Hamming it up

interesting story, and implicitly questions the validity of how we rationalize killing and eating these intelligent animals. They may taste delicious -- by evolutionary coincidence, much like human flesh -- but to my mind killing them for food is scarcely justifiable on ethical or ecological grounds.

A note, since I referred to Stuart Derbyshire's arguments as full of fallacies, and specifically alluded to his argument of `since we are doing it anyway we are implicitly considering animals to be persona non grata for human considerations and so we should drop the pretense and repudiate all consideration for animals.'

Although Derbyshire's arguments have many dimensions, each of which have to be addressed, I will address one fallacy here in his argument as he expressed it putting it in the context of the arguments for slavery.

In the The Scientist article, "Time To Abandon The Three Rs" (Vol 20, Issue 2, Pg 23), he says:

"The three Rs encourage a focus on animal welfare that is both unrealistic and dishonest. Regardless of any beliefs about the value of animals, if you engage in activities that are invasive or lethal to animals or if you control their reproduction, their living space and their habits, you are expressing a de facto belief that animals are sufficiently different from humans to make such activities justifiable.

"Successful promotion of animal research can only begin when we withdraw support for the three Rs."

Powerful words with truth ringing in them. However, this position has multiple fallacies, including the fallacy of relevance, tu quoque.

Derbyshire's argument (as developed in the whole article) is essentially a moral or ethical one which he does not separate from a genuinely logical one, making it an argument of expedience. Without identifying all of the fallacies in this and the whole article here I would like to show the parallel argument to that used for slavery.

Coming back to James Henley Thornwell, in "The State of the Country" for example, he protests the North's interference with the South's slave-holding on the basis that this interference is unconstitutional, stating in a `slavery-as-common-law' preface to this constitutional argument: "mankind may have been wrong; that is not the question...we say nothing as to the moral character of the causes [of slavery]...we insist only on the fact that slavery is...THE UNIVERSAL CUSTOM OF MANKIND."

Like Thornwell, Derbyshire disregards the morality of the case ("Regardless of any beliefs about the value of animals") and appeals to precedent ("if you engage in activities...."). Derbyshire is a step ahead of Thornwell in honesty in that he at least says `you must make a choice' rather than sweeping aside the issue with a dismissive mention ("we say nothing as to the moral character of the causes"). But he does sweep aside the ethical or moral issues, basing this on, as does Thornwell, fallacies. Derbyshire imposes this choice as being implicitly a moral fait accompli.

Steve's comments are so well researched and cogent. If you don't have a blog, you should consider starting one! I finally saw the film Food, Inc. over the holiday break and thought of this thread. I found it to be a balanced presentation that generated the discussion we all think is important, while being entertaining enough to reach a general audience.

I wish I could have given you the courtesy of a quicker response.

It is true that Abraham Lincoln did not take as hard a stand against slavery in the political sphere. He nevertheless was equally against it as evidenced by his acerbic writing on the subject, that pointed to the repressed recognition of the immorality of slavery. For example, speaking to the pro-slavery community of their attitude to the slave barterer:

"You do not recognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man. Your children must not play with his...Now why is this? You do not so treat the man who deals in corn, cattle or tobacco."

He realized he could not win on the slavery issue and saving the Union was critical to even deal with the issue of slavery. (Lincoln also pointed out other kinds of contradictions to the pro-slavery position.)

Which brings us to the issue of compromise that is raised.

This is not the first time that what is seen clearly as an ethical or moral violation (and that effectively degrades mental health) contributes significant momentum to the societal train and the possibility of rapidly derailing that car does not seem likely.

Although Lincoln compromised by not making slavery a principle plank of his political platform he did still contribute to awareness of the issue.

I don't think he could have taken an action that contradicted such a fundamental principle in order to uphold it though. The Romans stopped their cruel coliseum spectacles when someone intervened in a fight in the arena to try to stop it on principle. Although he was stoned to death by the outraged crowd it got the attention of the Emperor, raising his threshold of awareness of this abuse of an intrinsic human value. I don't think Lincoln would have, for example, gratuitously flayed a slave in public, that is acted in accord with the utilitarian valuing of slaves as property, to shock or shame people into recognizing their own suppression of an intrinsic human value.

