Column on Anti-Intellectualism among Animal Rights Advocates

Anti-Intellectualism among Animal Rights Advocates?


Tibor R. Machan

It
is only a small sample but it comes from a significant corner of the
academic community, a law school where I was invited to give a talk on
the debate about animal rights.  I did deliver such a talk at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, law school on October 21, 2010, and I
was surprised how few supporters of animal rights showed up for my talk
even though several of them were invited and there was even talk of a
formal debate.  

I
mentioned this at the dinner that followed and was told that there had
been a concerted effort by local animal rights advocates to boycott my
lecture.  Word had gone out to members of the community of animal rights
advocates, via email and such, about how I have written critical papers
and a book on the subject and how no one ought to show up for my talk.

I
am, after 40 years of teaching, still a bit naive about the nature of
academic life so I was somewhat taken aback because my understanding had
always been that it is at universities and colleges that debates and
discussions about controversial issues are carried out, usually in an
atmosphere of civility.  Alas, I must not really be as aware about how
universities and colleges work as I would like to be.  

The
reality seems to be that in many such communities discussions aren’t
all that welcome.  Instead the attitude is combative:  Let’s show those
with whom we disagree that we are against them, solidly, that we have no
respect for the idea of a philosophical debate on the topic but want to
silence, boycott, or exclude those who don’t already fall in line with
our position.

It
is this attitude that was in evidence here, or so my hosts informed me.
 I had written papers and a book on the topic of animal rights and
environmental ethics in general over the last 20 years.  I wrote on
animal rights first because I had been working on natural rights theory
for a good bit of my career, starting with my doctoral dissertation.
 When I first heard that there are those who believe that animals have
the sort of rights we human beings are said to have, as per the
Declaration of Independence and the philosopher John Locke, I wanted to
see whether the ground for making this claim exists.  If the underlying
facts are not there, then no such rights could be supported, I figured,
and indeed that is how it turned out when I looked at the matter
closely.  

Having
natural human rights depends on the fact that human beings are moral
agents and in human communities they require a sphere of personal moral
authority–or what the late Robert Nozick called “moral space.”  Natural
rights are what circumscribe this sphere, spell out where it is that a
person is in charge of what happens and where other people must not
enter without being invited to do so.  In this “space” people do as they
choose and get judged or evaluated based on standards of morality.
 Unless they enjoy the liberty or freedom to act as they choose, their
conduct lacks moral significance.  Their moral agency would then be
undermined.  So their basic rights are necessary conditions for acting
in morally significant ways in the company of other people.  (Others are
free to interfere or refrain from doing so, whereas non-human agents
aren’t free to do so.)

Well,
this is a controversial position and I have had my critics over the
years and have been giving some talks and writing a few papers around
college and university communities in America and abroad laying out the
case as I see it.  In most cases I have met with civil opposition.  I
did, however, notice that although I discuss them in some detail,
neither of the prominent animal rights–or animal liberation–defenders,
Professors Tom Regan and Peter Singer–have bothered to acknowledge by
arguments (even when we have been invited to contribute to the very same
book of collected papers on the topic).  I have puzzled over this but
thought that perhaps it is due only to these folks being quite busy with
various tasks and having no time to deal with what I have written
(although they both know me personally).  

The
experience at Madison was an eye opener.  It appears that the lack of
attention to my arguments from these prominent figures may be quite
deliberate, a kind of boycott instead of an oversight.  And that
suggests a measure of anti-intellectualism, a refusal to engage on the
topic at hand. But why?  Is it to marginalize criticism of their views?
 Is it to play a certain kind of strategy whereby the refusal to take
account of criticisms is meant to exclude the criticisms from the
discussions?  I am not sure–I haven’t asked.  But it is an interesting
phenomenon for sure.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s