Yep, you must have known sooner or later his name would come up. Surely you did?
Well it has. Here it is.
If you know nothing about Peter Singer go here to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
Yes, grains of salt Wikipedia can be laced with falsehoods and lies too, but not sure of any on this page. Use it to start you off to get a good background or perhaps a springboard to properly researching. In short he has been inducted into the United States Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2000 & was awarded the Companion of the Order of Australia in 2012. The latter of which makes him an important voice, or rather a very prominent voice. Whether he's right or wrong on any given issue is another matter and like any human he is far from perfect and errs as anyone does.
He's also known as one of the co-founders of Animals Australia, or I think it was originally "the Australian Federation of Animal Societies (AFAS)". Some people take exception to Peter Singer being referred to as "Animals Australia's poster boy" and probably with some good reason. His prominence, not least of which was helped by his Australian Honours award, has helped add media prominence to the Animal group. Ah but he has no role in the organisation these days, he's just one of the founders comes the cry. Yes very possibly so, however there's not many books you can buy via the Animals Australia website, one is Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation. Reading his book may open your eyes but more importantly I've never seen nor heard what Animals Australia actually believes full & perfect "Animal Liberation" is, what it looks like, how it works. Nor what is the actual complete goal and aim they're actually striving for. Lots of motherhood statements, lots of vegan recipes on their website too. Odd like Andrew Wilkie.
But what does Peter Singer stand for and more importantly why is that relevant to Animals Australia.
Well if you're an Animals Australia member you ought to know a lot about Peter Singer and some of his views and even if you reject the idea he's an Animals Australia poster boy you should without getting flustered or annoyed be able to tell an inquisitive soul which of his views you align yourself with, for the sake of an honest debate. An intellectually honest debate that is.
He is an atheist. He's not ashamed of it and he'll be first to tell you that there is nothing to be ashamed of in being an atheist. Don't be offended if someone asks you (being an Animals Australia tacit supporter or card carrying member) if you're an atheist or which deity it is you do believe in and follow. No shame to be had. What you ask, what possible relevance could that be? Well his world view has shaped his views on a great many things. Its helpful to know where you line up with him and if you don't, then how don't you and how does that present itself with the fuller agenda of an intellectually honest debate. No shame to be had, don't be flustered.
He's regarded as the person who popularised the term "Speciesism" said to have been coined by Richard D.Ryder. Its (nutshell here) the idea that no species really has the moral right to be greater than another species, that all have common good owed to us and that Speciesism is the same as any "ism", similar wrong as age-ism, sexism and racism. Quite a stretch and funnily enough thought to be easily navigated for the atheist who's an adherent of Darwin type evolution...yet Richard Dawkins, possibly the greatest modern day Darwinism type angle poster boy has argued against it in several of his books, most notably The Blind Watchmaker. Odd...did I use the word odd very often?
But most folk so inclined will hold hands with Speciesism don't like the term Anthropomorphism.
Google or use Wikipedia both terms to get a better lay of that land. Here's the humourous bit, some pro Speciesism folk actually have a curious approach that raises the heckles of the staunchest Animal Liberationists...that is of course the idea that dominance over another species is quite justified as a form of Species loyalty. The day I heard 2 unabashed supporters of Speciesism going tow to tow over the idea of species loyalty. I guess its coincidental and not ironic at all that one was a staunch vegan and the other ate meat. Who knows...again, that 3 lettered word "ODD", well more accurately funny but odd.
So if you want to get a good lay of the land, you might like to look up Peter Singer, read his book, look up Richard D.Ryder, maybe look up Speciesism and Anthropomorphism. Look up Species Loyalty.
However without a doubt, here's something you should look at. Some of Peter Singer's comments on bestiality. Go here for the audio/footage - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-cwNg1amRk
I haven't touched on his exploration of poverty and the taking of human life. You might refer to http://www.abc.net.au/rampup/articles/2012/08/15/3568157.htm (My use of the word "Odd" is arguably a highly unwarranted ill-deserved charitable description)
Next time you speak with a staunch Animal Australia supporter or card carrying member consider fleshing out a few side issues. You can easily say, Yes we know Animal Cruelty is wrong, but do Animals Australia stand similarly to Peter Singer on bestiality? Is it right to question whether animal sex is wrong as Singer did? I thought it was obvious it was wrong. Ask also perhaps, what deity they believe in & follow so you can see where their moral authority comes from on animal issues. If they're atheist do they side with Singer and think we're all one happy family or are they Dawkins aligned thinking that Species Loyalty is ok and putting our own species first is actually quite ok?
Of course they're the uncomfortable ones that will challenge some of the core centres they prefer to be left untendered and packed away. Perhaps start with asking what actually is Animal Australia's greatest hope and dream, "a perfect world will have animals..." fill in the dots.
I see lots of motherhood statements, lots of shocking footage and images to help maintain the rage they think exists, or possibly hope to generate it in the first place...but no real gutsy outline of where animals would be in a perfect Australia. Are they all to run free, no human dominance or as it is with no cruelty, no ownership, usage by humans at all? Is it as it is but delete all use of animals in sport, performance entertainment and as a food source, just urban companions?
I see them holding out the sign with Animal Welfare out front, but there's a big fat something in the other hand they have hidden behind their back...what is it???
Here's a transcript copy from the Q&A programme...
TONY JONES: Peter Singer, let's go back to the nub of the question that was asked originally - is it more unethical to eat and kill whales than it is to eat factory farmed and slaughtered animals?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: I think they are both unethical. I applaud the government for taking the issue on whaling to the International Court of Justice, but I don't believe that when Peter (GARRETT) said that the government is concerned about the humane treatment of farm animals, the facts just speak against that. We still have extremely intensive farming, we have hens in battery cages, millions of them, pigs in individual stalls where they can't walk or even turn around, and they are like that for most of their lives. Europe is phasing out these things, it's been on a phase out for the last decade. The voters of California voted in 2008 to get rid of those over the next five years. What's Australia doing? We've still got them and the government basically hasn't moved.
Sadly that comment of Peter Singer's was not followed up by "So Peter, what is ethical when it comes to animals farmed for food? You say its currently unethical, is ethical possible and if so what does it look like and lastly by what standard is it ethical or unethical?" Hopefully not by the standard that says hey what's wrong with a human having sex with an animal?
The full footage of the programme is available at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s2920673.htm and if you scroll down a tiny bit further on that page you can click the TRANSCRIPT tab to read the entire interview if you have download limitations.
In any case if you don't want to watch/read it all here's a slice...
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: Women have said this is something that pleases them, the dog is free to do it or walk away, there's no dominance over the dog, that seems harmless.
SENATOR HELEN COONAN: This is a trained dog, obviously?
PROFESSOR PETER SINGER: It's her dog who enjoys doing it and the dog gives pleasure to the companion. I don't see why we have a taboo.
Let's just repeat and highlight that "I DON'T SEE WHY WE HAVE A TABOO"
Always stop, re-read slowly to see what they're saying in the context in which they're saying it. Peter Singer has said he doesn't see why sex with animals is a taboo.
And some people might still ask "Whaddya mean ODD???"
No comments:
Post a Comment