WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT:
THE NEED FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A thesis submitted to the
Kent State University Honors College
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for University Honors
by
Joseph M. Sabo
May, 2012
Thesis written by
Joseph M. Sabo
Approved by
________________________________________________________________, Advisor
_______________________________________________, Chair, Department of English
Accepted by
_____________________________________________________, Dean, Honors College
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .vii
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
My Personal Opinion, Not That It Matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A Slow Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Importance of Emotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Personal Bias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
What This Thesis Will Not Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
What This Thesis Will Cover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
II.
ANIMAL REPRESENTATION: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE
NONHUMAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Moral Schizophrenia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The Power of Language. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29
Anthropomorphism: The Good. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Anthropomorphism: The Bad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Anthropomorphism: The Ugly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
The Animal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
III.
FACT VERSUS FICTION: UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL
ANIMAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
iii
Animal Intelligence: Vertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Animal Intelligence: Invertebrates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
Sentience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Mankind’s Modern Treatment of Nonhumans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
IV.
THAT ALL ___ ARE CREATED EQUAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Discriminating Factors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74
Animals as Property: Ohio Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76
Animals as Property: Federal Law. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78
Animals as People. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
V.
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
WORKS CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
WORKS CONSULTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.
The Modern Dairy Cow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Figure 2.
Charlie the Tuna. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 3.
Buzz, the Honey Nut Cheerios Bee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Figure 4.
Seductive Chicken Skin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 5.
Mad Cow Commercial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38
Figure 6.
Happy Cow Commercial. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 7.
Swine Salvation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Figure 8.
Local Restaurant Advertisement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 9.
Colonialism in Africa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50
Figure 10.
Second Chances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.
Morton Race Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 2.
Annual Animal Death Statistics, By the Million. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For the past twenty-two years, I have been blessed with outstanding teachers,
caring advisors, supportive friends and, most importantly, a loving family. This Senior
Honors Thesis is the product of their efforts. I want to thank my family for showing me
the importance of compassion. We must do what is right because it is right, not because
there is the possibility for personal gain. Thank you mom for loving everyone, despite
the fact that the world contains many unlovable individuals. Thank you dad for
protecting us, and, in doing so, teaching us to protect the planet. Thank you Julie for
being my inspiration. Your selfless actions have helped this family to realize that all
sentient beings deserve equal consideration. No matter what changes may occur in my
life, I will always look to you for guidance, just as I did fourteen years ago.
A very special thanks to Romeo for being my friend. For as long as I live, I will
never forget about you. I hope we will meet again someday. I would like to thank Brian
for continually reminding me why animals deserve rights. Everyone should be more like
Brian. I am also extremely grateful for all of my human friends. Thank you Matt Gilly
for making life fun. I truly believe that our friendship will one day become legend.
Thank you Todd Zelasko for teaching me the importance of self-discipline. You had the
biggest influence on my transition from a vegetarian diet to a vegan lifestyle. You are a
great human being, and the world is in dire need of men like yourself. I am honored to be
considered your friend.
vii
I thank Kent State University, the Honors College and my defense committee
members for helping me complete this project. Specifically, I would like to thank Donald
Williams, Vicki Bocchicchio, Mark Tepsich, Vera Camden, Susan Roxburgh, Daniel
Berardinelli, Wesley Raabe and every other faculty member at KSU who has aided me in
exploring this important subject. I owe my deepest gratitude to my thesis advisor, Sara
Cutting, for her unwavering support during every stage of the writing process. Without
her assistance, this thesis would not have been possible.
Of course, there will always be individuals who are opposed to the idea of equal
consideration when regarding nonhumans. Such resistance has motivated me to pursue a
career in law. When empathy is absent, the legal system is needed to ensure that equality
is maintained. This thesis has given me the opportunity to begin my long and, hopefully,
fruitful endeavor into the animal rights movement. I am eternally grateful to everyone
who helped make this first step a success.
viii
I dedicate this thesis to every animal who has needlessly suffered and died at the hands of
human beings. I dedicate my life to protecting their children. May we someday learn
from our mistakes.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
“Whenever people say ‘We mustn’t be sentimental,’ you can take it they are about to do
something cruel. And if they add ‘We must be realistic,’ they mean they are going to
make money out of it.” - Brigid Brophy (“Vegan”)
We live in a world where poverty is prevalent, disease is widespread and war is
common. Recently, both the environment and the global economy have taken a turn for
the worse, and, all the while, many humans still suffer under political systems that
provide few rights for their citizens. Whether it is genocide, a natural disaster, or illegal
drugs within a small community, there are an endless number of international and local
issues that need solutions. It is undeniable that these problems require our full attention,
but, in an effort to prioritize, we have wrongfully neglected a silent voice that continues
to suffer under the most extreme conditions of cruelty and destruction. Animal
exploitation regularly occurs on American soil, and it is even protected by the law.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, for the year 2010, 10.153 billion land
animals were raised and slaughtered for food in the United States of America alone.
Furthermore, the U.N Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that over 65 billion
land animals are slaughtered each year for worldwide consumption (“Report”). These
figures do not include aquatic wildlife, nor do they consider the countless number of
animals who die each year as a result of dairy farming, biomedical experiments, hunting,
extermination, euthanasia, fur production and leather manufacturing.
1
2
What do numbers like 10.153 billion and 65 billion even mean, and why should
these deaths be considered significant, especially when compared to other serious
dilemmas throughout the world? After all, the victims are just animals. Imagine,
however, if the circumstances were different, and the details instead involved the raising,
processing and destruction of 10.153 billion humans in the U.S. and 65 billion humans
worldwide. If Homo sapiens assumed this role, then we would undoubtedly be faced
with a situation similar to that of slavery and genocide. In fact, the number of fatalities
would easily surpass every violent and devastating atrocity in human history. Of course,
the public outcry would be monumental and our government would be forced to take
immediate action in order to prevent further crimes against humanity.
Although the victims are not human, how is it any less wrong that animals be
subjected to suffering and slaughter? Does it make sense from a logical, moral and legal
standpoint to treat other living beings differently simply because they are not
psychologically as complex as their human counterparts? The early history of the United
States was plagued by the presence of inequality against others based on a nonexhaustive list that included, but was not limited to, race, color, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, religion, age and disability. Could the exploitation of animals be
another form of unjust inequality? The concept may sound absurd now, but, prior to
1865, so too was the idea of abolishing slavery in America.
George Santayana, a Spanish American philosopher, once said, “Those who
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana 284). Most individuals
are familiar with Santayana’s famous words, but I believe that few comprehend their true
3
meaning. Rather than simply recalling the events of the past, we must recognize why it
would be wrong to repeat certain actions. This recognition requires a full understanding
of the characteristics that defined America’s history and the qualities that define us today.
Will our country’s future reflect a progressive society or one that has always remained
static? In other words, has the slaveholder truly gone away or does he endure, just in a
different form? In the 21st century, U.S. society still contains instances of prejudice and
discrimination; however, we have made great progress as a nation because many of the
most recognized forms of inequality have been remedied through the law. Does the
existence of egalitarian laws mean that we have adequately applied the wise words of
Santayana to our own lives, resulting in a civilization that has learned from its most
atrocious mistakes? My thesis intends to answer this question with a resounding NO,
because while it may appear as though America has achieved a system that appropriately
grants inalienable rights to all persons, we have consciously and unjustifiably omitted
animals from this protected status.
My Personal Opinion, Not That It Matters
The argument in support of animal rights seems so clear and convincing from my
perspective that I am oftentimes perplexed at how greatly opposed many humans are to
the movement. My belief in extending basic rights to all forms of sentient life most
likely stems from my personal experiences. One of my most vivid childhood memories
was during my sister’s twelfth birthday party because it was the first time that I became
aware of the ethical dilemma surrounding the consumption of meat. The entire family,
including my grandparents, went to a restaurant to celebrate, and, while everyone was
4
deciding what to order, my sister asked a question that we have all wondered at one time
or another: what type of meat is used in hotdogs? Despite the staff’s efforts, they were
unable to find an adequate answer to her inquiry. My grandfather, with his unique sense
of humor, only aggravated this awkward situation when he informed my sister that she
need not worry, “because it was probably just made from cat meat.” It was at that
moment, I believe, when my sister seriously began to consider the conflicting
relationships that exist in the United States between humans and animals. On the one
hand, while still retaining the status of property, the life of a dog, cat or other traditional
companion animal has gained a significant amount of intrinsic value in Western society.
However, the value of livestock and wildlife is commonly based upon their ability to be
used for food, clothing, or entertainment. In other words, abusing a pet is considered a
morally reprehensible act, yet causing a great amount of pain during the raising,
transportation and processing of pigs, chickens, cows, horses, sheep and aquatic life, just
to name a few, elicits very few objections.
Shortly after the incident described above, both my sister and I made the decision
to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. Not wanting to discourage responsible behavior that
would effectively eliminate the health and environmental concerns associated with a
meat-based diet, my parents supported our new resolution by also becoming vegetarians.
At the age of eight, I was too young to fully grasp the concept behind removing meat
from one’s life in order to support equal consideration for animals; instead, I was
encouraged to change through more basic and emotional motivations. First, I was
following in the footsteps of my older sister. Unlike the child-parent relationship, which
5
is more authoritative in nature, I relied on my sister’s opinion because I considered her a
trustworthy friend. This friendship inspired me to copy many of her beliefs and actions.
Her reasons for becoming a vegetarian were closely aligned with the philosophical
approach of respecting the interests of all sentient beings. Although I shared her
fondness for animals, the basis for my decision was slightly less complex. For the most
part, I simply felt confident that my sister was making a correct, moral choice; therefore,
it was only right for me to make the same choice.
Second, besides the positive influence from my family, I also faced an emotional
conflict comparable to the one that my sister encountered on her twelfth birthday.
Ultimately, it was a single photograph, as shown in figure 1, which had the greatest
impact on my conscience because it was so dramatically inconsistent with the traditional
image of American farming. Instead of witnessing a healthy cow, like the ones depicted
on milk cartons and yogurt labels, I saw an animal who appeared quite sick. As a result
of genetic manipulation and harsh production methods, modern “dairy cows in the U.S.
produce milk volumes that are two-thirds greater than those demanded of animals 30
years ago and 10 times more than they would produce in nature” (“Farm Sanctuary”).
The use of hormones for increased milk production not only generates pain and stress for
the cow, but it also often results in mastitis, an infection which causes the enlargement of
the udder (Gandhi and Snedeker). For whatever reason, maybe because it was the first
time that I had witnessed the harsh realities of industrial agriculture, this image left me
feeling guilty and disturbed for many months afterward. Sadly, figure 1 is fairly mild
when compared to other instances of animal suffering in the meat and dairy industry.
6
Fig. 1. The Modern Dairy Cow (Lee)
Throughout my childhood, I enjoyed the company of animals. Our pets were
considered members of the family, and my parents took special care to teach me the
importance of respecting those animals. When I first examined the picture of the modern
dairy cow, I was unable to find a valid distinction that would allow me to treat a cow, or
any animal for that matter, differently from our pets. Besides having diverse physical
characteristics, why does a dog deserve love, care and respect, yet a cow is only worthy
of a short, miserable life consisting of basic nourishment for the sole purpose of a painful
death? Like most Americans, I would never be willing to subject my companion animals
to the cruel living conditions and inevitable slaughter that millions of cows experience
each year; therefore, how can I reasonably justify the abuse and exploitation of any other
animal?
7
A Slow Process
Ironically, it was the picture of a dairy cow that motivated me to adopt a
vegetarian lifestyle, yet I continued to consume dairy products for many years after
giving up meat. In fact, it took me, as well as my parents, thirteen years to finally make
the transition from a strict vegetarian diet to a strict vegan diet. At the age of eight,
despite my knowledge of the abuses suffered by animals in the dairy industry, I was
unable to remove animal by-products from my diet due to mental and moral immaturity.
Such a radical change in one’s life rarely occurs all at once; instead, it is a gradual
progression requiring time, experience, determination and education. We have all been
born into a culture that automatically accepts the injustices of animal exploitation.
Unfortunately, this situation makes it tremendously difficult to separate ourselves from
harmful habits, even after we become aware of the consequences of our actions.
The obstacle I faced when attempting to remove meat, and later dairy, from my
diet was similar to the hurdle that a child must overcome when learning to sleep in the
dark. From the child’s point of view, the lights have always been on and they play an
important role in inducing sleep; even though, in reality, the lights serve no practical
purpose other than to provide comfort against irrational fears. To the adult, who has slept
in the dark for many years, the solution appears simple: turn off the lights and go to sleep.
However, for the child, it is a challenging process that usually requires gradual weaning
in the form of a nightlight. As a boy, I was afraid to give up dairy products because I did
not want to lose my favorite foods; thus, I familiarized myself with the concept of ethical
eating by first adopting a vegetarian diet.
8
I cannot hold others to impossible demands that I myself was unable to meet. I
completely understand that making any major lifestyle adjustment is a step-by-step
process. Still, everyone must take responsibility for their own actions within a reasonable
period of time. Eventually, we must all grow up and put aside our childish fears of the
dark. The idea of personal responsibility is best described by Henry David Thoreau, an
early American transcendentalist. For Thoreau, in “Resistance to Civil Government,” a
just society requires individual responsibility: “I think that we should be men first, and
subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the
right” (Thoreau 795). A democratic society is structured around the consent of the
majority, but is the majority ever wrong? There was a period in American history when
the majority of citizens believed it was acceptable to enslave another human being. Does
slavery, or any other immoral act, suddenly become excusable if supported by more than
fifty percent of the population? Thoreau states in his writings that no one has a personal
duty to save the entire world by eradicating evil, “but it is his duty, at least, to wash his
hands of it, and if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support”
(798). When considering the fact that most individuals contribute toward the abuse of
animals on a daily basis by using and ingesting animal products and by-products,
Thoreau’s message of personal responsibility takes on a complex, new meaning that
incorporates nearly every aspect of life.
Thoreau believed that individual responsibility was the solution for ending
slavery. It was not enough for citizens to express their opposition vocally or through
their vote; rather they must physically withdraw their support from the institution in order
9
to initiate change. Similarly, if it can be concluded that the unnecessary suffering and
death of animals in American society is morally wrong, then it is everyone’s personal
responsibility to give up meat, dairy products and any practice that entails animal abuse
and exploitation. Although I condemn animal use no matter what the purpose, I am
aware that modifying one’s behavior can be a long and difficult process due to different
motivations and varying degrees of limitation. At the same time, however, there is no
excuse for living a static life, one where moral choices are ignored simply because of
tradition or the luxury of convenience. I am very proud of the progress that I have made
throughout my early life, but it is important to never be satisfied with the partial
improvement of one’s character. I still engage in many activities that have a negative
impact on others; therefore, it is my responsibility to make the necessary changes within
a realistic period of time. The ultimate goal should be a life that does not benefit from
the suffering and death of other living beings, and we should constantly be striving for
that goal.
The Importance of Emotion
As much as I may enjoy recounting the memories of my youth, I believe that my
personal experiences also have a practical application when attempting to formulate a
valid argument in support of animal rights. Even though I have gained extensive
knowledge of the abuses involved in animal exploitation, along with an understanding of
the various philosophical theories concerning animal rights, I continue to rely heavily on
the same emotional motivations that inspired me as a child. Having more knowledge has
assisted me in defending my choices with greater confidence, but retaining an emotional
10
foundation is significant because it allows me to empathize with others. The 21st century
in Western society is characterized by extraordinary human potential, but, unfortunately,
that potential rarely includes the capacity for compassion, especially when considering an
animal’s well-being. In America, emotion is often perceived as a sign of weakness and
irrationality. While in high school, my opinions were constantly disregarded by other
students as being overly sensitive. According to my peers, “a real man eats meat.”
Oftentimes, decision-making based upon feelings is discouraged in favor of more
detached, self-serving methods.
