In Elan Abrell’s “Saving Animals,” the author offers valuable insights into animal sanctuaries and their caregivers as models for moving away from the objectification of animals and towards recognizing their subjectivity. I appreciate the effort of Abrell’s presenting sanctuaries’ perspective on the “suffering and exploitation of animals at the hands of humans” (7). He presents a comprehensive ethnographic record of the perspective of animal activists, who prioritize the well-being of animals over that of humans. While critics may characterize them as misanthropes, their approach offers a different perspective on the suffering and exploitation of animals at the hands of humans.
However, I argue that treating animals as humans could potentially blur the lines of humanity. It is counterintuitive (and ironic) to apply human mindsets and ethics, generated by humans, to animals, as it assumes that animals share human sensibilities. As Abrell points out on page 75, people often think they know what animals want, but they fail to recognize that animals have different sensibilities. While all should applaud reducing animal brutality in the agricultural industry, enforcing human values upon other species and treating them under an artificial system may not be as effective or ethical as caregivers envision their work to be, especially since there exists no proven interspecies sensibility. Thus, acting according to the idea of treating animals like humans and declaring humanity as a set of moral guidelines that is universally adhered to could be seen as hypocritical, ignorant, and/or arrogant on the human part. This is particularly concerning when both natural and human resources are directed away from supporting the lives of people in severe illness and insecurity.
While efforts to reduce animal brutality are necessary, it is crucial to recognize the differences between humans and animals and to develop strategies that acknowledge those differences.
That is a really interesting angle that I hadn’t considered. For the most part, in the animal world, different species strive for control over finite resources. If you look at the decimation of the wolf population in the Western US then you can see different angles depending on the species. It was very beneficial for deer who didn’t have a predator, but not great for the sapling species that the unchecked deer population was eating. I think many animal rights activists are mostly committed to restoring the natural balance of nature as if it were untouched by human action.