accusation that Darwin’s ideas undermined the dignity of
man, T. H. Huxley, Darwin’s greatest champion, said:
No-oneismorestronglyconvincedthanIamofthevastness
of the gulf between civilized man and the brutes; our
reverenceforthenobilityofmankindwillnotbelessenedby
theknowledgethatmanis,insubstanceandinstructure,one
with the brutes.^50
Huxleyisatruerepresentativeofmodernattitudes;heknows
perfectlywellthattheoldreasonsforassumingavastgulf
between“man”and“brute”nolongerstandup,butcontinues
to believe in the existence of such a gulf nevertheless.
Here we see most clearly the ideological nature of our
justifications of the use of animals. It is a distinctive
characteristicofanideologythatitresistsrefutation.Ifthe
foundationsofanideologicalpositionareknockedoutfrom
under it, new foundations will be found, or else the
ideologicalpositionwilljusthangthere,defyingthelogical
equivalentofthelawsofgravity.Inthecaseofattitudesto
animals, the latter seems to have happened. While
themodernviewofourplaceintheworlddiffersenormously
fromalltheearlierviewswestudied,inthepracticalmatterof
how we act toward other animals little has changed. If
animalsarenolongerquiteoutsidethemoralsphere,theyare
stillinaspecialsectionneartheouterrim.Theirinterestsare
allowedto countonly whentheydonot clashwith human
interests.Ifthereisaclash—evenaclashbetweenalifetime
of suffering for a nonhuman animal and the gastronomic
preferenceofahumanbeing—theinterestsofthenonhuman
aredisregarded.Themoralattitudesofthepastaretoodeeply
embeddedinourthoughtandourpracticestobeupsetbya