Wild horses
Will they drag us away?
Writing for the National Review, Mark Steyn criticizes the recently passed Restore Our American Mustangs Act (ROAM), as an amusing if egregious example of where he thinks America is headed. Writes Steyn:
In 1971, the United States Congress recognized mustangs as “living symbols of the historic and pioneer spirit of the West.” And surely nothing captures the essence of the “pioneer spirit” than living on welfare in a federal care facility while being showered with government contraceptives. Welcome to America in the gelded age.
In attacking the entitlement and safety net programs America has built for its human citizens, Steyn deliberately puts aside a perfectly valid question–whether our mustang population also deserves federal support, intervention and care.
The ethics of human treatment of non-human animals has become a hot topic in academic circles. While the ivory tower has asked questions about the status of animals as living beings, mainstream American debates have tended to focus around issues of animal treatment in food production and in laboratory drug and cosmetic testing.
Some of the classic moral arguments for species preservation are:
- Instrumental: species reduction will damage ecosystems and have adverse consequences on the human population.
- Deep ecology: there is a fundamental moral relationship between humans and the rest of the natural world. Actions that threaten the integrity of the environment are intrinsically bad.
The congressional justification Steyn quotes from 1971 treats mustangs akin to historic buildings or places. Mustangs bear symbolic important for our nation’s culture and history. In a moral sense, this is a slightly unstable basis on which to protect mustangs, if only because it values them as inert objects, rather than individual living things with rights. Other animals that might fall into this category would probably be state birds.
A secondary matter — once the moral value of protecting the animal has been established — would be what obligations are incurred. Presumably, intervention correlates with danger. The more fragile the population, the more support required. As Steyn notes, however:
The federal Bureau of Land Management aims for a manageable population of 27,000 wild mustangs. Currently, there are 36,000, and the population doubles every four or five years. To prevent things getting even more out of hand, the BLM keeps another 30,000 mustangs in holding pens – or, if you prefer, managed-care facilities.
If this is the case, Congress has adopted a different moral calculus. The aim of mustang preservation is not to “preserve” a fragile species against destruction. It is to promote their prosperity.
The logic runs like this: mustangs have historical significance; historically significant objects should be preserved; the more historically significant objects the better; we should preserve as many mustangs as possible.
Now that’s a horse of a different color. (I’ll be here all week– try the veal).
–Sam
Related posts:
- More on Michael Vick
- Wild on: state secrets
- Do the right thing
- Give me health care, or give me death
- Health care and small government
ShareComments
One Response to “Wild horses”
Leave a Reply
Try the veal. Heh Heh. Nice. Very Nice. Vay Nice.