One of the few pro-animal rights websites that is worth seriously reading is Keith Burgess-Jackson’s Animal Ethics blog. Burgess-Jackson is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Arlington and one of the rare conservatives who is also pro-animal rights.
On May 14, Burgess-Jackson posted a call for other pro-animal rights philosophers to disassociate themselves from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Burgess-Jackson wrote,
I’m trying to reach agreement on moral principles so that we can discuss facts. Sometimes I get the feeling that, to PETA< the end justifies the means. If manipulation works better than rational persuasion, then by all means manipulate! If tactic A gets more attention than tactic B, thus getting PETA into the news, then tactic A is preferable to B. If degrading women or cozying up to powerful commercial interests helps animals, then it must be done.
I despise this sort of result-oriented thinking. It appalls me. Animals do not benefit, in the long run, from anything but rational persuasion. It particular galls me to find philosophers supporting PETA. No self-respecting philosopher would manipulate the audience, however important the end. Philosophers are concerned with knowledge, not mere belief. Their objective isn’t to change people’s beliefs, but to provide good grounds for belief. This rules out appeals to emotion, for example. It rules out buckets of blood, paint-throwing, rudeness, and other vile, self-defeating tactics. PETA turns off more people than it recruits. I’m convinced of it. Is this good for animals? With friends like PETA, animals don’t need enemies.
. . .
I call upon my philosophical friends (they know who they are) to sever ties with PETA. Immediately. Regain your lost independence and self-respect. Come home to philosophy. Come back to what attracted you to philosophy in the first place: its integrity, its honesty, and its methodological purity. You can’t be both a philosopher and a shill. You can try to be both, but you can’t succeed at it.
I do not know which philosophers Burgess-Jackson is referring to, but at least Burgess-Jackson has PETA pegged correctly as a major obstacle to the animal rights movement. Thankfully, neither the philosophers he is trying to convince nor PETA itself is likely to take this advice.
Source:
PETA. Keith Burgess-Jackson, May 14, 2004.