Animal rights (redux)

[laughingman]

Ok, before I say anything else, let me start by saying that animal cruelty really pisses me off. People that catch fish and let them sufficate, cook shell fish without first killing them, hunt for no reason other than for a trophy, etc, really upsest me. I see no reason for such behavior. That being said, I would like to raise a few points/questions:

TP, are you against all human interaction with animals, ie: family pets, farm labor(plow mules and such), farm animals (chickens for eggs, cows for milk)? I'm guessing that you are against the consumption of animals, am I right? Vegan or Vegitarian?

See, I'm against the abuse of animals, but I have a hard time with people who wish to extend to animals the rights of humans. Animals are not humans in that we have separate natures, just as animals are not insects. Most obviously as humans we have the ability to grasps rights in the first place whereas animals do not. It is all fine and dany to say don't kill (murder) an animal for food, but the animal itself cannot grasp this and will, given the chance, do just that for its own survival.

If a creature is unable to understand rights and is unable to apply them to other animals, how can it be maintained that they have rights. Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. Responsibities that animals do not/cannot understand/follow. For example, if a new lion takes over a pride it will often killl the young of the former patriarch. If we are to attribute rights to animals, should not this lion then be charged with murder? I mean it is absurd to suggest that animals should be granted all rights maintained by humanity but than appply a different set of expectations in regard to their behavior with each other.

Obviously, I don't agree with the assignment of guilt to lion who's operating largely on instinct, but that's because their is no greater morality play involved here. Having no concept of morality the lion does what's in it's nature to survive? So why hold humans to a differnet standard?

As I stated earlier, I am opposed to causing un-needed suffering to any animal, but I am not willing put them on an equall standing with myself, and I do not see the consumption of animals as immoral or as violating any right.

So, tell me why I'm wrong TP

[TheNoNamedOne]

Laughingman, I have moved your post to a new thread here on the topic from the "Dog shoots owner" thread. There is another older thread on AR many pages long that has been inactive for a while, but a new thread starting fresh is fine.
------------------------------------------------------------------

TP, are you against all human interaction with animals, ie: family pets, farm labor(plow mules and such), farm animals (chickens for eggs, cows for milk)? I'm guessing that you are against the consumption of animals, am I right? Vegan or Vegitarian?

I am against the exploitation of animals based on utility, pleasure, or profit. I am not against being a guardian for animals that need to be cared for, such as those which are rescued or adopted. Yes, I am Vegan.

See, I'm against the abuse of animals, but I have a hard time with people who wish to extend to animals the rights of humans.

You mean you think animal rightists are trying to get animals the right to vote?

Animals are not humans in that we have separate natures, just as animals are not insects.

They share with us the nature and capacity of fear, pain, suffering, a desire to live, maternal care for their offspring, stress, altruism amongst their own and even across species in some instances.

Most obviously as humans we have the ability to grasps rights in the first place whereas animals do not.

Some humans cannot grasp that. Humans on the same cognitive level as animals, such as retarded persons, infants, and those in comas. You aren't suggesting that because those persons cannot grasp rights they are therefore fair play for one who can to use as one wishes, are you? In addition, there are geniuses amongst us who can probably grasp the many different areas of different philosophies that others can't, and since they can, does that make their position of higher grasping one that allows them to do as they wish to those who cannot?

I will address the rest of your post later.

[laughingman]

Well, I must admit up front that animal rights pose somewhat of a dilema for me as I can't say I have a definitive answer that satifies even myself at this point, just a gut instinct and a hazy view of the matter at this time. I'll try my best to clarify it for myself and for you.

First, I have a question for you. This is not an attempt to goad you or dismiss your beliefs, I'm simply trying to understand where you are coming from and what my approach to this conversation should be.

I don't know if you remember this (I'm not sure how old you are) but many years ago there was a case where a doctor transplanted a baboon heart to a little girl would would have died (and eventually did anyway) without a new heart. No human donors could be found and for one reason or another she was not considered an appropiate candidate for a artificial heart.

