that of it's father and mother. It is a new human being, and, if left to natural order, will become a functioning human fetus, human infant, human child, human adolescent, and human adult.
Thanks Paul. If a living organism is unable to feed itself or reproduce, you afford them no moral consideration. Think about that. You see, when you base your moral compass on dogma, it creates all kind of practical absurdities.
I don't suppose you intend on defending papal self-flagellation, do you? http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/01/pope-whipping-himself-described-as-act.html
Let us just approach this issue from your opinion of morality then. The majority of people in the United States now believe that abortion is wrong. Making it now immoral in the US. The majority of people in your country believe that it is a perfectly great thing to kill and eat animals, making that completely moral.
Slavery was considered perfectly moral by the majority of people in the US two hundred years ago. So the small percentage of people back then who disapproved of slavery were not based in morality? What are the boundaries of your "morality?" Can one country deem slavery moral by majority, and the neighboring country deem it immoral by majority? Or does it have to be a universal majority? What about in a small community? If the majority of people on a high-school football tram decide that it is moral to beat the crap out of the opposing minority, is that okay?
You said that you do not believe in "absolute right and wrong." What about a man molesting his child, is that wrong? What about a guy throwing his girlfriend down a flight of stairs, is that wrong? What about a women drowning her five children in a bathtub, is that wrong?
Paul, my view is that right and wrong are concepts that we attach to human actions. In many cases, asking whether something is right or wrong doesn't even make sense. For example, is it right or wrong for lightning to strike and kill an adolescent right in front of his mother? (I mention this because it happened not far from my home this summer). Many Christians would describe that circumstance as evil which I believe is as silly as calling an avalanche evil. An avalanche is no more evil if it destroys a village of people than if it occurs without harming anyone.
So, to answer your question, is a man molesting his child wrong? Yes, at least according to the conventional morality of all civilizations that I am aware of. However, this is an evolved sense which I believe has a straightforward explanation: there is no benefit gained by "selfish" genes which would favor molesting kin.
Throwing the girlfriend down the stairs? That depends on why he is throwing her. It may be to save her from a fire.
I like your bathtub example because people who would do that are either: sociopathic (you could spend a year studying this topic alone) or mentally ill. The mentally ill ones usually say that they were commanded to do it by god (or the devil) or they come up with bizarre explanations that they were trying to save the kids from some more ghastly occurrence. It is this latter explanation that is relevant to your question. If the alternative to the drowing were a lifetime of torture, rape and misery, would the drownings be considered right or wrong? I don't know but the reason why I raise this is because there are very few actions that you could not justify under extraordinary circumstances. Murder could easily be justified. Baby rape is the one that usually gets raised that I can't see being justified under any circumstances. I believe that is because we have an overwhelming biological impulse to protect the young and innocent and are naturally repulsed (thank Thor!) at the thought of sexual attraction to an infant.
Good job. You used a lot of words to, once again, completely avoid the question. Please refer back to my response to your statement about morality being the majority of individual's opinions in a society.
Paul, there is simply no way that a god (or gods) can ground morality. See my post dated today - January 30, 2010 entitled: "There is no way a god could ground moral claims". I look forward to receiving any comments you might have to that suggestion.
Can you not read either? "Please refer back to my response to your statement about morality being the majority of individual's opinions in a society."
Post a Comment