The Conflict Between Activist and Speciesists

This scenario is a daily regimen for some person, described as though that person was being viewed by documentarians. This little description, in a way, demeans this man's life. This little description, in a way, demeans the entire human species. Being called a "species" puts humans on the same level as animals. To put it simply, humans are no different from animals at all. There are daily regiments for animals, as well, somewhat similar to this one. So why is there a conflict? Why do animal rights activists feel as though animals are being mistreated? Why do scientists and meat industry workers feel that animals do not deserve rights? Why is there such a conflict and for what? The answer to these questions is the point to this whole argument; the argument being that Activists and Speciesists might be conflicting with each other without finding a resolution between themselves.

But before the question is answered, both sides to this issue need to be addressed: the activists who vote "no" on animal experimentation, meat production, and all forms of animal cruelty, and the scientists, those same meat production workers, and ranchers (of any kind of animal). Both pose good points standing up for their sides, one probably much more than the other, but before that, History needs to be shed light on how this argument came to be in the first place.

In Andrew Harnack's book Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints, he gives a brief history lecture on the Animal Rights Movement in the Chapter Preface. Apparently, the movement's origin dated back to the mid 1970s. "In 1975, Peter Singer published 'Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals'" (Harnack 16). This book was associated as the 'bible' of the whole movement. He goes on:

In December1977, a group of activists led by Henry Spira forced the American Museum of Natural History in New York to terminate a twenty-year series of experiments in which researchers mutilated cats in order to investigate their sexual behavior...[I]n the early 1980s, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) successfully closed down Edward Taub's independent Institute of Behavioral Research at Silver Spring, Maryland, where experiments involved severing nerves in the limbs of seventeen monkeys...By the end of the decade, scientific communities, medical schools, and federal health officials found it necessary to defend themselves against charges of unethical and inhumane treatment of animals. As a result of these publications and actions, philosophers, theologians, ethicists, scientists, physicians, veterinarians, attorneys, and thousands of other thoughtful people are reexamining what, if any, moral responsibilities humans have towards animals. (Harnack 16)

People started to realize that these animals go through a lot of unnecessary torture for the benefit of man. They realize that even though there is a big gap between humans and nonhumans there are things they share in common. One of those things is that they are living creatures and they can feel pain and pleasure just like humans. Thus, coming to the conclusion that animals (like humans) would rather avoid pain. They share some human attributes, after all.

However, the pro animal rights activists' side of this issue gets misconstrued many times. Most people get caught up in the stereotypes that animal rights' activists are just a passive group of tree hugging, nature loving hippies from Berkeley, California. However, that is not actually the case at hand. Protesters for animal's rights come from all walks of life. A study at Oregon State University was conducted by Wesley V Jamison and William M. Lunch in the late 1980s about Animal Rights Activists. It was discussed in the journal article "Rights of Animals, Perceptions of Science, and Political Activism: Profile of American Animal Rights Activists." "Typical respondents were Caucasian, highly educated urban professional women approximately thirty years old with a median income of $33,000 (1989). Most activists think of themselves as Democrats or as Independents, and have moderate to liberal political views. They were often suspicious of science and made no distinctions between basic and applied science, or public versus private animal-based research" (Jamison and Lunch 438). These women support the animal rights activists just by sharing their opinion (which so happen to be in the activists' favor). That makes them activists if they are speaking about it to a certain medium. These ordinary women are animal rights activists on a micro scale and a lot of activists are just like these women; supporters who do not do much to help the activists and do not know much about the whole situation besides the fact that it is immoral.

