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.

My Way Or The Low Way

You're right, too.

It's an old joke, but it contains a lot of truth. In its briefest form it goes:

Two men are arguing. A third, who is walking by with his wife, listens, and says to the first, “You're right.” So that man leaves, happy. The second, offended, restates his case, and the listener tells him, “You're right.” He leaves, happy as well. Then the man's wife asks, “How can they both be right?”

I've already given the punch line, but some explanation is in order. One way of understanding the anecdote is to remember that there's more than one way to skin a cat – if skinning a cat is of any interest to you. Just because there are two (or more) sides to every story doesn't mean that only one is right and any deviation from that one is wrong.

There's a Talmudic dictum which states: “ … these and these [both] are the words of the living G-d … ”ⁱ It refers to a dispute between two sets of scholars and seems to place a greater emphasis on their intent than on their interpretations. Both groups were interested in observing religious law, though they had different understandings of what it was. So, despite a ruling from a heavenly voice that the law went in a particular direction, there was approval of the positions of both groups, because their ultimate aims were the same and were intended to be for the proper worship of G-d. And in Avotⁱⁱ we read, “Every dispute that is engaged in for the sake of Heaven will endure.”ⁱⁱⁱ Disagreements are encouraged if their end is worthy. And because the disputants have the same goal, they remain friends and treat each other with respect. It is our hope that we can distill the arguments down to basic rules and choose the proper ones, but we are confident that if what we do is “for the sake of Heaven,” if our intent is worthy, we are entitled to the reward for virtue.

Unfortunately, such an approach is not universal. In Beit Shemesh, Israel, there have been many incidents recently in which some “dagger men”^iv interpret laws of “modesty” in a way that casts those who hold other views in a very negative light. And they subject those “violators” to verbal and, at times, physical abuse. Their views of modesty – views that discourage interaction between men and women and which mandate particular dress restrictions – are certainly admirable and valid for them, but their philosophy does not recognize that those who hold other views may be just as focused as they on following religious law. They are unable to see that another point of view equally contains “the words of the living G-d.” They do not view the others as friends – and they certainly do not respect them. They will not tolerate disagreement, because, according to their outlook, any deviation from the law as they interpret it is wrong. There cannot be valid contrary opinions. There can only be violations of the law by those who would sin.

Fundamentalism^v of that sort is not unique to any one religion. Whether observant of Islam, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, or any other religion, there are those who believe that they know the true way and anyone with a different perspective must be dealt with. They cannot agree to disagree. They can only correct the errors of others – even if that “correction” involves violence. They are the “extremists” we all condemn.

And their extremism may not be religious but may originate in political theory or economics, or some other field. Some of the greatest intolerance facing mankind arises from disagreements over political systems. And within individual countries the greatest name-calling is often reserved for political campaigns.

I can understand and even appreciate the views of those who interpret ideas differently from the way I do – unless they are intolerant of my ideas or those of others who may disagree with them. I applaud their confidence and their convictions, and certainly in our society they are entitled to them. But it is incumbent on those believers to recognize that they aren't the only ones. Whatever control they may have over their “faithful,” they are obliged to live and let live – to give others the benefit of the doubt.^vi Our Constitution guarantees us the right to believe and say whatever we view as the truth.^vii,viii But that makes it difficult for some cultures to relate to us. Similar guarantees do not exist in all countries. Some nations prefer one religion or one political system over another, and their governing legislation enforces those preferences. But even they do not permit small groups of hoodlums to make the rules for everyone else and, using vigilantes and other terrorists, to enforce their own laws.^ix

With or without sanction, however, extremists carry out their agendas. They may be small minorities, but they exercise intense power over others, and their actions have tragic consequences – both for those whom they oppose and over bystanders. And the media give them even greater influence, while often asking for increased tolerance by others of the larger groups from which the few come.^x While stirring up the waters, they claim to smooth them. It is up to those “larger groups” to disclaim the actions of their own extremists and to provide the necessary sanctions that will discourage similar future activity. All the rest of us can do is submit, wring our hands, or flee.

i     Eruvin, 13b.

ii     A Talmudic tractate.

iii    Avot, 5:20.

iv   That's not my designation but their own. They seem to take pride in “protecting” others from views contrary to their own.

v     There is no fun in fundamentalism. It's very serious business.

vi    Of course doubt is the one thing they don't have. They have truth.

vii    Indeed, the Constitution does not require truth or belief as justifications for our expressions.

viii   There are some restrictions on free speech, but they are primarily limited to speech that may result in harm to others.

ix     At least they deny the legitimacy of such groups even though they may ignore, or even support, their actions.

x     Such calls for tolerance are often disingenuous. The media know just what they have done but find it convenient to seek shelter under whatever protective cover they can manufacture.