It's an interesting book with much to say about our treatment of animals. A considerable bit of it rubbed me the wrong way.
Suggestions about how we ought to treat animals from people who eat them have to be taken with a grain of salt. Nussbaum claims that she "tried" a vegan diet, but it made her tired. Poor her. It's like someone saying that they tried to give up pedophilia.
Another thing that really irks me is college/university faculty members like Nussbaum who voice some concern for animals yet don't serve on their institution's Animal Care and Use Committee(s), the legally required animal experimentation oversight committees. If they did, I don't think we'd see claims like Nusbaum's that the 3R's (reduction, refinement, and replacement) have "become the watchwords of all regulatory bodies." Even a cursory review of what's being done in the labs exposes the naivety of such claims. For instance, Nussbaum is a Professor of Law and Ethics at the University of Chicago. At her institution, vivisectors are putting electrodes in monkeys' brains. These "watchwords" mean little to the animals in the labs. See:
The interplay between kinematic and force representations in motor and somatosensory cortices during reaching, grasping, and object transport Project Number 5R01NS125270-02 Contact PI/Project Leader HATSOPOULOS, NICHOLAS G Other PIs
Awardee Organization UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
She also challenges the use of arguments that point to the ethically salient similarities between us and other animals. She thinks that doing so appeals in some way to the scala naturae or Great Chain of Being. But no one pointing to the similarities between us (the only species with legal rights) and other species does so because they believe that there is some devine ordering of creation. Oddly, she, at times, makes this argument herself. Indeed, it can't be avoided when arguing on behalf of animals, just as I have done.
In spite of these and numerous other criticisms I have, her prominence might help draw some attention to the terrible things we do to other animals. The book is worth reading if for no other reason than to be able to talk about her claims with those who might read the book and want to talk about something she says.
PS: Another thing that really irked me was her use of Jonathan Balcombe and Peter Singer to defend her mixed-up position. In the case of Balcombe, author of What a Fish Knows, she claims that he eats fish. He doesn't. She points to Singer's comment that experimenting on 100 monkeys to help 40,000 humans with Parkinson's could be justified. She makes these claims to defend her fish-eating and support for some animal research.
2 comments:
Per Jonathan Balcombe:
A strange thing happened to me this week: the celebrated philosopher Martha Nussbaum, on page 168 of her new book "Justice for Animals,” makes a series of misstatements about me.
First, she attributes to me a statement about “humane fisheries.” I do not regard any of the myriad ways that humans exploit fishes—be it commercial, recreational, or aquaculture—as “humane,” and I challenge anyone to find me describing them as such.
Second: “Balcombe views the morality of fish-eating as a complicated matter best left to the judgment of each individual, …” While I don’t believe in dictating what others eat, I do believe that everyone has a personal responsibility to eat consciously and compassionately, and that for most of humanity (excepting subsistence situations) abstaining from animal products is the best, dare say the only, way to eat consciously and compassionately.
Third, and most disconcerting, in the remainder of the previous sentence quoted above, Nussbaum states: “…but he [Balcombe] says that he himself eats fish.”
For the record: I don’t eat fish! Part of the evolution of my relationship with animals included becoming vegetarian in 1984, and vegan in 1989. I have not wavered from these lifestyle choices (and never shall), and I make no secret of them (as a quick online search will reveal).
While these errors are very distressing and potentially damaging to me, I realize that Nussbaum had no malicious intent. Nevertheless, I can imagine at least some readers (who know me or my work) being surprised at what they read about me here, and many others (who don’t) getting the wrong impression. I am now in contact with Nussbaum about these strange errors. She has apologized, and steps are being taken to rectify the situation, as best as can be done after a book gets published.
https://www.facebook.com/jbalcombe1/posts/pfbid02gBv7dJ3dD6TCSUoE1Lh6ynAm51DZo2xQNeYbZmnAbGPXYj7maVipsyERXSLpva6l
Thank you for highlighting the misinformation contained in her work regarding Johnathan Balcombe. I attended one of his lectures a few years ago and couldn't imagine him making these statements.
I hope the author, Martha Nussbaum, makes a public correction to her inaccurate quotes. He deserves it and she should not want to share incorrect or misleading information.
Post a Comment