That just proves that most pro animal rights activists are not professionals. Whatever is on the mind, whatever is in the "heart" will be said. "Environmentalists," "extremists," "and activists": these are the words that are used to describe these types of people, but what exactly are these types of people capable of? In Linda Hasselstrom's essay "The Cow versus the Animal Rights Activist," she, as a cattle rancher, gives her experiences with these activists. "Those, say the activists, are the actions of exploiters, unit to be environmentalists or associate with your daughter. Activists have destroyed research labs to free the animals... [They] follow hunters into the woods, shouting to frighten the game. One screaming activist repeatedly whacked and poked a bison hunter with the point of a ski pole...." (Hasselstrom 265) Those examples made them appear as though they were savages, but they also do stand up for anything moral and partake in positive activities and groups.

PETA is the number one organization that stands for everything that opposes animal cruelty. It is an outreach organization that will come out to schools to share their love for animals with children, it has non-violent approaches to opposing animal cruelty anywhere, it has a website, and it has many more organizations and partners under its name. It serves up many alternatives when it comes to food and clothing. It even sells/distributes "cruelty-free" products to educate others, market the organization, and ultimately win more people and convert them to animal rights activists like those in PETA. Of course, once on their website, some images and topics are outrageously blunt, but they hold nothing back when it comes to animals. Even their campaigns are a bit too much: KFC: Kentucky Fried Cruelty, Bloody Burberry, and Mars Candy Kills to name a few, but still, these committees (and not just the PETA activists) up against the pro animal testing, pro meat industry, and pro game hunting Americans who share the same rights as these activists. As far as most people know, there is no compromise between these groups on this topic. Can there be a compromise?

There is no need to explain what types of people are (the ones who are against the activists). They are scientists, ranchers, meat production workers, hunters, meat eaters, and, in some cases, bored trouble makers. What matters is what these people stand for. (For the sake of classification, this group of people will be addressed as "speciesists.")

In Marjorie Spiegel's book The Dreaded Comparison, she gives a definition of speciesism. She calls it "a belief that different species of animals are significantly different from one another in their capacities to feel pleasure and pain and live an autonomous existence, usually involving the idea that one's own species has the right to rule and use others" (Spiegel 7). In her book, she relates animal cruelty to the cruelty African Americans went through in slavery days. The resemblance is shockingly similar. This is part of the proof that animals can feel pain and pleasure, the basis of Peter Singer's book, otherwise known as the bible of the animal rights movement. Besides religious and moral points, this is all activists bring to the table to argue with speciesists.

On the other hand, the speciesists come up with very convincing and solid points. In the essay "Proud to be Speciesist" by Professor Stephen Rose, he addresses some of those points. He convinces us that it is either animals or humans that is going to be experimented on. What humans would volunteer their lives for the benefit of others by having hair care products injected in their skin, forced down their throats, or sprayed in their eyes, exposing themselves to different types of diseases, and other biological tests? He speaks on the insects. He says, "The animal kingdom isn't composed only of cats and dogs, mice and monkeys. It includes slugs and lice, wasps and mosquitoes. How far can the concept of right be extended--to not swatting a mosquito that is sucking your blood" (Rose 282)? Most people can not stand insects, and that goes for activists and speciesists alike. They, too, are animals, but it is not a big deal when an insect is killed. Even if it is a mass of insects being killed, it still is not something people should concern themselves with. Animals eat insects, and sometimes insects are their main source for nutrition. If those animals' food dies, so will those animals, and so will those animals that eat those animals, and so on (the Food Chain). So if activists (who openly calls themselves activists) partake in swatting flies, then those activists are hypocrites. There are alternatives (i.e. repellents).

Scientists believe that animals are essential when it come to medicine. One webpage focuses on the Animal Pharming procedure and its entirety. Margaret Rittner and David Cummings, who wrote "Animal Pharming: The Industrialization of Transgenic Animals" for CEI: Center for Emerging Issues, a government webpage, say,

"Animal pharming, the process of using transgenic animals to produce human drugs, is staking its claim in a lucrative world market. Transgenic animals are animals which have been genetically transformed by splicing and inserting foreign animal or human genes into their chromosomes. The inserted gene, when successful, enables an animal to make a certain pharmaceutical protein in its milk, urine, blood, sperm, or eggs, or to grow rejection-resistant organs for transplant" (Rittner).

