Morality and Animal Rights

Dolce. -- She looks stern and serious in photo, but Dolce is extremely loving and forever the perpetual adventurer.

Part of recent themes in Animal Rights are morality, ethics and whether or not it is ever appropriate to use animals.

.

Some argue that it is never right or ethical to use animals as the animals "have no choice" and are completely at the mercy and domination of humans (e.g. "servile").

.

(This argument, while sounding somewhat plausible on its face, would also have implications to our relationship with companion pets as in most instances, the animals are completely reliant on their human caregivers and have "no choice" in who they live with, what and when they eat or when or if going out.)

.

But, the truth is that humans use each other all the time, whether or not we admit to it. We use each other in friendships, intimate partnerships and in employer/employee relationships. Are all such uses, "immoral" or wrong? Only if they slip over the fuzzy line to abuse or what one might term, use that bears little or no benefit to the used and rather brings harm, suffering or injury.

.

"Use" itself can however often be positive, productive and reciprocal such as in employee/employer or personal relationships.

.

With animals too, "use" can be positive and reciprocal such as in healthy relationships of companion cats and dogs (and other pets) with their human caregivers or even some situations of "working animals" and their human handlers and caregivers. The animal gains protection from predators, is provided with shelter, security, regular meals, veterinary care, love and attention in exchange for companionship, unjudgmental affection and sometimes species specific "work."  It could be argued that both human and animal "use" each other, but in ways that benefit and bring comfort to both.

.

It should be pointed out also that in nature, animals "use" each other, particularly when establishing hierarchy and individual roles in herds, flocks and packs and quite often animals of different species use and cooperate with each other as matters of survival and/or comfort. (Examples, mallards and geese working together to help maintain open water during icy conditions or an elk enjoying birds picking ticks off his back. The birds get an easy meal; the elk draws comfort and relief.)

.

The fact is that use exists all through nature and in human society.

.

Unfortunately, in our relationships with animals, "use" too often descends to actual abuse that brings little or no comfort or benefit to the animals and on the contrary, usually culminates in both, immense suffering and death to them.

.

The most egregious and pervasive examples of these are factory farming of so-called, "food animals," and painful and/or deprivation experiments on animals. 

.

In these instances, the animals derive little or no peace, benefit or comfort during their unnaturally short time on earth and "use" by humans. One could argue the animals would be better off never having been born or hatched at all than to exist under such egregious conditions of perpetual suffering, seeming tyranny and abuse.

.

But, are these practices and cruelties "immoral?"

.

"Morality" is a subjective, constantly evolving term that probably has nearly as many interpretations as there are people.

.

While we have long progressed from the days of The Scarlet Letter, morality still runs the gamut among people according to culture, religion, upbringing and any changes in behavior and laws.

.

In most people, our moral and core values are set very early in childhood from parents, religion, teachers, friends and society itself.

.

In terms of our relationships with animals, we are generally taught as young children that some animals are "pets" to be enjoyed as companions, while other animals (chickens, cows, pigs, etc) are "food" to be used as such with little consideration to the animals' species specific physical, mental or emotional needs.

.

Thus, it is "immoral" to kill and eat a dog or cat, but not to kill and eat a turkey. (We in fact, celebrate a major family holiday by eating turkeys.)

.

Unless some major transforming life event occurs along the road from childhood to adulthood, most people are therefore, locked into moral perceptions and beliefs regarding animals and are unable to grasp and embrace the alleged "immorality" or ethical questions surrounding meat eating, factory farming or painful experiments on animals. The perceived and learned "morality" of animal use and abuse has been ingrained into souls and psyches from the time most of us can barely understand human language. (e.g. "They're only animals.")

.

I personally believe, therefore, that many in the Animal Rights movement err when attempting to confront the major abuses of animals from the moral and "right" and "wrong" perspectives and/or conflating animal abuse with other issues of human abuse, such as slavery or religious persecutions.

.

Such arguments are restricted to work mostly with those already considering Animal Rights or converted to veganism.

.

Truth is, that we usually adapt our morals to fit our behaviors, rather than the other way around. Thus, If we want to influence the morals of a society, we first have to inspire changes in behavior and then the morals (and laws) follow.

.

But, how exactly is that accomplished?

.

I personally believe the AR movement would significantly advance by taking inspiration and some lead from the successes over the past several decades of the exercise and running movements. 

.

Growing up as a child, I barely remember anyone running, much less, hundreds of thousands running 26 mile marathons.

.

So, how did organizers of fitness programs and manufacturers of exercise equipment manage to attract so many people so fast?

.

It seems through promises and guarantees that such "changes in behavior and lifestyle" ultimately result in greater health, vitality, longevity, happiness and feelings of accomplishment for individuals and society as a whole.

.

It seems "positive reinforcements" rather than shaming, labeling and moral platitudes are far more conducive to behavioral and lifestyle changes in humans as most people aspire to that which brings sense of peace, harmony, vitality and achievement.

.

But, what can bring even greater sense of peace, harmony and achievement than connection with nature, animals and the planet?

.

I shared on this blog not too long ago, a commentary that predicted that connection with nature would be the new "trend" of the not too distant future.

.

One would like to think that connection with nature and greater understanding of and consideration to the animals we live with will represent the new trends and movements of the future. 

.

But, that won't happen if Animal Rights proponents fall into traps of moral admonitions, preaching to the already converted, almost constant negativity or appealing to those already plagued by guilt in some sense or chronically depressed. We should not aspire to be some special "club" that accepts and rejects members based on litmus tests of veganism and/or unquestioning adherence to a cause. 

.

Rather, Animal Rights needs to reach out to and embrace the masses as all successful movements ultimately do. And it needs to reach people where they live, not on some moral high ground unreachable to and misunderstood by most.

.

Most of all, we need to try and inspire to a more just and sublime way of living -- one that embraces the animals and the nature that surrounds us and ultimately bring sense of real and lasting inner peace and feelings of connection.

.

As noted previously, only then will the ethical, moral and legal changes inevitably follow. -- PCA

.

.

.

                                                    **********