Keep Your Pamphlets
by Katie • Apr 14th, 2008 at 8:34 pm • 10 comments
If you have ever walked on the U of I Quad on a nice day, you have inevitably had some brightly-colored piece of paper thrust at you- an advertisement for a pizza place, some student event, or a concert. Usually, I willingly take one, glance at it briefly, and when I’m safely out of eyesight of the person who handed it to me, I toss it in a garbage can. It doesn’t really bother me, and I go on with my day. But about twice a year, I’m handed something that really offends me. It’s always the same- a yellow pamphlet with pictures of dying pigs, chickens smashed into cages, and cows bleeding to death.
I recently read an excerpt from a book called People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution by William Baxter that sums up my opinion about things like this (more specifically, extreme animal rights activists and extreme environmental conservationists). William Baxter argues that there are two kinds of decisions: the collective and the private. Collectively, humans must act to benefit humans. Privately, we can be as altruistic as we choose. Our collective actions may prove beneficial to other living things, but we cannot act solely for that end; it would be self-destructive. (Side note: I do not consider myself anthropocentric and my views do not entirely coincide with Baxter’s. I think his argument is applicable here, but not always.)
In the case of the aforementioned pamphlet, vegetarianism/veganism is a private choice, one that does not currently benefit humankind as a whole. An individual can sacrifice his own right/need/desire to eat meat if he holds the value of the animal’s life above his own rights/needs/desires. However, it is impractical (and obnoxious) to impose this choice on society as a whole.
Baxter explains, “Many of the more extreme assertions that one hears from some conservationists amount to tacit assertions that they are specially appointed representatives of sugar pines, and hence that their preferences should be weighted more heavily than the preferences of other humans who do not enjoy equal rapport with ‘nature.’” He goes on to say, “Only humans can be afforded an opportunity to participate in the collective decisions.” That’s right, only humans. Our collective actions are selfish because we are programmed to survive.
So, to the vegetarian extremists with the yellow pamphlets, I know that animals bleed when they die. I know that the way they are killed is often not humane. I respect your decision to abstain from meat, but, please, do not imply that I have a moral obligation to do the same.
Comment by Augur on 14 April 2008 at 9:14 pm:
If 40 percent of Americans were to become vegetarians in the next few months, that could benefit many. Eating meat is inefficient. The amount of food it takes to feed a cow, for instance, until slaughter would feed far more people than the cow. In a time when food prices are growing faster than they ever have before, surely feeding ourselves in a more efficient manner would make a positive difference for all people. I will become a vegetarian as soon as the other 39% do.
I do get especially irritated by radical activists, and tend to find them to be their oppositions MVPs. Tofu Panthers and militant pro lifers are among the most irritating and preachy. With the Tufo Panthers, they are at least mostly right…though easy enough to resent that we easily dismiss them.
Comment by Katie on 14 April 2008 at 9:23 pm:
I am very aware of the benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle, but it is prohibited (on a large scale) by the way American society currently operates. Think about the number of jobs that would be lost if the meat business were to shut down- farms, feed suppliers, slaughterhouses, restaurants.
Plus, though meat eating might be inefficient, satisfaction (via meat eating) is in our interest.
Comment by Katie on 14 April 2008 at 9:24 pm:
I guess “inhibit” would be a better word that “prohibit.”
Comment by Augur on 14 April 2008 at 9:30 pm:
So a few ranchers get fuckolaed, it’s better than starving half of the world with rising food costs. I fear your love of cowboys in assless chaps has overwhelmed your passion for ending world hunger
Comment by Hanno on 14 April 2008 at 9:34 pm:
Yeah I’m going to say this is one of the more senseless posts I’ve seen in a while. Not eating meat has a huge benefit as a collective choice. Hell even reducing the amount by say half would have a huge impact.
Comment by Anonymous on 14 April 2008 at 9:47 pm:
Why is the pamphlet about tortured animals so offensive to you, if you claim to not care? Why not just toss it away like the rest of the handouts you get?
Comment by Katie on 14 April 2008 at 10:30 pm:
I’m not arguing against vegetarianism as a lifestyle. I am a vegetarian. I am arguing against people forcing their morality on others. Meat eating is a part of American culture and economy and I don’t think that handing out pamphlets with gruesome pictures is a productive way to counteract that.
If there were a way to change America’s dependence on meat and animal products in an efficient way, I’d be all for it. But arguing that people are obliged to consider the interests of animals before themselves is the wrong approach.
Anonymous- I think this type of handout is especially infuriating to me for a couple of reasons. As a vegetarian, I resent the extremism because it contributes to negative stereotypes of vegetarians. And I have a huge problem with the implied moral superiority.
Comment by JM Doran on 14 April 2008 at 11:56 pm:
My strategy for these encounters is to carry around a butane lighter. At first they think that you’re just struggling to grab the flier. Then they realize it is on fire. Then they realize you set it on fire. I think it sends the right message.
With regards to the actual content of your post: there is an entire field of philosophy called environmental ethics. The viewpoint that humans have no ethical obligations to animals is a particularly anachronistic and unpopular one. Baxter’s book is usually discussed as a capitalistic recapitulation of Kant’s theory of ethical obligation toward animals. Um, the point being: don’t limit to yourself to Baxter if you’re interested in this subject.
The more popular theories being discussed right now are variants on Leopoldian biocentrism. Which is something to the effect that moral consideration should be oriented to the sustainability of biotic communities. Thus, our moral obligations are to sustaining life, rather than particular living actors (including humans).
You should read The Land Ethic by Aldo Leopold, it’s on the internet I think. This would still be very far away from the radical PETA folks, and it has the benefit of not limiting ethics to humans.
Comment by tet on 15 April 2008 at 11:52 am:
Katie, I agree with the points that you’ve made concerning extremists on the animal rights front. I object, however, to your condemnation of their handing out leaflets. The Quad is a publicly-owned space, and therefore, free speech must be protected within it.
No one needs to defend flyers with photos of happy puppies–the community will do that. Protection needs to be extended to the unpopular ones with photos of tortured animals, espousing actions that the majority disagrees with. The right to hand them out needs to be respected. (I recognize that you’re not saying there should be rules against it, however, I also recognize a lack of acceptance in your of their right to “bother you”.)
“Collectively, humans must act to benefit humans.” This quote is so 20th-Century, it’s not funny. What the hell is going to happen to Baxter’s movement when we’ve got uplifted, intelligent chimps, genetically-modified soldiers, or electronically-enhanced businessmen who are further from an average “human” today than we are from a gorilla?
Intelligence is about to become widespread on earth. The dirt might even end up made of intelligent “computronium” if nanotech blossoms. We need to be preparing our legal and moral systems for those days rather than worrying about our superiority to a veal calf.
Tom
Comment by thetodd on 17 April 2008 at 2:27 am:
When I read the first paragraph of this post, I couldn’t help but relate it to Billy’s post about honesty in politics.
I wonder if the ideal honest politician would take the pamphlets or decline them.
Taking the pamphlets and throwing them away is a reasonable and practical way to handle the situation. Katie doesn’t have to feel like she might’ve offended someone by her rejection, and the person with the fliers is also happy to pass them out.
On the other hand, I also think it is dishonest to feign interest (or at least hide disinterest), and it also may mislead the person handing out the fliers.
This is a pretty silly topic to discuss, but everyone else already said everything I wanted to say about animals :)