Epstein Goes to Extremes

In his article entitled The Dangerous Claims of the Animal Rights Movement, Richard Epstein asserts that the assertions Steve Wise and other animal rights activists are not only wrong, but also a danger to human society. After outlining some of the "crazy ideas" of animal rights activists, Epstein states that, "...if systematically implemented, would pose a mortal threat to human society that few human beings would, or should, accept" (604). I have another assertion: Epstein is the radical here. Allow me to clarify.

First, Epstein really doesn't present a morally-based argument very well. He simply states that, "...one difference stands out: through thick and thin, animals do not have the capacity of higher cognitive language and thought that characterizes human beings as a species..." (601). Really? Is that so? I seem to recall that dolphins and other aquatic animals have a very developed form of underwater communication. In fact, we have discussed that many animals speak in ways of their own that we cannot understand. I assert that this is their language, just as French would be to a French person. I do not understand it, but I know it to be language.

Next, Epstein makes this wild assertion that by equating human and ape DNA together, animal rights activists must also consider that we may be related to the horse, dog and cow (602). This is like asserting that the hamster and the shark have the same DNA. Evolution has weeded out and replaced strands of DNA within species. An ignorance of modern science will produce a comment like Epstein's. It just so happens that humans and apes are evolved from the same strands. Thus, we still share a good amount of traits.

But not long after this is where Epstein starts to get radical in his own right. He states that, "The early society that did not rely on animals for food, for labor, for warfare was the society that did not survive to yield the heightened moral sensibilities of today" (602). What a statement! I seem to recall that most Native Americans did not just hunt, but also gathered. In fact, gathering was a major source of nutrition for them. And as I also recall, it was the meat-eating, profit-desiring, animal-slaughtering Westerner that took care of them.

However, Epstein doesn't stop there. He then takes the extreme of Gary Francione and somehow applies it to the entire animal rights movement. The theory of one man is not science. Just as one idea is not philosophy. So do not suggest it.

And finally, Epstein goes off his rocker with the statement, "The principle of first possession should therefore block us from clearing the land for farms, homes, and factories unless we can find ways to make just compensation to each individual animal for its own losses" (603). How is this even a suggestion? And how was it extrapolated? Human beings have lived peacefully with animals, in co-habitation, for thousands of years. The system we have now, one of pollution and exploitation, has perverted such an existence. We do owe animals a respect, just as we would hopefully respect another human's right to property and life.

But in the end, Epstein does not believe this. He follows up in summation by saying, "We should not undermine, as would surely be the case, the liberty and dignity of human beings by treating animals their moral equals and legal peers" (604). So there you have it. Epstein is the radical here. He picks apart the radicals of this movement and then makes a statement of his own which is just as radical. Giving animals liberty and dignity would no doubt trash human ability to have the same.

I do apologize if I come across snide or angered, but I am. And I hope that someone responds to my claims here, as well as Epstein's, in order to spur some discussion.

Question: Do you believe that animals can have freedom and liberty, even if we still utilize their resources and their labor? (This sort of goes back to our discussion of space and care for animals; sorry to bring it back it but I don't think it was done justice.)