Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Why A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy?

Welcome to my new blog: A Rat Is A Pig Is A Dog Is A Boy--or Rat Pig Dog Boy, for short, or to be even shorter, RPDB.

Why this blog? Clearly, I hope it will supplement, compliment, and boost my upcoming book carrying the same title currently set for release in January 2010.

Of course, that begs the question: Why the book? The answer to that is literally a book-length tale, but here is a brief section of the introduction that will give you an idea of why I am engaged in the animal rights debate:

It is not my purpose in this book to act as a defender of of animal industries. Rather, my goals are primarily to expose the anti-human ideology of animal rights/liberation, expose the movement's many deceptions, and warn against the sometimes violent tactics of the animal rights/liberation movement. I will also defend the propriety of using animals as necessary and proper to promoting human welfare, prosperity, and happiness. Finally, I will mount an unequivocal defense of the belief that human beings uniquely stand at the pinnacle of moral worth–a concept sometimes called human exceptionalism.

I am very well aware that these positions--once nearly universally accepted—have, in recent years, become intensely controversial. Indeed, few issues generate such intense emotionalism or fervent support by its adherents as does "animal rights." Thus, I want to make it very clear at the outset--as I will throughout the book--that I love animals and like most people, I wince when I see them in pain. Moreover, I believe strongly that as enlightened people, we have a profound moral and ethical obligation to treat animals humanely and with proper respect--a core obligation of human exceptionalism--and by all means, to never cause them to suffer for frivolous reasons. I also strongly support laws against cruelty to animals and support strengthening them when appropriate. Indeed, I believe that animal abuse is a terrible wrong, not only because it causes the victimized animal to suffer, but also because cruelty to animals diminishes our own humanity.

Now, consider why I felt it necessary to make such an unusual disclaimer: Over the past thirty years, the concept of "animal rights" has seeped deeply into the bone marrow of Western culture. (This is especially true among the young.) Part of this support is based on a very loose use of the term "animal rights" as about being nicer to animals. It isn't--although sometimes animal rights groups engage in animal welfare-type activism. Rather, animal rights is actually a belief system, an ideology, and for some even a quasi-religion that both implicitly and explicitly seeks to create a moral equivalency between the value of human lives and those of animals.

So what will we be doing between now and the release of the book? The same thing we will be doing afterward; thinking about, discussing, and from my perspective--exposing--the philosophy, foibles, fables, and anti-human agenda of animal rights/liberation. In fact, the human use of animals, its propriety, its controversy, and stories in the news about the animal rights and animal welfare will be the only subjects this blog will consider.

One final note: I believe very strongly in the open exchange of ideas. I do not censor comments--especially those that are critical of my views and work. But I do insist on decorum. So, no cussing, no name calling, no threats, no spamming. Other than that, let's have at it.

Oh, if you are also interested in other issues impacting on human exceptionalism such as assisted suicide, human cloning, bioethics, radical environmentalism, and all that jazz, be sure to check out my other blog: Secondhand Smoke: Your 24/7 Seminar on Bioethics and the Importance of Being Human.

1 comment:

  1. You go, guy.

    Here's a great example of gullibility at work:

    At a meeting of dog rescue groups, concerning proposed legislation, two or three people spoke out against a portion of the law that would allow unannounced inspections, without search warrants, of foster homes. We had asked our fosterers if they would continue fostering if this went into effect, and most had replied that they would not. (*All* of mine did.)

    This, obviously (I thought) would mean more dogs dying in shelters, since there would be far fewer people willing to foster. Yet, some silly person spoke up and said, "But if it's for the good of the dogs, shouldn't we do it?"

    I can't believe how many people fall for that bul- oops, I mean, haven't learned elementary logic in 16 years of schooling!