Preface: This article is the fifth installment in a series discussing obstacles to abolition—the ending of all slavery—that movements for proto-abolition—the ending of human slavery—did not have to face.
Think, think, think….
Another significant obstacle that an abolition movement faces but which is not faced by a proto-abolition movement pertains to the massive amount of thinking involved. Specifically, when slaves are human, those human slaves can assist with the enormous amount of cognitive work that must be done.
Changing an entire society’s unjust laws and eradicating an entire culture’s false beliefs requires an enormous amount of analysis, research, imagination, calculation, strategizing, and planning. This intellectual dimension of a social change movement may well be the hardest part of all. In the context of human slavery, the most direct victims—slaves and former slaves themselves—can participate fully in this difficult task. They know the slavery system better than anyone, and they can use this knowledge to help identify weaknesses, formulate counter-arguments, and otherwise chisel away at the walls of collective delusion.
Unfortunately, abolitionists cannot expect the animals for whom they work to shoulder much of this cognitive burden. Horses—who provided the key military advantage in human affairs for over 1000 years—cannot offer a similar advantage in the context of research and development. Dogs—arguably the most selfless and courageous species, on average, of any with whom humans have interacted—cannot draw a roadmap for use in transforming humans into ethical nobility. Yes, both of these species can lead by example, through the testimony of their personal behavior. But it will remain up to humans to extract lessons from such examples, articulate those lessons, disseminate them, and apply them.
The fact that the most direct victims of slavery cannot fully participate in the intellectual work necessary for change should not discourage us. We will win as sure as the sun will rise. But acknowledging the special challenges faced by a full abolition movement will hopefully help to inoculate modern abolitionists against some of the burnout, frustration, and fatigue to which they may otherwise be susceptible.
A look ahead…
In this “Special Challenges” series, we’ll explore additional ways in which proto-abolition or proto-emancipation movements differ from abolition and emancipation movements. If you have comments, suggestions, or contributions, please feel free to send them along.
Preface: This article is the fourth installment in a series discussing obstacles to abolition—the ending of all slavery—that movements for proto-abolition—the ending of human slavery—did not have to face.
Thanklessness: the gratitude gap
Another significant obstacle that an abolition movement faces but which is not faced by a proto-abolition movement can be called the “gratitude gap”: when slaves are human, those human slaves—once freed—can express gratitude to the people who helped emancipate them. Specifically, because humans understand the tangible impact of abstractions, a former human slave understands and appreciates the labor of those who helped to change the political and economic system that once held those former slaves in bondage.
Thus, for instance, former human slaves could express their thanks to someone like Thaddeus Stevens or Angelina Grimké, even though they had never interacted directly. Such gratitude not only rewards proto-abolitionists for their work after it has been completed, but the promise of such appreciation in the future also helps to motivate proto-abolitionists to hang in there before their work is done.
Unfortunately, abolitionists cannot expect any such reward from the animals for whom they work. A cow will never know that a human manager is out there building an abolitionist political party on her behalf. A mouse will never know that a human lawyer is out there fighting for animal rights. Yes, an animal may indeed be eternally grateful to a human who physically opens a cage and carries that animal to freedom, as in the case of a beagle who is rescued from a torture (“vivisection”) laboratory. But more abstract work performed by the many other people who participate in such a rescue will never be understood by the beneficiaries thereof.
That’s okay, of course. We will win without the need for appreciation. But it’s probably a good thing to accept from the outset that working for abolition will be a “thankless” endeavor.
A look ahead…
In this “Special Challenges” series, we’ll explore additional ways in which proto-abolition or proto-emancipation movements differ from abolition and emancipation movements. If you have comments, suggestions, or contributions, please feel free to send them along.
Preface: This article is the third installment in a series discussing obstacles to abolition—the ending of all slavery—that movements for proto-abolition—the ending of human slavery—did not have to face.
Victim testimony
Another significant difficulty that an abolition movement faces but which is not faced by a proto-abolition movement is an evidentiary problem, specifically, the lack of victim testimony. When slaves are human, those human slaves are articluate survivors of and eyewitnesses to the atrocities that are perpetrated against slaves. When given the opportunity to do so, human slaves or former slaves can immediately describe—in human language—what happened to them or their fellow slaves. Virtually no testimony is more powerful than that of the eyewitness or the victim himself or herself; thus, the ability of human slaves to provide such testimony is an enormous benefit to a proto-abolition movement.
