Animal Wrongs

Ostensibly modeled on the concept, its believed an incorrigible devotion to the cause inspires the champions of human rights to minister to another beleaguered constituency. Consequently, the auxiliary system of rectitude crafted for this purpose enjoys tremendous political currency. Yet conducted by the dominant primate, the inter-species translation of right invites close scrutiny, for simply too great is the massive public profile afforded such a profoundly self-affirming initiative. In light of the epic disparity in their respective processes it must be asked how these two enormously popular brands of right – can both possibly be.

Through the unassailable belief evil lurks exclusively in the shadows of extremism, the potential for mainstream domestic malfeasance is conveniently excluded. Therefore, emanating from the sacred center of the political spectrum (where only goodness and virtue dwell) a transparent attempt to undermine such a uniquely noble intention simply can’t be contemplated. Nevertheless, glaring under the forbidden light of objective analysis is the observation that (whereas the singular criterion of eligibility for human rights is expressly stated) an unspecified series of arbitrary considerations – cuteness, nobility, intelligence and of course taste – determine the vastly divergent “rights” experienced by the member’s of the other’s familiar class system. This is to say, rather than siblings; the latter structure is no kin to right.

Believed to pertain only to the four legged, problematic to the inherently misleading concept of “animal rights,” is the understanding that humanity falls within its claimed jurisdiction. Pregnant with purpose, this redundancy lays the groundwork for a campaign of confusion. By virtue of its repugnance, a concept that generates compelling evidence of our limitless compassion while subtly reinforcing our right to kill, may be reflexively dismissed. However generations removed from the source of its sustenance by urbanization, the most affluent culture in human history proves ideally suited to such an ambitious enterprise. And nowhere are its’ effects more palpable than beneath the golden arches of a capitalist icon, where marvels transpire.

Incapable of grasping their pivotal role in the complex pasture to plate process, the ambiance of a small child’s “happy meal” is undisturbed by reality. Yet incredibly, a poll of the legal adults (hamburgers in hand) in Ronald’s drive-thru produces scarcely a respondent who will admit to ever having caused the death of an animal. This aversion is so extreme that when their suffering becomes unbearable, we have our longtime “family members,”  “put to sleep.” A logic free zone ruled by an infantile system of optical ethics, refusal to acknowledge the reality of inter-species relations does nothing for our claims to superiority in the animal kingdom. While MacDonald land and Mr. Disney’s world are indeed wondrous, so also is this one.