The Jan. 29 column by Ben Moss and Brittany Meyer was right about at least one thing. PETA's "attempt" to change the word "fish" into "sea kittens" sounds like a joke precisely because it is one. It's a big joke, but it has an even bigger point lurking behind it.
Fish have nervous systems very similar to mammals such as dogs, and, if you must, kittens. They are likely to experience physical and even emotional suffering to the very same level of intensity as the land animals we cherish. Yet when millions upon millions are dragged from the ocean in commercial nets, the pressure change often causes their eyes to pop out and their swim bladders to rupture. The survivors either slowly suffocate or are ripped open with knives while still conscious.
But PETA's main point goes deeper than fish (excuse the pun). PETA's foundation rests on the position that our unthinking assumption against taking seriously the suffering of non-human animals reflects a form of prejudice, which philosophers call "speciesism" by analogy with racism and sexism. The arguments for this conclusion were first widely published by Peter Singer, now Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University, in his book "Animal Liberation."
In the United States, literally billions of birds live in chronic pain brought on by their genetic-manipulation-induced bulk, cows are asphyxiated by their own blood when their throats are sliced open and tracheas ripped out while fully conscious, millions of pigs, as intelligent and loving as dogs, go insane after spending years in cages so small that they can barely move. Once we rethink speciesist assumptions, the suffering we cause these animals - for comparably trivial human benefits like taste preference - becomes one of the very most important ethical issues of our time.
In fact, speciesism runs so deep that even with the best intentions Moss and Meyer assumed overfishing to be the main issue behind PETA's campaign, rather than the suffering of individual fish. We have been taught that other animals don't matter in their own right, just as men were once taught that women had no inherent value, and whites were taught the same about black slaves.
PETA isn't made of "tree-huggers," as the article suggested. Many of their supporters are on the political right, as, I think, they should be. I am often the most critical of those on the right who mistakenly dismiss animal rights. Last year I criticized some members of the AU Republicans far too harshly for this, as I assumed them to be informed and with ill-will, rather than sincere and deeply mistaken.
I believe that every one of us concerned with doing what is just has an obligation to take the little time and energy necessary to learn about this issue. Read "Animal Liberation," watch the film "Earthlings" or just start with a well-sourced PETA Web site like meat.org. Unlike enslaved and oppressed groups of humans in the past, other species cannot fight for themselves. It's up to us. Animal rights are a true test of human character.
Mark Devries Senior, College of Arts and Sciences
