The main argument of Eternal Treblinka is that the human domination of animals started from the rise of agricultural society. Charles Patterson argues that the agricultural society and the domestication of animals produced the first hierarchical society and laid the foundation for patriarchy, racism, sexism, slavery, and other systems of violence and power. Do you agree with his argument? Is the hierarchical structure of a society a part of nature? If there is a difference between “hierarchies” in nature (e.g. survival of the fittest) and the kind of social hierarchy constructed by the advancement of society, how are they different? The reason that I decided to discuss these issues is because I feel that how we treat animals is indicative of how we treat others.
One of the issues we talked about was the idea that in order for man-kind to survive, we need animal experimentation. But the question that this raises is “can a society benefit from the suffering of others, animal or non animal, and call itself a “just” or “moral” society?” Can animal testing be justified morally or ethically?
During the activity, we gave more power to those that were “closer to white”. Why do you think that is? I think that this placement is indicative of how our false assumptions of superiority operate when we construct hierarchies. Why is a white man more important than a black woman or an immigrant laborer? And why is a white man, black woman, immigrant laborer all more important than a dog? Because we have false assumptions about usefulness, intelligence and aesthetic pleasure.
Remember, we are all connected, humans, non-human animals, the environment. We cannot live without the trees or the bees and the animals that pollinate them. Humans exist in a complicated interdependent relationship that calls for ethical responsibilities. The Lion King was right, tis the Circle of Life!
Thanks for everyone’s participation in class! Happy Valentine’s Day!
18 comments:
I totally relate to Christine's blog title, "Let's Justify Suffering?" because any attempt to argue that it's morally right to cause animals pain for the benefit of "humanity" is clearly nothing more than an attempt to justify our behavior. That is why this whole topic makes me decidedly uncomfortable. From a purely ethical standpoint, it is clearly wrong to benefit from the suffering of Others, to use Christine's phraseology, but adhering to the demands of ethics in this case would require a massive reorganization of social and economic life. So I think things like this: if I'm in a cave with a hungry bear without any weapons, I'm bear chow for sure; therefore, why should humans not use our smarts to be at the top of the food chain? But what place does survival of the fittest have in ethics? Doesn't our recognition of our superior power and our intelligence mean we alone among the animal kingdom have to live by the dictates of ethics? I also think, well, most of the animals we eat wouldn't even exist if we didn't breed them for our own use, so in a sense, we own them and can do with them what we please. This doesn't mean that they should suffer unduly as they do in factory farming. So I think it should be ok if we raise them and kill them "humanely." But I'm fully aware that all of this is nothing more than justification, and full circle, I come back to the ethical point: it isn't right. It's only a conundrum because I know I'm not ready to change my behavior, and I'm suspicious that changing my behavior isn't even enough. I'd have to change it AND become active in the animal rights movement. Therefore, I avoid the problem. I eat the pork chop and shove to the back of my mind the knowledge that a pig somewhere is living in deplorable conditions that I would never allow my pet dog to endure (if I had a pet dog).
As for the argument of Eternal Treblinka, it's utterly compelling because it is original and make you think. However, as I said in class, I tend to agree with Best's critique that it represents an essentialist search for an original cause and a simplistic view that human history unfolds in a linear fashion. I think the argument is most convincing in its claim that the perfection of the domination/domestication of animals served as a model for institutionalizing forms of domination like slavery. If nothing else, the strict separation of "human" and "animal" gave us a ready-made language to speak of Others those in power wanted to expel them from the moral circle. Grendel is pertinent here: in constructing "animal," we make "human."
Like I mentioned in class "Humans are animals too, just that we are considered civilized ones." Humans and animals are alike because we can eat, think, feel, sleep, reproduce, and get sick. The only difference that exists between both creatures is that humans can TALK.
We consider pitbull fights illegal in the United States, but then again we use animals for experimentation. Should that not be considered illegal too? Don' t you think it is ironic? It is obvious that society is benefitting from the suffering of others if they use them to test new products, but of course it is logical that such acts go against a moral society. The PETA video said "they use mice for experimentation, but they are not even similar to a human's body structure." I ask myself then what are they doing?
