BMOC Twice This Week

The Big Man On Campus around here is quite the giant. Possibly my favorite perk of going to this school is to be able to hear the likes of Judge Posner and others give lectures on an incredible variety of topics, and these lectures happen all the time. I've been to four so far this week and there's a conference here tomorrow.

The discussion on Tuesday went for two hours, which I considered out of hand. They very nearly had to carry me out on a stretcher, although whether because I was so weak from hunger or comatose from exhaustion I'm not sure. That discussion was on the NSA and Presidential powers and the administration's wiretapping extravaganza. (Why are people surprised by this publicly-funded eavesdropping? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I assume my every email can be read by strangers, my every cell phone call overheard. I reserve my plotting for more private communications such as brain waves.)

Today's afternoon panel was on animal rights. Yes, I had to read it twice too, when I first saw the topic. I'm still baffled, as I sit here wearing my fur scarf because I am freezing cold right now. It was a thought-provoking discussion; I'm not sure I agree with either the esteemed judge or Nussbaum on the issue.

What is the meaning of a "right?" Is this a concept we can assign to non-human entities? Do stars have a right to shine? Trees have a right to not be cut down? Planets have a right not to be polluted? It seems to me that we dilute the notion of what is a right, and the strength of the concept, when we say that I have a right not to be killed and you have the right to select your government and she has the right to be hired and oh, by the way, the dog has a right to not have his ears bobbed.

Perhaps the dog shouldn't have his ears bobbed, but why would we refrain from doing so? Is it because the dog has a "right?" I don't think so. Cruelty to animals, or neglect of those in our care, strikes us as wrong because it offends our sense of humanity. How we treat those helpless to care for themselves is an important measure of our society's status. Thus we agonize over whether to take people off life-support, and when, and how. We abjure child abuse and neglect, infanticide -- even kicking a man when he's down. Pulling wings off flies is not a widely respected activity, but I would posit that the disapprobation is not because it leads to worse activities, or just because it hurts the fly, but that it is wanton cruelty and inhumane.

Does raising the status of animals lower the status of humans? That seems to me a distinct possibility. I am more concerned about the fact that so many humans live like animals. When there are people living within walking distance of me who can't read, can't find a job, can't keep their children out of gangs I see the issue of "animal rights" as relatively trivial. Seeing the pictures of stranded animals in New Orleans broke my heart -- but I'm far more concerned about all the people whose property rights there are in serious jeopardy.

If you're concerned about animal welfare I'm with you. If you're going to enact a constitutional amendment to protect animal rights, and call me a speciesist, then I am afraid we shall part ways. I cannot support a movement that makes "speciesist" a word.

Comments

[Jill]

Speciesist has too many vowels and too much use of the letter s. I cannot support such a word.

I believe strongly we need to treat all animals with respect (witness the stellar quality of life enjoyed by a former pound hound, living in mine own house) but if a cure for cancer requires (humanely conducted!! standards compliant!!) animal testing, I'll take the cure for cancer, please.

[Citations]

Quite.

[PatAncester]

Congrats FC. very well written and thoughtful. We're with you on this one all the way.