Outside the hospital where this surgery took place, animal rights activists picketed and protested the act because they viewed the rights of the baboon to be equal to that of the little girls and as such thought the little girl/her family/the doctor had no right to end the life of the baboon to extend/possibly save this little girl's life.

Do you agree with their (ARA'st) view point that the baboon was murdered unjustifiably or do you think that such an attempt was an appropiate measure to try and save this little girls life?

Again, I'm not trying to scorn you one way or the other, just need to know how best to structure my argument.

Thanks for your reply and I look forward to the discussion.

[TheNoNamedOne]

Do you agree with their (ARA'st) view point that the baboon was murdered unjustifiably or do you think that such an attempt was an appropiate measure to try and save this little girls life?

Again, I'm not trying to scorn you one way or the other, just need to know how best to structure my argument.

Fair question. I don't feel you are trying to scorn me.

ARists (which I am) do not accept the philosophy of anthropocentrism. That baboon has just as much right to not be targeted for exploitation for the benefit of someone as anyone else does. That little girl would have had a higher chance of success with a new heart had it been harvested from a coma tose or retarded child that is a ward of the state. If her life was so important to save, then why not go the way with the higher probability of success?

It was inappropriate not only on philophical grounds, but also for scientific and ethical reasons. The chance that new sicknesses from one species could cross over to the human species is quite real when mixing animal fluids/organs with humans'. Were this to happen then a greater portion of humans could become ill and die from those in the future. However, the pharma companies may be pleased with that because it would keep the cycle of customers coming to them to develop new drugs for new sicknesses -- not to mention the breeders of animals who contract with pharma companies to provide them test subjects.

These industries have a vested interest in new diseases popping up. They get rich from it.

[TheNoNamedOne]

If a creature is unable to understand rights and is unable to apply them to other animals, how can it be maintained that they have rights? Rights go hand in hand with responsibilities. Responsibities that animals do not/cannot understand/follow.

This goes back to the point that there are many humans in situations where they do not understand rights. Rights are not awarded to those who can understand them, but awarded to those who they are won for, and usually someone picks up that fight because they view the suffering is what calls for rights to be established and protected.

Rights are not inherent. The natural world in which man has lived in and evolved from has always been brutal and unfair. Rights are a man made concept that pushes back the philosophy of "might makes right" in an attempt to alleviate that brutality, and they (i.e. rights) are awarded as man sees fit. Man has always slowly extended rights from family --> clan --> band --> tribe --> race --> state --> gender --> child. There is nothing about rights in a legal or philosophical sense to say that rights cannot be extended to other species.

It is not capacity for understanding them that we grant them, but for want of stopping suffering, and not just our own suffering, but suffering we seen caused to others and that which we are able to empathise with -- regardless of whether or not those others can understand the philosophy of rights.

"It may one day come to be recognised that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? -- Philosopher Jeremy Bentham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Bentham) [20]

[laughingman]

You face a dilema (and a multifaceted one at that) TP. Firstly, it is only compartively recently that this discussion could even take place. That is to say that prior to the discover of agricultural meathods and plant cultivation mankind had little (read no) choice but to employ animals in one form or another just to survive.

Before agriculture, man (I use this in the non-gender specific sense of the word) survived by hunting, scavaging, and foraging. The technology and know how did not yet exist to sustain life at all on plant life alone.

After the discovery of agriculture and cultivation, it did become possible somewhat sustain life via plants although at best only at a subsistence level and even then animals where needed to employ as labor if nothing else (ie: plowing fields with oxen or horse). It is only the advent of modern technology and mechanization that it is even conseptually possible to remove animals from the equation of survival for mankind.

So if our ancestors were to hold to your philosophy towards animals and their rights, you and I would not be having this conversation at all: mankind would have died out long ago.

But the problem goes further than that. If we are to take the position that man himself is nothing more that a higher level animal, then the whole issue of animal rights is mute. Just as no one would apply morality to a wolf that kills and consumes a deer for its survival, why should any morality play be hoisted upon mankind for the employment of animals (in all fashions) if we ourselves are not but animals?

