In an op-ed by Tim Rutten in today’s Los Angeles Times:
No sensible person dismisses the humane treatment of animals as inconsequential, but what the fanatics propose is not an advance in social ethics. To the contrary, it is an irrational intrusion into civil society, a tantrum masquerading as a movement. It is a kind of ethical pornography in which assertion stands in for ideas, and willfulness for argument, all for the sake of self-gratification. At the end of the day, there is no moral equivalence between the lives of humans and those of animals.
I think this is essentially the point commenter Clinton made during an earlier round of animal rights extremism and governmental response to it.
Knowledgeable authorities believe a relative handful of people are actually involved in the terrorist acts. A larger group shows up for the marginally peaceful demonstrations, and a slightly larger one provides various kinds of material support. Behind them is a far larger group of individuals who purport to be peacefully concerned with animal welfare, but say they “understand” how some frustrated confreres can be driven to extremes by society’s indifference to what they deem a moral imperative.
The material support is important. PETA and PCRM may claim to be against violence, but when they’re putting up nearly $100,000 in grants and loans for the legal defense of those who commit the violence, then even contributions to the “mainstream” animal rights groups are not innocent.
This sort of wink-and-nod morality is all too familiar to anyone who’s had contact with the fringe of the antiabortion movement. The truth is that we here in L.A. are just one psychotic sartori away from the night one of these goofballs decides that a researcher’s life is worth less than a white rat’s or a monkey’s and decides to redress the imbalance.
Think that’s an overstatement? Here’s Jerry Vlasak, a physician who is a frequent spokesman for militant animal rights activists: “Force is a poor second choice, but if that’s the only thing that will work … there’s certainly moral justification for that.”
We’ve discussed before the ways in which Vlasak has fallen short in demonstrating his ability to work out productive option. It’s fair to say that his count of the available choices here is off. There are certainly many non-violent options (such as lobbying for stronger regulations or better enforcement of existing regulations) that groups like ALF seem to skip right over.
In other words, “moral justification” probably means something quite different for animal rights extremists than it does for your average member of civil society.
The LAPD backs legislation — carried by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) — that could give local authorities new tools to investigate and prosecute those who provide material assistance to terrorists. There are serious civil liberties implications to such legislation, and every provision needs to be weighed carefully. As Downing said: “Free speech always should be protected, but when nonviolent struggle turns violent, as this one has, that’s terrorism.”
At the end of the day, though, two things need to happen: Law enforcement officials need to step up their attention to this investigation, because there’s a tragedy in the offing if they don’t. And L.A.’s extensive network of animal welfare advocates need to make it clear that they repudiate not only the terrorists but all who provide them material and tacit support of any sort.
(Bold emphasis added.)
As I said before, we can’t have a serious discussion about the merits of the animal rights position while those who support that position are also supporting violence, whether with a wink and a nod or with the proceeds from the PETA cookbooks they buy. If there were a vocal segment of the PETA/PCRM membership railing against use of PETA/PCRM resources to support animal rights extremists, that would be one thing. But so far, there is not.
The burden is now on proponents of animal rights as a philosophical position worth taking seriously to join arms with the research community and fight the violence.
“We’ve discussed before the ways in which Vlasak has fallen short in demonstrating his ability to work out productive option. ”
Vlasak has fallen short in many other departments too in recent years, notably with respect to honesty over whether he still practices medicine.
http://speakingofresearch.com/2008/05/06/vlasak-a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/
PeTA/PCRM have no more interest in scientific debate than they do in curbing the activities of animal rights terrorists, in fact as a look at the membership of their advisory board will show their scientific credentials are somewhat shakey
http://speakingofresearch.com/2009/03/10/restoring-science-to-its-rightful-place/
Yesterday I wrote that the students and academics of UCLA, and the citizens of LA should look to the example of what Pro-Test did 3 years ago in Oxford, but today provides another example of ordinary people standing up to terrorism
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7936332.stm
I was born in Ireland and spent the first 22 years of my life in Dublin until a PhD took me to the UK. The first demonstration that I ever attended was in 1993 when I joined some 20,000 people in Dublin (and probably as many again in other Irish cities) to protest against the IRA’s bombing of Warrington. That protest had a real effect on subsequent events (a.k.a. the Peace Process), I just hope today’s protests do the same.
