As posted about previously, the National Review gave me an opportunity to respond to Matthew Scully’s diatribe against my book. (Scully, who is a conservative speech writer, is–to understate the matter–extremely emotional about animal issues). In part 1, I responded to his continuing canard that I supported breaking the limbs of chimps in experiments. In this post, I will excerpt some of my more general comments, which describe the book in a nutshell.
First, I remarked on the hyper emotionality of Scully’s review (here’s a link):
But let us ponder: What would drive a deeply talented writer like Scully to engage in such blatant falsehood? Like Zeus throwing his destructive lightning bolts, radical animal advocates often deploy the rant in order to drive rationality and reason off the field. In the face of such fury, we are tempted to cower under our desks, thereby allowing animal-rights activists to stand alone as righteous “defenders” of those who “can’t speak for themselves.”
Such demagoguery stifles our deeply pondering this important moral issue. Thus, I hope the book will help restore balance to the discussion of these matters.
In the rest of my response, I describe the book (since Scully didn’t), beginning with making a crucial distinction between animal rights and animal welfare:
So what’s the book really about? With A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy, I hope to clear up the confusion in the public mind between promoting “animal welfare”—a noble cause, which I endorse—and “animal rights,” which I oppose. The former acknowledges the ethical propriety of using animals for human benefit, while vigorously insisting on concomitant duties to treat animals humanely. In direct contrast, animal-rights ideology disdains the welfarist approach as “speciesism”—i.e., “discrimination” against animals—and dogmatically insists we have no right to consume meat, to wear leather, to conduct animal research, and, for some, even to own dogs. In other words, the ultimate goal of animal rights—which believers understand to be a multi-generational project—is ending all animal domestication no matter how beneficial to humans.
I describe the various ideological assertions of animal rights dogma, and then describe the consequences of such belief:
Regardless of the approach, to the animal-rights true believer, that which is done to an animal is judged as if the same action were done to a human being. Hence, many animal rightists believe cattle ranching is as odious as slavery and research on lab rats an equivalent evil to Mengele’s experiments in the camps.
This leads some to engage in violence and terrorism, which I won’t belabor here. I then describe the second purpose of my book:
The hyperemotionality of animal-rights campaigners too often hides the tremendous benefits we receive from the proper and humane use of animals. For this reason, I devote an entire section of the book to a judicious discussion of animal research, the use of animals as food, and the more volatile issues of fur and hunting. I don’t pretend to identify proper husbandry techniques in every case. But I believe it is important both to expose the false assertions made by animal rightists—for example, that humans do not benefit from animal research and that fur trappers still use archaic metal traps that break animals’ legs—and to allow people engaged in these industries a forum to express their usually drowned-out perspectives.
And, of course, human exceptionalism is the core component:
The ideal I wish to advance—indeed, to conserve—is “human exceptionalism,” that is, the unique moral status of human life. It is remarkable that our exceptional natures require defense. After all, what other species in the known history of life has attained the wondrous capacities of human beings? What other species has transcended the tooth-and-claw world of naked natural selection to the point that, at least to some degree, we now control nature instead of being controlled by it? What other species builds civilizations, records history, creates art, makes music, thinks abstractly, envisions and fabricates machinery, improves life through science and engineering, or explores the deeper truths found in philosophy and religion? What other species rescues injured animals instead of ignoring or eating them? What other species has true freedom? Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held to moral account?
Human exceptionalism increasingly is criticized as arrogant and hubristic, spurring us to mistreat animals and despoil the planet. I believe the contrary is true. Indeed, if being human isn’t what gives us the duty to treat animals properly, what in the world does?
It is worth noting that Scully has now failed twice to mention–as ethics would seem to require–that I criticized (and complimented) his book Dominion in A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy. Moreover, it would have been nice if he had actually dealt substantially with what I wrote, rather than just venting his anger about the uses to which animals are put. But in an era in which feelings count more than thoughts, I am not surprised.
March 8th, 2010 | 2:32 pm
[...] Widgets « Previous |Home| Next » My Defense of a A Rat is a Pig is a Dog [...]
March 8th, 2010 | 7:39 pm
I used to enjoy your blog, and would have considered getting your book, but with 3/4 of your posts being plugs for your book, it’s getting a little old… and not worth following anymore. Just seeing the title “A Rat… ” in so so many posts in my feed is irritating.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 8th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Sorry you feel that way, Sarah. But that’s how these things go. Besides, I just checked: Three of the last 15 posts have involved my book. I don’t think that’s excessive. Thanks.
March 9th, 2010 | 5:16 am
No need to be sorry – if I wrote a book and had a blog, I’d have as many or more posts about it as you do. The posts further demonstrate the fanaticism of Animal Rights devotees, something that should be exposed. Thank you for being the one to do so.
March 9th, 2010 | 10:13 am
Mr. Smith: Thanks. I had read Skully’s review before coming across your responses, and I had already been of the impression that the review was long-winded and not particularly informative about the content of your book. But the review strikes me now as self-indulgent and scandalous. Your distinction between animal welfare and animal rights is precisely the issue, and Mr. Skully is apparently uninterested in the distinction. I suppose you need to respond, yet who can refute a sneer?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 11:11 am
John: Thanks. Love the line, “Who can refute a sneer?”