Empathy is a necessary element whenever making decisions that involve the
rights of another living being. From a strictly logical standpoint, it would appear quite
rational to only look after my own best interests in every situation. Southern plantation
owners, before the Civil War, had no practical reason to abandon slavery, for it would
only cause great economic inconvenience for themselves and their families. However,
from an emotional perspective that considers the interests of the slave, ownership of
another human being is wrong because of the harm that it inflicts on the person being
enslaved. How would I want to be treated if I were that individual? Likewise, how a
particular pig is treated at the Smithfield Packing Company in Tar Heel, North Carolina
has no effect on my own personal condition. In fact, eliminating the production,
slaughter and processing of those hogs would put many men and women out of a job,
causing a great deal of economic hardship for countless families. When simply
considering the facts without emotion, providing jobs and resources to millions of human
beings should be a high priority; yet, how would you want to be treated if you were a
11
cow, pig or chicken? When all the factors are taken into account, which action causes the
most harm: eliminating jobs that produce an unnecessary resource or destroying lives for
the purpose of economic gain? Decisions based upon feelings seem illogical and
unwarranted until your own life depends on such empathy and compassion from others.
Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin was extremely influential when it
was first published because it pulled at the heartstrings of human emotion. Stowe
exemplified the horrors of slavery by “focusing her representation on the violated bond
between mothers and children” and emphasizing the impact that slavery had on African
American families (Stowe 9). By using emotion as a common connection, Stowe was
able to lessen the perceived gap between individuals of different skin color:
Sobs, heavy, hoarse and loud, shook the chair, and great tears fell through his
fingers on the floor; just such tears, sir, as you shed when you heard the cries of
your dying babe. For, sir, he was a man, - and you are but another man. And,
woman, though dressed in silk and jewels, you are but a woman, and, in life’s
great straits and mighty griefs, ye feel but one sorrow! (78)
When considering animal rights, an emotional link is harder to achieve due to the species
gap, which results in far fewer similarities than between humans of different races and
gender. Still, we all share the common capacity to feel both pleasure and pain, and it is
the cry of a baby calf as he is dragged away from his mother, or the squeal of a hog as he
is placed in a scalding tank while still conscious, that validates this connection (Eisnitz
71).
12
Without careful observation, individuals within Western society appear to show a
great deal of concern for the interests of all living creatures. Whenever there is news of
some inhumane act against an animal, the public responds with vehement opposition.
There is plenty of commentary, and the community actively discusses what should be
done in response to such horrendous behavior. Unfortunately, this public commentary is
where the problem lies because the vocal resistance is without constructive action. In this
way, there is no true expression of emotion or empathy, only a bleak attempt at one in
order to pacify a guilty conscience without making a true effort to change. When
Americans witness a report through the media that describes how every day, in the
world’s largest egg-laying breed hatchery, 150,000 male chicks are thrown into a grinder
while still alive, they act disgusted. However, in spite of their outward objections, those
same concerned citizens continue to eat their morning eggs without giving a second
thought to the obvious relationship between their daily endeavors and the violent
consequences that show up on the morning news (“Hatchery Horrors”).
I am oftentimes reminded of a particular scene from A Sentimental Journey
Through France and Italy, by Laurence Sterne, which perfectly portrays the fickle nature
of humans when observing the suffering of animals. The narrator, Mr. Yorick,
encounters a starling who is crying to be released from his cage: “I stood looking at the
bird: and to every person who came through the passage it ran fluttering to the side
towards which they approach’d it, with the same lamentation of its captivity” (25). Mr.
Yorick is determined to free the poor bird from his cage, claiming that he never had his
“affections more tenderly awakened” (26). However, his concern is quick to die as he
13
later sells both the bird “and his cage . . . for a bottle of brandy” (36). Similarly,
Americans are only interested in a sensationalist news story so long as the story remains
relevant. In the end, the plight of the starling is forgotten, and it is always before
someone is able to successfully release him from his cage.
In addition to humans who display temporary empathy, there are also those who
make their compassion for animal interests a distant, unrealistic goal. Despite their
claims to the contrary, many individuals would never change their habits with regards to
the well-being of others unless there was the risk of some punishment, such as earthly
penalties or eternal damnation. Stowe presents this harsh truth in Uncle Tom’s Cabin,
when Haley discusses his intention to one day cleanse his soul from the sin of slavery:
I’ll say this now, I al’ays meant to drive my trade so as to make money on ’t fust
and foremost, as much as any man; but, then trade an’t everything and money an’t
everything, ’cause we ’s all got souls . . . and one of these days, when I’ve got
matters tight and snug, I calculates to tend to my soul and them ar matters; and so
what’s the use of doin’ any more wickedness than ’s re’lly necessary? (102)
In the same way that Haley intends to someday end his involvement in the trading and
selling of slaves, so too do many Americans intend to someday cease their support of the
institutions around the world that exploit and abuse both animals and humans. Of course,
such statements are usually made during dinner at Outback Steakhouse, while wearing
Nike shoes and holding on to an Apple iPhone (“Apple’s ‘Nike Moment’”). Despite the
fact that meat and leather products require the destruction of animals, and that sweatshops
are used to make Nike and Apple merchandise, most Americans will never abandon their
14
comfortable lifestyle (Butler).
True emotion, or empathy, in matters of animal suffering is needed now more
than ever, yet it appears to be quickly diminishing in place of egocentric reasoning that
does not require actual responsibility. I provided an account of my early childhood in
order to show the importance of emotion in making responsible and unselfish decisions
that consider the needs and desires of others. While I hope that more individuals will
experience the same enlightenment as I did regarding society’s contradictory views of
different animals, I feel that there will always be those who refuse to respect the lives of
nonhumans. Likewise, certain individuals will continue to define the value of a human
being according to their race, color, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
age and disability. For that reason, as it will be discussed in Chapter 4, the law plays a
vital role in protecting basic rights when empathetic consideration is absent.
Personal Bias
I am extremely thankful for the opportunity to produce a work that encompasses a
topic that I feel so passionately about. Hopefully, I will be successful in compelling
some of my readers to consider taking the necessary steps in helping to end animal
oppression in America and throughout the world. After working in the food industry for
over fifteen years, my father has witnessed humans at their worst. Both the producer and
the consumer consciously disregard the welfare of this planet, and its inhabitants, in favor
of greed and convenience. Despite America’s poor reputation for equal consideration,
where we have repeatedly neglected the interests of other living beings, I remain
confident that there exists at least one concept upon which all members of our society can
15
agree: the desire for future generations to live in a world where cruelty is absent, disease
is rare and the environment is protected.
Thus far, I have been describing the beliefs which have aided me in making many
important moral decisions throughout my life. While I am certain that most of my
opinions regarding politics, religion and other social issues will dramatically change over
time, I have no doubt that my attitude toward animal rights will forever remain
unchanged. Accordingly, I have provided this brief glimpse of my viewpoints for the
purpose of confessing a very strong bias. I do not wish to write an entire thesis that
describes my own personal convictions; instead, I would like to create a substantial work
that presents an accurate overview of the problems associated with animal exploitation
and the appropriate solutions that would be most consistent with the fundamental legal
principles that are currently upheld by the U.S. Constitution. With this in mind, I will
make every attempt to exclude my personal feelings from the next three chapters, and to
only offer arguments that can be strongly supported through valid evidence. Although I
am normally inclined to argue my position by evoking sentiment through the use of
gruesome details and disturbing images, I will limit my presentation to logical facts that
will ultimately lead to legitimate conclusions. In the same way, I request that you, the
reader, be so kind as to temporarily leave behind your strongest personal biases for the
remainder of this thesis.
Specifically, I ask that my readers remain open-minded to the idea of comparing
animal abuse with other forms of oppression. Controversy often exists when animal
mistreatment is compared to the atrocities that African Americans experienced during the
16
slave trade or that Jewish victims underwent during the Holocaust. The common
response is that animal suffering should never be considered as important of an issue as
human suffering. Unfortunately, it is the irrational fear of being compared to an animal
which allows for discrimination and oppression to continue. If the status of animal were
to lose its degraded meaning, then the fundamental hierarchical system of life, which
most forms of oppression and exploitation rely upon, would cease to exist.
What This Thesis Will Not Cover
Regrettably, there is not enough space in this composition to examine every
aspect of the animal rights movement. Although I would find great enjoyment in
explaining the various, beneficial reasons for adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet, there
are already a multitude of excellent resources that succeed in effectively presenting those
persuasive arguments. I have imposed certain limitations on my thesis in order to focus
on the more basic elements behind the movement, as well as examine the legal
implications of equal consideration. With that purpose in mind, I have deliberately
excluded specific issues from my discussion.
First and foremost, this thesis will be limited to Western society, specifically to
the United States of America. This limitation is necessary because citizens of the U.S.
are in a unique situation, one that may not be available to individuals in other parts of the
world. In Western society, due to technological advancements, humans can now choose
what kind of impact their lives will have on the environment. Without the proper foods, a
vegan diet could result in nutritional deficiencies, but, in the U.S., Americans have the
benefit of knowing about the human body and the nourishment needed for optimum
17
health. In other words, it is now possible to live an even healthier lifestyle without eating
dairy and meat, an idea that was once considered impossible.
Knowledge, however, is meaningless without resources, which is why this
approach is best supported when applied to Western society. Areas outside of the United
States may or may not still depend on animal products and by-products for survival, but,
within this country, it is a fact that animal use is no longer needed for subsistence. In
fact, animal use has now become a luxury that many consider to be a personal right, in
spite of the harm that it does to animals, the human body and the environment.
Knowledge and resources serve as the foundation for this thesis because they force
individuals within the U.S. to take responsibility for their actions. With an assumption of
responsibility already established, this thesis will attempt to prove what commitments are
mandatory under such obligations.
Second, this thesis will not discuss the details of animal abuse and exploitation.
Nearly every book that deals with the topic of animal rights devotes at least one chapter
toward describing the mistreatment of livestock, wildlife, exotic pets and companion
animals throughout the world. It is not necessary to rehash information that has already
been established by superior authors; instead, it is time to accept the realities of an
industry that relies upon the suffering and destruction of animals in order to provide food,
clothing, medicine and entertainment in the most profitable manner possible. If the
cruelties behind animal use have remained hidden from the reader, despite the fact that it
has been well documented and publicized in recent years, a better understanding may be
obtained by researching introductory materials that accurately depict the conditions in
18
slaughterhouses, feedlots, laboratories, zoos, circuses, puppy mills and other institutions
that benefit from animal exploitation.
In addition, investigations conducted by independent, non-profit organizations,
such as Mercy For Animals, offer useful insight into how livestock animals are actually
handled from birth to slaughter. There are also many animal sanctuaries that provide
detailed accounts of the common injuries that most animals suffer from during their short
lifespan in the food, clothing, medical and entertainment industry. Farm Sanctuary,
located in Watkins Glen, New York, is an excellent example of an animal sanctuary that
rescues abused farm animals while also providing the public with compelling evidence of
the cruelty involved in modern farming practices. Overall, groups such as Mercy for
Animals and PETA have done an excellent job in creating what Sir Paul McCartney
would call “glass walls” around slaughterhouses; therefore, I will not reiterate facts that
the American public should already possess knowledge of.
Many opponents who argue against the animal rights movement prefer to remain
in the dark when it comes to the current conditions under which most animals must live.
Instead of confronting the truth, consumers seek comfort by purchasing products that say
“cage free” or “grass fed” (“Behind the Myth”). These misleading statements create the
illusion of humane treatment without the inconvenience of actually improving animal
welfare through legal rights. Whether our actions are through willful ignorance or
innocent obliviousness, our liability does not change. The operator of a motor vehicle
will be held accountable if he or she is caught driving at an excessive speed, regardless of
whether such violations are the result of unawareness, carelessness, or a willful disregard
19
for the law. In the same way as Americans are expected to know the law, I expect
consumers to have knowledge of where their products come from and how those products
are made.
Third, my thesis will not focus on the environmental benefits of a vegan or
vegetarian diet. Like the details surrounding animal abuse, the environmental impact of
factory farming can no longer be denied. There are many ecological statistics that
support the abolishment of animal use, but the most convincing argument comes from a
report that was provided by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
resource panel in June 2010. According to the International Panel of Sustainable
Resource Management, a vegan diet is essential in the effort to prevent fuel poverty,
detrimental climate change and a devastating hunger crisis:
As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050,
western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable . . .
Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population
growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is
difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of
impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away
from animal products. (Carus)
Oftentimes, conservationists are accused of making environmental issues appear worse
than they actually are, but few can disregard the convincing concerns that have been
expressed by the UN in their comprehensive report. The legitimacy of global warming
has not yet been established, but there is no argument that we live on a planet with finite
20
resources and a predetermined amount of space. Although many Americans consider a
vegan diet to be too extreme, nature’s limited reserves may someday prevent the majority
of consumers from having the ability to choose a diet based on preferences.
Fourth, this thesis will not give in-depth consideration to the health benefits of a
vegan diet. In January of 2012, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention released
the leading causes of death in the United States and, according to the study, “Heart
disease and cancer remain the top two causes of death, accounting for almost half of the
country’s more than 2.4 million deaths in 2010” (Ralph). While the overall deaths related
to heart disease and cancer have decreased since 2009, the numbers are still inflated when
one contemplates the continual advancements that have been made in medicine, as well
as the amount of money that is spent each year on health care in the United States. The
standard procedure has been to remedy the symptoms with medication, but this practice
provides no cure for the underlying causes of the warning signs. There remains a great
deal of disparity over how this nation’s health problems should be handled, but could the
solution be as simple as a basic diet change?
In the documentary Forks Over Knives, the benefits of a plant-based diet, as
revealed through the China Study, are examined in great detail. According to the China
Study, which surveyed the rate of specific diseases and illnesses throughout the varying
communities in China during the 1970s and 1980s, “people who ate the most animalbased foods got the most chronic disease . . . People who ate the most plant-based foods
were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease” (Campbell 6). These findings
were consistent with previous research in the laboratory, which showed that “[l]ow-
21
protein diets inhibited the initiation of cancer by aflatoxin . . . After cancer initiation was
completed, low-protein diets also dramatically blocked subsequent cancer growth” (5).
While safe proteins, such as wheat and soy, did not promote cancer, casein, “which
makes up 87% of cow’s milk protein, promoted all stages of the cancer process” (6).
Before determining the precise impact of a Western lifestyle on human health, there are
still numerous questions that need answers. However, based on current scientific data,
there is no doubt that an improper diet is the leading contributor to heart disease, cancer
and many other serious illnesses.
Both the environment and the human body are fragile systems that we depend
upon for survival; therefore, it is only common sense to give them our utmost respect and
care. However, conserving our natural resources and looking out for our own well-being
must not overshadow the most vital reason for adopting a vegan or vegetarian diet:
upholding the natural right of all sentient beings not to be subjected to unnecessary pain
and suffering. Too often are the interests of animals overlooked in favor of the more
serious issues, particularly the problems that directly affect human beings. My thesis will
attempt to validate animal rights for the benefit of the animal alone, and any other
advantageous result that is gained in the process, whether it involves human rights or
environmental preservation, is a purely additional bonus.
What This Thesis Will Cover
In the following chapters, my goal is to construct a well-defined and persuasive
argument that exemplifies the need for animal rights in the United States of America. In
Chapter 2, I will analyze animal representation within Western culture and the negative
22
effect that it continues to have on actual animals due to the public’s distorted perception
of other species. In Chapter 3, after establishing how Americans view animals, I will
contrast this perceived identity with widely accepted scientific data regarding animal
sentience and intelligence. Has our increased knowledge of other species resulted in a
modern society where animals are treated better than in the past? Finally, in Chapter 4, I
will introduce the different theories involving animal rights and animal welfare in order
to redefine the objectives of the movement. Should animals receive equal consideration,
or are there valid, discriminating factors that allow mankind to prefer humans over
nonhumans and to maintain an unnecessary system that uses animals for food, clothing
and entertainment? In addition, I will describe the drastic changes that must first take
place within the law before true equality can be achieved. In particular, it is essential that
the status of personhood be extended to include all sentient beings. The ability to feel
pain should be the only condition necessary in order to receive basic moral status and
equal consideration within Western society. Currently, the law regards animals as
nothing more than pieces of property that can be owned, traded, sold, used and destroyed.