I agree awareness must be generated. But it cannot flagrantly contradict the principle that it is raising awareness of, even if, pushing us out of our comfort zones, it does spark discussion like this, which spark and which discussion I do appreciate though the Denmark production I would join in condemning.

So we come to the point of practicality.

Efforts are being made with the 3 R's for researchers and very radical new animal welfare legislation for all who deal with animals. This barely scratches the surface. It is rather an uphill battle for reasons such as you have pointed out.

The benefits of plant-based diets and all other means of opening awareness of general behavioral and specific research alternatives should be continued and advanced and these have their own proponents and some real momentum.

Not until we face the issue of `why humane treatment?', given that there is a nearly universal recognition -even if suppressed- of this as a necessity in our culture, and act unreservedly on the side of embracing it and promoting the awareness of it will doors open wide to creative, effective, mental-health-promoting solutions. Although this forum might be considered an unlikely place to make this comment with effect, we need to teach reverence for all life. This is a very deep subject and will have unanticipated discoveries (though not first time discoveries). From this basis all things will, with this motivating our corresponding efforts, fall into place.

Given this outcome, I believe that it is possible to have some kinds of animal products that come out of environments that genuinely provide for the physical and emotional needs of the animals. I wouldn't expect meat from slaughter to one of them. It may also be possible for research to be done under the same conditions but some kinds, perhaps most, research would not qualify. I think alternate avenues of research providing insights we are looking for already exist and can be developed but are overlooked or treated dismissively.

Warm Regards,
Steve

Thanks for responding! I appreciate your reasoning and your points are compelling. Are events that push us out of our comfort zones at least valuable for sparking discussions like this, getting us thinking about our relationship to animals, and even providing a forum for points like the continued presence of slavery in our lives? If we don't start with awareness, however crudely it's generated, where do we start?

I'm curious about practicality. We can promote the multiple benefits of a plant-based diet, but people will be eating meat for the foreseeable future. We're making advances with in silico techniques, but most people don't want medical research to come to a halt until we find alternatives to lab animals. Is there a role for compromise, for working within the system, starting with a better environment for pets and pigs? Coming back to slavery, I think Salmon Chase took a harder line against it than Abraham Lincoln, but Abe won the elections and he's the one associated with ending slavery in the U.S.

Chris

This same and similar arguments were used to justify slavery (they have/had a good life) such as James Henley Thornwell's attitude that the "filial respect" between master and reared slave in the domestic patriarchal institution "softens all the asperities of the relation."

He couldn't see the spurious nature of his case. Similar arguments, whether applied to slaves or animals are inherently spurious, while they implicitly acknowledge intrinsic value (he, from his religious position, affirmed that slaves had souls, and had an intellectual nature and a moral nature and were persons) they operate in contradiction to this.

While behaviorists or Temple Grandin or whomever may improve the lot of domesticated animals it is an empty gesture to an implicit acknowledgment of, or rather a suppressed recognition of, their intrinsic value.

As empty as the slogan on the sign at the entrance to Nazi Prison camp "Work shall make you free." This pacified the prisoners coming in in that they did not panic at what was to be their fate: gassed or worked to death. While it can be argued that this avoided harm by avoiding riots and panic, etc., this improvement served only the perpetrators.

If the argument for slaves can now be immediately seen to be spurious but could not be seen or accepted as such by slavery proponents, who were exceedingly subtle in their intellectual avoidance of accepting it as such, how can this or a similar argument be trusted when referring to animals?

In fact we still benefit from slavery, whether extrapolated from the past or existing in the present. As only one of a multitude of examples, 40% of chocolate is farmed by slaves -children and adults. How many knowing this would still be tempted to buy a chocolate bar? How many will alter their attitudes to the relevant kinds of animal research (in reference to life scientists using reagents, etc.)?

The argument is implicitly contradictory, that is, a fallacy. If is is assuaging our consciences then it is both a logical and moral fallacy.

This was pointed out by Stuart Derbyshire in previous articles in The Scientist, and who resolved this by repudiating all thought of consideration for animals. His case, however, was so full of fallacies, unseen by his supporters and himself, that it would collapse on itself with a well-placed nudge.

