On Animal Rights and the Skeptic Movement
Follow Adam on Twitter. The criticism I’ve heard from animal welfarists greatly mirrors those I’ve heard from defenders of psychic powers. There is an amazing parallel here, one which motivates me to write this article to demand skeptics and animal rights activists follow the same paths. The parallel which truly irks me is the criticism skeptics receive just for being skeptics at all. In the animal rights movement, abolitionist vegans get these comments from new welfarists all too often. As a background, animal rights is different from animal welfare in that animal rights activists believe animals should not be property (abolitionism) whereas welfarists believe we ought to take care of animals, ignoring that they are slaves. The “new welfarist” position describes a position that welfarism is a way to achieve abolitionism. The abolitionists assert welfarism cannot and will not lead to significant justice for animals. How dare you disagree The pro-violent animal liberation site, Negotiation is Over, posted the following about criticism from “inactive” vegans: There are many good activists, hardcore activists, who are in the streets making real differences in the lives of actual living breathing animals, not merely debating philosophy about “theoretical animals.” And, when these in-the-street activists are having second thoughts about actions they take to save animals because these inactive theorists insist on being toxic and divisive, then it is past time to cut out the cancer. It is this kind of language that has no place in skepticism. This quotation suggests it’s not just the disagreement of the animal skeptic, it is the fact they are disagreeing at all, especially since they are “good activists, hardcore activists, who are in the streets making real differences.” Why are they being characterized as the victims of anything? The following quotation from the same article is too ironic not to share: Vegans need to continually challenge each other’s positions and ideology, not each other. We need a revolution of thought, personal growth as activists, and evolution as a movement. We do not need dogma, disagreement, and divisiveness. Read that again: “Vegans need to continually challenge each other’s positions….We do not need…disagreement…” All of this was in response to a statement by Prof. Gary L. Francione, a vegan who continually challenges others’ positions and ideology: “Peter Singer and Ingrid Newkirk recently complained that I attacked their views but that we were all ‘on the same side.’ If there is one thing that of which I am certain, I am not ‘on the same side’ as Peter and Ingrid. Our views are very different. Our goals are very different. We need more disagreement within the movement, not less. And we should not be afraid of being labeled as “divisive.” That is a label used by those who have nothing of substance to say in response to legitimate criticisms or observations.” The term “infighting” comes up a lot for the same reason as well. As this commenter writes on a blog post about the problems of animal welfarism, the very fact the writer is criticizing, however civil, is inherently wrong. I wonder how many people we could have convinced to go vegan if we didn’t get distracted with this type of infighting. It boggles the mind. You don’t have the right to disagree Indeed, the skeptics have to face this nonsense in their criticism against claims of psychic powers as well. In this Anderson Cooper interview with well-known skeptic James Randi of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) and self-proclaimed psychic Sylvia Browne’s business manager Linda Rossi, Rossi attacks Randi, not for his reasoning but for the mere fact he dares to question Browne by asking her to take a scientific test to prove her psychic abilities.
I’m a big fan of the skeptic movement. I love listening to shows which debunk claims of paranormal activity and the like. Recently, however, I was suprised to see a lack of discussion about animal rights in skeptic circles. Skeptics ought to be the perfect audience for discussion on the rejection of a traditionally held belief (that it is justified for us to use animals.)
For this reason, I wish to suggest we use the term “skepticism” more often in our discussion of animal rights. Skepticism embodies the nature of our initial doubt of the justification of animal use. “animal skepticism” is not really a new concept, it’s just a rebranding of something many of us have been doing for a long time with great misunderstanding from animal people.
What is skepticism?
First, let’s talk about what the skeptic community does. Skepticism asserts claims ought to have sufficient evidence to support them. Having not evidence, judgment ought to be withheld rather than appealing to beliefs that make us feel comfortable even though they are unsupported. For instance, an unidentified blip of light in the air means it is an unidentified blip of light, not that it is a visiting craft of humanoid aliens.
Skepticism isn’t intrinsically about debunking anything, although this is a common outcome of investigation. To be a skeptic is to believe any claim is fair game for questioning. The skeptic community often targets unscientific claims like astrology, homeopathic medicine, graphology, psychic powers, paranormal activity, and even religion.
But what does this field have to do with animal rights? If we accept the skeptic movement as crucial to a progressive society, should we not also apply skepticism to animal issues?
The skeptic movement takes a lot of heat from the public. Some of it is justified. If a skeptic comes to a conclusion that is, let’s say, unscientific, (s)he ought to be called on it. However, I’ve found that a lot of complaints put upon skeptics is not how they come to their conclusions, but that they are questioning something in the first place.
This, to me, is fantastically ignorant. If done respectfully, there should be nothing wrong with scrutinizing a claim and investigating alternative explanations. Why should we ignore what might possibly be the truth?
(4:35) And for Randi, a professed atheist, to judge anyone of spirituality is a joke.
Anderson Cooper even interjects to point out Rossi’s fallacy:
(4:50) That’s like a high school debating tactic—to attack the guy who’s asking the questions.
This is especially amusing to me because Rossi implies that the fact Randi disagrees is what makes it “a joke” for him to disagree. Does Rossi expect disagreement from people who agree?
Respecting skepticism
My message to welfarists and new welfarists as an abolitionist: feel free to disagree with us. If you disagree, you ought to express it respectfully and, better, engage in a dialogue about it. But we can both be skeptics. We can listen to the arguments and let the evidence speak for itself. If the evidence shows that welfarism is a morally justifiable and effective solution to ending the property status of animals, I will immediately and proudly call myself a new welfarist. Not only that, my abolitionist friends will respectfully debate me.
Abolitionists are skeptics who collect and analyze evidence on the efficacy of welfarist legislation. Despite its superficial appearance of being beneficial for animals, we are confident, based on evidence, that it is not. We are ready to defend idea peacefully. No one should criticize someone merely for raising questions. Indeed, the conclusions we come to in the animal movement are more than just “theory” or “words” being passed around; they influence how we reach out to the public and the decisions we make over the fate of animals.
