Blissful Ignorance?

There are moments in this class where I have questioned if the attack we make on animals every day can be compared to such devastating attacks upon humanity, such as the Holocaust and Slavery. I came to such a question by the time of my second blog entry after reading Derrida, who dares to ask the reader “As if, for example, instead of throwing people into ovens or gas chambers (let’s say Nazis) doctors and geneticists had decided to organize the overproduction and overgeneration of Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals by means of artificial insemination, so that, being more numerous and better fed, they could be destined in always increasing numbers for the same hell, that of the imposition of genetic experimentation or extermination by gas or fire?”(225-226)” I followed up this quote with the statement that “I agree that the human treatment of animals is as appalling as it is unjust, but the parallel drawn here disturbs me – and I still do not know why.” Much like this statement, the rest of my blog was largely blurry and I can remember the confusion I felt even as I wrote. But the blurriness is starting to fade and I am beginning to realize one thing – animals are not humans. The reason why Derrida’s comments, along with Elizabeth Costello’s accusations in Coetzee’s Elizabeth Costello, offend me the way they do is that I find it morally inexcusable to take a level of human suffering of such great magnitude and use it to further a cause that is distinctly different.

Ironically, I think the plea Costello and Derrida use does more to distance the listener from the cause of animal rights than connect them to it. Amy Gutmann’s introduction made it clear to me why I am so offended by the Holocaust comparison when she quotes “the quiet anger of a poet who objects to Elizabeth Costello’s analogy between the murdered Jews of Europe and slaughtered cattle” who writes “’If Jews were treated like cattle,’ he says, ‘it does not follow that cattle are treated like Jews. The inversion insults the memory of the dead’”(297). Moreover, it may be questioned whether “the Holocaust could ever be part of any analogy”(297). The way we treat animals is markedly morally questionable, if not irrefutably unethical. But when I watched Earthlings, the comparison drawn between the Holocaust and our treatment of animals made me resistant to hear what the film actually had to say. The images and the videos of the animals would have been enough. Why did they have to compare it to human suffering? In my opinion, it only lowered the cause it sought to elevate.

Despite disagreeing with this particular comparison, there was some truth to be found in the statements Costello made. The most touching to me, in particular, was her discussion about ignorance. Ignorance does not equal innocence. She discusses how Germans, in her eyes, “lost their humanity...because of a certain willed ignorance on their part”(64). Although once again, I do not support the comparison she is making here between Germans and meat-eaters, there is some validity in what she is saying.

Blissful Ignorance?

I went my entire life choosing to be ignorant of the products I used and the animals I ingested. I never felt part of their suffering. I do, indeed, believe that this ignorance has left a genuine impact on how “humane,” or ethical I consider myself to be. I turned a blind eye because it was easier and I thought it made me immune to my moral responsibility to respect all forms of life. The way we treat animals is undoubtedly inhumane, not because animals are humans, but because it diminishes the code of ethics that makes us human.