At the end of this thesis, I hope my readers will understand that the value of a life
cannot be determined or disregarded simply on the basis of empty distinctions. Rather,
the ability to feel pain should be the only condition that is required in order to receive
basic rights under the law. More importantly, however, I hope that my readers will be
compelled to take immediate action. If only all the problems of the world could be as
simple as changing one’s lifestyle to exclude animal products and by-products, perhaps
23
there would be no more world hunger, poverty, disease, intolerance or pollution. Then
again, maybe nothing would change.
CHAPTER II
ANIMAL REPRESENTATION: WHAT IT MEANS TO BE NONHUMAN
“As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no
liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together.” Isaac Bashevis Singer (“Vegan”)
Every Thanksgiving, the President of the United States receives a turkey from the
National Turkey Federation and the Poultry and Egg National Board. The tradition
began in 1947 and, for the majority of presidential terms, those turkeys endured a fate
similar to the one that 270 million turkeys must now face each year in the United States
(“Chickens and Turkeys”). John F. Kennedy was the earliest president on record to keep
his bird as a pet, but it “wasn't until the first Thanksgiving of President George H.W.
Bush, in 1989, that a turkey was officially pardoned” (Brunner and Hughes). Since 1989,
two turkeys have been pardoned each year (Soniak).
During the 2009 Presidential Thanksgiving Turkey Pardoning Ceremony,
President Barack Obama expressed his disdain toward the popular tradition by
commenting, “There are certain days that remind me of why I ran for this office – and
then, there are moments like this – where I pardon a turkey and send it to Disneyland”
(Freeman). While his comments may seem harsh to those who enjoy witnessing two
animals avoid the dinner plate, perhaps President Obama understands the hypocrisy that
underlies the entire event. Each year, the country’s highest ranking government official
takes a moment to publicly grant reprieve for two turkeys, but, afterwards, he devours a
24
25
less fortunate bird in the privacy of his own home. Is turkey pardoning really intended
for the animal, or is it a meager attempt at pacifying the conscience on a day where
gluttony is celebrated at the expense of another living being?
Besides the absurdity of publicly saving two turkeys from slaughter on a day
where millions are eaten, the very act of pardoning reveals the vital role that animal
representation plays in Western society. By definition, pardon means “to absolve from
the consequences of a fault or crime” (“pardon”). What serious offence or mistake did
the turkey commit that requires man’s forgiveness? In addition, does the bird’s
misconduct equate to a morally reprehensible act deserving of capital punishment?
Unfortunately, in America and throughout the world, being born an animal is a heinous
and atrocious crime, manifesting enough depravity to qualify for the death penalty.
Moral Schizophrenia
In a culture where different species hold diverse and fluctuating degrees of value,
there is no fixed standard for how animals should or should not be treated. Gary L.
Francione, a Distinguished Professor of Law at Rutgers School of Law-Newark, uses the
term “moral schizophrenia” to describe the conflicting ways in which humans interact
with animals in modern society. From one perspective, Americans appear to act with
compassion and equal consideration when directly handling certain species. Most
individuals, for example, treat their companion animals like members of the family. Pet
owners spend a great deal of money on food and medical care in order to satisfy the
needs of their pets. Furthermore, those same owners also buy toys and treats for the
purpose of making their domesticated friends content. The extravagant living conditions
26
that Paris Hilton provides for her Chihuahuas may seem outlandish to the average
American, but her actions depict the common bond that many humans develop with their
companion animals. When asked about her excessive spending habits for her pets, Hilton
responded by saying, “I may have spoiled them a little too much. But how can I not?
Just look at those sweet lil’ faces, they deserve to be treated like my lil’ prince and
princesses” (Toglia). In the same way that Hilton is willing to share her fortune with her
dogs, so too are ordinary pet owners willing to share their lives in order to adequately
care for these important creatures. However, is the elevated, intrinsic value that has been
assigned to dogs and cats an accurate portrayal of man’s overall interaction with other
species?
According to Francione, in Introduction to Animal Rights, most people would
“agree that it is morally wrong to impose unnecessary suffering on animals,” yet
Americans are some of the worst offenders when it comes to unnecessary abuse and
exploitation (1). An unprecedented number of animals are now needed to meet the
demands of the nation. Farmers systematically reproduce and raise livestock for their
flesh or by-products; yet, in the United States, eating meat or dairy is not necessary for
survival. Likewise, clothes, hygiene products and medical experiments rely heavily on
animal use, even though there are alternative methods for staying warm, clean and
healthy. Finally, a majority of Western entertainment involves exploiting and killing
animals, despite the fact that there is no real need for hunting, fishing, circuses, zoos,
rodeos, horse racing, dog racing, marine-mammal attractions and animal actors. Whether
it is for food, fashion, health, or entertainment, “the overwhelming portion of our animal
27
use can be justified only by habit, convention, amusement, convenience, or pleasure”
(xxiv). If American citizens truly believe it is wrong to cause other species unnecessary
pain, then what explanation can validate the many exceptions that are currently in place?
“Moral schizophrenia” does not simply mean that we prefer cute, fluffy animals
over big, smelly ones; rather, Americans concern themselves with animal welfare only
when it is accommodating to a comfortable lifestyle. When an animal’s well-being
interferes with human interests, even with something as trivial as eating a hamburger or
watching a sporting event, that animal’s situation suddenly becomes less important. On
April 25, 2007, police discovered a dogfighting operation in Surry County, Virginia.
Michael Vick, a professional football player in the NFL, owned the property as a
registered dog breeder. After conducting a federal investigation, authorities determined
that “Vick and his associates . . . housed and trained over 50 pit bull dogs, staged dog
fights, killed dogs, and ran a high stakes gambling ring with purses up to $26,000”
(“Animal Fighting”).
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson sentenced Vick to twenty-three months in
prison, but, after only eighteen months, he was released and permitted to finish his
remaining sentence under house arrest. On July 27, 2009, a little more than two years
after the police raided his dogfighting compound, Vick was reinstated back into the NFL
by Commissioner Roger Goodell (“Animal Fighting”). He now plays for the
Philadelphia Eagles, and, on August 29, 2011, he signed a six-year contract worth a
potential $100 million. With at least $40 million guaranteed, this new deal “again makes
the Pro Bowl quarterback one of the highest-paid players in the NFL” (“Eagles”).
28
Although the majority of sports fans view Vick’s journey as one of redemption,
his return to prosperity is actually a reflection of mankind’s true disregard for all animal
life. Dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” and, when Vick’s actions were
first uncovered by authorities, this status was firmly upheld. In the beginning, he was
condemned by the public and he faced serious criminal penalties. Regrettably, “moral
schizophrenia” was quick to set in as Vick only spent two years away from the league.
After declaring bankruptcy, establishing several charitable organizations and making
numerous impressive plays on the football field, many Americans are now arguing for his
forgiveness.
Rick Reilly, a sports columnist with ESPN, belongs to the growing majority of
individuals who believe that Vick has properly paid his debt to society: “I love dogs, too,
but how long does Vick have to star in ‘The Unforgiven’? He has faced it. Admitted it.
Apologized deeply for it. Went to federal prison for it. Got cut for it. Suspended for it.
And now campaigns against it. How long must he carry this cross?” Reilly claims that
“scars heal,” but of the forty-nine dogs seized from Vick’s property, their physical and
emotional wounds will certainly take much longer to mend than the public’s shallow
sensitivity to animal cruelty (“Animal Fighting”). Vick may truly feel remorse for his
crimes, but, when considering the victims in this case, does mankind really have the right
to determine when his actions should be forgiven and, virtually, forgotten without any
long-term penalties?
In the end, Vick is responsible for torturing and killing dogs, but, as we all know,
a dog is just a dog. The outcome surely would have been different if he had murdered
29
eleven women, like Anthony Sowell (Scott). Vick has been called “the best thing to
happen to pit bulls,” but Sowell, even if he spends his remaining years working to help
the victims of rape, will never be associated with improving the living conditions of
women (Reilly). Likewise, T.J Lane, the Chardon High School shooter who killed three
students and critically injured two others on February 27, 2012, will never be
commended for bettering school security (Whitmire). Western society definitely suffers
from a sort of “moral schizophrenia” that threatens the safety of all nonhuman animals,
including the ones normally regarded as important companions. Ultimately, it is the
fictional representation of the animal in American culture which allows for, and even
encourages, human domination over all other species.
The Power of Language
Language is an essential element for human life because it provides access to
information. Words, symbols and images are the instruments by which humans
understand the world, regardless of whether the meaning is accurate or not. Children
learn their native tongue at such a young age and, through the process of cultural
immersion, they accept the social implications of language without hesitation. Simply
put, “the distinctions we make are not necessarily given by the world around us, but are
instead produced by the symbolizing systems we learn” (Belsey 7). For example, when
studying politics in school, children learn words like democracy and dictatorship.
However, beyond memorizing the basic definitions for such terms, a developing
individual will “also absorb as they do so the value their culture invests in these
respective forms of government” (3). A child in the United States will learn to associate
30
democracy with concepts of freedom and justice, while dictatorship will be characterized
by destructive and oppressive traits. In other parts of the world, specifically in countries
with totalitarian governments, words like dictatorship and democracy carry completely
different meanings.
From the example that was provided above, it may not appear dangerous to
associate a dictatorship with oppression. Certainly, many dictatorships in the past have
produced cruel and domineering tyrants. In fact, the very nature of an authoritarian
regime allows for aggressive leaders to retain their power without the consent of the
public. Although language may transmit accurate knowledge, there are many instances
where language causes society to “reaffirm the knowledges our culture takes for granted,
and the values that precede us – the norms, that is, of the previous generation” (Belsey 4).
In this way, a vicious cycle exists within Western culture because predetermined
meanings become the source of ideas for new generations, allowing archaic and
prejudicial perspectives to survive. For the purpose of this chapter, the primary focus
will be on anthropomorphism and how animal representation has contributed toward the
exploitation of both the nonhuman and human.
Anthropomorphism: The Good
An accurate view of a society’s relationship with its natural environment can be
achieved by examining the various ways in which animals are represented, specifically
through historical, literary, scientific and religious texts. Does the cultural language
elevate or demoralize the image of the animal? Anthropomorphism is defined as “an
interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal
31
characteristics” (“anthropomorphism”). In other words, anthropomorphism occurs
whenever human qualities are assigned to animals. Folk stories, for example, oftentimes
consist of animals who can express their thoughts through man-made languages. By
itself, this type of representation is harmless, and, in some societies, it may even create a
stronger connection between humans and their natural world.
American Indian culture, for instance, contains many cases of positive animal
imagery. The reverence shown toward animals by Native Americans gives insight into
their overall ecological perspective, one that views all elements of the natural world as
being interrelated. In White Wolf Woman, a collection of Native American myths retold
by Teresa Pijoan, animals are represented with a great deal of importance. According to
Richard and Judy Dockrey Young, authors of the introduction to White Wolf Woman,
“The common spirit shared by human beings and animals in the Native American cosmos
makes them equal partners in the natural world” (Pijoan 13). For example, the Pueblo
social groups believed that bears were once “humans who decided to separate from the
killers of animals and start their own group . . . The Bear People came out of the forests
and offered themselves as food, having the magic to turn their bodies back into bears if
hunters left the skin and bones behind untouched” (79). This belief in bodily
transformation emphasizes the importance of treating animals with respect at all times,
especially when hunting. By disregarding the sanctity of life, the Pueblo Indians feared
that the animal’s soul would be unable to return, thus killing a possible ancestor. In
addition, without the animal’s rebirth, a necessary resource would disappear, causing
widespread food shortages.
32
In the story of the “Rattlesnake Father,” a young maiden falls in love with a
mysterious man. The mysterious man eventually reveals himself to be a large, male
snake, and the two lovers have many snake children together. After visiting her human
parents one last time, the maiden disappears forever, leaving her tribe to believe that “she
turned into a snake and lives with her family under the large rock” (Pijoan 35). By
perceiving humans as animals and animals as humans, all life must be respected with
equal importance because of the interconnected aspects of family and nature. It is much
more difficult to disregard the life of an animal when there is the possibility of that
creature being your mother, father, sister, brother, child, or spouse. Therefore, American
Indian mythology makes little distinction between the human/animal species boundary
because “man is at one with creation, not above and not below” (Hoffman).
Animals also play a significant role in many Native American creation stories.
Unlike Christianity, where God alone devised everything in the Universe, most American
Indian faiths credit animals for assisting in the final formation of the Earth:
Ut’set then asked the all-being creator Sus’sistinnako, who told her to send out the
wolf, the bear, the badger, and the shrew to use their medicines together to harden
the earth. Ut’set did this. The four of them were unable to harden the earth.
Finally, a woman was sent from the Spider Society, and with the help of these
four animals, she was able to make the earth hard enough for the people to stand,
walk, and live upon. (Pijoan 51-52)
Similarly, several Native American cultures share an account “called the earth-diver story
. . . in which a flood covers the earth until an animal dives into the waters and retrieves
33
enough mud and soil to begin the creation of a new earth” (“Tale” 37). The involvement
of nonhumans in the construction of the Earth is one reason for their sacred status in
American Indian society. In addition, every animal also serves a functional purpose. For
example, snakes “can bring rain when there is a drought, can bring flash floods of death
and destruction, can emit power on another, and can remove the spirit from the dead and
take it to the Other Place” (Pijoan 19). Due to the nonhuman’s special status, hunting
requires many rituals and rules. In his study of Native American spirituality, Nathan
Sherrer says “A key theme in Native American religion is the understanding of hunting as
a reciprocal relationship between the hunter and the hunted” (17). If the rules are
violated through disrespect, then the hunter will be unsuccessful in his hunt and he will
face other repercussions from the sacred spirits.
Despite their religious views regarding nature, it is important to note that not all
Native American tribes were ecologically responsible:
The relationship between the Natives and their environment cannot be overstated.
There were many instances of their misuse of the land, overhunting game and
overpopulating of their own tribes . . . However, the Natives did, in fact, pay more
attention to their environment much more than any other known culture of the
time because nature, to them, stood for a representation of the sacred. (Sherrer
16)
Although there were Native Americans who abused the natural resources of their
environment, those individuals were limited in the amount of destruction that they could
achieve. The American Indian civilization was made up of many different tribes, and
34
each tribe followed specific traditions according to their own unique religious beliefs.
Generally speaking, Native Americans maintained a symbiotic relationship with animals
by only killing what was essential for survival. In contrast, practically all animal use
today, particularly in Western society, is unnecessary. The American Indian ecological
perspective utilizes anthropomorphism and animal representation to establish equality
and preserve harmony between humans and the environment. In the United States,
animal representation is what continues to uphold the species boundary. The image of
the nonhuman is now used to ease the human conscience, reaffirm the importance of
humankind and degrade the value of the animal.
Anthropomorphism: The Bad
The application of anthropomorphism in Western society is widespread.
Beginning at birth, Americans are constantly immersed within a culture where animals
talk like humans, act like humans and have the same interests as humans. In fact, the
presence of anthropomorphism in the media is so common that its effect often goes
unnoticed. By giving animals human characteristics, the nonhuman can directly
communicate with the consumer, thereby alleviating any concerns the public may have
over animal suffering or mistreatment. The popularity of a product may be improved
through celebrity endorsements, but nothing is more convincing than having the approval
of the animal from which the product is made. The guilt that accompanies the purchase
of an animal product or by-product quickly disappears after hearing direct testimony
assuring the customer of the animal’s willingness to be used for the benefit of humans.
35
Charlie the Tuna, as shown in figure 2, is a classic example of anthropomorphism
in American advertisement. In 1961, Depatie Freleng Studios developed the character for
StarKist Tuna, along with the famous slogan “Sorry Charlie, StarKist doesn’t want tuna
with good taste, but tuna that tastes good!” (“Welcome”). In the company’s television
commercials, Charlie tries repeatedly to be caught by fishermen; however, in spite of his
cultured and sophisticated nature, StarKist rejects Charlie because he does not meet their
standards for excellent taste. By giving human characteristics to a fish, StarKist can
display firsthand the sense of pride that tuna feel when caught and processed by their
company. Indeed, according to the advertisement, becoming StarKist Tuna is such an
honor that fish are practically chasing after the bait.
