The War Rhetoric of George Bush and Winston Churchill

Both George W. Bush and Winston Churchill were great leaders who brought their countries through times of turmoil and disaster. Part of their success was their ability to galvanize their respective nations in a time of crisis. Two of their most important and powerful speeches were George Bush’s “Freedom at War with Fear” speech and Churchill’s “We Shall Fight on the Beaches” speech. George Bush’s speech came after the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon, and was given nine days after the event at a joint session of Congress. Winston Churchill’s speech was in response to the collapse of the Allied defense in France and the German aerial bombings and impending invasion; interestingly, his speech was given nine days later as well. Both speeches came at times which perfectly exemplified Lloyd Bitzer’s concept of the “rhetorical situation” in that both were at a time of exigency, were prepared for the universal audience of fellow countrymen, and emphasized fitting restraint and response. The effectiveness of their speeches in reaching their countrymen, in reassuring them, rallying them, and preparing them for action is directly linked to the effective use of rhetorical methods and techniques including ethos, pathos, kairos, and to prepon.

Ethos is the most important characteristic to have as a speaker – if an audience has no trust in the speaker, then he is simply wasting his time. Aristotle breaks ethos into three parts, eunoia, phronesis, and arete. Eunoia is the demonstration of good will to others. George Bush utilized this aspect very effectively in his speech. He asked Americans not to feel hate for or prejudice against Muslims, especially those in the U.S. He made the distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists with phrases such as, “Islamic extremism [has] been by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics”, and, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends.” He mentioned Arabs when speaking of people in other nations supporting the U.S., and mentions the “saying of prayers – in English, Hebrew, and Arabic.” He deflected the anger many Americans would potentially have felt towards innocent Muslims toward the terrorists deserving of that anger. He demonstrated goodwill by acknowledging all the nations who were supporting and praying for the U.S and thanks them for their support. He also makes good use of eunoia by commenting on the unity the different political parties have shown in the face of the tragedy. His use of eunoia is very effective both in calming the fear of his audience and in focusing anger and desire for revenge to where it is warranted.

Winston Churchill used eunoia to a much lesser degree. He expressed goodwill and gratitude to King Leopold and the people of Belgium for protecting Dunkirk, though he hinted that he thought their plan of neutrality was one of the causes of the problem. He, similarly to Bush’s method, used the term Nazi rather than German when speaking of war crimes such as the bombing of hospital ships, thereby removing the full blame from the German people at large. He was also very gracious in speaking of the French and Belgians, even though it was largely due to their unwise decisions and military blunders that Britain was dragged into a lost battle.

Churchill could get away with using less eunoia than Bush, because his situation did not really call for it. The enemy was more clearly defined in World War II than it is in the war on terror. Churchill was completely justified in using the term German to describe Britain’s enemy, but Bush needed to define the enemy and ensure peaceful Muslims that they could expect peace in return.

Phronesis could be defined simply as good sense or practical wisdom; it includes showing relevance, referencing past experience and similar cases, and showing which issues are most important. Both Bush and Churchill had almost no need to show the relevance of what they were speaking about to their audiences – both of their countries were in imminent danger and had just sustained major blows. Churchill mentioned past history in the second to last paragraph of his speech. He said that Britain had never been truly free from the danger of an invasion, reminded the British people of Napoleon’s planned invasion, and said that, just as their navy protected them before, it would protect them again. Finally, he compared the military, particularly the RAF, to medieval knights and crusaders defending civilization, implying that they were carrying on the tradition of those who had gone before. He also emphasized important issues such as forming a unified front against the impending German invasion. But he didn’t fail to remind his listeners what the main issue was; he told his listeners the main issue was the conflict between good and evil and freedom and tyranny. Churchill used phronesis very effectively.

