For anyone who doesn't know what the ALF is, or what it stands for:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8676149089490475412

So the question is: Are the ALF justified in using what many deem to be 'non-violent terrorism' to stop what they believe to be mass murder? Are they heroes, or villians?

There are 3basic questions in any conflict to find out who the good guy or bad guy is:

1. Are they using violence?
2. Are they promoting war and violence?
3. Do they promote ignorance and stand against knowledge?
4. Are they harming the environment and its inhabitants or are they doing nothing to protect it?

Any that fit these categories are the bad guy.

Anyone can "justify" anything if they set their minds to it.

The question should be, "Can they "justify" their actions to you?"

I think one of the major problems in the world is that there's too fuckin' many people trying to tell too many other people what to do and what not to do.

Perhaps it's time for us all to .....mind our own fuckin' business?

Baron Max

I think it was the ALF or some affiliate that broke into a mink farm in the UK back in the 80's and set the minks free into the wilds. The minks then proceeded to hunt down and eat as much of the local native fauna as they could. It was an ecological disaster that wound up with the minks being hunted, trapped, and caught in lethal traps and returned to the farm where they were skinned and made into coats. What few they couldn't catch were most likely eaten by dogs.

I guess their hearts were in the right place.

lixluke:


1. Are they using violence?
2. Are they promoting war and violence?
3. Do they promote ignorance and stand against knowledge?
4. Are they harming the environment and its inhabitants or are they doing nothing to protect it?


1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
4. No.

I didn't bother accessing the video.

If the ALF the "Animal Liberation Front"?

Are the ALF justified in using what many deem to be 'non-violent terrorism' to stop what they believe to be mass murder? Are they heroes, or villians?

Please give some specific examples, and we can look at them one by one.

The ALF are like an enforcement arm for PETA. They are involved in things like burning research laboratories and I suspect that they have also set a few animal care facilities on fire with the animals in them.

People must have a deep seated anger against some industries because I think that they are willfully blind to what ALF does, how much damage it does, and even the damage that it does to animals by setting animals free and working to get laws passed that cause many animals to be killed.

I am fine with protestors and other such things, but once they assault property they have crossed the line.

"I'm fine with people protesting our rounding up and gassing of the Jews, but when they damage the gas chambers, they have crossed the line!"

James:

If the ALF the "Animal Liberation Front"?

Yes.


Please give some specific examples, and we can look at them one by one.


I'll give some general examples, instead. In the fight for animal rights, are the ALF justified in...

1. Protesting?

2. Vandalizing property used to harm/kill animals?

3. Rescuing animals from fur farms/meat factories/vivisection labs? Assume that the animals are donated to a no-kill animal shelter.

I praisse the alf....

all praise on animal rights..

anilnal rights are human rights.


-MT

In the fight for animal rights, are the ALF justified in...

1. Protesting?

Yes. That's their legal right.

2. Vandalizing property used to harm/kill animals?

Ethically, this may be justifiable in certain circumstances. It is, however, illegal.

3. Rescuing animals from fur farms/meat factories/vivisection labs?

Again, ethically this may be permissible. It is also illegal.

But you haven't really answered the question, James. Do you think that the ALF are heroes, or villians? Since they carry out ethical and noble actions (often at risk to their own liberty), are they heroes? Or do their illegal activities make them villians?

I've never really understood what the basis is for "animal rights".

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

ethical and noble actions ?

This calls to mind another news story about the ALF from the 80's. They had broken into a lab and rescued the rabbits that were being experimented on. (yay!) They took these rabbits and gave them to people as cuddly little pets to be loved and cared for. (yay!) Most of the rabbits had been intentionally infected with dangerous bacteria that might or might not have transferred to the people they gave the rabbits to. (oops!) Nobly intended maybe.

Ethics are a matter of debate as one person's ethics might not match those of another. We have some great life-saving medications due to animal experimentation. (Explain to the parents of a dying child that a rabbit's life is worth more than their daughter's. If they agree, I'll shut up.) But to spray cosmetics into an animal's eyes to see if it causes a reaction? Hel-LO-o! We pretty much know that just about everything sprayed into your eyes can be bad, and by now it should be common knowledge to flush with water and get to a doctor. I don't think we need any further experimentation in that direction. I was sickened by scientists who cut off a cat's balls to see if their conclusion was right that it produced a "pain-like reaction".

But I don't see the ALF as heroes nor necessarily as villains. They are from the same general cut of people who would not want me to own my dogs, cats, or fish because owning an animal puts them in an unnatural setting. They would bar spaying and neutering and let these creatures overpopulate, all the while complaining that people are overpopulating. They would enforce veganism on all of us until they came up with some reason not to eat plants, either. Such unethical treatment of human beings has to carry some weight, as people are only mammals in the animal kingdom and should be included in the "ethical treatment of animals". So I don't see the ALF as heroes or villains. I'm not sure how I see them. (If you saw the "Bullshit!" episode on PETA, you probably wouldn't like them much.)

When was the ALF formed? I'd like to think that the rabbit and mink incidents were mistakes of a fledgling and idealistic organization and that they've gotten smarter and more sophisticated.

They had broken into a lab and rescued the rabbits that were being experimented on. (yay!)

Would you rather the lab preform the tests on humans?

We pretty much know that just about everything sprayed into your eyes can be bad, and by now it should be common knowledge to flush with water and get to a doctor.

Tell this to the dumb ass teenager who sues Loreal because she gets Mascara in her eyes and makes her go blind. The fact is, there are certain things that you cannot know unless you check it.

Such unethical treatment of human beings has to carry some weight, as people are only mammals in the animal kingdom and should be included in the "ethical treatment of animals".

I think I agree with you about this. Humans are naturally omnivores, and one can argue that the reason we have large brains is because our diets are so high in protein---in general, predators are more intelligent than prey in Nature, so bring on the steaks.

The ALF are like an enforcement arm for PETA. They are involved in things like burning research laboratories and I suspect that they have also set a few animal care facilities on fire with the animals in them.
.

Really? Burning animal care facilities, such as?

But you haven't really answered the question, James. Do you think that the ALF are heroes, or villians? Since they carry out ethical and noble actions (often at risk to their own liberty), are they heroes? Or do their illegal activities make them villians?

Neither, they are in their own words freedom fighters.

I've never really understood what the basis is for "animal rights".

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

There's no irony there. The fact is if weasels are being opressed by humans then they are not capable of fighting for themselves.

Would you rather the lab preform the tests on humans?

Tell this to the dumb ass teenager who sues Loreal because she gets Mascara in her eyes and makes her go blind. The fact is, there are certain things that you cannot know unless you check it.

I think I agree with you about this. Humans are naturally omnivores, and one can argue that the reason we have large brains is because our diets are so high in protein---in general, predators are more intelligent than prey in Nature, so bring on the steaks.

What would your objection be to testing on human volunteers? Now apply this to animals that did not volunteer.

LOL! Hunting live prey requires a high level of intelligence, purchasing a cheeseburger does not. ;)

There's no irony there. The fact is if weasels are being opressed by humans then they are not capable of fighting for themselves.

And you think that Iraqis were capable of standing up to an oppressive regime?

What would your objection be to testing on human volunteers? Now apply this to animals that did not volunteer.

The difference in our opinions, which will never be resolved, is that I think human life is inherintly more valuable than another animal's life. We can talk in circles if you like:)

LOL! Hunting live prey requires a high level of intelligence, purchasing a cheeseburger does not

This is certainly true, and can say so after having killed and eaten many animals myself. Venison has less fat than chicken, and tastes better too. Nevertheless, it is beside the point: The fact is that humans natural diet includes other animals. Any attempt to deny this is to disregard the facts.

The difference in our opinions, which will never be resolved, is that I think human life is inherintly more valuable than another animal's life. We can talk in circles if you like:)

This is certainly true, and can say so after having killed and eaten many animals myself. Venison has less fat than chicken, and tastes better too. Nevertheless, it is beside the point: The fact is that humans natural diet includes other animals. Any attempt to deny this is to disregard the facts.

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

Very true, humans are omnivores, and it's very likely that this gave our ancestors an evolutionary advantage. We can however choose not to kill animals for food (I say we in the general sense, of course some people rely on animals for their basic survival). Many people eat a vegetarian diet and it does them no harm at all. I make a moral choice not to eat meat.
Anyway, the ALF are against the factory farming of animals, the killing of animals for recreation and the needless slaughter of animals to satisfy greed. It's nothing to do with their concern about dietry requirements.

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

I do have a bias towards humans, and have absolutely no problems in admitting this.

What can I say...I was raised a redneck. I see it as a right to hunt and kill your own food provided this is done in a sustainable manner (i.e. I can ensure that my kids will enjoy the same privledge in the future). I harvest maybe three deer a year, and as many wild hogs as are needed for sausage. There is something deeply satsifying about getting your hands dirty, I think. I wish I had the talent to grow my own tomatoes too.

We can however choose not to kill animals for food (I say we in the general sense, of course some people rely on animals for their basic survival). Many people eat a vegetarian diet and it does them no harm at all. I make a moral choice not to eat meat.

I have no problems with this, just dont try to evangelize to me.

Anyway, the ALF are against the factory farming of animals, the killing of animals for recreation and the needless slaughter of animals to satisfy greed. It's nothing to do with their concern about dietry requirements.

I also have no problems with people opposing these things, but again, they should not force their views on me. I love animals, too. They taste very good.

BenTheMan:
Would you rather the lab preform the tests on humans?


The fact of the matter is that drug testing does eventually end up being done on humans.

And yes, some would say that drug testing should be done on humans, for the very simple fact that humans are willing participants, whereas animals are not. By what right do we take an animal (against its will?) and torture/kill it for medical research? Would you approve of an advanced alien species doing the same to humans?


Humans are naturally omnivores, and one can argue that the reason we have large brains is because our diets are so high in protein---in general, predators are more intelligent than prey in Nature, so bring on the steaks.


1. Conjecture. There's controversy in the scientific circles as to whether our ancestors brains were able to advance due to protein from meat, or protein from legumes.

2. Either way, your logic is flawed. It was necessary to eat meat 10,000 years ago, so it must be necessary to do so today? May I point out that tribal warfare has acted as a catalyst for technological advancement. So bring on those bloody and brutal wars!

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

IRRELEVANT AND UNSUPPORTED!

IRRELEVANT because the situation of the Iraqi people is different from that of animals. The Iraqi people are indeed capable of mass movement, rebellion, and organized resistance. Animals are not.

UNSUPPORTED because the animal rights activists I have met condemn all war. In fact, the AFL website praises political prisoners that have objected to the War in Iraq, and condemns the harsh treatment of the civilians. So apparently you're just inventing nonsense generalizations.

And yes, some would say that drug testing should be done on humans, for the very simple fact that humans are willing participants, whereas animals are not. By what right do we take an animal (against its will?) and torture/kill it for medical research? Would you approve of an advanced alien species doing the same to humans?

IRRELEVANT and UNSUPPORTED.

IRRELEVANT because we cannot show that aliens exist.

UNSUPPORTED because there is no proof that animals DON'T want to be tested on.

Look---you're making points that were made like three posts ago. Why don't you scroll up and read my responses while I step on another kitten.

IRRELEVANT because we cannot show that aliens exist

It's a hypothetical. Do you know what a 'hypothetical' is? Perhaps I can get a grade school English teacher to explain it you.


UNSUPPORTED because there is no proof that animals DON'T want to be tested on.


LOL! This is the best you've got? Very well, I guess that we might as well just round up all the babies and infants, and test our treatments on them. After all, there is no proof that babies DON'T want to be tested on. I've never heard them object.

Lack of consent = No consent. This principle is clearly observed in rape cases. Just because a drugged/gagged woman doesn't object to you having sex with her, does not change the fact that it is indeed the rape.

Get the fuck out of my thread, TROLL.

LOL! This is the best you've got? Very well, I guess that we might as well just round up all the babies and infants, and test our treatments on them. After all, there is no proof that babies DON'T want to be tested on. I've never heard them object.

Lack of consent = No consent. This principle is clearly observed in rape cases. Just because a drugged/gagged woman doesn't object to you having sex with her, does not change the fact that it is indeed the rape.

Get the fuck out of my thread, TROLL.

Aparently it is harder than I thought for you to comprehend sarcasm.

You were being sarcastic? Given that the arguments you just posted are quite often actually used to justify medical experimentation/meat eating, it's a little hard to tell.

Ben I'm against experimenting on animals for essentially useless reasons. Take for example the cutting off of the cat's balls. To see what kind of reaction it produced? Who gave away a grant for that? Did they even have to ask? If they really wanted to know, why not take some sick child-raping male pedophile and cut his balls off? Heck, they could auction off the privilege and fund more research with the proceeds.

No argument on the Loreal thing, although I don't think the kid should be allowed to sue. But now that we know that mascara in your eyes is bad for you, do we have to keep proving it?

As far as hunting goes, like Mr. Nugent says, "KILL IT AND GRILL IT!" I tried a proper vegetarian diet to help lose weight, and while it worked for weight loss, it just didn't feel right. Maybe it's psychological (I'll admit, black bean burgers are tasty), but after I had lost the weight I needed to lose (doctor's advice) it felt so good to sink my teeth into a tri-tip! Once we get ourselves all moved out to the country, we plan to get fresh meat. Meanwhile, we go for the leanest cuts we can and try to cook with as few artificial ingredients and added fats as possible. (I know, fats are necessary. We're just cutting it back, not out.)

You were being sarcastic? Given that the arguments you just posted are quite often actually used to justify medical experimentation/meat eating, it's a little hard to tell.

Yeah I know it is probably a bit difficult to tell as there is no way to convey that meaning here.

The bottom line is exaclty here:

Never say never! It's good that you can at least admit that your moral bias is towards humans. You should ask yourself why that is (not just because you are human of course).

It boils down to a choice: I feel that a human's life in inherintly more valuable than an animal's, and you feel the opposite way.

I want to make sure that everyone understands that I don't DISvalue the lives of animals.

No argument on the Loreal thing, although I don't think the kid should be allowed to sue. But now that we know that mascara in your eyes is bad for you, do we have to keep proving it?

What if they change the formula to make it stay on your lashes longer?

As far as hunting goes, like Mr. Nugent says, "KILL IT AND GRILL IT!" I tried a proper vegetarian diet to help lose weight, and while it worked for weight loss, it just didn't feel right. Maybe it's psychological (I'll admit, black bean burgers are tasty), but after I had lost the weight I needed to lose (doctor's advice) it felt so good to sink my teeth into a tri-tip! Once we get ourselves all moved out to the country, we plan to get fresh meat. Meanwhile, we go for the leanest cuts we can and try to cook with as few artificial ingredients and added fats as possible. (I know, fats are necessary. We're just cutting it back, not out.)

Yeah like Ted says, cruelty to animals is not killing it in the first shot.

Here we go again... another person who has never considered the issues but is quite willing to make a fool out of himself anyway.

BenTheMan

I've never really understood what the basis is for "animal rights".

For a start, see my elegant missive on equal consideration.

It does seem ironic, however, that the same people who say "If the Iraqi people want freedom they should step up and do it themselves", while at the same time "We have to fight for a bunch of weasles to be free from their human oppressors."

I don't know who those people might be, but I think you're conflating completely unrelated issues.

The difference in our opinions, which will never be resolved, is that I think human life is inherintly more valuable than another animal's life. We can talk in circles if you like:)

Let's not.

How about you explain why you think human life is inherently more valuable than non-human animals' lives? In doing so, please address the points I make in the encylopedia article linked above.

I am sure you must have a basis for your beliefs. They wouldn't just be unthinking assumptions, would they?

I await your response.

This is certainly true, and can say so after having killed and eaten many animals myself. Venison has less fat than chicken, and tastes better too. Nevertheless, it is beside the point

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

Sorry, but it didn't work. Let's see if you can do any better.

The fact is that humans natural diet includes other animals. Any attempt to deny this is to disregard the facts.

Let us assume this is true for a moment. (I reserve the right to discuss whether or not it is true later.)

Then, explain to me why natural implies good in this instance. Why is it right and moral for human beings to do what comes naturally?

I do have a bias towards humans, and have absolutely no problems in admitting this.

Is it a bias based on principles or ethics, or just a selfish bias?

I have no problems with this, just dont try to evangelize to me.

Why are you trying to evangelise others, then? Why are you spouting off about how nice it is to eat venison, and how great it is to own and use a gun against defenseless creatures?

Is it one standard for you and another for everybody else?

I also have no problems with people opposing these things, but again, they should not force their views on me. I love animals, too. They taste very good.

Trumpeting your own immorality as a badge of honor is never a good look.

I have yet to see one member of these Animal Rights movements to actually step forwards and volunteer themselves for the Research programs over the animals. If they want to save animals they would actually be better off taking the animals place.

If they break into a laboratory and free one hundred animals, that a number of experiments they upset which they obviously couldn't care about, however those number of experiments will more than likely be conducted one place or another and will just initiate such experimenters to find more animals to take the place of the ones they lost. You could suggest they increase the number of animals suffering.

I know what it feels like to be poked and prodded, used against your will as a subject to some experiment you have no control over. No matter how cruel and demeaning, I have had the chance to live and hopefully the chance to continue living to and this I expect they want for the animals to.

When they close down such centres they are acting like controllers of a mass eugenic abortion since those animals are no longer bred, no longer demanded and no longer have the chance to lead a life.

Additionally, The Guerilla tactics used against Corporate *public* testing will likely force the hand of the government to put the testing in Military controlled installations. Where experiments could take a turn for the worse, rather than perhaps medical research their is the potential for biological weapons research since a budget would attempt to *Kill* two birds with one stone.

Mountainhare, Ben, kiss and make up! It's clear that you both have no desire to see animals suffer, so let's start with what we all agree on and take it from there!
Moving back to the question regarding the actions of the ALF, I suspect that Mountain supports their actions and motivations, whereas Ben feels they go too far in the fight for animal rights by making life difficult for humans.
My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so. Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

So apparently people are in the mood of taking everything I say seriously.

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

I have never cared much who I offended, and was only telling the truth. And sense when does not being a vegetarian = lack of ethics?

I am sure you must have a basis for your beliefs. They wouldn't just be unthinking assumptions, would they?

Apologies if I don't have a logical and principled view on every aspect in my life. If spent less time trying to out the crackpots in the Physics forum, or trying to learn Conformal Field Teory, or trying to generate Yukawa couplings for heterotic string models to arbitrary order, then perhaps I could spend my days contemplating the views of animals.

Correct. Essentially, you're just setting out to offend vegetarians and animal rights supporters here with your flaunting of your lack of ethics. You hope that by doing so you'll provoke a flame war and not actually have to make any logical arguments.