It was so interesting when Professor Stein pointed out the different types of lenses we used to sort the characters in order from the most powerful to the least powerful. Society tends to think that a white man has a lot of power, but I do not completely understand why. From personal experience, when I would go to Ecuador to visit my family and they would see a white person, they would be amazed and shocked. It is just a stereotype: a white person is wealthy, educated, and a perfect body structure. Which is not always true! These stereotypes usually lead to discrimination, racism, and even to violent acts.
Christine, excellent job on setting the bar and conducting the class discussion on Anthropocentrism.
In honor of Black History month, I want to start off by saying rest in peace Whitney Houston.
Here's a quote from the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.:
"Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way."
I think Steven (Steven Best) said it best, "It's not about how different we are but how similar."
Is it moral for a society to benefit from the suffering of others? If we are referring to monetary gain, absolutely not! However, looking at this from a different angle, I think it's acceptable to psychologically and emotionally gain from others' suffering and misfortune. Let me explain. While I'm traveling during the course of my day, I witness people who are being led by someone else because they're blind. I see others being pushed around in a wheelchair. I see the homeless, the hungry and the sickened. By seeing this, I remain humbled, thankful and appreciative for the things that many of us take for granted. So in a way, as selfish as it may sound, I am gaining a mental and emotional sense of reinforced appreciation for things at the expense of viewing others' pain, suffering and misfortune.
Like Gary, what professor Stein mentioned in class allowed me to think more in depth regarding our class discussion. I was traveling home on the train that evening and began to observe the different faces of different races and genders. I began to think on how our different encounters with discrimination has probably caused us to have a difference of opinion in regards to society's "trump card". As a man, I don't see discrimination because of my gender (not to say that it is not there; I just don't see it). What usually gets me "stopped at the door", so to speak, is my race. As for the professor, I am guessing that in this male patriotic society, being a woman is what get's her "stopped at the door". Hence our contrast in views of the "trump card".
Another professor Stein quote which stays with me is that "we like our victims a certain way". In class she pointed out our hypocricy. The flies we swat, the bugs we squash, the cockroaches we smash, do they not feel pain? All across the world people eat insects also. Is it alright to kill them because we don't hear them scream and hollar in agony?
PS: I would have loved to get Michael Vick's imput on this discussion, pre and then post-incarceration.
I heavily agree with the argument of Eternal Treblinka, the domination of animals heavily assisted in the process of control that human kind needs to have. On the other hand, hierarchy is in the human nature, therefore I would not use that word as the term used for the devastation that humans have done to the animal world. Animals also function off survival of the fittest among themselves. Once someone finds out they can walk on you, they usually will just continue doing it which is one of Eternal Treblinka's point, one of the ways human kind began to hurt each other is because maybe they realized how easily it was to to abuse animals and moved against each other.
Will it ever stop though? I can't help but wander if the human race could really "live" without animal domination and abuse....
Wow, Christine. I feel your class imposed a real reckoning with myself in a way that few classes have. I am face to snout with my own moral failings. I have never even thought about including animals when I question social hierarchies. So, uh, thanks?
I want to share one of my favorite essays on this topic: The moral status of mice by Harold Herzog, which appeared in the American Psychologist in 1988. I cannot find a live link to it but I have the pdf and will send it to students under separate cover. Maybe Prof. Reitz can post it, too. It is only two pages long and I think sums up quite a bit about the creation of both animal and human hierarchies.
As some of you have noted, Darwin casts a long shadow over this conversation. Christine asks whether the order of things is imposed or natural. It seems to me that hierarchical arrangements are often institutionalized under the banner of “survival”, where the underlying assumption is that we live in a world of scarce resources and are innately driven to climb to the top of the feeding chain. We rarely question this assumption but, actually, usually there are fairly abundant resources. We just do not feel like distributing them evenly. We need a way to justify hoarding and so come up with a list of reasons that condone our entitlement over others’.
