Dog Fighting and Factory Farming

Comments due by 11:59pm Monday (9/23).

This week in class we are beginning to look explicitly at some arguments against eating meat and other animal products (eggs, dairy, etc.). In an effort to continue that conversation, please consider the following material.

In 2007, NFL star quarterback Michael Vick agreed to plead guilty to federal charges regarding dog fighting on his property. His actions were condemned heartily by the public, and he lost several high profile endorsements as a result. In 2009, Vick was released from prison and reinstated in the NFL. His reinstatement, and subsequent signing by the Philadelphia Eagles (where he is quarterback today) was surrounded by considerable controversy. Much ink was spilled over whether Vick should ever be allowed to play in the NFL again.

In this very brief op-ed that appeared in the Philadelphia Daily News, Gary Francione argues that "we are all Michael Vick", and that Vick's case "dramatically demonstrates...our 'moral schizophrenia' about animals." 

In the course of the brief op-ed, Francione claims that "the animals we eat suffer as much as the dogs that are used in dog fighting." He further claims that the animals we eat are 'tortured' and that how they are treated is 'hideous'. These are claims that are made, and supported to varying degrees, by some of the essays we are reading together.


Upon reading Francione's brief essay, you might reflect upon the following sorts of questions:

1. Is there a moral difference between Vick's dog fighting and rearing, killing, and eating animals? Does this moral difference result in justifying our current eating practices?

2. Francione asks at the end of his op-ed: "How removed from the screaming crowd around the

dog pit is the laughing group around the summer steak barbecue?" What's your reply? 

3. Francione briefly presents the case of Simon the Sadist. He wonders how those who eat animal products are any different from Simon. He claims that "we are all Simon". Is he right about that? If not, why not? If so, why?

 

4. Does it seem right to claim, as Francione does, that the animals we eat are "tortured" and experience "hideous" treatment? If not, why not? Do you have good reasons for thinking that those modifiers are mistaken? If so, what are those reasons?  

Get after the (many) issues raised here and press each other, challenge each other. Take advantage of this opportunity to engage in high-level critical reflection on a very relevant, practical matter. And as always, be gracious, charitable, and humble as you express your views, offer your arguments, ask your questions, and interact with others.

Peter Singer on Animal Ethics

Comments due by 11:59pm Sunday (9/15).

In class this week we considered a critical reply to Singer's principle of the equal consideration of interests. And previously we have considered some views from abolitionists that seem to contrast starkly with Singer's view.

Here I want you to consider this interview with Peter Singer where he discusses his own view, responds to some questions, clarifies his position, and challenges contemporary practices regarding animals.

The podcast is found here.

Discuss critically his views. Is he right about all this? Does he give good reasons for his views here? Any questions? Worries? Objections?

As always, take advantage of this opportunity to think together in community, to go hard after the arguments, to cultivate the habit of thinking in a sustained fashion on incredibly significant and terribly practical matters. Press and challenge each other, and do so in a way that is gracious and charitable and humble. 

Gary Francione on Animal Abolitionism

Comments due by 11:59pm this Sunday (9/8). 

In class we have talked together through several views challenging our contemporary treatment of animals, whether as food, for research, entertainment, clothing, etc. We have read Peter Singer, Tom Regan, and James Rachels. We'll be reading others later.

Here I want you to listen to a brief interview with abolitionist Gary Francione. Here is a bio from Francione's website:

"Gary L. Francione is Board of Governors Professor of Law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University School of Law-Newark.

He received his B.A. in philosophy from the University of Rochester, where he was awarded the Phi Beta Kappa O’Hearn Scholarship that allowed him to pursue graduate study in philosophy in Great Britain. He received his M.A. in philosophy and his J.D. from the University of Virginia. He was Articles Editor of the Virginia Law Review.

After graduation, he clerked for Judge Albert Tate, Jr., United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the United States Supreme Court. He was an associate at Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City before joining the faculty at the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1984, where he was tenured in 1987. He joined the Rutgers faculty in 1989."

The link to the podcast is here.

There is a lot to talk about in this interview. Francione offers a number of reasons for supposing that the animal welfare movement (which he credits Peter Singer with inspiring) is fundamentally misguided and answers several questions and responds to several objections to the abolitionist approach. Among other things, he discusses domesticating animals (the use of animals as pets), free range products, the economic factors behind the animal industry, the (alleged) distinction between moral justification and excuse, the unintended harms to animals in a vegan diet, eating roadkill, and explanations for why more people aren't abolitionists (opting instead for animal welfarism).

What did you find plausible about Francione's views? Were his arguments compelling? Why or why not? I presume that, for many of you, he is challenging your everyday practices and habits. He is arguing that you are routinely doing something immoral. How do you respond?

As always, push each other and challenge each other. Learn from each other. Demand reasons. Make arguments. And do so in a way that is gracious, charitable, and humble.