Again you read too much into my comments. Perhaps I should be more "sensative", and I have never met someone who takes these flippant responses so seriously.

Why are you trying to evangelise others, then? Why are you spouting off about how nice it is to eat venison, and how great it is to own and use a gun against defenseless creatures?

If you feel evangelized then I apologize. I guess that I do not count me saying "Venison tastes good" as an attempt to gain followers.

Trumpeting your own immorality as a badge of honor is never a good look.

And, of course, the closing.

James---I will read your article and try to put whatever views I have on firm footing. This is something that, in truth, I had never considered deeply. But I am offended that you dismiss, out of hand, the view that hunting is ok as "immoral" or "unethical". Aparently I missed something in the SciForums rules that say every comment I make should be taken seriously.

Mountainhare, Ben, kiss and make up! It's clear that you both have no desire to see animals suffer, so let's start with what we all agree on and take it from there!

Only if Mountainhare is a chick and no one tells my girlfriend.

Moving back to the question regarding the actions of the ALF, I suspect that Mountain supports their actions and motivations, whereas Ben feels they go too far in the fight for animal rights by making life difficult for humans.

This is probably exactly correct. I hate protestors in general that I don't agree with. This is ostensibly why they protest, though, to get me to agree with them. But, like Maddox says---civil disobedience is still disobedience.

http://store.theworstpageintheuniverse.com/shirts.htm

From the ALF website:
Any group of people who are vegetarians or vegans and who carry out actions according to ALF guidelines have the right to regard themselves as part of the ALF.

There is a Catch 22 of sorts here---the ALF people clearly hold a view that the majority of Americans don't agree with, and use methods that the majority of Americans don't support. In this sense, they want to force their agenda on to average people who either don't agree with them, or have no strong views on the subject. And in this sense they are cut of the same cloth as the Jehova's witnesses who knock on my door occasionally.

James and Mounainhare will, I'm sure, use history to point out that, at one time, most Americans didn't have a problem with slavery, and run around waving their hands and shouting "Moral Relativism! Moral Relativism!". They may even play the "Hitler Card". These arguments will not fly with me, because humans have, inherintly, more rights than animals. (Hint to James: I may argue this case based on Scienctific Advancement.)

To me, there are bigger problems in the world than wether or not animals are treated fairly. I guess that it is GOOD that we have people worried about these things, because it shows how advanced our country is. I mean, there aren't people in Africa worrying about animal rights. I suppose that there are smart people who spend their time in ALF meetings instead of simplifying the tax code, or thinking about how to provide health care for everybody. Like I said, I'm glad that America is a country of such talent such that it can be used to devise ways to break in to medical research facilities and free all the animals.

My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so.

But there is a significant amount of research that NEEDS to be carried out, and using animals is the only way to do it. Much of the cancer research is done on rats because they are cheap and you can make many exact genetic copies of the same rat---they provide a good control. Should we protect the rats from being given cancer by researchers? Or what about AIDS research? Should we be worried that rats and bunnies are dying horrible deaths so that people in Africa don't have to?

Toxicology tests are done on rats. Basically, you give 100 rats a chemical at a certain dosage, and see how many die. If you ever look on a chemical data sheet and see LD50 100mg it means "Lethal Dose to 50 rats at 100 mg". Calling this research "torture" is just an oversimplification of the situation.

The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?

Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

I guess making claims like "I support ALF but not their methods" is like saying "I support Hamas but they should not be killing Jews". ALF's mission states explicitly that they have every intention of breaking the law:

The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage and destruction of property.

(I know, of course, the knee jerk reaction by everybody will be "I can't believe he just compared ALF to terrorists!" Fine---it was the first example that I could think of.) You can support "Palestinians" but not "Hamas", just like you can support "Animal Rights Activists" but not "ALF".

The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?

I want to extend this point a bit further.

In America (I think James is from Europe, because he wrote 'evangelise'), the legal situation is much different. I am working with a German guy and he was surprised that his coffees come with a warning "Caution: Hot". Or that the buses had this warning on the back "Vehicle makes frequent stops". Aparently there aren't such things in Germany. All of this to say that there exists a significant amount of laws in America to protect stupid people. This means that if someone feeds bleach to their kid, they may be able to sue the bleach company for not putting a warning label on their product.

So there is a large class of legislation that needs to be in place that tells companies how to deal with stupid people. This legislation means that companies have to test their products on animals, to ensure that they put the right warning labels on their products.

Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human? Even if that human is paid for the job? And even if that human has signed a waiver? "I'm sorry you're blind, but now we know we can't sell this product. Here's $200."

My own view is that the ALF play an important role in standing up for creatures that have no way to prevent torture and death at the hands of humans. You can argue on the ethics and legality of individual cases of direct action, and I think it's important to do so. Although I do support the ALF, I don't always support their methods.

I think the problem here is even more basic ...or should be.

Do we support the rule of law and justice, or do we not?

The ALF, by using terrorist tactics as their means of fighting what they consider as cruelty to animals, essentially are negating the rule of law and justice. How can that be condoned? ..even if we agree with their ideals?

If I don't like something that others are doing, should anyone support me if I take to killing, burning property, blowing up things? ...even if you agree with views on the issue?

In the same manner, I don't think one can say that they support the ALF, then casually make claims of disagreeing with their tactics. Support is support, isn't it? Can you half-support the ALF? I don't think so.

I think the way to approach protecting the animals is through the law and through the courts and through justice. Because without the rule of law, and the courts, we're nothing but a bunch of violent, deadly, viscious animals ourselves.

Many people make claims that they support some particular terrorist groups' causes, but they don't support their methods or tactics. I just don't think you can do that ....and be honest and abide by the rule of law. It's one or the other ...ain't no inbetween.

There are many animal rights activist groups who don't use terrorist tactics. If you support the cause of animal rights, support one of those groups, NOT some terrorist group who takes the law into their own hands and violates the rights of others under the same ideal of ....the law.

Baron Max

I know what it feels like to be poked and prodded, used against your will as a subject to some experiment you have no control over. No matter how cruel and demeaning, I have had the chance to live and hopefully the chance to continue living to and this I expect they want for the animals to.

When they close down such centres they are acting like controllers of a mass eugenic abortion since those animals are no longer bred, no longer demanded and no longer have the chance to lead a life.

Be careful making these arguments:) They will say "But what about slaves? What if we raise a black person for the specific purpose of picking cotton?"

Ben, your opinion that humans have more rights than animals will always enrage those that fight for animal rights, unless you can qualify this in some way. Sure us humans have many rights (depending on where you live in the wolrd) that cannot be given to animals. But we're not talking about the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech.

Medical research is of course important, but the question remains as to why animals should suffer for it? It's true that some of the research is aimed at helping both humans and animals, and it's also true that in some developed nations there are strict rules in place to prevent any needless pain and suffering to animals used in this research. This does not however come as any great comfort to animals bred for research that experience confinement and death, and very little else. Discussing the merits of the LD50 test is moot since the debate is not whether or not animal tests provide useful results, we know they do (in some cases).

How do you feel about direct action against the fur, leather and other similar industries?

BTW, there are many people in Africa concerned with conservation and the protection of animals. Check out the National Geographic if you want more info.

I can say that I support the ALF but not all it's methods because there are certain acts that I feel do not help the cause (such as threatening violence to individuals). You agree with killing animals for food, does that mean you support factory farming?

Baron, define a terrorist................
Now define a freedom fighter.

Should we all accept the law as it stands, or should we rise up and demand that the law be changed if we feel that certain groups of people or animals are being oppressed?

You cannot call the police and demand that they arrest a person killing animals for fur, meat, fun....so what can you do? If only it was as easy as simply asking the government nicely to change the law.

Remember that the ALF do not try to kill people, regardless of what the media would have you believe.

Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human? Even if that human is paid for the job? And even if that human has signed a waiver? "I'm sorry you're blind, but now we know we can't sell this product. Here's $200."

I'm from the UK, and here it's illegal to test cosmetics on animals (since you brought it up). Of course this doesn't stop us buying cosmetics tested on animals in other countries, but it's an important step in the right direction.
We can all live without mascara, I'd rather the people out to make money from such products test cosmetics on themselves rather than animals (as if).

Ben, your opinion that humans have more rights than animals will always enrage those that fight for animal rights, unless you can qualify this in some way. Sure us humans have many rights (depending on where you live in the wolrd) that cannot be given to animals. But we're not talking about the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech.

I'm sure the fact that I drive a truck that gets bad gas mileage enrages environmentalists, but at the end of the day I don't really care.

As I mentioned in reply to James, I have not attempted to qualify this statement at all. If this pisses some people off, then this is fine. But I have promised to try and construct a defensible argument:)

Discussing the merits of the LD50 test is moot since the debate is not whether or not animal tests provide useful results, we know they do (in some cases).

Not at all. This is very relevant. People invent new chemicals all the time, and federal law dictates that such toxicology tests be carried out. I'm sure there are similar statues in the UK.

How do you feel about direct action against the fur, leather and other similar industries?

How do you THINK I feel?:)

BTW, there are many people in Africa concerned with conservation and the protection of animals. Check out the National Geographic if you want more info.

Yes this is true. The Botswanan government used environmental concerns to kick some indigenous people from their land. The indigenous people claimed they had a right to hunt in the Botswanan National Animal Preserve (I can't remember exact details, but despite being a redneck I listen to BBC World News religously), and the government claimed their hunting methods were destructive.