Fig. 2. Charlie the Tuna (Schandler)
Buzz Bee, the Honey Nut Cheerios mascot, is another popular example of
anthropomorphism (see fig. 3). Honeybees would not normally be associated with
charitable conduct, but, in the case of Buzz, he willingly gives up his own food source in
36
order to make Cheerios cereal taste better. Ironically, on the Cheerios website, there are
several kids games titled Honey Defender, where the player’s goal is to protect Hive
City’s honey from being stolen by villains like Yellow Jacket and Handsome Hector
(“Honey”). Those games suggest to children that it is wrong to take another’s
possessions without permission. Buzz, on the other hand, assures his customers that their
morning breakfast was made from honey obtained under fair circumstances, with the full
approval and cooperation of the honeybees who produced it.
Fig. 3. Buzz, the Honey Nut Cheerios Bee (“Who Is”)
In a 2011 article about the popularity of chicken skin, The New York Times
presented a seductive picture of a dead chicken using anthropomorphic methods similar
to the ones employed by StarKist Tuna and Honey Nut Cheerios (see fig. 4). According
to the article, “There are white-meat people and there are dark-meat people . . . And then
there are skin people. They are the ones who cannot help themselves around roast or
fried chicken, ripping off the crispiest bits of skin before the bird makes it to the table”
37
(DiGregorio). Of course, giving in to the temptation of chicken skin is much easier when
animals are provided the ability to indicate their desire to be eaten. Like Charlie and
Buzz, this nonhuman is not only willing to offer her products to the human consumer,
but, as implied through her suggestive pose, dying for our dinner would be her pleasure.
In addition, this image reveals an important connection between animal exploitation and
the objectification of women, a theme that will be reintroduced later in the chapter.
Fig. 4. Seductive Chicken Skin (Cenicola)
Some advertisements will even go so far as to say that the animal feels betrayed
when not eaten. To promote the Cheesy Bacon Tendercrisp, Burger King released
several commercials that show a man secretly enjoying the sandwich in a secluded
location (see fig. 5). After taking the first bite, an angry cow appears and the man
nervously attempts to explain the situation. He has been caught cheating with another
piece of meat, and now he must face a very mad cow. Besides the commercial’s sexual
connotations, there is also the indication that humans have an obligation to eat animals.
38
Cows, pigs and chickens all compete for mankind’s affection and, according to Burger
King, straying from one meat to another is the same as infidelity. Therefore, in order to
remain faithful, Americans are encouraged to eat all animals equally.
Fig. 5. Mad Cow Commercial (“Burger King”)
Anthropomorphism not only allows animals to convey their desire to be used by
humans, but it also helps them to display their happiness and quality of life during the
exploitation process. In response to frequent reports of sickening conditions and
unspeakable cruelty in the meat and dairy industry, companies have attempted to relieve
consumer concerns by demonstrating what wonderful lives their animals truly have.
Farmers readily admit that abuses occur within the industry, but they never include
themselves when making such confessions. The image of the happy cow, as presented in
figure 6, is a perfect example of how the dairy industry has confronted the issue of
inhumane treatment and has provided a deceptive solution without taking any genuine
responsibility for the problem. According to the California Milk Advisory Board
39
(CMAB), rather than boycotting dairy because of animal suffering, Americans should
instead buy products with the Real California seal because it ensures humane handling
and responsible animal care. Needless to say, their commercials, which consist of
multiple cows talking and laughing, are the CMAB’s most credible and convincing
pieces of evidence in support of the dairy industry’s improving welfare standards.
Fig. 6. Happy Cow Commercial (“Happy Cows”)
In addition to the profound, earthly impact that humans have on animals, a local
barbeque catering company proposes that humans also play a necessary role in the
afterlife of the nonhuman. Heaven Bound BBQ, in figure 7, advertises its services by
showing a pig, with wings, praying before the Cross. By fulfilling their earthly duties,
pigs are able to achieve eternal bliss in Heaven; however, their bodily sacrifice cannot be
carried out without human assistance. Unlike traditional religious arguments against
animal rights, Heaven Bound BBQ does not deny that animals have souls. Strangely
enough, they confirm that pigs are conscious creatures that can attain salvation, but this
40
redemption requires faithful servitude in the form of slaughter. Thus, consumers should
not feel guilty when ingesting the flesh of an animal because, in reality, our selfless
actions help to save the souls of millions of pigs each year.
Fig. 7. Swine Salvation (“Heavenbound BBQ”)
Ranging from expensive television commercials, as shown in figure 6, to local
restaurant ads, as shown in figures 7 and 8, anthropomorphic messages are practically
everywhere, and they all express the same idea: animals are happy to be exploited, killed
and processed. The turkey in figure 8 not only accepts his fate, but he even aids in
keeping his flesh moist and flavorful. Such advertisements create a guilt-free atmosphere
of “good fellowship,” much like the Quaker household in Uncle Tom’s Cabin, where “the
chicken and ham had a cheerful and joyous fizzle in the pan, as if they rather enjoyed
being cooked than otherwise” (Stowe 170). Throughout history, the fictional image of
the animal has functioned in creating a false sense of harmony between the oppressor and
the oppressed. By putting words in the nonhuman’s mouth, it appears as though both
41
sides are content with their place in society. When analyzed from an outside perspective,
animal representation seems almost comical; but, for the men, women and children who
are constantly immersed within Western culture, anthropomorphism offers a valid excuse
for continuing a lifestyle centered on animal suffering.
Fig. 8. Local Restaurant Advertisement (“Turkey Terrific”)
Anthropomorphism: The Ugly
Unfortunately, there are many other factors, besides anthropomorphic
advertisements, which negatively contribute toward the overall image of the nonhuman in
Western society. In fact, animals are frequently humanized in popular culture for mere
entertainment purposes, particularly in literary works and television programs that target
younger audiences. Many classic children’s books, such as The Cat in the Hat, The Story
of Babar, The Tale of Peter Rabbit, Olivia, The Complete Tales of Winnie the Pooh, The
Berenstain Bears, Charlotte’s Web, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and The
42
Wonderful Wizard of Oz, feature animal characters with human characteristics. In
addition, animals are heavily personified in both movies and television shows like Bambi,
The Lion King, The Jungle Book, A Bug’s Life, Sesame Street, Clifford the Big Red Dog
and Arthur. When considering literature, film, television, comics, video games, fairy
tales and folklore, there are literally thousands of instances where animals are given
human qualities. What effect, if any, does this type of animal representation have on the
minds of young children, especially when their entire lives have consisted of a
predominantly anthropomorphic view of the natural world?
In 1983, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted a survey to analyze “the
attitudes, beliefs and behaviors of a national sample of 3,087 fifth and sixth grade
students concerning wildlife” (Westervelt and Llewellyn iii). Student attitudes were
grouped into four different categories: humanistic, moralistic, naturalistic and
negativistic. A humanistic approach involves a strong emotional connection with
animals, and it is most likely the product of anthropomorphic influences. A moralistic
outlook focuses primarily on the humane treatment of animals, while a naturalistic
attitude is defined by a strong appreciation for nature and wildlife. Finally, individuals
with a negativistic mindset will avoid animals out of fear or dislike (11). According to
the overall results from the Wildlife Survey, “Children expressed more sentimental
affection for loveable kinds of animals than naturalistic interest in wildlife, and
demonstrated limited knowledge about wildlife” (iii).
This study not only revealed the prevailing opinions that most children had for
animals in 1983, but, when “compared with the results obtained from the 1978 national
43
survey of adult attitudes toward wildlife and natural habitat,” an interesting correlation
between attitude and age was discovered (Westervelt and Llewellyn 21). Particularly, the
evidence suggests that children, ages ten through twelve, hold relatively strong
humanistic, moralistic and naturalistic viewpoints when considering animals. However,
as an individual reaches maturity, those three attitudes begin to decline and, after age
twenty-five, negativistic feelings for animals start to emerge (26). Although the exact
cause of this trend has not been determined, animal representation certainly serves an
important role in the evolution of American perceptions regarding the nonhuman.
Western society is built upon modern scientific principles and traditional religious
beliefs. Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin, in Postcolonial Ecocriticism, claim that
“Science has been instrumental in giving us our current ideas of animality – ideas that
classical philosophical theories and Christian doctrine have reinforced” (160). For
instance, because of Darwinism, “humanity is seen as the pinnacle of evolution. Thus
humans do not need to be in concert with nature.” In addition, technological
advancements have allowed scientists to take their field in new directions, “becoming not
a manipulator of nature, but an author of nature” (Hoffman). Genetic engineering is now
a common practice in American agriculture, and it will continue to progress as scientists
attempt to perfect the natural world. Thomas Hoffman, in “Moving beyond dualism,”
discusses the impact of science on mankind’s relationship with nature:
The attitude of the technological era does not promote participation and
cooperation with nature . . . Technology allows humanity to create distance
between itself and nature. Technology also gives people power to redirect nature,
44
to channel its forces in new ways. With the mechanical arts humanity can imitate
nature, even subsume it. (447)
With the ever-increasing ability to change and destroy life, humans have fortified their
position at the top of the food chain. Consequently, the image of the animal has also
been reinforced as one of imperfection, weakness, stupidity and savagery.
Despite the growing capacity for scientists to answer life’s most intriguing
questions, religion continues to be an extremely influential institution in Western society.
The United States upholds the separation of church and state, but there is no denying that
religion, specifically the Judeo – Christian faith, has aided in the formation of the nation
and remains deeply entrenched in American culture. Many individuals identify
themselves “as a single, distinct group of animals that has been specially created and
given dominion in Genesis 1:26 over all other animals” (Waldau 170). This concept of
human importance is supported by passages throughout the Hebrew Bible:
They are particularly evident in the Genesis accounts of (1) the order of Creation,
the naming of the animals, the charge of dominion, and the image of God, and (2)
the Flood story by way of its emphasis on stewardship, the focus on terrestrials,
and the permission to eat other animals . . . This explicit belief that humans were
. . . not merely “unique-different” but “unique-better” is the starting point which
the Christian tradition inherited from the Hebrew Bible. (172)
Due to mankind’s assumed superiority over the rest of creation, early American settlers
felt permitted to view nature and its inhabitants “as something that man could take
advantage of and exploit to fit his own needs” (Sherrer 17).
45
Even today, animals and the environment are regarded as tools that God created
for man’s benefit. Paragraph 2415 of the 1994 Catholic Catechism reveals the official
Catholic Church position on the status of nonhumans: “Animals, like plants and
inanimate things, are by nature destined for the common good of past, present and future
humanity” (qtd. in Waldau 202). Generally speaking, the basic Christian understanding
of the nonhuman emphasizes its inferiority when compared to mankind:
The mainline Christian tradition has historically asserted, as part of its basic
message, not only a fundamental, radical division between human animals and all
other animals but also the exclusion of all other animals’ interests when they are
in conflict with even minor, unnecessary human interests. (Waldau 214-215)
Speciesism is defined by Peter Singer, in Animal Liberation, as “a prejudice or attitude of
bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those members of
other species” (qtd. in Waldau 29). Although Christianity does contain exceptions that
contradict the typical understanding of the nonhuman, “the history of the tradition
through its first two millennia suggests that speciesist values and orientations have been
far more than a mere specter” (Waldau 217).
How does speciesism, in both science and religion, relate to anthropomorphism in
American culture, and can this relationship explain the change in attitude that was
observed between children and adults in the 1983 Wildlife Survey? Science, religion and
anthropomorphic works all focus on the importance of the human. Children routinely
read books and watch movies featuring fictional animals with human characteristics.
Furthermore, schools, scientific organizations and religious communities confirm the
46
teachings of popular culture by emphasizing the significance of Homo sapiens. Children
commonly express humanistic, moralistic and naturalistic attitudes toward animals
because their notion of the nonhuman has been misguided by sources that represent
animals using human traits. Children eventually mature into adults, and, with the
realization that actual animals have few human attributes, they quickly develop a
negativistic attitude toward the nonhuman. In this manner, speciesism continues to
preserve the degraded image of the animal through contemporary science, traditional
religious beliefs and creative works in both literature and film.
The Animal
Throughout history, negative animal imagery and anthropocentric ideals, which
designate humans as the most important entities in the Universe, have assisted in creating
a Western society consistently “constructed by or against the wild, savage and
animalistic” (Huggan and Tiffin 134). However, nonhumans are not the only group to be
adversely affected by the species boundary. Animal representation also facilitates human
oppression and exploitation. In other words, “human individuals and cultures at various
times have been and are treated ‘like animals’ by dominant groups, and both human
genocide and human slavery have been, and in some cases continue to be, predicated on
the categorisation of other peoples as animals” (135). As a rule, modern-day Americans
consider it wrong to discriminate according to race, color, national origin, gender, sexual
orientation, religion, age and disability; yet, those same individuals fully accept the
degraded status bestowed to all animals. Granting equal rights for humans may
effectively treat the symptoms of racism and bigotry, but, without removing the
47
foundation upon which narrow-minded ideas originate, intolerance will forever exist in
one form or another.
Inequality among human beings has long been achieved through animal
association, but what is the purpose of downgrading an individual’s moral status? During
the European Enlightenment, fear of the “wild man,” who lurked in the outside world and
within man’s own heart, necessitated “the repression of the animal and animalistic”
(Huggan and Tiffin 134). Of course, while it may be easier to justify the atrocities of
genocide, colonialism and slavery through claims of barbaric threats to civilized society,
the true motivation behind oppression has always been power. By conveying a particular
group as possessing animal-like qualities, those in control are able to gain and maintain
dominance over others. For example, the word savage, which is defined as a fierce and
violent temperament belonging “to an animal or force of nature,” has often been used to
describe humans (“savage”). During European colonialism, explorers and their
governments utilized terms like savage in order to differentiate themselves from
indigenous populations. With an extensive vocabulary of degrading expressions on hand,
colonists firmly established their own superiority by portraying the Natives as inferior life
forms.
In Christopher Columbus’ letter to Luis de Santangel, secretary to the royal court
of Spain, he provides an interesting description of the Natives who inhabited the “New
World:”
The people of this island and of all the other islands which I have found and of
which I have information, all go naked, men and women, as their mothers bore
48
them . . . They have no iron or steel or weapons, nor are they fitted to use them.
This is not because they are not well built and of handsome stature, because they
are very marvellously timorous. (Columbus 70)
For Columbus, colonization was an economic opportunity to extract valuable resources
that included spices, cotton, mastic, gold “and slaves, as many as they shall order to be
shipped” (73). Columbus referred to the Natives in “Avan” as “people . . . born with
tails,” and, overall, he “saw no great diversity in the appearance of the people or in their
manners and language” (71). In this way, by using animal features to depict the Native
Americans as savages “who eat human flesh,” men were able to rationalize the
enslavement and systematic annihilation of an entire civilization (72).
Columbus was not alone in his lowly portrayal of the tribes from the “New
World.” In “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies,” Bartolomé de Las Casas
describes the Natives “as open and as innocent as can be imagined. The simplest people
in the world – unassuming, long-suffering, unassertive, and submissive” (De Las Casas
55). Although Las Casas condemned the atrocities committed against the indigenous
populations, he never once called into question Spain’s right to claim ownership over the
Americas. Unlike Columbus, Las Casas did not view the Natives as resources to be used
for economic gain; rather, he believed that they were in need of Christianity in order to
bring redemption and civility to their otherwise barbaric lifestyle: “These would be the
most blessed people on earth if only they were given the chance to convert to
Christianity” (55). Still, for the purposes of maintaining power and generating wealth,
colonies relied heavily on religious conversion and cultural immersion. Missionaries
49
were usually the first to arrive in a new colony, and their job was to persuade the locals to
follow the ways of both God and government. As a result of their brainwashing
techniques, colonists could exploit and oppress the Natives with little threat of resistance.
Therefore, while Las Casas urged humane treatment of Native Americans, his perception
of their status as inferior human beings only contributed toward colonialism’s overall
destructive effect on indigenous populations.
