"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

.

.

.

                                                *********

                                                   ********

By Their Own Free Will -- Animal Rights

  

 

 (Photo -- Steer on their way to slaughter as per human demand.  Photo Credit -- Maria Karisson)

Doug from California submitted this comment yesterday that, due to its length and complexity, I choose to respond to further down:

"If I understand the material, the introduction of morality as the foil for some self-described ARers is rooted in recognition of sentience. Lots of variations, but sentience generally refers to the capacity of living being to perceive, be self aware, feel, and pain is at the fore of that element.

Recognizing sentience in animals is probably responsible for changing the view of animals as mere property no more significant than some inanimate thing. A good evolution in human thinking. At some point that thinking changed again and attempts to grade animals'sentience were made and resulted in differential regard for animals based on the degree to which they exhibited human-like traits. Great apes, famously, and dolphins do that can be accorded higher worth. That slope, however, got slippery in a hurry (turns out that crows can make and use tools, elephants and geese mourn, endless examples, grow by the day) and the thinkers have concluded that gradations in sentience require drawing really blurry lines (are clams, for example, or worms sentient?); so their determination is to avoid the question and hold up sentience at all (which usually means going vegan) as a reason by itself to render use of a sentient animal immoral, irrespective of abuse or the manner of treatment. Servitude for a sentient animal is wrong, to these self-described ARers. Stated another way, there is moral equivalence in their heads among: dog or cock fighting, factory farming, working animals such as plow/carriage horses or bomb sniffing dogs, and indeed caring for your pet dog. (Where are your readers on this list?)

The protagonists of this view actually equate animal use with slavery in antebellum America, a comparison I find personally offensive, indeed absurd.

A couple of things about the antagonists view that don't hold up:

First, while holding up all sentient animals as human equivalents, in a strange twist of irony, they deny the capacity in these animals for love, devotion, self sacrifice for protection - in general, they fail to recognize these animals' capacity to enter to a mutually beneficial, reciprocal "useful" relationship. I'm very confident, positive even, that the animals in my life (horses that jump in competition with my then 75 pound daughter, dogs that greet me at night, protect my place all the time and sleep on the couch) are happy to be here and to be with me and my family.

Second, the antagonists do not include in the elements of sentience the capacity to dream; aspire to be something different from what you are. It is that omission that annoys me about the human slavery play. I'm pretty sure my dogs don't lament not being selected to ride on the Budweiser wagon or in a firetruck. Equally, I doubt that wolves in Yellowstone sometimes decide they'd rather be an elk and go vegetarian. Human beings, whether tragically committed to slavery or privileged in contrast, often do have aspirations like or even wildly different than that. The gradation in sentience is real, however denied for to make the argument hang together in logical fashion but despite common sense observation. The hallmark of civilizations (and I include animals packs, herds, flocks...in that) is determining and implementing the highest use for the individuals involved, maximizing their chances and pushing through together.

I also agree with your observation that demonizing the middle of the bell curve of "AR" people is a mistake. Further to you metaphor, no one ever bought a running $200 shoe because the salesman said "hey, you immoral fatso; you're eating more than your share of food and stressing the health care system." 

Doug from the Gold Country, California

October 26, 2014 at 4:15 PM 

Reply:  Thank you, Doug for your comment. It is obvious you have spent much time in reflection and thought.

.

I will say first, I agree with many of your points, particularly that the equation of animal abuse to human slavery is both, offensive and a mistake. But, while holding the same position, we do not appear to do so for the same reasons.

.

While it can be presumed that animals do not aspire to greatness (as humans might define that word and many do), that should not be surmised to mean that animals do not possess and experience desires, drives and yearnings for something better.

.

Were that not so, billions of mammals and birds would not migrate every year, often at great peril to individuals and the group.  (Why not simply stay where they are and take their chances?)

.

Animals migrate for better food sources, safer places to reproduce and raise young and more comfortable climate conditions applicable to the season.

.

