The Rural Voice, 1989-06, Page 16treleaven's
feed mill ltd.
box 182, lucknow, ont. NOG 2H0
519.528.3000
1.800-265-3006
14 THE RURAL VOICE
THE POPE A MUSLIM?
— ON ANIMAL RIGHTS
There is an unbridgeable gap
between the philosophies of farmers
and scientists on the one hand and
animal rights activists on the other.
Farmers and research scientists see
animals as a resource to sustain and
improve human existence.
In one respect, animal rights
activists and anti -abortion activists
pursue the same goal. Both deny that
man has a right to kill. In the March
1989 issue of The Atlantic, Steven
Zak argues that "if marginal human
beings, such as infants or the senile,
or the severely retarded, have the right
to live, it is arbitrary to hold that
animals do not."
This contrasts with the view that
"animals do not live by moral rules
and therefore are not part of the
human `moral' community."
Zak, however, when asked by a
researcher if the Animal Liberation
Front (ALF) would really save an
animal in exchange for the life of a
child, called his position a "lack of
partiality."
To get some insight into the
thinking process of animal rightists,
consider the following: "Those who
seek to justify the exploitation of
animals often claim that it comes
down to a choice: kill an animal or
allow a human being to die. But this
claim is misleading, because a choice
has already been made. The very act
of considering the taking of life X to
save life Y reduces X to the status of a
mere instrument."
As you can see, the animal right-
ists see no difference between human
and animal life. This makes argument
impossible, as every argument must
proceed from an agreed axiom.
What research scientists and
farmers can do is convince those who
aren't committed to ALF fundamen-
talism not to accept ALF arguments.
Unless we do, we may see Zak's ideas
in practice — "such as extending the
protection of the Constitution to
animals."
Curiously, the writer draws a line
himself when he admits that dragon-
flies should not be seen in the same
light as dolphins and that, while he
once spent $1,000 on vet care for his
dog, he never gave such a sum to a
needy person.
Zak also objects to the classifi-
cation of animals as "property." One
apparently can't claim a live organism
as property, be it human (slave) or
animal.
To counteract such thinking,
farmers, researchers, and trappers
can't simply say that animal rights
people live in a dream world or worse
and that animal rightists are sabotag-
ing their livelihood. The seal hunters
of Newfoundland found that damaging
a helicopter belonging to ALF was
counter-productive. The sympathy of
some observers who were unsure of
whose rights were being eroded swung
over behind those "poor" people who,
out of the goodness of their heart,
spend a lot of money to protect seals.
If we want to protect our rights
regarding what we can eat or wear,
we must convince the undecided.
We must forget trying to convert the
committed. Trying to convert the
animals rights people is much like
trying to convince the Pope to be a
Muslim.
We must direct our efforts to
those we consider "normal" — those
who have no compunction about
eating meat, and those who have no
problem with the rearing of animals
in confinement — and those, like
me, who can't help but feel sorry for
chickens packed three in a cage.0
Adrian Vos, from Huron County, has
contributed to The Rural Voice since
its inception in 1975.