Former Bush speechwriter: Animal welfare isn't just for liberals

[Karmadillo]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-scully_25edi.ART.State.Edition1.32ff48f.html

<edit>

Conservatives like the sound of "obligation" better than "right," and those who reviewed my book were relieved to find me arguing more from this angle than from any notion of animal rights. "What the PETA crowd doesn't understand," Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online wrote, "or what it deliberately confuses, is that human compassion toward animals is an obligation of humans, not an entitlement for animals."

If one is using the word "obligation" seriously, however, then there is no practical difference between an obligation on our end not to mistreat animals and an entitlement on their end not to be mistreated. Either way, the entitlement would have to arise from a recognition of the inherent dignity of a living creature. Animals cruelly dealt with are not just things, not just irrelevant details in some self-centered moral drama of our own. They matter in their own right. All creatures sing their Creator's praises, as this truth is variously expressed in the Bible, and are dear to him for their own sakes.

A certain moral relativism runs through the arguments of those hostile or indifferent to animal welfare – as if animals can be of value only for our sakes. In practice, this outlook leaves each person to decide for himself when animals rate moral concern. It even allows us to accept or reject established facts about animals, such as their cognitive and emotional capacities and their conscious experience of pain and happiness.

There is a disconnect here: Elsewhere in contemporary debates, conservatives consistently oppose moral relativism by pointing out that, like it or not, we are all dealing with the same set of physiological realities and moral truths. We don't each get to decide the facts of science on a situational basis. We do not each go about bestowing moral value upon things as it pleases us in the moment. We do not decide moral truth at all: We discern it.

Likewise, the great virtue of conservatism is that it begins with a realistic assessment of human motivations. We know man as he is, not only the rational creature, but also, as Socrates told us, the rationalizing creature, with a knack for finding an angle, an excuse and a euphemism. Whether it's the pornographer who thinks himself a free-speech champion or the abortionist who looks in the mirror and sees a reproductive health care services provider, conservatives are familiar with the type.

more...

[moobu2]

1. Sounds like a deranged Nazi

[UTUSN]

2. So His Name Is "Matthew SCULLY" - I Had to Click-in to Find Out?

********QUOTE******

Matthew Scully, a Los Angeles writer, served until last fall as special assistant and deputy director of speechwriting to President Bush. He is the author of "Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy." This essay is adapted from a longer version first published in The American Conservative (www.amconmag.com). You may contact Mr. Scully through www.matthewscully.com.

*****UNQUOTE*************

[Kenneth ken]

3. ooh

" Conservatives have a way of dismissing the subject, as if, where animals are concerned, nothing very serious could ever be at stake. "

Sounds like too many here on DU as well.

Thanks Karmadillo :hi:

[moobu2]

4. It's nothing more than a bunch of conservitive propaganda

like all the rest of everything they do is.

These Republicans are making a concerted effort to carve away voters from animal rights groups who are traditionally liberals. It isn’t as if they mean any part of this, it's just that some right wing think tank came up with this strategy. This Republican is a public relation pro who's pimping his writing talent for the Republican cause. That's all this is.

It's propaganda.

Who needs a Republican Nazi propagandist to tell them about compassion towards animals? I sure as hell don’t. I have real compasion for all living creatures.

[Kenneth ken]

5. heh

I don't think traditional liberals who support animal rights are going to be swayed to vote for Republicans.

But it is possible that conservative Republicans could be swayed to give some thought to animal rights. Combine that with general dissatisfaction for the Bush* maladministration among real conservatives, and maybe Dems will pick up some voters.

So on behalf of the non-human animals, I applaud him for this book. Because they should not be thought of as a political tactic, but as creatures sharing the planet with us, having their own right to exist.

[MisterP]

6. how dare anyone care about other species! we must be like Graydon Creed!