Behaviorism and the treatment of animals

In Peter Singer's (1975) book Animal Liberation, he discusses a lot of the terrible treatment of animals in laboratory settings. I am very sympathetic with Singer's goals in the book and even in this chapter; though I would probably differ with him quite a bit on where the costs and benefits of the utilitarian calculus leads us, vis-a-vis the justifiability of a lot of medical and scientific research.

But one thing I want to take issue with (which I was reminded of while reading Benjamin J. Baars's book (1984) The Cognitive Revolution in Psychology, is that Singer lays a lot of the blame for this at the feet of the behaviorist metatheory in psychology. Singer argued that behaviorism was bad because its metatheoretical perspective was that there was no such thing as mind, consciousness, or anything like that, and that this belief system was used to justify a lot of pretty cruel treatment of animals, like torturing, wire-mother-monkeys (Harlow & Suomi, 1970, where infant monkeys were trained to treat a wire monkey as a caretaker, and then the wire monkey would start to stab, shock, and otherwise injure the infant in order to see what it took to break the bonds of attachment).

But here's the thing: behaviorism doesn't just deny the theoretical value of mind and conscious experience for animals; it denies the relevance of those constructs for humans as well! Because of this, I think it would be pretty plausible to argue that behaviorism is the psychological metatheory that is most compatible with those arguing for better treatment of animals. Behaviorism doesn't widen the human-animal gap, it closes it. What counts as suffering? Observable behavior by the organism such that the organism is doing things that lower the probability of a future, painful event. End of story. And that's in principle as observable in animals as it is in humans. And its almost always the case in practice that animals do actually try to avoid painful events if they can help it. Surprise surprise... And if you're a behaviorist, you cannot use excuses like "they don't really feel it, they're just automatons." Behavior is the measure of man, and of animals too.

Now, it may be the case that behaviorists in the past were being illogical and inconsistent in applying their scientific belief system to their personal values. But that's not a problem with the scientific theory. That's a moral failing we all make all the time by not behaving consistently with regard to facts we believe to be true and the values that we claim to hold. But laying that at the feet of the behavioristic world-view shirks the real problem and lets us people off the hook for their moral failings - rather than taking advantage of behaviorists purported belief system as an argument for why they are being immoral in the first place.

Murder, not terrorism

Ok, so this response to a Nigerian man with firecrackers on a plane is really annoying. As a member of academia, I talk to and read plenty of militant leftists on this issue. And being in Nebraska right now, I am reminded or (or beaten over the head with) the typical conservative response to these issues. But I think there is a really obvious and sensible path to follow here.

A "hate America" leftist might respond that America should disband its military empire; stop policing the world and stop protecting American political and economic interests abroad. But this is obviously not going to happen. Very few people agree with this point of view (except perhaps when Clinton was in office...). Its not really hard for me to justify "liberal internationalism" to myself, over the more leftist alternative, and I wont waste the time or space to do so here.

But a shocking number of conservatives, as well as all of the news networks, make an equally bad mistake. By shouting "terrorism" and "threat to our nation's very survival" and by creating all these overbearing rules, they let these extremists get exactly what they want: in addition to occasion murder of American citizens, the extremists achieve additional American suffering, in terms of lost liberties, convenience, and quality of life. By treating them as terrorists and warriors instead of simple criminals and murders, conservatives legitimize and even glorify their attacks. This is both wrong in principle, and wrong because its consequence is raising the likelihood of more attempted murder.

The correct action is to treat this as a simple criminal case, with no glory. Change American lifestyle the minimal necessary to prevent or limit the damage of future attacks. Make it boring and pointless, rather than glorifying, to be an attempted mass-murderer.

Health Care Reform and Abortion

So what's the deal with this Stupak amendment? Is it just political theater? Should it make pro-life people favor health care reform, as long as it includes Stupak language?

Assume that health care reform + public option + Stupak language passes. Therefore anyone who buys insurance through the exchanges, and gets a government subsidy to do so, is forbidden from buying a plan that covers abortion.

Some have argued this will reduce the abortion rate. Is this true? If so, how much? Here are some (potentially) relevant facts:

• According to a recent study on abortion demographics, 75% of abortions are obtained by women at or below 300% of the poverty line ($44,000), meaning that this group accounts for roughly 1 of the 1.3 million abortions that occur in America each year.
  
  
• This level of income is the roughly the same level that at which people will qualify for assistance in the reform plans that congress is considering
  
  
• According to census.gov, there are about 85 million women who make at or below $44,000 per year
  
  
• According to the CBO, around 6 million people (3 million women?) are likely to use federal assistance for health care
  
  
• Also accourding to the CBO another 12 million are likely to get health insurance through the exchanges, but not get federal assistance

Keeping those numbers in mind, I have heard some people arguing that by getting lower-income people into an exchange plan, you make them pay out of pocket for abortions instead of having it covered by insurance, and that this should make the abortion rate go way down amongst the group most likely to get abortions. Three million of the 85 million women (4%), a group whose rate accounts for 75% of abortions. So this group should account for about 1.3 million x 0.75 x 0.04 = 39,000 abortions. Not a trivial number of lives to save each year, if you hold the pro-life position. Now surely, some people would still pay out of pocket. But how many?

Actually, unless I am stupidly missing something, 100% of these people would be willing to pay out of pocket - because they already are! By definition, these lower-income people who will get insurance through the exchanges were without health insurance in the first place. So these people aren't losing abortion coverage...they never had it in the first place! So in terms of direct effects, Stupak would be unlikely to have any direct effect on the abortion rate.

But I can imagine several, more indirect ways in which Stupak langauge could have an effect on the abortion rate:

1. Insurance companies on the exchanges might find it laborious or inefficient to offer both types of plans (one that covers abortion, one that does not), and to enforce it such that the right people buy the right ones and don't cheat the plan. Since they MUST offer the no-abortion plan, they just decide to offer only no-abortion plans. As a consequence, now the vastly larger number of people who buy insurance through the exchanges can no longer buy coverage that includes abortion. That would make the pool of people paying out of pocket for abortion go up. But again, how many of these people would have had insurance covering abortion in the first place. Many of these people are also uninsured, or buying bare-bones plans which also do not cover abortion, due to the current high cost of being self-insured. So its debatable whether this, even if it did come to pass, would affect the abortion rate.
   
   
2. One issue which could decisively affect the abortion rate is: what will people do when they have a choice between the exchange an employer-based plan. Say they start off in the exchange, then get a job that offers them insurance, but for whatever reason elect to stay with their exchange-based plan. These are truly people who are opting for a plan that doesnt cover abortion over one that would. I doubt many would consciously factor this into their decision, but many would just decide to stay with the plan they know rather than switch.
   
   
3. Lastly, one conservative concern is that the the public option will become "popular" (due to unfair competition) and grow to become a bigger and bigger percentage of the market. Employers will stop offering insurance, insurance companies won't be able to compete and will go out of business, etc. To the extent that this is true, this will force people into plans that do not cover abortion. So in one sense, the small government advocate's nightmare (a gradual move toward a single payer system), could end up resulting in a case where everyone who wants an abortion must purchase it out of pocket. That would be an interesting case of "unintended consequences"...