Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Rights Talk Good for Animals
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Rights Talk Good for Animals
AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Rights Talk Good for AnimalsHISTORY OF MORAL PROGRESS DEMONSTRATES EFFECTIVENESS OF ETHICAL INTERROGATION Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton, 1996 Animal Rights: the changing debate, ed. Robert Garner, p. 84 Is ethical argument powerless against tenacious instinct? If so, it would be hard to explain the moral progress hat has been made in areas in which, previously, some of our most tenacious moral instincts have held sway. Consider areas like race relations, crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity, gender issues, attitudes toward homosexuality, and the area here under discussion, the treatment of animals. In discussing such changes, Posner provides us with a textbook example of ignoratio elenchi, or the fallacy of the irrelevant conclusion: “Our moral norms regarding race, homosexuality, nommarital sex, contraception, and suicide have changed in recent times, but not as a result of ethical arguments. Philosophers have not been prominent in any of these movements…Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren, and Martin Luther King, Jr., had a lot more to do with the development of an antidiscrimination norm than any academic philosopher.” Note how the initial claim that “ethical arguments” did not bring about these changes is suddenly turned into the entirely separate claim that “philosophers” were not prominent in these movements, and then at the end, this becomes a claim about “academic philosophers.” But that I not what was to be shown. Can anyone read the judgments of Thurgood Marshall or Earl Warren, or the speeches of Martin Luther King, Jr., and not believe that they were putting forward ethical arguments? RIGHTS DISCOURSE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO PROTECT INTERESTS—WILL BE EFFECTIVE FOR ANIMALS AS WELL Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996 Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 51 Nevertheless, it is true that the extensions of rights does lead us to consider the slippery slope. That is the very nature of the “expanding circle.” While some find his extremely problematic, the slippery slope can be reconstructed in a way that bolsters the meaning of rights. This occurs when the slippery slope is redefined as the expanding circle. The less pejorative expanding circle encourages increases compassion, caring, and awareness of “the other.” The expanding circle makes us aware of who and what have been excluded from moral consideration, thus highlighting mistreatment of the other. Moreover, in this culture, rights language happens to be one of the most common and accepted ways of heightening awareness of marginalization and mistreatment. Rights language thus becomes the means by which the circle expands, and the other is included within the parameters of moral consideration.
Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 90 Some activists further highlighted the power of language by suggesting that it generates discussion, debate, and education. Rights claims, as these activists noted, spark debate and though about the prevalent position of animals in our society. Unlike animal protection and animal welfare, which are more easily accepted, mention of animal rights activates discussion and analysis. According to one analyst:
“When I first started talking about animal rights…people would say, ‘why talk about rights, why not talk about welfare? It will upset people.’ Who gives a shit about upsetting people! One of the ways you educate people is to shock them. When I teach law, some of the things I say are totally outrageous, because I do that to stimulate them, to challenge them.” AT: “Rights Talk Bad” – Rights Talk Good for AnimalsRIGHTS DISCOURSE EFFECTIVE AT PROMOTING SOCIAL CHANGE FOR ANIMALS Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 122 In sum, an assessment of rights language by the animal rights movement specifically and by other movements more generally must consider the complexity of deploying rights language. Recognizing the complexity of any political language means that we must address its diverse and flexible meanings, its potential benefits and costs, its strategic components, and its variations within differing social contexts. When we do so in the case of the animal rights movement, it becomes clear that the practice of reconstructing and deploying rights language plays a significant part in the overall scheme of advancing social change.
Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 225 The generative aspect of rights language is even more significant when we consider its catalytic effects on dialogue, alternative language, and alternative constructions of meaning. The attempt to extend rights to nonhumans has fostered significant debate on what kinds of being can be rights holders. Just as the “use of rights and legal struggle by the women’s movement started the ‘conversation’ about women’s role society,” animal rights talk has instigated conversation and debate on new fronts. The debate and dialogue over animal rights has materialized in many different locations: in the spheres of philosophical analysis, in legislatures, in the media, in the board rooms of the cosmetics industry, and in schools. Much of the debate is heated, and, to a large extent, the notion of animal rights continues to be rejected. But, as John Stuart Mill observed: “Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption”. If Mill is correct, the animal rights movement has made the move from the first to the second stage. While the notion of animal rights once may have contributed to the ridicule, it now contributes to the discussion. RIGHTS DISCOURSE VALUABLE FOR PROMOTING ANIMAL INTERESTS—4 REASONS Helena Silverstein, Professor, Lafayette College of Government and law, 1996, Unleashing Rights: law, meaning and the animal rights movement, p. 121-2 It should be stressed that this conclusion is reached largely by recognizing the significance of the context within which meaning is constructed. Within the animal rights movement, four central contextual variables suggest the importance of deploying a reconstituted version of rights. First, the growth of the movement in the wake of other rights-oriented movements helps explain the turn to rights. Second, the lack of viable alternative languages supports the appropriation of rights language. Third, the pervasiveness of rights talk within this culture makes the deployment of rights logical and sensible, at least at the present time. Fourth, and most important for the reconstruction of rights, is the fact that this movement focuses its concern on nonhumans. Placing rights within the context of nonhumans offers the opportunity to recreate the foundational meaning of the language.
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|