This process helps the pharmaceutical market as well as helps those with illnesses/ailments that require medication.

Animals have always contributed to the economy while satisfying consumers at the same time. Meat production is the biggest contributor to this withering economy. The larger percentage of America eats meat. There is so much demand for meat that animals, such as fish and sheep, from other countries are shipped over for meat production, but the process for shipping live animals is a strenuous one. It is similar to the shipment of captured Africans to be sold for slavery. Tightly packed, so packed that one can not move without touching another on ALL sides, in one place for days on end. When the trip is over there is a good number (but not significant enough to hurt sales) of those who did not make it. If caught dead while in route the dead are immediately disposed of. But the routine for "checking on the stock" is rarely done on one trip and that goes for both the slaves back then and the animals throughout time. This was addressed in Spiegel's book. Slavery was one of the major bases of America's economy. Of course, morals grew and slavery became abolished leaving other money sources to pick up the slack (oil, railroads, steel, etc.). Meat production, however, has not stopped even though morals, standards, and practices have continued to grow and develop for centuries since the abolition of slavery. Deli markets and butcher shops treat their patrons to the finest animal parts money can buy. Activists can not stop the deliciousness of a good and tasty, well prepared, jumbo sized Porterhouse Steak. Activists can not stop the dishing out in which fast food companies specialize. Activists can not stop greater supply and demand.

In the end, it seems as though this is another "Emotion vs. Logic" fight. The activists can only come up with points that sit, settle, or battle with people's views while the speciesists points are so logical, they makes sense. The points are stronger because research and information follow and back up their logic. When one sees it this way, it would seem that a compromise is impossible. However, that is not necessarily the case. The UDAR (Universal Declaration of Animal Rights) was adopted from the International League of Animal Rights at an International Animal Rights meeting that took place in London September 21^st-23^rd, 1977. It consists of a preamble and fourteen Articles. It is similar to the UDHR (Universal Declaration of Human Rights) but with animals. This is proof that there was a compromise. Activists and Speciesists can come halfway on the Animal Rights issue. Of course, there are some laws from the UDAR that are broken on the daily bases; for example Article 10, sections (a) and (b) touch on the fact that animals should not be used for entertainment or put on exhibitions but yet we still have zoos and circuses. Besides that, a legal document exists for the benefit of man and beast.

So why is there still a conflict between Activists and Speciesists? The UDAR has been disregarded. Activists still fight most of the time without taking this to court and handling these issues legally. The Meat Production Company is an industry the economy counts on so activists cannot fight them because of the legitimacy of the companies. Speciesists continue to exploit, eat, test on, and hunt animals because of the fact that it is easy, cheap, and ultimately effective. Animals are still inferior to humans because animals lack logic. Even though animals have the ability to avoid pain, they lack the abilities it takes to place oneself on top of the hierarchy. Those abilities are reason and intelligence. All in all, a compromise can be met, but that does not mean both parties will abide by the rules. If that was the case, there would be no such thing as crime.

Work Cited Page

1. Harnack, Andrew. Animal Rights: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc. 1996.

2. Jamison, Wesley V., William M. Lunch. "Rights of Animals, Perceptions of Science, and Political Activism: Profile of American Animal Rights Activists." Science, Technology, and Human Values 17.4 (1992) 438-58. JSTOR. JSTOR Durham Technical Community Coll. Lib. Durham. NC. 6 March 2008

3. PETA.

4. Rittner, Margaret and David Cummings. "Animal Pharming: The Industrialization of Transgenic Animals." CEI: Center for Emerging Issues. Dec 1999. 28 Feb. 2008

5. Rose, Stephen. "Proud to be a Speciesist." ­80 Readings for Composition. Ed David Munger.

6. Spiegel, Marjorie. The Dreaded Comparison. New York: Mirror Books/I.D.E.A. 1996.