Bush used phronesis in the comparison of the September 11th attacks to the Pearl Harbor attacks. He reminds Americans that we have been through similar situations before, but that this one is worse because this attack hit us at home, killing thousands of civilians.4 He compared Islamic jihadists to the opponents the U.S. had faced before including Nazis and fascists. He stressed the fact that, while the U.S. needed to respond to this threat as it had to past threats, this war would be drawn out unlike any war Americans had yet seen. He, like Churchill, in stating the important issues made the claim that this too would be a war of good against evil and freedom against tyranny. He identified the enemy and explained why they hate Americans. He, as Weaver wrote a speaker should, appealed to the underlying values and principles most American’s have and stated that they were the reasons the terrorists hate and fear America. Bush and Churchill used phronesis almost in the exact same way, with great ease and perfection.

Arete is the demonstration of a good moral character, demonstrating personal virtue. Both Churchill and Bush had the credibility and trust at those times to gain this aspect from their audience. In addition, both claimed that their country had the moral high-ground in the struggle. This reflects back to the idea that both struggles were for freedom against tyranny. Britain stepped in to defend Belgian neutrality and France against an aggressor. The U.S. was attacked for its stance for freedom and against tyranny and its support of Israel. Arete played an important role, especially in Bush’s speech, of justifying the actions the audiences are called to fulfill.

Pathos is defined by Quintillion as passionate or emotional appeals. Churchill uses style to effectively communicate pathos as suggested by Francis Bacon. He uses phrases like, “the German eruption swept like a sharp scythe”, “dull brute mass of ordinary German Army and German people”, “ignominious and starving captivity”, and, “great trial of strength.” He appealed to Britain’s history of heroes, knights, and crusaders. He mentioned the typical British duties to king and country and gave the hope that the commonwealth would support them. He employed metaphor, “this armored scythe-stroke [German army]”, alliteration, irony, and hyperbole. His use of anaphora, “we shall fight… we shall fight... we shall fight”5, is especially motivating and effective. He fulfilled Quintillion “essential for stirring the emotions” by first feeling the emotions he wanted his audience to feel. Winston Churchill was extremely patriotic and unashamedly thought his country the best and the last European bulwark of freedom in the face of Nazi tyranny.

The main method George Bush used to employ pathos was introducing or mentioning people involved in the terrorist attacks. He introduced Lisa Beamer whose husband died in an airplane preventing terrorists from taking control of the plane. He introduced New York City’s mayor Rudy Giuliani and Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair, saying, “America has no truer friend than Great Britain.” He told the nation of the people all around the world who were praying and feeling their grief. He spoke of rescuers, firemen, and policemen who gave their lives. He made their sacrifice come alive to his listeners by showing George Howard’s police badge; George Howard was killed at the World Trade Center site. He appealed to the human desire for justice by saying that, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.” He appealed to his listeners love for and desire to protect American values like freedom, faith, heroism, equality, religious freedom, and sacrifice. He blatantly stated the reason for the terrorists’ hate of America, “They stand against us, because we stand in their way.”

He, like Churchill, also included some stylistically catchy phrases, “[terrorists] will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in history’s unmarked grave of discarded lies”, “we are in a fight for our principles”, “this will not be an age of terror, this will be an age of liberty”, etc. He explained the evil of the terrorists and the justice of America’s cause, and called on the world to join the U.S. in that cause, thereby reinforcing the arete of America. He also had a memorable phrase very similar to Churchill’s famous string, “we will come together … we will come together … we will come together.” Churchill and Bush seem to have equally employed pathos, though in different methods. It would seem that their speeches were tailored to their specific audiences, Churchill utilizing great verbiage and Bush introducing heroes. They both realized the importance of incorporating emotion into their speeches, as Richard Weaver would say, they “move men’s feelings in the direction of a goal.”

Kairos is the practice of giving a speech at the best time. It is very interesting that both Bush and Churchill waited nine days before delivering their speeches. Bush’s waiting was good, because it gave time for investigations to be made, for wounds to begin to heal, and for grief to begin to abate. On September 13th Bush proclaimed a “National Day of Prayer and Remembrance”, and the next day from the ash and twisted metal of the Twin Towers offered comfort and security to Americans. By the time he was in front of Congress ready to give his speech, Americans were angry and ready to hear fighting words. On September 20th Americans were ready to hear who had attacked us and how they would be punished. By September 20th the time was right; as Bush said so powerfully, “Our grief has turned to anger, and anger to resolution.”


