You write a book. Some reviews are good, some bad, and some middling. It’s not always fun, but that’s the life of an author.
A middling review came out today in the New Republic’s website. All in all, given the source, I am not displeased. But I do have to correct a very wrong impression left by the reviewer, David Michael. From the review:
Though we have an obligation as the only moral creatures that care for the welfare of animals, Smith might also have discussed the inverse. Does mistreating animals diminish our humanity?
I beg your pardon? Not only did I go out of my way to repeatedly and emphatically assert the crucial human duty to treat animals humanely, but I made the specific point Michael said I missed, and moreover, I used the very words he did. And it’s on page 3 (emphasis added):
I am very well aware that these positions—once nearly universally accepted—have, in recent years, become intensely controversial. Indeed, few issues generate such intense emotionalism or fervent support by its adherents as does “animal rights.” Thus, I want to make it very clear at the outset—as I will throughout the book—that I love animals and like most people, I wince when I see them in pain. Moreover, I believe strongly that as enlightened people, we have a profound moral and ethical obligation to treat animals humanely and with proper respect—a core obligation of human exceptionalism—and by all means, to never cause them to suffer for frivolous reasons. I also strongly support laws against cruelty to animals and support strengthening them when appropriate. Indeed, I believe that animal abuse is a terrible wrong, not only because it causes the victimized animal to suffer, but also because cruelty to animals diminishes our own humanity.
Just to correct the record. Onward.
July 21st, 2010 | 8:13 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: TNR Book Review: Smith Doesn’t Say Animal Abuse Diminishes Our Humanity–But I State Exactly That » Secondhand Smoke | http://shar.es/mPmlN [...]
July 21st, 2010 | 8:48 pm
I commend you, regarding your continual, and complete rejection of animal abuse.
But you said something, that struck my eye, Wesley. You stated that, “not only does it cause the victimized animal to suffer”…
Hoe can a being be a “victim”, of abuse, unless it has the RIGHT not to receive this treatment, or ot has the right to be treated well, that is, not killed or harmed? In other words, it seems as if you’re, implicitly, accepting the premise, that animals have at least some rights, to not be killed or harmed for “frivolous” reasons?
It shows, I think, that, to accept the animal welfare position, logically commits one to the animal rights position. In response, I say, great! We do NOT want those on the extreme left, to have a monopoly on animal rights. Animal rights beliefs, are about respecting other creatures right to life, and “liberty” (I use this, NOT in the way humans have a right to liberty, but in a way that reflects what the creature in question requires, to have a good life).
Even though I believe that, logically, being commited to animal welfare requires one to be commited to animal rights, I know you disagree, obviously, and have provided a respectable defense. But when you state that we should not harm other animals for “frivolous” reasons, what does that mean, precisely?
July 22nd, 2010 | 7:07 am
“…that I love animals and like most people, I wince when I see them in pain.” I had to read that three times before concluding that you need comma between ‘and’ and ‘like’.
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Lythgoe’s first paragraph, but not with the rest of his arguments. My quick dictionary.com research on ‘victim’ yields no connection between ‘victim’ and ‘rights’. One can be a victim of a lightning strike, but there is no corresponding right NOT to be struck by lightning. A rabbit can be a victim of an attack by a hawk, but has the hawk violated the rabbit’s rights?
If you had stated “because it causes the ‘abused’ animal to suffer” we would not be having this discussion.
July 22nd, 2010 | 1:10 pm
Bret, you still seem to think of “rights” as some kind of naturally occurring phenomenon. They are not. Rights are a completely artificial construct. like money, property ownership, or political boundaries. Humans created the concept of rights as a way of regulating our society.
You can only get rights by having them granted to you by the previously existing members of society. In America we grant them to you at birth and they’re yours to lose. This unfortunately contributes to the misconception that rights are a natural gift. They aren’t. Human society gave you your rights, and if you violate the rules of society, your rights may be revoked.
July 22nd, 2010 | 1:24 pm
Wes, you were easy on this reviewer considering that some of his comments indicate that he’s not exactly objective on this issue:
From the review:
‘…he charges that PETA will not rest until KFC is in “the permanent peace of the corporate grave.” This reader shed no tears of sympathy.’