Imperialism had a widespread impact across the planet, and colonies were
established in territories well beyond the Americas (see fig. 9). In Joseph Conrad’s Heart
of Darkness, King Leopold’s imperial expansion into Africa is examined through the
eyes of Charles Marlow as he attempts to retrieve Kurtz, the unstable chief of the Inner
Station, for a Belgian trading company. To the unsuspecting reader, “Heart of Darkness
is about the primitive instincts always lurking in the human heart, and the danger of
atavistic reversion. Alone (i.e. without fellow whites), Kurtz has reverted to the
condition of a brute” (Huggan and Tiffin 142). The Nigerian writer Chinua Achebe has
criticized Conrad’s novel for disregarding Africans “as independent entities, becoming –
as many animals do in fiction – representative of some earlier moment in evolutionary
history or some primordial human trait” (143). Within Heart of Darkness, Africans are
depicted as savages and cannibals; therefore, does Achebe have a valid objection?
Instead of labeling Conrad’s book as blatantly racist, perhaps his work is a critical
reflection of the mentality involved in colonialism.
50
Fig. 9. Colonialism in Africa (“Unit Two”)
For King Leopold II, his “interest in the Congo was purely one of asset stripping”
(Huggan and Tiffin 141). Despite the fact that ivory is the primary resource traded in
Heart of Darkness, “those from whom the ivory has been extracted – by slaughter – are
conspicuous by their absence from the text” (144). In a similar fashion, “Africans are
rendered absent in Conrad’s novel . . . to which their role can only be as surrogates for a
European malaise” (143). From Marlow’s perspective, the nearly invisible Africans
seem almost nonhuman:
They [the slaves] were not enemies, they were not criminals, they were nothing
earthly now, - nothing but black shadows of disease and starvation, lying
confusedly in the greenish gloom. Brought from all the recesses of the coast in all
51
the legality of time contracts, lost in uncongenial surroundings, fed on unfamiliar
food, they sickened, became inefficient, and were then allowed to crawl away and
rest . . . I began to distinguish the gleam of eyes under the trees . . . The black
bones reclined at full length with one shoulder against the tree, and slowly the
eyelids rose and the sunken eyes looked up at me, enormous and vacant, a kind of
blind, white flicker in the depths of the orbs, which died out slowly. (Conrad 17)
Africans and elephants are central to Conrad’s story, but only as “inanimate trade goods”
(Huggan and Tiffin 147). In other words, Africans became synonymous with slaves in
the same way that elephants became synonymous with ivory because, in both cases,
animalistic qualities were “deployed, not just to signify an animal, but also to impute the
human, albeit in a primitive form” (148). Since animals are viewed as nothing more than
personal property, a clear connection exists between speciesism and the objectification of
humans.
Throughout history, societies have taken the power of negative animal imagery to
the extreme by using it to validate the ownership of human beings. In Uncle Tom’s
Cabin, St. Clare describes how religion, politics, science and language all conveniently
support a corrupt institution:
Planters, who have money to make by it, - clergymen, who have planters to
please, - politicians, who want to rule by it, - may warp and bend language and
ethics to a degree that shall astonish the world at their ingenuity; they can press
nature and the Bible, and nobody knows what else into the service; but, after all,
neither they nor the world believe in it one particle the more. (Stowe 247)
52
Pro-slavery groups interpreted the Bible as saying that “the orders and distinctions in
society came from God; and that it was so appropriate . . . that some should be high and
some low, and that some were born to rule and some to serve” (210). In addition,
scientists, like Edward Long, justified racism by outlining “a racial hierarchy where
blacks were situated between Europeans and orangutans” (“RACE”). Types of Mankind,
an illustrated volume by Josiah Nott and George Gliddon, examines different races and
their biological connection with animals. Published in 1854, this text dispersed racist
ideas through scientific data (see table 1). By creating a relationship between a particular
human race and animals, it became acceptable to own, sell and treat members of that race
like animals.
Table 1. Morton Race Table (Agassiz)
In Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the degrading nature of slavery is clearly evident. Harriet
Beecher Stowe’s characters use words like creature, critter, dog, beast and heathen when
referring to slaves: “I’d buy the dog, and work him, with a clear conscience!” (Stowe
53
253). Similarly, the text portrays the selling and purchasing of slaves much like a
transaction involving furniture. When considering his daughter’s request to buy Tom, St.
Clare asks, “What for, pussy? Are you going to use him for a rattle-box, or a rockinghorse, or what?” (179). Owning a human being, from the slaveholder’s point of view, is
no different than owning a horse or cow. In fact, the negotiation process between Mr.
Haley and a potential customer sounds identical to a cattle auction:
Wal, now, just think on ’t . . . just look at them limbs, - broad-chested, strong as a
horse. Look at his head; them high forrads allays shows calculatin niggers, that’ll
do any kind o’ thing. I’ve marked that ar. Now, a nigger of that ar heft and build
is worth considerable, just as you may say, for his body, supposing he’s stupid;
but come to put in his calculatin faculties, and them which I can show he has on
common, why, of course, it makes him come higher. Why, that ar fellow
managed his master’s whole farm. He has a strornary talent for business. (178)
The link between animal representation and human oppression is especially significant
when considering American slavery. The United States Declaration of Independence
proclaims “that all men are created equal,” but, if certain individuals were believed to be
more animal than human, then they could be denied the rights to “Life, Liberty, and the
pursuit of Happiness.”
The traditional forms of genocide, colonialism and slavery have long since
disappeared from American society. Over the years, human rights have steadily
progressed to incorporate all Homo sapiens, but the status of the animal has not changed.
Nonhumans are still regarded as personal property intended for mankind’s benefit.
54
Therefore, despite the existence of ethical values and constitutional rights, intolerance
continues to thrive because the degraded image of the animal remains intact. Although
the law may protect humans against physical oppression, the legal system cannot control
the biases of its citizens. Rather, an individual’s attitude is determined by his or her
environment. In this way, language is significant because it assists humans in
interpreting their surroundings:
Animal categorisations and the use of derogatory animal metaphors have been
and are characteristic of human languages, often in association with racism and
sexism: ‘you stupid cow’; politicians with their ‘snouts in the trough’; ‘male
chauvinist pig’ . . . It is thus not surprising that human individuals and societies
reject animal similitudes and analogies and insist instead on a separate
subjectivity. (Huggan and Tiffin 135-136)
Other negative, animal metaphors include dog, chicken, jackass, weasel, monkey, snake,
dumb bunny, old crow, shrew and rat, just to name a few. The swearword bitch is an
offensive term used to “reflect a conception of women as mindless servants. But the . . .
offending components . . . derive from speciesist attitudes and practices. Without
speciesism, domesticated animals would not be regarded as mindless” and there would be
no basis upon which women could be treated as inferior beings (Dunayer 15). Of course,
not all animal metaphors are degrading; but, while “some expressions that compare
humans to other animals are complimentary (busy as a bee, eagle-eyed, brave as a lion),
the vast majority offend” (17).
55
When examined from a broad, historical perspective, it quickly becomes apparent
that an interdependent relationship exists between animal imagery and human oppression.
Inaccurate representations of the nonhuman have created “a warped view of the natural
world” (Adams and Donovan 6). In advertisements, animals possess human
characteristics in order to ease the guilty conscience of the consumer. In reality, animals
do not have human attributes; therefore, their lives are automatically considered less
valuable. No matter what the situation, the nonhuman is condemned to the same fate.
Furthermore, dominant groups in Western society have used “the animalistic to destroy
or marginalise other human societies” (Huggan and Tiffin 135). Both Native Americans
and Africans were viewed as less-than-human, and treated like inferiors, because of this
animal comparison. Being different should never equate to inferiority. Taken as a whole,
“all oppressions are interconnected: no one creature will be free until all are free – from
abuse, degradation, exploitation, pollution, and commercialization . . . and until the
mentality of domination is ended in all its forms, these afflictions will continue” (Adams
and Donovan 3).
CHAPTER III
FACT VERSUS FICTION: UNDERSTANDING THE ACTUAL ANIMAL
“There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher animals in their mental
faculties . . . The lower animals, like man, manifestly feel pleasure and pain, happiness,
and misery.” - Charles Darwin (“Best Vegetarian”)
According to Aristotle’s writings, animals and humans are superior to plants
because “only animals and human beings are capable of conscious experience . . .
Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity
for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead
rely on instinct” (Wilson). By establishing the difference between animals and humans,
Aristotle determined that animals exist for the sole purpose of serving human needs. In
keeping with this theory regarding the nonhuman’s function in society, many of history’s
most influential philosophers have aided in the construction of a general hierarchy for all
living organisms. Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas, for example, “were quick
to combine God’s grant of dominion over animals in the Old Testament with Jesus’
apparent indifference to animals, and to conclude that animals existed only for the benefit
of humans and had no moral significance whatsoever” (Francione 108). Furthermore,
Aquinas argued “that if a being cannot direct its own actions then others must do so . . .
Since animals cannot direct their own actions, they are merely instruments and exist for
the sake of the human beings that direct their actions” (Wilson). Aquinas only objected
to animal cruelty in cases where such behavior encouraged acts of violence against
56
57
mankind (Francione 108).
John Locke, an English philosopher in the eighteenth century, followed in
Aquinas’ footsteps when formulating his social contract theory. Locke proposed “that
the origin of property rights as a general matter was the absolute right that God had
supposedly given to humans to use and kill animals” (Francione 106). Although he
“recognized that animals have a complex psychology and that they possess basic
reasoning ability, . . . animals are merely means to human ends” because they are not
rational and, as a result, do not have immortal souls (112-113). Locke’s theory “had an
enormous effect on British and American law,” and it remains “at the very core of our
supposedly secular view of animals as property” (107). As discussed in Chapter 2, even
though “there are at least some believers in every religion that adopt the view that animal
interests are morally significant, it is the concept of animals as property, rather than the
sanctity of animal life, that is explicitly and inextricably rooted in religious doctrine”
(109).
Not all philosophers, however, have relied upon their religious convictions when
determining the role of the nonhuman in society. The German theorist Immanuel Kant,
for instance, claimed “that animals are neither rational nor self-aware and lack moral
value because they are unable to understand or apply moral rules” (Francione 113). Kant
focused on “the properties that human beings have and animals lack” in order to prove
man’s superiority over the nonhuman (Wilson). In this same manner, Aristotle validated
the oppression of both humans and nonhumans by claiming that some life forms act only
58
by instinct, lacking “rationality” and intelligence; therefore, they “are the ‘natural slaves’
of those who” can use rational thought to form moral principles (Francione 112).
Men like Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Locke and Kant have all contributed
toward the animal’s degraded status, but no individual has made as significant of an
impact on the hierarchical relationship between humans and nonhumans as the French
philosopher and mathematician René Descartes. Deemed “the founder of modern
philosophy,” Descartes commonly referred to animals as automatons:
In support of the idea that animals lack consciousness, Descartes argued that they
do not use verbal or sign language, something that every human being does but
that no animal does. Descartes certainly recognized that animals act in what
appear to be purposive and intelligent ways and they seem to be conscious, but he
claimed that they are really no different from machines made by God . . . An
obvious implication of Descartes’s position . . . was that animals are not sentient;
they are not conscious of pain, pleasure, or anything else. (Francione 2)
When performing sensory experiments on animals, Descartes dismissed their reactions as
nothing more than mechanical responses to external stimuli. In other words, he insisted
that the writhing movements and loud cries produced by a dog who is “burned, scalded,
and mutilated . . . is no different from a whining gear that needs oil” (2). Thus, in
keeping with Descartes’ philosophy, there is no moral obligation owed to the nonhuman;
instead, humans are only obligated to uphold the interests of other humans. Currently,
the U.S. legal system reflects this viewpoint by classifying animals as strictly personal
property. Therefore, apart from the penalties imposed under cruelty statutes, damaging
59
an animal will carry the same consequences as damaging an inanimate object. The law
concerning animal property will be examined with greater detail in Chapter 4.
During the 17th century, “a mechanistic view of the natural world was replacing
the Aristotelian conception” (Wilson). Descartes and his followers assumed that animals
were “nothing more than robots, with no ability to think or feel” (Francione 2).
Descartes’ theory, refuting animal sentience, was founded on flawed observations, but his
perspective at least offers a reasonable explanation for why so many individuals
disregarded the well-being of nonhumans during that period in history. Why should
humans respect the nonexistent interests of machines, especially when these automatons
are unable to consciously feel pleasure or pain? Obviously, biologists now know that
Descartes’ logic was inaccurate, but in what ways do modern scientific discoveries affect
the status of the nonhuman? Has Western society’s treatment of animals evolved to
match the public’s growing awareness of animal sentience and intelligence?
Animal Intelligence: Vertebrates
For classification purposes, animals “are conveniently divided into vertebrates,
which possess a backbone, and invertebrates, which lack one” (Stanley 65). The first
vertebrates to appear on Earth were “fishlike animals that evolved a supple structure to
support the body – the jointed vertebral column, to which the skull and skeletal supports
for appendages were attached” (71). In the Paleozoic Era, approximately 444 million
years ago, fishes acquired jaws, allowing them to become efficient predators (316).
Some fishes “had a skeleton composed of cartilage (a trait retained in modern sharks).
Others evolved bony external armor. Still others developed a bony internal skeleton, and
60
their descendants include most fishes of the modern world” (72). To this day, fishes
maintain a powerful presence on this planet, but society treats them “as if they are little
robots” (Pearson). Recently, scientists have “observed them using tools, building
complex nests and exhibiting long-term memories” (“Scientists”). Dr. Culum Brown, an
expert in fish behavior at Macquarie University in Sydney, says “Fish are more intelligent
than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or
exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates including non-human primates” (Pearson). There is
even evidence suggesting that stress can cause abnormal behavior in fish species, such as
repetitive movements and irregular eating habits. Biologists Calum Brown, Keven
Laland and Jens Krause object to “the image of fish as drudging and dim-witted peabrains, driven largely by ‘instinct’” (“Scientists”). Rather, these animals should be
distinguished according to their social intelligence.
In an effort to survive periods of drought, an early group of lobe-finned fishes
evolved into amphibians. These four-legged vertebrates are born in the water, but,
through a process called metamorphosis, they eventually move onto land. Reptiles,
evolving from amphibians and gaining the ability to produce eggs with protective shells,
permanently invaded “dry habitats – habitats that had been inaccessible to amphibians
because of their dependence on water for reproduction” (Stanley 72). Upon their
emergence, roughly 318 million years ago, reptiles ruled their terrestrial domain (342).
Nowadays, they are considered unintelligent organisms, boasting only the most
rudimentary and primitive characteristics:
61
The reptilian mind is usually equated in the human one with traits like aggression,
dominance and sexual appetite. That analysis was given currency in the 1960s
when Paul MacLean theorised that the human brain has three levels, the most
basic—both functionally and literally (because it is at the bottom of the organ)—
being the “reptilian” part, composed of structures called basal ganglia. (“Animal
Behaviour”)
In reality, reptiles demonstrate “behavioural flexibility across multiple cognitive tasks,
including solving a novel motor task using multiple strategies and reversal learning, as
well as rapid associative learning” (Leal and Powell). Manuel Leal and Brian Powell,
biologists from Duke University, “report that lizards have some of the same creative
problem-solving abilities that birds and mammals do . . . using skills ‘which have no real
ecological relevance’” (Bhanoo).
During the Mesozoic Era, “birds evolved from a group of dinosaurs” (Stanley 73).
Although their evolutionary relatives perished 65.5 million years ago, birds continue to
thrive (404). In recent years, biologists have attributed the signs of avian intellect to
excellent instincts; yet “[t]he clash of simple brain and complex behavior has led some
neuroscientists to create a new map of the avian brain” (Blakeslee). Crows on the Pacific
island of New Caledonia “demonstrate a tool-making, and tool using, capability
comparable to Palaeolithic man’s” (Davies). Besides constructing “hooks and spears of
small sticks to carry on foraging expeditions, some have learned to put walnuts on roads
for cars to crack” (Blakeslee). In addition, specific birds are able to use aspects of human
speech in meaningful ways. Alex, an African Grey parrot, exemplified bird cognition
62
throughout his life by learning numbers, colors, materials, shapes and abstract concepts,
including time and deception. Alex performed “as well as apes and dolphins in tests of
intellectual acuity, even though the structure of the parrot brain differs considerably from
that of terrestrial and aquatic mammals” (Pepperberg). Alex’s trainer, Professor
Pepperberg, believes he had “the intelligence and emotional make-up of a 3 to 4 year old
child” (Davies).
