Peter Singer Supports Vivisection: Why Are You Surprised?

[Guest guest]

Link: http://www.biteback.be/news/detail.php?news_id=2922

 

Peter Singer Supports Vivisection: Why Are You Surprised?

 

1 December 2006 - The Sunday Times (UK), November 26, 2006, reports

that in a BBC documentary, Peter Singer, described by The Times

as " father of the modern animal rights movement " meets with Tipu

Aziz, an Oxford vivisector who uses primates in his research on

Parkinson's disease. Aziz informs Singer that he induces

parkinsonism in primates and claims that his use of 100 monkeys has

helped 40,000 humans. Singer replies: " Well, I think if you put a

case like that, clearly I would have to agree that was a justifiable

experiment. I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing

it, provided — I take it you are the expert in this, not me — that

there was no other way of discovering this knowledge. I could see

that as justifiable research. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2471990,00.html

 

 

So far, I have received 64 emails from animal advocates in the

United States, Britain, and elsewhere expressing astonishment and

disbelief over Singer's position. Almost everyone starts her message

with some expression of astonishment, such as " Can you believe what

Singer has said? "

 

My answer is simple: Why are you surprised?

 

If you read what Peter Singer has been writing for 30 years now, it

is absolutely clear that he regards the use of nonhumans—and humans—

in vivisection as morally permissible. Indeed, Singer explicitly

rejects animal rights and the abolition of animal exploitation; he

does not regard eating animals or animal products as per se morally

wrong; he maintains we can be " conscientious omnivores; " he claims

that we can have " mutually satisfying " sexual relationships with

animals, and he claims that it is morally permissible to kill

disabled infants.

 

In short, rather than asking " can you believe what Singer has

said?, " it is more appropriate to ask: Can someone please explain

how Singer got to be the " father of the modern animal rights

movement " ?

 

Singer is a utilitarian. He maintains that what is right or wrong in

any situation depends only on the consequences. If killing 100

monkeys will save 40,000 humans, then the action is morally

justifiable. Singer explicitly rejects the notion of animal rights,

which would prohibit our treating those 100 monkeys exclusively as

means to our ends. But Singer also thinks that it would be

appropriate to use severely mentally disabled humans in this

situation because it would be speciesist to prefer nonhumans over

what he views as similarly situated humans. So, right from the

outset, Singer promotes a view that is completely at odds not only

with the animal rights position but with commonly held principles of

human rights and, indeed, is consistent with the views of the Nazi

doctors who used " defective " humans in experiments.

 

Singer maintains that, for the most part, animals do not have an

interest in their continued existence. Therefore, our use per se of

animals does not raise a moral question; it is our treatment of

animals that matters. Singer says this explicitly in a number of

places, including Animal Liberation. Singer maintains that most

animals are not self-aware and have neither a " continuous mental

existence " nor desires for the future.(p. 228) An animal can have an

interest in not suffering, but because " it cannot grasp that it

has `a life' in the sense that requires an understanding of what it

is to exist over a period of time, " the animal has no interest in

continuing to live or in not being used as the resource or property

of humans.(228-29) Animals do not care whether we raise and

slaughter them for food, use them for experiments, or exploit them

as our resources in any other way, as long as they have a reasonably

pleasant life. According to Singer, because animals do not possess

any interest in their lives per se, " it is not easy to explain why

the loss to the animal killed is not, from an impartial point of

view, made good by the creation of a new animal who will lead an

equally pleasant life. " (229) Although Singer is critical of factory-

farming, he maintains that it is morally justifiable to eat

animals " who have a pleasant existence in a social group suited to

their behavioral needs, and are then killed quickly and without

pain. " (229-30) He states that he " can respect conscientious people

who take care to eat only meat that comes from such animals. " (230)

 

In Singer's most recent book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices

Matter (co-authored with Jim Mason), Singer argues that that we can

be " conscientious omnivores " and exploit animals ethically if, for

example, we choose to eat only animals who have been " humanely "

raised and killed.

 

Singer's message is clear: it may be preferable to be a vegan or

vegetarian because of the abuses of factory farming. But he has no

objection to killing and eating animals for food and he never has.

 

If you have any doubt about this, read Singer's interview in the

October issue of the new-welfarist magazine Satya.

