The Zanesville slaughter and the shallowness of our animal ethics

I've long been deeply ambivalent about our relationships to our pets.  I'm not going to attempt to make a case that the Zanesville, Ohio slaughter of 50 large animals last October is in any way representative of human-pet relations.  But, as a wonderful article in March's GQ illustrates, sometimes it takes extreme cases to make us examine ourselves.

The author Chris Heath doesn't take the stand that animal ownership should be outlawed and that pet owners are all evil.  But he confronts many aspects of our relationship with animals that aren't quite right, and questions our true motives in ways he wouldn't be allowed to except in the context of such horrific events.

Here are some choice quotes from the piece:

"While, we may feel as though we can distinguish between better and worse owners, it is logically impossible to know for certain what the animals are thinking or experiencing. Every human who interacts with an animal and then makes claims about what that interaction means to the animal—in backyards or zoos or even on the plains of Africa—is making a claim neither they nor anyone else can verify."

The convoluted relationship between our good intentions, our emotional compulsions, and our animals:

" 'Why, Terry? Why do you need so many?' 'Because I can. Because I can.' Terry was Terry. He had a heart of gold. He just couldn't keep his brain on the right track."

A quote that encapsulates my motto that if you love nature, you should leave it alone:

"The sentences that go round my brain are ones that were said to me by one of the animal owners I spoke to, Nancy Wider. "My father didn't like animals," she told me. "And he always used to say, 'I don't like animals but I would never hurt one. The animal lovers are the ones that hurt them.' "

Do we love and respect animals for what they are, or just like the way they look?  This quote gets at the long-standing debate over charismatic animals in conservation (i.e. why do we care so much about pandas and polar bears?).  The overpowering role of aesthetics in our valuation of animals to me highlights how ethically shallow our relationships with nature still are.

"What, then, about the way that male tigers are usually neutered in sanctuaries, but male lions are not, because when neutered they lose their manes? (Whose feelings, exactly, are being taken into account there?)"

More on Coming Apart

I've read some of the growing commentary on Murray's book.  Honestly, my opinion that Frum's and Krugman's counter-attacks against Coming Apart are not aimed at achieving a broad understanding of the changes in work, family and values in America.  They are vehicles for promoting specific political talking points - which has a purpose in and of itself.  But I don't like it when the general public simply gloms on to these talking points instead of thinking of interpreting the work for ourselves.

Ultimately, my view comes down closest to Kristof's.  My perspective on the economic opportunity vs. values debate goes back to the work of Goldin and Katz, Heckman and Kreuger, and other labor economists who thankfully have been studying inequality for two decades and built up a reliable body of evidence we can draw upon on.  Yes, economic opportunity has been declining, but much of that can be attributed to the fact that lower-income Americans are not going to college, and that many who go are not prepared to get the most out of it.

Why is this the case?  The answer seems to have a lot to do with early childhood care, and the habits of mind that the children of low-income parents are less likely to acquire.  These habits, such as diligence, politeness, punctuality, etc. can be construed as "values."  But as many studies on values-based issues like abstinence and smoking-cessation show, preaching values and shaming those without values simply does not work empirically.  What does seem work is preschool, and comprehensive support programs like the Harlem Children's Zone.

Ideologues on both the liberal and conservative sides sadly tend to promote lazy thinking (e.g. government is the answer!  government is the problem!).  Poverty and inequality are complex problems, and they require us to understand the practical realities of the poor instead of either labeling them as moral dissolutes or unilaterally endorsing government subsidies.  To me the answer is not about whether people are good or bad, or whether help comes from the government, NGOs, or the private sector.  It's about thoughtful experimentation and rigorous empirical analysis to see what actually works to help low-income people go to college, get good jobs, and live fulfilling lives.

Inequality and the Derangement of the Rich

I just read about an interesting new book by Charles Murray called “Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010.”  I haven’t read the book so I can’t endorse its analysis, but its premise touches on a question I’ve been thinking about a lot lately: how inequality deranges the rich, in addition to oppressing the poor.

I approach this idea as a young professional who is, somewhat against my will, a member of the rising elite.  While I’m not yet part of the national 1%, my salary as a finance professor puts me squarely in that percentile for my demographic and on a good track to achieve full status at some point in my career. 

And I do question where that salary comes from.  I think most finance academics derive solace from our one degree of separation from the finance industry.  But it doesn’t take a PhD to trace the provenance of our high salaries to the same financial sector excesses that have sparked widespread outrage and protest around the world.

I entered finance from a position of idealism.  Finance is an incredibly powerful force in the world, and I wanted to marshal that energy toward solving important social problems that affect everyone, not just the rich.  I still believe in that premise, which is why I’m still in the field.  But throughout my career I’ve felt tidal forces that keep pushing me away from the issues I care about most.

Although there’s a growing mass of financial scholars working on issues of economic development, financial literacy, and consumer protection, academic finance is still centered on how to help banks and big corporations reap greater profits.  Other sectors face similar disparities in the allocation of talent and research energy.  In health for instance, the vast majority of resources go toward addressing the problems of the richest minority of the world population like baldness and impotence, instead of problems of the poor majority like malaria and diarrhea.  When the American Economics Association held its annual conference in New Orleans in 2008, I marveled at how few economists ventured into the downtrodden city to learn about economic problems in vivo and apply their much-needed expertise.

The forces through which the rich segregate ourselves can also be found in our personal choices.  My current home of St Louis is one of the more economically segregated metropolitan areas in the United States.  Professionals inevitably congregate in its rich suburbs and chic urban center (the latter with requisite griping about the fiscally-starved city’s 1% income tax), completely insulated and out of touch with the decaying city and its desperate denizens right in our backyard.  I myself feel at a loss for what I can do to improve the city I live in.

While I do my best to combat the forces pushing me toward fat cat insularity – trying to maintain a modest lifestyle, seeking out opportunities to interact with and serve the poor, and choosing research topics accordingly.  But the effort of continually violating the norms of my social caste is draining, and I'd rather spend my energy doing actual good.  


I don’t (completely) blame myself or my socioeconomic compatriots for giving in to the forces that push us toward self-isolation.  Inequality deranges us because people everywhere do things largely because we can.  When we have the means to do basically anything we want, it’s hard to find perspective.  It’s hard to grasp what it means to live in want, because we so rarely feel it ourselves.  Even with a desire to do social good, it's hard to form a vision for concrete action.  Bill Gates and Warren Buffet aside, role models are scarce and career paths barely existent for applying an elite education toward solving the poor world’s problems instead of diving deeper into the bubble.

I have a nagging feeling that I’m not the only member of the elite that feels deranged by inequality.  The younger generations especially seem comfortable incorporating social responsibility into our career plans, and seek satisfaction through helping others instead of simply acquiring status, security, and a comfortable life.  I’d love to hear from other deranged elites about your thoughts and attitudes about work, money, and living a meaningful life in an unequal world.