How 'humane' is your city? Well if you live in the United States of America you may be one step closer to finding this out. It's a shame that we Australian's don't have anything similar to go by, although I'm fairly certain that all our cities are 'in-humane', however, the Humane Society of the United States has undertaken a study to determine the most 'humane' cities in the USA. You can find the study HERE, and, if you're not inclined to follow the link, San Francisco came out on top and Chicago came up with the wooden spoon.
But is this study accurate or even necessary; is it even logically valid? Now, I'm not pretending to have access to the methodologies employed in the procedures of this study nor am I claiming that I even have access to the uncollated information, what I am claiming, however, is that according to the Humane Society's published information (link above) there are quite a few holes. It seems that there were only twelve criteria identified for a city to be measured against which all seem quite emotive in their focus. Quantity of 'seal protectors' for example or 'puppies in windows'. Euphemism is a general tool for hiding inadequacy, not something that an international organisation should be promoting.
Perhaps the most fundamental issue, however, is in the use of the word 'humane'. What is meant by this term? Is it relative? How do we judge its application appropriately? I think that the term 'humane' is logically inconsistent and is nothing more than an overt expression of prejudice and chauvinism. Most critics of the Humane Society seem to focus on some inconsistent claim like that we should not be treating animals 'humanely' because that would entail us treating them as if they were humans. This, I think too, is illogical, prejudiced and chauvinistic. Why devalue an animal's uniqueness by equating it with a human? Humans and most other animals are innately different and these differences are, necessarily, irreconcilable; they will likely remain so until someone, at least, answers Nagel's question 'what is it like to be a bat?'.
No, my hang up is in the question 'what is it like to be human?' Obviously the term 'humane' is to be seen in relation to the term 'human' but what do we mean when we use the term 'human'? From a brief exploration of the Humane Society of America's website, focusing on mission statements etc., it seems that what it is to be human is the possession of reason. I completely agree! This seems to be where the the Humane Society gets confused (Maybe they aren't confused however there are no documents on their website pointing otherwise). Their statement of Principles and Beliefs includes '...[w]e seek to forge a lasting and comprehensive change in human consciousness of and behavior toward all animals in order to prevent animal cruelty, exploitation, and neglect, and to protect wild habitats and the entire community of life...' So, to the Humane Society, the term 'humane' means a procedure of changing reason to make it more in line with a Moral Universalist's perspective. This universal morality places equal weight on the rights of animals as to the rights of humans.
I'm not going to make a claim here either for or against Moral Universalism however the Humane Society really needs to go over their statements and get some things straight. If I'm going to argue for a universal morality and a universal morality that limits reason, because reason will have no place in this universal morality as what is and isn't morally valuable is already decided, then how can I call this humane? Of course, as I've mentioned, the Humane Society seem to equate the term 'humane' to such a definition, one in which reason becomes limited, but this is not, at least in my opinion, what it is like to be human. Human = ability to reason not I will tell you what you can and can not reason about.
If you're going to remain logically consistent the please remove the term 'humane' from your name.