Churchill’s speech was also aptly timed. Nine days before he gave his speech the bulk of the British army was trapped at the French seaport of Dunkirk. They had no safe way of escape and it was estimated that only about fifteen percent would make it back to Britain. In a miraculous turn of events all the British soldiers were rescued, and so were most of the French soldiers. Churchill waited until all the soldiers were home before he gave the speech. Britain had faced one of the direst calamities ever, and if Churchill had given the speech any earlier he would have given it in a time when people were holding their breaths to see what would happen and its effect would have been lost and his appeals would have been lost. Both Bush and Churchill accurately gauged the appropriate time in deciding when to speak.

To prepon is the practice of having one’s speeches fit for the occasion. Churchill gauged the public mood, and, rather than give a speech that simply rejoiced in the deliverance of the soldiers, he spent most of the time telling his listeners what the next few years would entail. The mood of Britain at this time was one of euphoria and relief and Churchill realized that he needed to sober them up to the realities of what the war would bring. He then gave them a realistic analysis of the struggles and hardships that they were going to face and prepares them for the road ahead. He asked them to make the necessary sacrifices to help with national security.

Bush’s speech also made effective use of to prepon. He realized that it was no longer the time for extreme public grief, and, after thanking rescue workers, heroes, and our allies, proceeded to tell the nation who their enemy was and what the government was going to do about it. His speech was stirring in that it is unabashedly pro-American and anti-terrorism. It is the equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s calling the U.S.S.R. the “Evil Empire”. In his speech he helped Americans turn their grief into a productive resolution. Another aspect he employed in making his speech fit for the occasion was emphasizing America’s arete. He emphasized America’s just cause and moral responsibility to bring the terrorist groups to justice. Finally, Bush, like Churchill, asked Americans to patiently make the new sacrifices needed to bolster national security.

Both speeches were perfect for their occasions, but in different ways since the occasions were different. Churchill used his speech to prepare his country for the long and troubled road ahead; his speech is more sobering. Bush used his speech to help Americans feel safe and secure as well as to prepare them for an almost unending war; his speech is more comforting and martial.

Both speeches are masterpieces and had the desired effect. The British populace rallied, prepared for war, fought through the bombings, and pushed the Nazis back into Germany. America rallied around its president and troops and sent them to Afghanistan. The speeches were so effective because of Churchill and Bush’s impressive use of rhetorical technique gave them the necessary powers of persuasion.

Capital Punishment and Democratic Society

A society such as the one in the United States which has a relatively high value for human life, as evidenced by the amount of resources spent to rescue individuals in emergency situations or the vast amounts of money spent on foreign aid to starving people, may struggle with the concept of capital punishment. Democratic societies focused on commercialism and equality of conditions often induce a certain softness into their people. This softness may make it difficult for the society to accept capital punishment. The finality of capital punishment is antithetical to a system that values equality and comfort above justice and honor.

Friedrich Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil that “the herd man in Europe today gives himself the appearance of being the only permissible kind of man, and glorifies his attributes, which make him tame, easy to get along with, and useful to the herd, as if they were the truly human virtues: namely, public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, indulgence, and pity." This is true of both the individuals and the government in the United States today. Indulgence and pity and moderation of punishment are seen as inherent goods rather than something to be meted out when deserved; interestingly, phronesis or the practical wisdom needed to adjudicate well is not a value that Nietzsche saw as important to a democratic society. A democratic society that focuses on equality will be less inclined to favor a system that meets out different punishments for the same crime. Its solution is to gradually reduce its penalties.

