Review by Jon Wynne-Tyson of
The Moral Status of Animals by Stephen R.L. Clark
From the July 1977 edition of the New Vegetarian with Thanks
to the Vegetarian Society:
An important book, not because it breaks much new ground, nor because
its construction and writing make for an easy read (its author's
thoughts tend to run away with him, and his references to other
authorities often interrupt the flow and raise doubts as to whether he
is quoting or originating), but because it is written with the deepest
sincerity and concern by a distinguished lecturer in Moral Philosophy at
one of our leading universities.
The fact that professional philosophers, active on campuses and
through the orthodox media, have begun to take up the cause of other
species in the areas beyond that of mere physical conservation is an
overdue phenomenon we should not take for granted. Peter Singer's
Animal Liberation and Richard Ryder's Victims of Science
are two recent and first rate examples of this welcome trend, and
The Moral Status of Animals completes a trio that no serious
student of man's relationship with his environment can afford to ignore.
It is perhaps unfair to suggest that Stephen Clark does not say much
that is new. What he does is to examine, painstakingly and often
brilliantly, a wide range of our hypocritical, self-deceiving quibbles
and excuses for the brutal and selfish practices we inflict on other
species. Exploding one after another those twisted and dishonest
defences of our cruelty and indifferences, so familiar to all who have
argued with those whose stomachs have long replaced their hearts, Clark
ties up many of the loose ends that may have been left by writers whose
brief has been the presentation of the broad arguments for a more humane
treatment of our fellow-animals.
While he can be less than generous to writers sharing his concern, he
has no petty reservations about the necessity to accept that all other
forms of life have their part to play in the scheme of things, with no
less and perhaps even more importance than man. While sympathising with
his anger, one feels his approach suggests he is a relatively new
convert to vegetarianism, and this impression is strengthened by his
neglect of certain areas that might well have spurred his imagination to
even greater heights, and by a few (but only a few) conclusions that
suggest he has not yet thought through certain basic concepts and
assumptions.
But I do not want to quibble unduly about a fine and welcome book
that in the words of its blurb presents "a radical reappraisal of our
standing in the world, in the light of our ethical and religious
tradition, sound philosophy, and modern science." As Clark says:
"Academics are professionally committed to objectivity. That is, they
are required by the ethical standards which define their craft to be
ready to submit their most cherished doctrines to the scrutiny of their
peers, and themselves to stand a little apart from these doctrines even
in their own privacies."
Certainly, whether he is displaying his "cordial detestation" of
humanism; tilting at the "sub-Hegelian gibberish" of those who hold that
however vile the natural prospect be, man only is supreme; savaging the
psychopathic products of the religion of science; or opposing the
sickening humbug of those righteous ghouls who see something positively
of benefit to animals in their involuntary sacrifice on our altars, he
keeps conscientiously to the facts and, for the most part, to the
dictates of reason and the unsullied reactions of what he and I would
regard as a normal heart.
In his final chapter he writes splendidly:
"I am inclined, perhaps unfairly, to think that no-one has any
standing in such a discussion who has not taken the simple, minimal step
of abandoning flesh-foods. Honourable men may honourably disagree about
some details of human treatment of the non-human, but vegetarianism is
now as necessary a pledge of moral devotion as was the refusal of
emperor-worship in the early Church. Those who have not made that pledge
have no authority to speak against the most inanely-conceived
experiments, nor against hunting, nor against fur-trapping, nor
bear-baiting, nor bull-fights, nor pulling the wings off flies.
Flesh-eating in our present circumstances is as empty a gluttony as any
of these things. Those who will eat flesh when they could do otherwise
have no claim to be serious moralists."
For "vegetarianism" we must now, in our present knowledge, and in
simple logic and humane honesty, substitute "veganism", a point Clark
seems to accept. He has made a magnificent contribution to that further
if not final regimen.
Jon Wynne-Tyson
Return to Reviews
