MORAL CONSIDERATION OF DIFFERENT SPECIES
NOTE: A collective works cited page for this series appears at the conclusion of this article.There are intriguing ethics involved in ignoring moral fact. Some people will learn of the abuse elephants undergo and continue to attend animal circuses. Confusing enough is the tendency for dog and cat owners –many of whom are very closely tied to their companion animals- who continue to eat meat. Moral consideration is given to dogs and cats but not pigs, chickens, cows, and elephants. Gary Francione says there is a profound disparity between "what we say we believe about animals, and how we actually treat them" (Sunstein & Nussbaum 108). He claims most humans claim to take animals' interests seriously but in practice continue to ignore them for trivial reasons. Animal circuses are just one example of such triviality. Ethical disconnects exist that preclude most humans from behaving in a manner consistent with their professed beliefs regarding animals. For example, Alex Hershaft –a great advocate of farmed animals- relates Francione's moral schizophrenia [his term] to the meat industry: "93 percent of American consumers oppose farmed animal abuse and 97 percent continue eating them" (Hershaft 16).
Likewise, Michelle Blake says "polls show that people are increasingly intolerant of animal suffering and more aware of animal causes. However, their consumption of animals continues unabated and often appears to contradict public sentiment" (Blake i). Adolescents often refuse to eat meat if it looks like the animal it was before it was processed. For example, many will not eat chicken legs, ribs, or whole baked fish. If there are bones or other signifiers of the meat's once animality, they shy away from it. Eating processed chicken fingers, hamburgers, steaks, and bacon is easier because in no way do those products resemble pigs, cows, or chickens. Blake refers to the writer John Updike who once told a reporter, "I don't like meat to look like animals. I prefer it in the form of sausages, hamburgers, and meatloaf, far removed from the living thing" (3). This is a fine example of the ethical disconnect that enables humans to claim compassion and even love for animals and continue to engage in a lifestyle that consumes them at an alarming rate.
In a similar vein, it is hard to imagine that an educated (or uneducated, for that matter) sentient human could condone the cruelty elephants suffer at the hands of circus trainers. However, people continue to embrace the circus –especially Ringling Brothers. Blake goes on to discuss the existence of numerous mechanisms that allow humans to disassociate actual animal suffering from their use of animals. Cass Sunstein observes "there are nearly 60 million domestic dogs in the United States, owned by more than 36 million households. In at least half of these households, the family dog receives a Christmas present" (Sunstein & Nussbaum 3). Millions of dogs' birthdays are celebrated and when they die their human guardians often report it is worse than a human dying. One study reports more than a third of dog lovers feel closer to their dog than any human family member (Blake 13). Blake comments that most companion animal guardians often avoid dealing with the more difficult questions regarding the moral status of other species.
Matthew Scully, in examining the cruelty rodeo animals endure, discusses a female rodeo supporter who was in vast distress as a result of her dog's death. She reported to her friend that she held it and read from Psalms as it died. She felt comfort and peace that the dog died with someone who loved her. Scully says, "…the obvious question is why the Lord might care about one creature, this dog who died while Psalms were read, and not at all about others, like all those rodeo animals terrified and tormented while crowds cheer" (Scully 19). No one read Psalms as Stoney the elephant died in a dark storage shed outside the Luxor Casino in Vegas. Likewise billions of animals –pigs, chickens, turkeys, cows, calves, ducks, geese, elephants- die terrifying deaths each year not surrounded by anyone who loves them, anyone who cares about them or has ever considered their moral status as sentient individuals. There is most definitely some from of ethical disconnect in place regarding "dog and cat people." What is this mechanism that allows dog and cat owners, self-professed "animal lovers" who buy their dogs sweaters, toothbrushes, and baby strollers, to eat meat, go to rodeos, and attend circuses? It is a difficult thing to get humans to seriously consider the moral and legal rights all animals possess. Steven Wise thinks it will be incremental: "I believe that legal rights for nonhuman animals will be achieved one step at a time. The most basic rights must be recognized first" (Sunstein & Nussbaum 27). And what are those basic rights for elephants? To begin with, releasing them from captivity which denies them respect, rights, social interactions with their own species, and adequate physical space.