(http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html). In Singer's own

words: " I think people are mistaken if they think I've watered down

that underlying ethical argument. Now, other people assume,

incidentally, that in Animal Liberation I said that killing animals

is always wrong, and that was somehow the argument for being

vegetarian or vegan. But if they go back and look at Animal

Liberation, they won't find that argument. "

 

Singer makes clear that he regards the problem as the abuses of

factory farming. Once we make the process more " humane, " and address

the issues of suffering to Singer's utilitarian satisfaction, then

we can all go back to eating animals. Singer thinks that it's a

mistake to be " too fanatical about insisting on a purely vegan

life. " Asked about his own veganism, he responds: " Oh, there's no

question about that, I'm impure. "

 

Singer not only finds no inherent problem with eating animals and

animal products, but he also sees no problem with having sexual

contact with nonhumans—again, as long as we act " humanely. " In a

soft-core porn site, Nerve.com, Our Father tells us: " But sex with

animals does not always involve cruelty. Who has not been at a

social occasion disrupted by the household dog gripping the legs of

a visitor and vigorously rubbing its penis against them? The host

usually discourages such activities, but in private not everyone

objects to being used by her or his dog in this way, and

occasionally mutually satisfying activities may develop. "

(http://www.nerve.com/Opinions/Singer/heavyPetting/main.asp)

 

In The Way We Eat, Singer and Mason recount spending a day working

on a turkey farm " collecting the semen and getting it into the hen "

They caught and restrained the male turkeys while another

worker " squeezed the tom's vent until it opened up and the white

semen oozed forth. Using a vacuum pump, he sucked it into a

syringe. " Singer and Mason then had to " `break' " the hens, which

involved restraining the hen " so that her rear is straight up and

her vent open. " (28) The inseminator then inserted a tube into the

hen and used a blast of compressed air to insert the semen into the

hen's oviduct. So apparently, Singer's version of " animal

liberation " means that we can inflict harm on animals in order to

satisfy our curiosity about the mechanics of animal exploitation.

 

Finally, Singer maintains positions that most of us find

unacceptable as a matter of basic human rights. For example (one of

many), in Practical Ethics, Singer discusses whether it is morally

acceptable to kill an infant who is born with hemophilia. He

maintains that although the issue is complicated, we can defend

killing the infant if that is the only way that the parents will

have another " normal " child because " [w]hen the death of a disabled

infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better

prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be

greater if the disabled infant is killed. " (186) Although this treats

human infants as " replaceable, " Singer maintains that infants

arguably are similar to non-self-conscious nonhumans, and it is

acceptable to kill them. He claims that " killing a disabled infant

is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not

wrong at all. " (191)

 

I could go on and on with examples that demonstrate that Singer's

views have nothing to do with animal rights or with what most of us

regard as an acceptable view of human rights. But the one positive

thing you can say about Singer is that he has never tried to hide

these views. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why anyone was surprised

about his remarks about Aziz's use of monkeys at Oxford.

 

In the Satya interview, Singer says in response to a question about

the response to The Way We Eat: " I've been pleased that people who

are vegan themselves, and are involved in some of the major animal

rights organizations, have been strongly in support of it. I've had

a few gripes from the kind of people I would expect to have gripes

from. I mean, there are people who I think are a little too ready to

criticize others who are basically on the same side of the fence,

but are not as pure as they are, and they've fixed on the fact that

this book doesn't simply say you ought to go vegan and nothing else. "

 

Singer misses the point. Those who believe that it is morally wrong

to consume animal products are not on the " same side of the fence "

as Singer. Singer's position is no different from that of

institutionalized animal exploiters, who, like Singer, maintain that

we can use animals as long as take care to make sure that they do

not suffer " too much. " Singer's view reduces the issue of animal

rights to a debate about what constitutes " too much " suffering,

which misses the point that we cannot justify the use—

however " humane " —of nonhumans. There is nothing wrong with being

a " purist " about matters of fundamental rights. Would anyone

maintain that it is " purist " to reject " humane " rape or " humane "

child abuse? Of course not.

 

As long as the so-called " father of the modern animal rights

movement " regards as " fanatical " the promotion of veganism as a

moral baseline, the movement will continue to do exactly what it has

been doing for the past decade—go backward. It is well past time

that those who seek to abolish animal exploitation and not merely to

regulate it disown Our Father and get on with the business of

creating a nonviolent social and political movement that will

challenge the exploitation of animals in a meaningful way.

 

Bron: http://garyfrancione.blogspot.com/2006/11/peter-singer-

supports-vivisection-why.html