Evolving from reptiles, therapsids “were ancestral to mammals” (Stanley 73).
Currently, most mammals are characterized as being endothermic and bearing live young.
Furthermore, mammals have legs situated completely beneath their bodies, allowing for
better movement. However, it is their intellectual capacity which keeps them competitive
with other animals. Scientists at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center found that
“[c]himpanzees and humans use the same parts of the brain when communicating,
suggesting a common ancestral root to our linguistic prowess” (Keim). Primates, like
Kanzi, “can build thoughts and sentences, even conjugate, all by pointing” to different
symbols and words on a glossary (Kluger). Chimpanzees, such as Washoe, have also
been taught American Sign Language. Washoe successfully formed sentences with
words she learned, and “some of the forms appear to have been inventions . . . which
would seem to indicate that her communication system had the potential for productivity”
(Yule 17). In other words, particular primates can create “new expressions and novel
utterances by manipulating their linguistic resources to describe new objects and
situations” (13). Of course, monkeys are not the only mammals capable of complex
interaction. Dolphins, for instance, “‘talk’ to each other using a process very similar to
63
the way that humans communicate . . . sounds are produced by tissue vibrations
analogous to the operation of vocal folds by humans and many other land-based animals”
(Viegas).
When examining the behavior of mammals, the evidence of higher brain
functioning is overwhelming. Lions and hyenas engage in strategic hunting, elephants
and apes appropriately recognize their reflection and dogs innately grasp the concept of
“pointing” (Kluger). Researchers have found that cows “can remember things for a long
time” and they “interact in socially complex ways, developing friendships over time and
sometimes holding grudges against other cows who treat them badly” (“Hidden Lives”).
In a study at Pennsylvania State University, pigs learned how to play a video game:
The pigs quickly learned that they could move the cursor on a computer screen
with the joystick . . . The cursor was in the middle of the computer screen and the
pigs got a treat if they moved the cursor far enough in any direction to touch a line
that formed a square around the cursor . . . They weren’t just doing it for the food
reward, either. When the treat feeder broke, the pigs kept playing. (Grandin and
Johnson 174)
Dr. Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University, claims that all
mammals express seven basic “blue-ribbon emotions,” and she spells them out using
capital letters: SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR, PANIC, LUST, CARE and PLAY (6-9).
When viewing these emotions through actual case studies, it is virtually impossible to
dismiss mammals as unintelligent beings. Beyond mammals, all vertebrates show signs
64
of SEEKING, RAGE, FEAR and PANIC. Sadly, while Americans may acknowledge
intelligence in vertebrates, Western exploitation of these animals has not diminished.
Animal Intelligence: Invertebrates
Dr. Lars Chittka, professor of Sensory and Behavioral Ecology at Queen Mary
University in London, says “Animals with bigger brains are not necessarily more
intelligent . . . In fact, the models suggest that counting could be achieved with only a few
hundred nerve cells and only a few thousand could be enough to generate consciousness”
(“Bigger”). Most people may prefer to think of insects as “hardwired tiny robots, not
adaptive, not intelligent, and certainly not conscious. However, research over the last
few decades have shown that a number of well-studied insects are capable of performing
amazing intellectual feats” (Hance). Honeybees, for example, “perform a complex dance
routine to communicate to the other bees” where to find a particular source of nectar
(Yule 12). In this way, honeybees can convey messages that relate to past events and
distant locations, a skill that most vertebrates do not possess. Other insects, such as paper
wasps and certain ant species, identify each other according to facial features and smell.
In Chittka’s professional opinion, “The cognitive feats described above are of course
clearly the result of individual learning. It might be controversial whether rule learning,
categorization etc. qualify as intelligence, but of course similar tests are indeed used for
IQ tests on human subjects” (Hance).
Even though spiders are not classified as insects, these intimidating invertebrates
usually receive as much, if not more, disdain from the general public. Throughout the
scientific community, spiders have long been considered “too primitive to exhibit
65
interesting behavior” (Montgomery). Beneath their frightening exterior, however, spiders
act in ways that do not “fit with the idea of invertebrates as automatons” (McCrone).
Tarantulas display CARE emotions by sharing food, and some “[m]other tarantulas are
known to go without eating so that their offspring can eat” (Montgomery). Portia labiate,
a jumping spider, lures other spiders by plucking “out rhythms at the edge of a web to
mimic a trapped insect or a hostile intruder . . . While Portia’s deception skills are
impressive, what is most remarkable is its ability to plot a path to its victim” (McCrone).
The Portia labiate’s cognitive capacity to learn through trial and error matches that of
most mammals, in spite of the fact that this spider’s brain equals the size of a pinhead.
With new evidence of invertebrate intelligence emerging on a daily basis, perhaps
humans should think twice before exterminating these pests.
Sentience
By examining animal intelligence, the purpose is not to prove significance solely
through human comparisons. Instead, nonhumans deserve recognition and respect
because they possess the unique capability to actively engage with their environment.
There will always be differences between species, but diversity does not equate to
inferiority. Chittka acknowledges “that many animals (especially our closest relatives)
can do some of the things that we consider intelligent in humans,” but, “rather than
searching for amusing similarities with humans, it is more promising to launch into the
unknown and strive for genuinely novel discoveries” (Hance). Nevertheless, the
evolutionary connection between mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fishes and
invertebrates must also serve as a reminder of life’s common characteristics:
66
Humans are the only animals that use tools, we used to say. But what about the
birds and apes that we now know do as well? Humans are the only ones who are
empathic and generous, then. But what about the monkeys that practice charity
and the elephants that mourn their dead? Humans are the only ones who
experience joy and a knowledge of the future. But what about the U.K. study just
last month showing that pigs raised in comfortable environments exhibit
optimism, moving expectantly toward a new sound instead of retreating warily
from it? And as for humans as the only beasts with language? Kanzi himself
could tell you that’s not true. (Kluger)
It is foolish to assume that, among the countless organisms on Earth, humans are the only
living beings to possess intelligence. More accurately, “intelligence must have evolved
from simpler organisms, since all animals face the same general challenges of life. They
need to find mates, food, and a path through the woods, sea, or sky – tasks that Darwin
argued require problem-solving and categorizing abilities” (Morell).
Animals may be intelligent, but does mental competence necessitate
consciousness? Steven Pinker, a psychologist at Harvard University, says “It would be
perverse to deny consciousness to mammals. Birds and other vertebrates are almost
certainly conscious too. When it gets down to oysters and spiders, we’re on shakier
ground” (Kluger). The debate over consciousness in less complex organisms remains
inconclusive because it is difficult to evaluate subjective experiences. The Portia labiate
spider may not have the potential to write poetry or contemplate philosophical theories,
but do such limitations automatically eliminate the possibility for basic self-awareness?
67
Fish, for example, “can certainly learn complicated tasks, remember approximately 40
individuals, and measure their size relative to an opponent’s to decide whether to fight
them. Therefore, at the very least they must have a sense of how big they are”
(Sneddon). In one way or another, most animals demonstrate conscious attributes, but
do these traits enable the nonhuman to suffer?
Biologically speaking, most animals are built to feel pain: “Nociceptive nerves,
which preferentially detect injury-causing stimuli, have been identified in a variety of
animals . . . All vertebrates possess the primitive areas of the brain to process nociceptive
information, namely the medulla, thalamus and limbic system” (Sneddon). However,
pain perception partially relies on “the cerebral cortex, the most evolved region of the
brain and one many animals lack” (Kluger). Despite the absence of a cerebral cortex,
recent research has shown that sensory neurons in less advanced animals, like fish, “are
sensitive to damaging stimuli and are physiologically identical to human nociceptors”
(Sneddon). Still, the existence of sensory neurons “is not enough to prove that it feels
pain, because its reaction may be a reflex. Proof requires demonstrating that the animal’s
behaviour is adversely affected by a potentially painful experience, and that these
behavioural changes are not simple reflex responses” (Kirby). Actual animal pain can be
signified through a variety of responses:
[T]hey eat less food, their normal behaviour is disrupted, their social behaviour is
suppressed and they may adopt unusual behaviour patterns (typically, highly
repetitive or stereotyped behaviours, such as rocking to and fro), they may emit
68
characteristic distress calls, and they experience respiratory and cardiovascular
changes, as well as inflammation and release of stress hormones. (Sneddon)
As substantiated by their secretion of stress pheromones when attacked and their writhing
movements when sprayed with pesticides, insects and other invertebrates indicate the
ability to feel pain (Eisemann).
The American astrophysicist Carl Sagan once said “Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence” (“Dr. Carl Sagan”). Fortunately, when considering animal
intelligence and sentience, lack of evidence is not an issue. Animals commonly express
signs of intellect and consciousness. In addition, visually and biologically, nonhumans
seem capable of feeling pain. There is even proof of emotional anguish in animals, such
as when “elephants appear to mourn their dead, lingering over a herd mate’s body with
what looks like sorrow” (Kluger). Animals do not think like humans, but that does not
mean that animals cannot think. Likewise, their perception of discomfort may be
different from that of a human, but that does not mean that animals cannot suffer. My
reason for not touching a hot stove is the same reason why an ant will avoid fire. Each
person experiences the world in a unique way, but everyone shares the desire to live free
from pain.
Mankind’s Modern Treatment of Nonhumans
In response to the growing knowledge concerning animal sentience, has Western
society taken the necessary steps toward improving animal welfare? In 1958, “Congress
passed the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA)” requiring “that all animals be rendered
unconscious with just one application of an effective stunning device by a trained person
69
before being shackled and hoisted up on the line” (Eisnitz 24). This meager attempt at
maintaining humane treatment is virtually ineffective because violations result in few
penalties. A meat packing plant in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, “had already been slapped
with one of the nation’s largest penalties for worker safety violations . . . The $1,500
maximum fine for animal abuse in Iowa wouldn’t even make a dent in the company’s
petty cash” (111-112). Dave Carney, chairman of the National Joint Council of Food
Inspection Locals, says “The Humane Slaughter Act is a regulation on paper only. It is
not being enforced” (191).
Today, feedlots are overcrowded and slaughterhouses have become fast-paced
assembly lines. To make matters worse, “[w]ith huge corporate packing plants putting
thousands of smaller operations out of business, slaughter line speeds have soared . . .
With line speeds this fast, workers often resort to brutality to keep the production line
running” (Eisnitz 160). The USDA reports that “in 1980, it took the country’s 50 largest
beef packing companies and 103 individual plants to slaughter three-quarters of the
nation’s cattle . . . In 1996 more than 40 percent of the nation’s cattle were killed in a
mere 11 plants that slaughter more than one million animals each year” (62). In addition,
more chickens are slaughtered by the poultry industry “in one day than . . . in the entire
year of 1930” (160). As the meat and dairy industry continue to increase both their
production amounts and line speeds in order to reach the figures listed in table 2, so too
does animal suffering increase.
70
Table 2. Annual Animal Death Statistics, By the Million (“Report”)
Temple Grandin, a professor at Colorado State University with a Ph.D. in animal
science, is credited with designing the modern slaughterhouse. In her book, Animals
Make Us Human, Grandin states “When I read all the scientific evidence about electrical
stimulation of subcortical brain systems, the only logical conclusion was that the basic
emotion systems are similar in humans and all other mammals” (301). Ironically, in that
same chapter, she also defends the meat industry:
Over the years I have done lots of thinking and have come to the conclusion that
our relationship with the animals we use for food must be symbiotic . . . We
provide the farm animals with food and housing and in return, most of the
offspring from the breeding cows on the ranches are used for food . . . None of the
cattle that were at this slaughter plant would have been born if people had not
bred and raised them. (297)
Of course, Grandin’s beautiful vision of American meat and dairy production
conveniently ignores “the quarter of a billion male chicks . . . that the poultry industry
intentionally grinds up alive or smothers each year, or the millions of breeding hogs and
71
veal calves that spend their entire lives inside crates so small they can never turn around”
(Eisnitz 110). In reality, Western society, with the aid of Grandin’s facilities, has
responded to animal sentience by subjecting the nonhuman to more suffering than ever
before.
CHAPTER IV
THAT ALL ___ ARE CREATED EQUAL
“If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth — beings who
considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals —
would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals?” George Bernard Shaw (“Best Vegetarian”)
It is often easier to understand a difficult concept when examined from an
alternative perspective. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan alluded to the potential
existence of life on other planets during his speech to the United Nations: “I occasionally
think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien
threat from outside this world” (Hoberman). According to Reagan’s national security
advisor, Colin L. Powell, the president decided to incorporate this statement into his
speech after watching the film The Day the Earth Stood Still. Although the notion of an
alien invasion is extremely far-fetched, Reagan provided the world with an effective
hypothetical scenario, one that can be applied when considering animal rights.
Let us imagine that on Friday, December 21, 2012, an alien race decides to
colonize Earth. As expected, these creatures from outer space are significantly more
advanced than any human civilization. Due to their intellectual capabilities far beyond
the limits of Homo sapiens, the invaders exhibit superior reasoning skills and enhanced
senses. In fact, their brains are so highly developed that they are able to communicate
72
73
telepathically with one another. Furthermore, as a result of their exceptional intelligence,
they possess groundbreaking technology and powerful weapons. Unfortunately, from the
moment their ships land, the extraterrestrials begin to enslave all of humankind. The
majority of human children are either slaughtered for meat or raised to become workers.
In addition, some infants are sold as family pets. Adult males are forced to perform
manual labor, while the fully developed females endure artificial insemination for the
purpose of becoming pregnant and producing nutritious milk. Humans are also used as
test subjects for experimental procedures, and individuals with exotic features are put on
display as public attractions in order to educate and entertain the alien population.
Despite having different roles in this new alien society, every human being is eventually
slaughtered and processed as food or clothing.
Obviously, humans would object to such treatment, but how are the circumstances
described above any different from animal exploitation? In comparison to human
intelligence, the extraterrestrials are mentally superior; therefore, it is only natural for
them to assert their dominance over inferior life forms. The annihilation of men, women
and children appears unethical, but perhaps the aliens hold religious beliefs which grant
them the God-given right to use humans as resources. Certainly, this situation is not a
pleasant scenario to envision, but, for most animals, such a nightmare is a reality.
Consequently, what discriminating factors are acceptable when determining eligibility for
basic rights?
74
Discriminating Factors
Before rights can be established, life must be present. In this way, the difference
between living organisms and inanimate objects is clearly evident. Lifeless items, such
as rocks, are not made of living cells and do not possess consciousness or an interest for
their own well-being; therefore, they can be used and sold as pieces of property. Plants,
nonhuman animals and humans are all living organisms, but “[n]ot everything that is
alive is necessarily sentient . . . Plants do not behave in ways that indicate that they feel
pain, and they lack neurological and physiological structures that we associate with
sentience” (Francione 6). Traditionally, pain functions as a survival tool. Animals will
avoid harmful threats because there is the potential risk of discomfort. Plants, on the
other hand, cannot “avoid damage or death;” thus, it is “difficult to explain why plants
would evolve mechanisms for sentience if such mechanisms were utterly useless” (7).
Ultimately, when granting rights, we need only consider the individuals listed under the
category of animal.
In America, the law recognizes all human beings as equals, and they are
guaranteed “the basic right not to be treated as a thing” (Francione 97). What special
characteristics do Homo sapiens share which qualify them for this inalienable equality?
The Australian philosopher Peter Singer argues against the conventional logic behind
egalitarianism:
Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and
sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities,
differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others,
75
differing abilities to communicate effectively . . . In short, if the demand for
equality were based on actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop
demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand. (Keller 170)
Infants, for instance, lack the ability to reason. Likewise, there are many humans that
never gain cognitive skills because of a severe mental handicap. Should these individuals
lose their status as equals, and, instead, be regarded as property to be used for food,
clothing, entertainment and scientific experiments (Wilson)? Ethically speaking, there
exists “no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability
between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to
satisfying their needs and interests” (Keller 171). Without the existence of a unique
quality that all humans possess, what should be the determining factor for equal
consideration?
