Dogs are more humane than humans

The problem with the English language is essential in considering the analogy between animal suffering and human suffering. There is such poverty of the English language! It is impoverished of emotional words and loaded with technical words. When comparing animal and human suffering; one tends to equate the two by focusing on the similarities and ignoring the differences. Equal to what? Singer explains, "when I say that all animals- all sentiment creatures- are equal, I mean that they are entitled to equal consideration of their interests, whatever those interests may be (501)." So animals and humans cannot be rightfully equated, but still their suffering is..."Pain is pain,  no matter what species of the being feels it (Singer, 501)." Is it possible to ignore parts of the analogy and still somehow validate it? Garber writes about the problems with language in terms of analogies and metaphors, and their function in moral and ethical questions. She speaks of a "false metaphor"- an argument that speaks directly to the use and abuse of literature and literary analysis in culture (Garber, 499)." For example, "if the Jews were treated like cattle, it does not follow that cattle are treated like Jews. The inversion insults the memory of the dead (Garber, 498)."

Another problem with language is the prospect of being a vegetarian. There are so many different types, some say if you eat fish you cannot be considered a vegetarian, or if you sometimes eat chicken... The English language restricts the naming of such types of people. Can you be a vegetarian or be a carnivore and still have a strong position supporting animal rights? Are those two correlated? 

What makes this book diverting is that while the protagonist is a self-proclaimed vegetarian, the story is told through the perspective of her meat-eating son. The Lives of Animals in Elizabeth Costello, captured many different persuasive arguments met with resistance. The rights of animals is thoroughly explored through a certain point of view, but I feel that the chapter had a gaping flaw. It failed to grasp, what I feel, seems like the central theme of alienation between the two sides. Is the division so deep that neither education nor societal teachings can bridge the gap? "Education is the best provision for the journey to old age (Aristotle)," so shouldn't the aging Costello be able to offer some suggestions? 

"The people who lived in the countryside around Treblinka...said that they did not know what was going on in the camp (Costello, 63), some "have no opinions one way or the other (Costello, 61)." Apathy towards human suffering is analogized with the suffering of animal slaughter. I have discussed the innate problem with equating the two above, and in previous blogs concerning the parallels between the two. Do I think that if the Poles actually did know what was happening, if Roosevelt let the SS St. Louis come into Florida, if anyone had stood up to Hitler, would anything have changed? Or is that even possible? The Jews were strangers to the inhabitants surrounding Treblinka, and like Eric said in class in reference to the hero dog saving the dog hit on the highway in Chile, would humans do the same for a fellow human, humanely?