Some might argue that such migrations are a biological imperative necessary for survival, but they appear to be much more than that.  While not "aspiration" or "ambition" as we know those terms, it appears that animals possess both,  the desire and the will to change their circumstances for something better when they can.

.

But, billions of chickens, turkeys, pigs, cows, ducks and other animals imprisoned in animal factories for so-called, "food" are denied any means to act upon their desires, instincts and will. That should not be assumed to mean they don't have them.

.

As evidence to this assertion, I submit this video of 752 egg laying hens rescued from a factory farm and released to a natural environment. Please observe carefully, the hens behavior and reactions both, when confined and crowded inside small battery cages inside the factory and later, when released on a real farm and experiencing the outdoors for the first time:

.

 https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152697895780299&set=vb.32799215298&type=2&theater

.

These hens are not "emotionally dead" when confined to the cages. They are not without drives, yearnings, instincts and will. They are simply prevented from acting on them.

.

But, when afforded the opportunity to finally act upon their desires and will, they do. They stretch their wings, they dust bathe and they build nests -- and that is without the hens ever having been outdoors before.

.

What does that tell us, Doug?

.

Aspirations to be President of the US?  No. But, the desire and will to be and live as a chicken?  Yes.

.

While the deprivation, torture and eventual slaughter inflicted upon billions of "food animals" every year is every bit as brutal and unjustifiable (if not more so) as human slavery, it is however, incomparable for the simple reason that humans and other animals are different.

.

All species (including humans) prioritize their own. The primal drive in every living being is the survival and protection of his/own species.

.

Therefore, comparisons or equations of animal injustice to human injustice (e.g. "slavery" or "murder") are always going to offend most humans on the most primal level. But, it is not because animals don't feel, don't suffer, don't desire or don't possess the will to change and improve their lot in life. They do in ways similar to, but not exactly the same as ours. The problem is, that for billions of animals, we deny and completely prevent them from exercising any of that free will.  Though not technically, "enslavement" from strictly the human sense of that word, it IS tyranny.

.

This finally bring us to the other points in your comment -- specifically, animal/human connection and bonding.

.

On this, there is total agreement. I cannot answer why some in Animal Rights appear to deny or dismiss that such reciprocal and mutually beneficial "use"  relationships exist between animals and humans. As previously noted, even the relationships between pets and caregivers should properly be deemed of mutual "use" as both parties benefit, though humans are unquestionably the dominant partners in the associations, making all the decisions for both.

.

(It should be noted that in situations of actual abuse, neglect or simply a poor connection between animal and human, animals usually possess the means and will to "act out" in some manner to let their displeasure or stress known. (Exception: intensive factory farming where animals are unable and prevented from acting on will.)  Animals may act out aggressively, they may self-mutilate, neurotically pace, they may refuse to eat, recoil in fear, attempt to hide, or frantically try to escape. [The latter is different from an animal with a simple "wanderlust" born mostly out of curiosity or sense of adventure.])

.

These days there are literally millions of examples of animal/human bonding, attachment and yes, love and devotion. Most often these are seen in relationships of humans with pets, but they also occur in many situations of "working animals" and their human partners. The latter are most prevalent among humans and long domesticated animals such as dogs and horses particularly.

.

So what, in essence, is "Animal Rights?"

.

Personally, I believe Animal Rights is a work in progress, particularly as we learn and understand so much more about animals than was ever realized or acknowledged in years and centuries past.

.

Such knowledge and awareness calls upon and compels us to first and foremost confront and address the tyranny that exists and is inflicted upon billions of animals through egregious practices of "factory farming" -- practices that entirely strip animals of their species specific desires, instinctual drives and capacities for free will.

.

What I don't believe Animal Rights to correctly or ethically be is some kind of drive to eliminate all domesticated or "human dependent" animals from the planet.

.

Such would not be to recognize (as you put it) animals' capacity for devotion and allegiance to humans by their own free will. --PCA

.

.

.

                                            **********

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

.

.

.

                                                    **********