The uniquely powerful value of the eyewitness and survivor can be illustrated though comparison of William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass. Garrison was undoubtedly one of the most committed and articulate proto-abolitionists of any generation, and he played an integral role in the U.S.’s proto-abolition movement of the 1800s. But, upon meeting Douglass, Garrison recognized that Douglass—as a first-hand survivor of and eyewitness to human slavery—could speak with an authority that Garrison could not fully possess. Thus, after the two met, Garrison redirected much of his energy into elevating Douglass’s voice over his own.
Unfortunately, a full abolition movement cannot expect any such testimony from slavery survivors who are not human. No turkey will write an article about the bloodbath that Americans call “Thanksgiving.” No hen will deliver a speech about life in a cage that was too small for her to raise her wings. No pig will recount the experience of being castrated without anesthesia. There may, in short, never be a Frederick Douglass for the modern abolition movement.
Notwithstanding this absence of testimony from actual survivors, abolitionists still can get eyewitness information. One way to get eyewitness information is through undercover work: a human can infiltrate an animal-killing or animal-raping business and use a camera to take footage of the horrors perpetrated against the victims of such businesses. This route is employed today by organizations such as Compassion Over Killing and Mercy for Animals. Also, certain animal abuses leave a physical effect on the victim’s body which can be seen by a third party, even if the victim cannot verbally convey the pain of experience such abuse.
In short, while the challenge is greater without the benefit of first-hand survivor testimony, this absence can be partly offset through human effort and observation.
In this “Special Challenges” series, we’ll explore additional ways in which proto-abolition or proto-emancipation movements differ from abolition and emancipation movements. If you have comments, suggestions, or contributions, please feel free to send them along.
Preface: This article is the second installment in a series discussing obstacles to abolition—the ending of all slavery—that movements for proto-abolition—the ending of human slavery—did not have to face.
Collective resistance
Another significant difference between ending human slavery and ending slavery of other animals pertains to collective resistance, armed revolt, and organized rebellion: when humans are slaves, the potential for an armed, organized slave uprising is present at virtually all times. This threat puts pressure on the oppressor class, forcing them to spend a significant portion of their resources on precautionary measures to guard against a revolt. In short, the “slave front” drains the oppressor’s resources in its war against the slaves. Moreover, actual slave uprisings, e.g., Nat Turner’s Rebellion (the “Southampton Insurrection”) (1831), sometimes break out despite the oppressors’ safeguards, inflicting damage directly upon the slaveholder class, their persons and their property.
Unfortunately, however, a full abolition movement can expect to receive very little assistance from the slave front. The possibility of, for example, laboratory rats organizing a coordinated, armed, violent uprising is virtually non-existent. The same goes for, say, farmed animals who are slated for slaughter: a collective revolt comprising sheep or cows or chickens is just very unlikely.
Yes, occasional acts of individual heroism do occur, as in the case of a lion or tiger who kills a circus trainer. But collective, sustained revolt from within the slave class will not happen. To my knowledge, only primates and elephants have been documented to engage in substantial, coordinated retaliatory action against homo sapiens.
That a full abolition movement cannot expect to benefit from help of the slaves themselves does not itself, of course, render abolition impossible. We will win. But it is helpful to appreciate that the challenges facing a full abolition movement are substantially larger than those that have been surmounted by proto-abolition movements and that some of the resources with which to meet those challenges are not as readily available to a full abolition movement.
A look ahead…
In this “Special Challenges” series, we’ll explore additional ways in which proto-abolition or proto-emancipation movements differ from abolition and emancipation movements. If you have comments, suggestions, or contributions, please feel free to send them along.
Preface: This article is the first in a series of articles discussing obstacles to abolition—the ending of all slavery—that movements for proto-abolition—the ending of human slavery—did not have to face.
The virtuous cycle
One significant difference between ending human slavery and ending slavery of other animals pertains to what may be called a “virtuous cycle”: when a human slave is freed, he or she becomes part of the anti-slavery movement. The former slave can take up arms—literally or figuratively—against the enslavement of other humans. Thus, a proto-abolition movement accelerates with each and every successful freeing of an individual.
That virtuous feedback cycle does not, unfortunately, happen when slaves of other species are freed. For instance, when a cat is rescued from a vivisection lab, that cat is not going to pick up a pen or a sword to help free other cats from torture.