In the mean time they serve as an example that the best response to terror is to not be cowed and to show solidarity with those who are targeted.
i think the problem arises because it seems the research community cares more about the lives of humans than they do animals, and the animal rights community seems to care more about the lives of animals than they do humans. there’s no middle ground for these groups to meet, and the research community (pharmaceutical companies and scientists) has so much more money and power on its side. with this lobbying force, it is nearly impossible for things to work in favor of animal rights. those who see no other option may resort to violence to make their ideas heard and to attempt to reach their goals. it may turn off most people, but i think they sleep well at night because they did something for their cause.
i do not agree that either side has a moral high ground in this case, because violence is used on both sides, whether it’s animal testing or firebombing. i personally would rather have testing done on humans immediately rather than on animals. its not that i care for animals more than humans, or vice versa, but we’re the ones getting the benefits, so we should be putting in the work on both ends.
just some food for thought.
I have to agree with Paul Browne, Pro-test is a great example of how to deal with terrorists like those that firebomb researchers.
Nice phrasing fahrennheit451. You seem to be implying that researchers don’t really care about anything other than furthering their own ends at the expense of animals while the animal activists are making the world safe to animals and humans (other than researchers and anyone involved with them) alike. You can equate firebombing with animal research when you can show the reams of rules outlining firebombing victim selection and the paperwork and assessments done before the act of firebombing.
Yes animal research is a difficult thing. On the positive side is that procedures for humans and animals have become available as research progresses. The horrible thing is that some animals die. It is our responsibility to make sure that the research has a point and that the death process isn’t torture.
i do not agree that either side has a moral high ground in this case, because violence is used on both sides, whether it’s animal testing or firebombing.
I think this is precisely what Janet is getting at – before we can enter into a rational discussion about animal testing, both sides must be clear that firebombing and violence against researchers is not justifiable at all.
Fahrennheit, I can tell you for certain that in the basic research I’ve been involved with the researchers only care about the animals and have no interest whatsoever in humans. Maybe it’s different other places, but I’ve been to many labs and they were all the same: animals come first.
@percival
“I think this is precisely what Janet is getting at – before we can enter into a rational discussion about animal testing, both sides must be clear that firebombing and violence against researchers is not justifiable at all.”
And I think was Fahrenheit is getting as is that the animal rights community before we can enter into a rational discussion about the use of direct action, both sides must be clear that using animals for research and testing is not justifiable at all.
You see where the two sides have little to no room for compromise.
@Todd Hollywood
“You see where the two sides have little to no room for compromise. ”
Exactly!
@Chad
“Fahrennheit, I can tell you for certain that in the basic research I’ve been involved with the researchers only care about the animals and have no interest whatsoever in humans. Maybe it’s different other places, but I’ve been to many labs and they were all the same: animals come first.”
The problem I see with any animal research is that the animal did not “choose” to participate. Now, if you’re trying to save the animal, and other’s like it, you reach a tricky gray area.
Currently, there is much animal research done to test product safety without a care for the animal (see all kinds of videos of abuses in animal testing).
A question… why can’t we do the testing on humans in the first place? After all, most research is focused on helping humans. I assume there are barriers, but couldn’t that be an angle to work on?
In the end, though, we’re all here sharing the planet. As such, we should take care of each other… ahh idealism.
Isn’t there an important distinction to be made between violence and destruction of property? While I don’t have much sympathy for the ALF’s or PETA’s views, it seems like our evaluation of their actions is going to change a lot depending on this distinction, and you’re obscuring the difference.
I think that one problem in this conversation is the phrase “animal testing” that fahrennheit451 keeps using. When we are talking of research in universities that involves animals, we are not generally talking of “testing” some consumer product on animals. We are talking about all kinds of basic research in biomedical and behavioral science that simply could never be done on human volunteers. It is in the interest of PETA and ALF to conflate the worst abuses (sometimes historical) of commercial “animal testing” labs with the completely different world of scientific research that uses animals. On my campus, vitriolic anonymous attacks are made frequently alleging that the biologists are paid stooges of big pharma. Anybody who cared to learn the truth would find that industrial funding for our departments is completely negligible, and pretty much all for research that doesn’t involve animals at all.
I am surprised that a philosopher would say, “we can’t have a serious discussion about the merits of the animal rights position while those who support that position are also supporting violence….” This sounds to me like an excuse for not addressing the issue of the moral status of animals. I can imagine pre-Civil-War apologists for slavery saying (as many of them probably did), “The case for better treatment of Africans, or even the idea of some rights for Africans, while possibly not totally vacuous, is something that we are not going to discuss as long as some abolitionists support violence on behalf of slaves and other abolitionists stand by and say nothing.”