But there are no ALF chapters in Botswana, I guess.

[QUOTE]I can say that I support the ALF but not all it's methods because there are certain acts that I feel do not help the cause (such as threatening violence to individuals). You agree with killing animals for food, does that mean you support factory farming?[QUOTE]

This is comparing peas and carrots. ALF is an organization with the explicitly stated mission of achieving their ends through non-violent but still destructive means. If you want to support someone, support world wildlife fund, or some other group dedicated to the legal process.

So, James. Do you believe in abortion?

Before I go tucking my jeans into my boots and wading through the pasture, what, exactly, is your position in this James?

Ben, I think you do care what people think and if your actions and opinions enrage them, otherwise why bother with a forum? ;)
You didn't answer the question, do you agree with factory farming?
I do support the WWF, and Greenpeace, PETA, Blue Cross, RSPCA...to name a few.

Ben, I think you do care what people think and if your actions and opinions enrage them, otherwise why bother with a forum?

In some sense, I do enjoy seeing people pissed off at the way I choose to live my life. It is often easy for intelligent liberals to say "Well, if only all those unintelligent rednecks from Texas would be informed..." Well, I am a redneck, and I am from Texas, and I do have well-informed opinions.

But this is beside the point. I have a hard time believing that EVERYBODY cares about this:)

You didn't answer the question, do you agree with factory farming?

From what perspective? Sustainability? In terms of how they treat animals?

Suppose there were no factory farms. I find it hard to believe that Americans could still afford to buy the foods that they are buying. From a social perspective, I think we need farms which mass produce food items.

If I understand the arguments correctly, James, the Principle of Equal Consideration is that anything which feels pain should be granted the same rights as, say, humans. Is this correct?

If this is the case, then you cannot support late term abortions, and past the 28th week of pregnancy (or the 8th week, depending on who you talk to), a fetus must be granted the same rights as you would grant the mother, or a horse, or a mink.

Do you agree?

Reference:
http://discovermagazine.com/2005/dec/fetus-feel-pain
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/health/23cnd-fetus.html?ex=1282449600&en=35096acd3be55f91&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetal-pain.shtml

BentheMan, I'm not going to go into this in detail.

However, allow me to beat James to the punch on several comments.


So, James. Do you believe in abortion?


IRRELEVANT. Abortion, and animal rights, are two seperate issues. If you want to discuss abortion with James (or any other animal rights activist), I suggest you start a new thread.


Further, this research cannot be carried out on humans. If, for example, you want to see if a specific brand of mascara will cause blindness, is it ethical to test this product on a human?


If testing potentially harmful products (both cosmetic and medical) on humans is unethical, then pretty much drug on the market was tested via unethical means. Clinical trials involve thousands of humans.


The point raised by Mountainhare above is that "People will consent, but animals wouldn't". Now, suppose you read in the paper that you would be paid for "medical research", quite handsomly as well. The doctor explains that he has a new chemical, and he needs to find the lethal dose on a human. He will take 100 humans, and feed them the same amount of chemical, and then, based on how many died, he would have the result. How many volunteers for this assignment would there be?



1. So by determining the lethal dose of a chemical in rats, we can make an accurate estimate on the lethal dose one need to give a human? Huh? Quite simply, the only way to be sure of what a 'lethal dose' is in humans is to give an overdose to a human. Since I think we both agree that such a measure is unacceptable, we will just have to be satisified with 'natural death' data, where humans die due to poor use of the drug.

2. Once again, Phase I of clinical trials for a drug involves humans. The aim of Phase I is to determine what dose of the drug is safe to give to patients.

IRRELEVANT. Abortion, and animal rights, are two seperate issues. If you want to discuss abortion with James (or any other animal rights activist), I suggest you start a new thread.

Certainly not! Did you read James' link? The crux of his argument is that if it feels pain, then it has rights. Indeed, if you would spend some time researching his position, then you would find that, if one justifies animal rights in such a way (as PETA surely does: http://www.peta.org/about/WhyAnimalRights.asp), then you must also believe that fetuses past 28 weeks of development deserve the same rights. These are two implications of the principle of equal consideration.

Please try to understand the arguments before dismissing them out of hand.

If testing potentially harmful products (both cosmetic and medical) on humans is unethical, then pretty much drug on the market was tested via unethical means. Clinical trials involve thousands of humans.

You are misinterpretting the argument. All drugs are eventually tested on humans, only after they are extensively tested on animals. The fact is that many drugs do not even make it to the human tests because they show too many bad side effects in animal trials.

1. So by determining the lethal dose of a chemical in rats, we can make an accurate estimate on the lethal dose one need to give a human? Huh? Quite simply, the only way to be sure of what a 'lethal dose' is in humans is to give an overdose to a human. Since I think we both agree that such a measure is unacceptable, we will just have to be satisified with 'natural death' data, where humans die due to poor use of the drug.

You miss the point. The toxicology tests serve as a bench mark, because one can have a genetically "clean" sample of rats. This, and rats have a very similar physiology to humans, and they are cheap to mass produce. The rat tests, in a sense, serve as a ruler.

2. Once again, Phase I of clinical trials for a drug involves humans. The aim of Phase I is to determine what dose of the drug is safe to give to patients.

Once again, only after extensive animal testing.

Moutainhare---James, I'm sure, can speak for himself. If he holds that animals deserve rights because of the Equal Consideration Principle (which I am led to believe because I actually followed the link in his post), then he must also hold that fetuses that have reached a certain developmental stage do as well. If you do not agree with this position, then you should state so now, to avoid further confusions.

Is this going to be an academic discussion, or do we have to get all up in a tizzy about it?

I should correct myself. I used the word "toxicology" when I meant "toxicity".

LD50 test. See links within as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LD50

There seem to be new methods whereby one can use less animals but get similar results. I am not as familiar with these procedures, but the point that animals are used to get toxicity data for humans is still valid:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_Dose_Procedure

So the LD50 for grapes as tested using dogs is?

So the LD50 for grapes as tested using dogs is?

I've never known a dog to eat grapes...

From what perspective? Sustainability? In terms of how they treat animals?

Suppose there were no factory farms. I find it hard to believe that Americans could still afford to buy the foods that they are buying. From a social perspective, I think we need farms which mass produce food items.

In terms of how the animals suffer. It's true that in the end all the animals on both free range farms and factory farms die, but I'm asking you if cheap chicken or pork for greedy humans is worth the millions of animal lives that know nothing but pain and death.

Oh well...when you put it that way...

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

wsionynw---why do animals deserve rights? James' argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. This is the default position of animal rights groups. The philosophy is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4649131-3980116?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174833649&sr=8-1, near as I can figure.

I pointed out that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain at 8 weeks, and the ability at 27 weeks. If you agree with this position, then you should also agree that abortion is unethical at 8 weeks or 27 weeks, depending on whose research you believe.

Of course, you also must agree with the position that if it doesn't feel pain, then there are no basis for granting it rights. Example: someone in a coma.

Oh well...when you put it that way...

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

wsionynw---why do animals deserve rights? James' argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. This is the default position of animal rights groups. The philosophy is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4649131-3980116?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174833649&sr=8-1, near as I can figure.

I pointed out that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain at 8 weeks, and the ability at 27 weeks. If you agree with this position, then you should also agree that abortion is unethical at 8 weeks or 27 weeks, depending on whose research you believe.

Their biggest problem is that they don't base it on who can feel joy and gain satisfaction from life. It's a whole different world if they do.

Their biggest problem is that they don't base it on who can feel joy and gain satisfaction from life. It's a whole different world if they do.

You know, I agree with almost every other opinion you have.

I think this is exactly correct. I guess, though, that "pleasure" is subjective, and "suffering" is more objective. Plus it's not clear that babies can feel pleasure, or that some animals experience more pleasure than other animals.

I think this is exactly correct. I guess, though, that "pleasure" is subjective, and "suffering" is more objective. Plus it's not clear that babies can feel pleasure, or that some animals experience more pleasure than other animals.

It's clear to me, but thank you for showing that you do have some insight into something.

Pleasure and pain in another is usually obvious.

Oh well...when you put it that way...

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

wsionynw---why do animals deserve rights? James' argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. This is the default position of animal rights groups. The philosophy is based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Liberation-Peter-Singer/dp/0060011572/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4649131-3980116?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174833649&sr=8-1, near as I can figure.

I pointed out that fetuses have the capacity to feel pain at 8 weeks, and the ability at 27 weeks. If you agree with this position, then you should also agree that abortion is unethical at 8 weeks or 27 weeks, depending on whose research you believe.

I'm not sure it's true that most Americans depend on cheap meat, more that they purchase it to satisfy their tastes. Depend implies that they need this cheap meat to survive, which isn't true. I remember as a young child my parents telling me to eat the meat on my plate as it was the best part of the meal (they offered no reason other than it was the most expensive part of the meal).
I've read Peter Singer's book, you should too. To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.
I agree that if proved beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus feels pain at 8weeks or more then it is unethical to abort. I really don't know enough on this subject to comment further.

Of course, you also must agree with the position that if it doesn't feel pain, then there are no basis for granting it rights. Example: someone in a coma.

Someone in a coma might one day wake from that coma, or perhaps have family members that would feel pain if that person were to be killed. I don't think a person in a coma should have more right to life than a chicken in a cage.

I've read Peter Singer's book, you should too. To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.
.

