Academia grows increasingly loony—and the cause is rejecting human exceptionalism. Our latest example comes from the new field of “animal ethics,” where some academics want us to stop insulting our dogs and cats by calling them “pets.” From the story:
Animal lovers should stop calling their furry or feathered friends “pets” because the term is insulting, leading academics claim. Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist. Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
The call comes from the editors of then Journal of Animal Ethics, a new academic publication devoted to the issue...In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”. It argues that “derogatory” language about animals can affect the way that they are treated. “Despite its prevalence, ‘pets’ is surely a derogatory term both of the animals concerned and their human carers,” the editorial claims. “Again the word ‘owners’, whilst technically correct in law, harks back to a previous age when animals were regarded as just that: property, machines or things to use without moral constraint.” It goes on: “We invite authors to use the words ‘free-living’, ‘free-ranging’ or ‘free-roaming’ rather than ‘wild animals’ “For most, ‘wildness’ is synonymous with uncivilised, unrestrained, barbarous existence.
I guess this means my friends will have to stop calling me a “party animal” because the term implies a life of wild abandon, which will cause us to judge animals as licentious, leading us to go out and torture a puppy. Then again, no one has ever called me a party animal, so problem solved. But I digress.
The irony here, is that by trying to impose political correctness on our language regarding the beasts of the field (shame on you, Wesley!), the authors implicitly admit human exceptionalism. After all, animals can’t get insulted and don’t have the human sense of dignitas over what is said about them or what they are called. Only humans use language to create moral categories. And only humans can “explore” our “moral relationships” with animals. That makes us, well, exceptional.
Update: Man dressed as cow steals milk: Horrible. Now most people will think that animals are thieves. Oh yea, most are.You have a decision to make: double or nothing.
For this week only, a generous supporter has offered to fully match all new and increased donations to First Things up to $60,000.
In other words, your gift of $50 unlocks $100 for First Things, your gift of $100 unlocks $200, and so on, up to a total of $120,000. But if you don’t give, nothing.
So what will it be, dear reader: double, or nothing?
Make your year-end gift go twice as far for First Things by giving now.
