Sunstein on Animal Rights
by BradfordCass Sunstein has been selected to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. Here is one view of Sunstein and here is another. He has supporters and detractors representing a broad part of the political spectrum. Surprisingly he has some support from conservative sources. I think there is much truth in this quote from the WSJ article:
In other work, Mr. Sunstein has developed the concept of an "availability cascade" — the way in which ideas gain prominence simply by being prominent, until we take their truth for granted.
But why would visitors to Telic Thoughts have any interest in a man holding an obscure post? For one thing he has some unorthodox views about democracy and the internet. He also coauthored the book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions which brings us to the issue that makes some uneasy- Sunstein's views on animal rights. I love animals. Unfortunately laws, which punish those who abuse animals, are necessary. However, animals should not have the same rights as people. Sunstein authored The Rights of Animals: A Very Short Primer. Quoting from the link:
Do animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land – to show the range of possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the "autonomy" of animals, or that object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of animals.
Of course stating that the use of animals should be regulated is not very controversial. This raises concerns:
He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his “more ambitious animating concern” that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered “a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.” Sound familiar?
Rhetorical overkill? We'll see. But his views could become a thorn in the side of researchers and farmers who do not view animal rights in the same way as Sunstein.
January 17th, 2009 at 5:18 am
Bradford
A topic we can agree on! When people talk about promoting animal rights, it i strange how they concentrate on the cute ones – the monkeys, the lambs, the pussy cats – but not the nasty ones like the slugs, the fleas and the tape worms. Do we really want to give tape worms the same rights as people?
Comment by The Pixie Again — January 17, 2009 @ 5:18 am
January 17th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Bradford quoting Sunstein:
Well, it's a good thing Jashua's Big Ras Bob went to the happy hunting grounds in the sky before this, so he could keep his title and gold belt as Heavyweight Poodle Wrestling Champion (undefeated in dozens of bouts with perpetual challenger SkyPup)! And that Kenya Queen Reba Amelia E. – The Flying Poodle – got to retire with her laurels before it was decided that humans had no right to be astounded by her grace and prowess…
But seriously, I've no problem with strict regulation of factory livestock farming or regulation of exploited circus (or Vegas) performers. My animal friends like me fine, tend to pay attention to what I tell them about things. It can only be a boon to progressive politics when my chickens and doves get the right to vote!
Comment by Joy — January 17, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
January 17th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Pixie:
Let's hope not but you raise a good point. We do get more upset when cuteness is abused for obvious reasons. But is that an ethical basis for behavioral norms?
Joy:
It is needed. There are too many cruel people interacting with animals. I would never put animal rights on an equal footing with people though.
Comment by Bradford — January 17, 2009 @ 3:25 pm
January 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Bradford:
Depends on the animal and the circumstances, I'd say. For a good many people their animal companions are beloved members of the family whose wants and needs are considered along with all other members' wants and needs. Or they are valuable and reliable servants whose labor makes possible the sustenance of the family and community. Or they are well-kept and reasonably benefitted sources of sustenance themselves whose existence relies upon the planning and pastures and wells and barns of their benefactors, a trade of time, labor, provision and defense of the animals for the benefit of the people.
In the modern world much of the interrelationship between humanity and the life upon which we depend for our own lives has descended into the basest of forceful manipulation, cruel exploitation and blind 'efficiencies' that maximize short-term profit while ignoring dreadful consequence. We needn't wonder why our food animal and vegetable is contaminated with pathogens or designed to thwart nature with deadly efficiency. We sacrifice the fertility of the land and the crops and the animals we absolutely depend upon, and pay the price in our own fertility. We are made to consume the downed dead and diseased, then wonder why we too are diseased. We cavalierly ignore the dietary and preparation strictures Moses delivered for the good of the people, and wonder why we are cursed.
One wonders how the consideration of "right" applies where the value of a horse or bull can be more than the value of the humans indentured to serve them. You can bet your bippy that horse or bull enjoys the best of goods and circumstance, has concerned professional care for every ache or pain. While the peasants are suffered to exist on the edge of starvation and die without care or kindness.
We like to think of 'rights' as things bestowed by benevolent nature or nature's benevolent gods, but they are neither. These are concepts that pertain only in their place and time according to what 'power' in time allows or demands. Such conceptualizations are not inherent in the nature of nature or of humanity, they must be conceived and demanded, then granted by those with the power to do so. No right to life, liberty, love, labor, health, wealth, marriage, children, inheritance, sustenance, knowledge or any other privilege the few enjoy at high cost to many. There are no rights, there are only provisional grants that come and go in time.
Comment by Joy — January 17, 2009 @ 5:56 pm
August 5th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
By the way, is this blog still complaining that real scientists never stand up for animal research?
See this counter example.
Comment by edarrell — August 5, 2009 @ 5:34 pm