A good discussion!
Since I talked with the people involved in the production, I thought I'd add some comments.

The theatre company von Heiduck is known for provocative events, so I assume they wanted to generate outrage and discussion about our relationship to animals. Is that a worthy goal? Did they achieve it?

Many people are omnivores. Anyone who uses conventional medical treatment is using drugs and techniques based in animal research. This publication is read by life scientists, who use reagents, like antibodies, that originate with animals, and many do experiments using lab animals. Given this is the current situation, and it won't change overnight, the animal behaviorists are working to create the best possible environment for pets and lab animals. Does this pragmatic approach have anything in common with the sentiments of this thread?

Just a few thoughts I had when reading over the comments. Thanks for your thoughts!

Chris Tachibana

My quotes will fully reveal my attitude to this reprehensible article and event:

The Descent of Man Chapter III

My object in this chapter is to show that there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.

....The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind.

...disinterested love for all living creatures, [is]the most noble attribute of man...

...We have seen that the senses and intuitions, the various emotions and faculties, such as love, memory, attention and curiosity, imitation, reason, etc., of which man boasts, may be found in an incipient, or even sometimes a well-developed condition, in the lower animals.

...every one has heard of the dog suffering under vivisection, who licked the hand of the operator; this man, unless the operation was fully justified by an increase of our knowledge, or unless he had a heart of stone, must have felt remorse to the last hour of his life.

Charles Darwin.

Yes, Charles Darwin.

You people are sick. You are a disgrace to humanity.

This should be required reading for all Hollywood screenwriters: write something with less inane dialogue or else!

What a delicious twist on dinner theater!

"If I had a problem eating those pigs, with the life they had," noted Knudsen, "how could I eat any pork?"

What does it take to make the connection?
News flash: You don't HAVE to eat ANY pigs!
Years of eating meat must make people extremely stupid.

Why don't they just eat the other human actors that don't make the cut?

Here. Look at my website too.
Don't be anonymous on this guys.

www.celestematthews.com

I will tell anybody, anywhere, king, president, scholar, my own boss that this is wrong. Those "pseudo-scholars" are not invited to my house for dinner. I am afraid that they would eat my dog or my cat.

I am appalled and disgusted by Sorensen's comments : "the star swine had better lives than most animals used for food, and they were so accustomed to being around humans, their death shouldn't have been stressful. "If I had a problem eating those pigs, with the life they had," noted Knudsen, "how could I eat any pork?"

Why should animals and these pigs not be entitled to a good life? - and to go on and compare these poor animals to other food animals that are treated in the most egregious way! How shocking - I am ashamed of our species and he goes on to state that their death should not have been stressful because they were so used to being around humans. Perhaps his death one day won't be stressful because he is so used to being around humans. What sort of ridiculous logic is this? If anything their being around humans was probably horrific to them at being betrayed by humans!!! - every single living being values his or her life and every one fears death and every one wants to live and every one trembles before death. I am disgusted and repulsed by his having used these animals as most humans do, for his own selfish desires and then to slaughter them. When exactly are we going to evolve and stop eating animals???? Scientific study after scientific study has shown the benefits of a plant based diet and we do not need to consume flesh or the products of animals to survive. Our species has to be the most evil, selfish and arrogant species on the planet.

Those pigs had been trained to trust those people and considered them to be friends. They were betrayed. There is a world of difference in eating a farm animal and eating a pet/friend. That is as appetizing as cannibalism. This should really enrage the animal rights activists give them ammunition to fight the people who do honest, useful, necessary animal research that are working toward the betterment of life for both humans and animals.

I cannot believe academic individuals and institution were involved with this cruel and senseless ruse to 'raise our consciousness' about the "clash between culture and nature".

Those involved have demonstrated one important lesson though -- that there is no level to which some human beings will descend for their ambitions, something that cannot be said about pigs.

There are no words for this unbelievable 'project'. 'Degenerate' and 'deprave' come to mind, but activity worthy of scholars does not.

Sounds like the pigs were more intelligent and better behaved than the people who produced the play.