You probably don’t agree that there is a legitimate analogy between animals and slaves, but surely no philosopher worth her salt would refuse to discuss the issue. In fact, the philosophical literature on the moral status of animals, including the morality of animal experimentation, now runs to hundreds (yes, hundreds) of books and peer-reviewed articles. Just as our attitude toward violence on behalf of human beings ought to depend on a rationally defensible judgement about human moral worth, so our attitude toward violence on behalf of non-human beings ought to depend on a rationally defensible judgement of non-human moral worth.
Mijnheer, very good point. The gravity of the issue of animal welfare is too great to warrant sidestepping our responsibility to secure better treatment for animals, whether in labs or elsewhere.
That said, I’d like to disagree with Farennheit’s point about neither group having the moral high ground. I think, to the contrary, that when you look at the people campaigning for small improvements in animal welfare in a number of contexts and when you look at the researchers who respond to animal rights advocates with assurances to care for animals and measures to make it possible, you see that BOTH groups have the moral high ground and that there are people working very hard against overwhelming odds in both camps.
I think medical testing is necessary to make advances in human health. I also have seen evidence that animal physiology poorly models human physiology for a number of areas of research.
The ultimate question here is whether we think that progress can be made for animals and human while groups like the ALF are operating. To anyone who thinks the answer to this question is no should look at the history of the animal rights and animal welfare movements. Nearly all of the major protections that we’ve secured for animals, whether in law or by the agreement of large corporations like Revlon, have come while the ALF has been active in America. We have been making progress and can continue if only people continue to be willing.
And how can we not be willing when we see the abuses that occur. This is not to say that animals are always abused in science labs. I’m certain that most are not abused. However, the fact is that many lab animals are not protected by federal laws. They should be. If for no other reason, than as a sign of good faith by the scientists. Unfortunately, some scientists still think that this constrains their freedom to pursue their work. I don’t see how. Scientists in most other developed countries operate under stricter laws than the United States has and they are no less productive in the scientific community.
(Bold emphasis added.)
I think you forgot the bold emphasis.
I don’t like expecting the animal rights people to do the police’s job for them (though ceasing to subsidize the existence of thugs or to pay for their defense would be helpful), but I’m not really understanding how the ALF and its ilk help actual animal rights people. I don’t think PETA has been terribly interested in any sort of rational argument, but someone might, and having groups such as ALF make what they claim are your arguments for you with force implies that you have no argument for your actions other than force (I want you to stop doing anything with animals, and I don’t care how I get you to do so). If one has better arguments for why animals should be reckoned higher status and rights in society, then PETA and ALF (in different ways, or cooperatively in similar ones) are marginalizing those arguments and making them harder to make – you can be lumped as an extremist (“like those guys”) and your arguments ignored. PETA and ALF make the status quo harder to change (because the arguments to change it can’t be made) and so benefit the people that do things you don’t agree with.
At some point, moderate animal rights people might find that the polarization that PETA and ALF induce (without any actual achievements for animals) is counterproductive and not worth their support. There also remains the possibility that even if people don’t necessarily like what people might use animals for, they don’t want people with nothing to offer but attitude and force to determine their actions, and thus the extreme positions (or at least the use and support of violence to advocate them) risk arousing a larger number of people (than you can amass) to work against your goals.
Robert, I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I think ultimately you’re making the same point as Janet that I have to disagree with.
I absolutely agree that the presence of PETA and ALF often make it difficult to have a conversation with would-be proponents of animal welfare and rights. People often react strongly against those who try to force them to think or act a certain way.
Nonetheless, responsibility falls on both sides to make an effort. Moderate animal rights activists need to make their position known to those people they want to convince. They need to demonstrate that they are reasonable people with reasonable demands for steady improvement in the lives of animals (and in lives of humans for that matter). However, those people who are undecided have a responsibility, too. They have a responsibility to listen to EVERYTHING that is said and to filter through the violent and confrontational rhetoric. One reason that people like the ALF act, ironically given that they alienate these same people, is because they think that the general public is ignoring animal issues. They are not entirely wrong about this. The public has a responsibility to be ethical consumers of information and they have a responsibility to listen to the voices of moderates who are often drowned out.
Again, I agree that ALF and PETA (though I think PETA is mostly harmless in terms of their actual actions) make the status quo less pliable. But this is no excuse for not trying to help if you’ve heart smart people make clear and convincing arguments. We would not excuse ourselves for this reason if the people waiting on our help were black slaves, interned Jews, or other human victims.
We would not excuse ourselves for this reason if the people waiting on our help were black slaves, interned Jews, or other human victims.