Is this natural? I do not think so. What we blame on nature is a choice to not consciously think about our actions. (Ashamedly, my first reaction when Christine brought up the idea of concern for animals was something like: my mental time and space are scarce resources and I don’t waste them thinking about the welfare animals when so many people are suffering.)
Perhaps it is not the space in the brain but the laziness in using it-our defensiveness-that helps us to keep animals (and by extension, humans)"in their place".
The reading was great and the the lesson was incredible. Although I agree with the theory but how do you implant an idea into America which was deemed weak and crazy when Europeans did arrive to the Americas?
Great class and great comments. I like Tim's phrase about "what gets you stopped at the door." I'm not exactly sure how I would answer that question, but it is extremely useful to ponder -- which is how I feel about the issues Christine has raised:
I eat meat and worship my dog. I believe in vegetarianism and yet don't particularly think there is an inherent morality in the food choices we make (Robert's idea of being bear chow in a cave really resonated with me). I think that Best's point about how the language of domination that came with organized agriculture shapes our domination of Others (we talk about slaves, Jews and women as animals -- nothing drives me crazier than being called a bitch, I can tell you) is incredibly persuasive, but I'm not convinced that animals came first in the hierarchization we seem to be associating with society.
Which brings me to my main point -- which is piggy-backing on Prof Stein's point about Darwin. While his name gets associated with survival of the fittest and cruel-if-value-neutral hierarchies, that's very far from the points he makes in his writings. The vivid image he closes his ORIGIN OF SPECIES (1859) with is of a "tangled bank." There is rank (he refers to "higher animals") but it is not rigid. Rather his language is infused with the idea of interdependence. It isn't the sweet image of the deer eating man-fertilized grass that Christine raised about Native American beliefs, but it is very much about how in an ecology we all play a variety of important, shifting and essentially neutral roles. And, because you knew this was coming, here's the quote, which is one of my favorites in all of 19th century writing:
"It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us.... Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."
*patriarchal* society
I was 100% pro Eternal Treblinka. Thanks Christine for that wonderful class. First I want to say that as being member of the Bleeding Hearts Animal RIghts Club, I always think of these issues. It started with every pet that I owned. I am not a vegetarian because I tend to get very ill if I don't consume protein, but I am always getting upset at how we tend to treat animals. Just today I was outraged at the fact that my mother didn't feed my puppy because she was tired and decided to go take a nap. She told me that he was just an animal! As Robert said, people tend to attend to the issues that affect them like if they have food for today or not. Worrying about animals is like a luxury, those who have the time do so. No wonder we put them in the social hierarchy that we do. We've become so selfish and want to succeed with our needs and wants through the suffering of Others. I can say that we aren't a very moral society and even our "morals" maybe something we structured over time in conjunction with the Capitalistic society we live in today.
Christine, I wanted to add onto Timothy's comment and say that you've done a great job teaching last Thursday! Thank you for the cute bookmarks, as well.
As for Patterson's argument that agricultural society may be linked to the first hierarchical society--I totally agree. As Gary mentioned, in many ways, humans are like animals. "We eat, think, feel, sleep, reproduce, and get sick." However, because our functioning is slightly different from animals, it is natural for humans to assume we are the better specie. While I agree with Robert on the grounds that it is wrong to benefit from the suffering of others, I believe that humans must kill animals to survive. This is the way the food chain is set up. Just imagine the overcrowding of animals on our planet if we all turned into vegetarians. While most of my peers would agree that medicine should not be tested on animals, I think it should be. I firmly believe that a human life has far more value than any animal’s. Going back to Christine’s statement from The Lion King, it’s a circle of life--“humans exist in a complicated interdependent relationship that calls for ethical responsibilities.”