Nietzsche goes on to write, “There is a point in the history of society when it becomes so pathologically soft and tender that among other things it sides even with those who harm it, criminals, and does this quite seriously and honestly. Punishing somehow seems unfair to it, and it is certain that imagining ‘punishment’ and ‘being supposed to punish’ hurts it, arouses fear in it.” A people this soft tends to forget the victim of the crime and the justice due him; so long as the danger to society is neutralized no further action need be taken. Such an idea is completely antithetical to the Bible’s teaching on justice and retribution for capital crimes. , Nietzsche explains the feelings of individuals in such a soft society, “‘Is it not enough to render him undangerous? Why still punish? Punishing itself is terrible.’”

Of course, Nietzsche’s argument is that fear is the only reason that morality exists, but his reflections on the nature of a soft, democratic society need not be rejected on that ground. He writes of a society concerned merely with commerce and comfort, “Wherever the will to power beings to decline, in whatever form, there is always an accompanying decline physiologically, a decadence. The divinity of this decadence, shorn of its masculine virtues and passions, is converted perforce into a god of the physiologically degraded, of the weak. Of course they do not call themselves the weak; they call themselves ‘the good.’” He recognizes that as a society that begins to worship decadence and pleasure becomes weak but frames its weakness as goodness or kindness. Capital punishment has no place in such a system; it does not seem kind. Such a society is far less interested in the justice owed the victims of crimes as it is in preserving a kind and friendly façade. It is not comfortable to hear of someone’s being executed.

Alexis de Tocqueville agrees with Nietzsche on the affect that democracy’s love of material enjoyments has on the individual. He writes of democratic individuals, “They fall into softness rather than debauchery.” He helps to explain this tendency of democratic societies to reject strong punishment. He begins with a brief discussion of how individuals view punishment in an aristocratic society. He writes, “In an aristocratic people each caste has its own opinions, sentiments, rights, mores, and separate existence. Thus the men who compose it do not resemble everyone else; they do not have the same manner of thinking or of feeling, and they scarcely believe themselves to be part of the same humanity. Therefore they cannot understand well what the other feel, or judge them by themselves.” De Tocqueville is arguing that the social differences between people in an aristocratic society keep them from fully participating in punishments meted out to criminals. Thus the French aristocrat can speak of a man being drawn and quartered without feeling anything.

Democratic societies are exactly the opposite according to de Tocqueville. He asks, “Do we have more sensitivity than our fathers?” His answer is simple. The equality of rank causes each individual to imagine each penalty as being imposed on himself. “It makes no difference whether it is a question of strangers or of enemies: imagination immediately puts him in their place. It mixes something personal with his pity and makes him suffer himself while the body of someone like him is torn apart.” “In democratic centuries, men rarely devote themselves to one another; but they show a general compassion for all members of the human species…they are not disinterested, but they are mild.… There is no country where criminal justice is administered with more kindness than in the United States.” Notice the use of such words as Nietzsche found so objectionable; notice also that there is no mention of an equally strong desire to be just as to be kind.

De Tocqueville saw the tendency of democratic societies to reduce penalties. In writing about how Americans treat women well, he states, “The legislators of the United States, who have made almost all the provisions of the penal code milder, punish rape with death; and there is no crime that public opinion pursues with more inexorable ardor.” Today, a mere 170 years after de Tocqueville wrote those words, it is a violation of the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishments to give a life sentence for rape of any form including aggravated sexual assault of a child.

The death penalty is strictly limited, under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, to cases of murder. That being the case, many states do not allow for the death penalty. The number of states allowing the death penalty is down to thirty-five and they are steadily in decline. In 2009, only 106 death sentences were handed down; down over 66% from 1994. In 2009, a mere 52 prisoners were executed for capital offences. In addition to the problem of the reduction of the use of capital sentencing, many sentences are not carried out, at least for years. As of 2008 there were 3,207 prisoners sentenced to capital punishment in the prison system. Even in the few cases where capital punishment is meted out, the public is still not ready to put people to death.