I was utterly expecting Scully to dump a garbage can on my book. What I didn’t expect was for him to be so overwrought that he couldn’t get the facts straight–twice. I also do not appreciate any book review that fails to tell readers what the book actually states, its theses, and why in the reviewer’s opionion they are right or wrong, well or poorly stated. I write book reviews and make it a point of pride whether praising or criticizing, to do the book justice in those regards.
I appreciate NR giving me a chance to respond. And now, it is on to the next. Thanks.
March 9th, 2010 | 12:04 pm
Hey Wes, you have a customer review on Amazon! Sort of. It’s from an obvious ARA who confines his discussion of your book to his personal opinion of you. Big surprise there.
Here’s an interesting line from his review:
“I only read it because it was on the clearance shelf at a used book store.”
It’s only been out a week or two, right? This guy wants us to believe it’s been through that cycle already, from newly published to used to remainder? Riiiiiiiight.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 9th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Yes. He went too far. The book has been available for a week in stores, maybe two. It may end up on clearance bins, but it isn’t yet. He clearly hasn’t read it. But par for the course.
March 9th, 2010 | 2:18 pm
Somebody named Austin D. already called the reviewer out on it in the review comments.
I would expect that this is just the first salvo, though.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:23 am
Animal Rights is an unrealistic & unobtainable goal of folks more interested in being narcissitic finger pointers who want to be praised for their actions without acknowledging that animals would be less cared for in their goals. Keep up enlightening the good folk Wesley. Sometimes folks can not see how cruel life would be for animals if humans were not busy treating them as animals that need welfare & not RIGHTS.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:26 pm
I am struck by the similarities between some abortion advocates, and some animal killers. The animals are not stranguled in traps, etc. The baby that’s about to be killed in a partial birth abortion is not about to have his brains sucked out, etc. any comments?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Each method of dealing with animals should be judged along animal welfare standards, which include human benefit in the equation. How humans are treated should be judged differently. Humans should never be perceived as appropriate for instrumental use. There is a different moral value between animals and humans. And our duties to animals are significant, but to humans higher.
March 12th, 2010 | 7:05 pm
Those supporting abortion, and those who support animal destruction, often use the same deceptive language, because, in my view, they know they’re invoved in morally reprehensible behavior, but want to justify it to others and themselves. Conscience is very powerful, but also remarkably vulnerable to atrophy. Often, abortion advocates are asked if there’s any abortion that’s unacceptable. They, understandably, dodge the question. I will ask Mr. Smith an analagous question: respecfully, is there one, I’m only asking for one example, type of experiment, currently occurring, that you think is unacceptable, and why? You stated, rightly, that you oppose all inappropriate and unacceptable expermintation on animals, and I commend you for it. But you have not given any examples. Statistically speaking, considering that vast number of experiments done, and the human propensity for error, and your considerable knowledge of the subject, it would be unlikely for you to not come up with one example of animal abuse by experimenters. I admire you for not dodging questions, so I’m sure you’ll provide an answer.
March 15th, 2010 | 8:09 pm
I find it unusual that Mr.Smith has chose to not answer my last post. Do you really believe that there are no abuses taking place in the labs of our country? Scully, in his NR review of your book, mentioned that you stated that you are against all abuses, but do not provide a single example, in your book of an abusive practice. Wouldn’t you be doing the scientific research community a service by pointing out the bad apples so the good apples can better do their work?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 15th, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Bret: Scully’s review was uninformative and, frankly, a screed. I did discuss abuses and did support their elimination. You should read the book.
April 17th, 2010 | 2:23 pm
One need not reject the use of animals for human purposes to believe that such use can and should be preceded by an ethical cost-benefit analysis and also seek to prevent cruelty and negligent abuse. Indeed it is in the interest of mankind to embrace humane methods of animal management, both for the implicit moral good that embodies, as well as for the utilitarian improvements gained in that use if animals are comfortable and anxiety free. That has been Temple Grandin’s premise and decades of improved production agriculture have been the result of implementing her methods of food animal management. Reduction of pain, discomfort and anxiety improves the outcomes desired by mankind, whether in agriculture, research or other human activities, which involve animals.
My criticism of Mr. Scully’s book is his repeated use of the pejorative term “factory farming”, and the negative emotional imagery that term connotes. There was a time when the industry of production agriculture was recognized as an industry Americans could be proud of, a vast bounty with which we feed ourselves and often the world. American agriculture still does all that, however, the politics have changed in this supposedly post-American era. No longer is it fashionable to generally brag about American industry, and in particular agriculture, as the powerhouse it once was. Well our production agriculture is still a powerhouse, still feeds the world and should be bragged about. Yes it has faults, and animal husbandry can be improved, however, the relentless characterization of that industry as something we need to be ashamed of, weakens agriculture, and by extension weakens our nation.
Mr. Scully’s repeated use of the animal rights community’s invented term “factory farming”, and indeed its use by the mainstream media and in some circles among the public, reinforces the message that animal use is unethical, and in terms of production agriculture, that America is uniformly cruel to its animals. That’s just plain wrong. We know where Mr. Scully and those who oppose most use of animals for human purposes stand. We need not, however, agree to accept their inflammatory terminology and what it connotes. Agriculture remains one of the miracles of this nation and of our American society. Let’s speak of it with respect!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact