"Pity the Poor Horses" (And Cats and Dogs)

Prince -- Carriage horse of Central Park. --To be "pitied" or loved?

 

"Pity the Poor Horses" (and cats and dogs) -- "They don't fit and they don't belong."

.

The above are familiar themes in Animal Rights in recent days. Carriage horses "don't belong on the streets of New York City." Companion cats and dogs "don't fit" into society.

.

If such sounds outlandish or exaggerated, one only need visit Facebook pages dedicated to the banning of carriage horses in New York City or to the abolition of all animal use.

.

An example of the latter is Law Professor and respected leader in Animal Rights philosophy, Gary L. Francicone's Facebook page:  (1) Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights

.

Professor Francione has authored books on the subject of Animal Rights, lectures at Universities and is frequently interviewed in the press. While one can respect his dedication to the cause and his superior education, intellect and accomplishments, some of the philosophical aims and positions are troubling.

.

According to Mr. Francione, were there only two dogs remaining on the planet, he would not allow them to breed for the simple reason companion pets (as created and used by humans) "don't fit."

.

However, Francione does support and on a daily basis, promotes the rescue of "refugee" death list dogs and cats from city pounds. 

.

How are such actions consistent with a position that otherwise champions as end goal, the eventual extinction (through attrition) of domesticated cats and dogs?

.

Apparently, such rescue actions are founded in pity for the animals who otherwise would not be alive (nor could they survive) without the charity and intervention of humans.

.

But does not such position place domesticated animals below humans in philosophical thought and consideration as opposed to being "equals" as many ARists advocate for?

.

Apparently, the argument is that since domesticated animals are entirely "dependent" upon humans for care and survival, they are  unworthy of moral consideration beyond rescue and should not continue to exist on the planet. -- Domestic cats, dogs and horses "don't fit."

.

Friend and occasional contributor to this blog, "Doug from California," recently raised some of these questions to Mr. Francione and his representative (Linda McKensie) on the professor's FB page. Below are excerpts.

.

• Linda McKenzie Dougls Kerner, frankly I found your comments to be very contradictory and confusing and it's difficult to understand from them what it is you're really saying and where you stand. I feel that the reason for this may be, and forgive me if I'm wrong, that you while you obviously have some genuine interest in the Abolitionist Approach, as evidenced by the fact that you're reading Animals As Persons, and read the material I posted previously, at the same time you have an emotional attachment to the idea of pet ownership and still want to convince yourself that it can be morally justified. Since if I recall correctly you were asked by Gary previously not to defend pet ownership here, and indeed, it violates our Terms of Use, you seem to be falling back on implying that abolitionism is incoherent because of its stance on pet ownership rather than openly defend pet ownership. As you can see, that's not going to work. 
  
  The question uppermost in my mind at this point is, are you vegan? If you have a real concern for animals, the main thing is that you go vegan, if you haven't already, and end your own participation in animal exploitation. That's the priority. I think you already know enough to know that this is the right thing to do. If you have any doubts about that, then let's discuss that. There's not much point in discussing other issues concerned with animal ethics if you haven't yet gone vegan. That's the baseline, without which nothing else makes sense. Don't let your disagreement or uncertainty or discomfort or whatever it is about the issue of pets get in the way of making that fundamentally important decision. You don't have to agree with every aspect of the Abolitionist Approach right now to go vegan. But you can't sincerely or coherently claim to have moral concern for animals if you're not vegan. 
  
  Another quote:
  
  <<I understand that many people will be bewildered by my argument about the inherent problems with domestication. But that is because we live in a world in which we kill and eat 56 billion animals a year (not counting fish) and where our best justification for that practice is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. Most of you who are reading this right now are probably not vegans. As long as you think it is acceptable to kill and eat animals, the more abstract argument about domesticating animals to use as "pets" is not likely to resonate. I understand that.
  
  So take a few minutes to read some of the many other essays on this site that discuss veganism, such as Why Veganism Must Be the Baseline.>> 
  
  Please read these essays:
  http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-paradigm.../...
  
  http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/...

  15 hours ago · Edited · 3
• 

  Gary L. Francione: The Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights Dougls Kerner: I do not understand what you are concerned/confused about. We ought not to continue producing domesticated animals, including dogs and cats. That said, there are millions in existence that need homes today and those who adopt/foster get as much back as they give if they take these refugees into their homes. But that does not mean we should continue to produce domesticated animals. My position is really very simple. I am bewildered as to what is confusing you.

  8 hours ago · 1
• 

  Dougls Kerner Okay, what's the plan?

