This text was written as a part of a debate in 2001 when
animal rights activists were at their worst, threatening individual breeders
and fur retailers as well as sabotaging for the breeders by releasing their
animals. The text is available in Swedish on my website. The translation into
English is new.
———–
Animal rights activism and the democracy in a postmodern
perspective (2001)
Breaking into a fur farm and releasing animals or
terrorising fur shop owners is a form of criminality that has a relatively high acceptance in
society. “Rescuing animals” from captivity and suffering is seen as a
higher goal, justifying these actions. Those who commit these crimes usually
belong to different networks of animal rights activists and justify their
actions with ideological and humanistic arguments.
The largest of these networks in Sweden, the Animal
Liberation Front (DBF), describe on its website their actions as:
“broadening democracy to include animals other than humans.” In
essence, according to animal rights activists, it is a question of democracy
when they, with criminal means, seek to persuade actors in the fur industry and
others to cease their business through harassment and vandalism. And certainly
it can be tempting to agree with the activists in their fight for the animals.
We humans do not always treat animals humanely, but the question is what a
society based on the ideology of animal rights activists would look like. Would
we like to live in such a society? The following article shall discuss this
issue.
Animal rights activists are often seen as representatives of
good as opposed to the evil animal breeders, fur retailers and scientists.
However, “goodness” has a less pleasant side as it is based on a
vision of a society in which a small “enlightened” elite is allowed
to stand above democracy. Animal rights activists believe there are higher values
that justify non-democratic and criminal means.
In society, there will always be individuals or groups who,
in some respects, consider themselves to be more ‘enlightened’ on moral or etic
grounds and who, through this, consider themselves entitled or even have an
obligation to act by any means at their disposal in order to achieve something
for them perceived important. Examples of other such groups are anti-immigrant
and Nazi organisations, anti-globalisation groups and left-wing autonomous
groups. In this respect, there is no difference between a Nazi group that, with
criminal acts, seeks to protect the country from unwanted elements that are
considered in various ways degenerate the white race, left-wing autothonous
groups that aim to save the country from globalisation by smashing shop windows
or the animal rights activists releasing minks. What unites these groups is
that they feel they have a mandate to define which objectives should be considered
justifiable criminal acts. However, none of these objectives can give the right
to stand over democracy because in a democracy, there is nothing above a democratic
decision. When the special interests of a minority are allowed to take
precedence, we approach a type of social system that few of us want to live in.
But the motives of animal rights activists have even some
more interesting additional dimensions. They are considered, for example, to be taking the case
of animals. However, only some of the animal species. Very few of the
activists, for example, seriously believe that the right of perch not to get
caught on the hook or the right of mosquitoes not to be beaten to death, should
be defended. The activists therefore believe that they have a mandate to determine
the value for different kind of animals
and decide which living beings should have the right to live. Only some species
are worth defending and the limit is most often set at mammals and animals that
are “cute”. The question here will be whether we should accept that
self-proclaimed small groups of “experts”, with the help of violence
and threats, should be allowed to decide where this limit should go. The
fundamental question here is who should decide where the line between life
worth defending and life that can be sacrificed should go. Animal rights
activists also believe they have a mandate to decide who should be born. Most
animals born in captivity would not have been born if man had not considered
himself in need of them. In other words, these animals would not have had a
life if it had not been for man. The question of whether life is better than
non-life and the question of what should be considered a dignified life are
issues that cannot be determined objectively. However, the ‘enlightened’ animal
rights activists believe they have answers to these questions. Their position
is that in some cases non-life is better than life. The Animal Liberation Front
writes about this on its website: “It should also not be forgotten that
sometimes future generations are saved as farmers have sometimes been forced to
close down after actions against them.” What they’re saved from is being
born. If living conditions do not match the way activists value what a dignified
life is, then it is better not to be born. Applied to humans (according to
animal rights activists, humans are an animal among other animals), this
reasoning could be interpreted as, for example, that children in developing
countries who grow up under starvation and all kinds of oppression should not
be born. But animal rights activists can hardly
experience a mink’s life from a mink’s perspective.
What they do (but also most of us other) is to humanize the animals
and interpret their behavior from a human point of view. It is tempting, for
example, to assume that a life of freedom, based on what we humans perceive as
freedom, is also important for animals. Animals, however, certainly have
completely different perspectives. Their existence is about trying to escape
starvation and being killed and eaten by other animals. Maybe a good life for
an animal is freedom from starvation? A protected life in a cage may be
preferable to an uncertain and painful life in freedom, from the perspective of
a animal. The romantic image of the free animals happily running across the
open fields may have more to do with ourselves than with the animals that the
activists (and the rest of us) want to defend.
The reasoning that man is an animal among other animals also
becomes problematic in further ways. Cruelty in animal species and between
different animal species are very common. As an example, our usual house cat
which, in a seemingly cruel way, catches and “plays” with the mouse
before it kills and eats it. When we talk about the cruelty of other animals,
we interpret that this is in their nature and that they cannot therefore be
blamed for their actions. Evolution has chiseled out certain behaviors
favorable for the survival of the species. If man is an animal among other
animals, then our cruelty should also be interpreted in these terms. What we
perceive as free will and consciousness then becomes just an illusion and we are
guided by much more basic urges. Man then acts, like other animals, by its
nature and thus cannot be accused of being cruel. Culture becomes an illusion
here; it’s all nature.
Another issue here is the utilitarian positions of animal
rights activists; that it may be right to sacrifice a few to save several. For
example, minks are released from mink farms even though you know that many will
quickly die in their new freedom. One reason is that if you release the
animals, you cause the owner of the business so much financial damage that he
eventually ceases the activity. This saves other minks from being kept in
captivity (and from being born). Representing such a utilitarian approach while
claiming that animals and humans have the same value would lead animal rights
activists to advocate death sentences (among humans) if it can be demonstrated
that this can save human lives. A classic example where the death penalty would
probably have a good general prevention effect and save hundreds of lives a
year is if it were applied in traffic to speed infringements. Under the threat
of execution, most would law-abidingly stay within speed limits. Those who are
not deterred would sooner or later be “taken out of traffic”
permanently. Sacrificing a few could ultimately save many lives.
In other words, it could be argued that animal rights
activists who engage in illegal methods to achieve their aims are not only
anti-democratic and advocates of a fascist society, they also believe that they
have an almost divine mandate to govern and control life and death. The
consequences of drawing their reasoning to the fore are that they are both in
favour of the death penalty and that some people should not be allowed to be
born. What at first glance looks like laudable goals and ambitions, on closer
examination, proves to be the risk of leading towards a society in which few of
us want to live.