This focus on feeling, the feeling of dislike of ending anyone’s life, rather than a focus on justice is the result of an epistemological error – the idea that expressions of value are merely expressions of feeling. A democratic society is especially prone to this as, absent religion, the equality of man causes him to reject any system of morality passed down from an authority. Morality, absent religion, tends to be subjective to the individual or to society. De Tocqueville writes, "It is therefore always necessary, however it happens, that we encounter authority somewhere in the intellectual and moral world. Its place is variable, but it necessarily has a place. Individual independence can be more or less great; it cannot be boundless. Thus, the question is not that of knowing whether an intellectual authority exists in democratic centuries, but only where it is deposited and what its extent will be." He writes that the equality of conditions makes belief in an intellectual authority outside of man somewhat incredulous and that it exaggerates the capabilities of the human intellect.

De Tocqueville writes, “…as people become more like one another, they show themselves reciprocally more compassionate regarding their miseries, and the law of nations becomes milder.” He writes that the basis of such new standards is found either in themselves or in the collective impulse of the society. This tendency towards relativism was retarded in the early years of the American democratic society by the extent of influence which religion held over them. Over time that influence has diminished, and society has had to come up with a new system of morality to accommodate its materialism and immorality.

It is in this democratic system of relative morality that looks for moral guidance to the individual or to the public opinion of the whole that the focus shifts from a transcendent standard such as justice and instead focuses on feelings. Society worries about the criminal’s feelings, about how it will be viewed if it enacts penalties that seem harsh, about how the individuals making up society feel about such penalties, while simultaneously ignoring justice and the feelings of the victims of the crime. A society then attempts to assign penalties to crimes as the majority feels the crimes should be punished.

Nietzsche rejected the hypocrisy of such a system of morality. He realized that a system of morality based on society’s feelings (he believed the feeling to be fear) was completely arbitrary and nonsensical. Either morality, and hence standards like justice, must be based in a higher authority than man, or they must not exist at all. Nietzsche erred by choosing the latter because he declared God dead, but his rejection of an arbitrary human standard of morality should be noted.

The modern American democracy has completely traded a religion of a transcendent God with one of materialism and the pursuit of equality over freedom. The absence of religion has, as de Tocqueville argued it would, left a void in the area of moral truth and something will fill that void. When looking at the issue of capital punishment and its merits or flaws, Americans have not looked to whether capital punishment is just. They have rather, under a legal doctrine known as “the evolving standards of decency” set public and worldwide opinion as the standard of whether a punishment is legal or not. Americans have decided that they do not feel that capital punishment is right for many crimes, and are trending more and more away from supporting capital punishment at all.

This trend finds its basis in a society that rejects a transcendent moral standard or standard maker and subjects morality to the whim of public or personal opinion. The softness of character fostered by a decadent, materialistic lifestyle and the focus on the equality of individuals leads to a dislike of capital punishment – it does not seem “kind.” This softness coupled with a morality based on feelings rather than transcendent concepts such as justice, causes a society to reject capital punishment.

Homeschooling Works

Over the weekend, I worked at the Parentalrights.org booth at the Home Educators Association of Virginia (HEAV) conference in Richmond. While there, between times when our booth was swamped with people looking for more information or wanting to know how to help, I had the chance to observe some of the other displays. After doing so, I began to think about the benefits of homeschooling and the many options available.

There were well over a dozen comprehensive curriculum choices available. There were special curriculum choices for foreign languages (Rosetta Stone, etc.), geography, science, art, etc. They were all at this conference, all vying with each other to see who could provide the best and most effective services. There were organizations like the Heritage Foundation and several colleges, including Patrick Henry College of course, all recruiting homeschoolers. There were historical sites like Colonial Williamsburg and the New Market battlefield with offers of “homeschool days” and special discounts for homeschoolers. There were several homeschooling families with media or publishing industries selling their materials.

Two observations I made from this conference: Homeschooling is thriving both as an education choice and as an industry; Homeschooling gives parents the option to narrowly tailor materials to their children’s specific needs at an amazing and (probably) unparalleled level. Probably one of the most annoying comments that homeschool parents get, besides the ubiquitous question “What about socialization?” is “I could never do that, how do you manage to teach everything?” Despite the oddity of the assumption that one needs a teaching degree to teach elementary or even high school classes, the answer is simple – the multiple and diverse curriculum options make it easy to find a system that works for you and your children. Additionally, such a question ignores the ability of the child (especially in high school) to "self-teach."