Then show me your support for the right of domesticated and tamed animals to live and reproduce, and make it good.

To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.

All animals? Equally? Like rats, mosquitos, killer bees, ..., and I believe that bacteria and viruses are considered "animals", aren't they? Do they all deserve equal rights?

Or are you going to hedge on your stated ideals?

And if you do hedge, judging that some animals should be killed, then you aren't really any different to others, are you? ...just in degree or type of animals, that's all.

Baron Max

Baron:

and I believe that bacteria and viruses are considered "animals", aren't they?

LOL...

Um, no...

Baron:

LOL...

Um, no...

Well, they're not plants and they are alive, so....? I think perhaps you laughed a little early, didn't you?

Even amoeba are considered "single-celled animals", aren't they? Please do some checking.

Baron Max

Baron:
Well, they're not plants and they are alive, so....?


They aren't plants, so they MUST be animals? No, that's not correct.

There are six kingdoms. Plantae and Animalia are merely two of the six.

Bacteria fall into the Eubacteria and Archaebacteria kingdoms. Viruses don't fall into any of the six, because it's controversial as to whether they qualify as 'alive'.

Even amoeba are considered "single-celled animals"


They belong to the Protista kingdom...

For clarification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)

wsionynw

In terms of how the animals suffer. It's true that in the end all the animals on both free range farms and factory farms die, but I'm asking you if cheap chicken or pork for greedy humans is worth the millions of animal lives that know nothing but pain and death.

Have you ever spent any time in the wild? that is the lot of wild animals, nothing but pain and death, they live in the wild and die in the wild by fang, claw, starvation, disease, fire, freezing, drought, and only occasionally by natural death, life feeds on life, from the grass growing on the rotting nutrients from dead animals and other plants to the herbivores that feed on the grass to the predators the feed on the herbivores and other predators, even the monkeys kill for food and in protection of their range.

In the factory farms at least the animal is dead before we start to feed on it, in the wild they are consumed before they are dead, I have watched a wolf pack attack a deer, and once they had it down, while it was still alive they ripped open its guts and started to eat the intestines before the deer was unconscious, or dead, they had hamstrung it so it couldn't run, they surrounded it and by weight of numbers dragged it down and then ate a large amount of living flesh before the Deer was dead, the sounds were interesting the bleating of the deer in desperation, and the growls of the wolves as they tore it limb from limb, nature at it finest, blood guts and gore.

I'm not sure it's true that most Americans depend on cheap meat, more that they purchase it to satisfy their tastes. Depend implies that they need this cheap meat to survive, which isn't true. I remember as a young child my parents telling me to eat the meat on my plate as it was the best part of the meal (they offered no reason other than it was the most expensive part of the meal).

You seem to imply that just because Americans get a large part of their calories from meat in their diet, that they are greedy. It is true that many peoples in the world get their calories from other things---i.e. in India there are sects of Hindus who are vegetarians. (My office mate is of this persuasion.) But this is a cultural statement---that we are wrong to have such a diet.

This is a difference of opinion, and it will remain as such. Because we haven't established that animals even deserve rights, we cannot talk about these things.

I've read Peter Singer's book, you should too. To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.

I can assure you that I will never pay for his book, as I can construct the meat of his arguments by reading things for free on the internet. The crux of his argument is that animals suffer, therefore they deserve rights. Anything that suffers deserves rights.

The question that you and the others have evaded is that fetuses have the capacity to suffer at 7 weeks and the ability to feel pain at 27 weeks. If it is your position that animals deserve rights because they suffer, then you must also accept that a fetus inherintly has some rights as well. I have given several references, all of which I read. If you read them then we will both have the same information. You can debate the validity of these references if you like, however, you will be fighting uphill. The references are Discovery Magazine, NY Times, and a pro choice web site.

I agree that if proved beyond reasonable doubt that a fetus feels pain at 8weeks or more then it is unethical to abort. I really don't know enough on this subject to comment further.

I have two responses. One: I do not know that animals feel pain. I do not know enough on the subject of animal physiology to comment. Two: I could actually go and LOOK UP something on the internet (which you and I are presumably connected to). I would encourage you to do the same, as this issue is critical to your argument. If you believe in animal rights and abortion, my claim is that your philosophy is just as arbitrary and baseless as one who believes in neither animal rights nor abortion.

I believe that suffering should not be the basis for granting rights. Animals cannot be functioning members of society, that is, they are not bound by any moral code, so they cannot be granted the same rights as humans. It is ok for an animal to kill another animal, but not for an animal to kill a human, or a human to kill another human. Because they are not bound by our moral code but by theirs, they do not get the same rights that we do.

Ben, suffering is their excuse for forcing humans to recognize animal rights, under the terms dictated to us by the animal rights activists. There are all sorts of ways to describe what constitutes a right, but private owners who care about their animals are the hard target of animal rights activists. The AR activists are bent on removing the ability of humans who care for animals to care for the animal's rights in a more natural, friendly manner, voluntarily.

I like the ALF.

I like the Alf too.

http://www.bananadine.com/m/alf.gif

BenTheMan:

So apparently people are in the mood of taking everything I say seriously.

You weren't serious? Should we take everything you say as a joke, then, by default, unless you tell us you're serious?

Apologies if I don't have a logical and principled view on every aspect in my life. If spent less time trying to out the crackpots in the Physics forum, or trying to learn Conformal Field Teory, or trying to generate Yukawa couplings for heterotic string models to arbitrary order, then perhaps I could spend my days contemplating the views of animals.

I'm a physicist, too, but I manage to find time to engage with important ethical issues.

James---I will read your article and try to put whatever views I have on firm footing. This is something that, in truth, I had never considered deeply. But I am offended that you dismiss, out of hand, the view that hunting is ok as "immoral" or "unethical".

You haven't yet made an argument for why hunting is moral and ethical. I look forward to your putting your arguments on a firm footing, then.

This is probably exactly correct. I hate protestors in general that I don't agree with.

How do you know you don't agree with animal rights, when by your own words you say you have never considered the issue "deeply"?

...These arguments will not fly with me, because humans have, inherintly, more rights than animals. (Hint to James: I may argue this case based on Scienctific Advancement.)

I look forward to that discussion, too - assuming you'll be able to take time out from your quantum field theory to get around to it.

But there is a significant amount of research that NEEDS to be carried out, and using animals is the only way to do it. Much of the cancer research is done on rats because they are cheap and you can make many exact genetic copies of the same rat---they provide a good control.

Actually, no two rats have the same genes, unless they are clones. And by far the majority of experimental rats are not clones.

Should we protect the rats from being given cancer by researchers? Or what about AIDS research? Should we be worried that rats and bunnies are dying horrible deaths so that people in Africa don't have to?

If you take a stock-standard utilitarian view of ethics, it's a matter of weighing up the pluses and minuses.

In America (I think James is from Europe, because he wrote 'evangelise'), the legal situation is much different.

I'm from Australia.

I am working with a German guy and he was surprised that his coffees come with a warning "Caution: Hot". Or that the buses had this warning on the back "Vehicle makes frequent stops". Aparently there aren't such things in Germany. All of this to say that there exists a significant amount of laws in America to protect stupid people. This means that if someone feeds bleach to their kid, they may be able to sue the bleach company for not putting a warning label on their product.

That's the real reason. The warnings aren't there to protect potential victims of their own stupidity. They are there to protect against litigation. The United States is perhaps the most litigious society on Earth.

So, James. Do you believe in abortion?

Do I believe in it? Well, it undoubtedly exists, so yes, I do believe in it.

But that's not what you're asking, is it? You need to be more specific. Perhaps you're asking whether I think abortion is every justified ethically. In that case, my answer is: yes, abortion can be justified ethically. Perhaps you want to know more: under what circumstances do I think abortion is justifiable? In that case, I suggest you start a new thread on the topic and we can discuss the matter in detail.

Suppose there were no factory farms. I find it hard to believe that Americans could still afford to buy the foods that they are buying. From a social perspective, I think we need farms which mass produce food items.

Meat is very expensive, and takes huge amounts of resources that could be devoted to producing cheaper foods in greater quantities. If meat eating was made illegal, no American would need to starve, and for many their supermarket bills would actually decrease.

If I understand the arguments correctly, James, the Principle of Equal Consideration is that anything which feels pain should be granted the same rights as, say, humans. Is this correct?

Not exactly. Nobody is arguing that animals should have ALL of the rights humans have. What the Principle tells us is to treat like as like. If animals have the same capacity to suffer pain, for example, as humans do, then their rights with respect to being subjected to pain ought to be the same as those of human beings, unless there is an ethically compelling reason not to extend the same rights to them.

So, in terms of pain, you are right. No creature with a capacity equal to human beings to feel pain should be subjected to pain that it would be immoral or illegal to subject a human to.

If you want to look at other rights, we need to compare the relevant capacities there, too. For example, I would not advocate that cows ought to be given the right to vote. The principle of equal consideration would not apply there, since a cow's capacity to vote is obviously questionable.

If this is the case, then you cannot support late term abortions, and past the 28th week of pregnancy (or the 8th week, depending on who you talk to), a fetus must be granted the same rights as you would grant the mother, or a horse, or a mink.

Do you agree?

As a general principle, I do not support late-term abortion on demand - on exactly the basis you suggest here. However, other factors may intervene to make late-term abortion permissible in certain special circumstances.

The fact is that most Americans depend on cheap chicken and pork. So feeding people, to me, is more important than animal suffering.

Americans do not need to eat chicken or pork at all. They don't depend on it - they just like it. It's a choice they make, and other, more ethical, choices are available.

This is a difference of opinion, and it will remain as such. Because we haven't established that animals even deserve rights, we cannot talk about these things.

The default position ought to be that animals deserve rights unless there is a good reason to withhold them. This is the standard applied to all human beings. So far, you haven't given any good reasons for withholding rights, or for putting animals in a separate moral category than human beings.

You've said you'll present arguments, so again I look forward to your analysis on this point.

One: I do not know that animals feel pain. I do not know enough on the subject of animal physiology to comment.

Do you have any pets? A dog, a cat?

If so, you could not make the above statement and keep a straight face. You would have, at some time, tripped over the dog or stood on its tail by accident, or seen it in pain.

Do you live in a city with no animals?

No wonder you have never thought about these things. You've probably led a very sheltered life, and you need to imagine what animals are like. I strongly urge you to go out and experience animals first-hand - not on television, but in the flesh. Visit a farm. Get a friend who has a dog.

If you believe in animal rights and abortion, my claim is that your philosophy is just as arbitrary and baseless as one who believes in neither animal rights nor abortion.

Explain.

I believe that suffering should not be the basis for granting rights.

You would deny anybody a right not to suffer?

Presumably, you would still not allow murder, assault or torture of human beings, at least? If that is the case, I am interested to hear where you think these rights should be grounded.

Animals cannot be functioning members of society, that is, they are not bound by any moral code, so they cannot be granted the same rights as humans.

Are young children or human infants bound by a moral code? They don't know what a moral code is, before a certain age. Is it permissible to hurt them, then? Should we all be able to torture small children with impunity, then, because they have no rights not to suffer, according to you?

It is ok for an animal to kill another animal, but not for an animal to kill a human, or a human to kill another human.

Why is it wrong for a human to kill another human, according to you?

BenTheMan:

Not exactly. Nobody is arguing that animals should have ALL of the rights humans have. What the Principle tells us is to treat like as like. If animals have the same capacity to suffer pain, for example, as humans do, then their rights with respect to being subjected to pain ought to be the same as those of human beings, unless there is an ethically compelling reason not to extend the same rights to them.



You have that right. No one actually argues that animals should have all of the rights that humans have. The allegedly most rabid supporters of animal rights do not support the right of domesticated animals or animals that are kept by humans to live or to reproduce. They are slowly, incrementally putting this lack of support into law. You would not think that animal rights nuts would fight to have a breed or a species exterminated, but they fight to have "exotic" pets exterminated, and they fight hard. Look at PETA's or the HSUS's website.

What about the right to pleasure? What about the right to live on the lands that humans occupy? Animals have the same right to pleasure that humans have, and most of them like a good massage, playtime with friends, toys, and a comfortable place to sleep, so what about enforcing their right to pleasure? They have that capacity. They also have the capacity to take pleasure in having offspring.

Animal rights activists literally claim that many animals cannot have pleasing lives in captivity and that means that they should not live. I've seen several species of animals who were quite happy and pleased with their lives. Even one friend, not necessarily the same species, is enough. Tigers love romping around together, donkeys love just standing next to each other, llamas love having sheep to protect, and bears, and so on.

I wonder how many people who are against the eating of meat because of an animal's right to live have no problem squishing spiders, cockroaches, etc. I have a co-worker like that. She actually gt upset that I wouldn't squish a spider in the office bathroom. (I just scooped it up on a paper towel and took it outside. No need to kill it. It wasn't poisonous to humans and had been living peacefully in a corner.) Apparently, to some people only cute fuzzy animals have a right to live.

I wonder how many people who are against the eating of meat because of an animal's right to live have no problem squishing spiders, cockroaches, etc. I have a co-worker like that. She actually gt upset that I wouldn't squish a spider in the office bathroom. (I just scooped it up on a paper towel and took it outside. No need to kill it. It wasn't poisonous to humans and had been living peacefully in a corner.) Apparently, to some people only cute fuzzy animals have a right to live.

I think that it is hard to establish that a spider suffers when you kill it. Also it has (presumably) lived a pretty good life and killing it quickly wouldn't be a bad thing, per se.

I think I also read on the PETA website that reptiles don't seem to have the same sensations of pain as other animals, so I guess it's ok to kill them as well.

James R:
Three things. One: Apologies if Aussies take being called Brittish as an insult.

Two: You can take everything I say as a joke until proven otherwise. I am not as big a redneck as Baron Max, and perhaps I should be more careful because the online discussion boards are terrible for conveying some sort of expression.

Three: If you are a physicist then you probably remember grad school. Perhaps it was easier for you, but I spend a lot of time thinking about physics. I was raised thinking that things like eating meat and hunting are ok, and have never seriously questioned it. Let me take some time to construct a coherent response. I will not attempt to justify hunting or eating meat untill I can establish that animals don't deserve rights, insofar as any moral stance would keep me from doing these things.

wsionynw



Have you ever spent any time in the wild? that is the lot of wild animals, nothing but pain and death, they live in the wild and die in the wild by fang, claw, starvation, disease, fire, freezing, drought, and only occasionally by natural death, life feeds on life, from the grass growing on the rotting nutrients from dead animals and other plants to the herbivores that feed on the grass to the predators the feed on the herbivores and other predators, even the monkeys kill for food and in protection of their range.

In the factory farms at least the animal is dead before we start to feed on it, in the wild they are consumed before they are dead, I have watched a wolf pack attack a deer, and once they had it down, while it was still alive they ripped open its guts and started to eat the intestines before the deer was unconscious, or dead, they had hamstrung it so it couldn't run, they surrounded it and by weight of numbers dragged it down and then ate a large amount of living flesh before the Deer was dead, the sounds were interesting the bleating of the deer in desperation, and the growls of the wolves as they tore it limb from limb, nature at it finest, blood guts and gore.

You could be killed walking down the street, does that mean you would prefer to spend your days locked in cage?
The deer you mention at least had a fighting chance for survival, which is more than a farm animal has. If the wolves did not hunt and kill the deer then they would end up starving to death. So what's your point????
These kind of simplistic arguments against animal rights are so dated it's almost a bore to read them.

You didn't answer my question Wsionynw ...so I posted it again.

“ Originally Posted by wsionynw
To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.”

All animals? Equally? Like rats, mosquitos, killer bees, ..., and I believe that bacteria and viruses are considered "animals", aren't they? Do they all deserve equal rights?

Or are you going to hedge on your stated ideals?

And if you do hedge, judging that some animals should be killed, then you aren't really any different to others, are you? ...just in degree or type of animals, that's all.

Baron Max

Ben, I think you missed my point regarding greedy consumers. The issue is to do with the mass production of meat that we simply do not need (those that profit from it do, but that is a different matter).

I didn't evade your question about abortion, I think I agreed with you?

Perhaps then you should look into the subject, and decide for yourself if animals feel pain (I suspect sarcasm on your part). I don't know that humans feel pain, I've only my own experience of pain to judge what you or others even mean by pain. Shall we go around in circles on this or simply follow the logic that animals do feel pain and suffer?

But animals are functioning members of society, we know this as fact. Our human societies breed them, kill them, hunt them, look after them, observe them, etc. If we depend on animals so much then are we not duty bound to act in their interests as well as our own? I'm really trying hard not to mention slavery here, oh shit I just did! :o

What do think the basis for granting rights should be, if not based on the capacity to suffer?

You didn't answer my question Wsionynw ...so I posted it again.

“ Originally Posted by wsionynw
To answer your question I believe animals deserve equal rights and consideration in so much that they have an equal capacity to suffer.”

All animals? Equally? Like rats, mosquitos, killer bees, ..., and I believe that bacteria and viruses are considered "animals", aren't they? Do they all deserve equal rights?

Or are you going to hedge on your stated ideals?

And if you do hedge, judging that some animals should be killed, then you aren't really any different to others, are you? ...just in degree or type of animals, that's all.

Baron Max

Sorry Baron, I thought Mountainhare answered for me.
Yes, rats, mosquitos, bees, etc deserve equal consideration, with a view to suffering (this links to conservation and the protection of species). I don't simply feel that fluffy animals deserve rights (for that would make me a fuckwit).

But animals are functioning members of society, we know this as fact. Our human societies breed them, kill them, hunt them, look after them, observe them, etc. If we depend on animals so much then are we not duty bound to act in their interests as well as our own?

I'm sure you can find this in some 18th centruy literature:

"But slaves are functioning members of society, we know this as fact. Our human societies breed them, kill them, hunt them, look after them, observe them, etc."

In what sense does this make an animal a functioning member of society?

I wonder how many people who are against the eating of meat because of an animal's right to live have no problem squishing spiders, cockroaches, etc. I have a co-worker like that. She actually gt upset that I wouldn't squish a spider in the office bathroom. (I just scooped it up on a paper towel and took it outside. No need to kill it. It wasn't poisonous to humans and had been living peacefully in a corner.) Apparently, to some people only cute fuzzy animals have a right to live.

I know what you mean.

Why Animals don't Deserve Rights
or
Why I Can Hunt, Wear Leather, and Eat Steaks and Sleep at Night.

