96 Elephants On A Slippery Slope

I heard on the radio this morning of a terrible problem requiring my immediate attention. Ninety-six elephants are killed daily for the ivory in their tusks.

• Stop the killing with on-the-ground anti-poaching efforts;
• Stop the trafficking using intelligence and law enforcement;
• Stop the demand by increasing awareness among consumers.
  

That's the program of the African Wildlife Foundation – at least as it applies to elephants.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare adds

In Africa, elephants are being slaughtered at unprecedented levels to feed the insatiable global demand for ivory. Americans are among the largest consumers of this cruel luxury, but by pledging not to buy ivory jewelry, trinkets or any other ivory product, we can serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.

There are several other organizations that support the same goal, and the point they make is one that merits our consideration. But it also raises questions that are similarly worth discussion. The first involves our determination to “serve as an example to the world and help protect elephants for the generations yet to come.” And the obvious question is “Why?” Have we an obligation to the generations yet to come, or are we opposed to the cruelty of the “slaughter” for the purpose of providing Americans with a “cruel luxury.”

Additional thought should be given to the economic implications, especially to poor African countries that benefit from the trade. As well as to the joy of those fashion-minded individuals who covet the beautiful objects that are produced from ivory. The consequences also merit thought. I don't propose to discuss those consequences – any of them – but to put forward additional questions that come to mind as I ponder the concerns of these funds.

Are we only to protect elephants? And is our concern only for their tusks? Would we be interested in protecting these mammals if they didn't make ivory? What is the implication of such an idea on the sale of furs, or leather, or, for that matter, on wool and silk? There are many who oppose the use of any animal products – meat, dairy products, eggs, and honey, for example – as exploitation of non-human species for our benefit. Isn't their claim just as valid? And should we eliminate zoos? I'm not sure, however, that generations yet to come would support such an idea. Especially those generations that live where there are no elephants, and who lack the resources necessary to see them otherwise.

I wonder as well about our obligation to protect elephants and other wildlife from their enemies in the wild. While elephants have few natural enemies, they occasionally fall prey to lions, tigers, crocodiles, and hyenas. If we protect elephants from humans, shouldn't we defend them against other predators as well? And shouldn't we protect other animals, including oppressed people, from their natural enemies? Do we need this idea to condemn slavery? Were we justified in fighting the Nazis simply because they made use of human possessions and human bodies? (Is this a variation of Godwin's Law?)

Have I entered the world of reductio ad absurdum? Is this a “slippery slope” argument? Are we capable of compartmentalizing particular issues, or must we view them merely as points on a spectrum? Can we draw lines that separate the individual elements and their implications from what appear to be analogous issues, or do the lines we draw connect those issues? (A similar question might be raised about the law in general. Are jurists incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong in individual cases? Must they base their decisions on precedents?)

Fear of the slippery slope pervades many of our other arguments. For example, isn't the restriction of sale of automatic weapons in general, especially to known terrorists, certain to lead to a prohibition on all weapons for every law-abiding citizen? The NRA would certainly argue so. Don't sugared drinks lead to obesity? Many have that view and would outlaw them because some obese people are diabetic. Are we incapable of finding other solutions to the problem? If it is a problem. Is a court decision to permit the medical treatment of an ill child whose Christian Science parents oppose it going to lead to elimination of the Freedom of Religion? If we permit capital punishment, shouldn't we also permit abortion, even at term? And vice versa?

When the ACLU defended neo-Nazi marchers in Skokie, Illinois, they claimed they were defending Freedom of Speech because if it is lost to those who abuse it, it is lost to everybody. But they were wrong. We have “hate speech” laws now but we still have a First Amendment. I abhor those laws and I'm free to say so. I'm convinced that (most) people are able to compartmentalize, to decide right and wrong on the merits of the case, and not be compelled to take a particular position because of precedents and similarity to prior cases. Only conspiracy theorists and lawyers take an all or nothing approach.

I oppose killing elephants for their tusks, but I'm not concerned that it inevitably means that I have to give up steak. I may be wrong, however I think that these issues and others can be separated.