Regan, Tom --- "What We Learn from Alice" [2007] ALRCRefJl 5; (2007) 91 Australian Law Reform Commission Reform Journal 16

---

What we learn from Alice

By Tom Regan*

Some opponents of animal rights give credit where credit is due. They don’t agree with the idea. Not at all. They wouldn’t be caught dead saying 'tofu' and 'let’s eat' in the same breath. Nevertheless, they acknowledge that animal rights should be considered on its merits.

Despite stereotypes to the contrary, Animal Rights Advocates (ARAs) do not rest our case on clever slogans, what the tea leaves say, or indecipherable haiku incantations. Fair opponents of animal rights understand that they are obliged to answer the animal rights message rather than attack the animal rights messenger.

The major animal abuser industries think they have a better idea. In their minds, attack is preferable to address. The general public needs to be encouraged to view the controversy over animal rights as a contest between sensible animal welfare moderates (that would be the folks in the animal abusing industries), who favour humane treatment and responsible care, versus 'out-of-this-world' animal rights extremists, who favour no use and violent, terroristic tactics. To this end, the public relations arms of these industries feed the mass media their daily helping of positive press releases about the industries and negative stories about ARAs.

Having thus been enlisted, the media does its part (not always, but usually) by showing and telling the outrageous or unlawful behaviour of a handful of obliging ARAs, then showing and telling the many (it is assumed) good things done by the industries.

You don’t have to be a dealer in Vegas to see that the rhetorical cards are stacked in favour of the major abusers. Who but irrational, misanthropic, law breaking, terroristic animal rights extremists can be against animal welfare, humane treatment, and responsible care?

This is not the question we should ask. The question we should ask is, 'How much confidence should we place in what spokespersons for the major animal abuser industries say about their industries?' The simple one word answer to this question is, 'None.'

Humpty Dumpty's arrogance

Say what you will about ARAs, we don’t hold anything back. What we say is what we mean, and vice versa. We are forthright, if nothing else. Even people who disagree with us do not have any trouble understanding what we think. We think the major animal abuser industries are doing something terribly wrong. We think the only adequate response to what they are doing is to put them all out of business. Empty cages, not larger cages. It’s hard for anyone to misunderstand that.

The same cannot be said for those who speak for the industries. When it comes to the meaning of words, these people apparently take their inspiration from Humpty Dumpty. Recall his famous exchange with Alice, in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass.

'I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don’t—until I tell you. I meant [by ‘glory’] ‘a nice knockdown argument for you’!'

'But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knockdown argument for you’,' Alice objected.

'When I use a word', Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

When industry spokespersons use words like 'animal welfare', 'humane treatment' and 'responsible care,' they must be thinking that, like Humpty Dumpty, they can make these words mean anything they choose. In fact, as Alice could have told them, they can’t.

Consider the word ‘humane’. Like other words in common usage, it does not have a vaporous meaning that is just hanging around, like an empty parking place, waiting for the next person to fill it with a self-serving definition of their choosing. Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines it this way: 'marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for other human beings or animals'. The American College Dictionary’s definition differs somewhat; ‘humane’ is defined as 'characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion'. When spokespersons for the major animal abuser industries tell us that their industries treat animals humanely, we should expect to find industry practices that show compassion, sympathy, consideration, kindness and mercy. Why? Because (unless you’re Humpty Dumpty), this is what 'humane' means.

Again, think about what it means to act in ways that pay due regard to another’s welfare. The Random House College Dictionary defines welfare in terms of 'good fortune, health, happiness.' To this list the American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary adds 'well being'. No one who speaks common English will have any difficulty in applying these ideas to animals.

For example, if I tell you I treat my cat and dog with due regard for their welfare, you will have reasonable expectations about my behaviour. You will expect to see me making sure that their basic needs (for food, water, shelter and exercise) are satisfied; and you will not expect to see me deliberately do anything to harm them—like break their legs or burn their eyes out. If spokespersons for the major animal abuser industries say they treat animals with due regard for their welfare, we should have the same expectations. Why? Because (unless you’re Humpty Dumpty) this is what 'concern for animal welfare' means.

Industry arrogance

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. By way of example, consider how animals are treated in the biological and biomedical research (aka the vivisection) industry, not in exceptional circumstances but as a matter of routine practice.

• Cats, dogs, and other animals are drowned, suffocated, and starved to death.

• They are burned, subjected to radiation, and used as 'guinea pigs' in military research.

• Their eyes are surgically removed and their hearing is destroyed.

• They have their limbs severed and organs crushed.

• Invasive means are used to give them heart attacks, ulcers, and seizures.

• They are deprived of sleep, subjected to electric shock, and exposed to extremes of heat and cold.

Each and every one of these procedures conforms with the vivisection industry's commitment to promoting animal welfare and practising humane care. Each and every one of these procedures, in other words, shows the industry's scandalous disregard for the facts. (I leave it to psychiatrists to analyse the psycho-dynamics of people who live in such denial).

If this situation was unique; if what is true of the spokespersons for the vivisection industry was true only of these spokespersons; then, while this would be bad enough, it would not be as bad as it could be.

But what is true of the spokespersons for the vivisection industry is not true only of these spokespersons. It is true of all the spokespersons, for all the major animal abuser industries.

• The industries that turn animals into food.

• The industries that turn them into clothes.

• The industries that turn them into performers.

•The industries that turn them into competitors.

The spokespersons for all these industries talk the same talk as the spokespersons for the vivisection industry. Animals are treated 'humanely,' with due regard to promoting their 'welfare'.

Yes. Of course. Certainly. Absolutely. I mean, they are treated this way just as much as 'glory' means 'a nice knock down argument for you'.

The tragedy is, in Humpty Dumpty's case, not so much as an egg was broken because of his arrogance, whereas literally tens upon tens of billions of animals are abused and killed by these industries.

Before members of the general public will object to this treatment, they must first understand how they (the members of the general public) are being abused. Yes, they are being abused. Why? Because these industries take advantage of the trust ordinary people place in the truth of what they are told.

When it comes to the major animal abuser industries, however, this trust is misplaced. When large numbers of people finally understand this, finally understand that they are being duped, lied to or worse, then (but not before then) we will see significant progress made on behalf of animal rights.

*Tom Regan is an American philosopher and animal-rights activist. This article is adapted from Chapter Five, "What We Learn from Alice," Empty Cages: Facing the Challenge of Animal Rights (Lantham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield) 2004.