Guy Grimsley, a 65 year old scientist working for a research lab in Nevada that does testing on animals was fired because he presentened an opposition to “cruel and inhumane mistreatment” of the 32 monkey test subjects.
I love when people working in an industry such as animal testing or factory farming come out against mistreatment of animals, such as the Mad Cowboy. But this is a little different. Grimsley was upset that the 32 monkeys died in the lab because of overheating, which was definitely terrible. However, he was not opposed to the actual testing of the animals, which produces SO much unnecessary suffering.
So what do you think?
September 17, 2008 at 9:37 am
I will take any opposition I can get, even if it is not coming from the vegan minded side. At least her recognized something was wrong. Maybe he will become so irate about his firing that he will turn into an animal right’s activist…OK wishful thinking.
September 21, 2008 at 10:04 am
I agree with MariaRose up to a point. Any opposition from within, on latently AR grounds, is beneficial to realizing our ends. However, as he is specifying one harm (death by overheating) while avoiding the underlying paradigm, this carries the implied assumption that absent of these “egregious” harms, like “unnecessary suffering” and factory farming, the institution itself is justifiable. This, of course, goes no way to achieving any success as we (and morality) define it, unless, which may be morally defensible, we accept incremental success as “goods” in and of themselves: end the most terrible abuse while simultaneously attacking the roots. However, as the post argues, this scientist is not attacking the roots at all.
September 25, 2008 at 11:05 am