According to Jeremy Bentham, an eighteenth century utilitarian philosopher, the
capacity to suffer is the only distinguishing feature required for basic, inherent equality:
“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
(Bentham 143). If a living being can suffer, then “we have a moral obligation . . . not to
impose unnecessary suffering” on that organism (Francione 5). Overall, Bentham’s
humane treatment principle offers a simple, yet unchanging, rule: all sentient beings have
the “basic right not to be treated exclusively as means to the ends of others” (92-93). In
Chapter 3, animal sentience was revealed in both vertebrates and invertebrates; therefore,
despite their many differences from humans, nonhumans deserve the same “unalienable
rights” afforded to mankind in the U.S. Constitution (“The Declaration”). Of course, we
76
do not have to recognize animals as equals, but this contradiction is no different than
believing “that women have less inherent value than men, or that people of color have
less inherent value than white people” (Francione 128).
Animals as Property: Ohio Law
Currently, there is a great deal of disparity between the U.S. legal system and
humankind’s moral obligation concerning animal interests. Under Ohio law, animals are
classified as personal property. In particular, the Ohio Revised Code identifies dogs as
personalty: “Any dog which has been registered . . . and any dog not required to be
registered under such sections shall be considered as personal property and have all the
rights and privileges and be subject to like restraints as other livestock” (O.R.C. §955.03).
In other words, Ohio does not recognize a distinction between animals and inanimate
objects; therefore, in cases where animals suffer an extreme amount of physical or
emotional distress, their legal status deprives them of the right to sue (Paugh). In March
2001, a dog belonging to the Oberschlake family “was taken to Veterinary Associates
Animal Hospital . . . to have her teeth cleaned. Unfortunately, while . . . under
anesthesia, the veterinarian also tried to spay her, even though she had previously been
spayed as a puppy” (Oberschlake). The Oberschlake’s claimed that, as a result of the
surgery, their dog developed health problems which caused her physical pain and
emotional suffering. The Oberschlake’s sued the hospital, on behalf of their dog, for
veterinary malpractice, negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of
companionship.
77
The Appellate Court’s decision, in the 2nd District of Ohio, states “Whether or not
one agrees with the view that pets are more than personal property, it is clear that Ohio
does not recognize noneconomic damages for injury to companion animals”
(Oberschlake). The court acknowledges that animals can experience pain, but proving,
through evidence, that an animal has suffered is pointless because they are still property.
Ohio’s restriction on noneconomic damages for animals also includes any infliction of
serious emotional distress “because Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for serious
emotional distress caused by injury to property” (Pacher). Compensatory damages can
be collected by the owner if an animal is negligently injured or killed; however, such
damages “are limited to the difference between the property’s fair market value before
and immediately after the loss. Due to this standard, damages will seldom be awarded
for the loss of a family pet, since pets have little or no market value” (Oberschlake).
Ohio anticruelty statutes “provide precious little protection to animals” because
most animal welfare laws are intentionally vague and open to interpretation (Francione
72). The Ohio Revised Code broadly describes the proper procedures for humane
slaughter in the state:
In the case of cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, and other livestock, all
animals are rendered insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an
electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being
shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut . . . Whoever violates section 945.01 of the
Revised Code shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars. (O.R.C. §945)
78
O.R.C. §904.3(A)(1), which defines the objectives of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards
Board, states that the board’s primary function is to consider the “[b]est management
practices for the care and well-being of livestock.” In reality, the board, consisting of
thirteen members, only contains two veterinarians and one agent from a county humane
society (“Ohio Livestock”). With the rest of the board members representing the interests
of farmers and consumers, true animal welfare is overlooked in favor of bigger profits
and cheaper prices.
Animals as Property: Federal Law
Upton Sinclair published The Jungle in 1906, and, as a result of this revealing
account of the horrid conditions in American meatpacking plants, the Federal Meat
Inspection Act was passed that same year (Eisnitz 21). Over the past century, many other
laws have been enacted in order to improve the working conditions for employees, the
living conditions for animals and the quality of the meat for the consumer. However,
there exists a huge discrepancy between federal law and what actually occurs in modern
feedlots and slaughterhouses. As a rule, if “animal use can be characterized as part of an
accepted practice of animal exploitation, then we generally permit the use – however
trivial – because these practices are based on the economic status of animals as property”
(Francione 72).
The Humane Slaughter Act, as mentioned in Chapter 3, was passed in an attempt
to alleviate animal suffering, but, because of inconsistent monitoring and lenient
penalties, this law is rarely obeyed (Eisnitz 191). Moreover, the HSA “does not even
apply to chickens and other birds, who account for approximately” 9.21 billion of the
79
10.153 billion animals slaughtered annually in America (Francione 75). In another
example, the United States Code limits animal transportation to a maximum of “28
consecutive hours without unloading the animals for feeding, water, and rest;”
nevertheless, a driver may violate this law if there are “unavoidable causes that could not
have been anticipated or avoided when being careful” (49 U.S.C. §80502). Due to the
law’s use of broad terminology, drivers can label every situation an “unavoidable cause.”
In this fashion, animals suffer, but farmers remain protected through legal loopholes.
During the Reagan and Bush administrations, huge corporations forced smaller
farms and meat processing plants out of business, and, for the sake of efficiency and
profit, the industry “became increasingly consolidated . . . line speeds had skyrocketed
and so, too, had the number of cases of foodborne illnesses” (Eisnitz 158). For instance,
as a result of deregulation, some workers are now responsible for cutting “the throats of
as many as 1,100 hogs an hour – or nearly one hog every three seconds. With line speeds
this fast, workers often resort to brutality to keep the production line running to keep
from losing their jobs” (160). According to Dr. Lester Friedlander, a USDA veterinarian
in Pennsylvania, slaughterhouses operate under minor supervision:
USDA veterinarians do have the freedom to walk around the plant, but they don’t
concentrate on HSA violations. Their main job is pathology . . . In most plants,
inspectors are only required to look at 5 to 10 percent of [live] animals in motion,
so most of the time no one’s seeing what goes on in the pens. On the other hand,
the inspectors on large kill floors are usually a few hundred feet from the stunning
80
area, and there’s so much equipment between them that they can hardly see
what’s going on over there. (205-206)
Some states have introduced new welfare laws limiting or prohibiting cruel farming
practices that involve confinement of livestock, veal crates, battery cages, tail docking
and foie gras; however, these improvements have little meaning when animals are still
subjected to a miserable life and a gruesome death.
Sadly, animal treatment in the scientific community is held to an even lower
standard than in the agricultural industry. When pet owners allow “animals to suffer
untreated serious illnesses, the conduct may violate the anticruelty laws. But if a
researcher engages in the exact same conduct . . . the conduct is protected by the law
because the researcher is supposedly using the animal to generate a benefit” (Francione
71). The USDA has even “capitulated and adopted less rigorous standards that accord
discretion to the attending veterinarian to determine the appropriate standards . . . in light
of the needs and resources of a given research facility” (74). The Animal Welfare Act
“requires that researchers provide animals with a minimum level of care, such as minimal
food, water, and cage space,” but this is done only “to ensure that all animals will be
useful as producers of reliable scientific data” (71). Animals are morally eligible for
humane treatment and equal rights, but, until the law recognizes them as more than
personal property, they will continue to suffer.
Animals as People
Animal protection lawyer, Steven Wise, has an ambitious goal. He hopes to one
day “overturn 2,000 years of law by winning basic common law rights for other sentient
81
beings” (Russell). At the present time, “the property status of animals . . . precludes the
recognition of any animal interests beyond those required to ensure that humans benefit
from the exploitation of” the nonhuman (Francione 98). In recent years, America has
enacted many welfare laws, but, besides easing the conscience of the consumer, these
regulations have had little impact on the actual lives of animals. Bestowing “‘better’
treatment to animals has nothing necessarily to do with making their interests morally
significant” (100). Doubling the size of a chicken’s cage, for instance, will never result
in her freedom, but it allows the public to feel better without condemning animal “use in
research, in circuses, or as food” (Russell). Much like the welfare movements that
occurred during American slavery, modern welfare initiatives are also ineffective because
“the law has presumed that the owners of animals will act to protect their economic
interest in the animal property, and that their self-interest will provide a sufficient level of
protection for the animal” (Francione 98). Realistically, there can be no compromise:
“either animal interests are morally significant . . . or animals are merely things that have
no moral status” (100).
Wise believes that the nonhuman deserves “personhood” standing, which would
include the right “to bodily liberty and bodily integrity” (Russell). It is important to note,
however, that personhood does not mean that animals would become humans; rather,
they would become, in the eyes of the law, “beings to whom the principle of equal
consideration applies and to whom we have direct moral obligations” (Francione 101).
Richard Cupp, a Pepperdine University law professor, fears that the animal rights
movement is not the best approach “because it pretends that animals have the capacity to
82
engage in a social contract when they don’t” (Russell). Then again, children and the
mentally insane cannot enter into a legally binding contract, yet they still possess basic
rights and protections. Extending rights to animals does not mean that animals should be
allowed to vote, acquire a driver’s license, or own property; instead, they should only be
entitled to “receive three essential human rights – life, liberty, and freedom from physical
and psychological torture” (Russell).
By applying the principle of equal consideration to all sentient beings, we are not
vowing to protect animals from being harmed in the wild, nor are we guaranteeing that
there will never be an incident of accidental injury. Acknowledging animals as people
simply means that “we must extend to animals the basic right not to be treated as our
resources” (Francione 101). The concept is relatively straightforward, but its application
requires Americans to completely change their lifestyle. The way we eat, the clothes we
wear, the cosmetic products we use, the medicines we take and the activities we enjoy all
rely on some form of animal exploitation. These habits are extremely difficult to break,
“but that does not mean they are morally justifiable. It is precisely in situations where
both moral issues and strong personal preferences come into play that we should be most
careful to think clearly” (188). The legal system is a process that involves “incremental
change;” therefore, it may be years before animals gain “human-style civil and legal
rights” (Russell). Regrettably, waiting for a more hopeful tomorrow is a luxury that
many animals do not have. Their individual fates depend on the choices that humans
make today. I can only hope that this thesis has provided enough evidence to convince
my readers to make the right ones.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals
are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi (“Best Vegetarian”)
Several years ago, my father and I went grocery shopping at a local health food
store. While walking from one aisle to the next, we came across the meat and seafood
department. For a moment, we stopped and discussed, between ourselves, the many
benefits of a vegan diet. During our private conversation, a middle-aged man approached
us and proudly proclaimed, “I eat meat because it gives animals a purpose. Without me,
they would have no reason to exist.” At the time, his comment left me speechless.
Looking back, however, I wonder what his response would have been if I had asked him
to explain his position. What motivates so many Americans to continue a lifestyle built
upon the exploitation and oppression of the nonhuman? Is Western society’s excessive
use of animals based on need, selfishness, ignorance, or deep-rooted speciesism?
Animal products and by-products are no longer needed for survival. In fact, a
vegan diet plays an essential role in maintaining optimum human health and
environmental wellness. I highly doubt that the man I met in the grocery store would
undergo extreme hardship if he was suddenly unable to eat steak. Rather than acting out
of necessity, the American consumer is instead driven by a schizophrenic morality. To
the casual observer, Western society appears to respect the interests of the nonhuman.
83
84
In the United States, pets are treated like family members and welfare laws are passed
with unwavering support. Then again, animal use has increased substantially, generating
10.153 billion deaths in meat production alone. Animal abuse is condemned as long as
human interests are not adversely affected. Most meat eaters would never even consider
harming their beloved companion animals, yet they fiercely defend the enslavement and
destruction of livestock and wildlife. It is inexcusable to attribute man’s destructive
conduct to a lack of knowledge or self-discipline. What, then, is the true reason for this
erratic behavior?
Western society’s current relationship with the nonhuman is a product of religious
beliefs, literary representation, historical exploitation and scientific discoveries. The
Judeo-Christian faith has firmly established man’s superiority in the Universe. Made in
the image of God, Homo sapiens possess dominion over all of creation. Rather than
interpreting this God-given authority as one that requires responsibility and stewardship,
mankind perceives animals as resources to be exploited for human benefit. Throughout
history, literary works have aided the church by emphasizing the degraded nature of the
nonhuman. In addition, societies have justified slavery and genocide by assigning animal
characteristics to humans. Despite the scientific evidence verifying animal sentience,
humans prefer to visualize nonhumans as unconscious machines that can neither think
nor feel pain.
For most Americans, animal consciousness, even when acknowledged, is still not
enough to validate a major lifestyle change. Beginning at birth, children are improperly
exposed to animals through anthropomorphic methods. As adults, men and women are
85
constantly encouraged to participate in activities that directly cause animal suffering.
Americans are brainwashed by their culture into believing that the nonhuman is morally
insignificant. Accordingly, when compassion is absent, the law must require a person’s
rights to be recognized. In the United States, African Americans and women did not gain
equality by the kindness of strangers. Similarly, the man I met in the grocery store will
probably never consider the interests of animals unless he is obligated under the law.
Until animals are granted legal personhood status, they will remain nothing more than
expendable pieces of property.
There is a massive amount of material concerning the nonhuman. Entire books
have been written about animal law. Countless essays and articles discuss animal
sentience. Even Alex, the African Grey parrot, has a few books detailing his life. The
most difficult aspect of writing this thesis was deciding which elements to include and
which to cut. Each chapter could easily be expanded into its own thesis project.
However, my intention has not been to uncover every detail involving anthropomorphism
or animal intelligence. Instead, I wish to provide the reader only the tools necessary to
act. If I am able to convince just one individual to reconsider his or her lifestyle choices
in recognition of animal interests, then all of my efforts will have been worthwhile.
In October of 2011, my father and I visited Farm Sanctuary, an animal protection
organization located in Watkins Glen, New York. While touring their farm, we met a
remarkable goat who had experienced, firsthand, the effects of being personal property.
When Juniper arrived at Farm Sanctuary, she “had only three-quarters of her back left leg
and no hoof on her back right leg. Sharp bone protruded through both back legs, and she
86
was dehydrated and malnourished. The tips of both her ears were missing and her body
was covered with lice” (“Rescue”). Juniper’s injuries, which were the result of frostbite,
forced doctors to amputate her back left leg. Today, with the help of a prosthetic limb,
she roams freely around the farm. Juniper, as shown in figure 10, is living proof that
animals can suffer, but she also demonstrates that animals can experience happiness.
Americans know the difference between what is right and wrong, which is why most
consumers could never slaughter an animal themselves. As a society, it is time we realize
that using animal products and by-products is the same as abusing and killing animals,
like Juniper, with our own hands.
Fig. 10. Second Chances (Juniper)
Works Cited
Adams, Carol J., and Josephine Donovan. “Introduction.” Animals and Women: Feminist
Theoretical Explorations. Ed. Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan. Durham:
Duke UP, 1995. 1-8. Print.
Agassiz, Louis. Morton Race Table. Digital image. RACE. American Anthropological
Association, 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
“Animal Behaviour (I): Cold-blooded Cunning.” The Economist. The Economist
Newspaper, 14 July 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
“Animal Fighting Case Study: Michael Vick.” Animal Legal Defense Fund: Winning the
Case Against Cruelty. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Jan. 2011. Web. 21 Jan.
2011.
“anthropomorphism.” Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. MerriamWebster, Incorporated, 2012. Web. 22 Jan. 2012.
“Apple’s ‘Nike moment’: Dissecting the human cost of iPhones.” The Economic Times.
Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
“Behind the Myth: Cage Free Eggs.” HumaneMyth.org. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.
Belsey, Catherine. Poststructuralism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford UP,
2002. Print.
Bentham, Jeremy, and John Bowring. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Now First
Collected under the Superintendence of His Executor, John Bowring. Edinburgh:
87
88
William Tait, 1838. Print.