After posting my comment, I feel hypocritical. I'm for testing products on animals for human benefit but against animal torture. I can see how using animals as guinea pigs can be torturous but how else can we find cures? I don't think humans should be tested because I value human life more than animal life. This entire subject makes me feel very, very uncomfortable. I can't even get my point across without sounding cynical. =(
This past friday Job Path and I lost someone very special. I was supposed to guide him but instead he taught me. His compassion and sincerity is so rarely seen in this day and age that at times I swore that it was I in need of his company more than it was my duty to be there. As I know he's looking down from above, I'm compelled to share some of his wisdom with you all. As he liked to be called, "Z-man" said that in light of any violence, catasrophe, or sad circumsatnce,a brighter day would always be upon us because there is nowhwere to go but up.
Those of you who know the horrific story of Willowbrook know that just like animals, human beings were treated like test subjects and neglescted, abandoned and left to suffer. Just like animals humans with developemental and physical disabilities cannot defend, speak, or fight for their rights. Like Dr. Steven said, we are so busy trying to find differences that we don't see the obvious similarities if not identical relations to one another. "Z-Man" was very adament about self-advocacy and truly shined in a light all of his own. He never judged and always forgave others ignorance. The world won't be the same without you and my life has forever been altered.
Very poignant post Ruby. Sorry for you loss. That must be such a difficult part for workers at Job Path.
Ruby does bring up a point we barely touched upon in this discussion: the similarities between what we classify as animals and people with developmental and physical disabilities. When we try to define what human is, we might say things like, intelligent, self-aware, capable of abstract reasoning, etc... We then use this to say that animals don't deserve our moral consideration because they don't have these qualities; they aren't "human." But then, as Ruby points out, people with disabilities often don't have these qualities, yet we clearly consider them human and worthy of ethical treatment. We could make a similar point about babies, which I think Christine brought up in her excellent class.
Also, isn't it interesting how many of us talked about how uncomfortable this topic makes us feel? (Me, Popy, Professor Stein--these I remember off the top of my head, but there may have been others.) That alone says a lot people! Gary said it: we're talking about our RELATIVES!!!
I agree with Patterson’s argument, because there is a slight similarity in the way people treat domestic animals and the way people treat others in a hierarchy. The similarity is the position of power laying in 1 group while overpowering the other group, but I think that just might be how power relationships naturally work and the world would have ended up with racism, patriarchy, sexism, slavery, and other systems of power eventually. I think there is a definite difference between survival of the fittest and the social hierarchy constructed by society, because animals don’t leave large amounts of wealth for their offspring. A wolf would not leave hunted animals for the cubs after the wolf dies, but humans tend to leave as much as possible to their loved ones when they die in order to give their children an advantage in life.
I agree with most of the people who already responded before me too, that it isn’t moral to gain from the suffering of others. However, if the practical reasons for making or allowing others to suffer have an extremely beneficial impact for society, maybe the end justifies the mean. If all of these tests and experiments can really save lives, shouldn’t we keep them? The diseases and vaccines might not be natural to animals as they are to humans, but to better understand new vaccines, I would rather have the other animal die before I test it out and die. In the end human testing will always be the final test for new drugs, so we’re all going to die together.
As for the difference between animals and disabled people, I believe the person is still regarded as a better “being” than an animal, because the person can still think, communicate, and provide his knowledge to others. If he is handicapped, there are tools to help him provide more for society than most animals could. If he is in a vegetative state, there is always a chance that he will recover. I think the reason we treat animals and disabled people differently is because as long as a disabled person can contribute back to society they are more useful.
I have been trying to argue that the usefulness or practicality of any existence contributes to how we as people treat the existence more than any morals we might have. Domestic animals are useful because they entertain us. Lab animals are useful because they suffer for us. Insects are useful to other animals in the circle of life, but just an eyesore and pest to the average urbanite. I guess my logic and the way I would treat animals is not very ethical, but this is my current understanding of the subject at hand.
My goal for the class was just to get everyone thinking about the topic. So, I am so pleased to read everyone’s thought-process!