Whether it be for food, labor, or even the afore mentioned harvesting of organs (I'll leave the big pharma off shoot for another day and another topic), are we not as animals simply employing other animals to higher level purposes and their accompaning benefits just as lower level animals would employ other animals to lower level purposes and their benifits?

If however we look at man as something wholy different from an animal inasmuch as we have different natures (by which I mean mankind has no insticts to speak of that aid it in survival, rather we must use our reason and intelect to determine how best to survive and improve our lot in this world whereas animals do not employ reason and judgement but opperate almost entirely on instict for their survival), then a different outlook comes into view, but the results are not much changed.

Mankind must act to survive. Existence = action/non-action = non-existence. What then are the rules that govern mans interactions with one another? This is the basis of rights (in my view). By our very nature man must act to survive. By our very nature we do not have insticts that we may employ in this area to help us. By our very nature we do have reason and intellect at our disposal to determine how best to proceed.

"Natural rights" then are the application of man's reason to the problem of man's nessicary interaction with one another. The essense of natural rights is this: no aggresion should be commited against the property (this would include one's own body) of another except in defense against the aggresion of another; the non-aggresion axiom: no one has the right to initiate violence (or the threat there of) against anybody else. Put simply: as long as I don't mess with you or yours, you can do whatever you want (I can and will define property in further depth if so desired at a later time, but as it is not immediately germane to the discusion at hand I'll set it aside for the moment). Following this axiom is what may be called moral or ethical.

Animals are manifestly ordered by a different nature. They do not govern their interaction by any such principle, or any principle for that matter. They're interactions are governed by instict. The law of the jungle; eat or be eaten. Theirs is not a world of rights, but of instinct. They do not recognize rights nor the responsiblities assiociated with them. They do not acknowledge the consequences of violating such rights, nor should they as doing so would quickly lead to both their and our extinction.

"We will recognize the rights of animals when they petition for them" a famous quip once said. While this may seem rediculous at first blush, there is a sort of logic to such a statement. Does a animal have rights if it a) does not acknowledge them and, b) does not adhere to them? I argue no. They do not.

As to your comment that given such a deffinition children and the mentally impared would likewise not have certain rights, I say true. Manifestly so. We do not afford our children every freedom that we ourselves claim for precisely the same reasons stated above. They are not capable of recognizing such a right, nor are they capable of abiding by such a right. We (we being parents) take the responsiblity upon ourselves to train our children as to the meanings and responsiblities attendant with rights: do not take from others against their will, do not hit other people except in self-defense, etc...

Likewise the mentally impared, they do not enjoy every freedom (such as the freedom of movement-and not in the mobility sense) and it is a very true statement that in someways the mentally impared are attended to as one would a pet. Not in everyway, but in someways.

Children and the mentally impared are granted their freedom in proportion to the level of understanding they have of the responsiblities of those freedoms. At what point does one achieve that status of rights holder vs non-rights holder is a continium problem (such as the age of consent); there is no set time, but there are ways to determine when that criteria has been meant and should be granted.

As such, even children and the mentally impared are granted a right to exist, and as such children and the mentally impared are not held to the same level of scrutiny for their actions as are adults. If I haul off and punch somebody who makes fun of me, I'm very liable to end up in court with assualt and batery charges against me, but if a child hits another child, we do not haul them into court and demand they make recompense for their "crimes". We do punish them, and we do teach them the folly of their actions, but we do not hold them to the same standard as we would adults.

So yes, cognitive ability, is an important factor in issues pertaining to rights. As such I do not think animals fit the critia of a "rights holder".

Do I want the Mike Vicks of the world to get off scott free? Do I want chickens and cow to be little more than property to be treated with disdane? No. But I do believe they're are other, better ways to deal with such people and situations.

[TheNoNamedOne]

LM, I will answer your post in several posts over a little time so that the replies are more separated for specific points that can stand on their own. Shorter posts also make the reading experience more enjoyable, and, therefore, more people are apt to follow the discussion.

You face a dilema (and a multifaceted one at that) TP. Firstly, it is only compartively recently that this discussion could even take place. That is to say that prior to the discovery of agricultural meathods and plant cultivation mankind had little (read no) choice but to employ animals in one form or another just to survive.

There is no dilemma, LM. You are conflating the present with the past as if what happened in the past is a roadblock or threat to the present or the future's evolving laws. Choosing to give rights of protection to animals now in no way threatens man's survival as a species in this modern era of technology -- as even you have admitted. There is no dilemma because we do not face a choice between the past and the present.

Where is the dilemma? Can you concisely show the dilemma in a short sentence or two so that it is clear to see what dilema you think ARists/AR philosophy is facing? If it is merely a split between the past and the present, then there is no roadblock/undesirable choice to having AR that would harm/threaten our species in any significant way -- ergo it becomes moot.

So if our ancestors were to hold to your philosophy towards animals and their rights, you and I would not be having this conversation at all: mankind would have died out long ago.

The urgency of immediate survival situations (in the past or present) in no way prevents social evolution/engineering and advances in law and rights from that. Had not our ancestors resorted to cannibalism (or even in the act of creating weapons to protect themselves from other humans' aggression towards them) in their early stages, the same could be said -- that we may not be having this conversation as well.

There is no doubt that we have reached points in our social evolution for different societies, where we have given up past practices because we were able to at that time when we had. Therefore, we can now do so with animal exploitation. Indeed, the trend in society and its legal system is seen with the plethora of protection laws for animals which are growing in body all the time.

Despite the past and our traditional relationship with animals, we are evolving towards more and more rights and protections for them from exploitation. That is indisputable. On this forum I have clearly posted many examples from news stories to drive that point home to those who have been unconvinced or thought it was not so, or for those who had never considered it or were unaware of the movement and how active it is.

[Maggie]

[Mankind must act to survive. Existence = action/non-action = non-existence. What then are the rules that govern mans interactions with one another? This is the basis of rights (in my view). By our very nature man must act to survive. By our very nature we do not have insticts that we may employ in this area to help us. By our very nature we do have reason and intellect at our disposal to determine how best to proceed.]

We have in the past needed to exploit animals to survive and exist. In order that we, as a species could develop and reach greater and greater potential.

We have now reached a stage of evolution where we no longer need to exploit animals in order to survive, yet we still do. As a higher order of animal we are now able to consider morals and ethics.

It would appear that our "wants" supersede our "needs" and we don't need ethics or morals to survive.
There's no reason on earth (other than our overriding instinct to exploit both animals and people to gain as comfortable and easy a life as possible), for us to continue to use animals for sustenance.

It's human nature to use and exploit anything we choose.
We are supposed to have evolved beyond that, or so we like to think.

[By our very nature we do have reason and intellect at our disposal to determine how best to proceed.]

But we don't use it.

Maggie

[laughingman]

There is no dilemma, LM. You are conflating the present with the past as if what happened in the past is a roadblock or threat to the present or the future's evolving laws. Choosing to give rights of protection to animals now in no way threatens man's survival as a species in this modern era of technology -- as even you have admitted. There is no dilemma because we do not face a choice between the past and the present.

Where is the dilemma? Can you concisely show the dilemma in a short sentence or two so that it is clear to see what dilema you think ARists/AR philosophy is facing? If it is merely a split between the past and the present, then there is no roadblock/undesirable choice to having AR that would harm/threaten our species in any significant way -- ergo it becomes moot.

Well I guess if that's the way we should define the law then yes, there is no dilemma. I must confess though, I never thought of the law as though it were a maliable thing. But here's the thing, in erasing that dilemma, you have mearly substituted another in it's place.

By the way, before I go on, yes, I can be long winded. I say what I feel I have to in order to adequately cover the topic at hand. Sorry if you don't like the wall of text. Read it if want, don't if you don't.

Anyway, if the law can and should be changed and adapted for each new stage we find ourselves in (and it is a fact as you point out that it very much is changing in such a manner-I mean to discuss whether or not it should), than we remove all absolutes and are left with little more than mob rule at best, and oligarcic rule at worst (in reality it's usually a combination of the two). Neither is particular appealing me.

Is this not the argument of the current adminstration? The laws that once garranteed your freedom must be changed in order to protect you? The law must change in order to reflect the time and circumstances in which we live? How is the Shrub's claims any different from yours?

There are absolutes. Uprovoked aggression is wrong. It was wrong 10,000 years ago and its wrong today. Murder was wrong 10,000 years ago and its wrong today.

If we are to follow your logic than there is nothing stopping us from returning to such "barbaric" meathods again if the situtation were dire enough. If some travesty should befall the nation or mankind as a whole, would you then be in favor of a return to the "exploitation" of animals? Cannibalism? Raping and pillaging? Would such abhorant acts of today become lawful and apropiate in such circumstances? Again, I'm not talking about socially accceptable, but lawful. Many things, such as war, are considered scocially exceptable, but this does not make them moral or just.

For my money, the law should be unchanging. The initiation of aggression and the threat there of is unlawful and always should be. This is the sum total of the law (or should be anyway). We can debate the particulars as to whom this law should be extended to (i.e., animals) but the underlying law remains the same.

If a metor strikes the earth tomorrow and mankind is set back to the stone age, still murder and unprovoked aggression of any kind would not be aceptable behavior. There might not be a governing body to decree as much, and it might not be written down on paper anywhere, but there it is all the same. Inmutable. Unchanging.

What you describe are life boat situations in which anything goes in times of crisis. So toss the weak and defensless overboard when it suits you. The promblem with this is that in times of calm, the law is rarely needed, it is priciesly during these moments of duress that the law is most needed and most valuable: Terrorists follow no flag; they play by no rules, ergo it is acceptable when dealing with them jetison the regular fixed law and use torture, extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention, the suspension of Habius Corpus. Is this what you seek to justify? Ethics for the day? Dependant upon the circumstances?

The urgency of immediate survival situations (in the past or present) in no way prevents social evolution/engineering and advances in law and rights from that. Had not our ancestors resorted to cannibalism (or even in the act of creating weapons to protect themselves from other humans' aggression towards them) in their early stages, the same could be said -- that we may not be having this conversation as well.

Red herring. Straw man.

Despite the past and our traditional relationship with animals, we are evolving towards more and more rights and protections for them from exploitation. That is indisputable. On this forum I have clearly posted many examples from news stories to drive that point home to those who have been unconvinced or thought it was not so, or for those who had never considered it or were unaware of the movement and how active it is.

I am always perplexed be people who point to what is happening in the law today and use that as a justification for the what is happening in the law today. Does that justify anything? Because more laws are being written in regard the treatment of animals does that ipso facto make such laws just?

I am fully aware of how active the animal rights movement is. Just as I am fully aware of how far they are willing to go to achieve the results they strive for. Acts of violence, vandalism, terrorizing, and theft are becoming ever more common place within the animal rights community. You may try to justify such acts by denouncing the acts and practices against whom these actions are directed, but this is no different than the pro-lifer who defends his murder of a abortionist by claiming he was simply defending a baby from a murderer.

[TheNoNamedOne]

By the way, before I go on, yes, I can be long winded. I say what I feel I have to in order to adequately cover the topic at hand. Sorry if you don't like the wall of text. Read it if want, don't if you don't.

Oh, I don't mind at all, LM. I make long posts, too. Though I do believe more people are more likely to read shorter posts, and I would like as many people as possible to follow along by reading my posts, so that is why I have been trying to make an effort at shortening my posts.

I find the best way to shorten posts (and still remain thorough) is to reply to a long post in bits and pieces rather than one long reply -- because the reply, by nature of answering the questions in the post they are replying to, expounding on other points, and then putting forth new questions, tends to create longer posts than the previous one, and hence the posts leap frog to longer and longer replies.

Btw, good post above. However, I think before answering that I will dive back to some of your previous posts to catch up on some things I may have not addressed yet.

[TheNoNamedOne]

... if a new lion takes over a pride it will often killl the young of the former patriarch. If we are to attribute rights to animals, should not this lion then be charged with murder? I mean it is absurd to suggest that animals should be granted all rights maintained by humanity but than appply a different set of expectations in regard to their behavior with each other.

Obviously, I don't agree with the assignment of guilt to lion who's operating largely on instinct, but that's because their is no greater morality play involved here. Having no concept of morality the lion does what's in it's nature to survive? So why hold humans to a differnet standard?

As I stated earlier, I am opposed to causing un-needed suffering to any animal, but I am not willing put them on an equall standing with myself, and I do not see the consumption of animals as immoral or as violating any right.

So, tell me why I'm wrong TP

Why is it absurd? We are able to reason, and through reasoning we can mitigate the actions of the lion. It has long been understood that for the most part humans strive to employ reason in our actions, while animals displaying it at times, are mostly captives of their passions -- just as very young children are and who also are not subject to the same laws and punishments with those laws when violated, and are often completely exonerated.

For example, a small 4 yr-old-boy in a rage of passion and jealousy at his 3 yr-old sister who throws her down from the sofa and kills her (by accident or on purpose -- who could ever know for sure?), will not be going to court and then serving time.

Do animals ruled by their passions have a higher reasoning and cognitive level than a 4 yr-old-child? 6, 7, 8, 9-yr-old child? Most ethologists would probably state, "No, of course not." So, there is clearly the model, even amongst our own, where we do not apply the same punishments for violations of rights -- and that is based on cognitive ability. But yet, those persons still enjoy the protection of rights.

AR is not about giving all rights that people enjoy to animals. It is about granting what is feasible to try and prevent suffering from exploiting them. An elephant is in no need of the right to vote, nor the right to free travel and a visa because those are things they from themselves cannot exercise -- just as surely a man has no need for a right to abortion. AR are protections from our side granted to the other that we have the ability to exercise regardless of whether or not the other side can or does or does not do so to us or themselves. The duty is with us to observe them, just as surely as is the duty with adult humans is to observe them on human children, despite the fact that human children cannot reciprocate in like kind.

As it pertains to animals in the wild and what the AR movement is advocating in regards to that, I think you do not have an understanding of what that means. To put it simply, it just entails that we do not impose upon them for exploitation, profit, or pleasure that causes them to suffer. Leave them alone. It does not mean managing their relations between them and doling out punishments to them. To suggest otherwise is misrepresenting the AR movement and its philosophy. If you think otherwise, then I would ask you to show me some sources to mainstream AR orgs in the movement that suggest that AR does hold that philosophy of intervention between various wild animals in the wild. And, I would ask that you show us that the majority of orgs in the AR movement do advocate that as the ultimate goal of AR. AR is not about rights between nonhuman animals and other nonhuman animals; it is about erecting protections by granting rights so that nonhuman animals in their relations or coexistence with humans are not caused to suffer.

These are some of the reasons why you are wrong, LM.

[TheNoNamedOne]

By the way, LM, I find your honest style of discussion in the civil manner you put forth your views to be quite refreshing, and I highly appreciate it.

If we are to take the position that man himself is nothing more that a higher level animal, then the whole issue of animal rights is mute. Just as no one would apply morality to a wolf that kills and consumes a deer for its survival, why should any morality play be hoisted upon mankind for the employment of animals (in all fashions) if we ourselves are not but animals?

Because those with higher abilities incur a higher duty or responsibility to use those abilities. If we are a species that has the higher ability to empathize and dole out kindness than other species do, then we should seek to fulfill that which we are capable of doing if that leads to lessening the net amount of suffering in this world -- and most definitely towards the unnecessary amount of net suffering.

To cause suffering for pleasure, convenience, or selfishness at the expense of the other is not necessary. To do so rests on hedonism and the ol "might makes right" philosophy, that if the latter is embraced without anthropocentrism, can only be done so with prejudicial reasoning. However, a respect for parsimony should let us abandon anthropocentrism.

Whether it be for food, labor, or even the afore mentioned harvesting of organs (I'll leave the big pharma off shoot for another day and another topic), are we not as animals simply employing other animals to higher level purposes and their accompaning benefits just as lower level animals would employ other animals to lower level purposes and their benifits?

Yes, but we are a species that need not be bound by our past. To say that it is so and it has always been so, and, therefore, acceptable, is simply the fallacy of appeal to tradition.

To say parts of the animal kingdom engage in practices that benefit them, point to that, and then use that to justify what we do, opens up a whole new can of worms. Some birds destroy the eggs of other birds and place their own eggs in those nests to be reared by other birds so that they can shuck their responsibilities by duping those parents. I doubt either of us would accept that parents would be justified in duping other parents into raising children that were not their own.

Some ants enslave other ants. Surely we do not want to accept slavery of one another, do we?

Chimpanzees are known to commit genocide on neighboring troops of Chimpanzees, and or kill all the males, kidnap the females and wisk them off to their territories, ie kidnapping. Surely that new influx of genes to add to the pool for mating benefits that group, but it would be a horrid world if we accepted that justification for ourselves.

That is the whole point of our system of laws to protect from suffering -- to protect us from the brutality of nature and "might makes right." Because no one wants to be in the inferior position in that paradigm due to the suffering it entails. So, we create laws and codify rights that we create to try and protect us and extend it to others for two reasons 1) empathy, and 2) That by granting them in a social contract, that act will be reciprocated.

It is not necessary that both requirements be fullfilled to have rights (e.g. empathy for children and other lower cognitively disabled humans/nonhumans who cannot reciprocate [already discussed by me prior]). One or the other is adequate.

[pardus]

Hi, this seems like a good, substantive discussion. I'd like to join it!

Do you agree with their (ARA'st) view point that the baboon was murdered unjustifiably or do you think that such an attempt was an appropiate measure to try and save this little girls life?

From the way this question is usually framed (by whom, I wonder?...who might want us to think this way?...), it seems that there are only two choices: the baboon's life or the girl's. Especially if we're just considering things right at the last minute, given the circumstances as we (society) have constructed them.

And as human beings we naturally prioritize the life of another human being, right?

But why are we limiting ourselves to such a strange option? It's violent and fraught with monumental obstacles (introducing a foreign body into a vulnerable system and shutting down that vulnerable body's defenses, etc.). If we had been pursuing more life-enhancing treatment modalities, that little girl would have had options that did not involve horrific torture and rights-violations of a clearly sentient being with obvious cognitive abilities and complex social skills. What does it do to her to be so intimately involved in such a grotesque venture?

The baboon or child dilemma is a false one.

By our very nature we do not have insticts that we may employ in this area to help us. By our very nature we do have reason and intellect at our disposal to determine how best to proceed.

Funny, I have a lot of instincts, like the instinct to run or hide from danger, for starters.

"We will recognize the rights of animals when they petition for them" a famous quip once said.

Every time a chicken flaps his wings and tries to avoid being grabbed by the legs, thrown in a crowded crate, and shackled upside down, I see a very urgent petition to be left alone. When he hides his head behind the body of the next chicken to avoid the cutter's blade, or lifts his head to avoid the electrified water bath, I see a petition for his right to life.


So yes, cognitive ability, is an important factor in issues pertaining to rights. As such I do not think animals fit the critia of a "rights holder".

Pertaining to rights that require cognition, perhaps. Cognition is irrelevant pertaining to rights that just involve continuing, unfettered existence.

Acts of violence, vandalism, terrorizing, and theft are becoming ever more common place within the animal rights community. You may try to justify such acts by denouncing the acts and practices against whom these actions are directed, but this is no different than the pro-lifer who defends his murder of a abortionist by claiming he was simply defending a baby from a murderer.

Identifying violent acts with the whole AR community is no different from identifying all pro-lifers with those who bomb abortion clinics and murder physicians who work in them.

Great responses from The Prosecutor and Maggie, btw! And well-articulated challenges from Laughing Man.

[Asshat]

Identifying violent acts with the whole AR community is no different from identifying all pro-lifers with those who bomb abortion clinics and murder physicians who work in them.

You may be a bit new on the boards, so I will cut you some slack for not realizing that AR'ists here view every act of violence as a positive.

So while you say the actions of a few may not be representative of the feelings of the masses, each act is touted here as a positive event. It is thus hard to view AR'ists as any other way but violent.