One of the best results of homeschooling is that each child gets to move forward at his own pace rather than being held back by the lowest denominator in the class of twenty students. The student is often able to take the initiative and “self-teach” to a great degree. Speaking from my own experience, homeschooling gave me the freedom to pursue my own interests (law, languages, literature, and philosophy) along with the generic core which included the necessary, but oh-so-dull classes like physics and earth science. Homeschoolers are free in other ways as well. My father often travelled on business trips for his job; my family would just pack up our school materials and travel around with him visiting valuable historical and educational sites along the way.

Homeschooling is great because it gives the child the chance for hands-on, active, and involved learning. It gives one the freedom to tailor the curriculum to the interests and needs of the child and (often) gives the child a greater participation in his own education. It certainly is not for everybody, but with the many options and opportunities out there, it should never be looked as second class. Remember, Thomas Edison was homeschooled after his public school teacher said he was “addled” and “unteachable” – we should be glad his mother disagreed!

Sonnet 7: All I Need

As I sit here alone with naught to do,
I soon begin to think over my past,
Remembering those things which seemed so new
But now are empty, their joy did not last.
I think of all the places I have seen;
The novelty of newness soon wears thin.
My longings when fulfilled have only been
Like opened doors, inviting wishes in.
I’ve tried my friendships, they have had their rôle;
But there is something, something more I need.
I want to find a focus, life’s one goal,
A goal that’s more than satisfying greed.
O, God of love, you’re all that I require;
And more than that – you’re all that I desire.

Evaluation and Critique of Peter Singer's _Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement_

This is part of a paper I wrote for Ethics last semester. I have not included the exposition section of my paper, if you are interested you should read his book: http://books.google.com/books?id=VryqNwAACAAJ&dq=Animal+liberation&ei=iBEPTNGPJI-oygSIp5HvCg&cd=9

Humans have always viewed themselves as distinct from animals. We use animal names as insults: we call someone a dog if they are behaving poorly or cowardly, pig if they are being selfish or gluttonous, and mulish is they are stubborn and obstinate. Resulting from this belief that humans are somehow above animals is the belief that humans are able, for the most part, to treat animals any way they wish. Animals are used for labor, for food, for clothing, and for experimentation. In his book, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement, Singer seeks to challenge this long standing approach with his utilitarian ideal of animal liberation. Singer examines the supposed differences between humans and animals and decides, based on the utilitarian goal of maximizing pleasure, that there is no real distinction between humans and most of the animal kingdom. Singer’s view of animal rights is based upon a faulty view of the distinction in nature between humans and animals.

Peter Singer has several valid critiques of the status quo. The use of animals in experimental research having no obvious benefit to humans seems indefensible especially when it causes the research animals’ severe physical or mental/emotional trauma. There is no serious benefit to humanity in torturing monkeys into psychopathy. Additionally, in the face of the evidence of misery that he presents regarding aspects of the factory farm system, one is forced to consider the one’s justification for eating veal, the result of torturous treatment of calves, or eggs gathered from chickens so packed with other birds that they cannot move.

One is also forced to question, however, Singer’s reasons for treating animals better. He believes that we owe special treatment to any beings that can feel pain. This distinction is artificial for two reasons. First, Singer basically limits the ability to feel pain to animals with nervous systems(1). This distinction seems artificial. Assuming that the ability to feel pain is the necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion in the moral community, one is forced to wonder why the ability to feel pain is limited to animals with nervous systems. Such an arbitrarily created distinction seems naïve and hubristic. It would seem that a protective response to negative stimuli would be a more appropriate qualification. Amoebae quite obviously have no nervous system (they are single celled organisms), but they do seek to defend themselves from danger. Lightly poke an amoeba with a pointed object, and it will seek to move away or morph itself in such a way as to neutralize the threat(2). Certain types of trees such as pines and myrrh will respond to a cut by excreting exorbitant amounts of sap in an attempt to seal the wound(3).

If one is going to define the moral community as those beings which can feel pain, it would seem much safer to define the ability to feel pain as the attempt to respond protectively to negative stimuli. This would seem impossible, as nearly all fauna and flora respond against negative stimuli. Yet Singer advocates abstaining from eating a particular type of organism, mollusks, because though one may be very confident that then do not feel pain (they have no nervous system) one cannot be completely sure. Can we be completely sure that amoebae and plants feel no pain? They seem to have responses to negative stimuli unlike a stone for example. Yet we must eat something. The ability to experience pain, no matter how feeling pain is defined, is an inadequate and unrealistic method of determining the scope of the moral community, those beings which need to be considered.

Secondly, on the question of killing animals, Singer makes the utilitarian argument that to kill an animal ends its ability to experience pleasure and is, therefore, wrong. This begs the question of what one is able to do with animals (or people) who are living a life of misery. What if there was a cow that was so arthritic it could not move without incredible pain and began to be unable to digest food? Would not the general happiness be increased by anesthetizing the cow, killing it painlessly, and giving it to people to eat? Under Singer’s system, it is only wrong to kill animals, or humans, if their death increases misery.

Additionally, Singer does not adequately address the problem of animals killing and eating each other, even their own kind. One is left to wonder how beings can be part of a moral community and deserve the highest level of protection within that community without being subject to the rules of that moral community. It is senseless to say it is wrong for humans to kill animals for food merely because we do not need to in order to survive, yet not force the same line of reasoning on bears who are just as able to live a vegetarian life as we are. As mentioned earlier, Singer does recognize differences between humans and animals, yet asserts that these differences are merely limited to rights, not moral consideration. For example, we don’t allow dogs to vote, yet we must consider their pleasure and pain in any situation.

Singer’s argument is built off the faulty assumption that rationality does not work as a determinative for inclusion into the moral community because this would alienate infants and the severely mentally disabled. This argument ignores the idea of telos – an infant will become a rational, thinking, moral decision making human being; a dog will never participate in those activities of the mind. A better system for determining the moral community would be a system based on the ability to make moral decisions. Such a system should incorporate telos and recognize that even the severely mentally handicapped have more potential in this area than any animal. Additionally, the amount of shared characteristics between severely mentally handicapped humans and normal humans compared to the amount of shared characteristics with animals is so great that it warrants equal consideration, if not completely equal treatment (we do not allow the severely mentally handicapped to make certain decisions for themselves). Animals, due to their lack of participation in moral decisions are set in a different category than are humans.

Under such a moral system, there would be nothing wrong with killing animals in a humane way and eating them or in using them in research that benefits human lives. Even under Singer’s utilitarian system, causing extreme pain to a relatively few animals in order to discover a cure for cancer or AIDS would be completely acceptable, as would causing extreme pain to humans. As long as the general happiness is improved, personal misery may be imposed on either animals or humans. Singer fails to see that such practices as animal research and even the killing of animals for food, especially if it was done painlessly and the animal had lived a happy life, are actually perfectly acceptable under his system as well.

Even Singer does not attempt to argue that animal life is of equal importance to human life(4). Yet he continues to argue against the practice of eating animals. Given the lesser ability of animals to experience pleasure, it is no large assumption to think that an animal killed painlessly and used as food would not actually increase the general happiness rather than otherwise. A cow, for example, could provide food for many people. A simply mathematical moral system like utilitarianism cannot ultimately be used to enforce vegetarianism.

Singer’s attack on the Bible and Judeo-Christian thought regarding animals is a straw man attack at best. He does not address himself to the Bible’s actual argument that the creator God has given man stewardship over the creation and permission to use animals for food, clothing, and other purposes. Rather, Singer twists Biblical passages in an attempt to make the Biblical arguments for ethical treatment of animals consequentialist in nature. But that approach seems completely counterintuitive. What need is there for the Bible to tell men to take care of their animals merely because they will get better use of them? Is that not a self-evident truth? Rather it seems that the Bible, and consequently God Himself, is actually concerned about animal welfare and humanity’s stewardship role.

