Animal Wrongs and Rights - Antennae The Journal of Nature in ...

them. So, yes, a “credible ethic” in my view will
involve both justice and care. In fact I think I’ve
written somewhere that “reason can lead the will to
water but only care can make it drink.” That pretty
much sums up my thinking on this matter.
Gigliotti: In your 2001 book, Defending Animal
Rights, a chapter entitled “Patterns of
Resistance” outlines some of the links you have
articulated between resistance to the rights of
animals and social justice issues, particularly in
the U[nited] S[tates]. What role do you see these
kind of ideas playing in what is now known as
human-animal studies and critical animal
studies? Are there current examples of similar
links you might detail for us?
Tom Regan: All movements for progressive change
encounter the same “patterns of resistance.” In the
chapter to which you are referring, I discuss the
movements to abolish slavery, to enfranchise
women, to grant equal rights to gays and lesbians,
and to truly liberate nonhuman animals. Two
powerful voices resisting all these movements have
been (strange bed-fellows) science and religion. For
example, defenders of slavery often cited passages
from the Bible that they claimed “proved” that God
intended blacks to be slaves, whereas others cited
various scientific studies (comparative brain size
between whites and blacks, for one) that “proved”
blacks were biologically inferior to whites. When you
have these powerful forces—religion, on the one
hand, and science, on the other—speaking in favor
of a repressive status-quo, it’s fair to say that
changing the status-quo will be a daunting
challenge.
And what do we find today, in the midst of
our movement—the animal rights movement?
Overwhelmingly, the voices speaking from a
religious or a scientific perspective are speaking in
favor of human superiority compared to other
animals. I am not saying everyone speaking from
these perspectives is saying this anymore than
everyone speaking from these perspectives in the
past favored the subjugation of women. What I am
saying is that, overwhelmingly, this is what these
voices are saying.
To my mind, it’s important for ARA’s to
understand these “patterns of resistance.” It’s
important, first, because it helps create ARA
solidarity with those from the past who have worked
for progressive change; they had to face the same
forces of resistance we have to face. It’s important,
second, because our knowledge of these patterns
can perhaps open a dialogue with those who
believe in human superiority compared to other
46
animals “because of what the Bible says,” for
instance. “Oh,” we can say, “that’s why you believe
in human superiority. Well, did you know that slavery
was defended in the same way? The subjugation of
women? The denial of equal rights to gays and
lesbians?” I’m not saying this will bring every
discussion to an end. I’m only saying that this is one
way a discussion can begin. And it’s important,
finally, because bringing these patterns of resistance
to the attention of teachers and administrators can
help them understand and, in some cases, possibly
embrace the burgeoning field of human-animal
studies, about which I have more to say later.
Gigliotti: Recent additions to the arguments
against animal rights are used in various
discussions, ranging from environmental issues
around climate change and biodiversity, to
cultural studies around food and politics, to
various perspectives from both human-animal
studies scholars and artists who incorporate
animals in their work as material. The use of
“humane meat” is certainly one of those
positions, but other arguments rely on both new
evidence concerning the consciousness of
plants and ideas about how valuing
“something” does not preclude eating it. I
realize you have heard these arguments before
in many forms, but their current prevalence
urges me to ask for your insight.
Tom Regan: I value my grandchildren, but I hope
they understand I will never eat them! Or use their
body parts in my “art!” Really, to my mind, all the
dust raised about “humane meat” is nothing more
than special pleading by people who want to eat
dead flesh with a clear conscience. While these
outbursts profess to address the obligation not to
treat animals cruelly, they uniformly fail to address
our obligation not to take their life except in
exceptional circumstances (in self-defense, for
example). And the plain fact is, some cow had to
be killed if you’re having steak for dinner tonight.
How “humanely” the cow was treated is one thing;
whether the cow’s right to life is violated when killed,
is quite another. Every serious advocate of animal
rights understands the difference, just as they
abstain from flesh eating not only because of the
hurt farmed animals inevitably suffer, but also
because of the ultimate harm death is for them.
Gigliotti: Research has been emerging from
cognitive ethologists, such as Marc Bekoff, and
psychologists, such as G.A. Bradshaw, that have
allowed us to see through long held assumptions
and myths about animals of all kinds. One of the