Animal Rights?

[Humodour]

Azarkon: Threads aren't personal interchanges between only two people, sorry.

 

Cantousant: You're right; my response to Azarkon was fairly pointless.

 

Just as pointless as Azarkon's reference to animal rights militants in response to Gromnir. Why bring up militant groups in a topic that's got nothing to do with them? Azarkon would liken those pro animal rights to militant zealots, but that carries as much truth as stereotyping pro-lifers as abortion clinic bombers. The link is tenuous.

 

Can you understand that now? It's got nothing to do with chimps... I would think that's self-evident considering neither I nor he mentioned chimps in regard to that specific issue.

 

Chimps aren't human. Chimps don't have rights. Chimps should not have rights.

 

Why? You've certainly made your stance on the issue clear. But you haven't given any justification besides "because they aren't us".

 

I'm only advocating the right to survival, so don't get your knickers in a knot thinking it means a chimp's going to take your job.

 

But hey, you get all fired up and angry if you want. I'm sure it helps somehow?

[Tale]

Azarkon would liken those pro animal rights to militant zealots

I believe Azarkon's post was actually an attempt to criticize the notion that opinion on animal right's is a suitable position to judge upon. However, since Gromnir never described it as a sole discriminator, it's still pretty stupid.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Tale

[Azarkon]

I believe Azarkon's post was actually an attempt to criticize the notion that opinion on animal right's is a suitable position to judge upon. However, since Gromnir never described it as a sole discriminator, it's still pretty stupid.

 

Not a sole discriminator, but a pretty good reflection - at least, that's the interpretation I got out of "says a great deal 'bout us as people/People." Gromnir can clarify, if he'd like.

 

For me, the very notion that you can make a leap from attitude towards animals to attitude towards weak/retarded people is a bit of a stretch. In order to consider one's treatment of animals in the context of the humane, one must, foremost, establish an anthropomorphic understanding of animals, without which any appeal to human ethics or human feelings is utterly meaningless. A person or people's treatment of animals is therefore not at all reflective of that person or people's basic humanity if, for that person or people, such a connection is never made. To mistake this missing link as an indication that something is wrong in the membrane ignores the social, cultural, and personal constructs inherent in the debate.

 

Gromnir's argument is something akin to the one made by Richard Posner (as opposed to Peter Singer, who adopts a more rights-based approach fundamentally founded on an objectivist view towards cognitive capacity):

 

"The "soft" utilitarian position on animal rights is a moral intuition of many, probably most, Americans. We realize that animals feel pain, and we think that to inflict pain without a reason is bad. Nothing of practical value is added by dressing up this intuition in the language of philosophy; much is lost when the intuition is made a stage in a logical argument. When kindness toward animals is levered into a duty of weighting the pains of animals and of people equally, bizarre vistas of social engineering are opened up."

 

That, there, is the central point. The whole concept of kindness towards animals is predicated on the realization and anthropomorphization of the pain felt by animals, and that particular awareness is very much dependent on something that humans are not, by all indications, born with: an equivalence between their own sensual faculties and that of other creatures. In fact, children are often the greatest violators of "other creatures' rights" because they simply do not register the connection, which must be taught. For the longest time - and truly, until the animal rights movement of the 1970s - this teaching was not part of any secular society (though it was a component of Buddhism and Hinduism). That's not to say the notion didn't exist in any individual capacity, only that it was not a doctrine that was widely accepted.

 

Why not? Because the environmental factors were not present - back when animals were little more than sport, pest, and feral threat - to draw the connection. Only when real contact with animals became largely domesticized did culture begin to swing the other way. And that's perfectly fine - it's logical that a society habituated on the image of animals as cute, cuddly pets and Disney protagonists would draw the equivalence. But that's a statement about society, not basic humanity, and it is fundamentally irresponsible to assign such a cultural norm to the moral and psychological judgment of other persons/peoples.

 

In short, yes, a person's treatment of animals says alot about that person's moral and psychological character if they think of animals in the same terms as people. But for a great majority of those actually accused of animal abuse, that is basically untrue, and the argument becomes moot: you cannot (or at least, it would be irresponsible to) infer from a person's treatment of animals how that person is, deep inside, unless you know where that person stands on the "animals are just like me"--"animals are just mindless automatons" spectrum. For many cultures outside of the West, particularly those that have not experienced an animal rights movement that completely changed their perceptions of the human-animal relationship, it is basically ridiculous to argue that attitudes towards animals reflect basic humanity.

