Thought for the Day

Let me now collect into one paragraph the contradictions of some of these fallacies (which I have here rather attempted to formulate and classify than to refute, or even fully discuss), and so exhibit in one view the case of the opponents of vivisection. It is briefly this—

That while we do not deny the absolute right of man to end the lives of the lower animals by a painless death, we require good and sufficient cause to be shown for all infliction of pain.

That the prevention of suffering to a human being does not justify the infliction of a greater amount of suffering on an animal.

That the chief evil of the practice of vivisection consists in its effect on the moral character of the operator ; and that this effect is distinctly demoralising and brutalising.

That hard work and the endurance of privations are no proof of an unselfish motive.

That the toleration of one form of an evil is no excuse for tolerating another.

Lastly, that the risk of legislation increasing the evil is not enough to make all legislation undesirable.

The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) (1832-1898), English author, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection” serialised on The Grumpy Vegan and available in full at the Animal Rights Library.

Posted in Thinking | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Anniversary of Topsy’s Electrocution

January 4 is the anniversary of the electrocution by Thomas Edison of Topsy, the elephant we must never forget. We know more about how her life ended than we do about how it began. Newspaper reports on her death in 1903 claim she was 28. This means she was probably caught in India, Sri Lanka, Indochina or Indonesia in the mid 1870s. She was brought to the United States and became part of the touring Forepaugh Circus.

It’s as true today as it was more than 100 years ago: Captive wild animals don’t perform stupid tricks, dress up in gaudy clothes and parade around to vulgar music because they want to. They are forced to perform by trainers with whips and bull hooks. The romantic glamour of the circus hides the power and control of cruel animal-training and management techniques.

But for the most part, circus life for elephants meant boredom, confinement and discipline. There was no veterinary care. They subsisted on unhealthy diets. There was a total lack of understanding of their psychological and behavioural needs. They weren’t allowed to exercise and socialize with their own kind except for when they performed. Everyone knew elephants were dangerous, which is probably why people taunted them and persisted in treating them cruelly. So, elephants attacked when they felt threatened or were provoked. Male or bull elephants were especially dangerous during musth. This is a periodic condition when testosterone production is at its greatest. The bull’s innate desire is to find a cow elephant in heat and mate. In Topsy’s time, elephant keepers were ignorant of musth and what it meant for bull elephants. To them, the elephant had become “ugly,” which meant he was dangerous and many were consequently killed. The names of elephants were often changed when they were sold to another circus after they had killed someone.

In 1902 a stupid and tragic incident led Topsy to take one more step toward her own death. The Forepaugh Circus was in Brooklyn. A drunken man, J.F. Blount, approached Topsy with a glass of whisky and a lit cigarette. Trainers frequently gave alcohol to elephants. It relaxed them. But they feared it on someone’s breath. It invariably meant trouble. Blount dropped the lit cigarette onto Topsy’s tongue. The trainer shouted a warning to Blount, who boasted “Don’t you worry about me, brother, I know what I’m doing.” According to The Commercial Advertiser, Topsy “picked him [Blount] up with her trunk and dashed him to the ground, killing him instantly.”

Topsy eventually ended up at Luna Park, a Coney Island amusement park in Brooklyn, NY, where she worked with her keeper, Frederick Ault. He was a drunkard and Topsy behaved more like the wild animal she was, which could only end up in tears — elephant tears.

She was electrocuted by Edison to demonstrate the power of electricity in what was known as the “Battle of the Currents.” To expedite her electrocution she was fed carrots laced with 460 grams of potassium cyanide. With 1,500 spectators who each paid 10 cents to watch, Topsy was electrocuted on January 4, 1903. It took 10 seconds for the 6,600 volts of electricity to kill her.

We must never forget Topsy. Every time we plug something into an electrical outlet we must remember her and her tragic life and cruel death.

Posted in Animal Rights | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bury the Chains … again

Some books are just worth reading twice. And Bury the Chains, which I wrote about previously in connection with the film about Wilberforce called “Amazing Grace,” is one of them.

A second reading found the Grumpy Vegan focussing more on Adam Hochschild’s framing the British anti-slavery movement as the first modern social movement with its use of petitions, public meetings, boycotts (sugar), propaganda, organising (with particular reference to the ability of the Quakers here) and, of course, lobbying and legislation in Parliament, than the rest of the narrative.

There’s much here for the animal advocate to learn from while understanding that parallels with social movements only go so far but are enlightening nonetheless. For example, Hochschild considers what was in the minds of the founders of a meeting held in London in 1787 for the “Purpose of taking the Slave Trade into Consideration” that resolved it was “both impolitick and unjust”

We can only imagine how the committee members felt as they dispersed to their homes that night. The task they had taken on was so monumental as to have seemed to anyone else impossible. They had to ignite their crusade in a country where the great majority of people, from farmhands to bishops, accepted slavery as completely normal. It was also a country where profits from West Indian plantations gave a large boost to the economy, where customs duties on slave-grown sugar were an important source of government revenue, and where the livelihoods of tens of thousands of seamen, merchants, and ship-builders depended on the slave trade. The trade itself had increased to almost unparalleled levels, bringing posterity to key ports, including London itself. How event to begin the massive job of changing public opinion? Furthermore, nineteen out of twenty Englishmen, and all Englishwomen, were not even allowed to vote. Without this most basic of rights themselves, could they be roused to care about the rights of other people, of a different skin color, an ocean away?

In all of human experience, there was no precedent for such a campaign.