To suggest that you think that the enslavement of black people is the same thing as pet ownership or animal research is one frame certain guaranteed to lose any support you might want from African-Americans. It is likely no coincidence that animal rights supporters routinely spout this offensive comparison given that most of them are privileged middle class suburbanite/urbanite white people
I did not say that the sense of urgency in the different situations is the same. Nor did I say that the worth of the beings that are harmed is the same. I merely said that beings capable of suffering are, in fact, suffering and that to refuse to even discuss helping them because of what another violent group is doing is wrong. Even if one thinks that the life of a human being is infinitely more valuable than the life of a nonhuman animal, one should still not ignore the suffering of that animal. My original response did not even demand action; it merely asked for a discussion of how to help a group of suffering beings. Certainly no group can object to that as racially or ethnically insensitive.
Most people don’t question everything – in lots of cases, for example, they don’t have the knowledge in a specific area (or the time to acquire such knowledge) and so rely on other things that they trust (some of which may be wrong) to help them make a judgment. Who does this, and why? are they trustworthy? Are their interests similar to mine? Animal rights is something that requires less technical information and more philosophical information (thought). People do not take the time to think about something just because another says to do so (and I would disagree that they have an obligation to do so – just because Kevin Trudeau tells me he has a way out of tax debt does not require me to investigate his claims) – people have limited time and resources, and activities and beliefs that are already important to them. If someone they trust asks them to think about animal rights, or they see something that disgusts them which impinges on animal rights, people are more likely to think about what they believe and should believe (and do). In the absence of such, there needs to be a compelling reason or logic to think about what their relationship to animals (and what rights animals should have) for them to do so. There has to be something to make me think that the way I look at animals is problematic for me to think about changing it. To say that it everyone’s job to think about an issue is to presume the change of mind you desire – you are moving the burden of evidence in your argument, probably inappropriately.
I don’t think PETA is directly harmful (other than direct support for thugs or indirect support for them), but they seem to specialize in publicity stunts that don’t leave much to think about. If you want people to think about animal rights, getting attention is useful (in the way that irony is useful), but if you do nothing with the attention, people are likely to stop listening to you (and may also believe less that you have an actual rational argument than a desire for them to do what you want and no more). In the absence of an argument that can be heard, force (by people such as ALF) is what people see. Force may be the argument of kings, but it doesn’t work so well for commoners.
Very good point, Robert.
I think you’re right that people have limited time and cannot be expected to investigate every random call to action they come across. However, if I may, I would suggest that quite of bit of information about animal mistreatment is easily accessible and incontrovertible. This is shown by the fact that most polls on the subject show that a majority of Americans favor increased protection for animals (between 60 and 90% depending on the type of animal–food, fur, pet, etc).
Two big problems exist. One, which you mention, is that groups like ALF make it so that quite a bit of the national press for animal issues is about terrorism instead of about animals. This is bad. The other big problem is the very lack of publicly available information about animal mistreatment that exculpates the typical American. This is not the average person’s fault. It is the fault of the news media who judges the information to not be worth disseminating. It is the fault of those groups and corporations who obstruct such dissemination in various ways. And it is the fault of animal activists who employ ineffective methods of raisin awareness.
Nonetheless, given that many Americans seem to know enough about the problem to favor increased protections, I don’t think we can exculpate entirely. We should be making our voices heard somehow. This again brings me back to my original point, which is that we should never refuse to have public dialogue about animal protection.
Just as a further note, there is a very interesting article by Karen Dawn, called “Moving the Media,” in which she argues that every bit of publicity for animals (even the negative publicity that comes from ALF stories) should be used to press the message that animals are suffering. She points out that letters to the editor are among the most read parts of the newspaper and that. She says that for every article bashing ALF, there should be a letter to the editor that brings the reader’s attention to the actual abuses that tend not to be covered when the news (whether TV or paper) reports on ALF terrorism or PETA shenanigans.
What does all this mean for the topic that started this set of posts? I think it means that we should note that animal experimentation is a POSSIBLE cause of unnecessary harm to animals and as such it should be discussed publicly, legislated upon so as to protect them as far as is possible without endangering human safety, and perhaps investigated when allegations of cruelty are raised. I think some of this happens now, but more is always better.
Again the author, a philosopher mind you, treads about with uncareful words.
This is so preposterous and patently false, that I wish I could be astonished that it has been written. Instead, I suspect I understand exactly why it has. The author wishes it were true. The author has no desire for her peers to be targets of a campaign of harassment and intimidation. Natural enough.
