In print | Published October 9, 2008

To the Editor:

To those in favor of culling and killing the deer in Crum Woods as nuisances consuming  the College’s vegetation, most would agree  first that it is unconscionable to kill when humane alternatives exist. And they do. From the Oregonian newspaper, September 30, 2008, in an article on research regarding rendering animals infertile,  “…products that were effective on wildlife such as deer and elephant didn’t work as well on dogs and cats.” Alternatives exist; killing in this case isn’t necessity. It is a convenient preference based upon selfishness.

Second, wasting disease is real, not an insult to hunters, just a fact. Why run the risk? Third, we share this world with other sentient beings. Dominion, the belief in a hierarchy of life with us at the top and our needs alone as the only needs worth considering, has failed this planet. It is a belief system based upon a sense of moral superiority clearly evident in the comments [on The Phoenix website], and abject self absorption (only our needs matter). It has brought us to where we are today: in trouble as a planet.

Finally, Quaker institutions have a moral — not an amoral — responsibility to apply their values in all decision making, whether it is about the environment or the animals who occupy our world too. It is a religion based upon non-violence and coexistence. Why would anyone in good faith exclude the lives of animals from moral concerns? Swarthmore and those in favor of culling and killing have. The decision to kill is not about science. It is about morality. The decision about whether or not a given choice is moral isn’t dictated by which lobby one aspires to: the College lobby or the gun lobby. The aerial shooting of wolves in Alaska is as immoral as killing and culling the Crum Woods deer. Neither has a chance in hell of escaping the largest predator, the one with the gun who “wins” the most dubious trophy.

If interested about the subject as a whole, read Peter Singer’s many works, including his essays on speciesism. Peter Singer is a Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. It is well worth the effort, especially in college, where one should be challenged by new ideas and not defensive about old ones that have served mankind so poorly.

Gail O’Connell-Babcock

Citizens for Humane Animal Legistlation

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »