Isaac B. Singer (1904-91) Our task must be to free ourselves by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) The fact that man knows right from wrong proves his intellectual superiority to other creatures; but the fact that he can do wrong [and does so often] proves his moral inferiority to any creature that cannot. Mark Twain (1835-1910)
He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) If I only could have one thing, it would be to end suffering. If you could take things from animals and kill animals all day long without causing them suffering, then I would take it. . . Everybody should be able to agree that animals should not suffer if you kill them or steal from them by taking the fur off their backs or take their eggs, whatever. But you shouldn’t put them through torture to do that. Who are we that we have set ourselves up on this pedestal and we believe that we have a right take from others everything—including their life—simply because we want to do it? Shouldn’t we stop and think for a second that maybe they are just others like us? Other nations, other individuals, other cultures. Just others. Not sub-human, but just different from being human.
Ingrid Newkirk (1949-), President of PETA* *People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Introduction A. Yes, Animals Suffer Physically and Mentally B. The Case for Animal Welfare C. Practical Steps toward Animal Welfare D. The Cases For and Against Animal Rights a. Ten Reasons FOR Animal Rights and Their Explanation b. Ten Reasons AGAINST Animal Rights and Their Replies E. Monkeys and Their Morals--a Poem Introduction The increasingly systemic and brutal abuses of animals in modern society--by the billions on factory farms, by the tens of millions in biomedical-research laboratories, and by the tens of millionth of euthanized pets--has aroused an international conscience demanding regulation and reform with the objective to eliminate these horrendous practices. The fundamental principle of the modern animal welfare and rights movement is that many nonhuman animals have basic interests that deserve recognition, consideration, and protection. It follows, for instance, that the the interest in avoiding suffering of non-human animals should be afforded the same welfare consideration as the basic interests of human beings. In the view of animal rights advocates, these basic interests give the animals moral and legal rights. Animal rights advocates argue that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or treated as resources for human purposes, but should instead be, as noted, regarded as legal persons and members of the moral community. Animal welfarists are strongly supported by the arguments of the Australian philosopher Peter Singer (b. 1946). His work Animal Liberation (1975) played a significant role in kicking of the modern animal rights movement. Singer's book is considered one of the movement's foundational documents. It argues that the interests of humans and the interests of animals should be given equal consideration. As an animal-welfarist utilitarian, Singer holds that actions are morally right to the extent that they maximize pleasure or minimize pain; the key consideration is whether an animal is sentient and can therefore suffer pain and distress as well as experience pleasure. Singer allows that animal rights are not exactly the same as human rights. He writes in his Animal Liberation that "there are obviously important differences between human and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have." Broadly speaking, most animal welfarists' bottom line is: Animals may be owned like property to be used but not abused. Hence, we are opposed to cruelty and instead owe them kindness and compassion. Animal rightists claim that animal welfarists do not go far enough. It is not larger, cleaner cages that justice demands in the case of animals used in science, for example, but empty cages: not "traditional" animal agriculture, but a complete end to all commerce in the flesh of dead animals; not "more humane" hunting and trapping, but the total eradication of these barbarous practices. The classic work of animal rights literature is American philosopher Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights (1983) is the classical work of an animal rightist. An animal rightist's bottom line is: We owe animals respect and justice, for they are not ours, and we should not treat them as mere commodities toward the satisfaction of our needs. To treat them legally as our property is a case of "might makes right." It cannot be ethically justified. Singer and Regan represent, as noted above, the two major currents of philosophical thought regarding the moral rights of animals. A third position is held by PETA. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals support animal welfare measures in the short term to alleviate animal suffering until all animal use is ended. However, despite these theoretical differences, all, Singer, Regan, and PETA largely agree about what to do in practice. For example, they agree that the adoption of a vegan diet and the abolition of nearly all forms of animal testing are ethically mandatory. In sum: Moral or legal entitlements can be and are ascribed to nonhuman animals because of the complexity of their mental abilities, emotional sensitivities, and social lives and/or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure. A. Yes, Animals Suffer Physically and Mentally
Chimpanzee
(Photo source: Wikimedia
Commons)
Already
most societies recognize that animals can feel pain and therefore
criminalize cruelty inflicted on animals. Pain in animals is not
surprising since we share a common ancestry and our anatomies are
almost identical with, for example, all mammals. To suggest that their
screams under torture are merely hard-wired innate responses without
painful feelings, like the squeaking of a door, is absurd. Human
responses to pain should then also be considered as hard wired.
Recent research suggests strongly that animals have emotions as people
do. Again this is not surprising since many share with us the
mammalian brain or limbic system that gives rise to emotions.
Moreover, symptoms analogous to clinical depression, neurosis, and
other psychological conditions have been observed in animals and
therefore found within the scope of their emotions.
Already Charles Darwin supported like observations in his
The Descent of Man
(1871) and in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals
(1872). He points out:
- There is no difference of kind between man and other animals, but only of degree--there is no radical difference of essence, there is no true qualitative leap.
- Rather than an unbridgeable gulf, he demonstrated that there is a gradual change not only between man and other animals, but between all organic forms which is a consequence of the gradual change continuously and cumulatively operating over time.
- Concerning the mind, he stated "There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties."
Prolonged stress kills animals as the research of Hans Selye (1907-82) reveals. Like in humans that undergo prolonged stress, the adrenal cortex in animals increases in size during the stage of resistance but eventually collapses during the exhaustion stage, and this collapse is typically the precursor of death. An experiment with animals supports and illustrates his findings. It concerns psychosocial stress that is, for instance, observed in the establishment of a "pecking order" in chickens that indicates dominance and power. He reports that ongoing unrelieved stress leads to the development of a, sometimes deadly, pathological state. Selye describes a somewhat cruel experiment with tree shrews, which are small mammals:
The confrontation of two male shrews immediately results in fighting associated with loss of body weight and other biochemical indicators of stress, which bring on kidney disease. This allegedly shows "the great significance which social stress may have in the origin of renal [kidney] disease----possibly in man as well as in animals." When a male tree shrew is defeated by a trained fighter and separated from him by a wire mesh to be protected from further attack, the protected animal’s adrenal glands still enlarge and the blood cortizoids tend to remain above normal. The defeated shrew dies after about 20 days of such "psychosocial stress" (Selye in The Stress of Life (1976, pp.382-383).
In sum: The case for animal pain and emotions appears to be an established fact that no rational person can honestly deny. However, it is questioned by self-serving economic interests and those who seek to numb or tranquilize their conscience.
B. The Case for Animal Welfare For over 30 years, since 1972, Peter Singer has written on many controversial subjects such as animal and human welfare and rights, environmental accountability, abortion rights, euthanasia, the mal distribution of wealth, and the ethics of public responsibility. His Writings on an Ethical Life (2000) presents a comprehensive collection of Singer's best and most provocative writing. In it he explains that all of these views have a common core, for they rest on four quite simple claims:- Pain is bad, and similar amounts of pain are equally bad, no matter whose pain it might be. By "pain" here I would include suffering and distress of all kinds. This does not mean that pain is the only thing that is bad, or that inflicting pain is always wrong. Sometimes it may be necessary to inflict pain and suffering on oneself and others. We do this to ourselves when we go to the dentist, and we do it to others when we reprimand a child or jail a criminal. But this is justified because it will lead to less suffering in the long run; the pain is still in itself a bad thing. Conversely, pleasure and happiness are good, no matter whose pleasure and happiness they might be, although doing things in order to gain pleasure or happiness may be wrong, for example, if doing so harms others.
- Humans are not the only beings capable of feeling pain or of suffering. Most non-human animals--certainly all the mammals and birds that we habitually eat, like cows, pigs, sheep, and chickens--can feel pain. Many of them can also experience other forms of suffering, for instance, the distress that a mother feels when separated from a child, or the boredom that comes from being locked up in a cage with nothing to do all day except eat and sleep. Of course, the nature of the being will affect how much pain they suffer in any given situation.
- When we consider how serious it is to take a life, we should look, not at the race, sex, or species to which that being belongs, but at the characteristics of the individual being killed, for example, its own desires about continuing to live, or the kind of life it is capable of leading.
- We are responsible not only for what we do but also for we could have prevented. We would never kill a stranger, but we may know that our intervention will save the lives of many strangers in a distant country, and yet do nothing. We do not then think ourselves in any way responsible for the death of these strangers. This is a mistake. We should consider the consequences both of what we do and of we decide not to do.
- He contents that the interests of all beings capable of suffering to be worthy of equal consideration, and that giving lesser consideration to beings based on their having fur or wings is no more justified than discrimination based on skin color.
- He does not specifically maintain that we ought not use animals for food insofar as they are raised and killed in a way that actively avoids the inflicting of pain. However, because as such farms are the exception, he holds that the most practical solution is to adopt a vegetarian or even vegan diet.
- He insists that while animals show lower intelligence than the average human, many severely retarded humans show equally diminished, if not lower, mental capacity, and intelligence therefore does not provide a basis for providing nonhuman animals any less consideration than such retarded humans.
- He condemns vivisection except where the benefit (in terms of improved medical treatment, etc.) outweighs the harm done to the animals used.
- Freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition
- Freedom from discomfort due to environment
- Freedom from pain, injury and disease
- Freedom to express normal behavior for the species
- Freedom from fear and distress
Animal shelter's in the U.S. euthanize 9.6 million pets/year
The American Humane Association estimates that in 1997 there were about 3,500 operating animal shelters in the United States. The 1,000 shelters, which responded to a survey in the same year, reported that they handled 4.3 million animals. Roughly 64% or 2.8 million of these animals were euthanized. It is from these numbers that they estimated what is occurring nationwide. It is widely accepted that 9.6 million animals are euthanized annually in the United States.
Moreover, the statistics indicate that 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized. More cats are euthanized than dogs because they are more likely to enter a shelter without any owner identification. Only 15% of dogs and 2% of cats that enter animal shelters are reunited with their owners. 25% of dogs and 24% of cats that enter animal shelters are adopted.
Practical solutions for reducing these horrific euthanasia numbers:
-
American Humane believes that all dogs and cats adopted from public or private animal care and control agencies must be sterilized before being allowed to leave the shelter and supports passage of state laws mandating this practice.
-
American Humane supports the establishment and operation of low-cost spay/neuter clinics. The reduction in cost motivates those who cannot and those who will not pay the full cost for the operation and has proven successful in reducing euthanasia rates in communities across the nation.
-
American Humane believes the percentage of animals reunited with their owners would greatly increase if more pets were properly identified.
-
Be sure your pet wears an identification tag, rabies license, and city license. Include your name, address, phone number, and pet's name.
-
Keep licenses current as they help shelters locate pet owners. If you are willing to pay a reward, put it on the tag.
-
When moving, put a temporary tag on your pet. Include a phone number of someone who will know how to reach you.
-
Don't assume that your indoor pet doesn't need tags. Many strays in shelters are indoor pets that escaped.
-
Purchase special cat collars with elastic bands to protect your cat from being caught in trees or on fences.
-
In addition to ID tags, consider getting your pet tattooed or micro-chipped [microchip implants have been particularly useful in the return of lost pets. They can also assist where the ownership of an animal is in dispute].
Explanation: It is not rational to discriminate arbitrarily. And discrimination against nonhuman animals is arbitrary. It is wrong to treat weaker human beings, especially those who are lacking in normal human intelligence, as "tools" or "renewable resources" or "models" or "commodities." It cannot be right, therefore, to treat other animals as if they were "tools," "models and the like, if their psychology is as rich as (or richer than) these humans. To think otherwise is irrational. To describe an animal as a physico-chemical system of extreme complexity is no doubt perfectly correct, except that it misses out on the 'animalness' of the animal.
E.F. Schumacher 2. The philosophy of animal rights is scientific
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular. The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science. There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties. Charles Darwin
3. The philosophy of animal rights is unprejudiced
Explanation: Racists are people who think that the members of their race are superior to the members of other races simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") race. Sexists believe that the members of their sex are superior to the members of the opposite sex simply because the former belong to their (the "superior") sex. Both racism and sexism are paradigms of unsupportable bigotry. There is no "superior" or "inferior" sex or race. Racial and sexual differences are biological, not moral, differences. The same is true of speciesism -- the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one's own (the "superior") species. For there is no "superior" species. To think otherwise is to be no less prejudiced than racists or sexists. If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one. Dick Gregory
4. The philosophy of animal rights is just
Explanation: Justice is the highest principle of ethics. We are not to commit or permit injustice so that good may come, not to violate the rights of the few so that the many might benefit. Slavery allowed this. Child labor allowed this. Most examples of social injustice allow this. But not the philosophy of animal rights, whose highest principle is that of justice: No one has a right to benefit as a result of violating another's rights, whether that "other" is a human being or some other animal.
The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the (other) animals. John Stuart Mill
5. The philosophy of animal rights is compassionate
Explanation: A full human life demands feelings of empathy and sympathy -- in a word, compassion -- for the victims of injustice -- whether the victims are humans or other animals. The philosophy of animal rights calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, the virtue of compassion. This philosophy is, in Lincoln's words, "the way of a whole human being." Compassion in action may be the glorious possibility that could protect our crowded, polluted planet ... Victoria Moran
6. The philosophy of animal rights is unselfish
Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights demands a commitment to serve those who are weak and vulnerable -- those who, whether they are humans or other animals, lack the ability to speak for or defend themselves, and who are in need of protection against human greed and callousness. This philosophy requires this commitment, not because it is in our self-interest to give it, but because it is right to do so. This philosophy therefore calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, unselfish service.
We need a moral philosophy in which the concept of love, so rarely mentioned now by philosophers, can once again be made central.
Iris Murdoch
7. The philosophy of animal rights is individually fulfilling
Explanation: All the great traditions in ethics, both secular and religious, emphasize the importance of four things: knowledge, justice, compassion, and autonomy. The philosophy of animal rights is no exception. This philosophy teaches that our choices should be based on knowledge, should be expressive of compassion and justice, and should be freely made. It is not easy to achieve these virtues, or to control the human inclinations toward greed and indifference. But a whole human life is imposssible without them. The philosophy of animal rights both calls for, and its acceptance fosters the growth of, individual self-fulfillment.
Humaneness is not a dead external precept, but a living impulse from within; not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment.
Henry Salt
8. The philosophy of animal rights is socially progressive.
Explanation: The greatest impediment to the flourishing of human society is the exploitation of other animals at human hands. This is true in the case of unhealthy diets, of the habitual reliance on the "whole animal model" in science, and of the many other forms animal exploitation takes. And it is no less true of education and advertising, for example, which help deaden the human psyche to the demands of reason, impartiality, compassion, and justice. In all these ways (and more), nations remain profoundly backward because they fail to serve the true interests of their citizens. The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)
9. The philosophy of animal rights is environmentally wise.
Explanation: The major cause of environmental degradation, including the greenhouse effect, water pollution, and the loss both of arable land and top soil, for example, can be traced to the exploitation of animals. This same pattern exists throughout the broad range of environmental problems, from acid rain and ocean dumping of toxic wastes, to air pollution and the destruction of natural habitat. In all these cases, to act to protect the affected animals (who are, after all, the first to suffer and die from these environmental ills), is to act to protect the earth.
Until we establish a felt sense of kinship between our own species and those fellow mortals who share with us the sun and shadow of life on this agonized planet, there is no hope for other species, there is no hope for the environment, and there is no hope for ourselves. Jon Wynne-Tyson
10. The philosophy of animal rights is peace-loving.
Explanation: The fundamental demand of the philosophy of animal rights is to treat humans and other animals with respect. To do this requires that we not harm anyone just so that we ourselves or others might benefit. This philosophy therefore is totally opposed to military aggression. It is a philosophy of peace. But it is a philosophy that extends the demand for peace beyond the boundaries of our species. For there is a war being waged, every day, against countless millions of nonhuman animals. To stand truly for peace is to stand firmly against speciesism. It is wishful thinking to believe that there can be "peace in the world" if we fail to bring peace to our dealings with other animals.
If by some miracle in all our struggle the earth is spared from nuclear holocaust, only justice to every living thing will save humankind. Alice Walker b. Ten Reasons AGAINST Animal Rights and Their Replies 1. You are equating animals and humans, when, in fact, humans and animals differ greatly.
Reply: We are not saying that humans and other animals are equal in every way. For example, we are not saying that dogs and cats can do calculus, or that pigs and cows enjoy poetry. What we are saying is that, like humans, many other animals are psychological beings, with an experiential welfare of their own. In this sense, we and they are the same. In this sense, therefore, despite our many differences, we and they are equal. All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals.
Peter Singer
2. You are saying that every human and every other animal has the same rights, which is absurd. Chickens cannot have the right to vote, nor can pigs have a right to higher education.
Reply: We are not saying that humans and other animals always have the same rights. Not even all human beings have the same rights. For example, people with serious mental disadvantages do not have a right to higher education. What we are saying is that these and other humans share a basic moral right with other animals -- namely, the right to be treated with respect. It is the fate of every truth to be an object of ridicule when it is first acclaimed. Albert Schweitzer
3. If animals have rights, then so do vegetables, which is absurd.
Reply: Many animals are like us: they have a psychological welfare of their own. Like us, therefore, these animals have a right to be treated with respect. On the other hand, we have no reason, and certainly no scientific one, to believe that carrots and tomatoes, for example, bring a psychological presence to the world. Like all other vegetables, carrots and tomatoes lack anything resembling a brain or central nervous system. Because they are deficient in these respects, there is no reason to think of vegetables as psychological beings, with the capacity to experience pleasure and pain, for example. It is for these reasons that one can rationally affirm rights in the case of animals and deny them in the case of vegetables. "The case for animal rights depends only on the need for sentiency." Andrew Linzey 4. Where do you draw the line? If primates and rodents have rights, then so do slugs and amoebas, which is absurd.
Reply: It often is not easy to know exactly where to "draw the line." For example, we cannot say exactly how old someone must be to be old, or how tall someone must be to be tall. However, we can say, with certainty, that someone who is eighty-eight is old, and that another person who is 7'1" is tall. Similarly, we cannot say exactly where to draw the line when it comes to those animals who have a psychology. But we can say with absolute certainty that, wherever one draws the line on scientific grounds, primates and rodents are on one side of it (the psychological side), whereas slugs and amoebas are on the other -- which does not mean that we may destroy them unthinkingly. In the relations of humans with the animals, with the flowers, with all the objects of creation, there is a whole great ethic scarcely seen as yet.
Victor Hugo
5. But surely there are some animals who can experience pain but lack a unified psychological identity. Since these animals do not have a right to be treated with respect, the philosophy of animal rights implies that we can treat them in any way we choose.
Reply: It is true that some animals, like shrimp and clams, may be capable of experiencing pain yet lack most other psychological capacities. If this is true, then they will lack some of the rights that other animals possess. However, there can be no moral justification for causing anyone pain, if it is unnecessary to do so. And since it is not necessary that humans eat shrimp, clams, and similar animals, or utilize them in other ways, there can be no moral justification for causing them the pain that invariably accompanies such use. The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer? Jeremy Bentham
6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.
Reply: There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because they do not honor our rights. On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way. What is true of cases involving infants, children, and the other humans mentioned, is no less true of cases involving other animals, Granted, these animals do not have a duty to respect our rights. But this does not erase or diminsh our obligation to respect theirs. The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of (other) animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings.
Leonardo Da Vinci
7. God gave humans dominion over other animals. This is why we can do anything to them that we wish, including eat them.
Reply: Not all religions represent humans as having "dominion" over other animals, and even among those that do, the notion of "dominion" should be understood as unselfish guardianship, not selfish power. Humans are to be as loving toward all of creation as God was in creating it. If we loved the animals today in the way humans loved them in the Garden of Eden, we would not eat them. Those who respect the rights of animals are embarked on a journey back to Eden -- a journey back to a proper love for God's creation. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
Genesis 1:29
8. Only humans have immortal souls. This gives us the right to treat the other animals as we wish.
Reply: Many religions teach that all animals, not just humans, have immortal souls. However, even if only humans are immortal, this would only prove that we live forever whereas other animals do not. And this fact (if it is a fact) would increase, not decrease, our obligation to insure that this -- the only life other animals have -- be as long and as good as possible. There is no religion without love, and people may talk as much as they like about their religion, but if it does not teach them to be good and kind to other animals as well as humans, it is all a sham.
Anna Sewell
9. If we respect the rights of animals, and do not eat or exploit them in other ways, then what are we supposed to do with all of them? In a very short time they will be running through our streets and homes.
Reply: Somewhere between 4-5 billion animals are raised and slaughtered for food every year, just in the United States. The reason for this astonishingly high number is simple: there are consumers who eat very large amounts of animal flesh. The supply of animals meets the demand of buyers. When the philosophy of animal rights triumphs, however, and people become vegetarians, we need not fear that there will be billions of cows and pigs grazing in the middle of our cities or in our living rooms. Once the financial incentive for raising billions of these animals evaporates, there simply will no be not be millions of these animals. And the same reasoning applies in other cases -- in the case of animals bred for research, for example. When the philosophy of animal rights prevails, and this use of these animals cease, then the financial incentive for breeding millions of them will cease, too. The worst sin toward our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them. That is the essence of inhumanity.
George Bernard Shaw
10. Even if other animals do have moral rights and should be protected, there are more important things that need our attention -- world hunger and child abuse, for example, apartheid, drugs, violence to women, and the plight of the homeless. After we take care of these problems, then we can worry about animals rights.
Reply: The animal rights movement stands as part of, not apart from, the human rights movement. The same philosophy that insists upon and defends the rights of nonhuman animals also insists upon and defends the rights of human beings.
At a practical level, moreover, the choice thoughtful people face is not between helping humans or helping other animals. One can do both. People do not need to eat animals in order to help the homeless, for example, any more than they need to use cosmetics that have been tested on animals in order to help children. In fact, people who do respect the rights of nonhuman animals, by not eating them, will be healthier, in which case they actually will be able to help human beings even more. I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.
Abraham Lincoln E. Monkeys and Their Morals
Three monkeys sat in a
coconut tree,
Discussing things as they’re said to be.
Said one to the others, Now listen, you two,
There’s a certain rumor that can’t be true;
That humans descended from our noble race,
The very idea is a shocking disgrace.
Never did a monkey desert his
wife,
Starve her babies and ruin her life.
And you’ve never known a mother monk,
To leave her babies with others to bunk,
Or pass them on from one to another,
Till they scarcely know who is their mother.
And another thing you’ll
never see;
A monk build a fence ‘round a coconut tree,
And let the coconuts all go to waste,
Forbidding any other monks to taste.
Why, if I put a fence around a tree,
Starvation would force you to steal from me.
Here’s another thing a monk
won’t do:
Go out at night and get on a stew,
Making whoopee, disgracing his life,
Then reel madly home, and beat up his wife.
They call this pleasure and make a big fuss,
They’ve descended from something, but not from us!
Anonymous