The reviewer doesn’t mention WHY he doesn’t like KFC, but one can guess he’s seen a lot of PETA’s anti-KFC propaganda.
Also:
‘Agriculture, however, is not his strong suit, and he fails to note that while factory farms may allow for cheaper meat production, the money saved at the supermarket is generally passed on to the consumer in the form of waterway cleanups and diminished property value for those homes in the vicinity of factory farms.’
Here he’s not reviewing the book, he’s debating it. And since this is a “review,” I guess he doesn’t have to back up his statement with facts explaining how, for instance, 10 farms with 100 cows each pollutes more than one farm with 1000 cows.
July 23rd, 2010 | 1:20 am
We’ve had this discussion before, Padraig, and rights are, in my view, real, and not just arbitrarily created by us. One argument in favor of rights being natural, is that, once one gets through the superficial differences, between cultures, one sees remarkable similarities, among cultures of the world, regarding what constitutes proper moral reasoning. the best explanation for this, is that it’s genetically predisposed. Otherwise, how do you explain how cultures, that never interacted, and therefore could not learn from each other, are so similar in their morality?
another argument in favor of rights, which are derived from moral reasoning, being discovered, and therefore natural, as opposed to “invented”, Padraig, is you have no argument against tyranical regimes. You can’t say they deprive people of rights, since, from their perspective, rights don’t exist.
Pagraig, if you think deeply, about this, you’re position commits you to moral relativism. Take, for example, female genital circumcision. I think that it’s wrong to do this to girls, because it deprives them of their rights to not be mutilated. What’s your position here?
July 23rd, 2010 | 1:38 am
You make a good point, Steve. But usually, when we use the word “victim”, in association with one conscious being inflicting harm on another conscious being, we normally conclude that the one being harmed, has a corollary right to not be harmed. It’s only when we get into the relhm of animal rights, and we have those who don’t believe that animals have rights, and yet, don’t want inflict suffering on animals, in a needless way, that the language gets awkward.
My position is, that conscious beings have rights that correspond to their nature. So, for example, a twelve year old boy, does not have the right to vote, due to his immature nature, but an eighteen year old does. A five year old cat has the right to life, but not the right to run for congress. This should be painfully obvious. Any right, that a conscious being has, should have a rational correspondence with the mental, and physical nature of that being. Humans have nothing to fear, from this, because no other animal will “take away” a human right, because no other animal has a nature that a human has.
Clearly, some rights, humans and other conscious animals will share, such as the right to life. but they will naturally start to deverge, depending on the mental and pysical constitutions of the animals in question. i hope this makes some sense.
July 23rd, 2010 | 10:23 am
Bret: “Otherwise, how do you explain how cultures, that never interacted, and therefore could not learn from each other, are so similar in their morality?”
Because morality exists to further the best interests of humanity, and humanity’s best interests are very similar across cultures.
Bret: “You can’t say they deprive people of rights, since, from their perspective, rights don’t exist.”
I didn’t say they don’t exist, I said they’re an artificial construct. They exist as a form of agreement between members of society. Certainly you could argue that they have no physical existence, but that doesn’t matter. Like all ideas, they’re as powerful as people make them, and no more.
Bret: “Take, for example, female genital circumcision. I think that it’s wrong to do this to girls, because it deprives them of their rights to not be mutilated. What’s your position here?”
I have no idea how you made this mental leap, but I’ll try to respond.
OK, my understanding is that some societies think that females should be circumcised, essentially as a way of keeping them submissive. So what we’re talking about here, in general terms, is under what conditions is it moral for a society to impose its will on individuals, even to the detriment of the individuals?
Well, in the USA we have a very well-written Constitution that outlines exactly what our society, or at least our government, can or cannot do. In particular we have the Bill of Rights to outline individual rights. In general, in the USA any individual’s rights stop when they infringe on another individual’s rights. That’s how public smoking is getting outlawed: you can smoke if you want to, you just can’t force others to breathe your fumes.
So, in the case of female circumcision, you’d have to weigh the rights of the parents to raise their children in the traditions of their culture vs. the right of the child to have normal genitalia. In my view, and the view of US law, the child’s health interests far outweigh the parents’ rights in this case.
