I have the utmost respect for Dr. Temple Grandin’s work, and it is absolutely amazing that she strives to promote humane killing for animals. I also admire her work with the Autism rights movement. However, I do disagree with some of her most principle ideas behind her reasoning for humane slaughter. In a paper she wrote presented to a discussion about whether animals should be considered property at Harvard University in 2002, A View on Animal Welfare Based on Neurological Complexity, she states that her “basic principle is that development of the nervous system as a major determinant of the welfare needs of the animal.” Instead of promoting equal rights for all animals, she picks certain types of animals to promote for – depending on their level of intricacy in nervous systems.
While I do not have the educational qualifications to debate about nervous systems, I do have some opinions about the value of life that contradicts with her principles. For example, Dr. Grandin says, “Advocating for the rights of oysters is something I think is silly.” However, I believe that all creatures have an equal right to live. An oyster has the right to strive and live out its life, just as a dog does or a human does, and that human beings are not in the position of deciding who is to live and who is to die. To decide for oysters that their lives aren’t as valuable is a case of speciesism – “a prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species”, as animal rights activist Peter Singer would say.
When it comes to animals with more developed nervous systems however, Dr. Grandin does have some very strong points that I completely agree with about their actual vs. percepted worth by humans. “Human babies are given full protection even though a newborn’s cognitive abilities are less than the abilities of mature farm animals. They are given this protection because they will grow and develop into people. A mentally retarded child and a cow may have the same cognitive abilities. I can sell or kill the cow but I am not allowed to do this with a retarded child. Why should the retarded child or human newborn have more protection than a cow?”, she states in the essay. In this quotation, she acknowledges the value of a cow’s life justly by comparing it to the worth of a human child. Although the basis is dependent on the cow’s complex nervous system, she does rightfully recognize its life worth.
Her argument about animals’ ranging neurological complexity is not completely wrong however. While it true that all species have different neurological complexity, thus as some might say, “feel less pain than others”. This is not mean that one animal has less life worth than others, as we all have feelings and varying “emotions language”. Just because human beings do not understand other species’ language to understand their emotions, or that some species simply might not be physically able to express their emotions, does not mean that other species have “nonlinguistic modes of communications” that we can choose to ignore. In Jane Goodall’s study of chimpanzees, In the Shadow of Man, she argues that human beings’ “nonlinguistic modes of communications… are not specific to our own species.” These communication signs like “a cheering pat on the back, an exuberant embrace, a clasp of the hand” are “basic signals we use to convey pain, fear, anger, love, joy, surprise, sexual arousal, and many other emotional states” that we have and definitely share among many other species.
As much as I disagree with Dr. Grandin’s principles and motivations behind her animal rights work, I will not ignore and discredit her grand contribution to reduce animal suffering. Afterall, while no slaughter at all is best, I cannot disagree that humane slaughter is better than the horrors of the current American slaughter procedures.
Sources:
http://www.grandin.com/welfare/animals.are.not.things.html
Animal Liberation by Peter Singer
Bloody Crops: Unmasking the Meat Industry 