Flores and Derr Readings

Even with the right intent, does animal activism still show the shortfalls found within humanity's general opinions and treatments of animals?

Flores, Derr, and Webb all construct powerful arguments on the historical, biological, and cultural aspects of our treatment of dogs, and animals, within humanity's own bias towards ourselves. However, despite the dynamic rebukes of our shortcomings, their arguments may show the same bias of human-centrism.

First, Flores bases her argument on the use of universal human rights in an appeal towards the rights of animals. She evens showcases our implementation of human privilege by instituting these rights for ourselves. This is a similar appeal to historical arguments used with ending slavery, racism, women's suffrage, gay rights, etc. The use of universal rights in humans is an effective way to institute an argument for equality with animals. 

However, it also showcases the same flaw in her argument: she subconsciously views animals as inferior, at least in writing. Instead of showing the perspective of animals, she uses a strictly human viewpoint. She writes convincingly that, "... many animals have similar or equal cognitive processes, emotions, bonds, and rights responsibilities as humans," (Flores Paragraph 11) but, she doesn't convey the perspective of the animals themselves. This severely weakens her argument by not taking into account the appeal to the animal perspective, which is necessary, to undermine human bias in her audience.

Similarly, Derr, and Webb, take into account various social constructs and historical aspects of our views towards the relationship between person and animal. Yet, these accounts come off as near heartless and require the necessary appeal to pathos to motivate change. Derr employs statistics on Japanese men to show the health benefits that dogs have on social interaction while Webb displays Christian theology's heartless and narrow approach towards the natural world. Despite these figures being woven into the societal aspect of our views of animals, they still don't provide the necessary backdrop to implement change in society. Stating benefits but not striking into the human spirit will not affect our relationship with animals.

The authors' arguments are all strong instruments for promoting animal rights and ending our view of superiority. However, they all have portrayed the same shortcomings towards their audiences. An emotionless appeal to humanity will change nothing. Animal activism must utilize human sentiment and care towards animals, not just idealistic appeal and violence, to force a change in humanity itself. Making readers feel uncomfortable, angry, or confused would provoke more interest and societal change towards eradicating our biases against dogs and the natural world. If the authors would appeal more to pathos within their arguments, their audiences would resonate more with the cause of animal rights. It would more effectively argue their points to leave behind speciesism for a more egalitarian society for all forms of life: especially man's best friend.

Man with a Dog (2017)

The Foreign Photographer, Thailand. Source: Flickr