Posted in Thinking | Tagged | Leave a comment

Thought for the Day

Yet, after all, the whole argument, deduced from a comparison of vivisection with sport, rests on the following proposition, which I claim to class as a fallacy :—

11. That the toleration of one form of an evil necessitates the toleration of all others.

Grant this, and you simply paralyze all conceivable efforts at reformation. How can we talk of putting down cruelty to animals when drunkenness is rampant in the land ? You would propose, then, to legislate in the interests of sobriety ? Shame on you ! Look at the unseaworthy ships in which our gallant sailors are risking their lives ! What ! Organize a crusade against dishonest shipowners, while our streets swarm with a population growing up in heathen ignorance ! We can but reply, non omnia possumus omnes. And surely the man who sees his way to diminish in any degree even a single one of the myriad evils around him, may well lay to heart the saying of a wise man of old, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.”

The last parallel to which the advocates of vivisection may be expected to retreat, supposing all these positions to be found untenable, is the assertion—

12. That legislation would only increase the evil.

The plea, if I understand it aright, amounts to this,—that legislation would probably encourage many to go beyond the limit with which at present they are content, as soon as they found that a legal limit had been fixed beyond their own. Granting this to be the tendency of human nature, what is the remedy usually adopted in other cases ? A stricter limit, or the abandonment of all limits ? Suppose a case—that in a certain town it were proposed to close all taverns at midnight, and that the opponents of the measure urged, “At present some close at eleven—a most desirable hour : if you pass this law, all will keep open till midnight.” What would the answer be ? “Then let us do nothing,” or “Then let us fix eleven, instead of twelve, as our limit” ? Surely this does not need many words : the principle of doing evil that good may come is not likely to find many defenders, even in this modern disguise of forbearing to do good lest evil should come. We may safely take our stand on, the principle of doing the duty which we see before us : secondary consequences are at once out of our control and beyond our calculation.

The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) (1832-1898), English author, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection” serialised on The Grumpy Vegan and available in full at the Animal Rights Library.

Posted in Thinking | Tagged | Leave a comment

Bury the Chains….again

Some books are just worth reading twice. And Bury the Chains, which I wrote about previously in connection with the film about Wilberforce called “Amazing Grace,” is one of them.

A second reading found the Grumpy Vegan focussing more on Adam Hochschild’s framing the British anti-slavery movement as the first modern social movement with its use of petitions, public meetings, boycotts (sugar), propaganda, organising (with particular reference to the ability of the Quakers here) and, of course, lobbying and legislation in Parliament, than the rest of the narrative.

There’s much here for the animal advocate to learn from while understanding that parallels with social movements only go so far but are enlightening nonetheless. For example, Hochschild considers what was in the minds of the founders of a meeting held in London in 1787 for the “Purpose of taking the Slave Trade into Consideration” that resolved it was “both impolitick and unjust”

We can only imagine how the committee members felt as they dispersed to their homes that night. The task they had taken on was so monumental as to have seemed to anyone else impossible. They had to ignite their crusade in a country where the great majority of people, from farmhands to bishops, accepted slavery as completely normal. It was also a country where profits from West Indian plantations gave a large boost to the economy, where customs duties on slave-grown sugar were an important source of government revenue, and where the livelihoods of tens of thousands of seamen, merchants, and ship-builders depended on the slave trade. The trade itself had increased to almost unparalleled levels, bringing posterity to key ports, including London itself. How event to begin the massive job of changing public opinion? Furthermore, nineteen out of twenty Englishmen, and all Englishwomen, were not even allowed to vote. Without this most basic of rights themselves, could they be roused to care about the rights of other people, of a different skin color, an ocean away?

In all of human experience, there was no precedent for such a campaign.

Posted in Thinking | Tagged | Leave a comment

Thought for the Day

Yet, after all, the whole argument, deduced from a comparison of vivisection with sport, rests on the following proposition, which I claim to class as a fallacy :—

11. That the toleration of one form of an evil necessitates the toleration of all others.

Grant this, and you simply paralyze all conceivable efforts at reformation. How can we talk of putting down cruelty to animals when drunkenness is rampant in the land ? You would propose, then, to legislate in the interests of sobriety ? Shame on you ! Look at the unseaworthy ships in which our gallant sailors are risking their lives ! What ! Organize a crusade against dishonest shipowners, while our streets swarm with a population growing up in heathen ignorance ! We can but reply, non omnia possumus omnes. And surely the man who sees his way to diminish in any degree even a single one of the myriad evils around him, may well lay to heart the saying of a wise man of old, “Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might.”

The last parallel to which the advocates of vivisection may be expected to retreat, supposing all these positions to be found untenable, is the assertion—

12. That legislation would only increase the evil.

The plea, if I understand it aright, amounts to this,—that legislation would probably encourage many to go beyond the limit with which at present they are content, as soon as they found that a legal limit had been fixed beyond their own. Granting this to be the tendency of human nature, what is the remedy usually adopted in other cases ? A stricter limit, or the abandonment of all limits ? Suppose a case—that in a certain town it were proposed to close all taverns at midnight, and that the opponents of the measure urged, “At present some close at eleven—a most desirable hour : if you pass this law, all will keep open till midnight.” What would the answer be ? “Then let us do nothing,” or “Then let us fix eleven, instead of twelve, as our limit” ? Surely this does not need many words : the principle of doing evil that good may come is not likely to find many defenders, even in this modern disguise of forbearing to do good lest evil should come. We may safely take our stand on, the principle of doing the duty which we see before us : secondary consequences are at once out of our control and beyond our calculation.

The Reverend Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll) (1832-1898), English author, Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass. “Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection” serialised on The Grumpy Vegan and available in full at the Animal Rights Library.

Posted in Thinking | Tagged | Leave a comment