[pardus]

Oh my. And I thought that animal rights was a fundamentally non-violent concept. That's how it is for me, anyway.

[Maggie]

Oh my. And I thought that animal rights was a fundamentally non-violent concept. That's how it is for me, anyway.

Direct action doesn't have to mean violence, although it sometimes precipitates it. I was very happy to receive this, although I'm not sure how long it's been news.

The Humane Society of the United States
CAMPAIGN UPDATE
May 23, 2008
********************************

Dear Maggie,

This week, The Humane Society of the United States, as a result
of our recent undercover investigations, helped achieve a major
victory for farm animals when the USDA announced it will ban all
downed cows from the food supply. Although more needs to be done
to protect these animals, the ban will spare many of these sick
and crippled cows from further mishandling and misery in the
slaughterhouse. Today, I want to give you our take on three more
recent victories for animals:

NEW LAW CRACKS DOWN ON ANIMAL FIGHTING AND PUPPY MILLS

The U.S. Senate yesterday followed the lead of the House of
Representatives and overrode President Bush's veto of the Farm
Bill, ushering in key new protections for animals. The final
bill -- which is now considered law, except for one section
excluded due to a technical glitch -- bans the import of puppies
from foreign puppy mills for commercial sale in the U.S. The law
spares young, unweaned, and unvaccinated pups from harsh,
long-distance transport -- during which they are exposed to
extreme temperatures and often die in cargo holds -- and will
keep foreign breeders from adding to the tragic overpopulation
of pets in this country.

The Farm bill also adds a provision to federal law to make
almost any form of animal fighting a federal felony. It's also
now a federal crime to knowingly possess or train animals for
fighting, and the maximum prison time for a single violation of
any section of the law goes from three years to five years. It
is hard to overstate what a blow this is to dogfighters and
cockfighters, and it brings us one step closer to eradicating
these criminal industries.

The law also authorizes an increase in potential fines --
quadrupled from $2,500 to $10,000 -- for violations of the
Animal Welfare Act, fines that haven't been upgraded in more
than 20 years. Such penalties will more effectively deter abuses
at puppy mills, laboratories, circuses, and other facilities
that use animals.

ANIMAL FIGHTING MAGAZINE TO BE PULLED FROM AMAZON.COM

On Tuesday, in another blow to animal fighters, we reached a
settlement with one of the defendants in our federal lawsuit
challenging the sale of two criminal animal fighting magazines
on Amazon.com in violation of the federal Animal Welfare Act.
The publishers of "The Gamecock" magazine agreed to permanently
change the magazine's format to exclude all ads for fighting
animals, knives, and other illegal paraphernalia, and to stop
selling the magazine on Amazon.com until it has demonstrated
full compliance with federal law for one year.

Sadly, Amazon.com has vowed to fight on in the case, arguing
that the First Amendment gives it the right to sell illegal
animal fighting contraband. It wants to remain the only online
retailer selling "The Feathered Warrior," soon to be the sole
remaining cockfighting trade publication sold on Amazon.com in
violation of federal law. Tell Amazon.com what you think of its
decision to continue profiting from illegal animal fighting:
https://community.hsus.org/campaign/US_2008_amazon_fighting4/iw6i5wg417w75mib?

POLAR BEARS GET PROTECTION FROM TROPHY HUNTERS

Finally, you probably heard last week's announcement by the
Interior Department that polar bears will be listed as a
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. What you
may not have heard is that the decision will save these majestic
creatures from the bullets of American trophy hunters. The
listing closes an unacceptable loophole in the Marine Mammal
Protection Act, a loophole exploited by wealthy sport hunters
who killed and then imported more than 900 polar bears from
Canada as trophies over the past decade. The long-term prospects
for polar bears remain uncertain because of global warming, but
thanks to this decision, these animals will face one less threat
to their survival.

All these victories were made possible by your emails, phone
calls, letters, and donations. Thank you for standing with us,
and for all you do for animals.

Sincerely,

Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States

Sometimes the little we're willing to do, adds up to something much larger.:)

Maggie