This distinction is but one of the many reasons why the movement to end slavery—meaning, all slavery—faces numerous challenges not faced by movements that were directed at ending human slavery only. We’ll win anyway, but it’s important to understand that simply repeating what proto-abolition movements did will not likely suffice for full abolition.
A look ahead…
In this “Special Challenges” series, we’ll explore additional ways in which proto-abolition or proto-emancipation movements differ from abolition and emancipation movements. If you have comments, suggestions, or contributions, please feel free to send them along.
DAPC: Enforcing Cruelty Laws against Vivisectionists
(Original article publication date: May 7, 2011 (Cruelty-Free))
When most people see animals being tortured, they recoil in horror. But vivisection has nonetheless survived through the massive dollars and influence that universities, pharmaceutical companies, and medical lobbying groups wield.
In an effort to rally resources to stop animal torture, here’s a proposed acronym: DAPC.
DAPC stands for “Delicense, Arrest, Prosecute and Convict.” These are basically the four steps that need to be taken to eliminate vivisection. Specifically, “doctors” who torture animals must be stripped of their medical licenses. Obviously, torture is not part of the healing profession and is fundamentally contrary to the vows to which legitimate medical professionals adhere. Those who commit vivisection must then be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for felony animal abuse.
Thus, the project in whole would be called “DAPC: Vivisection.” Just a thought. Here’s a little graphic that you are free to use for any anti-vivisection purpose.
The naturalist fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since something occurs in nature, that thing is morally acceptable. An example of the naturalist fallacy would be:
Rape occurs in nature. Not only do humans commit rape, but other species commit rape as well. Therefore, rape is acceptable.
While few people would hazard the above argument in polite society, millions of modern citizens use the exact same argument in a different context:
Killing and eating animals occurs in nature. Not only do humans kill and eat animals, but other species kill and eat animals as well. Therefore, killing and eating animals is acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift between descriptive premises (e.g., rape occurs) and a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., rape is okay). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a naturalist fallacy argument is to point out that mere occurrence of an event does not make it right. For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that our society has almost universally agreed that rape is unacceptable, even though it occurs.
Bird
2. False Dichotomy Fallacy
The false dichotomy fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which two alternative conclusions are assumed to be the only two possible conclusions. An example of the false dichotomy fallacy would be:
John is not an atheist. Therefore, he must be a Christian.
The reasoning is flawed because there are many more than two philosophical or religious positions available to a person. In the context of justifying and perpetuating inhumanity, the false dichotomy fallacy is used in a variety of ways, such as:
Going without protein is not healthy. Therefore, we must eat animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted assumption that there is a disjunctive (i.e., “either/or”) relationship between two terms (e.g., one must either be Christian or atheist). The argument is accordingly invalid. A way to undermine a false dichotomy argument is to point out that there is a third possible conclusion, one which can occur without either of the first two possible conclusions occurring.
For instance, in the first example above, the argument is undermined by pointing out that it is possible for a person to be neither an atheist nor a Christian but rather a Muslim.
3. Name-Of-God Fallacy
The name-of-God fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a seemingly atrocious act is committed in the name of religion, patriotism, science or some other cause, the act is acceptable. An example of the name of God fallacy would be:
The World Trade Center was destroyed and thousands of people died, but this action was committed in the name of God. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
This form of reasoning is unfortunately common in its usage today. The reasoning is flawed because a person’s motivation for committing an act is not sufficient to justify the act itself. Other examples include:
These dogs were intentionally drowned, but this action was committed for the advancement of science. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
These prisoners were intentionally tortured, but this action was committed in the name of patriotism. Therefore, this action was acceptable.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of an unwarranted shift from descriptive premises (e.g., the subjective intentions of a perpetrator) to a prescriptive or normative conclusion (e.g., a seemingly atrocious act is not atrocious). The argument is accordingly invalid. It may actually be worse than a bare ends-justify-the-means argument, since the name-of-God fallacy may be used even in the absence an “end” worth pursuing. A way to undermine a name-of-God argument is to point out that an atrocious act remains an atrocious act even when committed by someone who thinks that he or she is serving a cause or ideal.
4. Irrelevant Distinction Fallacy
The irrelevant distinction fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that, since a difference between two cases can be perceived, different treatment of the two cases is justified. An example of the irrelevant distinction fallacy would be:
Women and men have different chromosomes. Therefore, the legal system should treat women and men differently.
The reasoning is flawed because a mere scientific difference is not by itself sufficient to justify institutionalized legal discrimination. Other examples include:
These people are from a different culture. Therefore, they are inferior to us.
