The Ultimate South Park and Philosophy (37 page)

12
. Maggie Gallagher presents this type of argument in her piece, “What Marriage is For: Children Need Mothers and Fathers,” in Lewis Vaughn, ed.,
Doing Ethics
, 2nd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010), 434–438.

13
. Aside from the questionable premise that nature intends anything (he must mean a god), it presumes that what qualifies one to be a parent is the proper genitals, not any set of parenting skills. He made this comment on “The O’Reilly Factor,” air date June 5, 2006, and no doubt countless other times. But at this point should any of us be surprised at what comes out of the mouth of a grown man who thinks that the effect of the gravitational force exerted by the moon on large bodies of water is proof of a divine entity?

14
. When faced with this many opponents to gay marriage, like O’Reilly, fall back on the claim that they just don’t believe gays can raise kids as well as straights. Apparently facts and logic are irrelevant for the forming of their opinions; all they need are good old fashioned gut reactions. Bullshit goes in, bullshit comes out. Never a miscommunication. Stephen Colbert would be proud of such a strong commitment to truthiness. For this type of view, see: James Q. Wilson, “Against Homosexual Marriage” and Hadley Arkes, “The Role of Nature,” in
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
; Stephen Knight, “How Domestic Partnerships and Gay Marriage Threaten the Family,” in Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum, eds.,
Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate
(Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1996).

15
. See Charlotte Patterson, “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents: Summary of Research Findings,” in
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
, 240–245.

16
. This is a fear that former senator and Republican presidential candidate Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum might share.

17
. See Dworkin,
Taking Rights Seriously
, chapter 10.

18
. John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty and The Subjection of Women
(Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions, 1996), 13.

19
. Thomas Paine,
Rights of Man in Collected Writings
(New York: Literary Classics of the United States, 1995), 464.

20
. See Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in
Lawrence v. Texas
, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

21
. See Richard McDonough, “Is Same-Sex Marriage an Equal-Rights Issue?”
Public Affairs Quarterly
, 19 (2005): 51–63.

22
. See Jonathan Rauch, “Who Needs Marriage?” in James E. White, ed.,
Contemporary Moral Problems
(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2006), 294–302.

23
. Traditionally, US courts have maintained that any measure that effectively limits or denies citizens their rights must pass one of two tests depending on the nature of the right in question: strict scrutiny or rational basis review. To pass rational basis review, the restriction in question must be rationally or reasonably related to a “legitimate” government interest. To pass strict scrutiny, the restriction in question must serve to further a “compelling” governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. With respect to gay marriage the question becomes: does limiting marriage to straights promote a legitimate or compelling state interest? Such interests usually include preventing foreseeable harms.

24
. See M.D.A. Freeman, “Not Such a Queer Idea: Is There a Case for Same Sex Marriages?”
Journal of Applied Philosophy
, 16 (1999): 1–17.

25
. I’m not claiming that these are definitive arguments, merely that they have been offered. In fact, I think polygamy is an interesting case that should be revisited, and, given Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s fascination with Mormons,
South Park
is bound to take it up at length at some point.

26
. See Larry A. Hickman, “Making the Family Functional: The Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” in
Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate
, 192–202.

27
. John F. Kerry, “Senate Debate on the Defense of Marriage Act: September 10, 1996,” in
Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con
, 232.

28
. Rauch, “Who Needs Marriage?” 301.

Cynthia Jones

Lots of
South Park
episodes parody animal rights activism, ­vegetarianism and veganism, as well as animal experimentation. My personal favorites are “Whale Whores,” “Pee,” and “Fun with Veal.” One recurring theme, especially in “Whale Whores” and “Fun with Veal,” is that most people are outraged over the killing of cute and cuddly animals while they’re unmoved by the killing of yummy ­animals. But, at the same time, the animal rights activists portrayed in episodes like “Whale Whores” and “Free Willzyx” are crazy, ­single-minded animal lovers who will kill people to liberate an animal from a zoo or aquarium. Why are some people vegetarians or vegans and why do some people protest zoos, aquariums, and animal experimentation? And why should we care?

With Japanese whale hunting and a particularly inane real-life Animal Planet show entitled
Whale Wars
gaining media attention, “Whale Whores” finds Stan doing battle with the Japanese whale hunters as the captain of an eco-terrorist ship that attacks the whale and dolphin slaughterers. Of course, the Japanese aren’t content with just slaughtering the defenseless whales and dolphins in the ocean. Being very thorough, they head to aquariums and amusement parks to kill ­captive whales and dolphins there as well.

According to
South Park
, the Japanese hate whales and dolphins because of the United States-provided photo of the
Enola Gay
dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, a photo that clearly shows a dolphin and a whale as pilot and bombardier. When Stan presents the Japanese Prime Minister with a newly doctored photo of the incident that clearly shows a cow and a chicken perpetrating the bombing, the Japanese turn their ire instead to cows and chickens, saving the cuter dolphins and whales and bringing the Japanese animal-killing into line with our more refined American sensibilities about which animals can be gratuitously slaughtered.

“Pee” finds the boys quarantined in a waterpark after the pee-to-water ratio tops 98% and the park explodes. The park has to be quarantined because, as an experiment with three rhesus monkeys clearly demonstrates, exposure to large quantities of pee makes the poor victims really angry and violent. The problem is that the “experiment” involves the researchers peeing on the monkeys and watching their response. Getting peed on while tied up seems to ­agitate them, amazingly enough. Even though the faulty science in the animal experiment is only a subplot of the episode, the gratuitous use of animals in poorly designed experiments provides a nice jab at animal experimentation.

The
South Park
episode “Fun with Veal” targets vegetarianism and the veal industry, making fun of the compassion many people extend to some animals (cute baby cows, for example) but not to others (fully grown cows, for example). On a class trip to a local ranch, Stan, Kyle, and Butters are horrified to learn what veal is “really made from.” Cartman, far from suffering moral outrage, asks for a free sample. When they ask why veal is called
veal
, the rancher responds, “Well, if we call it
little baby cow
, people might not eat it.” The boys decide to rescue the cute baby cows before they are sent to the slaughterhouse. During their extended standoff in Stan’s bedroom—against their ­parents, the FBI, and Rancher Bob—the boys find that the only adults who empathize with their outrage over the plight of the cute baby cows are the “no-good, dirty, God-damned hippies” (as Cartman puts it). Thanks to Cartman’s slick negotiating and highly honed manipulation skills, the boys get the FDA to change the name
veal
to
tortured baby cow
, which effectively devalues the veal industry and saves the cute baby cows in question.

But despite the boys’ outrage over the plight of the baby cows, only Stan decides to give up eating meat completely. Unfortunately, Stan then develops the fictional illness
vaginitus
, as anyone who completely gives up eating meat will obviously turn into a “giant pussy.” In the end, Stan is ultimately saved from this horrible fate in the nick of time, thanks to medical intervention and an IV-drip of pure beef blood. All’s well that ends well, as the boys and their parents go out for burgers.

Other chapters in this book talk about faulty reasoning and the problems that result from holding beliefs based on errors in reasoning.
¹
This chapter is about
ethics
(the branch of philosophy concerned with what we ought to do and how we ought to live) in general, and about vegetarian and animal suffering claims in particular. Ethics or
moral philosophy
is the branch of philosophy concerned with “how we ought to live,” as Socrates (469–400
BCE
) said.
²
Moral philosophers explore questions about how we
should
live, rather than describing how we
actually do
live—which is more the job of social scientists like psychologists or sociologists. Thus, ethics is
prescriptive
(telling us what
ought to be
or what
should be
the case), rather than
descriptive
(telling us what
is
the case). In addition to offering guidelines for acting and for treating others, and an ethical theory should also tell us who should matter in our moral deliberations and who should not.

South Park
revels in something that really concerns philosophers, the inconsistency of moral beliefs. In the case of “Fun with Veal,” it seems that many people are outraged over the treatment of some animals while they happily devour the dead carcasses of other animals, seemingly having no problem with the pain and suffering animals endure before reaching the dinner table. And so while it’s terrible to harm cute baby cows, only a giant pussy—or a no-good, dirty, God-damned hippie—would give up eating meat completely. As Stan says, “Guys, I learned something today. It’s wrong to eat veal because the animals are so horribly mistreated, but if you don’t eat meat at all, you break out in vaginas.” Of course, he makes this judgment before the boys meet the Feegans—South Park’s life preserver-wearing vegan family in “Broadway Bro Down.” If vegetarianism (or not consuming meat) makes you break out in vaginas, imagine what veganism (or not consuming any animal products) will do to you!

The same irony about inconsistent moral beliefs bubbles up in other
South Park
episodes. For example, in “Red Hot Catholic Love,” Father Maxi confronts Catholicism’s contradictory beliefs, especially those arising in the conflict of Roman Catholic dogma with the ­cover-up of the sexual molestation of young boys by Catholic priests. In “The Death Camp of Tolerance,” Mr. Garrison breaks down at the end and screams at the townspeople for confusing a reasonable moral belief—that people should be tolerant to some extent of different ideas and lifestyles—with a less reasonable moral belief—that condemning or judging anyone for any behavior, even blatantly degrading and harmful behavior, is intolerant. The whole episode, including the title, is a satire of intolerance of the perceived intolerance of others. In “Sexual Healing,” we’re confronted with the remorseful Tiger Woods and other “sex addicts” who apologize for acts for which they are not genuinely apologetic; they’re really only remorseful because they were caught. We as viewers and voyeurs revel in the inconsistency of seeing the downfall of people over acts that we wish we could commit. Lastly, let’s note that “Starvin’ Marvin” points to a possible moral contradiction in deciding to donate money to famine relief on the condition that you’ll receive a free sports watch.

There are two story threads in “Fun with Veal” that nicely highlight two ethical issues surrounding the consumption of meat. The first issue is the difference between the ways children and adults perceive the killing of animals for food. The second is the unstated moral difference between
cute
and
cuddly
animals and
yummy food
animals.

Most children don’t believe the explanations given by adults of what their chicken nuggets or hamburgers “really are,” or they get really confused about or upset over those explanations. Why does eating meat bother children, but not adults (except for the hippies, of course)? Why is it that children believe, pretty much automatically, that it’s wrong to kill animals and eat them, while the overwhelming majority of adults do not?

Perhaps, as adults, we are desensitized by many years of eating meat. After all, the typical person doesn’t have to go out and actually hunt animals, kill them, strip them, clean them, or process them.
³
The meat that we eat is, for the most part, purchased from a grocery store and wrapped in plastic; it doesn’t resemble an animal at all. Maybe children are just naive or, perhaps, they see a kind of inconsistency most adults miss. We should be nice to others and not harm others needlessly—so we tell our children. Is there a reason why this consideration doesn’t apply to animals? Contrary to what some opponents of vegetarianism say, humans don’t
need
to consume dead ­animals to survive or to live healthy lives. We can get all of our nutrition—including protein—from fruits, nuts, grains, soy products, and all kinds of vegetables.
⁴
And, believe it or not, even though “Medicinal Fried Chicken” ends with physicians concluding that Kentucky Fried Chicken must prevent testicular cancer (since the sharp increase in testicular cancer coincided with changing KFCs to medicinal marijuana shops), the consumption of meat doesn’t prevent disease. Given the lack of nutritional necessity and the lack of disease prevention, you could argue that it’s acceptable to eat meat only if it’s not wrong to torture and kill animals. Or it’s acceptable unless we can draw some morally relevant distinction between the animals that are commonly eaten and the ones that aren’t or shouldn’t be eaten.