I just finished watching The Cove, the film that last week won the 2010 Oscar for featured documentary. (Trailer can be seen here).God bless bittorrent!
It is about the cruel, and completely unnecessary, killing of dolphins in Japan. A very bloody affair.
The film got me thinking about the idea of an expanding circle of compassion. How, at least in the Western world, ethical and political thinking has moved -in baby steps admittedly- to include an ever growing group of beings into the ethical and political realm. Slaves, minorities, women, people of color, the disabled, etc...very slowly, but surely, have been included into a realm that approximates at least some kind of legal equality and worth. Battles are still to be fought, but still, at least the moral high-ground is held by those calling for equal and fair treatment.
Yet, every one of those struggles for inclusion were fiercely opposed by those in power. By what Obama would call 'the status quo'. Rights are always seen as a zero-sum game. The more rights 'they' have, the less rights I would end up with; that seems to be the logic. More for them means less for me.
Why is it so difficult to discard seeing rights as a zero-sum game? One would like to believe that the more rights any group has, the more one's own rights would be solidified. But that is obviously not the case.
Which leads me to The Cove. Do dolphins, or any other animal for that matter, having right to a little more humane treatment from us...does that really mean alienation from any of our human rights? Do dolphins having the right NOT to be senselessly massacred, diminishes our rights in any way or form? I am not talking about giving animals the absurd positive right to whatever, education or voting, but about bestowing them -at least- with the negative right of not being massacred unnecessarily.
I, personally, would like to expand the circle of animal rights way faster. Yet, I understand that ultimately the best way to have a solid movement in the right direction is -unfortunately- to proceed slowly, not in a revolutionary manner. But it is the case that regarding animals and the environment, the idea or gut feeling that the more for them means the less for us, is deeply rooted.
If you can, watch The Cove; it is an eye opening experience about how our perceived rights can degenerate so easily in thoughtless tyranny and senseless abuse towards those beings that are still almost completely outside our circle of compassion.
do u think that including nonhumans in the circle of compassion could hasten more compassion towards humans? (i.e. if we're able to respect other species, that would enhance our care of each other?)
ReplyDeletedifficult to say. it reminds me of the advise on teen magazines: observe how he behaves towards pets because it is a good indication of how he will treat you or future offspring! meaning that some people believe that, yes, treating animals humanely does have a positive effect on how we end up treating each other. I would like to believe that's true, but it is very hard to make a conclusive argument.
ReplyDeleteHowever, inclusion of animals into our circle of compassion shouldn't be about hastening compassion towards other human beings. That will be -once again- treating animals as an instrument at our disposal. And that is what I argue against. If it happens that we start behaving better, good, an excellent byproduct. But it shouldn't be about us.
I guess that if that is the only motivation we can find to do it, I'll take it. But I think there should be a sturdier ground to base animal rights. Like our common experience of pain, the high intelligence of some animals, the fact that many species can plan, foresee, have highly complex communicative networks, etc. The argument has been carefully worked out elsewhere.
I guess I will be writing my 3000 word essay about that!