The philosophy of the "animal liberation movement" is based largely on the book by Peter Singer, aptly named "Animal Liberation". Besides being the animal liberator's manifesto, the book presents the Principle of Equal Consideration, which essentially states that every sentient being is entitled to some basic rights, specifically the right not to be exploited for use by other sentient beings. Sentient, used herein, is generally taken to mean able to feel pain. Never mind that this argument and definitions seem to be constructed ex post facto. Further, if "sentient" is taken to mean that it can feel pleasure instead of pain, the argument that animals deserve rights generally crumbles.

This idea is ostensibly based in utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism is the idea that one should take the interests of all into account when making decisions, and make decisions in such a way that maximizes the total happiness. In terms of animal rights, supposedly, "happiness" means "non-suffering". The first issue that one should realize is that maximizing happiness isn't something that can be done in a quantitative manner, and there exists no calculus for determining when happiness is maximized. For example, does my love of steak outweigh a cow's right to live? If the cow lived a pain free existence, and died a pain free death, then surely one cannot object to the fact that the amount of net happiness is increased if I kill and eat the cow. In this sense, all the utilitarian could say is "At least everybody is happy". One also could imagine extending this argument and justifying things like torture. If I know that a terrorist has information that would save many lives from a very painful death, then presumably the utilitarian will have no problems with me torturing the terrorist. Finally, suppose that there was some medical research that had to be carried out on humans in such a manner that it caused them intense pain and ultimately death. Is it ethical to carry out this research on these humans, in the hope that whatever findings are made will save many future generations from suffering? Agian, the utilitarian answer is yes.

There are, I'm sure, good answers to these issues. I am sure that James will insert a reply here that asserts something along the lines of me missing the point. For example, it may be that the Principle of Equal Consideration is more stringent than the utilitarianism on which it is based. Something like "We must strive to increase the total happiness and guarantee some basic rights". One then has a blank check, of sorts, and can pen in a set of inalienable rights, such as a "right to life for all sentient beings". Then, James may say, "We must increase the happiness so long as that increase doesn't infringe on another's 'right to be' ". This would certainly refute my first example, of a happy cow being killed painlessly to make me happier with a nice ribeye. The challenge, of course, is with the second and third examples. The suffering (or "anti-happiness") caused by not infringing on the terrorist's "right to be" could far outweigh the suffering caused by the impending doom of many innocent, happy people. So adding such a caveat seems, to me at least, not to be consistent with the spirit of the philosophy. One must continue adding footnotes, and each footnote acts against the aim of the original theory---that is, each footnote has the potential to decrease the total happiness in certain situations.

The main argument that I will advance for not granting animals rights is that they are not functioning members of society. Humans are extended a certain set of rights because of their membership in the human race. We are rational beings, largely capable of adhering to a moral code. There is a contract, of sorts, between each member of society and the rest of society. If each party holds up their respective ends of the bargain, then society functions and all is good. When one member of society cannot abide by the contract, they are isolated. Animals, a priori cannot adhere by any moral codes and thus cannot be members of society. Because they are not members of society, they do not necessarily deserve the same basic rights as humans do.

The obvious contention that one will raise is as follows. What about babies and severely retarded people? There are two answers to this. The first one is that the normal human can contribute to society, and there are no grounds for separating humans out simply based on their physical or mental conditions. The average human can certainly contribute to society in a way that the average animal, no matter his specie, never can. If, for example, we found a few chimpanzees who was capable of following our moral codes, and contributing to society, then we should grant all chimpanzees a basic set of rights.

The second rebuttal that I will offer is that babies have the potential to contribute to society, as do severely retarded people. A baby has potential to become a functioning member of society, and all but the most severely retarded can contribute to society in some facitility. Note that one could also make the case (using the Principle of Equal Consideration) that if someone loses the ability to suffer, for example they are trapped in a coma, then they lose their rights. The response to this argument is that "There is a chance that that person will awake from the coma". Of course there is always that possibility. But I submit that if we allow such possibilities, then we must also allow such a possibility for medical advancement which would allow the severely retarded to make some contribution to society.

I certainly don't want to be seen as an advocate of animal cruelty. I have not led a sheltered life, as James thinks. I have a dog named Lefty (see the "Praise your Dog" thread). I have spent my youth fishing in Galveston, and hunting in South Texas. But I see no reason that animals should be granted any specific rights, per se. Because I see no moral basis for granting animals rights, I can take no issue with hunting, or eating meat, or using an animals skin to make boots, even if I wouldn't eat my dog.

Well, the animal rights people don't recognize the right of animals to live when they are living with humans, so granting them any rights is an exercise in futility. They're better off with no rights and humans who take care of them.

Can you explain this?

It has to be Villain or Hero? Nothing in between? Groups like ALF and ELF are not heroes in my book. They target workers. They spike trees hoping to injure loggers, they are utopian reactionaries with an anti worker agenda that would match corporate America's hatred of working people. ALF & ELF have more in common with the radical anti abortion terror groups like Operation Rescue than anything Left or environmentist. These cults do to true environmentalism what Fred Phelp's church does for Christianity.

wsionynw

1.You could be killed walking down the street, does that mean you would prefer to spend your days locked in cage?
2.The deer you mention at least had a fighting chance for survival, which is more than a farm animal has. 3.If the wolves did not hunt and kill the deer then they would end up starving to death. So what's your point????

1.Yes I could, but I wouldn't have to be worried about being eaten alive, in the woods it is far different, it is eat or be eaten, kill or be killed, we have rules that if you follow them in civilization your chances barring accident means that you live to die in bed.

2. You have never watched a pack in the hunt have you, the chances for that deer were slim to none after the wolf pack had singled it out, there were 6 adults in the pack and 1 deer, yes it had a chance, like a snowball in hell. And as a aside I have never witnessed this in the wild but I have seen nature shows on the subject, But in the canine world when wolves catch another canine, be it a Fox, Coyote, Feral Dog, or Domesticated Dog, in their territory, they run it down, and rip it to shreds, the do not allow poaching of their hunting grounds by any other canines, so tell me which is the more preferable death, one that is over in seconds or being ripped apart alive, and consumed while your brain and pain receptors are still function? This is the fate of most of the animals in the wild, they are food for something else, living food.

3. And if we didn't use a large amount of meat in our diets, there would be more starvation around the world than there already is, what is the difference between us and the wolf as to our right not to starve to death? Today around the world we can't feed all of the people, this is due to a Varity of reasons, but our using heard animals for food is no different than the wolf or any other large predator on the planet, we are not herbivores, we are omnivores, it is as stated in the Darwin Theory of Evolution how we survived and evolved and succeeded as a species, to dominate our environmental nitch in the ecology, so now we are the top predator species on the planet, we have learned to control our prey source of food to make the most efficient use of our time and resources to feed our species, so there is nothing unnatural about what we have done, it is also done in nature, in the insect world.

Can you explain this?

It's all over their websites. They want mandatory spay/neuter and the quickest possible end to human ownership of any animals. They start on "exotic" animals because it's easy to get a dog owner to vote against owning a "dangerous" animal like a bear or a tiger. That is how they divide pet owners and use them against each other.

BenTheMan:

I'm glad to see you're putting some thought and effort into this.

The philosophy of the "animal liberation movement" is based largely on the book by Peter Singer, aptly named "Animal Liberation".

Actually, it goes back quite a bit further than that. Jeremy Bentham was the first to promote a basic idea of animal rights, based on the capacity of animals to suffer. Nevertheless, you are true that the modern revival of animal rights gained a boost from Singer's landmark book.

Besides being the animal liberator's manifesto, the book presents the Principle of Equal Consideration, which essentially states that every sentient being is entitled to some basic rights, specifically the right not to be exploited for use by other sentient beings. Sentient, used herein, is generally taken to mean able to feel pain.

The basic principle is that no sentient being should be allowed to be used merely as the means to an end of another being. The right is a recognition of the autonomy-based interest of an individual. Exactly the same principle underlies the ethical judgment against human slavery.

Never mind that this argument and definitions seem to be constructed ex post facto. Further, if "sentient" is taken to mean that it can feel pleasure instead of pain, the argument that animals deserve rights generally crumbles.

Grabbing the nearest dictionary I have to hand, "sentience" is defined to mean "consciously perceiving". In terms of cruelty to animals, obviously the conscious perception of pain is more relevant than the conscious perception of pleasure. No animal feels pleasure as it is being slaughtered, I'll wager.

This idea is ostensibly based in utilitarian principles. Utilitarianism is the idea that one should take the interests of all into account when making decisions, and make decisions in such a way that maximizes the total happiness.

The net happiness. A balancing of happiness vs. unhappiness is needed.

The first issue that one should realize is that maximizing happiness isn't something that can be done in a quantitative manner, and there exists no calculus for determining when happiness is maximized. For example, does my love of steak outweigh a cow's right to live? If the cow lived a pain free existence, and died a pain free death, then surely one cannot object to the fact that the amount of net happiness is increased if I kill and eat the cow.

Did you wait for the cow to die a natural death, or did you kill it?

Surely, the most fundamental prerequisite of happiness for an individual creature is its continued existence (excepting certain special cases).

Suppose we apply your argument to other human beings. Suppose you love eating human beings, because you just adore the taste. Are you then justified in killing other human beings and cannibalising them? Would it be ok if they lived a pain-free existence, and died a pain-free death? Would net happiness increase as a result?

One also could imagine extending this argument and justifying things like torture. If I know that a terrorist has information that would save many lives from a very painful death, then presumably the utilitarian will have no problems with me torturing the terrorist.