 

As much as I'd like to say that those who value animal rights are essentially better, kinder persons whose sympathies towards those who are different put the rest of humanity to shame, I am reminded of how delusional that is each time I see an animal rights activist put the welfare of animals above that of other humans. It is then that I understand the more primal drive at work: it's not so much that these people are hypocrites (because I'm sure they care a great deal about animals), but that the ability to humanize animals says nothing about the inability to dehumanize humans. In fact, one might say that animal rights militants are differentiated from the rest of society simply by their swapped sympathies: to them, animals being like us means that those who kill animals must essentially be murderers. And of course, murderers deserve to be killed - because they're not human.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Azarkon

[Gfted1]

^Hasnt the link between animal cruely and a predisposition toward human cruelty (IE: serial killers) been pretty firmly established?

[Azarkon]

Not at all. In fact, you might want to look into this book:

 

Lea, Suzanne Goodney (2007). Delinquency and Animal Cruelty: Myths and Realities about Social Pathology, hardcover, 168 pages, ISBN 978-1-59332- 197-0. Lea challenges the assertion made by animal rights activists that animal cruelty enacted during childhood is a precursor to human-directed violence. The activists argue that our most violent criminals started off their bloody sprees with animal torture. Many parents, teachers, school administrators, and policy makers have thus accepted this claim on face value. In contrast, Lea finds that, in fact, many American youngsters-- and boys, especially-- engage in acts of animal cruelty but that few of these children go on to enact human-directed violence.

 

The truth is, the link between animal cruelty and predisposition toward human cruelty rests on the application of zoosadism - ie whether you derive pleasure out of animal suffering, which 1) has nothing to do with actual practice or treatment (therefore, it is invalid to say that culling animals by one method versus another is indicative of zoosadism, because the choice has nothing to do with pleasure) and 2) is flimsical in and of itself as a predictor for human violence, even if fully established, as more recent research has shown.

Edited March 10, 2008 by Azarkon

[Gorgon]

This is India, there are plenty of humans who live in comparable conditions to those dogs, basically foraging for scraps and begging. It won't do to apply the same standards.

[Gromnir]

"Gromnir can clarify, if he'd like."

 

already did. your bizarre link 'tween the mad bomber who bombs at midnight scenario and its link to where peoples fall on the side o' the fence 'tween what does and does not constitutes animal cruelty is... whacked.

 

...

 

am not seeing a need to clarify further.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Cantousent]

I'm only advocating the right to survival, so don't get your knickers in a knot thinking it means a chimp's going to take your job.

 

But hey, you get all fired up and angry if you want. I'm sure it helps somehow?

 

Well, in that case, I'll untie my knickers and let my anger subside.

 

If the light at the end of the tunnel is that chimps have the right to live, then I'll rescind my statement and agree.

[Azarkon]

already did. your bizarre link 'tween the mad bomber who bombs at midnight scenario and its link to where peoples fall on the side o' the fence 'tween what does and does not constitutes animal cruelty is... whacked.

 

Let me ask it in a different way, then - what, exactly, does an animal rights militant's treatment of animals and other beings that he sees as "weak and defenseless" say about him as a person?

 

Is he humane and compassionate? Is he malicious and hypocritical? Is he a freedom fighter? Is he a terrorist? Is he good? Is he bad? Does the society he represent constitute a better, more civilized version than the one in which the rest of us dwell? Does it constitute a worse one, with all its priorities reversed?

 

You said that we can tell alot about a person/people by his/their treatment of animals. I'm wondering what you meant by that. That is the clarification I seek.

[Gromnir]

"You said that we can tell alot about a person/people by his/their treatment of animals."

 

actually, what we said were that you can tell a lot about people based on how they treat the defenseless, and those weaker than themselves. Gromnir applied that pithy little bit o' tripe to People examples more than to Animals, no? you can't reach no conclusion based on such a general rule? no? well, then Gromnir clarification won't help none, 'cause is more a matter of conscience than anything else anyways.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Krookie]

Dogs are alive and can fee, that's all there is to say.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Krookie

[Azarkon]

It's only a matter of conscience if you make the "like me" connection between animals and people. In the vast majority of cases where animal cruelty is actually involved, that connection is never made. Not to mention, where the connection should be drawn is subjective even within the animal rights community - people in the US like to throw dogs and cats into the equation, but purposefully exclude cows and pigs. People in Japan like to talk about animals on land, but ignore their own fishing practices in the sea. Some extremists want to go as far as insects, while others are content with primates and dolphins. This sort of thing annoys me to no ends.

 

*shrug*

 

I don't agree with the general "weak and defenseless" argument. At face value, it's the sort of moral equivalence that equates stepping on ants to slaughtering people. That can't be what you meant, but it's not like you were just talking about people, posting in an animal rights thread. That's why I asked for clarification, but if you're unwilling to give it, fine, I'm not going to press the point. I can agree that if someone held an empathic view towards animals and actually believe that they can feel pain in the same manner people can, then their cruely towards animals (or lack thereof) is a good indication of their character. But I won't extend that argument to people who refuse such a view in the first place, because I feel that the degree to which you can make the connection depends, ultimately, on your personal and social conditions. A starving Indian beggar used to fighting scraps from feral dogs won't likely feel the same way an upper class Beverly Hills dog owner would, and I refuse to believe that you can say anything about the former's character versus the latter's based on that.

[Azarkon]

Dogs are alive and can fee, that's all there is to say.

 

True for nearly anything in the animal kingdom and certainly for everything under class mammalia, so that's definitely not all there is to say.

[Gromnir]

"At face value, it's the sort of moral equivalence that equates stepping on ants to slaughtering people."

 

how so? never made or even suggested such a thing. as we said, we eat meat and wear leather. nevertheless, how we treat the weak and defenseless says much 'bout us. you wanna create some kinda perceived equivalence 'tween ants and people? that is your problem, not Gromnir's. is the reason we find your bombing scenario laughable. you is trying too hard to interject something into observation that were never even implied.

 

you wanna make some moral equivalence argument o' your own, but you is doing in a clumsy and bass ackwards manner.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Krookie]

Dogs are alive and can fee, that's all there is to say.

 

True for nearly anything in the animal kingdom and certainly for everything under class mammalia, so that's definitely not all there is to say.

 

Yeah, it is. Because you shouldn't kill anything (yeah, yeah, I know killing for food/survival is different) you don't have to. And if you're going to, in the case with these dogs, you should do it humanely. Killing animals in mass quantities is bad enough, but if you can't figure out a quick, and clean way to do it, you shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

To go back to the point that Gorgon made, he's right. There are people all over the world with horrendous diseases like AIDs, living in conditions worse then some of these dogs. Let's just kill all them too, you know, just to be safe.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Krookie

[Azarkon]

Yeah, it is. Because you shouldn't kill anything (yeah, yeah, I know killing for food/survival is different) you don't have to. And if you're going to, in the case with these dogs, you should do it humanely. Killing animals in mass quantities is bad enough, but if you can't figure out a quick, and clean way to do it, you shouldn't be doing it at all.

 

To go back to the point that Gorgon made, he's right. There are people all over the world with horrendous diseases like AIDs, living in conditions worse then some of these dogs. Let's just kill all them too, you know, just to be safe.

 

I don't think that's quite what Gorgon meant, but with regards to your argument - well, I really hope you're a vegetarian, because that's what your position demands, ultimately. We don't have to eat animals, or wear their skin, or use medicine made from their organs - therefore, if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't kill anything we don't have to, then we shouldn't kill any animals. Period.

 

If you're okay with that, great. At least you're consistent.

 

how so? never made or even suggested such a thing. as we said, we eat meat and wear leather. nevertheless, how we treat the weak and defenseless says much 'bout us. you wanna create some kinda perceived equivalence 'tween ants and people? that is your problem, not Gromnir's. is the reason we find your bombing scenario laughable. you is trying too hard to interject something into observation that were never even implied.

 

you wanna make some moral equivalence argument o' your own, but you is doing in a clumsy and bass ackwards manner.

 

So basically you're saying that I read more into your post than I should have? That when you said "weak and defenseless" you only had people in mind, or was speaking in such abstract terms that "it means what it means what it means?" Fine. That's why I asked for clarification. To begin with, I don't see why someone who's fine with hunting would oppose using poison to cull dogs, anyhow. A gunshot to the head is faster, perhaps, but you can also miss.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

This is India, there are plenty of humans who live in comparable conditions to those dogs, basically foraging for scraps and begging. It won't do to apply the same standards.

 

The difference here is that humans have the will and the intelligence to better themselves if they choose to. Dogs cannot.

[Krookie]

I don't think that's quite what Gorgon meant, but with regards to your argument - well, I really hope you're a vegetarian, because that's what your position demands, ultimately. We don't have to eat animals, or wear their skin, or use medicine made from their organs - therefore, if you want to make the argument that we shouldn't kill anything we don't have to, then we shouldn't kill any animals. Period.

 

If you're okay with that, great. At least you're consistent.

 

(yeah, yeah, I know killing for food/survival is different)

 

"killing animals for food is different", if you can't read, don't register for forums.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Krookie

[Azarkon]

"killing animals for food is different", if you can't read, don't register for forums.

 

But you don't have to kill animals for food. That's the entire rationale behind the conscientious vegetarian movement. I don't think you should dismiss your moral impetus just because you crave the taste of flesh. That's what makes this whole movement inconsistent. Either go all the way, or stop objecting to legitimate culls (next thing you know, you'll be arguing that using arrows to hunt in sub-Saharan Africa is inhumane).

