While it is always heartening to see evidence of a
personal philosophical evolution, Dr Richard Ryder's philosophy of �painism,�
as reflected in his article published in the Guardian of August 6, 2005
(and reprinted in Animal Writes August 14, 2005), is, in our view, too
limited to be satisfying.
Painism, as developed by Dr Ryder in the referenced
article, excludes from moral consideration our treatment of so-called
'inanimate' existence: rocks, water, and air, for example. What would the
militants of environmental and ecological issues say about that? In
particular let us note that some scientists, over recent decades, have
shown evidence of waking up to a fact which many ancient philosophers (as
scientists were called in ancient times) took for granted: a force or
spirit which inhabits these 'inanimate' objects of our world. We know now,
thanks to atomic research, that 'inanimate' is a misnomer-- in fact, all
of 'creation' (for lack of a better word) is alive with the ceaseless
movement of electrons within the atoms -- atomic energy. Even the
'objects' previously cited have a place in the biosphere in which we live,
and in which each 'component, be it living or 'inanimate', has a place and
a relation interwining it with each other 'element', no matter how
separate they may seem to eyes that look at appearances only. Things and
species that were once considered superfluous have over and over again
demonstrated, by their disappearance, the useful functions they actually
once served, their disappearances leaving far-reaching problems in their
wake. We think of cities which manage to 'get rid of' rats, only to find
that their sewer systems are quickly blocked by solid matter which the
rats used to dispatch, keeping underground conduits free-flowing, to
everyone's benefit... And we all know what happens when the rains come to
a hillside from which the rocks -or trees, for that matter- have been
removed, when erosion carries off the topsoil, reducing the hillside
eventually to the level of the flat plains below...
Reverence for life, we would submit, is only one aspect of
humanism, and insufficient alone to help us find solutions to the pressing
problems of our modern civilization, problems which are having direct
bearings on our survival and the survival of the whole world of which we
are but one small part. Philosophy, after all, is the pursuit of knowledge
about the principles which should guide our actions. Granted that
happiness is our ultimate goal, we seek through philosophy the moral
guidelines which will help us achieve a rational, and not an irrational,
happiness.
Rational happiness is that which puts us in harmony with
our environment, living and 'inanimate.' Pain, then, is one aspect of
irrationality which we must oppose, and fight against, in order to achieve
harmony/peace in the context in which we live, such harmony/peace being a
fundamental prerequisite for our happiness (does anyone dispute this
point?). (Nevertheless, let us note in passing that it is sometimes
necessary to cause pain in order to achieve a good goal, as with the
surgeon who cuts open a patient to remove a bullet, or the dentist who
drills out the cavity in a tooth). Inherent in this
philosophy-in-a-wider-context is an acceptance of our 'place' in
'creation'... As so rightly pointed out by Dr Ryder, Man is not the center
of the Universe, with the moral right to impose any whim or passing fancy
on what he finds around him (be it, we would specify, living or
'inanimate'). The fact that Man has tried to bend so-called inanimate
matter to his will, with such disastrous results, as we all know, also
makes a claim on our moral preoccupations... as on our preoccupations
regarding our own chances for survival as a species.
The problem of the treatment Man metes out to other
species of living creatures is one that rightly preoccupies those of us
who defend animals, their resemblance to us in their capacity for pain
giving them in our eyes a first-call on our efforts towards a positive
influence on our fellows. Humanity is still, by and large, living as if it
had never heard of Copernicus � as if the Universe DOES turn around the
Earth just because humans inhabit it. Shall the light of human reason be
extinguished along with our species, in order to establish the point that
Man has a place in existence, but that (as Copernicus tried to show us) he
is NOT the center of the Universe? (And let us all remember that there was
a time in Europe when people were put to death on the rack for holding
this conviction.)
Perhaps the reverence for ALL EXISTENCE which the ancients
took for granted and which many (so-called) primitive people still
practice, is too grand a notion for Modern Man, bent on fast (and cheap)
satisfactions at the expense of future conditions. But we all have heard
that 'you cannot have your cake and eat it, too.' The final bottom-line
bill for all the immediate and cheap satisfactions will be presented one
day, if not to our generations, then to our children's generations. And by
then, the size of the Amount Due may be more than our species can ever
hope to pay. But that is the price of irrationality.
So, while we applaud Dr Ryder's philosophical defense of
those on whom we would inflict pain in order to meet our 'needs', and
while we particularly applaud his rejection of the bankrupt notions of
'Utilitarian Ethics', we find his philosophy of 'painism' too limiting to
provide the answers we seek to the full range of problems that we, as good
Animal Soldiers and Humanists, must face today. For we should never lose
sight of the logical whole of which our struggle is but a part. Let us
always keep in mind the words of Marguerite Yourcenar, the great French
thinker and writer (by the way, a vegetarian), 'The protection of animals
is basically the same battle as the protection of man'.
Nevertheless, we are encouraged to hope that the former
vivisector in Dr Ryder (20 years, as we understand it, of practicing
vivisection, notably as Senior Clinical Psychologist at Warneford
Hospital, Oxford, at Cambridge and Edinburgh Universities, at the London
Zoo, and in various laboratories in the United States) and, we are
assured, the former holder (at the helm of the RSPCA, he was the person
ultimately responsible) of long-term substantial investments in the stock
of major pharmaceutical companies, all of which practiced, and still
practice for that matter, vivisection (for details, see
http://www.nzavs.org.nz/mobilise/34/4.html ), and as one of those responsible for the Animal Welfare Act of 1 January
1987 in the UK as well as a subsequent similar law in New Zealand (which
poses an obligation of vivisection where it had not existed before and
guarantees the continuance of the practice for many generations to come),
we are pleased to deduce that Dr Ryder, in his Golden Years, has been led
by his reflections to a well-merited implicit rejection of these previous
positions... in which case, we can all join him with the full force of our
energy and determination, wholeheartedly rejecting vivisection once and
for all, in all its forms, with all its (so-called) justifications, and
turn our backs on previous errors and disagreements, which means a full
and complete rejection of vivisection, on all points, at all times, once
and for all. For non-abolitionist anti-vivisection leaders can seriously
damage our health (moral and physical).
<><><><><>
Guenady is the single pen name used by the active members of The Friends
of Guenady association ( www.stop-abus-animal.com ). The author of this
particular article is a graduate, in Journalism (with the equivalent of a
minor in Philosophy), of the University of California at Berkeley, and
lives and teaches English in the South of France.
Go on to ACT Radio
Return to 28 August 2005 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