“Best Vegetarian Quotes.” Veganise.Me. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
Bhanoo, Sindya N. “To Find Tasty Larvae, Lizards Use Their Brains.” The New York
Times. The New York Times Co., 18 July 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
“Bigger Not Necessarily Better, When It Comes to Brains.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily,
17 Nov. 2009. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Blakeslee, Sandra. “Minds of Their Own: Birds Gain Respect.” The New York Times:
Science. The New York Times Co., 1 Feb. 2005. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Brunner, Borgna, and Mark Hughes. “Thanksgiving Traditions: A Presidential Pardon —
Infoplease.com.” Infoplease: All the Knowledge You Need. Pearson Education,
Inc., 2007. Web. 5 Jan. 2012.
“Burger King Cheesy Bacon Tendercrisp.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. Burger King Co.
24 Aug. 2008. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
Butler, Margaret. “Nike’s Love Affair with Sweatshops: Still Doing It.” Labor Notes.
Labor Education and Research Project, 29 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Apr. 2012.
Campbell, Colin T. The China Study: Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and
Long-term Health. Dallas: BenBella, 2005. Print.
Carus, Felicity. “UN urges global move to meat and dairy-free diet.” Guardiannews.com.
The Guardian, 2 June 2010. Web. 28 Dec. 2012.
Cenicola, Tony. “Chicken’s Attraction Is Truly Skin Deep.” The New York Times: Dining
& Wine. Digital Image. The New York Times Co., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 4 Feb.
2012.
89
“Chickens and Turkeys: Bred for Pain.” Chooseveg.com. Mercy for Animals – Animal
Rights Organization Promoting a Vegetarian Diet. Web. 5 Jan. 2012.
Columbus, Christopher. “Letters of Columbus, Describing the Results of His First
Voyage.” The Bedford Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan
Belasco and Linck Johnson. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 68-73. Print.
Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness: Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Contexts
Criticism. Ed. Paul B. Armstrong. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 2006. Print.
Davies, Gareth Huw. “Bird Brains.” The Life of Birds. PBS. Web. 3 Mar. 2012.
“The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription.” The Charters of Freedom. National
Archives and Records Administration. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
De Las Casas, Bartolomé. “A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies.” Early
American Writings. Ed. Carla Mulford. Oxford University Press. 2002. 52-60.
Print.
DiGregorio, Sarah. “Chicken’s Attraction Is Truly Skin Deep.” The New York Times:
Dining & Wine. The New York Times Co., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
“Dr. Carl Sagan quotes.” ThinkExist.com Quotations Online. 1 Feb. 2012. Web. 10 Mar.
2012.
Dunayer, Joan. “Sexist Words, Speciesist Roots.” Animals and Women: Feminist
Theoretical Explorations. Ed. Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan. Durham:
Duke UP, 1995. 11-31. Print.
“Eagles, Michael Vick Reach 6-year Deal.” ESPN: NFL. ESPN, 30 Aug. 2011. Web. 21
Jan. 2012.
90
Eisemann, C. H., W. K. Jorgensen, D. J. Merritt, M. J. Rice, B. W. Cribb, P. D. Webb,
and M. P. Zalucki. “Do Insects Feel Pain? — A Biological View.” Experientia
40.2 (1984): 164-67. Print.
Eisnitz, Gail A. Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane
Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry. Amherst, New York: Prometheus, 2007.
Print.
“A Farm Sanctuary Research Report: The Welfare of Cattle in Dairy Production.” Farm
Sanctuary. Farm Sanctuary, Inc., June 2005. Web. 28 Dec. 2011.
49 United States Code Ann. §80502 (1994). Web.
Francione, Gary L. Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia:
Temple UP, 2005. Print.
Freeman, Carrie P. “Will You Pardon Your Turkey & Eat Him Too, Mr President?”
Common Dreams: Building Progressive Community. Common Dreams, 20 Nov.
2011. Web. 1 Jan. 2012.
Gandhi, Renu, and Suzanne M. Snedeker. “Consumer Concerns About Hormones in
Food.” Program on Breast Cancer and Environmental Risk Factors. Cornell
University, June 2000. Web. 28 Dec. 2011.
Grandin, Temple, and Catherine Johnson. Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best
Life for Animals. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010. Print.
Hance, Jeremy. “Uncovering the intelligence of insects, an interview with Lars Chittka.”
Mongabay.com. Mongabay, 29 June 2010. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
“Happy Cows TV.” Real California Dairy. Digital Image. California Milk Advisory
91
Board. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
“Hatchery Horrors: The Egg Industry’s Tiniest Victims.” mercyforanimals.org. Mercy
for Animals – Animal Rights Organization Promoting a Vegetarian Diet. Web. 7
Jan. 2012.
“Heavenbound BBQ.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. 11 Apr. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
“The Hidden Lives of Cows.” PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2012.
Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
Hoberman, J. “The Cold War Sci-Fi Parable That Fell to Earth.” The New York Times:
Movies. The New York Times Co., 31 Oct. 2008. Web. 25 Feb. 2012.
Hoffman, Thomas J. “Moving beyond dualism: A dialogue with Western European and
American Indian views of spirituality.” Social Science Journal. 34 (1997): 447.
Print.
“Honey Nut Cheerios: Honey Defender.” Honeydefender.com. General Mills. Web. 4
Feb. 2012.
Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals,
Environment. London: Routledge, 2010. Print.
Juniper, Watkins Glen, New York. 23 Oct. 2011. Personal photograph by Joseph Sabo.
JPEG file.
Keim, Brandon. “Humans and Chimpanzees Share Roots of Language.” Wired.com.
Conde Nast Digital, 28 Feb. 2008. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Keller, David R. Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions. Chichester, West Sussex:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Print.
92
Kirby, Alex. “Fish Do Feel Pain, Scientists Say.” BBC News. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 30 Apr. 2003. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Kluger, Jeffrey. “Inside The Minds Of Animals. (Cover Story).” Time 176.7 (2010): 3643. Academic Search Complete. Web. 10 Mar. 2012.
Leal, Manuel, and Brian J. Powell. “Behavioural flexibility and problem-solving in a
tropical lizard.” Biology Letters. Royal Society Publishing, 23 June 2011. Web.
11 Jan. 2012.
Lee, J. “The Modern Dairy Factories.” Digital image. The Conscientious Cuisine. 3 Sept.
2007. Web. 3 Nov. 2011.
McCrone, John. “Smarter Than The Average Bug.” New Scientist 190.2553 (2006): 3739. Academic Search Complete. Web. 11 Mar. 2012.
Montgomery, Sy. “Stalking Spiders.” Discover Magazine. Kalmbach Publishing Co., 5
Feb. 2004. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Morell, Virginia. “Minds of their Own: Animals are smarter than you think.” National
Geographic Magazine. National Geographic Society, Mar. 2008. Web. 11 Jan.
2012.
9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §904.03(A)(1) (2010). Web.
9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §945 (1965). Web.
9 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §955.03 (1953). Web.
Oberschlake v. Veterinary Assoc. Animal Hosp., 151 Ohio App.3d 741, 785 N.E.2d 811
(Ohio App. 2 Dist., 2003).
“Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board: Board Members.” Ohio Livestock Care
93
Standards Board. Ohio Department of Agriculture. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
Pacher v. Invisible Fence of Dayton, 154 Ohio App.3d 744, 798 N.E.2d 1121 (Ohio
2003).
“pardon.” Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated, 2012. Web. 1 Jan. 2012.
Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72, 451 N.E.2d 759 (Ohio 1983).
Pearson, Harry. “Do Fish Have Feelings Too?” Guardiannews.com. The Guardian, 20
June 2007. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Pepperberg, Irene M. “Talking with Alex: Logic.” Scientific American Presents:
Exploring Intelligence. Scientific American, Inc., Aug. 2004. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Pijoan, Teresa. White Wolf Woman And Other Native American Transformation Myths.
Little Rock: August House Publishers, Inc., 1992. Print.
“RACE - History - One Race or Several Species.” RACE. American Anthropological
Association, 2007. Web. 11 Feb. 2012.
Ralph, Talia. “Homicide No Longer a Leading Cause of Death in the US.” GlobalPost.
11 Jan. 2012. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.
Reilly, Rick. “Time to Forgive Vick Is Here.” ESPN: Commentary. ESPN, 3 Jan. 2012.
Web. 21 Jan. 2012.
“Report: Number of Animals Killed In US Increases in 2010.” Farm Animal Rights
Movement. Web. 14 Jan. 2012.
“Rescue & Adoptions.” Farm Sanctuary. Farm Sanctuary, Inc. Web. 15 Mar. 2012.
Russell, Sue. “Should Animals Be Considered People?” Miller-McCune. Miller-McCune
94
Center, 20 Dec. 2011. Web. 22 Dec. 2011.
Santayana, George. The Life of Reason; Or, The Phases of Human Progress,. Vol. 1.
New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1905. Print.
“savage.” Oxford Dictionaries: The world’s most trusted dictionaries. Oxford University
Press, 2012. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
Schandler, Stephanie. “Starkist Tuna: Always in Good Taste That Tastes Good Too.”
Examiner.com. Digital Image. Clarity Digital Group LLC, 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 4
Feb. 2012.
“Scientists Highlight Fish ‘intelligence.’” BBC News. British Broadcasting Corporation,
31 Aug. 2003. Web. 21 Jan. 2011.
Scott, Michael. “Anthony Sowell to Die for Murders of 11 Women; Judge Accepts Jury’s
Advice.” Cleveland.com. Cleveland Live LLC, 12 Aug. 2011. Web. 12 Feb. 2012.
Sherrer, Nathan. “Probing the Relationship Between Native Americans and Ecology.”
Journal of Science and Health at the University of Alabama. 4 (August 2006): 1618. Print.
Sneddon, Lynne U. “Can Animals Feel Pain?” Pain. The Wellcome Trust. Web. 10 Mar.
2012.
Soniak, Matt. “Free Bird: The History of Presidential Turkey Pardoning.” Mental_floss:
Where Knowledge Junkies Get Their Fix. Mental Floss Inc., 21 Nov. 2011. Web.
21 Jan. 2012.
Stanley, Steven M. Earth System History. 3rd ed. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman, 2009.
Print.
95
Sterne, Laurence. A Sentimental Journey Through France and Italy by Mr. Yorick. 2nd
ed. Vol. 1. London: J. Creswick, 1768. Print.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Ed. Stephen Railton. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2008. Print.
“‘A Tale of the Foundation of the Great Island, Now North America’ (Tuscarora).” The
Bedford Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan Belasco and Linck
Johnson. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 37. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. “Resistance to Civil Government.” Bedford Anthology of
American Literature. Vol. 1 Eds. Susan Belasco and Linck Johnson. New York:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. 794-809. Print.
Toglia, Michelle. “Paris Hilton’s Mini Dog Mansion.” Paw Nation: Humans Welcome.
AOL Inc., 12 June 2009. Web. 21 Jan. 2012.
“Turkey Terrific.” Suicide Food. Digital Image. 15 May 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2012.
“Unit Two: Studying Africa through the Social Studies.” Exploring Africa. Digital Image.
MATRIX. 4 Feb. 2012.
“Vegan and Vegetarian Quotes.” Vegan Outreach. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
Viegas, Jennifer. “Scientists find out that dolphins ‘talk’ like humans.” Msnbc.com.
MSNBC Digital Network, 6 Sept. 2011. Web. 11 Jan. 2012.
Waldau, Paul. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. New
York: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.
“Welcome to Charlie’s® Page.” StarKist. Digital Image. StarKist Co., 2012. Web. 4 Feb.
2012.
96
Westervelt, Miriam O., and Lynn G. Llewellyn. Youth and Wildlife: The Beliefs and
Behaviors of Fifth and Sixth Grade Students regarding Non-domestic Animals.
Washington, D.C.: Division of Program Plans, Office of Planning and Budget,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Dept. of the Interior, 1986. Print.
Whitmire, Lou. “Chardon Tragedy: Are Local Schools Prepared?”
MansfieldNewsJournal.com. Gannett Company Inc., 4 Mar. 2012. Web. 4 Mar.
2012.
“Who Is the Cheerios® Mascot?” Cheerios. Digital Image. General Mills, 2012. Web. 4
Feb. 2012.
Wilson, Scott. “Animals and Ethics.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 13 Jan. 2010.
Web. 7 Jan. 2012.
Yule, George. The Study of Language. 4th ed. New York: Cambridge University Press,
2010. Print.
Works Consulted
Adams, Carol J. Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. New
York: Continuum, 1995. Print.
Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-vegetarian Critical Theory.
New York: Continuum, 2004. Print.
Arluke, Arnold, and Clinton R. Sanders. Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple UP,
1996. Print.
Baker, Steve. Picturing the Beast: Animals, Identity, and Representation. Manchester:
Manchester UP, 1993. Print.
Baur, Gene. Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds about Animals and Food.
New York: Touchstone, 2008. Print.
Bekoff, Marc. The Animal Manifesto: Six Reasons for Expanding Our Compassion
Footprint. Novato: New World Library, 2010. Print.
Bekoff, Marc. The Emotional Lives of Animals: A Leading Scientist Explores Animal Joy,
Sorrow, and Empathy--and Why They Matter. Novato: New World Library, 2007.
Print.
Best, Steven, and Anthony J. Nocella. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?: Reflections on
the Liberation of Animals. New York: Lantern, 2004. Print.
Foer, Jonathan Safran. Eating Animals. New York: Little, Brown and, 2009. Print.
Francione, Gary L., and Robert Garner. The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or
Regulation? New York: Columbia UP, 2010. Print.
97
98
Francione, Gary L. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation.
New York: Columbia UP, 2009. Print.
Francione, Gary L. Animals, Property, and the Law. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1995.
Print.
Francione, Gary L. Rain without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement.
Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1996. Print.
Herzog, Hal. Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s so Hard to Think
Straight about Animals. New York: Harper, 2010. Print.
Hribal, Jason. Fear of the Animal Planet: The Hidden History of Animal Resistance.
Petrolia: CounterPunch, 2010. Print.
Joy, Melanie. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to
Carnism: The Belief System That Enables Us to Eat Some Animals and Not
Others. San Francisco: Conari, 2010. Print.
Kalof, Linda, and Amy J. Fitzgerald. The Animals Reader: The Essential Classic and
Contemporary Writings. Oxford: Berg, 2007. Print.
Linzey, Andrew. The Link between Animal Abuse and Human Violence. Brighton,
England: Sussex Academic, 2009. Print.
Lovitz, Dara. Muzzling a Movement: The Effects of Anti-terrorism Law, Money, and
Politics on Animal Activism. New York: Lantern, 2010. Print.
Marcus, Erik. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, & Money. Boston: Brio, 2005. Print.
Mason, Jim. An Unnatural Order: Why We Are Destroying the Planet and Each Other.
New York: Lantern, 2005. Print.
99
Nelson, Barney. The Wild and the Domestic: Animal Representation, Ecocriticism, and
Western American Literature. Reno: University of Nevada, 2000. Print.
Nibert, David Alan. Animal Rights/Human Rights: Entanglements of Oppression and
Liberation. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. Print.
Patterson, Charles. Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust. New
York: Lantern, 2002. Print.
Regan, Tom. The Case for Animal Rights: Updated with a New Preface. Berkeley:
University of California, 2004. Print.
Scully, Matthew. Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to
Mercy. New York: St. Martin’s, 2003. Print.
Simons, John. Animal Rights and the Politics of Literary Representation. Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2001. Print.
Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. New
York: Harper Perennial, 2009. Print.
Singer, Peter. In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. Malden: Blackwell Pub., 2006.
Print.
Smith, Wesley J. A Rat Is a Pig Is a Dog Is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights
Movement. New York: Encounter, 2010. Print.
Spiegel, Marjorie. The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. New York:
Mirror, 1996. Print.
Steiner, Gary. Anthropocentrism and Its Discontents: The Moral Status Animals in the
History of Western Philosophy. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 2005. Print.
100
Sunstein, Cass R., and Martha Craven Nussbaum. Animal Rights: Current Debates and
New Directions. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print.
Torres, Bob. Making a Killing: The Political Economy of Animal Rights. Oakland: AK,
2007. Print.
Wise, Steven M. An American Trilogy: Death, Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of
the Cape Fear River. Philadelphia: Da Capo, 2009. Print.
Wise, Steven M. Drawing the Line: Science and the Case for Animal Rights. Cambridge:
Perseus, 2002. Print.