by Camille Marino
Yesterday, I published an exchange between Paul Browne and myself: Paul Browne (UCLA Pro-Test): “I would say yes [I am morally obligated to exercise violence to protect an innocent human animal]“. I took nothing out of context and I appreciated his willingness to engage on this sensitive topic. But the conversation ceased last week, I’ve since been banned, and Paul posted the comment that follows after my publication of yesterday’s blog. I am extending an invitation to Paul Browne to continue this discussion on my site. I’ve responded to him here and sent an email through Speaking of Research:
Tom,
Since Paul Browne is on the Speaking of Research Committee, I thought you might be kind enough to forward this message & blog to him. Please feel free to send me his contact information and I will refrain from bothering you in the future.
By the way, you never did get back to me. You suggested that the exchange between you, Jason & me was manipulated on my blog. In fact, the published discussion — as well as you weaseling around the fact that Pharma has financed you — is verbatim.
Regards,
Camille
Paul Browne :
“No Camille, we are very far from finding common ground. The “justifiable violence” agument is one that I’ve seen used again and again by various people in a variety of causes ranging from national liberation to opposing abortion who consider that their belief in their cause gives them the right (or even obligation) to use violence when other means of persuading society to acceed to their demands fail. In a democratic society this kind of violence can not be tolerated (and often backfires).
I’m not saying that the use of violence by fringe elements in a cause nescessarily invalidates a cause. I’m still happy to oppose proposition 8 even if I think a few nutters were very wrong to attack Mormon properties in the aftermath of the vote. Most sensible people can see the difference between the actions of a few extremists and mainstream opinion among supporters of gay rights. However there there are also cases, for example IRA violence in my home country of Ireland, where the use of violence to advance a cause ends up defining said cause.
Society has decided that animal research is justifiable (unlike the violence against a human baby that you refer to) and that non-humans should not be granted the same protection as humans (note this does not mean that they are excluded from moral consideration). I believe that society has made the right decisions. In a democracy such as the USA there are peaceful avenues through which you can campaign to end animal research. Resorting to violence because you fail to succeed through those peaceful avenues is immoral, puts you outside normal society and is an admission of how little support you actually have.”
__________________
Okay, Paul, I am not deluded that either of us will influence the other’s position. But I am honestly curious about the arbitrary distinctions that allow you to exclude some animals from consideration while you concede that others are worthy of protection.
I’ve read your response carefully. While militant direct action was, in fact, an effective and necessary element in every successful civil rights struggle, the myopic have always failed to see the big picture.
As far as the law (which exists to protect the interests of the state), the suggestion that your ethics are somehow the product of jurisprudence is disingenuous. If that were so, it would follow that you would have found Africa-American slavery acceptable simply because it was legal and socially accepted.
If the legal system provides the foundation of your morality, then I’m curious… if welfare laws were stipulated today to regulate child rape, would those children cease being worthy of your protection?
No one would argue that a human child deserves to be pr0tected by any means necessary. What about a companion animal?
If you, Paul Browne, saw a person mercilessly torturing a dog in the street, are you not justified is using violence to neutralize the tormentor and rescue the innocent and suffering dog?
.
I hope you will take me up on my offer to promote understanding between our communities.
.
If you have a Facebook account, join the extended Negotiation Is Over network.”.
To submit work to NIO for consideration and publication, please send an email to camille@negotationisover with the subject “submission”.
To receive NIO updates, please send an email to camille@negotiationisover with the subject “subscriptions”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
The problem with his thought on society`s decision is that people aren
Paul seems to fail to understand that the morality of tactics cannot be assessed independently of the morality of the cause to which those tactics are put. You cannot divide tactics into rigid categories moral and immoral for all movements.
Leafletting may seemingly be a pretty acceptable tactic – it’s generally legal and not too aggressive. But I would suggest that leafletting literature in support of white supremacy is immoral (even though I believe it should remain legal).
Violence is often immoral but when it is used to save innocent lives such as the lives of nonhuman animals who are afforded little protection from the law it can indeed be moral.
Very few people are pacifists – meaning that most people support violence in limited contexts – we just disagree about the relevant contexts and which victims are worth defending.
It’s just species bias/preference. Violence to save the life of an infant is “acceptable violence” for Brown. Violence to save the life of an animal he sees as no more than a handy bag of chemicals which exists for use as a test bed is a *property issue.* One would no more be justified in using violence to steal one’s livestock as one would be to steal one’s car, by that rationale.
It’s absurd, but it’s pointless to pretend that there’s anything more to it than that.
Just another obvious case of: Me, My, Man, Human Supremacy. No matter how virtuous an act is, such as defending an innocent victim, the exceptions to do right abound; if the victim isn’t “one of us”. That’s ugly speciesism unmasked -