Animal-Rights Group Snarls

[Guest guest]

>Thursday, 16 November 2000 00:59:09 +0800

> " amazon grrrl " <bliss

>Re: An Animal-Rights Group Snarls Its Way to Possible Extinction

>

>I think PETA is striving for an ideal world where animals are treated as

>equals.

 

I think that we ought to strive for a world in which all persons,

by virtue of being persons -- whatever that means metaphysically --

are respected. The question of " moral equality " COULD remain

on the table, even if we feel strongly on one side or the others.

 

We are mature enough and sufficiently sensitive to realize that

we will always be more empathic towards those we know,

whether those relationships are built around proximity

(spatial, neighborhood, etc.) or intentional arrangement

(business partnerships, friendships, work, providers/suppliers)

or kinship (family or extended family, ethnicity, race, species, etc.)

 

PETA sees, and perhaps sees imperfectly, the significance

of understanding ethics towards persons as more fundamentally

significant, not as a psychological option, but as a real obligation,

which is deeper than, broader than, and more important than

any one individual's thinking -- yet that thinking

 

Numerous established professions also realize this. They're sane.

Architecture, medicine, nutrition, law, education, religion, etc.

all have a deeper view of the person, although usually only

the human person, in which individual thoughts are relative

to reality, or at least to one another.

 

PETA operates in the real world. Yet, in the absence of

alternative leadership, in the absence of competitors in

each of these areas of public morality, PETA will step

into the vacuum and exercise " visible presence "

to the best of their understanding and ability.

 

PETA does represent a growing vision of how the world

ought to become, how ethics should be done in the

modern world. Although they do not characterize ALL

vegetarians, or even all ethical vegetarians, or even all

animal rights advocates, they do raise the flag, and

those whose vision is more mature ought, I think,

and many others think, to raise their own banners

collaboratively, throw their hats into the rink, and

in decency, vie for the electoral victory.

 

One caveat would be that one should learn from

one's predecessors, without denigrating them.

PETA has friends, and PETA will always have friends.

The world ought to be that way.

 

While I have differences in style and principle with

several of PETA's campaigns, I'm grateful that the

issues are boldly introduced to our complex culture,

even when the impacts, outcomes, results might

be counterproductive, in some measure.

 

The vocabulary, ideas, and concerns are now

" in the public domain " , and the rest of us

are able to discuss them, and perhaps to

improve the public discussion.

 

Less mature minds may wish to line up behind

" movements " , but aging minds who have learned,

the women and men who have somehow managed

to learn from their array of historical experiences,

will need to " think critically " .

 

Is that notion alien to your thinking.

Then take a philosophy course, and be sure that

you manage to ask that question to your profs

and the philosophy, debate, and English majors,

if the topic isn't addressed directly in the courses.

 

If rationality points in this direction, how will

we emphasize our strong points and

de-emphasize our weaknesses if we continue

to play on our weaknesses and to go limp

on what are, in the longer and broader reality,

our real strengths?

 

Maynard S. Clark