Proverbs 12:10 states, “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Exodus 23:12 orders, “Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest….” Proverbs 27:23 commands, “Be thou diligent to know the state of thy flocks, and look well to thy herds.” Deuteronomy 25:4 orders, “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.” These verses demonstrate that a humane treatment of animals is compatible (at least it is commanded in) with a moral system that sets man’s nature and worth above that of animals.

Not surprisingly, after his attack on Christianity and the Bible, Singer goes on to talk about individuals who made an impact ending animal cruelty thereby implying that they were not motivated by Christianity. This is far from the case. One of the most well known people he cites is William Wilberforce. Wilberforce was a carefree, indulgent young rake before his conversion experience(5). It was his conversion that led him to change his ways and become interested in changing his world for the better. Wilberforce was motivated by his Christianity to oppose both the slave trade and animal cruelty(6).

Peter Singer’s argument that animals’ ability to feel pain and experience pleasure requires that we not kill or use them does not stand up even to his own utilitarian moral system. His definition of the scope of the moral community is, upon further examination of the definition of pain, so broad as to be absurd. His moral system regarding the treatment of beings that can experience pleasure is impossible and futile. Christianity provides a much more realistic system which takes into account the differences between man and animals and the responsibility man has as a steward of creation. Singer fails to adequately address the arguments posed by opponents of his moral theory, and his argument ultimately fails because of his flawed view of the distinction in nature, or lack thereof, between man and animals.

1. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009), 11-13.
2. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Amoeba,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/21174/amoeba
(accessed April 3, 2010).
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, s.v. “Myrrh,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/400685/myrrh
(accessed April 3, 2010).
4. Peter Singer, Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2009),18.
5. John Piper, Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce (Wheaton, IL: Good News Publishers, 2006), 35.
6. Stephen Tomkins, William Wilberforce: a Biography (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 207.

Books...so many and so little time...

I decided that I was going to try to read a book a day this summer, and it's worked out pretty good so far. I'm starting a college Arabic class soon, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to keep up with it. My average so far is 221.5 pages a day. I decided to put my mad physics lab skills (thank you Dr. Kucks) to practical use and graph my progress.

Obviously, some days are better than other - sometimes life intervenes. I'm currently reading Heidegger, both his Introduction to Metaphysics and his magnum opus Being and Time. I also throw in light fiction, the other day I read Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest. Serious novels like those by Dickens, Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, and Wilde's The Picture of Dorian Grey also interest me greatly. Two genres I'm beginning to be more interested in are Medieval works and Stream of Consciousness, especially James Joyce.

My Summer Internship

I currently work for an organization called ParentalRights.org. We are attempting to pass a constitutional amendment (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.42:) that would enumerate the long supported rights of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children. The amendment doesn't really give any more rights to parents, but rather gives stronger protection to those they already have and that have been upheld by decades of Supreme Court decisions. This amendment is a response both to the abuse of parental rights by various levels of the U.S. court system as well as the threats posed by international law and the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I love my job. It gives me experience dealing with members of Congress. On May 19, I got to meet with Senator Scott Brown about a Senate Resolution(S.RES.519)opposing the U.N. CRC. I also get to learn how to keep grassroots groups motivated and active as well as try out my persuasive skills in getting organizations with similar goals to ally with us. I spend a lot of time either on the phone or reading and writing emails. My favorite part of the job is getting to meet with congressmen and staffers.

If you are interested in finding more about what I do and the dangers posed to long-standing parental rights, you should check out http://www.parentalrights.org/. If you want to add your voice to the thousands of others in support of parental rights, you can sign a petition here: https: https://www.thedatabank.com/dpg/385/personal2.asp?formid=OpposeRatifica More than 140 congressmen have decided to support the amendment, will yours? You can contact me if you would like to help at matthew@parentalrights.org.