McKenna Animal Ethics

Mckenna notion of truth is one that rejects classic notions of truth in favor of a truth that evolves throughout time as the situation changes. Right and wrong has the ability to change based on the context at which it is presented. Her criticism of PETA for attempting to demand a renaming of pets to non-human companions, and her criticism of over humanizing pets demonstrates that there is not a system of laws that can completely protect and articulate animal rights in a moving system. She seems to take a very Aristotelian take on animals ethics arguing that we need to find a mean between the anthropomorphizing animals and the treatment of them as things.
McKenna argued that dogs and cattle have evolved to be of use to humans or at the very least require an interaction with humans to survive. She mentions that dogs are evolved to interact and communicate with humans better than their wolf counterparts and have been used by humans for thousands of years. She uses this to demonstrate that humans as social animals interact with other animals in order to survive, and through this interaction both species evolve to be of use to one another. In fact I would find it hard to believe that cattle could survive for very long without the assistance of humans. I do realize however that while this is an effective argument for not dismissing the use of all animals PETA can still object to McKenna by arguing that humans should stop interacting with new species of animals because they are not evolved in a way to work with humans. This would require us to respect the rights of exotic animals. In addition PETA could also object to McKenna by arguing that our use of animals does more harm and suffering to the animal than it does good. If there is a clear side benefitting at the expense of the other then humans would not be in a community with the animals, the animals are merely being exploited. PETA’s argument against the use of animals is because by nature humans seem to be exploiting these animals. If this is the case then PETA would have a very pragmatic case against McKenna’s position. To this McKenna tries to demonstrate that we need to move back the mean between anthropomorphizing animals and treating animals as things to prevent things like factory farming. This would reduce the exploitation of animals without having to do things like try to rename fish sea kittens (no really PETA tried to). One thing I think is the use of animals is something that is a part of human nature and cannot be escaped. There is no absolute that can be taken to avoid this.
I also find McKenna Feminist pragmatism to be different from many other pragmatists. While most pragmatists would argue that one should find a position that is the most beneficial for all parties McKenna tries to make people change their position as dominant over other species. This would mean that even if we want to help the animals we cannot treat them as things completely because it would eventually defeat the purpose and lead to the further exploitation of the animals.