On the most basic utilitarian view, it is always acceptable to kill one in order to save many, where the lives involved are treated as fungibles. This is one of the problems with this most basic forms of utilitarianism.

However, the argument doesn't apply to your love-of-meat argument, since we have to weigh up the value of a life against your mere selfish desire for momentary pleasure. The answer, even on a basic utilitarian basis, is obvious.

I am sure that James will insert a reply here that asserts something along the lines of me missing the point. For example, it may be that the Principle of Equal Consideration is more stringent than the utilitarianism on which it is based.

I'm not sure that the Principle of Equal Consideration is based on utilitarianism. It is based on a recognition of inherent value of the individual as a person, not on their market value as a commodity of value to other people.

The closest comparison I can think of to the animal rights case is the case of human slavery.

Then, James may say, "We must increase the happiness so long as that increase doesn't infringe on another's 'right to be' ".

I think what is needed is that we determine what value a "right to be" has, in the utilitarian calculus.

My problem with your approach is that you place a very high value on a human being's "right to be", while placing little to no value on a non-human animal's "right to be", yet with no apparent justification for the double standard. And that's what Equal Consideration is all about.

The main argument that I will advance for not granting animals rights is that they are not functioning members of society. Humans are extended a certain set of rights because of their membership in the human race. We are rational beings, largely capable of adhering to a moral code. There is a contract, of sorts, between each member of society and the rest of society. If each party holds up their respective ends of the bargain, then society functions and all is good. When one member of society cannot abide by the contract, they are isolated. Animals, a priori cannot adhere by any moral codes and thus cannot be members of society. Because they are not members of society, they do not necessarily deserve the same basic rights as humans do.

The obvious contention that one will raise is as follows. What about babies and severely retarded people?

You're completely correct. That is the obvious rejoinder. You are quite happy to grant all kinds of rights to human beings, regardless of any present capacity they have to "adhere to a moral code". You would support, I assume, a retarded person's right not to be killed so somebody else could eat them. You would support such a right for a six-month old baby, too. Yet neither of these human beings have the capacity to "adhere to a moral code". They can't understand what a moral code is.

So, again, you need to justify your double standard. Why grant the right not to be arbitrarily killed to a six-month old baby, say, yet not grant the same right to a chimpanzee who in fact has a greater capacity to meet your criterion for adhering to a moral code?

There are two answers to this. The first one is that the normal human can contribute to society, and there are no grounds for separating humans out simply based on their physical or mental conditions. The average human can certainly contribute to society in a way that the average animal, no matter his specie, never can. If, for example, we found a few chimpanzees who was capable of following our moral codes, and contributing to society, then we should grant all chimpanzees a basic set of rights.

Why should we judge non-human animals by human standards? Why does an animal have to act the same way that a human acts before it becomes eligible for moral consideration from you? Why don't you have to conform to chimpanzee moral codes instead?

You're just begging the question here. You are saying "I won't recognise any rights for animals unless they prove that they are indistinguishable from human beings". But on what basis ought humans to have special rights in the first place, that only apply to beings with human capacities?

As far as I can see, the only basis is speciesism for its own sake. You start from the position that humans deserve special treatment, then you exclude everything that isn't human simply on the basis that it isn't human.

What characteristics of human beings make them deserving of special treatment? In particular, can you point to ONE or perhaps a few criteria that ALL human beings possess that makes them worthy of moral consideration, and that NO non-human animal possesses, so that you can exclude the animals from your moral framework a priori?

The second rebuttal that I will offer is that babies have the potential to contribute to society, as do severely retarded people. A baby has potential to become a functioning member of society, and all but the most severely retarded can contribute to society in some facitility.

Would it be acceptable to kill severely retarded human beings and eat them, then? I presume your answer would be "no". But why?

Your argument about "potential" also has more serious flaws, which I will examine later if necessary.

I certainly don't want to be seen as an advocate of animal cruelty. I have not led a sheltered life, as James thinks. I have a dog named Lefty (see the "Praise your Dog" thread).

And yet, you claimed above that "Lefty" has no capacity to feel pain.

Do you want to retract that claim now? It's patently silly, isn't it?

I have spent my youth fishing in Galveston, and hunting in South Texas. But I see no reason that animals should be granted any specific rights, per se. Because I see no moral basis for granting animals rights, I can take no issue with hunting, or eating meat, or using an animals skin to make boots, even if I wouldn't eat my dog.

I think you're deluding yourself. You just put your own pleasure in hunting, eating meat, wearing animal-skin boots and the like above any petty moral concerns that might be raised about the animals who need their skins to live, for example. Your joy in shooting an un-armed creature is far more important than any interest that creature might have in continuing to enjoy its life, right?

Why wouldn't you eat your dog, by the way?

James. I don't have time for a full reply, but in defense of Lefty:

And yet, you claimed above that "Lefty" has no capacity to feel pain.

Do you want to retract that claim now? It's patently silly, isn't it?

This was never meant to be taken seriously. If you will read the context in which the comment was made, I was making an example of wsionynw's comment about abortion---he/she said that "I don't know enough so I can't comment further". The point was that it is always easy to end a conversation by saying "Well, I don't know, but I'lll just go on thinking I'm right" rather than getting off of one's ass and trying to find out. I can say "Well, I don't know that animals suffer" and the conversation would be over because I have rejected your main contention by claiming ignorance.

I like the Alf too.

http://www.bananadine.com/m/alf.gif
I think A.L.F. wouldn't like that ALF as if I remember correctly he had a habit of trying to eat Cats.

I think A.L.F. wouldn't like that ALF as if I remember correctly he had a habit of trying to eat Cats.

That, of course, is beautiful beautiful irony.

[QUOTE=Buffalo Roam;1338720]wsionynw


Buffalo, again you seem unable to tell the difference between wild animals living out their natural lives (which can of course end in being eaten) and animals bred by the millions that experience little more than pain and death at the hands of humans.
It's true that in some parts of the world people rely on eating animals for their protein. This does not pardon the mass production of meat in the developed world for the purpose of making a few people very rich and millions of consumers very fat.

What exactly is your objection to reducing the suffering of animals bred for food, leather, fur, etc? Not to mention animals killed by the minority of twisted individuals that get pleasure from killing them for so called sport.

James. I don't have time for a full reply, but in defense of Lefty:
This was never meant to be taken seriously. If you will read the context in which the comment was made, I was making an example of wsionynw's comment about abortion---he/she said that "I don't know enough so I can't comment further". The point was that it is always easy to end a conversation by saying "Well, I don't know, but I'lll just go on thinking I'm right" rather than getting off of one's ass and trying to find out. I can say "Well, I don't know that animals suffer" and the conversation would be over because I have rejected your main contention by claiming ignorance.

On the subject of Lefty, if I was to shoot your dog and then claim that my happiness in killing him outweighed your sadness in his death, what would your moral argument be exactly? After all Lefty is just an animal that contributes nothing to human society (by your own standards), and I could well be the sort of person that gets a kick out of killing dogs.
Perhaps you and Lefty should watch this:
http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video.asp?video=china_dog_cat_fur_boards2&Player=qt&speed=_med

[QUOTE=Buffalo Roam;1338720]wsionynw


Buffalo, again you seem unable to tell the difference between wild animals living out their natural lives (which can of course end in being eaten) and animals bred by the millions that experience little more than pain and death at the hands of humans.
It's true that in some parts of the world people rely on eating animals for their protein. This does not pardon the mass production of meat in the developed world for the purpose of making a few people very rich and millions of consumers very fat.

What exactly is your objection to reducing the suffering of animals bred for food, leather, fur, etc? Not to mention animals killed by the minority of twisted individuals that get pleasure from killing them for so called sport.

You talk about "reducing" the suffering of these animals, but this idea moves right over into forbidding them ever to live.

You talk about "reducing" the suffering of these animals, but this idea moves right over into forbidding them ever to live.

I disagree, why should it?
If you mean that by reducing the reliance on factory farms to provide meat then it will reduce the number of animals bred for the purposes of killing them. This would also reduce the amount of feed required for farming animals, thus making more food available for humans.
And so on...

Although I am a vegetarian, there is still the point that if people didn't eat meat they would just cause a knock on effect somewhere else.

For instance:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/soya-blazes-through-the-amazon

The story is a little old and things have been done to attempt to correct the problem since it was first brought to the limelight, however Soya plantations have had a myriad of effects on the environment. In the link above the concern is of how soya plantations sprang up across rainforest regions (meaning the even faster destruction of an already diminishing rainforest.)

Now you could claim that production of meat in a factory farm environment is morally incorrect but you can also suggest that the deforestation of natural environments bringing about multiple occurances of flora and fauna extinctions alike, is in fact even greater in regards to moral irresponsibility.

Worse still was that the crops weren't all going on Vegetarians/Vegans across the world at that time, but on Meat production "Organic" meat production.
However again this has apparently been rectified: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1827515,00.html

Food giants boycotted the sale of such produce from such regions.
However the damage has been done and will take many years for the ecology to repair (if it's actually allowed to)

I think what I'm trying to say is how do you weigh Factory Farming against something like Global Extinction? After all whats farmed (i.e. cattle, chickens, pigs) isn't under threat, as their continued existence is necessary to continue a foodchain, rainforest flora and fauna on the other hand doesn't have that luxury.

On the subject of Lefty, if I was to shoot your dog and then claim that my happiness in killing him outweighed your sadness in his death, what would your moral argument be exactly? After all Lefty is just an animal that contributes nothing to human society (by your o