 

There's nothing fundamental about killing animals for food that makes it more "right" than culling animals to safeguard humans. If anything, the latter is better justified.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

When killing an animal it should have a purpose beyond just for fun.

 

Such as when hunting or fishing, one end purpose is that the animal killed is used for food, a useful purpose compared to simple trophies or "sport." The same goes for clothing, medicine, or in the case of Walsh's post for being humane. Which is more humane killing an animal or letting it suffer? Death is more humane in these cases in my opinion.

[Krookie]

First off, don't tell me what "I'm going to be arguing next".

 

Second, there is a huge difference between killing animals for food, and killing animals just to get rid of them. Killing them inhumanly, for food, while still ridiculous and unjust, is better than killing them inhumanly just to get them off the streets.

 

Oh, and 'next thing you'll be arguing' is that we just off every diseased mammal, including humans, that are diseased. And that everyone that doesn't agree with inhumane treatment of animals must be a vegetarian, listen to acoustic music and wear hemp clothing.'

 

Knowledge is power!

Edited March 11, 2008 by Krookie

[Azarkon]

So... Killing animals for the sake of satisfying humanity's taste for meat is more "justified" than killing animals in order to prevent the spread of rabies to humans, a fatal disease from which 27,500 people in India die each year?

 

I'm starting to think I'm arguing with one of those peoples who have their priorities "upside down," so to speak.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Azarkon

[Sand]

Azarkon, one thing that vegetarians seem to forget is that animal meat has many proteins and vitamins which the body needs in good supply. Human evolution would not have happened if our ancestors did not eat meat because of these proteins gained allowed greater development for the brain. Unless the vegetarians constantly use dietary supplements, in the long run they lose out. After all, name me one herbivore that can show higher intelligence than mere grazing.

 

Also I do think that killing an animal for human safety is very important, but it should be done as humanely as possible. Also it will end the animal's suffering.

Edited March 11, 2008 by Sand

[Krookie]

Alright, when did I say that "killing animals for the sake of satisfying humanity's taste for meat is more "justified" than killing animals in order to prevent the spread of rabies?"

 

I said that you have to do it HUMANELY. This is not difficult to understand. Kill them to save humanity, or India, or whatever you want to save. Just do it HUMANELY. If you want, I can even provide a neat little link to dictionary.com with a definition of HUMANE.

 

Take a look at a god damn food pyramid.

 

 

Meat is important, thanks.

[Cantousent]

I didn't think Gromnir actually said he was against the culling in the first place. No matter how other societies see animal torture, we live in societies (at least the majority of the folks on this board) which see animal torture in an extremely bad light.

 

I didn't push the fight with Krezak because he confined the rights of the chimp in question to life. I'll agree with that, but that's because I live in a society that sees needless slaughter of animals as inhumane and I'm a product of that society. Now, let's say that the folks in question, in Kashmir, were not threatened by rabid dogs. I would suggest that the culling is inhumane, although I don't think that the policy would, in and of itself, warrent international action. However, given the circumstances, it is a wise policy. Outside of the question of animal rights, the people in any community should have the right to protect themselves against the threat of rabid animals. I don't care whether someone wants to claim that it is inhumane or not.

 

The wife and I have three cats. We take care of them extremely well. They receive regular medical examinations, grooming, and enjoy a healthy diet. We shower them with love and attention. Our eldest cat has had received thousands of dollars of medical care and we've been giving our newest cat medicine daily for, of all things, asthma. I once had to take my cat down to the vet in San Diego only to find out that there was a problem with my radiator. I spent hours driving down, stopping every 20 miles or so to add more radiator fluid. This is with the cat yowling the whole way. I love my cats.

 

Now, if we look at this thread so far, is it a shame that we've spent so much on the care of cats when there are hungry people in the world? ...Or is it a shame that I still don't think that, as a policy, we should value the lives on my cats the same as we value the lives of human beings? The life of a cat... or of a dog... or of a chimp is not worth the life of a human being. Yes, that's because they are the "other."

 

If you have a pet cat... or dog... or chimp, I don't expect that you should be willing to trade the life of your individual pet for the life of another individual human. However, the life of your pet, or mine, is not worth a human life. I don't suppose I'd be happy if someone tried to kill my pet to save an ax murderer. As a society, however, we've got to draw the line somewhere. If you want to create a society where the life of a dust mite is the equal of a human, give it a shot. Make it a religion if you want. The point is, no matter where you draw the line, once you include non humans within the definition of humanity, the line will always be mutable.