The Flaws in the Reasoning Around the Afghanistan Evacuation

 

Please note this was written before the Nowzad rescue had been achieved.

 

Anyone who has watched Sophie’s Choice will have come face to face with the idea of a gut wrenching impossible decision to choose between two options where no choice should ever exist.

How could a mother choose between two children?

Yet choose she must. No one would deny that she, or any real person in her position, whether in Nazi Germany or in the modern world, would have more love for one child than another. No one would question the fact that both children had the right to life as any less viable a truth than the fact that one of them was destined to die nevertheless.

Consider Re A (Conjoined Twins) [2001] 2 WLR 480. No one would seriously suggest that one of those twins had any less right to live than the other. Yet a decision had to be made that would lead inevitably to the death of one of them, to avoid the death of them both.

When choices must be made, there is no reason to believe that it is anything to do with the rights of one being somehow more valid than the rights of the other, albeit there are many cases where this is the rationale that face courts every day.

The country is gripped by the story of Pen Farthing and the Nowzad Team who are trying to escape Afghanistan. The arguments for and against the evacuation of the rescue animals have taken a staggering variety of approaches. One persistent theme is the claim that animals’ lives mean less than humans’; that when the choice comes, a human life should be saved over an animal. My argument here is that those two statements are not inseparable, that you do not need to have both of these opinions, or both of their opposites.

Some of the online arguments have caused those who don’t want the animals rescued posing the hypothetical question to those that do, whether they would be happy to rescue a dog over their own child? Let me be clear, I want those animals rescued, but I will answer those critics of such an opinion that pose this question.

If I had the choice to rescue my dog or my partner (I don’t have children but the same would apply) with equal chances of success, my partner would win. I love my dog. I would rescue my dog at a huge risk to my own life, without a shadow of a doubt. If I had to use lethal force to protect him from a crazed criminal, I would like to think I would do what was necessary, albeit facing the full consequences of the law. But to choose between Dexter and my partner, my partner would have to win.

But here’s the thing. Saying that I would rather save my partner than my dog does not mean that I don’t think Dexter has a right to life equal to my partner or myself. The Nowzad debate has gone down the route of: either you want to rescue people, or you think animals should be rescued before people. This is not the case.

Being faced with a difficult choice of who (animal or otherwise) to rescue, does not entail that you have to rescue animals if you believe in the inherent right to life for all life. Many seem to claim that if you believe animals are worthy of rescue, you would automatically rescue them before a human being. That is patently not the truth, any more than Sophie preferred one child over another in order to choose between them, or that the court in Re A could have preferred one child over another for no reason other than personal preference. It is perfectly possible to believe in the right to life for all life, and still make an ethical decision over who to rescue first. The point to this is simple. Just because people want to rescue the dogs and cats of Nowzad, they are not saying animals are more important than people or that they would not prioritise their own human family over their animals. Attacking those people as some kind of deranged individual who thinks too highly of animal life, betrays an argument that basically says:

·        *  If animals and humans equally deserve life

·        *  Then animals can be saved before humans

·        *  I choose to save a human first

·       *   Ergo I don’t think animals deserve life as equally as humans, those that do are bad people.

There is a flaw here. Substitute animals for ‘Sophie’s daughter’ and humans for ‘Sophie’s son’ and you quickly see the flaw.

All life can be equally deserving of life. In the event that a choice must be made, other considerations will come into play, but at no point does that mean we must believe in the lesser rights of some beings. Neither is there any real answer to the question of why an animal should count less than a human. It is an opinion (of some people, not me), not an inherent truth.

If you don’t think we should rescue the Nowzad animals, don’t attack those that do on the grounds of their belief in a right to life for all life. People who believe that, wouldn’t ditch their human family for their dogs, so don’t attack them for such a belief that they do not possess.

The argument is wider. Don’t criticise those who believe in an end to speciesism on the basis that it must mean they would rescue their dog before their child. Any person who rescues their dog before their child, when there was an equal chance of success but when only one could be rescued would be making a highly suspect decision. That does not mean that everyone who wants to see an end to speciesism is suspect. The wish to end speciesism and the choice to save an animal over a human are not synonymous, one is not the prerequisite of the other and they are independent beliefs/choices. I won’t say mutually exclusive, since there will be some who would believe in/do both. But to wholesale rubbish the view that we should end speciesism on that basis is flawed.

So if all life has the right to life, and if that doesn’t change the fact that when choices must be made, one will be saved over another without having to detract from that position, where does that leave us with Nowzad?

Regardless of the respective rights of people and animals, there was never a question of an animal being put in front of a person for space on that plane. So the ethical decision, regardless of your opinion on respective rights, (even if you believe they have equal rights to life and are left with a quandary in a situation of whether to rescue a person or an animal), of choosing between individuals or between humans and animals, quite simply did not exist.

The analogies and examples used in my writing here have centred on what to do when two individuals had an equal chance of being rescued and when only one could be saved. The ethical debate on that only arises when that situation is manifestly before you. That was not the case here.

If the originally chartered plane had been used in line with intent, then animals and people would have been saved. To not use that plane would mean no animals, and no people, would be saved to the same degree as if it had been used. Sure, there were planes rescuing people. That was true irrespective of the privately chartered plane. The additional plane would have offered more seats to more people.

Would the privately chartered plane cost space on another plane? Some argue it is the time to load – staff would have done that. Some argue the take-off slot would have cost another plane. Really? Really, though? How many planes were taking off? What is the flight schedule like at Kabul? What windows between flights are needed at that particular airport? The frequency of flights from places such as Heathrow will give you some idea. Yes, it has more runways. So scale it down. Do the mathematical adjustments demonstrate that the number of flights leaving was commensurate with other airports? I have my opinion, but I won’t share it, as I have absolutely no authority on this. And neither do many of those who brandish their opinions online in sometimes hurtful ways.

I will admit, I do not know the answer to many of these questions. I have some idea about flying a plane. I am working towards a pilot licence. But I do not have the audacity to comment on such things. Do those who criticise the whole Nowzad affair know any more than I do in that respect? Even having experience in the military is not enough to discuss that particular situation. Hardcore researchers find reflexivity difficult, so what can a layperson really add? Sure, trust the MoD to make these decisions. But do not forget that the MoD, as with any other organisation of its ilk, is inherently political. Decisions might seem black and white. Decisions might seem to be the preserve of a single individual whose job it is to make those decisions. It does not mean those decisions are made in an apolitical vacuum. It may be fiction, but if you want to see that in action watch Eye in the Sky.

It was never a case of animals before people. If it was, there would be no need for the continued persistence of the pet rhetoric by the Government. The political use of terminology like ‘rescue animal’ and ‘pet’ is analogous to the political use of ‘migrant’ and ‘refugee’ that we see all the time with reference to Channel crossings. Words are powerful, and are used to the advantage of those using them. Question why anyone should feel the need to do that before you criticise those whose hearts are in the right place.

 

As ever, whilst comments are welcome, please #BeKind. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. No one is entitled to be nasty. I am not in favour of censorship. But spite and hate will be removed.