Robert, I understand the dilemma you have with wanting to advocate for animal rights and then forced to recognize the relevance of individual power within a structural violence. However, don’t all revolutions begin with an individual who sees something wrong and realizes that she/he can do something about it? As with all movements, our strength is in numbers.
Gary, the differentiation between dogs and other animals who are mistreated is a prominent problem here. We tend to protect some animals rather than others. During our discussion in class, we mention this relationship to humans as one of the factors that “give” them more rights. However, we quickly realized that farm animals are a necessity to human existence, but we do not grant them with any rights. Do humans value things we “want” more then things we “need”? Should all creatures and their existence be valued contingent to their necessity to humans?
Timothy, I really like your reflections and how you connected the reading to your everyday life. That was, sincerely, all I wanted to accomplish in the class. After the discussion, I do realize that humans are dependent on each other and especially in a communal society. I think this realization is crucial to a better understanding of the society we live in. Care Ethics is an ethical theory that talks about many of these relationships. I think you could benefit from the arguments of Care Ethics, as it can organize your thoughts on animal relations.
Professor Stein, I am glad you helped me answer the question of whether the order of things is natural or imposed. I was struggling to find the text to answer those assumptions, and I do agree with the article. Although, in a capitalistic society resources are becoming scarce, I do think the question lies in distribution. The problem with distribution came up for me in our discussion on the culture of poverty. I would argue that the society strategically “locked up” food and other resources so that particular groups of people could not have access to those resources.
I was on the subway train the other day and I came across this message, “Humans are the only ones who pay for food.” I find this statement quite profound. If we know this was true, why do we allow people in power to deprive us of our natural “rights” (our natural right to survive)?
Professor Reitz, interdependence is an essential point to this discussion! I tried to convey this message in multiple ways to the class. The passage recognizes the differences in animals and their structure within the society, but also stresses the importance of their dependency upon each other. I would argue that this dependency is not recognized because of its complexity. We do not see the immediate results, so we refuse to solve the issue.
Popy, I did some research to help ease your ethical struggles; you can thank me later (hah!). PETA has an alternative for you, “Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients as well as sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques.” When I read that PETA suggested human testing, I was uncomfortable with the idea, but further research on volunteer and patient testing made me feel a little more comfortable. I like the cell and tissue alternative the most. Let me know what you think!
Here is the link for further reading: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/alternatives-testing-without-torture.aspx
Simon, I really like your analysis between animal and human hierarchies! Inheritance is a human concept and has certainly contributed to human domination. You should also read my link (above) on alternatives to animal testing. Let me know what you think of their alternatives. I think you will find the cell and tissue alternative to be quite convincing.
Just finished reading the article, the alternatives look awesome, espescially for students who want to learn more about science. However, I wonder if testing on cells and computer scripted programs can help with figuring out what kind of effects completely new drugs will have on people. I forgot that there are computer programs being used to find out new information about cancer. There's a program/project called folding@home that anybody can download and it lets the researchers use a little bit of power from each computer that sends information to them to act as a "cell". I remember it became big a few years ago, when it was brought onto the PS3, gaming to save lives.
I always learn so much from you folks! Who knew about alternatives to animal testing and the computer stuff. Harnessing all that compute gaming is such a cool idea -- and think of how much nagging it would save mothers of teenage sons!
Ruby, hang in there. Your comment was beautiful. It says so much about you and your friend that you were open to his lessons in this short period of time you had together.
Ruby, sorry for your loss. Stay strong. *Virtual hug* I agree with Robert, Ruby definitely brings up the important issue of disabilities, which I believe, in many ways is crucial to this topic.
Christine, thanks for the article--very interesting. For some odd reason, when I think of experimentation, I think of vulnerable human populations and how they are being harmed. I'm not sure why I think this way, however, after reading your article, I do feel at ease.
As for everyone else, every time I read your posts before contributing to the blog, I'm reminded of how blessed I am to be a part of such thought-provoking cohort. See you all tomorrow, bright eyed and bushy tailed!
Post a Comment