Humans are generally smarter than other animals. Therefore, only humans deserve rights.
These animals were intentionally burned alive, which would be a crime if committed at home. But these animals were intentionally burned alive in a university laboratory; therefore, this act was not a crime.
It is wrong to eat cats or dogs. But cows have hooves rather than paws. Therefore, it is not wrong to eat cows.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing fallacies of relevance are particularly easy to shoot down by following the irrelevant premises to some bizarre conclusion. For instance, in the first example above, the argument can be undermined by pointing out that if a mere chromosomal difference were enough to require legal distinction, then every unique individual (except for genetically identical twins) would have to have a one-person legal system made specially for them. Such a situation would render the notion of a “legal system” largely meaningless.
5. Appeal to Tradition
The appeal to tradition fallacy is a well-known flawed method of reasoning in which it is argued that since a seemingly atrocious act is part of a tradition, the act is not an atrocity. An example of the appeal to tradition fallacy would be:
Female genital mutilation (euphemistically called “female circumcision”) seems like an atrocity. But since female genital mutilation is part of the African tradition, female genital mutilation is not an atrocity.
The reasoning is flawed because the mere fact that an act has become a tradition does not make that act acceptable. Other examples include:
Torturing a trapped bull to death seems like an atrocity. But since bull “fighting” is a Spanish tradition, bull “fighting” is not an atrocity.
Torturing an animal to death seems like an atrocity. But this form of torture is part of our religious tradition. Therefore, this form of torture is not an atrocity.
In technical terms, this fallacy is simply one of relevance, i.e., the argument assumes without warrant that the premises offered have probative value with respect to the conclusion. The argument is accordingly invalid. Arguments employing this fallacy can be easily shot down by demonstrating that many traditions have already been abolished because they were, despite being traditions, obviously immoral. Human slavery would be a classic example.
6. Perfect-Voting-Record Fallacy
The perfect-voting-record fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which it is assumed that a small set of issues that were expressly considered represent all possible issues that could have been considered. An example of the PVR fallacy would be:
The terrorist regime of Q commits thousands of acts of terrorism every year, but only once has the Q leadership considered a limitation on terrorism. This limitation—which provided that suicide-bombers should not eat garlic—passed unanimously. Therefore, the terrorists of Q have a perfect voting record on terrorism.
While most people would not be duped by the above argument, many well-meaning activists go for the following argument and even use it themselves:
The meat-eaters of political party J kill and eat several thousand animals each year, but only a few limitations on animal-killing have been considered. These limitations—which provide that animals to be killed must not be caged in veal crates—have been unanimously supported by the meat-eaters in political party J. Therefore, the meat-eaters in party J have a perfect voting record for animals.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of reliance on an unrepresentative sample. Specifically, the argument ignores the potentially thousands of issues that could have been addressed but were not. The argument is accordingly invalid.
A way to undermine a perfect-voting-record argument is to point out that one cannot be said to have a “perfect voting record” on a subject when one has simply failed to vote at all on the major issues pertaining to that subject. For instance, the ancient Sumerians probably never held a vote on the militarization of space, but to conclude that they therefore had a “perfect voting record” on the militarization of space would be bizarre.
7. Misplaced Burden Fallacy
The misplace burden fallacy is a flawed method of reasoning in which the burden of persuasion is initially placed on the wrong side of a debate or legal battle. An example of the MB fallacy would be:
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof and persuasion in the American legal system. But, today, we’re going to pretend that the burden is on the defendant anyway. And since the defendant hasn’t proven his case, he loses.
No lawyer would allow such nonsense to slip by in court of law, but many well-meaning citizens, even animal rights activists, fail to confront this commonly held view:
Torturing and killing of the innocent is universally recognized as wrong. But, today, we’re going to pretend that torturing and killing of the innocent is right anyway. And since those who oppose such torture and killing haven’t proven their case, they lose.
In technical terms, this fallacy consists of replacing a premise known to be true with a premise known to be false. Specifically, the argument places the initial burden on party A, even though it is known that party B actually bears the initial burden. The argument is accordingly invalid.
Make no mistake: the burden of persuasion belongs on those who favor killing and torturing of the innocent, not on those who oppose it. And that burden will never be successfully carried. Which is why the global transition to veganism is not only desirable but inevitable.
(Original article publication date: January 24, 2010 (Cruelty-Free))
Biographer 
You must be logged in to post a comment.