While the author and her peers are subjects to harassment and intimidation, she deigns to enter into any sort of discussion*. The ALF and other such groups have long since held a similar stance regarding the continuing use of non-consenting animals in laboratory tests. So as I see it, we are left with two situations that have already been enumerated here.
Either the the situation continues, with more car bombs, scary letters, and other such forms of intimidation, eventually leading to possible escalation (bodily harm of humans). Or, the hegemon of this situation, the institutions and scientists, convince the prevailing authorities and cultures to further oppress these individuals (perhaps rightfully so, after all they are criminals), and they will all either be incarcerated, dissuaded from acting on their beliefs or otherwise rendered inactive.
Let’s hope the author is not correct, and that we can still have serious dialog while the barbarians are at the gate, because frankly the scenarios I can see otherwise leave little satisfaction.
*I suspect that the author is being coy here. I seriously doubt the author or in fact anyone, that is not currently involved with critical thinking and dialog on the topic of animal rights, welfare, etc. will opt to join in once the efforts of the ALF and their ilk cease.
I would suggest that quite of bit of information about animal mistreatment is easily accessible and incontrovertible.
Your saying this does not make it so. The available “information” shows that some mistreatment has happened. It does not show whether this is a systemic problem or very isolated incidents. As the convo over at laelaps shows, animal facility moles work undercover for a year to produce 5 sec of questionable evidence and this makes it onto network tv. You can insist that the world be 100% perfect but this is naive and childish. If you want to be taken seriously about *systematic* problems, you need to have evidence for that. And you do not.
This is shown by the fact that most polls on the subject show that a majority of Americans favor increased protection for animals (between 60 and 90% depending on the type of animal–food, fur, pet, etc).
… The other big problem is the very lack of publicly available information about animal mistreatment that exculpates the typical American.
Wait, which is it? And your bringing up polls is fascinating because the qualitative outcome (majority for/against) shifts dramatically whether you frame the question with PETALF false assertions about “mistreatment”, conflate “testing” with “research” or ask about medical benefits.
We should be making our voices heard somehow.
Get real. Your voice IS being heard. Every halfbaked PETALF stunt, every mole-in-the-animal facility with pathetic objective evidence, every local demonstration with 5 people (yeah, that’s what they get these days) gets publicity far beyond what it actually deserves.
Your problem, as with the extremist terrorist fringe, is that you simply cannot accept that you are in the minority view on this and that the public does not agree with you. In your hubris, you keep bleating on about how your message is being blocked or artificially opposed. Instead of thinking that your message is deficient or in error.
legislated upon so as to protect them as far as is possible without endangering human safety, and perhaps investigated when allegations of cruelty are raised. I think some of this happens now, but more is always better.
You “think”? No, more is not always better. It takes very little imagination to see that at some point over-regulation causes necessary and important animal research to stop (well, actually it won’t stop, it will go out of Western countries into the developing world where modern advances in animal research practices will not be universal) What you reveal here is the typical ignorance of the anti-research position. You clearly have no idea what animal research really is, how it works, how it is regulated, what oversight mechanisms are in place and, most importantly, whether or not there is actually a systematic problem or if there are simply isolated wrongdoers.
This last question is all important because the solutions are quite different. Your choice of which problem to engage tells us all we need to know about whether you are a concern troll who really opposes all animal research or if you have a legitimate concern that animals be well-treated in justifiable research.
It seems that this comment section has become something of an imperfect microcosm for the greater issue (minus an actual representative of the ALF, which perhaps is in fact in line with their ‘Action Over Words’ approach). Fallacy and feeling have become the de facto discourse.
It’s almost comical how predictable it all unfolds. The usage of such prejudicial straw-men terms as ‘anti-research’ is particularly striking, and reminiscent of other contentious issues. Both camps here are making this reader nauseous with their preposterous tautologies and thought-annihilating ‘wit’. Seriously, are we really talking about the ‘dumb American’?
Frankly, there is nothing to be had here anymore. And I don’t think there ever will be. Both camps, and their silent supporters have created a situation where the only conclusion can be the perpetuation and escalation of the status quo.
Oh goody, ‘progress’.
Oh, lay off your “both parties are wrong” bullshit. Your position is clear…you appear to be a terrorist apologist. Violent extremists are violent extremists. People who are happy to wound humans to save other animals are fucking cruel-ass criminals who should end up sodomized in prison.
Is it worth pointing out one more time that what ALF engages in is property destruction and not violence, and that ALF is just as opposed to the wounding of humans as any other sentient animal?