  2 hours ago
• 

  Dougls Kerner 
  'morning Linda. Thank you for your attention and sorry for the delay on my end. Regret also that you found my comment "contradictory and confusing." My intention was to be consistent and clear. Yes, I have read the essay you commend me to - once before my prior comment and again, yesterday afternoon. And I bought the book.
  I feel like I'm navigating perilous shoals here. You have admonished me, again, that comments that "defend" pet ownership are unwelcome. I get that this is the Professor's page and respect that he can apply whatever restrictions he wants. So first confession: I am inclined to the view that companion animals,and if well treated whether they work or not, are a good thing for both the animal and their human steward. That said, I did not come here to defend that or anything else; I am trying to understand Gary's position better because if he is right, then I am wrong in that view. So are the huge majority of self-described animal rights advocates. I don't know what avenue other than discussion, even if skeptical or challenging, to take. (Think Descartes).
  Second confession: Your response back to me suggests, if I got it right, that unless vegan I am unqualified to the claim of favoring animal rights, and further even incapable of rational thought and question. Based on your approval of another responsive post, I might also conclude that only vegan children are capable of loving an animal for the soul and essence of the animal. (Were any of us raised vegan?) Anyway, I wasn't raised vegan. I am not vegan now. I'm not even a vegetarian. On the other hand, I eat a lot less meat than I used to, I do not approve of or patronize factory farming. If those admissions disqualify further discourse with me, stop reading, ban me under the terms of use or whatever. I hope you (well, Professor Francione - I can't believe it's up to you, no offense Linda) don't do that. 
  So, if you're still reading, and further to my pending question and having re-read the material you commended me to, two things jump out: First is Professor Francione's (personal I guess) statement that: "We regard the dogs who live with us as refugees of sorts, and although we enjoy and care for them, it is clear that humans have no business continuing to bring these creatures into a world in which they simply do not fit." This invites me to recast my question to, "Is it your or my or some other human authority's role to decide whether an animal "fits" in our society or does not? How does that work with a vision where animals are the moral equivalent of humans? My dogs and horses "fit" fine with me so I found this confusing. 
  Second, Professor Francione dedicates "Animals as Persons" with "[t]o the two hamsters and twelve dogs who taught me the meaning of parenthood." I guess this invites the question whether "the meaning of parenthood" involves mere dominance or savior instinct, on the one hand, or the love that exists, in mine and everyone I know's experience shared between animals and their human companions? I think Gary means the latter, but your proxy response suggests that such love or joy is "incidental" to a relationship otherwise founded in pity and viewing the animals as "refugees" or "victims" who would not otherwise be alive or capable of surviving without our intervention and charity. I have a hard time with that because I'm not sure it is actually possible to meaningfully love someone we place below ourselves and view as an inconvenient burden. I know that I love my dogs and they love me. For sure I am the dominant animal in the household (which is kind of ironic since my dogs, or either of them, could readily take me apart if they wanted to) as there is in any pack, herd or flock in nature.
  10 or 15 thousand years ago, some guy tossed a piece of deer carcass to a wolf. Some while after that, there were dogs. Is this about ruing or atoning for that catastrophic mistake in judgment (query, which made the mistake? The man or the wolf?)
  My interest (and yours and Gary's) is in improving the condition of animals and as you undoubtedly have figured out, my concern is not getting in the way of that, through inadvertence or otherwise.
  Thank you again, Linda. You have been helpful and courteous throughout and these are dicey subjects. Doug.

  2 hours ago

Putting aside the supposition that this comment thread will likely be deleted because of the specified "terms of use" on the page, it raises interesting questions.

.

The one that most jumps out to me is, "Can pity and love co-exist?"

.

It seems not as we generally don't love (and look up to) what we otherwise view as hapless victims of societal's errors or life's misfortunes.

.

Thus, those who advocate for "getting rid of" the carriage horses in Central Park do not seem to see creatures of beauty, nobility, adaptation and free spirit. They do not revel in the admiration of majestic and powerful animals being proficient at "work" and enjoying human interactions and attention. Rather, they see "sad and broken" animals completely at the subjugation of "evil" humans, leading a "miserable" life.

,

Are the horses really these helpless, spiritless and abject objects of pity?

.

Or, are they magnificent creatures to be admired, respected, cherished and appreciated for their willingness to work cooperatively and enthusiastically with humans?  

.

If the latter be true, would we not want to keep the horses in NYC? Do we not normally want to keep the objects of our love (whether human or animal) with us?

.

Love is possessive and wants to hold on to. Pity wants to alleviate or remove.

.

Thus, the goals to eventually "eliminate" both, domestic pets and working horses, seem more to be about pity than love.

.

"The world is an unjust, miserable place where the animals only know perpetual victim hood and dependency at the hands of cruel and merciless humans. It is better that the animals not exist."

.

I don't personally subscribe to such theory and philosophy that places pity on a higher plane than love (which is apparently denied from even existing in human/relationships) and thus places domesticated animals on a lower level than humans. They are as objects to be forever pitied and eventually banished as they are unworthy to share the planet with us --elitist and forever superior, accomplished humans mired in pity rather than love. 

.

While compassion and pity are instrumental qualities in helping to achieve justice and fair rights for truly oppressed or abused animals (or humans), they should never be substituted for love which commands respect, admiration, desire to keep and raising to higher and equal level worthy of cherish. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                *********

                                                   ********