The same principle applies to other parental behaviors that some cultures consider “traditional,” like child-beating, sex with children, marrying multiple underage girls, etc., etc.
This is a good example, by the way, of why rights are defined by humans and not “natural.” Those parents believe they are completely within their rights to circumcise their daughters. If rights are natural as you insist, then that must be ok, right?
July 24th, 2010 | 1:50 am
i believe you’re possibly missing my point, Padraig. I believe that rights, are logical deductions, derived from morality. You acknowledge that morality exists to further the interests of humanity, so it exists across cultures. but you fail to address where morality comes from. Morality is natural, AND it’s logically based. That explains why rights are derived properly from it, and that it’s useful across cultures.
the reason I brought up female circumcision, was to see if you believe that the girl’s rights to have their bodies free of mutilation, are our “invention”, or our discovery. You seem to concede the latter. You say that we have to weigh the rights of the parents to raise their children the way they see fit, with the rights of the child to have an intact genitalia. Good! We’re getting somewhere! You concede that these rights exist. Now, do you STILL contend that they’re OUR creation, OUR discovery?
I never claimed that just because something is natural, that therefore, it’s right. If it’s natural, it still has to be rationally based. so, obviously, the parents have no “right” to circumcise their daughters, because this alledged “right” is NOT rationally based, so it’s no right at all.
At the risk that maybe we do agree on some level, but we’re misunderstanding each other, do to ambiguity in how we’re both using (or misusing?) language let me attempt to clarify.
Rights, are discovered, not obviously, like we would discover a heretofore unknown planet, or rock. Rights are DEDUCED from moral principles. And these moral principles are DEDUCED from logical principles, that are DEDUCED from self evident axioms, see? Therefore, they’re not made up, as you seem to contend. They’re natural, the way logic is natural. But just because something is natural does not mean it’s properly reasoned. So does this help?
July 24th, 2010 | 2:08 am
If I could, Padraig, I hope that I didn’t sound harsh, in my previous comments. I was simply trying to convey my position in a way that would be clear, and unambiguous. I hope I didn’t sound condescending. If I did, I apologize.
And I brought up the female circumcision, because it was the first example, that came to my mind, of the clear distinction, between those who think rights are objective, and those who think that they’re relative. I could have easily picked another example.I was NOT picking it, to imply that you tolerate it. I know, that, of course you don’t.
In your first post, you said that rights are “given” to us, at birth, in our country, but can be taken away, based on our subsequent behavior. True, to some extent, but NOT true in other ways. No prisoner can have his right be free of experimentation, infringed on (perhaps much to Kervorkian’s dissappointment). You cannot have your right to be free of “cruel and unusual punishment” infringed on.
July 24th, 2010 | 11:00 am
Bret, apology accepted.
Re: not all rights being revokable, you’re technically correct, but a person can still be killed legally either by capital punishment or in self-defense. So, the most fundamental right, the right to life, can in fact be revoked. The other rights you mention kinda pale by comparison.
July 25th, 2010 | 8:06 pm
The right not to be tortured “pales by comparison”?!
I can only speak for myself, padraig, but I think this right hardly “pales in comparision”, it’s right up there with the right to life.
You failed to address WHY we consider some rights, regardless of the behavior of their possessors, to be irrevoicible. I believe it’s because we know that we cannot, legitimately, take them away, because they exist, in an objective fashion.
July 25th, 2010 | 9:53 pm
Bret, the “right” to not be tortured does not exist everywhere. There are despots all over that routinely torture their opposition with impunity. Rights do not exist in nature, only in human society, and not very consistently there.
July 25th, 2010 | 11:00 pm
Padraig, they exist like 2+2+=4. Rights exist, as deductions, from self evident axioms. Of course, these rights are not recognized everywhere, who could claim that? But that’s different then saying they sould exist everywhere.
I’m attempting, (without much success!) to ascertain what philosophical basis you have for your position. you seem to provide me with pedestrian answers, that a common person on the street would give.
July 26th, 2010 | 12:50 am
Padraig, thank you for your contributions to the debate. It’s fun interacting with an intelligent correspondant! Take care-
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact