Letter: Woolly thinking on sheep welfare
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Angela Lambert targets people who object to the transportation of live sheep on British Airways planes to the Middle East, for purposes of ritual slaughter ('Barmy bleating about sheep', 17 August). Insofar as a coherent argument can be disentangled from her emotive cliches, it is that the horrific human tragedy of Rwanda renders nugatory any concern for the welfare of sheep.
'How is it possible, in a world that contains the catastrophe of Rwanda, for people to get so steamed up about the plight of sheep?' But you cannot argue for the unimportance of one thing, merely pointing to the great importance of something else.
Citing the Lambert precedent, a barrister might as well say: 'I freely concede that my client drove the wrong way up the M1 while dangerously drunk. But M'lud, how is it possible to get so steamed up about this matter in a world that contains Rwanda?' No doubt Angela Lambert has made a modest financial contribution to Rwandan refugees, but how is it possible for her to give anything less than her entire fortune? By not doing so, she is rightly conceding that her own welfare counts for something 'in a world that contains the catastrophe of Rwanda'.
Nobody said that the sheep were as important as the people of Rwanda. They merely said that they were of greater than zero importance. What is so self-evidently barmy about that?
Angela Lambert assumes that anybody who cares about sheep therefore cannot care about humans. That is illogical. You might as well say that anybody who cares about the Three Graces therefore does not care about Lincoln Cathedral.
Actually, although I'd need to look at the statistical evidence, I suspect that the kind of people who are compassionate enough to care about suffering in sheep are also the kind of people who are most likely to care about suffering in humans.
Yours faithfully,
RICHARD DAWKINS
Oxford
18 August
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments