Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[Cain]

A vegetarian friend and I were talking, and we agreed that while most Americans probably scoff at the idea of "animal rights," even while they probably tacitly endorse rights for non-humans on some basic level. I'm sure the same holds true for most of the rest of the world as well. People are confused, not surprisingly.

Animal cruelty laws enjoy wide support from the public. In California, a bellwether state, we have an upcoming proposition on factory farming (the "yes" vote is currently leading by a wide margin, though that will in all likelihood narrow). Most people favor laws prohibiting the outright torture of animals, although I'm sure many Republicans might want to include provisions for unusual circumstances -- you know, in cases where there's collaboration with terrorists or something.

The fear against a moral slippery slope is not totally unjustified because once you accept the premise that non-humans are morally significant, worthy of serious consideration, then we are naturally restricting what we can do to them and for what reason(s). Fundamentally there are two arguments for outlawing the torture of animals, the non-rights view and the pro-rights view (respectively, the "dumb view" and the "decent view").

The non-rights position approaches a ban on animal cruelty/torture by indirectly addressing the suffering, which we are told is not bad in itself, but harmful in that it coarsens our more enlightened sensibilities. I believe Kant took the view that an insensitivity to animal pain could lead to indifference to human suffering. What's interesting here is that this is the view more frequently taken up by people of a more conservative persuasion, and it's not unlike banning flag-burning or pornography. And there's the rub. Even our conservative and "libertarian" friends on this board are largely unsympathetic to regulating things because they offend people, so if they accept this position then there is a bullet to bite.

If animals are basically reduced to private property, then the government should not be allowed to regulate life-style decisions involving them anymore than it should be allowed to dictate how you use your Qu'ran. If I use my Qu'ran to prop up a coffee table, then so be it. Reports of neglecting a pet and desecrating the Bible could therefore assume similar status. However, if we are free to dispose of our private property as we please, then the state violates our rights when it dictates legitimate use (barring aggression against others, e.g., I cannot assault you with hard bound edition of the ol' King James). If we agree animals do not have rights (demand moral attention), then it should be OK to legally torture them. How dare the state rob you of your dignity when it claims you can only legitimately derive pleasure by eating an animal. Similarly, how I decide to use my Bible is up to me.

I use the language of "rights" reluctantly, but just to be clear, we are talking about moral trumps. I realize some sophisticates will insist rights are a social construct, and we only have the rights a society creates, so blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, they admit that green-eyed people could be enslaved and assume the same status as Cooler Ranch Doritos. I suppose there are also some utilitarians who could also make peculiar arguments that I refuse to pre-empt.

The decent view merely asks us to consider the interests of animals, which most people do anyway. The problem is they are unwilling to give animals much consideration when it interferes with a good meal. A meat eating friend once said that if someone treated his cat like animals in factory farm conditions, then there would be hell to pay. Yet self-described "animal lovers" pamper their cats and dogs to a comical extent while blissfully dining on murder.

[applecorped]

A vegetarian friend and I were talking, and we agreed that while most Americans probably scoff at the idea of "animal rights," even while they probably tacitly endorse rights for non-humans on some basic level. I'm sure the same holds true for most of the rest of the world as well. People are confused, not surprisingly.

Animal cruelty laws enjoy wide support from the public. In California, a bellwether state, we have an upcoming proposition on factory farming (the "yes" vote is currently leading by a wide margin, though that will in all likelihood narrow). Most people favor laws prohibiting the outright torture of animals, although I'm sure many Republicans might want to include provisions for unusual circumstances -- you know, in cases where there's collaboration with terrorists or something.

The fear against a moral slippery slope is not totally unjustified because once you accept the premise that non-humans are morally significant, worthy of serious consideration, then we are naturally restricting what we can do to them and for what reason(s). Fundamentally there are two arguments for outlawing the torture of animals, the non-rights view and the pro-rights view (respectively, the "dumb view" and the "decent view").

The non-rights position approaches a ban on animal cruelty/torture by indirectly addressing the suffering, which we are told is not bad in itself, but harmful in that it coarsens our more enlightened sensibilities. I believe Kant took the view that an insensitivity to animal pain could lead to indifference to human suffering. What's interesting here is that this is the view more frequently taken up by people of a more conservative persuasion, and it's not unlike banning flag-burning or pornography. And there's the rub. Even our conservative and "libertarian" friends on this board are largely unsympathetic to regulating things because they offend people, so if they accept this position then there is a bullet to bite.

If animals are basically reduced to private property, then the government should not be allowed to regulate life-style decisions involving them anymore than it should be allowed to dictate how you use your Qu'ran. If I use my Qu'ran to prop up a coffee table, then so be it. Reports of neglecting a pet and desecrating the Bible could therefore assume similar status. However, if we are free to dispose of our private property as we please, then the state violates our rights when it dictates legitimate use (barring aggression against others, e.g., I cannot assault you with hard bound edition of the ol' King James). If we agree animals do not have rights (demand moral attention), then it should be OK to legally torture them. How dare the state rob you of your dignity when it claims you can only legitimately derive pleasure by eating an animal. Similarly, how I decide to use my Bible is up to me.

I use the language of "rights" reluctantly, but just to be clear, we are talking about moral trumps. I realize some sophisticates will insist rights are a social construct, and we only have the rights a society creates, so blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, they admit that green-eyed people could be enslaved and assume the same status as Cooler Ranch Doritos. I suppose there are also some utilitarians who could also make peculiar arguments that I refuse to pre-empt.

The decent view merely asks us to consider the interests of animals, which most people do anyway. The problem is they are unwilling to give animals much consideration when it interferes with a good meal. A meat eating friend once said that if someone treated his cat like animals in factory farm conditions, then there would be hell to pay. Yet self-described "animal lovers" pamper their cats and dogs to a comical extent while blissfully dining on murder.

Does the term "murder" apply to the killing of a species other than homo sapien?

[Cain]

Depends what you mean by "does" and "murder." In some of our more tyrannical societies the premeditated killing of people who are in out-groups does not mean murder at all. See the penultimate paragraph for a pre-emptive argument against this line of attack. This thread is intended as a moral discussion first and the law follows. Similarly, when people say "abortion is murder" they do not mean that it is illegal to terminate a pregnancy. Instead they're saying that it is a crime not recognized by the state.

[Kopji]

I believe that our relationship with non human animals is one of stewardship. It is sometimes appropriate to eat them and sometimes not, but ultimately the decision is a rather human cultural one.

IMHO ethical treatment of most animals does not require them to have "rights", but it might be helpful for animals that invoke human-like comparisons to intelligence (gorillas, chimps, etc).

[Ron_Tomkins]

I don't "believe in animal rights" but rather build my own ethic, cause I understand there is no consistency in societal practice. I basically try to cause the less harm whenever possible. That applies basically to insects. I don't kill them unless they are inside my house and they happen to be annoying and/or harmful in some way (such as mosquitoes).

[quixotecoyote]

I use the language of "rights" reluctantly, but just to be clear, we are talking about moral trumps. I realize some sophisticates will insist rights are a social construct, and we only have the rights a society creates, so blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, they admit that green-eyed people could be enslaved and assume the same status as Cooler Ranch Doritos. I suppose there are also some utilitarians who could also make peculiar arguments that I refuse to pre-empt.

By "moral trumps" do you mean a set of universal ethical considerations? I think you're correct to be reluctant to use the term 'rights' as I could gain the right to dip the green-eyes in queso and eat them by the dozen if I happened to live in the appropriate society.


The non-rights position approaches a ban on animal cruelty/torture by indirectly addressing the suffering, which we are told is not bad in itself, but harmful in that it coarsens our more enlightened sensibilities. I believe Kant took the view that an insensitivity to animal pain could lead to indifference to human suffering. What's interesting here is that this is the view more frequently taken up by people of a more conservative persuasion, and it's not unlike banning flag-burning or pornography. And there's the rub. Even our conservative and "libertarian" friends on this board are largely unsympathetic to regulating things because they offend people, so if they accept this position then there is a bullet to bite.

This may be one of the utilitarian buagaoos you didn't want to address, but I'll throw out a perspective on this line of argument. Since I'm rather left of center, the majority of your pre-empt doesn't apply.

I don't think animals are ethical entities in themselves. I morally exlude them in the Opotow-ian sense (fluffy name-drop).

I believe our sole ethical commitment is for other people and that other species are alien to our ethical environment.

Thus far it seems as if I'm on board with torturing animals. In fact, I'm not sure I'm against it in the abstract.

However, humans are perceptive in regards to pain. We percieve animals in pain and we empathize. That is the cornerstone of our society and the basis for instinctive moral systems. As a result, when we cause pain to an animal our empathy is triggered and we wish to stop the pain. This is an instinctive reaction, not a moral one. Only animals which show pain trigger this reaction. Drown a cockroach in alchohol and most people won't feel a twinge. Drown a kitten and you'll probably feel like a murderer. This is because we can empathize with the pain signals of the kitten but not the cockroach.

Should we suppress that empathy, we become less able to apply it to each other. I suggest the empathy instinct is not selective. We cannot simply fail to empathize with animals but succeed with people. Once the repression is complete we become more anti-social and more of a danger to society. For that reason, we should ban animal cruelty to supress the anti-social tendancies of the population.

[Jon_Stripe]

Firstly, why the Hell do people quote an entire opening post if they're the first replyer??? Genius, everyone knows what your replying to.

Secondly, why do people quote an entire entry when they only touch on one sentence??? Again, genius, your making it more dificult than it has to be.

Thirdly, explain to me what makes you better than an animal.

You are [supposedly] protected constitutionaly. They are [somewhat] protected lawfully. But this is just paper.

Why are you more important?

Why shouldn't another living thing matter?

[autumn1971]

Undue suffering sucks, but I am unable, even though I see the false dichotomy of my view, to assert that simply killing a cow is wrong. I want to eat bits of that cow, that cow has failed its saving throw in the evoloution department, and has become something which it is easy to raise for food.

Pigs, on the other hand, are just so tasty that they are obviously asking for it.

[quixotecoyote]

Thirdly, explain to me what makes you better than an animal.

Depends on the scale.

You are [supposedly] protected constitutionaly. They are [somewhat] protected lawfully. But this is just paper.

True

Why are you more important?

Because I'm me, for one reason. Same reason I'm more important than you. Same reason you'd be more important than me, were the question reversed.

Why shouldn't another living thing matter?

Smallpox is living. Will you defend it's rights? Otherwise this response is maybe half a step up from "think of the children!"

[Miss_Kitt]

I think that "rights" are a property of human interaction. Rights are an idea used to describe the fundamental way that humans interact with each other; the concept simply does not apply in the natural world. A lion is not depriving an impala of its "right to life" when it hunts, kills, and eats it. A tree is not infringing on a sidewalk's "right to privacy" when it undermines and then cracks it with a growing root. This level of entity, while living, does not have the type of voluntary interaction that is required for rights to be needed or even possible.

Rights are aspects of human nature that are codified to make clear where the line is drawn between voluntary interaction and coercion. A right is violated when the use of force, threat of force, or deceit is used to make party B interact with party A in the manner A desires. The term "right" occurs in Politics--here I am using the term in the philosophic sense, not the conversational sense--which, like Ethics, is a human concern.

I believe there are ethical issues with the treatment of animals, but not issues of Rights, except in as far as the right of ownership of a given animal is concerned. It is unethical to inflict gratuitous suffering on a feeling being, which many animals are. (I have no moral conflict on killing bacteria.) The more conscious an organism is, the more respect it deserves; however, I do not recognize that there is ever a case where an animal, no matter how cute, fuzzy, loyal or helpful, deserves to be considered human. The phrase "Meat is Murder" is nonsensical. Murder is the intentional killing of a human being. (NB: In the event that truly sentient beings other than Homo sapiens are discovered--be that in the ocean or on another planet--they will also possess rights. I think it is possible that some cetaceans are conscious, but I don't think the data supports a firm conclusion either way.)

I think people treating their beloved Poopsie and Whiskers like they are children is almost as bad as people who get pets and ignore them. In either case, they are treating the animal as something it is not; and it's not good for the animal or the person involved. (It amazes me that the Dog Whisperer has to explain to people that their dog will be happier and better behaved if they treat it like a DOG! We've spent thousands of years selectively breeding canines to regard us as superior members of their pack, is it any wonder they're confused if we treat them as if they outrank us?)

I truly love animals, and I love them for what they are. I enjoy dogs for their doggitude, cats for their felinity, and horses for their equininity. (so to speak) Heck, I love frogs for their froggy ways, their sproinging leaps and googly eyes; my garden is full of them, and I chose my landscape plants in part to provide good habitat for my feathered, furred, and scaled friends. But I have no illusion that animals possess rights.

[SezMe]

Firstly, why the Hell do people quote an entire opening post if they're the first replyer??? Genius, everyone knows what your replying to.

Secondly, why do people quote an entire entry when they only touch on one sentence???
Yeah! Rang my pet peeve bell big time. Long posts do not have "post rights" to be treated as a sentient being. Slice 'em and dice 'em to get to the point.

[SezMe]

If animals are basically reduced to private property, then the government should not be allowed to regulate life-style decisions involving them anymore than it should be allowed to dictate how you use your Qu'ran.
Good OP and topic, Cain. I just want to touch on the above quoted aspect of your thesis.

I think the above aspect of your argument is weak, if not outright wrong. Private property does not imply immunity to government regulation. Take, for example, zoning laws. I may own a piece of property but my city has enormous say over what I build on it (no gas station in a residential zone), where I build anything (property set backs, etc.) how it looks (height restrictions, etc) and so on.

If government can exercise some control how I use my land, why cannot it exercise a similar level of control over how I treat the creatures that live on my land? This control could even take the form of, for example, how a chicken farmer handles his waste so he doesn't stink up the neighborhood.

And note that such controls do not depend on the question of animal rights. Rather, they depend at a fundamental level on the notion of government control of the commons, where that notion extends to food resources (cows, pigs, etc.)

[Cain]

I believe that our relationship with non human animals is one of stewardship. It is sometimes appropriate to eat them and sometimes not, but ultimately the decision is a rather human cultural one.

This is suspect. So cultural meaning subjective in the sense that I like blue and you like red? The questions that are important here are when is not OK, and why not?

-----------------
Ron Tomkins:

I don't "believe in animal rights" but rather build my own ethic, cause I understand there is no consistency in societal practice. I basically try to cause the less harm whenever possible. That applies basically to insects. I don't kill them unless they are inside my house and they happen to be annoying and/or harmful in some way (such as mosquitoes)

So, in order to be consistent, you presumably do not believe in rights for humans either...

-----------------------

quixotecoyote:

By "moral trumps" do you mean a set of universal ethical considerations? I think you're correct to be reluctant to use the term 'rights' as I could gain the right to dip the green-eyes in queso and eat them by the dozen if I happened to live in the appropriate society.

Well, in that case you would have to value your meal above a person's interest in living (or dying or horribly).


I don't think animals are ethical entities in themselves. I morally exlude them in the Opotow-ian sense (fluffy name-drop).

I believe our sole ethical commitment is for other people and that other species are alien to our ethical environment.

I do not know what you mean by "ethical entities in themselves." Are you equating a herd of zebras to some scenic mountain top view?

However, humans are perceptive in regards to pain. We percieve animals in pain and we empathize. That is the cornerstone of our society and the basis for instinctive moral systems. As a result, when we cause pain to an animal our empathy is triggered and we wish to stop the pain. This is an instinctive reaction, not a moral one. Only animals which show pain trigger this reaction. Drown a cockroach in alchohol and most people won't feel a twinge. Drown a kitten and you'll probably feel like a murderer. This is because we can empathize with the pain signals of the kitten but not the cockroach.

Should we suppress that empathy, we become less able to apply it to each other. I suggest the empathy instinct is not selective. We cannot simply fail to empathize with animals but succeed with people. Once the repression is complete we become more anti-social and more of a danger to society. For that reason, we should ban animal cruelty to supress the anti-social tendancies of the population.

This is basically the same argument given for banning video games. So the aliens come down from the sky and they are not sure if they should conduct very painful experiments on human beings. Their greatest philosopher says it depends on whether or not they experience empathy. "If it doesn't feel good, don't do it." And what if it triggers euphoria? Should they definitely torture us as much and as often as possible?

------------------------

Miss Kitt:
Rights are aspects of human nature that are codified to make clear where the line is drawn between voluntary interaction and coercion. A right is violated when the use of force, threat of force, or deceit is used to make party B interact with party A in the manner A desires.

Perhaps I was being way too optimistic in assuming we had gotten past simple speciesism. While always present in these threads in one form or another, I did not anticipate this or some of the other responses. What is it about Homo sapiens that makes them special? Why do the above rights apply only to members of our species? I do also wonder, given that humans are created from animals, how and when your above distinctions kicked into effect.
Instead of judging by species we need to look at real, morally significant characteristics, hit upon elsewhere in your post:

It is unethical to inflict gratuitous suffering on a feeling being, which many animals are.

However, the next bit is misguided:
I do not recognize that there is ever a case where an animal, no matter how cute, fuzzy, loyal or helpful, deserves to be considered human.

Who makes that argument?

-------------------------
On speciesism:

Do we share more in common with Teri Schaivo or Koko the Gorilla? We need to judge an individual by non-arbitrary characteristics, such as the capacity to experience pain, one's level of self-awareness. It's not enough -- not nearly enough -- to put up a bright line of human and non-human, which is why it's useful to imagine a superior alien life form. The aliens want to take you, so what's your argument? How do you appeal to their superior reasoning abilities?


----------------------
Sez wrote:

I think the above aspect of your argument is weak, if not outright wrong. Private property does not imply immunity to government regulation. Take, for example, zoning laws. I may own a piece of property but my city has enormous say over what I build on it (no gas station in a residential zone), where I build anything (property set backs, etc.) how it looks (height restrictions, etc) and so on.

I agree, but I was talking about private property in the context of "life-style decisions," meaning choices that do not materially impact the surrounding community (e.g., being gay, watching pornography, listening to polka). Yes, I suppose a single suburban mother of two could decide to become farmer Jane and her new life-style is starting a pig-farm. Or a person could play his polka music so loud that it disturbs his neighbors.

[gdnp]

I voted "yes" on the rights, not because I do not believe that humans should exploit animals, but because I think there should be limits.

[Beth]

Thirdly, explain to me what makes you better than an animal. Human beings are are smarter, better at making and using tools, better at communicating with other living beings, and better at thinking about things like ethics and making rational decisions regarding our behavior.

Why shouldn't another living thing matter? Who said they didn't matter? Just because I'm better than you doesn't mean you don't matter. :)

I think that "rights" are a property of human interaction. Rights are an idea used to describe the fundamental way that humans interact with each other; the concept simply does not apply in the natural world. A lion is not depriving an impala of its "right to life" when it hunts, kills, and eats it. A tree is not infringing on a sidewalk's "right to privacy" when it undermines and then cracks it with a growing root. This level of entity, while living, does not have the type of voluntary interaction that is required for rights to be needed or even possible. I think you've explained things quite nicely Miss Kitt


This is suspect. So cultural meaning subjective in the sense that I like blue and you like red? The questions that are important here are when is not OK, and why not? Very valid questions, but the answers are going to differ from one culture to another and even within a single culture depending on the resources available to that culture.
Perhaps I was being way too optimistic in assuming we had gotten past simple speciesism. I'm afraid so.
What is it about Homo sapiens that makes them special? See above. In addition, it happens to be ourspecies. I don't see setting our species above all others as more important to be different than setting your country, your family, or your local football team above all others. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in who and what you are.

Why do the above rights apply only to members of our species? I do also wonder, given that humans are created from animals, how and when your above distinctions kicked into effect. That's a tricky question. I think there are some very good argument for treating some animals, such as Chimpanzees, as being entitled to some rights. Cows and pigs, on the other hand, are bred to be eaten. That's why they are alive in the first place.

On speciesism:
Do we share more in common with Teri Schaivo or Koko the Gorilla? Teri Schaivo IMO.


We need to judge an individual by non-arbitrary characteristics, such as the capacity to experience pain, one's level of self-awareness. It's not enough -- not nearly enough -- to put up a bright line of human and non-human, which is why it's useful to imagine a superior alien life form. The aliens want to take you, so what's your argument? How do you appeal to their superior reasoning abilities? Bright lines are rarely perfectly appropriate; what they are is practical. Why does everyone magically change from a child to an adult on their 18th birthday? They don't. Some people are mature earlier, some later. But a bright line allows our society to function more effectively and efficiently in regards to determining what rights people have.

[billydkid]

The problem is with the word "rights" - the vast majority of people believe that animals should be treated humanely and they should be legally protected from cruel treatment. It fact, there are legal sanctions against animal cruelty in NY and I suspect in every other state. I think the animal "rights" people are intent on making the issue a federal one - which it does not need to be and just one more thing for the feds to have their finger in and would, in all likelihood, lead to more animal abuse the the principle of unintended consequences. I also believe that it is the goal of the most vocal animal rights group to eliminate the "use" of animals altogether. I am not a fan of raising animals only to kill them for their fur, for example, but I am not sure I would be ready to ban the practice. Like most people I wear leather shoes and have a leather baseball glove and our minivan has leather seats and I like those things. I do find some comfort in the fact that almost all leather animals are used in their entirety and not raised and killed for their skin alone.

[senorpogo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of Animals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Case closed.

[Beth]

The problem is with the word "rights" - the vast majority of people believe that animals should be treated humanely and they should be legally protected from cruel treatment. This is true I think.
I am not a fan of raising animals only to kill them for their fur, for example, but I am not sure I would be ready to ban the practice. Like most people I wear leather shoes and have a leather baseball glove and our minivan has leather seats and I like those things. I do find some comfort in the fact that almost all leather animals are used in their entirety and not raised and killed for their skin alone.

I've always assumed that the people who raise minks, rabbits, chinchilla's, etc. for their fur also find a use for the rest of the animal. That the meat would be used in something like dog food. I don't actually know anything about the industry, but most industries try to find a use for what they consider their 'waste' rather than just dumping it in the landfill. Does anybody know what they actually do with the bodies after they've been stripped of their fur?

[tkingdoll]

I'm always amused by the people who have no issue with an animal dying just to satisfy their tastebuds, as long as it didn't suffer first. "Yeah, I care, but only to a point, you know? I mean, don't let the poor little guy suffer on account of my steak tartare, but sure, I'm happy for it to die for my satisfaction. My compassion only stretches as far as the living part. The dying, I don't think about. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy this delicious beef with a clear conscience, right?".

I have unusual views about such things, though. I don't expect much agreement. And no, I am not a vegetarian.

[Beth]

I'm always amused by the people who have no issue with an animal dying just to satisfy their tastebuds, as long as it didn't suffer first. "Yeah, I care, but only to a point, you know? I mean, don't let the poor little guy suffer on account of my steak tartare, but sure, I'm happy for it to die for my satisfaction. My compassion only stretches as far as the living part. The dying, I don't think about. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy this delicious beef with a clear conscience, right?".

I have unusual views about such things, though. I don't expect much agreement. And no, I am not a vegetarian.

If it suffered, it would leave a bad taste in your mouth. :p

[Silentknight]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of Animals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Case closed.

You were two words off from the joke I initially thought you were trying to make!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the Animals to keep and arm Bears, shall not be infringed."

[rwguinn]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of Animals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Case closed.
I believe in the right to arm bears...
In response to the OP:
Your poll is impossible to answer yes or no. Animal cruelty laws allow way too much lattitude--in some areas, shooting your own dog that has attacked a human is considered abuse, yet keeping chickens in cages only slightly larger that the chicke itself is not.
Consistency is required.

Dammit! 9 minutes late. Should have read all the way through... :dl:

and yes, I hunt, fish, and eat what I take...

[quixotecoyote]

quixotecoyote:



Well, in that case you would have to value your meal above a person's interest in living (or dying or horribly).

True. Leaving aside the crunchy goodness of the greenies, it's been done before in limited means. I'm sure there were cannabilistic societies where the cannibals values were more towards person as dinner than friend. This is maybe tangental, but many rights, values, and morals are society-dependant, so I'm not sure that's your best avenue of attack.


I do not know what you mean by "ethical entities in themselves." Are you equating a herd of zebras to some scenic mountain top view?

I'm saying neither the zebras or mountains are ethical actors. Carving a face into a mountain or a brand into a zebra has the same ethical weight: none without a human context.


This is basically the same argument given for banning video games.

And avid gamer that I am, if you could link video game playing to violent crime in the same way that I believe torturing animals is, I would support banning video games.

So the aliens come down from the sky and they are not sure if they should conduct very painful experiments on human beings. Their greatest philosopher says it depends on whether or not they experience empathy. "If it doesn't feel good, don't do it." And what if it triggers euphoria? Should they definitely torture us as much and as often as possible?
[/QUOTE]

I would define aliens capable of asking those questions as human-equivalent for philosophical purposes, so a different set of rules apply. It's why I exclude some apes from my previous line of argument. I'm not sure if apes are the equavilent to not-people or just low-functioning-people, so if I was king of the world, I'd err on the people side.

[Cain]

In addition, it happens to be ourspecies. I don't see setting our species above all others as more important to be different than setting your country, your family, or your local football team above all others. There's nothing wrong with taking pride in who and what you are.

So is there anything wrong with privileging the interests of one's race above others? Gender? Feelings of sentiment and love are OK in one's personal life, but they make for an extremely biased model of morality, which ought to demand an equal consideration of interests.

That's a tricky question. I think there are some very good argument for treating some animals, such as Chimpanzees, as being entitled to some rights. Cows and pigs, on the other hand, are bred to be eaten. That's why they are alive in the first place.

So? African slaves were brought across the Atlantic in order to perform work. Their children were allowed to be born and raised for the same. That intention has no bearing on their status in the moral community.

Teri Schaivo IMO.

That's a clear case of bias in my opinion. We are only superficially more like the human.

True. Leaving aside the crunchy goodness of the greenies, it's been done before in limited means. I'm sure there were cannabilistic societies where the cannibals values were more towards person as dinner than friend. This is maybe tangental, but many rights, values, and morals are society-dependant, so I'm not sure that's your best avenue of attack.

In one sense a person's values are undeniably determined in large part by the society she is born into, but there are right and wrong values, just as there are right and wrong beliefs in physics. I may have the belief the earth is a disc resting upon an elephant, which rests upon a turtle. I may have the belief that storks deliver babies.

I'm saying neither the zebras or mountains are ethical actors. Carving a face into a mountain or a brand into a zebra has the same ethical weight: none without a human context.

This is similar to the previous cited argument about how a lion does not deny his prey's "right to life." (Does a tornado deny a person's "right to life"?) This gets into agency. Babies are not moral actors either, so is it OK to brand them? Instead we need to make a distinction between moral agents and moral patients. A full adult human being is a moral agent, that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Animals, small children, severely mentally handicapped are moral patients, that is deserving of respect (we cannot harm them at will). Mountains are not moral patients; they're objects incapable of experiencing pleasure and pain.

I would define aliens capable of asking those questions as human-equivalent for philosophical purposes, so a different set of rules apply. It's why I exclude some apes from my previous line of argument. I'm not sure if apes are the equavilent to not-people or just low-functioning-people, so if I was king of the world, I'd err on the people side.

Why human equivalent? I recall when first reading animal liberation/animal-rights books, I was forced to accept the fact that some non-humans had higher functioning than normal infants. Basic fact. It was not difficult to accept limited rights for certain apes, especially because I do not eat them; it's all so abstract and requires no real sacrifice. But why set down some human standard? Why say any species that exceeds X human functioning has rights? That's completely arbitrary. The aliens come down and they impose a much higher threshold -- X Zantarinian functioning -- one not met by any member of our species. This applies to the "bright lines" and 18th birthdays above. Two things: 1) We need to avoid random standards; 2) we ought to err on the side of safety, which probably means refraining from consuming animals.

[roger]

I'm always amused by the people who have no issue with an animal dying just to satisfy their tastebuds, as long as it didn't suffer first. "Yeah, I care, but only to a point, you know? I mean, don't let the poor little guy suffer on account of my steak tartare, but sure, I'm happy for it to die for my satisfaction. My compassion only stretches as far as the living part. The dying, I don't think about. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy this delicious beef with a clear conscience, right?".

I have unusual views about such things, though. I don't expect much agreement. And no, I am not a vegetarian.Well, can you explain your position better? How do you feel about an animal's death that you ate? For the record, I have slaughtered food that I've eaten (albeit rarely, and not for quite a while). It seems pretty reasonable to me to aim for a quick, painless, and unanticipated death. I guess I'm lost as to where that is "amusing".

Except for the food that we hunt from field, stream, and ocean, everything is born, tended, fed, and vetted because we are going to eat it. If I was offered the choice of 1) live until I'm 30, then be eaten, or 2) never be born, I would chose 1 so long as it wasn't a life of misery. While I think there are cases where food animals do live a life of misery, any smaller farm I've visited has had well taken care of, contented animals. Certainly when we raised chicken, sheep, hogs, and cattle they were all quite contented so far as it is possible to judge such a thing. I haven't been to any of the really big chicken farms, and I have a feeling I might not find it pleasant. If so, I would want it to change. In any case, I find it a consistent position to take care of animals, and to eat them. I do get why people would be vegatarian for 'humane' reasons, though I don't share the thinking.

[mumblethrax]

Something I think is interesting is the degree to which legislation already provides for something I might as well call rights, even if they aren't broad rights--the Animal Welfare Act establishes minimal standards for treatment, and it does so in terms of animal suffering (among other concerns). People are fond of saying things like "I'm in favor of animal welfare, not animals rights," projecting the false virtue of moderation and suggesting opposition to unnecessary suffering, support for improving conditions to the greatest degree possible, where it's understood that refraining from eating meat is impossible, animal agriculture vitally necessary. Even some animal rights activists will sometimes promote this sharp divide--one prominent writer is fond of saying that there is no animal rights movement. I suppose everyone has their purposes.

I don't know exactly where I was going with this, except to say that more people probably recognize something we might call 'animal rights' than will admit to doing so. There's a lot of goal-oriented reasoning in this debate, where the conclusion that we ought to change our own behavior is to be avoided at all costs--that's the true source of the divide as I see it. Nicholas Kristof recently wrote an editorial where he acknowledged the horrors involved not just in the industry but in the practice itself, relating some back-on-the-farm stories about the character of food animals, while simultaneously stating that he will continue to eat hamburgers and pate--I prefer his admission of hypocrisy to the obvious rationalization that most people prefer to indulge in, because it at least allows us to talk about what kind of world we ought to be striving for.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No I'm not for animal rights; because I'm not for the drastic consequences of giving animals rights. I am for animal welfare; that species should be protected and their general welfare looked after.. But I'm hardly for fining or jailing a blind man for owning a seeing eye dog as I've heard some suggest.

[RandFan]

...so blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, they admit that green-eyed people could be enslaved and assume the same status as Cooler Ranch Doritos. And the corollary is that, blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, animal rights proponents would admit that parasites are entitled to rights.

Besides, green-eyed people would be avocado flavored... mmmm....

[quixotecoyote]

In one sense a person's values are undeniably determined in large part by the society she is born into, but there are right and wrong values, just as there are right and wrong beliefs in physics. I may have the belief the earth is a disc resting upon an elephant, which rests upon a turtle. I may have the belief that storks deliver babies.

Questions of fact are different than questions of value. We can (theoretically) check questions of fact against objective existence to determine truth and falsity. There is no such standard to measure questions of value against.

This is similar to the previous cited argument about how a lion does not deny his prey's "right to life." (Does a tornado deny a person's "right to life"?) This gets into agency. Babies are not moral actors either, so is it OK to brand them? Instead we need to make a distinction between moral agents and moral patients. A full adult human being is a moral agent, that is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Animals, small children, severely mentally handicapped are moral patients, that is deserving of respect (we cannot harm them at will). I messed up on the agent/patient distinction, you're right there. But I don't think you can claim animals as moral patients. Likewise, although I share my societies horror at infanticide, there have been cultures that practiced it without remorse and in those cultures babies were not considered people. I can't accept that, but I can understand it. It's the whole abortion question again.

A pro-choice person, like myself, doesn't think a fertilized egg is a person because it shares very few characteristics with a developed, functioning, aware human. As it develops, that gap narrows. After a certain vague, undefined point, they share enough features to be considered human. When that happens I can't say. But I know times when it hasn't happened and when it has. When it's a fertilized egg, it's definitely not a moral patient. When it's a little kid running around it definitely is. Where in between there the line should be drawn is a question, but I'm happy to go with the societal definition of x weeks after fertilization.

This same kind of logic applies towards animal rights. A mosquito is so far removed from humanity that we feel no obligations towards it, a gorilla is so close we might.

Mountains are not moral patients; they're objects incapable of experiencing pleasure and pain.Is this your sole criterion? I'm pretty sure a lot of things can have pain or pain equivalent responses that you don't really care about.


Why human equivalent? I recall when first reading animal liberation/animal-rights books, I was forced to accept the fact that some non-humans had higher functioning than normal infants. Basic fact. As I said, its a societal choice to draw the line for moral exclusion with infants on the included side. That isn't always the case. However, I'm happy to give infants bonus points for personhood because they are humans rather than other animals. I privilege humanity as a species based on rational self-interest, and the infants benefit from that.

I'll let someone else argue potentiality, because I don't like that argument.


It was not difficult to accept limited rights for certain apes, especially because I do not eat them; it's all so abstract and requires no real sacrifice. But why set down some human standard? Why say any species that exceeds X human functioning has rights? That's completely arbitrary. The aliens come down and they impose a much higher threshold -- X Zantarinian functioning -- one not met by any member of our species.
Rights are a function of humanity to grant or withhold according to whatever arbitrary standards we apply. We are the only species capable of conceptualizing them, therefore we have a monopoly on their distribution. I also don't see what's so unreasonable about your Zantarinian example. It'd suck being on the short end of the stick, but why wouldn't a species promote a system of ethics with themselves at the center?

This applies to the "bright lines" and 18th birthdays above. Two things: 1) We need to avoid random standards; 2) we ought to err on the side of safety, which probably means refraining from consuming animals.1) Agreed, but random is not the same as arbitrary.

2)Partially agreed. I am completely comfortable consuming plants, insects, fish, and birds. I am also comfortable with consuming most mammal species, cows, horses, pigs, dogs, cats, etc. I don't eat dog and cat because it's not provided in my society, but I don't see anything immoral about eating them. I like my ferrets, but if someone killed and ate them, I would be angry because of the offense against me and my emotional ties, not because of the act itself.

[RandFan]

My 2 cents:

Progress advances by funerals. Subsequent generations will see less and less the need to kill animals for food. I think animals will be seen more and more as entitled to rights. I think technology and ecological problems and health problems will obviate the need to raise cows, pigs, goats, sheep and chickens for large scale meat production. We will grow it.

I don't know how long it will take but I think it reasonable to assume there will be a sizable shift in attitudes toward animals.

That said, I don't have any problem in principle with raising an animal on a farm and killing it for consumption. It's likely that is due to my upbringing since I was raised on a farm and I slaughtered animals in my youth.

I think that theoretically the life of an animals is potentially much better on a farm than in the wild where most of them are killed and eaten as babies and if they survive that they are killed and eaten or die from the elements before they can reach maturity.

No, I don't think anything animals suffer in the wild justifies our killing and eating animals. It's just that the argument that farming is bad because it causes suffering is not relatively reasonable. Yes, I accept that there are many abuses on farms but the answer to that is to reduce or eliminate the abuses.

Life in the wild for an animal is tooth and claw. It's survival and not the moronic idea contained in the propaganda of animal rights morons of animals dancing in the fields glad to be alive.

So, take it for what it's worth.

[mumblethrax]

No I'm not for animal rights; because I'm not for the drastic consequences of giving animals rights. I am for animal welfare; that species should be protected and their general welfare looked after.. But I'm hardly for fining or jailing a blind man for owning a seeing eye dog as I've heard some suggest.
I don't know if you posted this in order to illustrate my point or if it's just a happy coincidence, but this is exactly the sort of false moderation I'm talking about. I would like to know where you heard it suggested that blind people would be jailed or fined, because it sounds very much like an invention designed to make the 'moderate' position sound more reasonable in comparison. Nothing about affording animals basic protections in law suggests that humans and animals could not enter into mutually beneficial relationships; it's just that the relationships people typically want to defend are hopelessly lopsided, outright harmful to animals in most cases.

[paximperium]

As already mentioned Rights are arbitrary and are defined and enforced by each specific community/culture. There is actually no inherent rights but the rights that we grant others and expect to be granted in return.

So, do animals have right? As much or as little as a community decides to give them. Due to this inherent arbitrary community standard, this is where eating dogs and cats are accepted as food in certain countries and taboo in others.

So the answer is kind of. Animals have Rights but they are granted and enforced by human communities and are not somehow inherent...just like any other Right.

I do have a major problem with how "Animal Rights" group force a self defined/ arbitrary standard onto other cultures under the guise of "Rights".

[GreNME]

I do have a major problem with how "Animal Rights" group force a self defined/ arbitrary standard onto other cultures under the guise of "Rights".

Precisely. "Animal rights" groups aren't interested in rights for animals at all in most cases. Instead they are concerned with animal segregation.

[paximperium]

Precisely. "Animal rights" groups aren't interested in rights for animals at all in most cases. Instead they are concerned with animal segregation.
There's always PETA which believe in an absolutist way that animals and humans should have the same rights and that ALL animal use including pets must and should be stopped no matter the cost.

[GreNME]

I don't know if you posted this in order to illustrate my point or if it's just a happy coincidence, but this is exactly the sort of false moderation I'm talking about. I would like to know where you heard it suggested that blind people would be jailed or fined, because it sounds very much like an invention designed to make the 'moderate' position sound more reasonable in comparison.

You should read up on Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA. She would like exactly that. On a more local example to me, a recent animal ordinance was passed in Dallas by a lobby group to the city council involving spay/neuter regulation. One of the councilmen (whose name I won't say) went to a meeting with this lobby group, and finally stopped the attempts to explain to him what they mean with a simple question: "Is your ultimate goal to have all dogs and cats spayed and neutered in this city?" A few people beamed with delight as they emphatically answered "yes" to the councilman. That all sounds pretty innocuous until you learn that spaying or neutering a dog within the first six months (which is what this ordinance demands) creates health risks for the dogs, especially the larger breeds. Taken to a wider level, if groups like that had their way eventually having a dog would be illegal because the circumstances to actually have a (healthy) dog would be against such ordinances.

Yes, "animal rights" groups (like PETA, HSUS, etc.), whether people who belong to them all individually know the ultimate goals of the organization, want nothing less than removal of all non-human animals as pets, livestock, or foodstock. With groups like PETA, they even supply funds and other support to known terrorist groups (like ALF) in support of those goals.

[Solus]

Perhaps I was being way too optimistic in assuming we had gotten past simple speciesism. While always present in these threads in one form or another, I did not anticipate this or some of the other responses. What is it about Homo sapiens that makes them special? Why do the above rights apply only to members of our species? I do also wonder, given that humans are created from animals, how and when your above distinctions kicked into effect.
Instead of judging by species we need to look at real, morally significant characteristics, hit upon elsewhere in your post:

I didn't think "speciesism" was an actual word. Yes, Humans are in every way superior to other species on Earth. The idea of treating animals as equals is more than a little off the wall and frankly scary. It's great if you like animals but not that much.... :boggled:

[gdnp]

Yes, Humans are in every way superior to other species on Earth. Not true. Many species are much tastier. ;)

[Cylinder]

Animals cannot possess the natural law protection against cruel treatment since this treatment is their natural state. For instance, I think a human that clubs a whitetail deer, attacks it with razors, then slowly strangles it probably needs to answer to law enforcement for his or her behavior. However, this manner of treatment is very clearly the natural order for mountain lions preferred method of predation. Unless one proposes to change this order (which basically what the granting of natural rights to humans entails) for a social benefit, then - for me at least - this grant of "rights" is a farce.

I do believe that humans should be prevented by force of law from unnecessary cruelty toward other animals.

[tkingdoll]

Well, can you explain your position better? How do you feel about an animal's death that you ate? For the record, I have slaughtered food that I've eaten (albeit rarely, and not for quite a while). It seems pretty reasonable to me to aim for a quick, painless, and unanticipated death. I guess I'm lost as to where that is "amusing".



My position? I was actually commenting on other people's position, but if you're interested, then I feel nothing about the death of an animal I just ate. I wouldn't eat it if I felt something. That's my whole point. Lots of people claim to feel something about it but eat it anyway. I find that amusing.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Animals cannot possess the natural law protection against cruel treatment since this treatment is their natural state. For instance, I think a human that clubs a whitetail deer, attacks it with razors, then slowly strangles it probably needs to answer to law enforcement for his or her behavior. However, this manner of treatment is very clearly the natural order for mountain lions preferred method of predation. Unless one proposes to change this order (which basically what the granting of natural rights to humans entails) for a social benefit, then - for me at least - this grant of "rights" is a farce.

I do believe that humans should be prevented by force of law from unnecessary cruelty toward other animals.

Um, who here believes in natural rights?

I tend to be more of a social contract theorist, and I don't think really think that animals can enter a contract for "rights".

Of course, that is all semantics. I would support pretty much what animal rights advocates support.

[SezMe]

Progress advances by funerals. Subsequent generations will see less and less the need to kill animals for food. I think animals will be seen more and more as entitled to rights. I think technology and ecological problems and health problems will obviate the need to raise cows, pigs, goats, sheep and chickens for large scale meat production. We will grow it.
I once heard a talk by (now deceased) Garrett Hardin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin) who was noted for his Tragedy of the Commons in which he asserted that lettuce was 98% water and how, then, it was idiotic to ship lettuce around the country. He thought the technology would eventually come about to ship only the "essence" of lettuce and then use local water to make real lettuce.

[mumblethrax]

You should read up on Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA. She would like exactly that.
I have. How did you reach the conclusion that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having a seeing-eye dog? I have a good idea what the source of this claim is, and I think it's a gross distortion, but it's possible that I've overlooked something.

"Is your ultimate goal to have all dogs and cats spayed and neutered in this city?" A few people beamed with delight as they emphatically answered "yes" to the councilman. That all sounds pretty innocuous until you learn that spaying or neutering a dog within the first six months (which is what this ordinance demands) creates health risks for the dogs, especially the larger breeds.
This is a good example of gotcha politics. I'm wasn't sure which ordinance you're referring to, so I looked it up; there's a medical exception, and of course nobody would expect that the law should encourage unsafe practices. Anyway, "yes" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as you present it.

Yes, "animal rights" groups (like PETA, HSUS, etc.), whether people who belong to them all individually know the ultimate goals of the organization, want nothing less than removal of all non-human animals as pets, livestock, or foodstock. With groups like PETA, they even supply funds and other support to known terrorist groups (like ALF) in support of those goals.
This, meanwhile, is exactly the kind of argument we would expect from a sound-bite culture. The suggestion that the animal rights movement is of a single mind about anything is laughable--I have never seen a group of people so at each others' throats. I know many people within the movement, including some at the organizations you name, and have talked to them personally: I have received words of encouragement from some of them after publicly arguing against people who take the positions recognizable as similar to the one you describe. Have you ever read any of the leading arguments in animal rights? I seriously doubt it. This is mostly just too-conveniently uninformed opposition--the oft-repeated allegation about support for terrorism is especially egregious and false.

This is a sideshow, though--we ought to be able to distinguish between animal rights in principle and whatever failings you imagine the animal rights movement to have.

[RandFan]

I once heard a talk by (now deceased) Garrett Hardin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrett_Hardin) who was noted for his Tragedy of the Commons in which he asserted that lettuce was 98% water and how, then, it was idiotic to ship lettuce around the country. He thought the technology would eventually come about to ship only the "essence" of lettuce and then use local water to make real lettuce.:)

You mean like powdered milk, beef bullion, potato flakes, concentrated orange juice, etc., etc.?

The problem is simply one of technology and also practicality. We can make gold from lead but it's not practical.

I don't know if it will be one day possible to reconstitute freeze dried lettuce or something akin to that but the fact is we can grow meat right now (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat).

[tkingdoll]

Actually a more succinct way to express my feelings is the sort of conversation I have with friends who buy 'free range' or 'organic' meat.

"why are you buying that? it's more expensive and fares the same in blind taste tests."
"because I care if the animal suffers"
"but you don't care if it dies?"

I've never had a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes I get "it was going to die anyway". Ha! Real ethic shopping, there. Generally, though, I find that most people haven't thought about the death aspect of 'animal welfare'. The 'being kind to animals' aspect seems to stop right about the point you let someone put a bolt through its skull to make tasty sausages.

[Nogbad]

Actually a more succinct way to express my feelings is the sort of conversation I have with friends who buy 'free range' or 'organic' meat.

"why are you buying that? it's more expensive and fares the same in blind taste tests."
"because I care if the animal suffers"
"but you don't care if it dies?"

I've never had a satisfactory answer to that question. Sometimes I get "it was going to die anyway". Ha! Real ethic shopping, there. Generally, though, I find that most people haven't thought about the death aspect of 'animal welfare'. The 'being kind to animals' aspect seems to stop right about the point you let someone put a bolt through its skull to make tasty sausages.

I mentioned to my kids that I bought a free range chicken and my son said "so it tastes better if it had false hope of life?"

On reflection I do think free range chickens taste a little better but largely I am more comfortable with their false hope of life. I don't think animals have rights unless we confer legal protection. Then again for most of human history that legal protection didn't extend to much of humanity either. Rights is perhaps an ill defined concept.

Having said that, people who enjoy killing animals have a track record of extending their repertoire.

[tkingdoll]

I mentioned to my kids that I bought a free range chicken and my son said "so it tastes better if it had false hope of life?"

On reflection I do think free range chickens taste a little better but largely I am more comfortable with their false hope of life. I don't think animals have rights unless we confer legal protection. Then again for most of human history that legal protection didn't extend to much of humanity either. Rights is perhaps an ill defined concept.



If you can afford to buy free range and enjoy the taste more than battery, then it makes sense for you to buy it. I'd like to challenge you to a blind taste test, but that's not practical :D

However, I support your right to make purchasing decisions and the right of farmers to supply choices to consumers. I don't support those who demand that everyone should have to pay the premium, though, and fortunately at the moment my government agrees that the poor folk of the country having access to affordable fast protein is more important than the welfare of the birds. In a recent furor in the UK over fat-faced celebrity chefs demanding we all buy free-range chickens, many low income parents pointed out that if they had to pay what free-range costs, they simply wouldn't be able to feed meat to their kids. It's a shortcut to nutrition and the alternatives for the same protein are more expensive. People first, animals later.



Having said that, people who enjoy killing animals have a track record of extending their repertoire.

I don't think that's completely true, although many serial killers do have histories of animal torture. But plenty of people hunt and enjoy it, and don't kill people.

[RandFan]

What I find interesting is the continuim of life. What is the line for rights and what do we mean by rights? The right to life? Do baby ducks have a right to life? Does the coyote have the right to eat baby ducks to further its life? Do we like dolphins because they are inteligent or because they look like they are smilling?

There are no easy answers. Do no harm seems at first to be a good rule of thumb but then I get a staph infection and I want to harm that damn bacteria as quickly as I can. Not out of some perverse sense of ill will to the bacteria but just to stop my suffering and to save my life.

In another previous lifetime, the Buddha sacrificed his own life to feed a starving tiger and her two cubs, who were trapped in the snow. He reasoned that it would be better to save three lives than to merely preserve his own. It is better to lose one's own life than to kill another being. Perhaps it would be better to allow the staph to take my life thereby saving tens of thousands of bacteria.

Something to think about?

Nah.

[GreNME]

I have. How did you reach the conclusion that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having a seeing-eye dog? I have a good idea what the source of this claim is, and I think it's a gross distortion, but it's possible that I've overlooked something.

Do you dispute that Newkirk's goal is to remove all pets, livestock, and feedstock from human society?

This is a good example of gotcha politics. I'm wasn't sure which ordinance you're referring to, so I looked it up; there's a medical exception, and of course nobody would expect that the law should encourage unsafe practices. Anyway, "yes" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question as you present it.

Brand new ordinance, just recently voted on, and there isn't a medical exception for "the dog is under six months of age" in the ordinance. The medical exception is for an already-sick dog, not a currently-healthy one who would be put at risk with the procedure. Trust me, I live here, I've asked directly. This was in fact a point of contention brought up at the council meetings (and summarily ignored thanks to the AR folks).

This, meanwhile, is exactly the kind of argument we would expect from a sound-bite culture. The suggestion that the animal rights movement is of a single mind about anything is laughable--I have never seen a group of people so at each others' throats. I know many people within the movement, including some at the organizations you name, and have talked to them personally: I have received words of encouragement from some of them after publicly arguing against people who take the positions recognizable as similar to the one you describe. Have you ever read any of the leading arguments in animal rights? I seriously doubt it. This is mostly just too-conveniently uninformed opposition--the oft-repeated allegation about support for terrorism is especially egregious and false.

And, true to form, when I talk about the goals of the leaders of these groups and the foundational goals, the response becomes one about the individuals. Same old story.

I know that most of the individuals in these groups aren't as extreme as the founders and leaders. Unfortunately, it's the leadership that has led time and time again for these groups to lobby for more and more legislation that actually makes it more and more difficult to have a pet of any kind. What these groups do is play on the ignorance of the legislators they lobby to about the implications of their proposed ordinances (like the Dallas one), while piquing their interest with talk of fines or registrations or similar city revenue builders. In reality, though, the result is poorly-enforceable or unenforceable ordinances that these groups later use in allegations of animal cruelty.

This is a sideshow, though--we ought to be able to distinguish between animal rights in principle and whatever failings you imagine the animal rights movement to have.

If the AR movement isn't monolithic as you argue before, how are we going to define it in principle.

Make no mistake: I am in favor of keeping the welfare of animals at a humane level, within logic and reason. I am not in favor of movements that demand to tell me what I should do with my dog's testicles, where I should keep my dog, or what cities I'm allowed to have him. Animal "rights" groups are to blame for my dog being labeled a dangerous breed (GSD) in many areas, even though that same breed is used by police and military for assistance, search-and-rescue, and loads of other capacities. There's no logical reason someone with a German shepherd or a doberman pincer to not be allowed to live somewhere (or be forced to pay a premium to live there) when someone with a cocker spaniel or a poodle does not. AR groups are to blame for those sorts of legislations just as much as they are to blame for things like the spay/neuter ordinance I mentioned (and others like it).

[paximperium]

If you can afford to buy free range and enjoy the taste more than battery, then it makes sense for you to buy it. I'd like to challenge you to a blind taste test, but that's not practical :D


Hmmmm...taste just like chicken... with a hint of false hope and then a subtle crushed dreams aftertaste.

[Cain]

Some people here maintain animals do not have rights, but insist we should treat them "ethically." What does that mean? Why? Why would someone even use a charged word like "ethically"?

Questions of fact are different than questions of value. We can (theoretically) check questions of fact against objective existence to determine truth and falsity. There is no such standard to measure questions of value against.

Perhaps I was overstating my analogy. The basic point is one in favor of universal morality; your membership to a culture is not a moral exemption. The boundaries of morality do not suddenly change like the laws of a country.

I messed up on the agent/patient distinction, you're right there. But I don't think you can claim animals as moral patients. Likewise, although I share my societies horror at infanticide, there have been cultures that practiced it without remorse and in those cultures babies were not considered people. I can't accept that, but I can understand it. It's the whole abortion question again.

A pro-choice person, like myself, doesn't think a fertilized egg is a person because it shares very few characteristics with a developed, functioning, aware human. As it develops, that gap narrows. After a certain vague, undefined point, they share enough features to be considered human.

This gets to another fundamental distinction, the one between personhood and human. Not all persons are humans and not all humans are persons. Personhood should be our standard for rights, for protections against violence. The embryo, the fetus, infant, toddler, whatever, its species is Homo sapien.


When that happens I can't say. But I know times when it hasn't happened and when it has. When it's a fertilized egg, it's definitely not a moral patient. When it's a little kid running around it definitely is. Where in between there the line should be drawn is a question, but I'm happy to go with the societal definition of x weeks after fertilization.

The main point is that the threshold to consider a fetus (or whatever) a right bearing entity should be the same for non-humans. So if a dog, cow, pig has the same level of awareness, then it should also be considered a moral patient. What we need to look at are characteristics, not species membership.

This same kind of logic applies towards animal rights. A mosquito is so far removed from humanity that we feel no obligations towards it, a gorilla is so close we might.

That's anthropocentric reasoning. I agree that mosquitoes should not have rights, but it does not matter how far removed they are from humanity. Zantarians, we can say, are not even carbon-based, so in a strictly scientific sense we could share more in common biologically with mosquitoes, but that's a trivial fact in any morally serious discussion.

Is this your sole criterion? I'm pretty sure a lot of things can have pain or pain equivalent responses that you don't really care about.

No, but it's only one component, but an important one.

As I said, its a societal choice to draw the line for moral exclusion with infants on the included side. That isn't always the case. However, I'm happy to give infants bonus points for personhood because they are humans rather than other animals. I privilege humanity as a species based on rational self-interest, and the infants benefit from that.

In a moral sense "self-interest" does not really follow from rational. A rational mind is one that is impartial. As a rationally self-interested person and member of a privileged race, would you be "rationally hostile" to equal rights for minorities? It seems as though you're trying to reconcile egoism with utilitarianism.

Rights are a function of humanity to grant or withhold according to whatever arbitrary standards we apply. We are the only species capable of conceptualizing them, therefore we have a monopoly on their distribution. I also don't see what's so unreasonable about your Zantarinian example. It'd suck being on the short end of the stick, but why wouldn't a species promote a system of ethics with themselves at the center?

So it just reduces to who has the power and might makes right?

-------------
Randfan:
And the corollary is that, blah blah blah blah blah, five pages later, animal rights proponents would admit that parasites are entitled to rights.

Where has that come up in these threads? You're saved by gaps in the archives because I specifically remember you basically saying that whatever a society decides is fine, so we could happily kill people with purple hair if enough of us decided it. That thread was like pulling teeth.

---------
Nicholas Kristof recently wrote an editorial where he acknowledged the horrors involved not just in the industry but in the practice itself, relating some back-on-the-farm stories about the character of food animals, while simultaneously stating that he will continue to eat hamburgers and pate--I prefer his admission of hypocrisy to the obvious rationalization that most people prefer to indulge in, because it at least allows us to talk about what kind of world we ought to be striving for.

Oh God, I read that. I hate it when he goes back Yamhill (or whatever it is) and life on the farm. He's still better than a lot of people in my book, if only because I place a higher value on self-awareness than will-power.

[RandFan]

You're saved by gaps in the archives because I specifically remember you basically saying that whatever a society decides is fine, so we could happily kill people with purple hair if enough of us decided it.Yes, it would be fine so long as it was fine with the society. I never said it was fine by me. The coyote thinks it's fine to eat baby ducks. He evolved to do so. The Great Egret Casmerodius evolved to commit siblicide (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/225/4663/731). It's necessary to their survival.

If morality were absolute then the Coyote and great egret would be immoral.

That thread was like pulling teeth. And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute. That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans. If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral. Period. End of story.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

[linusrichard]

This has probably been said, but:

I don't believe in the right of animals to be free from abuse. I believe in the right of human society to be free from animal abuse.

[Jeff Corey]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of Animals to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Case closed.

The right to arm bears?
ETA SilentKnight scooped this.

[Silentknight]

Not true. Many species are much tastier. ;)
And you would know this, how? (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=133) ;)

[paximperium]

And you would know this, how? (http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=133) ;)

Ahhh...Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater...great game...love eating all the little animals.

[GreNME]

In re-reading the previous post I replied to, I thought I would dispel a few initial assumptions about what my level of understanding is about current animal rights groups and what has honed my opinion about them.

Let's start with the HSUS, or Humane Society of the United States (http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136).

Though the name for HSUS invokes a distinct similarity to your local humane society animal shelter, the HSUS is not affiliated in any way to local animal shelters. HSUS does own a rabbit farm they got along with another acquisition, but the HSUS owns and operates exactly zero dog shelters or rescues in the entire country, and has no facilities for holding, treating, or re-housing dogs, cats, rodents, and other pets. However, year after year the HSUS runs ads in many popular publications, asking for donations so that they can help animals, displaying pictures of dogs and cats or giving statistics about shelters. The money given to HSUS is spent lobbying for legislation, mostly against things like rodeos or livestock farms, medical research facilities, and in favor of anti-meat (vegan / vegetarian) groups.

In a rather recent (and disgustingly deceitful) display of of HSUS using the general ignorance of people about their agenda to make money, they ran a donation campaign using the (in)famous "Michael Vick Dogs" [link to cached image (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/images/hsus_clip.png)]. In the ad, the HSUS makes the following claim: "The HSUS has assisted federal authorities in the case against Michael Vick and his co-defendants, and is now overseeing the care of the 52 pit bulls seized from Vick's property in southwestern Virginia." That was a blatant lie, taking advantage of the confusion and outrage at the crimes by Vick to pull in revenue without any responsibility for the dogs themselves, who in reality were rehabilitated (and, in some cases, re-homed) by a different group altogether [link1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/06/AR2008070602351.html?hpid=artslot), link2 (http://www.startribune.com/pet_central/25573894.html)]. The HSUS had no intention of any money coming in to donations from that ad to be put toward the rehabilitation, and in fact they wanted the dogs put down. Indeed, the president of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, actually called for the dogs to be put down in the NYT [link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/sports/football/01vick.html)]. This is not an exception to HSUS practices, this is simply the highest-profile example.

The fact is that the HSUS does nothing for the welfare of pets, unless you count lobbying (or, in fact, having affiliates lobby for them) to federal, state, and local government bodies to enact more and more legislation every year that either levies fees, fines, or seizures on pet and animal owners by the governing agencies. Again, Wayne Pacelle (HSUS president) is said to have stated that one of the goals of HSUS as "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts," among other things. That, along with their roughly $30-40 million in donations each year (and more than $100 million in assets) doing absolutely nothing to help the welfare of the thousands of animals each year in shelters or in worse conditions, is the reason why I find the HSUS to be despicable in their tactics, goals, and behavior with regard to the welfare of animals in general. More information can be found here (http://www.pet-law.com/future/HSUS.html) [& here (http://www.orlanelhasa.org/hsus.htm)] about other money and inappropriate legal troubles with the organization.

Next, PETA (everyone's favorite).

I doubt it's any secret that PETA kills loads of animals, and the state of Virginia has actually been asked to classify PETA as a slaughterhouse before [link (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197938+17-Jan-2008+PRN20080117)] because of it. This was suggested because since 1998 PETA has killed over 19,000 (yes, more than nineteen thousand) animals in their Virginia facility [PDF of VDACS reports (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)]. PETA advocates tend to argue that there was no other recourse with those animals, yet there are individual no-kill shelters and animal foster groups all over the country-- far too many to list here, a few for nearly every decent-sized city in the US and then some. However, so far at least two PETA members have been brought up on charges [PDF (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/trialCharges.pdf)] of animal cruelty in the execution of their euthanasia practices. The defense was that the animals were beyond help, yet the pictures of some of the animals killed shows that there are many young dogs and puppies (link (http://petakillsanimals.com/petaVictims.cfm) - caution, disturbing images for some). PETA's euthanasia ratio to the number of animals they find homes for or otherwise (like people reclaiming the animals) has consistently gone up every year since 1998:
Year | Received | Adopted | Killed | Transferred | % Killed | % Adopted
2007 | 1,997 | 17 | 1,815 | 35 | 90.9 | 0.84
2006 | 3,061 | 12 | 2,981 | 46 | 97.4 | 0.39
2005 | 2,165 | 146 | 1,946 | 69 | 89.9 | 6.74
2004 | 2,655 | 361 | 2,278 | 1 | 85.8 | 13.60
2003 | 2,224 | 312 | 1,911 | 1 | 85.9 | 14.03
2002 | 2,680 | 382 | 2,298 | 2 | 85.7 | 14.25
2001 | 2,685 | 703 | 1,944 | 14 | 72.4 | 26.18
2000 | 2,681 | 624 | 2,029 | 28 | 75.7 | 23.27
1999 | 1,805 | 386 | 1,328 | 91 | 73.6 | 21.39
1998 | 943 | 133 | 685 | 125 | 72.6 | 14.10
Total | 22,896 | 3,076 | 19,215 | 412 | 83.9 | 13.43

All of those numbers are found in PETA's own filings to the state of Virginia[PDF (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)]

PETA advocates also tend to try to downplay the criminal activities by saying that they are isolated and unrelated to PETA's cause, yet in the case of Rodney Coronado [WP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Coronado)], who firebombed a facility for his extreme AR cause, PETA's head Ingrid Newkirk herself made statements defending why PETA was paying the legal fees for his trial [link (http://www.nfss.org/Legis/Peta-AA/pet-5.html)] (he even threatened the place be bombed afterward [link (http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2004/04/Activists_Uncaged)]). That wasn't the only time PETA has given money to individuals or groups linked to criminal and terrorist behavior. Going back to at least 1995 (and likely before), PETA has given money on more than one occasion to individuals linked to extremist or eco-terrorist groups [link (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=6)]. Arguing that the organization doesn't is simply false. A quote from Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom back in 2002: "PETA collects millions of dollars in contributions every year from people who intend to support the humane treatment of animals," Berman said. "However, many of these well-intentioned individuals are likely unaware that since 1988 PETA has spent four times as much money defending criminals and domestic terror groups as it has in support of animal shelters." What Berman doesn't mention is the continuing increase in euthanasia practices by PETA, which has a higher animal kill rate than any shelter out there in the US.

These are just two examples of the "animal rights" movement, and they are the two biggest examples. They are liars, hypocrites, and promote an extreme and unreasonable agenda. In PETA's case, they also spend money promoting that agenda by defending criminals.

But please: tell me again how I'm speaking from ignorance or simply promoting sound bytes. I can provide data to back up my accusations. The only defense that AR advocates can use is to claim that individuals involved with these organizations aren't in it for those reasons. The reality is that there are literally millions of people all over the country who have ridiculously flawed idea of what these groups are and what their leadership promotes, all the while having these people volunteer and work for these extremist organizations while the genuine individually-run animal welfare groups throughout the nation suffer from low volunteer numbers, insufficient numbers of foster homes, and tightening budgets. Those local groups are the ones who are working to educate responsible ownership and advocate for the positive welfare of the animals out there. Those local groups are the ones who are taking in these animals and rehabilitating them. Groups like PETA and HSUS take all the credit without doing any of the actual work.


For disclosure: the GSD I mentioned earlier came from a shelter. My home also has a former foster who we adopted, and prior to that dog there was another foster-to-adoption dog in our home that wasn't expected to last three more weeks and wound up living another happy eleven months. We are in touch with more than one rescue group in the Dallas area, and we personally know several animal behaviorists/trainers, breeders, and a few vets. I'm not blowing smoke from my hindquarters with what I'm talking about as far as the presence of support structures out there, because I personally know and help with some of them. None of the groups I've met or dealt with will touch PETA or HSUS with a twenty foot rhetorical pole, partially for the reasons I listed above.

Frankly, to claim I am speaking from ignorance or some lack of knowledge on the subject is nothing but a defense through personal attack and, quite frankly, insulting not only to my intelligence but to intellectual honesty altogether. Yes, the issue is complex and yes not every single PETA or HSUS member is an eco-terrorist (nor supports them). However, what I am talking about is the entirety of the organizations themselves and the leadership thereof, who are the primary and most influential in the "animal rights" movement. As long as such individuals and practices or behaviors exist within the "animal rights" movement, then it can continue to count me out as an advocate and, in some cases, can find me on the other side of the argument against them.

[mumblethrax]

Do you dispute that Newkirk's goal is to remove all pets, livestock, and feedstock from human society?
One question at a time: can you support the contention that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having seeing-eye dogs?

Brand new ordinance, just recently voted on, and there isn't a medical exception for "the dog is under six months of age" in the ordinance. The medical exception is for an already-sick dog, not a currently-healthy one who would be put at risk with the procedure. Trust me, I live here, I've asked directly. This was in fact a point of contention brought up at the council meetings (and summarily ignored thanks to the AR folks).
I know about it and I'm sure you've been misinformed. From the text of the amended ordinance:

(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that:

(1) the animal is under six months of age;

(2) a licensed veterinarian certifies that the dog or cat should not be spayed or neutered for health reasons or is permanently non-fertile;
That certainly allows for exemption under veterinary advice, however the law may have been intended. And I'd like to point out that the 'AR folks' supporting the ordinance as-written includes the SPCA, hardly a group of bomb-throwing radicals.

And, true to form, when I talk about the goals of the leaders of these groups and the foundational goals, the response becomes one about the individuals. Same old story.
I was talking about the leaders of these groups, who also happen to be individuals; it seems that you mistook me for someone less awesome (alternately, you mistook the animal rights movement as one with a high degree of power distance in general). I note that you avoided the question about whether you've read any of the foundational documents of the animal rights movement, yet you make bold claims in conspiratorial terms about its goals and its leadership. Please don't try to tell me that I'm naive about it.

If the AR movement isn't monolithic as you argue before, how are we going to define it in principle.
I'd identify the common thread running through the various schools of thought is opposition to human tribalism, agreement that morally arbitrary biological distinctions should be discounted when determining how animals ought to be treated. Beyond that, anything seems to be possible--I recently had a conversation with an animal rights activist who is arguing against Prop 2.

Make no mistake: I am in favor of keeping the welfare of animals at a humane level, within logic and reason. I am not in favor of movements that demand to tell me what I should do with my dog's testicles, where I should keep my dog, or what cities I'm allowed to have him.
'Logic' and 'reason' here are again being used to project false moderation. What's so unreasonable or illogical about requiring that a dog be neutered? How does your right to have an intact dog stack up against the 27,000 dogs and cats euthanized by the City of Dallas in 2006? These are reasonable measures taken for the purpose of seeing to the humane treatment of animals in general.

Oh God, I read that. I hate it when he goes back Yamhill (or whatever it is) and life on the farm. He's still better than a lot of people in my book, if only because I place a higher value on self-awareness than will-power.
Yeah, he's sometimes cringe-inducing, but I'd only put him fourth or fifth on the list of the most annoying people on the Times' op-ed page, and somewhat further down the list of the most annoying people in the world.

[GreNME]

Apparently, you would rather argue about the ordinance than defend the accusations I laid out in detail above.

'Logic' and 'reason' here are again being used to project false moderation. What's so unreasonable or illogical about requiring that a dog be neutered? How does your right to have an intact dog stack up against the 27,000 dogs and cats euthanized by the City of Dallas in 2006? These are reasonable measures taken for the purpose of seeing to the humane treatment of animals in general.

Neutering my dogs does not save the lives of 27000 dogs. Education on responsible ownership, not the "there oughtta be a law" mentality, will save the lives of dogs.

When AR groups get around to actually helping those of us who are working to spread education and training, as well as caring for and fostering dogs in need, then you'll change my mind. Until then, you're dodging the real accusations by trying to get into semantic fights.

[GreNME]

By the way: could you show me where you got that text you cite. The version of the ordinance that I read contains no such provision. However, I admittedly have the original ordinance proposed to the city council. If it had indeed been changed, then that means the groups who handle foster care and animal welfare support in the city actually managed to get some positive results.

The truth is that the most vocal in the AR movement are the most egregious-- I don't need to sit here and make my case about how people I know have been harassed by the same folks who pushed the recent ordinance through in Dallas, because the law will take care of them when they cross the line and it's not fodder for this forum. Heckling people at dog shows and forcing responsible owners to pay fees to the city or state to own a pet is not going to help the welfare of the animals that are mistreated or abandoned, nor will it prevent irresponsible ownership of animals.

One question at a time: can you support the contention that Ingrid Newkirk would like to see blind people jailed or fined for having seeing-eye dogs?

Nice dodge. Newkirk did not mention the scenario you describe specifically, she has specifically stated the following [link (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/1865)]:[People] need to understand that if they support the torture and misuse of other animals they will be made to pay. The animals are defenseless. They can't fight back. But we can. And, no matter what it takes, we always will.
And what does she think of seeing-eye dogs (same link)?
"She regards the use of Seeing Eye dogs as an abdication of human responsibility and, because they live as 'servants' and are denied the companionship of other dogs, she is wholly opposed to their use."
And from Harper's Magazine in 1988[link - needs subscription to read (http://www.harpers.org/archive/1988/08/0025579)]:Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought on by human manipulation. We would no longer allow breeding. As the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship-enjoyment at a distance.

She's careful not to say explicitly what you are asking me to show you, but she says exactly that in her demand to outlaw pet ownership. When something is against the law then doing that thing results in fines or jail. Your arguments are from obtuseness, not from logic.

It's not just Newkirk and her ties to ALF (or their spending on criminal defense of criminals) that make PETA so connected to AR terrorism. Bruce Friedrich, current VP of PETA, had the following to say (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/audio/010501_bruce_friedrich.wav) (wav file) in relation to certain types of 'activism': "Then of course we, as a movement, are going to be blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record I don't do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation. And considering the level of atrocity and the level of the suffering, uh, I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."

Now, I'd like you to respond to the other post I made that included a bit more detail. Actually address what I'm saying, not trying to turn this into a "not everyone is that bad" kind of justification. Explain why HSUS lied about the Vick dogs to beg donations. Explain how PETA has funded the defense lawyers of criminals since the 1990's (at least). Explain why leaders of AR groups are advocating violence.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is it OK to stomp a kitten to death? Is it OK to skin a puppy alive? Certainly animals have a right to humane treatment. Whatever other rights one has in mind would be up for individual discussion.

[Jon_Stripe]

Depends on the scale.



(in response to my opening question)


I don't understand.


I believe that it is wrong to wantedly torture or do unjustified harm to a living being, especially when that being really can't defend it's self.

If you're talking about bactiria and viruses, well, killing it prevents an ailment on your end so it is justified.

I like what the far back poster said about how government can somewhat regulate what you do with your property.

Very well put.

BTW, hunting to feed yourself and family is not animale cruelty, which some animal rights activists say.

[Michael C]

Somewhere between the total softie who won't kill a mosquito and the person who abuses and eats any other species without any qualms, you have to decide where you draw the line. I eat bits of cow or chicken, but if my local supermarket sold bits of gorilla I wouldn't buy them.

Having said that I eat cow or chicken, this doesn't mean that I deny them all rights. I consider slow, drawn-out torture to be much worse than swift killing. I see no contradiction in keeping certain animals with a view to eating them, but insisting that their lives should be as agreeable as possible.

The bottom line: I answered "yes", to the poll, but I have to qualify it. I can only work with some sort of sliding scale. I accord more rights to an orangutan than I do to a pig, but I accord more rights to a pig than I do to a horsefly. Deciding how much, or little rights I should accord to a certain species is a complex and imprecise process. At best I use the idea of "perceived level of consciousness": the higher the consciousness of an animal seems to be, the more rights I am likely to accord it.

[RandFan]

Yes, it would be fine so long as it was fine with the society. I never said it was fine by me. The coyote thinks it's fine to eat baby ducks. He evolved to do so. The Great Egret Casmerodius evolved to commit siblicide (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/225/4663/731). It's necessary to their survival.

If morality were absolute then the Coyote and great egret would be immoral.

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute. That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans. If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral. Period. End of story.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

Some criticisms of my post:

Coyotes and egrets don't "think" the way humans do and don't have a concept of morality. To say that the coyote "thinks it's fine" is nonsensical.

One could also argue that in addition to not "thinking", in the sense that humans think, the coyote and egret lack mind theory and the ability for empathy and therefore lack any rudimentary sense of morality necessary to come to an opinion as to what is right and wrong.

That said, though we have the mechanics for morality (theory of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind) and the ability to feel empathy) it does not mean that those mechanics automatically lead everyone to the same conclusions about what is and is not moral. Cultural indoctrination has a significant influence on our morality. There was a time when it was moral to own slaves. The Spartans left to die handicapped children. There was once a popular proverb that stated "the tears of foreigners are just water".

We can see throughout history that morality is fluid and often arbitrary. Though there is a good argument to be made that given reason and progress most societies will come to see things like slavery, murder, rape and robbery as immoral but there is no proof that this will always be the case. Why? Because there is nothing in mathematics, science, philosophy or the natural world that would dictate that morality is absolute and that all people who try and deduce what is and is not moral will arrive at the same conclusions based on any empirical data.

Those that argue that morality is absolute without any empirical evidence that morality is absolute beg the question and rely on appealing to emotion and/or bias. When someone makes an argument that given that morality isn't absolute then it would stand to reason that there could be a society that believes that it is moral to kill people with purple hair they are simply begging the question. Yes, I think it is immoral to kill people simply because they have purple hair. Yes I think there is good reason not to kill people simply because they have purple hair. That doesn't make my belief that it is immoral correct.

The proposition to be proved (morality is absolute) is assumed implicitly in the premise (that killing people with purple hair is immoral). However, if we evolved genetically to believe or if we were culturally indoctrinated to believe that people with purple hair were in some way harmful to society then we could perceive that it would be moral to kill them (for the logically impaired, that's a hypothetical).

[Minadin]

Pigs, on the other hand, are just so tasty that they are obviously asking for it.

This reminded me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa decides to become a vegetarian:

Lisa: I'm going to become a vegetarian.
Homer: Does that mean you're not going to eat any pork?
Lisa: Yes.
Homer: Bacon?
Lisa: Yes, Dad.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: Dad, all those meats come from the same animal!
Homer: Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!



In response to the OP, I don't believe in animal rights in the same way that I believe in human rights. I agree with reasonable laws with the aim of protecting animals from undue cruelty. But I think it's an incredibly specious argument to try to use some idea of "basic animal rights" as a reason to legislate some sort of forced vegetarianism, not that it would fly in any event.


And for Mumble: Ingrid Newkirk is a complete nut and PETA as an organization is so full of fringe zealots and angry, insane people that it's practically a terrorist organization itself. Not to mention the fact that they are also total hypocrites:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I think that the vast majority of people who join PETA or assist them by donating volunteer time or money don't know what the official positions of the organization and the leadership are documented to be. I mean, who would be against treating animals ethically? It sounds like a worthwhile charity.

[tkingdoll]

Is it OK to stomp a kitten to death? Is it OK to skin a puppy alive? Certainly animals have a right to humane treatment. Whatever other rights one has in mind would be up for individual discussion.

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef. So on many levels, it's is 'OK' that it happens because the end result is a tasty steak.

Similarly, sometimes a baby chick will be stomped to death by a bored teenager during a vacation job at a factory farm. That's not nice either, but I'd be willing to bet that it happens frequently enough. Cruelty is just part of the general lack of care for the 'life' part of the living creatures in that process. They're just products, and not respected on that level. Factory farming might breed compassion in some people, but the opposite in others.

Kosher and Halal butchers don't stun the animal first, they cut the artery and allow the blood to drain. This leads to a slower and more painful death for the animal than intensive farming procedures, but almost no-one is out protesting it. Every animal killer in the UK is legally obliged to stun the animal first, except those praying to two specific gods. And yet my local Subway only uses Halal meat and no-one minds.

The difficulty here is when producing and processing living creatures for human consumption, we disassociate ourselves from the actual killing part because it's distasteful. But when we think about kittens and puppies, which we don't eat, it's more upsetting. Why?

The only way to ensure humane treatment of commercial meat animals is to dramatically reduce demand for meat.

[Michelle Lyon]

I voted yes. In my corner of the planet, animal rights is typically discussed in relation to scientific experimentation. The ethics of each case has to be considered separately from the other cases. For example, animal experiments on a new medical drug for, say, diabetes, would be ok (don't forget that veterinary medicine is also helped by such experiments), but experiments on a cosmetic product to remove human wrinkles, or any other non-life-saving product, would not. If the ethics weren't in place with the IRB, there's be no limits on what to test on animals. Experiments need to be designed with as little suffering to the animal as possible, and the desired outcome has to justify any possible suffering.

I draw the line at radicals who like to break into labs and free all the animals into the ecosystem, carrying, suffering from, or spreading to wild animals, whatever drugs, injuries, or diseases they may have from the controled experiments. Even healthy animals would have been bred in captivity and won't know how to defend themselves in the wild. Setting them "free" is not animal rights, it's hypocricy.

ETA: A lot of posts here discuss the eating of animals. :) I have no problem with eating animals that were bred or hunted for eating. There are lots of other animals on the planet who eat other animals. :) What I do have a problem with are things like cruel slaughter practices (such as dog slaughterhouse practices in Korea - not the animal type, but the method used to slaughter them) or hunting an animal and then not using the entire carcas (trophy-hunting).

[Michelle Lyon]

Ingrid Newkirk is a complete nut and PETA as an organization is so full of fringe zealots and angry, insane people that it's practically a terrorist organization itself. Not to mention the fact that they are also total hypocrites:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I think that the vast majority of people who join PETA or assist them by donating volunteer time or money don't know what the official positions of the organization and the leadership are documented to be. I mean, who would be against treating animals ethically? It sounds like a worthwhile charity.

Thank you! :D
This remains my favorite Bullsh*t episode. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY)

[Terry]

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef.

No, "everyone" does not still buy beef. I don't buy beef, for instance.

[Darat]

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef. So on many levels, it's is 'OK' that it happens because the end result is a tasty steak.


...snip...

I can't see how cattle can ever be skinned alive. The process today of the slaughter of a cow is generally:

stunning > sticking (the removal of blood & then the head) > dressing (the first steps are removing the feet and then the hide)

Even in the Hala & Kosher methods the animal is still sticked before it goes onto dressing.

[RandFan]

I can't see how cattle can ever be skinned alive. I watched something on cable once that demonstrated how it happens but I don't remember what the source was. I can find a lot of claims about cows being skinned alive on Google but they all seem to be questionable sources and simply make the claim.

FWIW, having worked on a dairy I've seen cows slaughtered. It's a hell of a thing. I think everyone should have the opportunity to see it and I wish they would see it. I eat beef but I understand what is necessary for me to do that.

[Darat]

Just been looking for a good source for a description of how the slaughter should be done and found this site: http://www.noelchadwick.co.uk/abattoir_slgthtr_cattle.html (I accept that this is best practice)

[tkingdoll]

No, "everyone" does not still buy beef. I don't buy beef, for instance.

I was rounding up :D

Plus, I just got back from Texas. I think that's 100% beef consumption territory. :boxedin:

But I think the most consistent position if you have a problem with animal welfare is to either raise and slaughter your own animals in a manner that's acceptable to you ethically, or not buy commercially-produced meat at all. I don't understand people who have a problem with it but buy it anyway.

[volatile]

The difficulty here is when producing and processing living creatures for human consumption, we disassociate ourselves from the actual killing part because it's distasteful. But when we think about kittens and puppies, which we don't eat, it's more upsetting. Why?

The only way to ensure humane treatment of commercial meat animals is to dramatically reduce demand for meat.

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?

The hypocrisy involved in my omnivorous diet, owning pet non-edible pigs and my work looking after cats is one of the reasons I went vegan.

[RandFan]

The hypocrisy involved in my omnivorous diet, owning pet non-edible pigs and my work looking after cats is one of the reasons I went vegan. I think something is missing in your post. Where is the hypocrisy in this? FWIW, I'm not attacking your stance I'm just confused.

[Bluefire]

I voted "no". I do not believe animals have any rights. Now, it might not be considered nice or good to kill or maim kittens or baby-eyed puppies or whatever, but it would not be a transgression of any rights since they don't have any.

So to a previous posters question of whether it is OK to do horrible things to cute animals I would say that on one level it is/should be "ok" (eg. rights-level, legal level). You should not be jailed for it.

On another level it might not be OK, which is more of a moral level disconnected from rights. Sort of how one might not be jailed for being rude and abusive but others might shun you if you are. In the same way it would be understandable for kitten lovers to boycott people that needlessly stomps kittens.

For the record, I personally like cats and would not do anything to harm them, but I understand that this is purely emotionally based on my part, and in no way confers them rights. If someone were to set up a cat-restaurant I should not have the ability to send the police on them, even if the cats suffer.

[tkingdoll]

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?



Ah, but we're humans and never consistent. I'm ethically neutral on many issues (meat is one of them, and like I say I appreciate it's not a popular standpoint and I don't expect agreement. For example I really do not give a damn about the suffering of the goose to make foie gras. I love the stuff. If they could make it without the suffering, that's preferable, but if not, I'm still going to buy it), but I am pretty sure I'm not consistent on any issue. Otherwise I'd be a robot. My gut goes 'awww' at a picture of a cute cat but not a picture of a chicken. How I rationalise that, though, is what's important. I would be perfectly happy to eat cat despite the gut reaction of 'awww', as I'm perfectly happy to eat chicken. Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough? Yes, I probably would. Would I eat my dead sister if hungry enough? No, I'd probably choose to also die. Would I kill another human being if we were both starving? I don't know. What if the other human was a bad person? And so on. We draw ethical lines all the time, some of which are hypothetical, and some of which are irrational.

And so on. Not consistent. That's ok though, I'm a person. And I fully expect other people to be as amused by my inconsistencies as I am at theirs.

[volatile]

I think something is missing in your post. Where is the hypocrisy in this? FWIW, I'm not attacking your stance I'm just confused.

It touches upon what Teek said, really. Why was I not cool with killing cats for food, or my pet pigs, but still content to tuck in to pork chops for dinner? Why did I find the idea of stunning a dog or a monkey or a horse or an elephant with a bolt through their brains horrific, but perfectly OK with the same action on a sheep or a cow.

I, like most people, have a general sense that hurting animals unnecessarily is wrong. Seeing as I can eat just as healthily without killing animals, on what basis should I continue to do so if my ethics are to be consistent? That's all.

I'm not dogmatically against eating animals for food. If you're a subsistence farmer or you're starving hungry in the jungle, then hell yes, tuck in. But I buy my food from supermarkets, so why would I pick the chicken over the tofu? I wouldn't kill a cat. Why would I pay someone to kill a pig?

I wouldn't dream of suggesting everyone follow my position; nevertheless, I am convinced that it is the most internally consistent and non-hypocritical one to take if you have a general sense animal cruelty is wrong.

[volatile]

Ah, but we're humans and never consistent. I'm ethically neutral on many issues (meat is one of them, and like I say I appreciate it's not a popular standpoint and I don't expect agreement. For example I really do not give a damn about the suffering of the goose to make foie gras. I love the stuff. If they could make it without the suffering, that's preferable, but if not, I'm still going to buy it), but I am pretty sure I'm not consistent on any issue. Otherwise I'd be a robot. My gut goes 'awww' at a picture of a cute cat but not a picture of a chicken. How I rationalise that, though, is what's important. I would be perfectly happy to eat cat despite the gut reaction of 'awww', as I'm perfectly happy to eat chicken. Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough? Yes, I probably would. Would I eat my dead sister if hungry enough? No, I'd probably choose to also die. Would I kill another human being if we were both starving? I don't know. What if the other human was a bad person? And so on. We draw ethical lines all the time, some of which are hypothetical, and some of which are irrational.

And so on. Not consistent. That's ok though, I'm a person. And I fully expect other people to be as amused by my inconsistencies as I am at theirs.

Sorry Teek, but that just sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't it behove us to at least try and be consistent? If we can openly acknowledge an irrational hypocrisy, aren't we in some way compelled to at least address that? Though no-one is perfect, and no-one is above inconsistent behaviour, I don't think it's OK just to handwave away those inconsistencies when they become apparent. To my mind, we should either rationalise the behaviour or we should change the behaviour. You're just proposing apologising for the the behaviour, and that would bother me.

[volatile]

Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough?

On this issue - me too. Post-apocalypse, I'm eating all the zombified cats I can get my hands on. But at the moment, right next to the shelf your chicken is sold on, is an alternative. You have alternatives to eating the cat. The way most of us in the industrialised West construct our diets, there is no need to eat the cat, the cow or the pig.

[Darat]

Sorry Teek, but that just sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't it behove us to at least try and be consistent? If we can openly acknowledge an irrational hypocrisy, aren't we in some way compelled to at least address that? Though no-one is perfect, and no-one is above inconsistent behaviour, I don't think it's OK just to handwave away those inconsistencies when they become apparent. To my mind, we should either rationalise the behaviour or we should change the behaviour. You're just proposing apologising for the the behaviour, and that would bother me.

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.

[volatile]

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.

That doesn't work for me, because I still have an ethical issue with unnecessary cruelty to animals. Punching a cow in the face, or leaving a sheep to starve, or drop-kicking a chicken are all problematic in my view, and I think in the views of most people. So, as Teek said, why are we suddenly OK with bolts through their brains?

Slaughtering is unnecessary for me because I live in an industrialised country where it is possible to live healthily without it. I don't need to harm that cow by putting a bolt through its brain any more than I need to punch it in the face, other than for its taste - that is, beef sure is tasty. I love meat. But if you compare that to punching a cow in the face - I presume people who would do that would find some kind of gratification in the act. How is that different to me getting taste gratification from eating the cow?

For me personally, I don't think fleeting personal gratification is enough to trump broader ethical principles (for example, driving fast is fun; dropping litter is convenient). Again, I think that's a general standard that most people adhere to in other areas of their lives; we all seem to have a blindspot where our diets are concerned. I know I did.

[RandFan]

It touches upon what Teek said, really. Why was I not cool with killing cats for food, or my pet pigs, but still content to tuck in to pork chops for dinner? Why did I find the idea of stunning a dog or a monkey or a horse or an elephant with a bolt through their brains horrific, but perfectly OK with the same action on a sheep or a cow.

I, like most people, have a general sense that hurting animals unnecessarily is wrong. Seeing as I can eat just as healthily without killing animals, on what basis should I continue to do so if my ethics are to be consistent? That's all.

I'm not dogmatically against eating animals for food. If you're a subsistence farmer or you're starving hungry in the jungle, then hell yes, tuck in. But I buy my food from supermarkets, so why would I pick the chicken over the tofu? I wouldn't kill a cat. Why would I pay someone to kill a pig?

I wouldn't dream of suggesting everyone follow my position; nevertheless, I am convinced that it is the most internally consistent and non-hypocritical one to take if you have a general sense animal cruelty is wrong. Thank you for the response. I understand you better. It would be possible to not want to kill cats for a number of reasons (don't like the taste) but still be consistent with killing cows but I can see that your reasons would not be consistent.

I personally wouldn't care if we ate cats for food and also had them for pets.

That said I respect very much your position. I'm a big fan of choice.

[RandFan]

So, as Teek said, why are we suddenly OK with bolts through their brains? IMO, because it isn't wanton depravity. It isn't done to cause suffering. I think there is an appreciable difference.

[volatile]

Thank you for the response. I understand you better. It would be possible to not want to kill cats for a number of reasons (don't like the taste) but still be consistent with killing cows but I can see that your reasons would not be consistent.

I personally wouldn't care if we ate cats for food and also had them for pets.

That said I respect very much your position. I'm a big fan of choice.

Oh, that's fine. If you've thought it through and are still hungry for that steak, that's cool with me. I don't necessarily agree, but as I said, I'm not dogmatic.

As Teek pointed out though, I don't think most people have really thought about their diets in anything approaching a rational or sceptical way. I hadn't.

[volatile]

IMO, because it isn't wanton depravity. It isn't done to cause suffering. I think there is an appreciable difference.

How come? The net result for the cow is the same. And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton.

[paximperium]

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.

That's the wrong way to cook cat.
I recommend a good tomato based Cat-Soup.

[paximperium]

How come? The net result for the cow is the same. And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton.

Sorry, but I find that very judgmental.

Who are you(or anyone) to decide that gratification from meat eating is not a good enough personal reason for killing a cow?

I find significant pleasure and nourishment from eating meat. Could I live without it, sure I could but I have no inclination towards careful meal/caloric /vitamin etc. control like vegans do and find no pleasure in such a diet.

[RandFan]

How come? The net result for the cow is the same. If I had a choice between being tortured and killed or simply being killed I would choose not to be tortured. I'm not sure why. I'm funny that way.

And if you accept my hypothesis that it is possible to live just as well without killing cows, then it starts to at least move towards wantonness in my view. It becomes killing solely for the sake of personal gratification, not too far removed (though I accept it is removed) from that which you call wanton. As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat. Wanting to hurt something because it excites pleasure centers in the brain is different than wanting to kill something because eating its muscle and flesh excites pleasure centers in the brain are significantly different IMO. So, while I see your argument and find it valid I see a bigger difference than you. But that's fine. I can live with that. Unless of course the aliens don't have a problem eating human muscle and flesh. In which case I'm in a world of hurt since they will eat the fat ones first. :)

Damn aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_(The_Twilight_Zone)).

[volatile]

Sorry, but I find that very judgmental.

Who are you(or anyone) to decide that gratification from meat eating is not a good enough personal reason for killing a cow?

I find significant pleasure and nourishment from eating meat. Could I live without it, sure I could but I have no inclination towards careful meal/caloric /vitamin etc. control like vegans do and find no pleasure in such a diet.

I find personal gratification at the expense of an otherwise sincerely held belief hypocritical. Don't you?

I don't "judge" anyone but myself. I, personally, do not find that my enjoyment of the taste of meat is sufficient to supersede the problem I have with those who harm animals for no compelling reason. I don't speed in my car. I don't drop litter. I don't buy sweatshop clothes. All those things would make my life easier and more fun, but as I have a broader code of ethics that all of those things intercede with, I refrain from them. I apply the same standards to my diet as I do to the rest of my life. What's so wrong with that?

If you find the broader idea of animal cruelty problematic (as most people do, I think), then you should be vegetarian. In my opinion.

[volatile]

If I had a choice between being tortured and killed or simply being killed I would choose not to be tortured. I'm not sure why. I'm funny that way.

Did you deliberately miss the option of not being killed at all that is at the heart of my argument? :-D

Sure, I agree with you that ethical husbandry and slaughter practices are preferable to the alternatives. But no killing animals for food at all is preferable to all of the above, given that I find the idea of harming animals unnecessarily to be ethically problematic.

Note, I don't think killing animals is always wrong. I am perfectly OK with animal testing for scientific purposes, for example. But there's a cost/benefit ratio to be done here. I wouldn't kill a cat if I had no compelling reason to do so. Given that I personally do not find personal gratification a compelling reason, I won't eat cows. If you, or others, do, then that's fine.

As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat. Wanting to hurt something because it excites pleasure centers in the brain is different than wanting to kill something because eating its muscle and flesh excites pleasure centers in the brain are significantly different IMO.Why? Isn't that just special pleading? What's so different about pleasure from eating and pleasure from other sources? What's so incredible about beef that eating it should supersede your general ethics? I don't get it.

So, while I see your argument and find it valid I see a bigger difference than you. But that's fine. I can live with that. Unless of course the aliens don't have a problem eating human muscle and flesh. In which case I'm in a world of hurt since they will eat the fat ones first. :)

Damn aliens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Serve_Man_%28The_Twilight_Zone%29).LOL. I agree with you. You've obviously given this some thought and come to a different conclusion to me. That's cool.

I have most issue with people who haven't thought about what they eat, and just eat without thinking about it. Before I gave any thought to the matter, that is certainly why I ate meat. I ate meat because I always had done. Just as I'd been raised an unthinking theist, I'd been raised an unthinking omnivore. I'd just never thought about why I ate meat. In fact, I always asked vegetarians why they didn't. I'd never turned that question round onto myself.

When I asked myself the question "Why do I eat meat?", I couldn't think of a good reason other than "It tastes good", and, for the reasons I've already explained, that wasn't compelling enough for me.

[billydkid]

I'm always amused by the people who have no issue with an animal dying just to satisfy their tastebuds, as long as it didn't suffer first. "Yeah, I care, but only to a point, you know? I mean, don't let the poor little guy suffer on account of my steak tartare, but sure, I'm happy for it to die for my satisfaction. My compassion only stretches as far as the living part. The dying, I don't think about. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to enjoy this delicious beef with a clear conscience, right?".

I have unusual views about such things, though. I don't expect much agreement. And no, I am not a vegetarian.There are worse things than dying. Do you really see no distinction between killing an animal humanely and causing an animal pointless suffering? Do really think there is a moral equivalence between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal? Most other animals kill and eat other animals and mankind has done it since long before it was mankind. Would you really have no more problem with the meat industry than you have now if they slaughtered their animals alive? People are going to always eat meat. Don't you think it is better to have some basic standards intended to prevent unnecessary animal suffering in the processing of the animals?

[paximperium]

I find personal gratification at the expense of an otherwise sincerely held belief hypocritical. Don't you?
Among many meat eaters yes but I don't hold the view that animals have rights and am more than willing to hunt, skin and dress a deer myself. I'd prefer to reduce suffering if possible.


I don't "judge" anyone but myself. I, personally, do not find that my enjoyment of the taste of meat is sufficient to supersede the problem I have with those who harm animals for no compelling reason. I don't speed in my car. I don't drop litter. I don't buy sweatshop clothes. All those things would make my life easier and more fun, but as I have a broader code of ethics that all of those things intercede with, I refrain from them. I apply the same standards to my diet as I do to the rest of my life. What's so wrong with that?
None as long as it is a personal belief that is not being foisted onto others, I can readily respect that.


If you find the broader idea of animal cruelty problematic (as most people do, I think), then you should be vegetarian. In my opinion.
I do find animal cruelty problematic and that we should decrease suffering where possible however I see no ethical dilemma in using animals as a resource and foodstock.

[leonAzul]

Easy.

Does it hurt? Then don't do it.

As a philosophical mind experiment, then go to the Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

[volatile]

Among many meat eaters yes but I don't hold the view that animals have rights and am more than willing to hunt, skin and dress a deer myself. I'd prefer to reduce suffering if possible.

Well then we're back to what might be called Teek's Dilemma, right? You want to "reduce suffering if possible", but only as far as it doesn't interfere with your desire to taste meat. Does that sound rational to you? You find the idea of animal suffering difficult to stomach, but you're content to step over that particular ethical position because it is less important to you that enjoying the taste of meat. That just seems weird to me; sorry.

In other words, it is possible to reduce suffering. Don't hunt the deer in the first place.

None as long as it is a personal belief that is not being foisted onto others, I can readily respect that.If you want to eat meat, that's fine with me. I still think it's legitimate to discuss the issue though. That's not foisting, to my mind. It's just debate.

I do find animal cruelty problematic and that we should decrease suffering where possible however I see no ethical dilemma in using animals as a resource and foodstock.The two halves of that sentence seem to me to be utterly ethically incompatible. If you truly think we should decrease suffering, then logically you should not kill animals for food, surely? Help me out here, I'm trying to understand how you can want to decrease suffering wherever possible, but are still OK with killing animals for food. If you live in America or Europe, is perfectly possible to eat a full, healthy, varied, tasty and delicious diet without killing animals at minimal cost in terms of effort and time / convenience. You can reduce animal suffering. So what's stopping you? How do you justify personal gratification trumping your obviously sincere desire not to harm animals?

I don't understand. Indeed, it's precisely because I couldn't reconcile those two positions to my own satisfaction than I had to jettison one of them. So help me out. What am I missing?

[Cain]

This has probably been said, but:

I don't believe in the right of animals to be free from abuse. I believe in the right of human society to be free from animal abuse.

I'm sure a lot of people are willing to latch onto this statement, which adds credence to the view that strong arguments are not as persuasive as a good turn of phrase rationalizing our biases. A society can have rights? Philosophically that's a much, much more radical view than recognizing the rights of individual non-humans.

I think everyone on this board should be open to the idea that non-humans can have rights (my oft-invoked aliens). The question is which characteristics are important.

When it gets down to it, I do not think many will fully accept the idea that a man tortures a dog in the forest, and he did nothing wrong because nobody knows it suffered.

-------------------

Randfan

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute.

How sad. You still do not understand the difference between absolute and universal morality.

That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans.

This is rich. You're accusing me of believing "that there is something special or transcendent about humans."

If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral.

Not quite. I can sign on to a statement that says, "If it proved genetically advantageous for humans to kill their siblings in order to survive and replicate, then humans would consider such behavior moral." Sure. I am the one, after all, who regularly introduces the thought experiment involving vampires. Vampires, as folk lore would have it, are naturally predisposed to consume human blood.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

I should note that in arguments involving the so-called naturalistic fallacy, I am often the person to bring up Thornhill's argument for a natural history of rape. Just because a behavior has an evolutionary advantage does not mean it's moral. It might be considered moral, much in the same sense xenophobia is a natural disposition for humans (who evolved in small tribes, but that does not justify it. These are the exact sort of counter-arguments used against the all too common meat-eater's claim that "we evolved to eat meat!" I only wish you had paid a little more attention.

[RandFan]

Did you deliberately miss the option of not being killed at all that is at the heart of my argument? :-D :)

Why? Isn't that just special pleading? What's so different about pleasure from eating and pleasure from other sources? What's so incredible about beef that eating it should supersede your general ethics? I don't get it. It could be special pleading. I'm not sure. It sure seems different to take pleasure in causing a living thing to suffer than simply experiencing pleasure from the byproduct of killing something. This could be due to a number of things including evolutionary predisposition and indoctrination as a child. I was raised to never allow my animals to suffer. I failed once to water the animals on our farm when I was a kid and my father punished me for it. He took a firm view that we were responsible for the well being of the animals and that it was cruel to let them go thirsty.

That said, I think most people would take the same veiw even though they had not been raised on a farm. I'm not making an ad numerum argument just noting that the notion likely is to some degree separate from the morals and ethics instilled in children on farms.

As for my general ethics. I see animal husbandry as a mutually benificial situation. In the wild most animals are exposed to the elements and predation. Most animals are eaten as babies. Those that survive infancy die from predation or the elements before they ever mature. Living in the wild is a game of survival. Eat or be eaten. Fear and hunger are constant companions.

On a well run farm nearly all animals survive inancy and mature. A significant number die of old age. That is not a statistical possibility in the wild. All are treated to prevent illness and to cure infections and injury. They are free from starvation and thirst and are treated well.

"How clever it was of sheep to acquire shepherds!" --Dennett (not meant to be an argument from authority or to suggest that Dennett shares my views on eating meat).

For those that want to reduce the abuses of animal production I fully support that.


LOL. I agree with you. You've obviously given this some thought and come to a different conclusion to me. That's cool.

I have most issue with people who haven't thought about what they eat, and just eat without thinking about it. Before I gave any thought to the matter, that is certainly why I ate meat. I ate meat because I always had done. Just as I'd been raised an unthinking theist, I'd been raised an unthinking omnivore. I'd just never thought about why I ate meat. In fact, I always asked vegetarians why they didn't. I'd never turned that question round onto myself.

When I asked myself the question "Why do I eat meat?", I couldn't think of a good reason other than "It tastes good", and, for the reasons I've already explained, that wasn't compelling enough for me.Understood.

My answer is that it tastes good and it doesn't bother me that an animal died to provide the good tasting food. Animals die due to predation. Nothing is likely to stop that and I'm not certain that it would be ethical to stop the coyote from eating baby ducks and other animals even it were possible. It doesn't justify the killing and eating but it puts it into prespective.

[paximperium]

I don't understand. Indeed, it's precisely because I couldn't reconcile those two positions to my own satisfaction than I had to jettison one of them. So help me out. What am I missing?

Here is the crux of the argument:
What is the worth of an animal?(And I don't mean this in a monetary way)

I am perfectly willing to say that animals do suffer. The more "higher" in the social and intellectual ladder they stand, the more likely they are to suffer similar to us humans. Therefore I'm more willing to empathize and consider the suffering of a gorilla or a dog compared to a mouse or a fish since by our own experience, we could empathize that a chimp feels pain similar to use...but does a bird or a fish feel the same suffering?

Now, here is where value judgment comes into play. We do not have the scientific and objective ability to determine suffering (at this point). So we project our emotions and "suffering" onto animals.

I for one do not see a cow as suffering when held in a pen nor do I see a cow suffering when his brain is bolted...since it is dead. I do not believe that it has the intelligence to really understand its situation although it likely understands fear(to a cow-ish sense) and pain. So, I see little problem with killing a cow with as little pain as possible and eating it.

I also see no issue with hunting and killing a deer since your statement assumes it will go on and live a happy carefree life with no pain and suffering and that it is unnatural to be killed and eaten. However, you know that its natural chances of being killed by a mountain lion are decent and if the deer overpopulated an area we would have to kill them off anyway.

Now the flip question to you is, you place a higher value onto animals than I do.
But is this value the same with a human life?
What about if killing 10 gorillas via medical experimentation could save a human life? or just decrease pain? or give him an erection that will last hours?
What if we have to torture(I mean real pain) 100 chimps and 10000 dogs to find a cure for cancer?
Where do you draw the line because while you avoid eating meat, every medicine you take and nearly every food preservative and chemical used in food was tested on animals for safety?

I place a value on each animal. It is no where near a human's life and human pleasure. It is subjective and arbitrary and liable to change. If someday someone showed that cows scream for mommy and have intelligence and pain sensation similar to humans, I'd be more likely to stop eating cow since we would know they actually suffer...
...maybe switch to lamb since we all know they're stupid.

[Highly Selassie]

As Teek pointed out though, I don't think most people have really thought about their diets in anything approaching a rational or sceptical way. I hadn't. This criticism can also be applied to many vegetarians and vegans. Many vegetarians (and most, if not all vegans) have to supplement the deficiencies in their diet with vegetables that don't grow locally. These vegetables have to be shipped in from thousands of miles away, burning fuel and emitting greenhouse gases in the process. Others take manufactured supplements, which also involve excessive greenhouse gas emissions. Many of these people boast about how their diets are more sustainable, but in the long run they may end up contributing to more greenhouse gas emissions than their friend who eats locally-grown meat.

A society can have rights? Philosophically that's a much, much more radical view than recognizing the rights of individual non-humans.

How so? I don't see the difficulty in extending individual human rights up to a collective of humans. However, I see great philosophical and practical conundrums with granting non-humans rights. For example, which non-humans get which rights and why, and what do you do about animals that infringe upon others' rights?

[Michael C]

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?

That's not an easy way out of the dilemma. The set of all animals includes slugs, maggots and the ants that have just found their way into my living room. Do you put them on the same level as dogs, monkeys or humans? Somewhere, you must draw a line. Or, like me (and I think most people) you have some sort of more or less vague scale of values where there is no clear cut demarcation line: for me it's no problem to kill an ant, I have some qualms about killing a pig but I still eat bacon, and I am totally opposed to killing an ape.

If you're going to oppose the killing of all animals, does this include the cockroaches and the horseflies? If not, how do you decide where to draw the line?

[volatile]

Great post, RandFan, and I totally understand where you're coming from. My problem, though, is that you're supporting meat-eating with two contradictory platforms.

The first is that animal husbandry is better for the animals than the "natural" alternative, wherein the animals would otherwise die in infancy or not live at all. The second is that animals are predatory by nature and we humans are just part of that wider system. Those two things are contradictory, aren't they?

Whilst I think Cain's a little hostile, I agree with him that the "argument from nature" doesn't really hold and isn't something we humans generally extend into our general ethical principles.

[RandFan]

Not quite. I can sign on to a statement that says, "If it proved genetically advantageous for humans to kill their siblings in order to survive and replicate, then humans would consider such behavior moral." Sure. I am the one, after all, who regularly introduces the thought experiment involving vampires. Vampires, as folk lore would have it, are naturally predisposed to consume human blood.

I should note that in arguments involving the so-called naturalistic fallacy, I am often the person to bring up Thornhill's argument for a natural history of rape. Just because a behavior has an evolutionary advantage does not mean it's moral. It might be considered moral, much in the same sense xenophobia is a natural disposition for humans (who evolved in small tribes, but that does not justify it. These are the exact sort of counter-arguments used against the all too common meat-eater's claim that "we evolved to eat meat!" I only wish you had paid a little more attention. I can't find anything to disagree with you in this post. I doubt we really have much disagreement. Oh well.

[RandFan]

Great post, RandFan, and I totally understand where you're coming from. My problem, though, is that you're supporting meat-eating with two contradictory platforms.

The first is that animal husbandry is better for the animals than the "natural" alternative, wherein the animals would otherwise die in infancy or not live at all. The second is that animals are predatory by nature and we humans are just part of that wider system. Those two things are contradictory, aren't they?

Whilst I think Cain's a little hostile, I agree with him that the "argument from nature" doesn't really hold and isn't something we humans generally extend into our general ethical principles.Cain might have reason to be hostile. I can really be a prick at times.

I've got to run but I'll think about your argument. I've really enjoyed the discussion.

[paximperium]

I can't find anything to disagree with you in this post. I doubt we really have much disagreement. Oh well.

What is wrong with you people?
All this agreement is nauseating...where is the JREF forum anger and vitriol? Where is the trollish behavior?

I'm disappointed...

[volatile]

That's not an easy way out of the dilemma. The set of all animals includes slugs, maggots and the ants that have just found their way into my living room. Do you put them on the same level as dogs, monkeys or humans? Somewhere, you must draw a line. Or, like me (and I think most people) you have some sort of more or less vague scale of values where there is no clear cut demarcation line: for me it's no problem to kill an ant, I have some qualms about killing a pig but I still eat bacon, and I am totally opposed to killing an ape.

If you're going to oppose the killing of all animals, does this include the cockroaches and the horseflies? If not, how do you decide where to draw the line?

I draw the line (and sorry for not being clear) at necessity. If cockraoches or fireants or even rats are making my life a misery, making my house more unsanitary or whatever, then I'd kill them. I wouldn't stomp a field mouse under my boot if I was walking in the countryside (most people wouldn't - that's important), but I'd certainly consider poisoning mice in my home if they couldn't be eradicated any other way.

If I'm being attacked by a rabid dog, I'll try and kill it. If it's a choice between a cure for cancer and 10,000 guinea pigs, the cute little critters get it. But with meat, my general position is that for most people, meat eating is unnecessary. It is perfectly possible to live healthily and well without killing animals. So why shouldn't I?

Consistency is the key for me. There are grey areas, of course. There always will be. But meat-eating isn't one of them for me. The tofu and the chicken are right next to each other on the shelf. There is no question in my mind that for me, meat eating is unnecessary.

[Highly Selassie]

Never mind, I misunderstood.

[RandFan]

How sad. You still do not understand the difference between absolute and universal morality. Wife's not ready to go. (scene from LA Story).

A quick response.

AIU, morality isn't universal, the underlying mechanisms for morality are, to a large degree, universal. If morality were universal then morals wouldn't vary from society to society and across time. If morals were truly universal then there would be no sociopaths.

[Darat]

That doesn't work for me, because I still have an ethical issue with unnecessary cruelty to animals.

...snip...

Your statement demonstrates my point. You have adopted an ethical system that if you ate animal flesh you would be being hypocritical however as I showed it is perfectly possible to adopt a system in which the consumption of only certain types of animal flesh does not result in hypocrisy. It all depends on the starting premises someone uses.

[volatile]

Here is the crux of the argument:
What is the worth of an animal?(And I don't mean this in a monetary way)

I am perfectly willing to say that animals do suffer. The more "higher" in the social and intellectual ladder they stand, the more likely they are to suffer similar to us humans. Therefore I'm more willing to empathize and consider the suffering of a gorilla or a dog compared to a mouse or a fish since by our own experience, we could empathize that a chimp feels pain similar to use...but does a bird or a fish feel the same suffering?

Do you make that same differentiation when delineating when you're OK with suffering removed from the production of meat? I'm fairly sure you don't. I'm guessing (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you'd no less kill or harm a mouse for fun than you would a pig or cow. So the question still stands as to why this distinction between "higher" and "lower" is OK for food?

Now, here is where value judgment comes into play. We do not have the scientific and objective ability to determine suffering (at this point). So we project our emotions and "suffering" onto animals.

Agreed, of course, though it is uncontroversial to state that cows and pigs and sheep are capable of suffering. We have welfare legislation and minimum standards for transporting and keeping livestock for this very reason. I'm sure you understand that.

I for one do not see a cow as suffering when held in a pen nor do I see a cow suffering when his brain is bolted...since it is dead. I do not believe that it has the intelligence to really understand its situation although it likely understands fear(to a cow-ish sense) and pain. So, I see little problem with killing a cow with as little pain as possible and eating it.

But you're still left with Teek's Dilemma. The pain you so rightly want to reduce can be entirely reduced if you just didn't kill the animal. Your ethical principles only go as far as your desire for culinary gratification. Don't you find it problematic that what seems to be a genuine, sincere and rational belief is so easily overcome?

I also see no issue with hunting and killing a deer since your statement assumes it will go on and live a happy carefree life with no pain and suffering and that it is unnatural to be killed and eaten. However, you know that its natural chances of being killed by a mountain lion are decent and if the deer overpopulated an area we would have to kill them off anyway.

The "argument from nature", as already discussed in this thread, is not one we humans generally apply to any other area of our ethical code. I don't think it's justifiable to make an exception in this case, though I could be persuaded otherwise.

Now the flip question to you is, you place a higher value onto animals than I do.

See, I don't think that's the case. I think we broadly agree in terms of general ethical principles. You've already admitted that you want to reduce animal suffering. So why do you stop short of reducing it completely? How do you justify setting your ethics aside for personal gratification?

But is this value the same with a human life?
What about if killing 10 gorillas via medical experimentation could save a human life? or just decrease pain? or give him an erection that will last hours?
What if we have to torture(I mean real pain) 100 chimps and 10000 dogs to find a cure for cancer?
Where do you draw the line because while you avoid eating meat, every medicine you take and nearly every food preservative and chemical used in food was tested on animals for safety?

I've said elsewhere in this thread that my line is necessity. I have little issue with animal testing for medicines, as I see the cost-benefit ratio to be acceptable.

I do not see that the balance is tipped in favour of meat eating; as I've tried to make clear, I do not see "meat tastes nice" as a compelling reason to jettison my concerns at harming animals. Do you think "cure for cancer" and "beef is tasty" are equivalent in their moral weight?

I place a value on each animal. It is no where near a human's life and human pleasure. It is subjective and arbitrary and liable to change. If someday someone showed that cows scream for mommy and have intelligence and pain sensation similar to humans, I'd be more likely to stop eating cow since we would know they actually suffer...
...maybe switch to lamb since we all know they're stupid.

If you've ever been on a farm, or kept animals, you'll know that birds, pigs, sheep and cattle most resolutely do feel pain and distress. I'd like Rolfe or DogDoctor to comment on this if they're reading this, but as far as I know the suggestion that those animals we use for food are more than capable of pain and suffering is not a controversial one. As I already said, as the laws of our respective lands already enshrine this idea in law, I fail to see your point.

[Darat]

...snip...

As I've said before, I have little doubt that subsequent generations will eat less and less meat.

...snip...

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)

[volatile]

Paximperium - on the issue of the suffering of farm animals, may I briefly quote from 'Recognition and management of pain in cattle' by Chris Hudson, Helen Whay and Jon Huxley (http://inpractice.bvapublications.com/cgi/reprint/30/3/126).

"Pain in humans has been described by the IASP as ‘an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience with actual or potential tissue damage’ (Merskey 1979). It is reasonable to suppose that mammals experience pain in a similar way to humans, because experimental work has demonstrated that the neural pathways of pain sensation are similar. Application of the ‘precautionary principle’, in which the clinician should err on the side of treating or preventing pain, would suggest that this is a safe assumption, unless strong experimental evidence proves otherwise."

The article goes on to describe methods of alleviating pain, which obviously suggests that cows are more than susceptible to pain in the first place. Do you really not accept that cows are capable of suffering?

[volatile]

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)

I am vegan, but I would gladly eat vat-grown meat.

[volatile]

Your statement demonstrates my point. You have adopted an ethical system that if you ate animal flesh you would be being hypocritical however as I showed it is perfectly possible to adopt a system in which the consumption of only certain types of animal flesh does not result in hypocrisy. It all depends on the starting premises someone uses.

Sure. But I don't think my starting premises are particularly unusual, as evidenced in this thread (RandFan and Paximperium and I seem to share similar starting hypotheses, for example), by the points Teek made and by the existence of legal frameworks which outlaw egregious harm towards animals.

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree?

[Darat]

I am vegan, but I would gladly eat vat-grown meat.


I assumed given your stance and how you got there you would.

[tkingdoll]

There are worse things than dying.

There are worse things than dying, yes, but I don't think many sheep have come to that conclusion.

Do you really see no distinction between killing an animal humanely and causing an animal pointless suffering?

I never said that. But the current system is a bit of a facade, especially in factory farming. If the suffering adds nothing, then it is pointless. But what about foie gras, which can only be produced through suffering? It would be better if there was a way of producing the same product without the suffering, but if there isn't, should we not produce it at all?

I buy meat because I like the taste, and no other reason. I can afford a healthy vegetarian diet, but I choose to eat meat for selfish reasons, and that means I should admit I don't care if an animal dies. If I don't care if it dies, I'm not going to pretend I do care if it suffers. I don't. I have no feelings about meat-producing animals whatsoever. But that's not the same as thinking it should suffer for no reason, which you seem to think is what I'm saying. Meat production involves animal suffering, whether that's "you're going to die after a nice life" or "you're going to die after a crappy life". I can't claim I care if an animal suffers but don't care if it dies. It's better to produce meat with a minimum of suffering to the animal, sure.

Do really think there is a moral equivalence between killing an animal for food and torturing an animal? Most other animals kill and eat other animals and mankind has done it since long before it was mankind. Would you really have no more problem with the meat industry than you have now if they slaughtered their animals alive? People are going to always eat meat. Don't you think it is better to have some basic standards intended to prevent unnecessary animal suffering in the processing of the animals?

I never said anything about the morals of 'torturing' animals. Why would I endorse that? It's pointless. Define torture, though. The life of a 'free range' hen is a shade better than the life of a battery hen, but not a massive amount. It would still be a crappy life for a human. I have no idea if it's a crappy life for a hen. I doubt the hen has much idea either (and certainly no frame of reference). We use animals as commodities but make ourselves feel better by treating some of them nicer than others then charging a premium for it. That's the current system and those who can afford to pretend to care get to buy free range.

Yes, I think it's better to have basic standards, and I never said otherwise. But I maintain that if a person actually cared about the welfare of an individual animal, that would stretch as far as "oh god, don't kill it just so I can have a tasty steak!". But it doesn't for many people. For some, it does, and we call them 'vegetarians'. Weirdly, when I care about something, I don't want it to suffer or die. I have no problem with introducing basic standards of animal welfare into farming. I have a problem with people who claim to care about 'animal rights' when they're chowing down on something that just died.

[Darat]

...snip...

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree?

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

[volatile]

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.


ETA: I don't think RandFan is "unthinking", actually. He's thought about his diet and come to a conclusion that I find has a little unresolved tension in it. It was probably still too strong to call that tension "hypocrisy", though, so I retract that wholeheartedly.

[Darat]

...snip...

Weirdly, when I care about something, I don't want it to suffer or die.

...snip...

Euthanasia for a pet would seem to be ruled out by this reasoning but I doubt you would want a loved pet to suffer?

I do not think there is such a clear dilemma (or as volatile puts it hypocrisy) in wanting an animal to die so you can eat its flesh and not wanting it to suffer (or rather having limitations of what you find acceptable suffering).

[Darat]

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.

Slightly off-topic: food isn't the exception in this. I think most of us most of the time are "unthinking" about much of our everyday lives.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Yet self-described "animal lovers" pamper their cats and dogs to a comical extent while blissfully dining on murder.

I for one am tired of this canard that vegetarians/vegans are somehow more moral when it comes to what is on their plate.

Let's not forget that any type of food production will come at a cost to animals (re: collateral deaths). One may not have flesh on their plates, but those veggies and non-animals products come at a cost to animal lives (maybe not a cow, chicken or pig - but animals die none-the-less). You want to reduce animal suffering? Buy not only produce locally grown but also locally produced beef, chicken and pork (farms that you can actually see). Or better still - hunt. I have a garden - the veggies from my garden do not involve animal deaths (maybe earthworms) - but no mice, goffers, snakes, etc. died for my garden. I do not use any mechanical devices in my garden - nor any *cides.

Before one starts casting stones on how moral one thinks their diet is - find out how it's produced first - how far it had to travel to get onto your plate. I live in farming area - those huge combines/harvesters kill loads field animals/birds - not to mention the *cides put on crops. I also see the cows in the fields. Cows grazing on land that is no good for crops. Hell - my neighbours cows routinely trot through my yard (much to my dismay - they put huge holes in my lawn).

I am for animal WELFARE.

[volatile]

Slightly off-topic: food isn't the exception in this. I think most of us most of the time are "unthinking" about much of our everyday lives.

Oh, definitely. The same goes for so much, including things like sweatshop labour. As I came to scepticism, I began to look at all aspects of my life and approach them as "thinkingly" as possible, and I try (though of course not always succeed) to think about everything I do. I hope others (especially those on this board) try and do the same...

Is it just me, or is this the most polite thread ever?

[Darat]

That's because us meat eaters are trying to lure you veggies and vegans into a false sense of security so we can slaughter you and feast upon your delicious flesh!

[volatile]

I for one am tired of this canard that vegetarians/vegans are somehow more moral when it comes to what is on their plate.

Let's not forget that any type of food production will come at a cost to animals (re: collateral deaths). One may not have flesh on their plates, but those veggies and non-animals products come at a cost to animal lives (maybe not a cow, chicken or pig - but animals die none-the-less). You want to reduce animal suffering? Buy not only produce locally grown but also locally produced beef, chicken and pork (farms that you can actually see). Or better still - hunt. I have a garden - the veggies from my garden do not involve animal deaths (maybe earthworms) - but no mice, goffers, snakes, etc. died for my garden. I do not use any mechanical devices in my garden - nor any *cides.

Before one starts casting stones on how moral one thinks their diet is - find out how it's produced first - how far it had to travel to get onto your plate. I live in farming area - those huge combines/harvesters kill loads field animals/birds - not to mention the *cides put on crops. I also see the cows in the fields. Cows grazing on land that is no good for crops. Hell - my neighbours cows routinely trot through my yard (much to my dismay - they put huge holes in my lawn).

I am for animal WELFARE.

Whilst I think the "collateral damage" argument is silly, I agree in principle that omnivorous self-sufficiency might be better on balance than store-bought veganism (though self-sufficient veganism would still be the best option, and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). But how many of us can be self-sufficient?

I suggest that for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one.

[tkingdoll]

Euthanasia for a pet would seem to be ruled out by this reasoning but I doubt you would want a loved pet to suffer?

I do not think there is such a clear dilemma (or as volatile puts it hypocrisy) in wanting an animal to die so you can eat its flesh and not wanting it to suffer (or rather having limitations of what you find acceptable suffering).

No, I didn't mean I don't think it should suffer and I don't think it should die. Euthanising a pet to end suffering makes sense if the animal is going to die anyway, and I have no problem with that. But I wouldn't say "I don't care if my pet dies but I do care if it suffers". I would care in both circumstances. That's my point. If I care if it suffers, I should also care if it dies. But if it's only going to die so I can have a nice meal that I don't actually need, I am not going to pretend to care. I don't care. I have no relationship with that living animal, unlike a pet. I only have a relationship with the dead flesh.

Maybe I should play devil's advocate and argue that's it's actually crueller to prematurely end the life of a happy lamb gamboling in a field than a miserable one stuck in a crate. :D

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Whilst I think the "collateral damage" argument is silly, I agree in principle that omnivorous self-sufficiency might be better on balance than store-bought veganism (though self-sufficient veganism would still be the best option, and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). But how many of us can be self-sufficient?

I suggest that for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one.


Why do you think the collateral death argument is silly?

Where do you get your food?

[volatile]

Why do you think the collateral death argument is silly?

Because its basis is essentially because all harm cannot be reduced, no efforts should be made to reduce harm at all.

Where do you get your food?Vegetables from a local organic co-op; other foodstuffs from the local supermarket. I live in a flat. There is no way I could raise my own meat, nor grow my own vegetables. As such, I shop at supermarkets. The tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles. Why should I pick the chicken, given that I have a general ethical disdain for harming animals unnecessarily?

If I wasn't clear enough, I concede that self-sufficient omnivorism is likely more sustainable / environmentally-friendly than my store-bought veganism, though for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one. Would you disagree?

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Because its basis is essentially because all harm cannot be reduced, no efforts should be made to reduce harm at all.
more sustainable / environmentally-friendly than my store-bought veganism, though for most people in the industrialised Western world, the easiest and most ethically-attainable diet is a vegan one. Would you disagree?


Yes - I strongly disagree. Crops fail. It only takes a drought, hail...whatever and crops fail. This year (at least in my area) is seeing a BUMPER crop for farmers - but only a few years ago, those same farmers had to diversify (beef, pork, etc) to include not just grains because the weather was so bad. Their crops were miserable.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

and I still find the idea that animal welfare ends at the moment one is hungry a slightly perplexing one). .

And you are extending this to vegetarians/vegans should one suddenly find the crops wiped out from drought/hail/bugs?

[volatile]

Yes - I strongly disagree. Crops fail. It only takes a drought, hail...whatever and crops fail. This year (at least in my area) is seeing a BUMPER crop for farmers - but only a few years ago, those same farmers had to diversify (beef, pork, etc) to include not just grains because the weather was so bad. Their crops were miserable.

Sorry, you'll need to elaborate on that. If your argument is that people shouldn't base their diets on plants because crops might fail such that this is not possible on a widespread basis, might I suggest you think about what kind of catastrophe might be required such that we could not grow enough crops to feed people but could raise enough animals to cover the deficit under the same catastrophic conditions? What kind of hypothetical weather situation causes massive crop failure but leaves animal foodstuffs intact?

Enough with the outlandish hypotheticals. Let's talk about the here and now, and situations applicable to most consumers in the Western world. I am in the supermarket. The tofu and the chicken are adjacent on the shelf. Why should I eat the chicken?

[volatile]

And you are extending this to vegetarians/vegans should one suddenly find the crops wiped out from drought/hail/bugs?

No. In an emergency situation, I'd eat meat. Has the world suddenly suffered a massive drought when I wasn't paying attention? Or are the supermarket shelves still replete with vegetables? Why are you feeling the need to prop up your argument with outlandish doomsday scenarios? Are there no credible reasons to eat meat in conditions as they are today?

[Rolfe]

I just saw this thread and no way am I reading through five pages as 11.20 at night.

However, I have to say I'm of the sophisticate group that considers rights to be a social phenomenon, explicitly or implicitly conferred by society.

On actual people. (Which would include non-human "people" if we ever discovered such.)

I don't consider animals as possessing "rights" as such. I do consider human beings as having duties to animals, duties to care for them and minimise and eliminate suffering and to ensure animal welfare by all reasonable and practical means.

Dammit, I teach animal welfare, to actual students.

I took a solemn oath always to seek to do the best I can for animals under my care.

But I don't equate that with having "rights", and the first person who objects to me using the word "owner" in respect of an animal is likely to find themselves being terminally mocked.

Rolfe.

[jj]

I believe in the right of a beef steer to be humanely executed and turned into steaks.

Hmm, time to go turn on the grill in about an hour, then.

[volatile]

I just saw this thread and no way am I reading through five pages as 11.20 at night.

However, I have to say I'm of the sophisticate group that considers rights to be a social phenomenon, explicitly or implicitly conferred by society.

On actual people. (Which would include non-human "people" if we ever discovered such.)

I think that you wouldn't find much objection to that. Nevertheless, I do think our treatment (ethically and legally) of animals has enough in common functionally with our treatment of humans that the word "rights" is an appropriate term. That is not to suggest that humans and animals should have equal rights (not even Peter Singer or Tom Regan would argue that), just that we, as a society, have decided to confer some rights on animals. That may just be a semantic distinction, though.

I don't consider animals as possessing "rights" as such. I do consider human beings as having duties to animals, duties to care for them and minimise and eliminate suffering and to ensure animal welfare by all reasonable and practical means.

Dammit, I teach animal welfare, to actual students.

I took a solemn oath always to seek to do the best I can for animals under my care.

But I don't equate that with having "rights", and the first person who objects to me using the word "owner" in respect of an animal is likely to find themselves being terminally mocked.
Is there a non-semantic distinction between the rights society grants to humans and the applicability of a rights-argument (as Regan frames it (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Case-Animal-Rights-Tom-Regan/dp/0520054601/ref=sr_1_31?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217803112&sr=1-31)) to animals? I don't see one, I'm afraid.

[RandFan]

I can well imagine that future generations will still eat flesh but will also consider our ways of obtaining that flesh quite barbaric. (For instance vat grown flesh is probably not that far from being practical.)Yes, that is what I said earlier. Agreed.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

No. In an emergency situation, I'd eat meat. Has the world suddenly suffered a massive drought when I wasn't paying attention? Or are the supermarket shelves still replete with vegetables? Why are you feeling the need to prop up your argument with outlandish doomsday scenarios? Are there no credible reasons to eat meat in conditions as they are today?

I don't know what is considered recent - but the 1930's (great depression) comes to mind.

Yes the supermarket shelves are replete with vegetables *today*. You are suggesting that we can live in a world that relies only on crops to sustain us? I disagree. I do not think the possibility of massive crop failure is outlandish.

[tkingdoll]

I think meat vats are brilliant. If the meat has the same taste and texture, why the hell bother killing an animal for it?

[volatile]

I don't know what is considered recent - but the 1930's (great depression) comes to mind.

Yes the supermarket shelves are replete with vegetables *today*. You are suggesting that we can live in a world that relies only on crops to sustain us? I disagree. I do not think the possibility of massive crop failure is outlandish.

Debaroo - You or I can both posit any number of doomsday scenarios that bolster our respective cases, but these have no basis in contemporary reality, particularly when yours rely on a weather event that afflicts human food stocks but does not impact upon animal food stocks.

Let's keep this discussion sensible, shall we? It's been a great thread so far, and I'd rather not see it degenerate into a "what if" contest.

I'm asking you for reasons I should buy chicken over tofu when I go to the supermarket tomorrow. What are they, in your opinion?

[RandFan]

Great post, RandFan, and I totally understand where you're coming from. My problem, though, is that you're supporting meat-eating with two contradictory platforms.

The first is that animal husbandry is better for the animals than the "natural" alternative, wherein the animals would otherwise die in infancy or not live at all. The second is that animals are predatory by nature and we humans are just part of that wider system. Those two things are contradictory, aren't they?

I agree with him that the "argument from nature" doesn't really hold and isn't something we humans generally extend into our general ethical principles.I'm not consciously trying to make post hoc rationalizations. I am trying to explain what I believe is the basis for my sense of ethics cognizant of the fact that my morals are to a degree a product of indoctrination. I admit that I have biases.

That said, no, I don't see two mutually exclusive positions. I quite agree that just because something is natural doesn't make it right. However we can't escape the fact that our morality is the result of natural processes (evolution). To understand how and why we have a sense of morality we must understand the underlying mechanisms that inform our morality. That said, I see no problem with understanding the practicality and benificial nature of animal husbandry.

I don't see a contradiction.

[RandFan]

That's my point really. I think that in general, we're hypocritical about food. Not everyone is. Ted Nugent sure isn't. Teek isn't. But I was. And, if you'll permit me to be blunt, I think it's legitimate to say that I think RandFan and PaxImperium are. Modern Western society in general is. Wouldn't you agree? Could be. I don't see how but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. Please to clarify?

[volatile]

Could be. I don't see how but I'm willing to entertain the possibility. Please to clarify?

Well, you'll note I retracted "hypocritical". That was way too strong, and I apologise for that.

I haven't much to add to this discussion really, other than to repeat what I've said already: I still think Teek was right when she established that it's problematic to worry (deeply, as you so obviously do) about animal suffering, but to have few qualms about killing the animal for the gratification its flesh would provide you. That's all - that it seems weird to me to worry about treating an animal well right up to the moment you kill it for food.

Thanks for the input to this thread by the way; it's been really interesting.

[RandFan]

Hypocritical is not the word I would use "unthinking" is how I would put it.

I agree. That is much closer to the point I was trying to make. Thank you.


ETA: I don't think RandFan is "unthinking", actually. He's thought about his diet and come to a conclusion that I find has a little unresolved tension in it. It was probably still too strong to call that tension "hypocrisy", though, so I retract that wholeheartedly.

I can assure both of you that I'm not taking anything here personal. I don't mind the charge of hypocricy as I don't see either of you making such a charge in a flipant manner. No need for kid gloves I assure you.

But thanks anyway. :)

[RandFan]

Well, you'll note I retracted "hypocritical". That was way too strong, and I apologise for that.

I haven't much to add to this discussion really, other than to repeat what I've said already: I still think Teek was right when she established that it's problematic to worry (deeply, as you so obviously do) about animal suffering, but to have few qualms about killing the animal for the gratification its flesh would provide you. That's all - that it seems weird to me to worry about treating an animal well only to then kill it.

Thanks for the input to this thread by the way; it's been really interesting.Ok, I understand.

One last point. I'm happy to work to reduce animal suffering and support efforts to do so. If my concern for animals leads to an inconsistency, I'm not sure at the moment that it does, but if it does then it's something I will try and work out. Perhaps I'll become more like teek. I'm not giving up steak. It's just to damn good. :)

[tkingdoll]

For the record: I was a vegetarian for ethical reasons for years.

[volatile]

For the record: I was a vegetarian for ethical reasons for years.

Oooh! Things just got interesting. :)

Would you mind sharing how the shift to cold-hearted, blood-sucking, animal-torturing murder came about?

[tkingdoll]

Oooh! Things just got interesting. :)

Would you mind sharing how the shift to cold-hearted, blood-sucking, animal-torturing murder came about?

Taste. Which is why I acknowledge that as a motive it's selfish, so if I'm going to eat a once-living creature for a selfish motive, I might as well embrace that. I make no distinction between foie gras and carrots.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Debaroo -
I'm asking you for reasons I should buy chicken over tofu when I go to the supermarket tomorrow. What are they, in your opinion?

I cannot find the link(s) - but I'm still looking that says the process to make tofu takes way more resources (and that would mean killing field animals) than it does to provide meat. Would you buy and eat the chicken if that was the case?

[volatile]

Taste. Which is why I acknowledge that as a motive it's selfish, so if I'm going to eat a once-living creature for a selfish motive, I might as well embrace that. I make no distinction between foie gras and carrots.

I admire your consistency. :)

Seeing as everyone else is allowed stupid hypotheticals, here's mine: would you eat farmed primates if they were tasty, were that possible?

[NobbyNobbs]

. Yes, Humans are in every way superior to other species on Earth.

Late to the thread, but I have to comment. This statement is dead wrong.

There are other species that are faster.
There are other species that are stronger.
There are other species that are longer-lived.
There are other species that are more well-adapted to the elements.
There are other species that have more balanced metabolisms.
There are other species that are more numerous.
Etc.

In fact, there is only one single way in which humans are superior to other species. It just happens to be a highly important, effective, and overpowering way. We have more developed brains.

[volatile]

I cannot find the link(s) - but I'm still looking that says the process to make tofu takes way more resources (and that would mean killing field animals) than it does to provide meat. Would you buy and eat the chicken if that was the case?

Maybe. Show me your numbers. If you can show that growing and fermenting soybeans is more resource intensive than growing feedstock for supermarket chickens, rearing the chickens and then processing them into food, then you might have a case (though not on your collateral damage argument, which, as I've already said, is silly).

I'll look forward to that. It strikes me as implausible, because you're essentially gonna need to argue that growing plants, harvesting them, processing them and then eating them is more resource intensive than growing plants, harvesting them, processing them, feeding them to animals, raising them, 'harvesting' them, processing them and eating them. Soya is a major animal feedstock, so this will make your job even harder; plus you'll note you have at least 4 more steps to account for.

If the production of soya beans into tofu uses more energy than the production of soya beans into chicken feed plus the energy needed to raise, keep, kill and process chickens, I'll eat my hat.

[tkingdoll]

I admire your consistency. :)

Seeing as everyone else is allowed stupid hypotheticals, here's mine: would you eat farmed primates if they were tasty, were that possible?

hmm. Never thought about it before, but I don't think I draw a line before primates. Why are they special? I guess you could argue that some primates are as intelligent as some retarded humans, so why not eat them too, or babies or whatever :D but this is hypothetical so...yeah, I probably would eat a farmed primate. I don't think intelligence is the line...dolphins are intelligent, I'd eat one though. I'm not sure what the line is. I don't need to draw one. 'Human' and 'not human'? Dunno. Then again, would I eat soylent green? It's certainly practical.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

I admire your consistency. :)

Seeing as everyone else is allowed stupid hypotheticals, here's mine: would you eat farmed primates if they were tasty, were that possible?

Since you have already admitted that you would eat meat in an "emergency" when would you eat the farmed primates? When the supermarket shelves were empty of your veggies? When you your garden didn't produce?

[RandFan]

I admire your consistency. :)

Seeing as everyone else is allowed stupid hypotheticals, here's mine: would you eat farmed primates if they were tasty, were that possible?Excellent question. I used to love to point out how dumb chickens are. Having raised thousands I can say that I don't accept the nonsense about them by those who claim that they are sensitive inteligent creatures. Of course someone had to point out that pigs are in fact quite intelligent and it's true.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/amg/pop_albums/3/4/e/d34725dpkei.jpg

And damn cute.

Ducks on the other hand... mmmm......

[volatile]

Since you have already admitted that you would eat meat in an "emergency" when would you eat the farmed primates? When the supermarket shelves were empty of your veggies? When you your garden didn't produce?

If there was no other food available (we're essentially talking post-apocalypse here, or Alive!-style plane crash), I'd eat primate. If I went travelling in Africa, I certainly wouldn't be vegan. I would kill an animal rather than starveto death. Have you read my posts in this thread at all?

What does any of this have to do with my quotidian diet? Are you arguing that because I would eat meat if absolutely necessary, that I should abandon my principles and eat meat now? That's an absurd argument, like most you've presented so far, if you don't mind me saying.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

If there was no other food available (we're essentially talking post-apocalypse here, or Alive!-style plane crash), I'd eat primate. If I went travelling in Africa, I certainly wouldn't be vegan. I would kill an animal rather than starveto death. Have you read my posts in this thread at all?

What does any of this have to do with my quotidian diet? Are you arguing that because I would eat meat if absolutely necessary, that I should abandon my principles and eat meat now? That's an absurd argument, like most you've presented so far, if you don't mind me saying.

You are the one who brought up the primate farm - and now you've moved the goal posts to say that "only if you we're in Africa".

[volatile]

You are the one who brought up the primate farm - and now you've moved the goal posts to say that "only if you we're in Africa".

Eh? Are you following this thread at all? I was asking Teek if her general food ethics would stretch to eating primates if they were, hypothetically, farmed. I obviously wouldn't eat farmed primates because I don't eat any farmed animals, but if the choice was meat or starvation, meat it would be.

Also, I am not presenting veganism as a universal diet. I do not expect subsistence farmers in sub-Saharan Africa to eat a vegan diet, because I do not believe it is always wrong to eat meat; conversely, I have been clear that I am against eating animals when it is unnecessary.

Please. Read the thread again. I'd be happy to clarify anything I haven't been clear on.

[linusrichard]

I'm sure a lot of people are willing to latch onto this statement, which adds credence to the view that strong arguments are not as persuasive as a good turn of phrase rationalizing our biases. A society can have rights? Philosophically that's a much, much more radical view than recognizing the rights of individual non-humans.
Could be. I wasn't trying not to be radical. And I don't have any problem rationalizing my biases, if that was intended by you as a criticism. But really, I should have said something like "I believe in the rights of individuals to live in a society free from animal abuse." That has its problems too, maybe, but it's better.

I think everyone on this board should be open to the idea that non-humans can have rights (my oft-invoked aliens).
Can one "be open to the idea" that non-humans can have rights, and also disagree with the idea that non-humans do have rights? That, I think, would be me.

When it gets down to it, I do not think many will fully accept the idea that a man tortures a dog in the forest, and he did nothing wrong because nobody knows it suffered.
I feel like you're saying I need to either accept this idea or change my stance, or else I am being inconsistent. If that's what you're saying, I don't agree. I believe my statement is fully consistent with not accepting that idea. I never said that society had the right to be free from animal abuse that anyone knows about. I didn't qualify it that way. And yes, I use the word "society" broadly enough to include the forest.

[Minadin]

Just so we're all on the same page -

Ingrid Newkirk - insane
Pope Benedict - catholic
Francisco Franco - dead

[fuelair]

I won't answer any poll/questionaire on animals and animal rights that leaves peta and their slime ridden ilk with the slightest possible reason to believe I would do anything or say anything that might give them hope of support or acceptance by me. I regard them at best as minimally better than terrorists and criminals.

[Cain]

I don't see the difficulty in extending individual human rights up to a collective of humans. However, I see great philosophical and practical conundrums with granting non-humans rights. For example, which non-humans get which rights and why, and what do you do about animals that infringe upon others' rights?

You do not see problems with granting rights to groups? Are you aware of the fact that the people who generally make such arguments are multiculturalists protecting rather barbarous religious practices...? Recognizing the rights of non-humans is not all that different than dealing with marginal cases of humans, and all of the problems associated with that realm. When does the fetus get state protections? What about a person in a persistent vegetative state?
--------

RandFan

AIU, morality isn't universal, the underlying mechanisms for morality are, to a large degree, universal. If morality were universal then morals wouldn't vary from society to society and across time. If morals were truly universal then there would be no sociopaths.

Universal morality does not ensure everyone will behave morally. It simply means there is a right and wrong that transcends culture, meaning, if raping, torturing, and killing women is evil in Culture X, then it's also wrong in Culture Y. It's a matter of upholding universal reason which, at the elementary level, means basic internal consistency.

-------------------
Debaroo

Let's not forget that any type of food production will come at a cost to animals (re: collateral deaths). One may not have flesh on their plates, but those veggies and non-animals products come at a cost to animal lives (maybe not a cow, chicken or pig - but animals die none-the-less). You want to reduce animal suffering? Buy not only produce locally grown but also locally produced beef, chicken and pork (farms that you can actually see). Or better still - hunt. I have a garden - the veggies from my garden do not involve animal deaths (maybe earthworms) - but no mice, goffers, snakes, etc. died for my garden. I do not use any mechanical devices in my garden - nor any *cides.

This argument has come up dozens of times on this forum, so it's not anything new. It puts the cart before the horse. The first question is not how to reduce animal suffering, but whether or not we should be committed to reducing animal suffering at all. Some people have said animals little more than biological machines, so it really does not matter how we treat them. How to reduce animal suffering is an empirical question, one that should be debated and discussed by people sincerely committed to the cause.

------------------------
linusrichard:
Could be. I wasn't trying not to be radical. And I don't have any problem rationalizing my biases, if that was intended by you as a criticism. But really, I should have said something like "I believe in the rights of individuals to live in a society free from animal abuse." That has its problems too, maybe, but it's better.

Then that's almost identical to the argument I offered in the original post. Even if well-meaning, it strikes me as incredibly dishonest. Why should our society be free from animal abuse? Is this a matter of upholding proper social etiquette, or something more? You have to have something to back up that assertion, so how is it any different than saying, "Society should be free from homosexuality," or flag burning, or Holy Book desecration.

[RandFan]

Universal morality does not ensure everyone will behave morally. It simply means there is a right and wrong that transcends culture, meaning, if raping, torturing, and killing women is evil in Culture X, then it's also wrong in Culture Y. It's a matter of upholding universal reason which, at the elementary level, means basic internal consistency. And where does one go to find this universal morality? Reason is only as good as the base premises (axioms). Not all cultures accept the same axioms.

By your definition so long as a culture believes that rape is equally good for all societies then it is moral.

I don't see any basis for divorcing culture from morality. Is there any evidence to suppose that a child reared in isolation would believe rape, torture and killing women as evil? Would such a person even have a concept of evil? I see no reason to suppose so.

[Cain]

And where does one go to find this universal morality? Reason is only as good as the base premises (axioms). Not all cultures accept the same axioms.


The content of what is moral or immoral is an open question.

By your definition so long as a culture believes that rape is equally good for all societies then it is moral.

How do you figure? What a particular culture or individual believes is largely immaterial. You're still stuck in relativist mode. Truth is not arbitrated by dominant or popular views. A universal belief simply means that if it's OK for me to do something, then it's OK for you to do it (assuming similar circumstances). It's OK for Cain to **** to his girlfriend, but that does not mean it's OK for RandFan to **** Cain's girlfriend. There are different circumstances; I think you're married, and my girlfriend is also already attached. If torturing a human being for being a homosexual is appropriate in culture Y, then it's also appropriate in culture Z. While I do not agree with that position, it is universal. Another universal position is that it's wrong to torture a person simply for being a homosexual.


I don't see any basis for divorcing culture from morality. Is there any evidence to suppose that a child reared in isolation would believe rape, torture and killing women as evil? Would such a person even have a concept of evil? I see no reason to suppose so.

As I have acknowledged, we more or less inherit our own particular values from a culture, but that does not mean morality is derived from culture. Socialization helps explain why we believe different things, but it does not justify how we do things.

[RandFan]

The content of what is moral or immoral is an open question. Agreed.

What a particular culture or individual believes is largely immaterial. In the end it's all that matters. It's comforting to think that there is some kind of rule book out there we could go to and say, "see, it says right there that rape is wrong". But there is no such rule book. In the end we only have our collective selves to decide what is right for society and what is right for ourselves.

You're still stuck in relativist mode. Truth is not arbitrated by dominant or popular views. What is moral truth? If it's not absolute then we can't have an absolute consensus as to what is moral truth.

We don't like that morality could be arbitrary. Our sense of right wrong tells us that what should be right for you should be right for me. And that is a starting point for us. We can agree and work from there to hammer out the details based our sense of fairness, theory of mind and empathy.

I agree with Shermer. We have an evolutionary basis to understand why we have a shared sense of morality and we can understand the utility of consistent moral principles. Time, progress and reason are likely to lead humans to the same moral conclusions. But only if certain conditions exist. If there are insufficient resources for everyone then we are not likely to reach those conclusions. It's all fine and well to sit back and say that in times of famine it's still wrong to steal from your neighbor but in that moment our sense of survival will outweigh our sense of fairness. Is it immoral to steal to feed one's family? The fact that there are moral ambiguities and dilemmas clearly illustrate that morality isn't a clear cut right and wrong proposition. It's nuanced with shades of gray. That isn't to say that we can't work out fairly consistent moral standards. We can and clearly we do.

As I have acknowledged, we more or less inherit our own particular values from a culture, but that does not mean morality is derived from culture. Socialization helps explain why we believe different things, but it does not justify how we do things. I don't know where else it could be derived. Once you eliminate religion then where does one go to find the rules?

[Fnord]

An animal has the right to remain silent, especially between the hours of 9:00p and 9:00a. If they waive that right by any form of vocalization appropriate for their species, then the noises they make will be sufficent justification for the animal being silenced, permanently.

An animal has the right to wander its range freely; but if in the process of its free-range wanderings, it sould either trespass upon my property or pose a threat, whether direct or indirect, to my property or the health, safety or well-being of myself, my dependents, or any individual or group of individuals that are incapable of defending themselves from the animal's predations, then its life will be terminated.

An animal has the right to have its owner(s), if any, present during the termination of its life. If the owner(s) is (are) not present, then by the apparent lack of concern by its owner, there will be no one to care if the life of the animal is terminated.

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

I'm asking you for reasons I should buy chicken over tofu when I go to the supermarket tomorrow. What are they, in your opinion?

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Pork vs Tofu

http://www.infra.kth.se/fms/utbildning/lca/project%20reports/Group%205%20-%20Pork_tofu.pdf

Tofu came out a head only because it doesn't use as much land, however, the process of making tofu uses more energy (fossil fuels). So you would be correct to eat the tofu in the supermarket as opposed to the pork (in the supermarket - yes I realize you said chicken), but, a better choice in my opinion would be to not eat tofu but look for locally grown produce and humanely raised cows (pasture fed), pigs and chickens (free-range). Support those farmers. Or in other words try to avoid eating food that requires excessive processing.

Did you realize how much energy went into the production of tofu? And now with the rise in fuel and fertiliser costs. Potash has gone through the roof!

[volatile]

Did you see the part in the conclusion that said "The result shows that tofu has a bigger fossil fuel part, although this is may not be the case in reality. This LCA cannot determine the correct balance between pork and tofu’s impact on fossil fuel."

The results are interesting, but far from compelling, I'm afraid. The only metric which tofu comes worse on is doubted in the methodology and the conclusion by the report's own authors. It's certainly not convincing enough to convince me that animal harm becomes necessary.

I also doubt the comparison would hold for other meats, particularly chicken for the reasons already explained.

ETA: That said, I agree that people should consider their diets from a number of aspects. My principal issue here is not the conclusions so much as the fact that so many people don't even think of their diet in terms of these criteria.

[volatile]

Oh, and as a counter-point, read http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2711_133/ai_n6148291

"Growing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange

" The study, which is published in today's New Scientist magazine, shows that the production of 1kg of beef releases greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4kg of carbon dioxide.

The production process also led to fertilising compounds equivalent to 340g of sulphur dioxide and 59g of phosphate, and consumed 169 megajoules of energy.
Over two-thirds of the energy is spent on producing and moving cattle feed.
The emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 released by an average car every 160 miles, and the energy consumption is equal to a 100W bulb being left on for 20 days, says New Scientist.


But the total environmental impact will be higher than the study suggests because the calculations do not include emissions from managing farm equipment and transporting the meat."



This is all rather tangential to the OP, however.



I remain unconvinced.

[Tricky]

I think that "rights" are a property of human interaction. Rights are an idea used to describe the fundamental way that humans interact with each other; the concept simply does not apply in the natural world. A lion is not depriving an impala of its "right to life" when it hunts, kills, and eats it. A tree is not infringing on a sidewalk's "right to privacy" when it undermines and then cracks it with a growing root. This level of entity, while living, does not have the type of voluntary interaction that is required for rights to be needed or even possible.
<snip>
Good post, Miss_Kitt, one that echos my sentiments closely. Few if any animals have the cognitive ability to recognize the concept of "rights", so whatever we may call "animal rights" are simply human rights that some empathetic humans have kindly decided to extend to some other species. Generally, our likelihood of extending these rights closely parallels how much like humans these creatures are, either in appearance or intelligence.

But I would like to take this opportunity to cite one other authority (http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/when-serpents-bargain/)on the subject:
***

when serpents bargain for the right to squirm
and the sun strikes to gain a living wage -
when thorns regard their roses with alarm
and rainbows are insured against old age

when every thrush may sing no new moon in
if all screech-owls have not okayed his voice
- and any wave signs on the dotted line
or else an ocean is compelled to close

when the oak begs permission of the birch
to make an acorn - valleys accuse their
mountains of having altitude - and march
denounces april as a saboteur

then we'll believe in that incredible
unanimal mankind (and not until)

______________ee cummings

[GreNME]

Oh, and as a counter-point, read http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2711_133/ai_n6148291

"Growing demand for meat has become a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening humanity's future, maintains the World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C. Total meat consumption has increased fivefold in the past half-century, putting extreme pressure on Earth's limited resources, including water, land, feed, and fuel."

Not the least bit of hyperbole there, huh? ;)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange

" The study, which is published in today's New Scientist magazine, shows that the production of 1kg of beef releases greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4kg of carbon dioxide.

The production process also led to fertilising compounds equivalent to 340g of sulphur dioxide and 59g of phosphate, and consumed 169 megajoules of energy.
Over two-thirds of the energy is spent on producing and moving cattle feed.
The emissions are equivalent to the amount of CO2 released by an average car every 160 miles, and the energy consumption is equal to a 100W bulb being left on for 20 days, says New Scientist.


But the total environmental impact will be higher than the study suggests because the calculations do not include emissions from managing farm equipment and transporting the meat."



This is all rather tangential to the OP, however.



I remain unconvinced.

For what it's worth, if this were a discussion about sustainable farming in the 21st century I would say that the articles you linked are very pertinent.

[volatile]

Not the least bit of hyperbole there, huh? ;)

It's not an opinion that is unique to them. It's also shared by the UN (http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/why-the-no-impa.html), DEFRA (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3334471.ece), and the Stockholm International Water Institute (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm) amongst others.

For what it's worth, if this were a discussion about sustainable farming in the 21st century I would say that the articles you linked are very pertinent.

Oh, you're right, of course. But these types of arguments are only really peripheral to the OP discussion of animal rights.

[paximperium]

I'm back...what did I miss?

[GreNME]

It's not an opinion that is unique to them. It's also shared by the UN (http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2007/08/why-the-no-impa.html), DEFRA (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3334471.ece), and the Stockholm International Water Institute (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3559542.stm) amongst others.

Whether an opinion is common or not does not mean it can't be hyperbole. From what I know of reading material on such subjects (because of my interest in conservationism), it's the entire food industry that has this impact, not just the meat part. Corn, for one example, has done far more to affect the waste and poor distribution of resources along with contributing to environmental damage than almost anything else in the food industry. Trying to turn it into a meat-only or non-meat-only discussion is, in my opinion, a red herring.

Oh, you're right, of course. But these types of arguments are only really peripheral to the OP discussion of animal rights.

See, that's one of those assumed starting points where I disagree. I see those things as peripheral to the larger discussion on conservationism and environmentalism. Arguments on whether people are (or should be) omnivores or herbivores is part of a larger discussion on morality, not animal welfare.

That's why I haven't been getting into this discussion about whether vegitarian/veganism is more allegedly moral or not, by the way. It does not affect the work I and others I know do for the sake of the welfare of other animals. I know you probably think it does, but for all practical purposes I'm not convinced it would change the work people do on-the-ground for animal welfare in a positive (or, to be fair, negative) manner. It's one of those "big picture" moral arguments that is ultimately subjective and gloms on to parts of other debates because of the emotional nature of the issue. I fully support you in your vegitarian/vegan lifestyle, but I have no desire to get into a debate over the evangelical nature of a lot of the proponents of that lifestyle.

[volatile]

Whether an opinion is common or not does not mean it can't be hyperbole. From what I know of reading material on such subjects (because of my interest in conservationism), it's the entire food industry that has this impact, not just the meat part. Corn, for one example, has done far more to affect the waste and poor distribution of resources along with contributing to environmental damage than almost anything else in the food industry. Trying to turn it into a meat-only or non-meat-only discussion is, in my opinion, a red herring.

I understand that point of view, though I have reached my conclusions on what I see as the balance of evidence. If the people who have studied this in depth say meat consumption is more damaging than plant consumption, then who am I to argue? I haven't seen any studies to the contrary, but have heard much about problems attributed to rising meat consumption in places like China, for example.

Now, of course there are very damaging ways of producing crops, too - rainforest clearance for soya plantations being an immediate and obvious example. Sense and sensibility is required in all areas of production and consumption. But given that we human beings do need to eat, the evidence suggests that at the moment, a plant based diet is the lightest-impacting (if those are the criteria we are judging "better" on, which to be fair I think is an issue for another thread).

See, that's one of those assumed starting points where I disagree. I see those things as peripheral to the larger discussion on conservationism and environmentalism. Arguments on whether people are (or should be) omnivores or herbivores is part of a larger discussion on morality, not animal welfare.

Oh, I don't disagree. I just meant peripheral to this thread really; not to the whole issue of animal ethics in general. You're absolutely right that conservation / environmental factors should and do play a great part in the formation of an ethical stance towards our relationships with animals, which is, as you rightly say, only a part of a broader moral position.

That's why I haven't been getting into this discussion about whether vegitarian/veganism is more allegedly moral or not, by the way. It does not affect the work I and others I know do for the sake of the welfare of other animals. I know you probably think it does, but for all practical purposes I'm not convinced it would change the work people do on-the-ground for animal welfare in a positive (or, to be fair, negative) manner. It's one of those "big picture" moral arguments that is ultimately subjective and gloms on to parts of other debates because of the emotional nature of the issue.

Again, I readily agree. I think what Cain was getting at in the OP (which manifested itself as Teek's Dilemma downthread) was that even though our perspective of "animal rights" is necessarily subjective, there is room within the discussion to talk about how internally consistent our positions are. I certainly wouldn't claim to be 'more moral' than anyone at all; the only thing I would say is that, having investigated the evidence, I think that for me veganism is the most rational approach to take. Other's don't agree, and that's totally fine. As we've also discussed in the thread, it's often something many people really haven't even thought about in any real analytical depth.

I fully support you in your vegitarian/vegan lifestyle, but I have no desire to get into a debate over the evangelical nature of a lot of the proponents of that lifestyle.

There certainly are evangelical vegetarians; dogmatic vegetarians. I hope you can tell from my inputs here and elsewhere that my veganism is far from evangelical.

[Tricky]

I'm back...what did I miss?
Lunch. We went out for burgers.

[RandFan]

Lunch. We went out for burgers. I had Church's Chicken. Damn. If god didn't want us to eat chickens he wouldn't have made them taste so good and so easy to catch. He could have pre-breaded and seasoned them though.

[mumblethrax]

In re-reading the previous post I replied to...
The source you are primarily (exclusively?) relying on here, the Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom), is an industry front run by liar-for-hire Richard Berman. Check out some of their positions on public health policy that contravene the interests of their clients for a sense of what their game is; this stuff is on par with what the Discovery Institute plies. Before someone throws down some Latin--this is not an argument, but an attempt to establish some background. I'm reluctant to engage with this kind of proxy argument, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take on your whole post--I have a finite amount of time to spend on this.

HSUS does own a rabbit farm they got along with another acquisition, but the HSUS owns and operates exactly zero dog shelters or rescues in the entire country, and has no facilities for holding, treating, or re-housing dogs, cats, rodents, and other pets.
An egregious lie. The 'rabbit farm' is run by The Fund for Animals (http://www.fundforanimals.org/), which you can see runs several other programs, including the largest animal sanctuary in the US (http://blackbeautyranch.org/).

Primarily, however, HSUS works by funding other organizations, which do run shelters, and by providing emergency relief where those organizations are overwhelmed. And of course by working for better standard in agriculture, opposing animal fighting, etc. The recent effort in the wake of Katrina (http://thehill.com/letters/keene-has-a-skewed-view-of-the-humane-society-of-the-u.s.-2006-04-04.html) is a good example.

In a rather recent (and disgustingly deceitful) display of of HSUS using the general ignorance of people about their agenda to make money, they ran a donation campaign using the (in)famous "Michael Vick Dogs"
The ad is misleading, which is presumably why they pulled it, but HSUS has been heavily involved in the effort against dogfighting, conducting undercover investigations, providing support to law enforcement, pushing for tougher penalties. Yes, they favored euthanasia for the dogs in this case, but their reason for doing so is fairly compelling, and they are clearly fighting for better treatment for fighting dogs in general. I certainly don't find their fundraising 'disgustingly deceitful' when compared with the tactics of, say, The Center for Consumer Freedom (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/ccf_hsus_notice_51007v2.jpg).

Again, Wayne Pacelle (HSUS president) is said to have stated that one of the goals of HSUS as "We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts," among other things.
Good? How is this inconsistent with their stated goals? HSUS, the ASPCA and the API have recently launched a joint effort to challenge Ringling Brothers in court, for example. (http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/savethecircusanimals) Is it your contention that they should focus only on dogs and cats? That they shouldn't be concerned with the treatment of animals in circuses? That they don't focus on dogs and cats enough? I really don't understand where you're coming from.

I doubt it's any secret that PETA kills loads of animals, and the state of Virginia has actually been asked to classify PETA as a slaughterhouse before [link (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197938+17-Jan-2008+PRN20080117)] because of it.
Yes. Who asked them to do that? The CCF. Teach the controversy! The media manipulation here is utterly transparent: make a hollow request of state government, feed a press release to Reuters, trumpet the result as if it meant anything.

This was suggested because since 1998 PETA has killed over 19,000 (yes, more than nineteen thousand) animals in their Virginia facility [PDF of VDACS reports (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/PetaKillsAnimals.pdf)].
8,000 fewer, it should be noted, than your local shelter killed in a single year. These numbers are meaningless without context.

PETA advocates tend to argue that there was no other recourse with those animals, yet there are individual no-kill shelters and animal foster groups all over the country-- far too many to list here, a few for nearly every decent-sized city in the US and then some.
And the turnover rate in no-kill shelters is, naturally, minuscule. They don't have nearly enough room to accommodate every stray animal in the country, and they certainly can't deal with exponential growth rates. Personally, when faced with the prospect of spending the rest of my life in a small cage or accepting death, death would begin to hold a certain allure to me. That's not to disparage the work that no-kill shelters do, but to point out that there's certainly room for disagreement here, even within an animal rights framework.

However, so far at least two PETA members have been brought up on charges [PDF (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/trialCharges.pdf)] of animal cruelty in the execution of their euthanasia practices. The defense was that the animals were beyond help, yet the pictures of some of the animals killed shows that there are many young dogs and puppies (link (http://petakillsanimals.com/petaVictims.cfm) - caution, disturbing images for some). PETA's euthanasia ratio to the number of animals they find homes for or otherwise (like people reclaiming the animals) has consistently gone up every year since 1998:
'At least two' meaning exactly two. And of course they were acquitted of all animal cruelty charges, another convenient omission. It's not surprising that their placement rates are so low; they essentially relieve the burden of euthanasia from other shelters in the area because they consider the methods used inhumane.

PETA advocates also tend to try to downplay the criminal activities by saying that they are isolated and unrelated to PETA's cause...
Right, I'd like to know how this transition makes sense. You're talking about the 'criminal activity' of PETA employees improperly disposing of dead animals (which is clearly unrelated to PETA's goals), and then you segue into a discussion of politically motivated crimes not committed by PETA employees as if they were of a kind.

That wasn't the only time PETA has given money to individuals or groups linked to criminal and terrorist behavior. Going back to at least 1995 (and likely before), PETA has given money on more than one occasion to individuals linked to extremist or eco-terrorist groups [link (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/pressrelease_detail.cfm?release=6)]. Arguing that the organization doesn't is simply false.
I don't contest that they've contributed to defense funds, I just contest the characterization of those contributions as support for terrorism. Same answer for the Friedrich quote. PETA is not cagey about their support for non-violent sabotage--it's right on their FAQ.

A quote from Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom back in 2002: "PETA collects millions of dollars in contributions every year from people who intend to support the humane treatment of animals," Berman said. "However, many of these well-intentioned individuals are likely unaware that since 1988 PETA has spent four times as much money defending criminals and domestic terror groups as it has in support of animal shelters." What Berman doesn't mention is the continuing increase in euthanasia practices by PETA, which has a higher animal kill rate than any shelter out there in the US.
Berman again. What kind of weight is an unsourced statistic from a professional liar supposed to carry? At any rate, PETA is not primarily a shelter, and there's no reason anyone would think they are.

Neutering my dogs does not save the lives of 27000 dogs. Education on responsible ownership, not the "there oughtta be a law" mentality, will save the lives of dogs.
Fortunately, the law applies to everyone, and that really will have an impact on the number of animals killed. If you oppose having your own dogs neutered, you're on the wrong side of not just the AR crowd, but the ASPCA, the AVMA, every animal welfare group I know of.

By the way: could you show me where you got that text you cite. The version of the ordinance that I read contains no such provision. However, I admittedly have the original ordinance proposed to the city council. If it had indeed been changed, then that means the groups who handle foster care and animal welfare support in the city actually managed to get some positive results.
Here (http://www.companionsforlife.org/daa/Final_ordinances.pdf) (PDF link).

And what does she think of seeing-eye dogs (same link)?
As I said, I had an idea where this was coming from. Notice that the quote is unattributed here? It comes from this article (http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html), and it's something the author says about Newkirk. This is hardly the damning in-their-own-words evidence it's presented as, particularly considering it's also inaccurate--PETA's (and Newkirk's) position is ambivalent. They have some specific complaints about practices in raising guide dogs, and caring for them after they're no longer capable of working, but they don't discount the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship or seek anything like penalties for blind people with seeing eye dogs.

She's careful not to say explicitly what you are asking me to show you, but she says exactly that in her demand to outlaw pet ownership. When something is against the law then doing that thing results in fines or jail. Your arguments are from obtuseness, not from logic.
None of this follows. Newkirk is clearly engaged in talking about her ideal world here, and that does not have any implications about criminal law in the here and now, whether we agree with her or not. This is like concluding that since John Lennon sings about a world without religion, he would therefore support anti-theist pogroms.

Your personal grudge towards these groups has little to do with the point at hand, however. We ought to be able to distinguish between PETA and HSUS on the one hand, and animal rights in principle on the other.

[paximperium]

Lunch. We went out for burgers.

Damn...I keep missing these get together. Are you guys avoiding me? I told you it was a medical condition, its not my fault :(

I'll go reheat my Cat-Soup and Hot-Dog leftovers...

[balrog666]

Is it OK to stomp a kitten to death? Is it OK to skin a puppy alive? Certainly animals have a right to humane treatment. Whatever other rights one has in mind would be up for individual discussion.


That depends on whether you live in Korea or China or similar locales.

[balrog666]

Thank you for the response. I understand you better. It would be possible to not want to kill cats for a number of reasons (don't like the taste) but still be consistent with killing cows but I can see that your reasons would not be consistent.

I personally wouldn't care if we ate cats for food and also had them for pets.

That said I respect very much your position. I'm a big fan of choice.


http://marge.uvm.edu/sdempse/jokes/That_Wasnt_Chicken.jpg

[GreNME]

The source you are primarily (exclusively?) relying on here, the Center for Consumer Freedom (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom), is an industry front run by liar-for-hire Richard Berman. Check out some of their positions on public health policy that contravene the interests of their clients for a sense of what their game is; this stuff is on par with what the Discovery Institute plies. Before someone throws down some Latin--this is not an argument, but an attempt to establish some background. I'm reluctant to engage with this kind of proxy argument, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't take on your whole post--I have a finite amount of time to spend on this.

I don't like your disclaimers. You are the one who challenged me as being ignorant and as soon as I start showing some evidence that I'm not you predicate your response with a personal attack ("liar-for-hire") and making excuses as to why you aren't going to refute everything I say.

HSUS does own a rabbit farm they got along with another acquisition, but the HSUS owns and operates exactly zero dog shelters or rescues in the entire country, and has no facilities for holding, treating, or re-housing dogs, cats, rodents, and other pets.
An egregious lie.

No, it isn't. (see below)

The 'rabbit farm' is run by The Fund for Animals (http://www.fundforanimals.org/), which you can see runs several other programs, including the largest animal sanctuary in the US (http://blackbeautyranch.org/).

It seems the dishonesty is yours. Fund For Animals, the company Pacelle previously ran before coming to HSUS (and subsequently buying through HSUS) only operates their rabbit farm (http://www.adopt-a-rabbit.org/) as their sole pet facility. Like I said, that rabbit farm is their only location for holding, treating, and re-housing PETS. Perhaps you should read my words a bit better.

But since we're on the subject of FFA for a moment, let's look at how damaging they are ecologically. In 2004 FFA filed a case against the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the MD Dept. of Natural Resources to stop them from culling the mute swan in the Chesapeake Bay [link (http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus11ubaltjenvtll101.htm)]. The problem was that the mute swan was non-native to the environment of the Chesapeake and was causing considerable environmental damage and choking out much of the flora and fauna in the region. in essence, in their zealousness Fund For Animals was fighting tooth and nail to stop the culling back of the swans at the expense of not only the other wildlife there, but also to the plant life and general ecology of the Bay. Their backward approach to the issue shows how reactionary, extreme, and ignorant to actual conservationism the organization truly is.

Primarily, however, HSUS works by funding other organizations, which do run shelters, and by providing emergency relief where those organizations are overwhelmed. And of course by working for better standard in agriculture, opposing animal fighting, etc. The recent effort in the wake of Katrina (http://thehill.com/letters/keene-has-a-skewed-view-of-the-humane-society-of-the-u.s.-2006-04-04.html) is a good example.

Another lie. HSUS organizes the fundraisers and takes in most of the donations, allowing a minority percentage of the donations to go back to the local facilities. For the Katrina relief, it was not HSUS who did the saving, rehabilitating, and re-housing of the animals (though they certainly took credit), it was local rescue groups and individual groups who flew in (under their own dime) to assist in the actual work. Much like the Red Cross and FEMA during the Katrina disaster, HSUS operated almost completely in an administrative capacity while others did the actual work.

I should know-- our home volunteered to take in fosters, and we spoke only with the local groups if they needed us, not HSUS. Most of the Dallas rescue groups did the same. The reason why: we knew the HSUS was misusing the funds they were raking in [link1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501002.html) link2 (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jun06/060601j.asp) link3 (http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200603/20060327_Red_Cross_Humane_Society_Fraud.htm)].

The ad is misleading, which is presumably why they pulled it, but HSUS has been heavily involved in the effort against dogfighting, conducting undercover investigations, providing support to law enforcement, pushing for tougher penalties.

Bullcrap. They lied to pull in donations, and when they were discovered by those who actually do real work for the dogs in such cases they quickly changed their ads. You're trying to make excuses for what was, in essence, outright fraud. You can't deny it, and trying to justify their fraud is just more of their post-hoc CYA when caught in an outright lie.

Yes, they favored euthanasia for the dogs in this case, but their reason for doing so is fairly compelling, and they are clearly fighting for better treatment for fighting dogs in general.

No, their reasons were horrible. Some of the Vick dogs (did you even read the WP articles?) eventually were rehabbed into service dogs for hospital visits. Pacelle made a knee-jerk statement based on ignorance and media hype about pitt bulls, and as the fate of the dogs bears out he was completely wrong. You were the one accusing me of succumbing to media hype, and yet you're defending a statement that is the very essence of media-fueled histrionics with little to no basis in actual animal behavior. I provided evidence of the dogs' actual fates, and you're trying to use hindsight? Read the actual articles and see for yourself: Pacelle was not only way off base, but the actual events were exactly the opposite of his uninformed opinion.

I certainly don't find their fundraising 'disgustingly deceitful' when compared with the tactics of, say, The Center for Consumer Freedom (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/ccf_hsus_notice_51007v2.jpg).

Why are you trying to change the subject with a "they do it too" defense? Not only that, but you don't even show an actual advertisement asking for money? Why do you compare an editorial correction to outright fraud?

Go look up Tom Knudson and his article "Environment, Inc." [link (http://tomknudson.com/Green_Machine.html)] for some real information on how these groups lie to people for their funding. Of course, that is, unless your only response is a character attack against him as well. A quote from his story: "But turning to mass-market fund-raising techniques for financial sustenance, environmental groups have crossed a kind of conservation divide. No allies of industry, they have become industries themselves, dependent on a style of salesmanship that fills mailboxes across America with a never-ending stream of environmentally unfriendly junk mail, reduces the complex world of nature to simplistic slogans, emotional appeals and counterfeit crises, and employs arecane accounting rules to camouflage fund raising as conservation."

Even further than the deceit by HSUS is the tendency of their high-profile members to engage in trying to create hysteria (knudson's "counterfeit crises"), like when Howard Lyman went on the Oprah Winfrey show exclaiming to the audience (in Alex Jones fashion) how mad cow disease would make AIDS look like "the common cold" [link (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q2/lyman.html)]. He repeatedly tries to foment hysteria on a widely-viewed television show. The intended effects aren't difficult to deduce, either: with the recent salmonella outbreaks that have damaged the produce markets the poisoning is said to come from, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to know how mad cow affects the meat market.

Good? How is this inconsistent with their stated goals? HSUS, the ASPCA and the API have recently launched a joint effort to challenge Ringling Brothers in court, for example. (http://aspcacommunity.ning.com/group/savethecircusanimals) Is it your contention that they should focus only on dogs and cats? That they shouldn't be concerned with the treatment of animals in circuses? That they don't focus on dogs and cats enough? I really don't understand where you're coming from.

They don't focus on dogs and cats at all unless it's for fundraisers, and when they organize those they get local groups to do the actual work with the animals. Instead, they focus on their anti-hunting, anti-circus, and anti-research campaigns through lobbying with the fund they acquire. Nothing you've posted denies this, and instead you're trying to justify their deceit.

Yes. Who asked them to do that? The CCF. Teach the controversy! The media manipulation here is utterly transparent: make a hollow request of state government, feed a press release to Reuters, trumpet the result as if it meant anything.

So, you're saying that, for the last ten years, Richard Berman (the guy you personally attacked) and his organization have been forcing PETA to have the highest kill rate of any shelter in the US? As Carl Sagan said, for extraordinary claims you need to provide extraordinary evidence.

8,000 fewer, it should be noted, than your local shelter killed in a single year. These numbers are meaningless without context.

Actually, the number is that the Dallas shelter re-housed a higher percentage of dogs than PETA every has-- not that it's difficult, since PETA's adoption numbers are usually in double digits, at best. Instead, what the Dallas AC shelter does-- I know because I've met the man who runs it-- is work with the local rescue groups to keep dogs circulating between the shelters for as long as possible.

And instead of actually refuting my accusation-- which was PETA's leading kill rates-- you pull another emotion-based "you too" argument in the attempt to try to prove... what? That you think two wrongs make a right?

And the turnover rate in no-kill shelters is, naturally, minuscule.

And your ignorance is showing yet again, parroting AR lies. Yes, there are instances like local humane societies who have low turnover rates because they hay hold the dogs for more than a year, but they are also selective in who they will accept by somewhat arbitrary "adoptable" criteria that depends on which location you go to. However, there are municipal (tax-funded) no-kill shelters that tend to have high turnover rates for adoptions, higher than PETA by an order of magnitude [link (http://nathanwinograd.blogspot.com/2008/02/look-at-shelter-save-rates.html)]. Also, no-kill groups like those in Tomkins County and NYC (both in New York) have managed to bring the kill rates down in the City of New York to half that of PETA in 2006 [link (http://www.nokillkingcounty.org/FAQ.asp)]. Some states that have low populations in shelters will engage in "rescue transports" [link (http://www.rescuetransport.com/)] between cities, counties, and even states in order to meet adoption quotas and to lower the burden of shelters with high populations. It is because you are ignorant of such networks by numerous rescue groups across the country (and around the world) that you're too busy repeating the hype that the AR fundamentalists are selling. I'm surprised you didn't propose the typical HSUS "animal hoarders" myth regarding no-kill shelters [link (http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/Open%20Door%20Myth.pdf)].

They don't have nearly enough room to accommodate every stray animal in the country, and they certainly can't deal with exponential growth rates. Personally, when faced with the prospect of spending the rest of my life in a small cage or accepting death, death would begin to hold a certain allure to me. That's not to disparage the work that no-kill shelters do, but to point out that there's certainly room for disagreement here, even within an animal rights framework.

That's all complete hyperbole straight out of PETA and HSUS propaganda. As I pointed out above, the reality is that there are a large number (and growing) of shelters and rescue organizations who transport dogs from areas of the country with high shelter populations (mainly in the South) to areas with lower shelter populations and high adoption rates (mainly the NorthEast and norther MidWest). As I pointed out above, just because you are ignorant of something doesn't make the AR hype any more true.

However, so far at least two PETA members have been brought up on charges [PDF (http://petakillsanimals.com/downloads/trialCharges.pdf)] of animal cruelty in the execution of their euthanasia practices. The defense was that the animals were beyond help, yet the pictures of some of the animals killed shows that there are many young dogs and puppies (link - caution, disturbing images for some). PETA's euthanasia ratio to the number of animals they find homes for or otherwise (like (http://petakillsanimals.com/petaVictims.cfm) people reclaiming the animals) has consistently gone up every year since 1998:
'At least two' meaning exactly two.

No, I mean "at least two" because of other instances like their DEA investigation [link1 (http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Veterinary+news/PETA-targeted-in-DEA-probe/ArticleStandard/Article/detail/446515) link2 (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30863983_ITM)]. However, What you're avoiding are things like when the vice president of PETA, Bruce Friedrich, outright called for violent actions [audio link (http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/audio/010501_bruce_friedrich.wav) (again)]: "Then of course we, as a movement, are going to be blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the record I don't do this stuff, but I advocate it. I think it's a great way to bring about animal liberation. And considering the level of atrocity and the level of the suffering, uh, I think it would be a great thing if, you know, all these fast food outlets and these slaughterhouses and these laboratories and the banks that fund them exploded tomorrow."

What boggles the mind is that I give you Friedrich's own words in his own (recorded) voice, and yet you completely ignore the facts that I'm pointing out.

And of course they were acquitted of all animal cruelty charges, another convenient omission.

Not an omission at all. They were acquitted of the cruelty charges, but were still convicted of littering and dumping dead dogs in private dumpsters [link (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071014-1.htm)]. Trying to semanticize your way out of what they did is ridiculous, because there was no doubt that they did it. You can read more on the sequence of events here (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm).

It's not surprising that their placement rates are so low; they essentially relieve the burden of euthanasia from other shelters in the area because they consider the methods used inhumane.

As I mentioned before about the no-kill movement that is seeing kill rates less than half that of PETA and adoption rates higher than kill shelters, your confirmation bias is showing your lack of actual understanding of the topic

Right, I'd like to know how this transition makes sense. You're talking about the 'criminal activity' of PETA employees improperly disposing of dead animals (which is clearly unrelated to PETA's goals), and then you segue into a discussion of politically motivated crimes not committed by PETA employees as if they were of a kind.

I didn't say PETA was a criminal organization, I said that they aid, abet, and defend criminal behavior to further their cause. The events I point out are related because PETA openly associates itself with it, through its leadership providing advocacy as well as paying the legal fees of those who commit nothing less than terrorist actions.

I don't contest that they've contributed to defense funds, I just contest the characterization of those contributions as support for terrorism. Same answer for the Friedrich quote. PETA is not cagey about their support for non-violent sabotage--it's right on their FAQ.

Blowing things up is not non-violent. Advocating smashing property and blowing things up is not non-violent. Paying the defense funds for political terrorists is not advocating non-violence. You are creating your own cognitive dissonance by trying to justify these crimes.

A quote from Richard Berman, executive director of the Center for Consumer Freedom back in 2002: "PETA collects millions of dollars in contributions every year from people who intend to support the humane treatment of animals," Berman said. "However, many of these well-intentioned individuals are likely unaware that since 1988 PETA has spent four times as much money defending criminals and domestic terror groups as it has in support of animal shelters." What Berman doesn't mention is the continuing increase in euthanasia practices by PETA, which has a higher animal kill rate than any shelter out there in the US.
Berman again. What kind of weight is an unsourced statistic from a professional liar supposed to carry? At any rate, PETA is not primarily a shelter, and there's no reason anyone would think they are.

If their spending is any indication, they are funding criminal activity at a far greater amount than they are actually acting to defend the welfare of animals. That you dismiss the quote without actually providing refuting evidence shows how little you understand the groups you're advocating for instead of allowing emotional biases get in the way.

Fortunately, the law applies to everyone, and that really will have an impact on the number of animals killed. If you oppose having your own dogs neutered, you're on the wrong side of not just the AR crowd, but the ASPCA, the AVMA, every animal welfare group I know of.

And now you're appealing to authority. However, the reality is that spay/neuter legislation has consistently not addressed dog-at-large or euthanasia numbers, because all that manages to happen is that fewer people register their dogs. The answer to the dog-at-large problem is one of education and support, not through "there oughtta be a law" flaccid legislation. This same legislation was passed in California years ago and it has shown no improvements. So, unless you can provide some kind of actual evidence instead of appealing to authority all your arguments are doing are maintaining the typical flawed emotional appeals of the extremist AR groups. the ordinance will only affect responsible dog owners and essentially levy a fine on them (in the form of a fee) while the irresponsible owners aren't going to bother complying anyway.

As I pointed out above in the FFA suit, these types of AR legislative pushes are backward and unhelpful to the larger picture they so often try to claim is their cause. The problem with dog and cat related legislation in cities and counties is not that there aren't enough, the problem is that the ones that are present are already not being enforced. Adding more impotent legislation only salves the emotions of zealots

Here (http://www.companionsforlife.org/daa/Final_ordinances.pdf) (PDF link).

Great. In looking at it along side the originally-proposed ordinance (which isn't online any longer, I acquired it directly from the City of Dallas), it looks like the opposition to the AR-proposed legislation changed a number of things, though the ordinance is still highly flawed and I'm willing to bet you $100 USD that in six, twelve, eighteen, and more months from now that there will be no changes in the dog-at-large problem (which is why they pushed it).

As I said, I had an idea where this was coming from. Notice that the quote is unattributed here? It comes from this article (http://www.michaelspecter.com/ny/2003/2003_04_14_peta.html), and it's something the author says about Newkirk. This is hardly the damning in-their-own-words evidence it's presented as, particularly considering it's also inaccurate--PETA's (and Newkirk's) position is ambivalent. They have some specific complaints about practices in raising guide dogs, and caring for them after they're no longer capable of working, but they don't discount the possibility of a mutually beneficial relationship or seek anything like penalties for blind people with seeing eye dogs.

After they are no longer capable of working? Exactly what do you believe happens to service dogs after they get old? You are under several very flawed and twisted impressions based on your odd justifications in your posts.

You asked to show you how PETA's goals would make it a crime to have a seeing-eye dog. PETA's goals are to completely remove domesticated animals from human civilization.

None of this follows. Newkirk is clearly engaged in talking about her ideal world here, and that does not have any implications about criminal law in the here and now, whether we agree with her or not. This is like concluding that since John Lennon sings about a world without religion, he would therefore support anti-theist pogroms.

John Lennon didn't pay the defense funds of terrorists, nor did John Lennon lobby governments to outlaw religions. Your ridiculous analogy is flawed because of your emotional appeal in trying to tie John Lennon to Ingrid Newkirk. PETA regularly supports legislation that works to make it more difficult for people to have domesticated animals. The organization pays the defense fees for criminals. Their vice president outright advocates violent action. Considering PETA's behavior, your attempt to compare anyone in PETA to John Lennon is a joke.

Your personal grudge towards these groups has little to do with the point at hand, however. We ought to be able to distinguish between PETA and HSUS on the one hand, and animal rights in principle on the other.

And you close with a personal attack on me. Brilliant.

I don't have a "personal grudge" against PETA, because I've never had to deal with them. Instead, as I began getting involved in helping animals I began learning which groups actually work to benefit the welfare of animals in human societies and which ones work to remove animals from human societies. Both HSUS and PETA actively work to segregate humans from animals through legislation proposals and lobbying, while either barely or not at all doing anything for the actual welfare of animals in human society. PETA funds defense lawyers for criminals and HSUS either uses local rescue groups for revenue sources or they manipulate local agencies and stab them in the back example (http://www.animalagalliance.org/images/ag_insert/060506_Feedstuffs_Welfare.pdf) (PDF)]. Despite all your attempts to justify the questionable behavior of those two groups, nothing you have said even comes close to proving otherwise.

[GreNME]

Oh and today's news (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-080408-animal-rights-aug05,0,1550071.story) brought to you by the "Animal Rights" movement.

[paximperium]

GreNME nice reply.

I'd rather donate to the SPCA anyday than to those unsavory groups.

[Tricky]

GreNME nice reply.

I'd rather donate to the SPCA anyday than to those unsavory groups.
I second that. Excellent post, GreNME. Well documented, addresses the points, and above all, shows real compassion, not sloganeering.

[GreNME]

The SPCA is better at actually addressing problems on-the-ground for animal welfare, and they definitely have a better record at adopting out animals (they excel in New Jersey, for instance). However, if I were making a suggestion it would not be to support the SPCA but to instead support your local rescue organizations. You'll find that on the local level these rescue organizations run the gamut from broad, general animal rescue and re-housing to breed-specific (laborador, great Dane, etc.) or species-specific (ferret rescue, iguana rescue, etc.) groups who try their best to network as far and as wide as possible to take care of these animals. The SPCA, for instance, doesn't always get involved in rescue transports of animals from areas that need help to places with more resources, space, and available adopters. The good thing, though, is that the SPCA does work with some of the municipal no-kill shelters and local-level humane societies who have adopted the no-kill cause (and not affiliated with HSUS, for obvious reasons).

I have my differences with the SPCA and a lot of legislation they support that puts a burden on responsible owners (like the Dallas example), but they are an organization that does actual work on municipal levels for animal welfare and I can't fault that.

ETA: and per the whole Dallas spay/neuter thing, I am in support of owners responsibly making sure that their animals are not creating unsustainable populations, and part of that can often include spay/neuter (but not always and not across the board). Many cities have had to take extreme measures in controlling out-of-hand feral cat populations by doing a catch-sterilize-release program because of the sheer size of the population, which has had moderate results without eliminating the population (through excessive euthanasia) and without placing the burden on responsible owners (through archaic legislation). Of the three dogs I have two of them are 'fixed', because both of them are adopted and it would not be responsible (to them or the local population) to leave them intact. The third is under no risk of accidentally breeding because we provide an environment where such a possibility is minimized to the point of being highly unlikely-- he would have to be abducted from us for anything to happen (which, believe it or not, is actually a concern in some areas with his breed).

[RandFan]

John Lennon didn't pay the defense funds of terrorists, nor did John Lennon lobby governments to outlaw religions.


"But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait" --John Lennon

[GreNME]

You're not seriously suggesting that was lobbying are you? ;)

[RandFan]

You're not seriously suggesting that was lobbying are you? ;)I grew up liking Beatles music but not caring much for the individuals or their politics. I've since come to have a deep respect for them and particularly John Lennon. He was a principled and honest to a fault person. His refusal to involve himself with the violent side of the peace movement elevates him in my eyes.

That's not to say he didn't have flaws or make mistakes. He did.

[GreNME]

I grew up liking Beatles music but not caring much for the individuals or their politics. I've since come to have a deep respect for them and particularly John Lennon. He was a principled and honest to a fault person. His refusal to involve himself with the violent side of the peace movement elevates him in my eyes.

True that. He did try to live up to principles he espoused, especially the non-violent ones. That's why I found the attempt to compare him to Newkirk or Friedrich, who both advocate violence and have used their organization to defend criminals, to be spurious at best (and outright dishonest at worst).

Since I only partially touched on supporting the SPCA: For those who are less connected with the active side of these organizations and wonder which tends to have more money from donations actually go toward helping animals, I suggest checking out their numbers for how much your money goes to the actual causes. Take California's numbers (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-type,0,4633762.htmlstory?TypeCode=7) as an example. PETA (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=1446) tends to have about a 28% ratio-- meaning roughly $.28 to the dollar donated-- for money going to their causes. However, most of the money from donations actually being used is put into marketing campaigns or public image work (see their list (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=1446) for details). They're about to maintain nearly thirty cents to the dollar because, unlike other media-blitz non-profit organizations, the average salary for PETA employees is roughly $30k annually [link (http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-Peta)], which is lower than most. This allows the organization to spend most of its money on public image and marketing campaigns, which is where the bulk of PETA money actually goes [again, link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=1446)]. HSUS (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=91), on the other hand, manages to get less than half that of even PETA at 11.3%. The "Build a Bear" donation drive is the only one that is sustainable by HSUS (at 100%), and even with that their other huge losses (due to money going to administration and not the causes) bring their overall average down to just over a dime for every dollar donated being used for their supposed intended purposes. That's better than their daughter organization Fund For Animals (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=949) did, though, who falls at an abysmal 8.2%. The ASPCA (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-charity-search-detail,0,922401.htmlstory?CharityCode=12) comes through as one of the highest returns at 42.3%, nearly four times that of HSUS and plenty more than the media juggernaut of PETA.

Those are just California's numbers, but those numbers are fairly consistent across the country. The reality is that for someone wanting to make a donation for the welfare of animals, giving to PETA or the HSUS is not going to go for animal care and treatment but to demonstrations, political lobbying, and marketing campaigns. Giving to the SPCA or (preferably) to your local rescue groups will directly fund treatment, housing, outreach, and education about animals and their welfare.

[paximperium]

Well, I gave a couple of hundred to the SPCA last year. I guess I could be generous and do the same to the local shelter and SPCA as well. Thanks for the info.

[mumblethrax]

I don't like your disclaimers. You are the one who challenged me as being ignorant and as soon as I start showing some evidence that I'm not you predicate your response with a personal attack ("liar-for-hire") and making excuses as to why you aren't going to refute everything I say.
The disclaimers, of course, were designed to prevent the 'personal attack' response. When I point to Berman's long history of telling lies on a professional basis, I am not offering a personal attack, but a job description. Do you disagree that it's dishonest to present as a consumer interest non-profit a group founded by an industry PR firm (much more dishonest, for example, than presenting yourself as a humane society when you are, in fact, a humane society)? Do you contest that he has regularly deceived the public where it serves his clients interests? Do you think this has no bearing upon his credibility, or that it might warrant extra attention to his claims? The problem here, and the reason why this is germane, is that by relying on a professional liar you run the very serious risk of becoming misinformed.

Another lie. HSUS organizes the fundraisers and takes in most of the donations, allowing a minority percentage of the donations to go back to the local facilities. For the Katrina relief, it was not HSUS who did the saving, rehabilitating, and re-housing of the animals (though they certainly took credit), it was local rescue groups and individual groups who flew in (under their own dime) to assist in the actual work. Much like the Red Cross and FEMA during the Katrina disaster, HSUS operated almost completely in an administrative capacity while others did the actual work.
This is just incredible. Here's a more recent update (http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/katrina_anniversary/). Are you seriously going to tell me that $6.3 million in direct response (provided primarily by HSUS), $8.35 million for facility reconstruction, $2.3 million in reimbursements for individual groups that paid out of pocket to help, etc. can be handwaved away as not real work?

Since you presumably consider HSUS to be an unreliable source, how about the LA-SPCA (http://www.la-spca.org/adoptions/tails/rescue_2.htm):

The Disaster Animal Response Team (DART), through the HSUS, was tasked with the job of animal rescue by the Miss. E.O.C. They were the only private group permitted in. This to provide a coordinated plan of rescue and a single place for the holding of rescued animals to insure they had the best chance of being reunited with their families. The HSUS set up holding facilities 75 miles inland at Hattiesburg, in a massive horse facility. Animals were transported from the field in air-conditioned trailers to this facility. The care and maintenance of recovered animals is handled largely by volunteers. The VMET group provided vet care and some limited guidance to the volunteers.
DART is a program run by the HSUS, and they were the only private group allowed into the area for the purpose of animal rescue immediately after Katrina. More information is available at that page about what the HSUS was doing at the time.

But this charge, that HSUS is banking on the good name of humane societies, does not pass the laugh test. Do you really think the LA-SPCA would invite HSUS to the ribbon-cutting for the new facilities (which the HSUS contributed $4.5 million to) is they felt their good name was being besmirched? Do you think the ASPCA would work so closely with them so often?

[link1 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/25/AR2006032501002.html) link2 (http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jun06/060601j.asp) link3 (http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/Articles/200603/20060327_Red_Cross_Humane_Society_Fraud.htm)].
Do you realize that you linked to the same article twice? I don't actually consider it damning that HSUS is being investigated on the basis of some complaints (which seem to be about difficulties reuniting with pets, rather than malfeasance)--I'll wait for the results of that investigation, but I don't expect it to amount to anything.

Bullcrap. They lied to pull in donations, and when they were discovered by those who actually do real work for the dogs in such cases they quickly changed their ads. You're trying to make excuses for what was, in essence, outright fraud. You can't deny it, and trying to justify their fraud is just more of their post-hoc CYA when caught in an outright lie.
How am I doing that? I said the ad was misleading--I don't think it's fraudulent because it's clear from the text that any donation will not be earmarked for caring for Vick's dogs, and the HSUS did have custody of some of Vick's dogs for a time. But I agree that it's misleading, and I'm glad they pulled it.

No, their reasons were horrible....
I disagree. I think the fact that so many pit bulls--pit bulls not trained to be aggressive--are euthanized calls into question the wisdom of expending so many resources on rehabilitating dogs that received attention as a result of Vick's notoreity, where those resources would be better spent training and finding homes for other dogs. The point here is that the disproportionate attention to these dogs distorts the distribution of resources, in order to create a happy ending for us, rather than helping as many dogs as possible.

Why are you trying to change the subject with a "they do it too" defense? Not only that, but you don't even show an actual advertisement asking for money? Why do you compare an editorial correction to outright fraud?
Editorial correction? This was an obvious non-retraction retraction ("our lawyers made us do it") which followed from threat of a defamation action. These guys simply invent charges about support for terrorism, which I think reflects badly on them. Again, this is relevant because it establishes credibility, and I'm comparing deception to deception. One of these looks far worse to me.

They don't focus on dogs and cats at all unless it's for fundraisers, and when they organize those they get local groups to do the actual work with the animals. Instead, they focus on their anti-hunting, anti-circus, and anti-research campaigns through lobbying with the fund they acquire. Nothing you've posted denies this, and instead you're trying to justify their deceit.
This is just false. Here's a list of their accomplishments (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/12/2007-accomplish.html) for 2007, which clearly include efforts on behalf of dogs and cats.

And the idea that they're trying to pass themselves off as being concerned primarily with dogs and cats--laughable. Look at their website. Look at their media exposure (their recent Hallmark investigation, for example). Look at their logo. They are clearly express a broad mandate to protect all animals, not merely pets.

So, you're saying that, for the last ten years, Richard Berman (the guy you personally attacked) and his organization have been forcing PETA to have the highest kill rate of any shelter in the US? As Carl Sagan said, for extraordinary claims you need to provide extraordinary evidence.
No. What I'm saying is that the CCF is clearly manipulating the media. Why is it newsworthy that the CCF, which exists to discredit anyone who threaten their clients' interests, makes an absurd request of Virginia state government that will never get anywhere? This is just a way of disguising the nakedness of the insinuation.

And instead of actually refuting my accusation-- which was PETA's leading kill rates-- you pull another emotion-based "you too" argument in the attempt to try to prove... what? That you think two wrongs make a right?
The problem here is that you aren't following the argument. I pointed that out because I was making it clear that these numbers are not damning on their face (as you implied they were with your "Yes, 19,000" parenthetical). I said as much. We need to look at the context, and when we do, PETA's high ratio of euthanasia to placement doesn't look so strange. I'm not refuting your accusation that they have a high euthanasia rate--I'm pointing out that there's nothing inherently wrong with a high kill rates, particularly if they result from PETA's shelter specializing in humane euthanasia and offloading the burden from surrounding shelters.

And your ignorance is showing yet again, parroting AR lies. Yes, there are instances like local humane societies who have low turnover rates because they hay hold the dogs for more than a year, but they are also selective in who they will accept by somewhat arbitrary "adoptable" criteria that depends on which location you go to.
These aren't 'AR lies', they are obvious problems of implication. Where no-kill shelters have adoptability criteria, they will leave the least adoptable animals in traditional shelters. What would we expect to happen in that situation? Effectively, no-kill shelters increase the overall space available for warehousing animals, and will generally bias the shelter population towards adoptability (however this is defined), but this is akin to solving the problem of the spill from water pouring into a full glass by getting a bigger glass: if you don't plug the source, you're only forestalling a return to similar rates of spill. And in a city with something like 10% neuter/spay rates, you clearly have a problem at the spigot. I'm not saying that no-kill shelters can't work, or that it's not an admirable goal--I'm pointing out that it has to be coupled with aggressive neutering campaigns, or it won't work.

However, there are municipal (tax-funded) no-kill shelters that tend to have high turnover rates for adoptions
Higher adoption rates are not higher turnover rates.

Also, no-kill groups like those in Tomkins County and NYC (both in New York) have managed to bring the kill rates down in the City of New York to half that of PETA in 2006 [link (http://www.nokillkingcounty.org/FAQ.asp)].
Tompkins County. I grew up there. My mother was on the board of the SPCA for a time, in fact. The local shelter was already almost no-kill before Nathan Winograd came along. They are now about to abandon no-kill as a goal, because the larger shelter he encouraged them to build is unsustainably expensive. Read this (http://kcascreatures.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-no-kill-and-thompkins-county.html) for more information. Winograd is famous for this: he comes into a shelter, brings in a lot of money and energy, reduces euthanasia rates, and then the shelter fails after he leaves, the money dries up, and people burn out. He responds to this charge tangentially at the link you provided. Tompkins County is also a fairly unique situation--it's a small community containing one of the best-known vet schools in the world, and a superabundance of skilled volunteers.

And now I live in New York. I do (or, well, have done--haven't done it in a while) volunteer TNR work. The reduction in euthanasia rates is largely a result of the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's Animals, which has set a no-kill goal while aggressively pushing for greater rates of spaying/neutering (including mandatory spaying of all shelter animals).

No-kill is certainly possible, but it requires exactly the kind of measure you oppose. Without money, commitment, and force of law, and especially without high rates of spaying/neutering, it just isn't sustainable.

No, I mean "at least two" because of other instances like their DEA investigation
An investigation is not an indictment. Exactly two people have been brought up on charges.

Not an omission at all. They were acquitted of the cruelty charges, but were still convicted of littering and dumping dead dogs in private dumpsters [link (http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2008/071014-1.htm)]. Trying to semanticize your way out of what they did is ridiculous, because there was no doubt that they did it. You can read more on the sequence of events here (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/Trial_Day1.cfm).
I'm sorry, but mentioning an indictment without mentioning a conviction and then presenting a conviction a different, lesser, charge to justify the omission is a factual, not semantic, difference.

As I mentioned before about the no-kill movement that is seeing kill rates less than half that of PETA and adoption rates higher than kill shelters, your confirmation bias is showing your lack of actual understanding of the topic
I have not claimed, at any point, that PETA had high adoption rates. It's just that I think there are worse things that can happen to animals than euthanasia.

Blowing things up is not non-violent. Advocating smashing property and blowing things up is not non-violent. Paying the defense funds for political terrorists is not advocating non-violence. You are creating your own cognitive dissonance by trying to justify these crimes.
PETA would presumably disagree--they would characterize these actions as non-violent because they take pains to avoid hurting people. I disagree with property-destruction tactics. I also disagree that they constitute terrorism, which is a loaded term. And it's frustrating that if I should contest a charge of terrorism, suddenly I'm 'justifying' crimes. I'm not, although I would certainly justify at least some crimes (trespassing for the purpose of gathering evidence of abuse, for an obvious example).

If their spending is any indication, they are funding criminal activity at a far greater amount than they are actually acting to defend the welfare of animals. That you dismiss the quote without actually providing refuting evidence shows how little you understand the groups you're advocating for instead of allowing emotional biases get in the way.
What it shows is that I don't trust the CCF and I require some evidence before I accept their figures. The burden of proof, and all that. Rick Berman making a claim is not evidence in support of that claim.

And now you're appealing to authority. However, the reality is that spay/neuter legislation has consistently not addressed dog-at-large or euthanasia numbers, because all that manages to happen is that fewer people register their dogs.
It's not an appeal to authority to point out that you're opposed to the position all of the major animal welfare organizations and not just AR groups, it's just a statement of fact.

I also happen to the think that the AVMA and the ASPCA are appropriate authorities, and so it would not be a fallacious to rely on their authority. I'll also rely on my own experience here in New York, where we have compulsory spaying/neuter laws for shelters (although not for owners).

Great. In looking at it along side the originally-proposed ordinance (which isn't online any longer, I acquired it directly from the City of Dallas), it looks like the opposition to the AR-proposed legislation changed a number of things, though the ordinance is still highly flawed and I'm willing to bet you $100 USD that in six, twelve, eighteen, and more months from now that there will be no changes in the dog-at-large problem (which is why they pushed it).
The narrative you're creating here isn't really believable. Remember when I was just supposed to trust you? Now there was a heroic last-ditch victory against animal rights groups like, y'know, the SPCA.

But sure, I'll take that bet. PM me and we'll work out the details.

After they are no longer capable of working? Exactly what do you believe happens to service dogs after they get old? You are under several very flawed and twisted impressions based on your odd justifications in your posts.
I was presenting PETA's position, not my own. But I imagine that some of them continue to live with their owners, some of them are rehomed, and some of them are euthanized. You'd have to ask PETA what their specific complaints are, any whether they can back them up.

You asked to show you how PETA's goals would make it a crime to have a seeing-eye dog. PETA's goals are to completely remove domesticated animals from human civilization.
No, I didn't ask you that. I asked you to demonstrate to me that she would want to put blind people in jail or give them fines for having seeing eye dogs. You still haven't done that.

John Lennon didn't pay the defense funds of terrorists, nor did John Lennon lobby governments to outlaw religions. Your ridiculous analogy is flawed because of your emotional appeal in trying to tie John Lennon to Ingrid Newkirk. PETA regularly supports legislation that works to make it more difficult for people to have domesticated animals. The organization pays the defense fees for criminals. Their vice president outright advocates violent action. Considering PETA's behavior, your attempt to compare anyone in PETA to John Lennon is a joke.
I'm sorry, what? The analogy was not an emotional appeal at all. It was designed to point out that a similar kind of idealism implies nothing about specific policy prescriptions. I am making no claims about whether her goals are good or bad (on the face of it, they're totally neutral).

Your argument here boils down to, "Ingrid Newkirk does bad things, therefore she would apply criminal penalties to blind people with seeing eye dogs."

And you close with a personal attack on me. Brilliant.
It's not a personal attack to point out that you have a grudge against animal rights groups, it's a conclusion from reading your posts.

Oh and today's news brought to you by the "Animal Rights" movement.
That was reprehensible, of course. Here's the response from HSUS (http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/hsus_offers_reward_in_ca_arsons_080408.html). This is why I object to treating the animal rights movement as monolithic.

[Nogbad]

If you can afford to buy free range and enjoy the taste more than battery, then it makes sense for you to buy it. I'd like to challenge you to a blind taste test, but that's not practical :D

However, I support your right to make purchasing decisions and the right of farmers to supply choices to consumers. I don't support those who demand that everyone should have to pay the premium, though, and fortunately at the moment my government agrees that the poor folk of the country having access to affordable fast protein is more important than the welfare of the birds. In a recent furor in the UK over fat-faced celebrity chefs demanding we all buy free-range chickens, many low income parents pointed out that if they had to pay what free-range costs, they simply wouldn't be able to feed meat to their kids. It's a shortcut to nutrition and the alternatives for the same protein are more expensive. People first, animals later.



I don't think that's completely true, although many serial killers do have histories of animal torture. But plenty of people hunt and enjoy it, and don't kill people.

Sorry about the slow response. I agree that free range is not a universal option although it has become a lot cheaper of late. I would not insist that that it be compulsory though.

As to hunting and fishing, well I have done that and I have come home empty handed sometimes too but still enjoyed myself. It wasn't really what I was thinking about. I was talking more of the type of individual who will put a kitten in a microwave. Come to think about it though there are laws about that sort of thing in the UK so the kitten does have de jure rights.

[Thitical Crinker]

Serious question: In a world where we quit killing animals for food, would it be ok to raise cows, chickens and pigs and when old age makes their lives miserable, end their suffering and eat them?

[volatile]

Serious question: In a world where we quit killing animals for food, would it be ok to raise cows, chickens and pigs and when old age makes their lives miserable, end their suffering and eat them?

I'm inclined, on balance, to say yes, but with a great number of caveats. I know many of my fellow vegans wouldn't agree.

I'm all for the freeganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeganism#Foraging) (and particularly the dietary beliefs) by the way, though I don't much practice it myself.

[mumblethrax]

Serious question: In a world where we quit killing animals for food, would it be ok to raise cows, chickens and pigs and when old age makes their lives miserable, end their suffering and eat them?
I'd consider that world kind of weird (how many people eat their pet pot-bellied pigs when they die?), but I don't see any problems in principle, assuming they led generally decent lives and people weren't just masking their intentions.

[Thitical Crinker]

I'm inclined, on balance, to say yes, but with a great number of caveats. I know many of my fellow vegans wouldn't agree.


I will go to the extreme. Pretend on my farm all the critters are raised with top-notch care all their lives. I wait until one falls over dead from natural causes. I butcher and eat it. I also make a toilet seat cover out of the hide.

Why would anyone, including your fellow vegans, have a problem with that?

[Cain]

Agreed.

In the end it's all that matters. It's comforting to think that there is some kind of rule book out there we could go to and say, "see, it says right there that rape is wrong". But there is no such rule book. In the end we only have our collective selves to decide what is right for society and what is right for ourselves.

Who is proposing we consult a rule book? How do you invent this stuff? The second part does not follow. There is a strong argument to be made for democratic decision-making, but let's not pretend that some vague consensus makes a policy action right. Societies change.

What is moral truth? If it's not absolute then we can't have an absolute consensus as to what is moral truth.

We don't like that morality could be arbitrary. Our sense of right wrong tells us that what should be right for you should be right for me. And that is a starting point for us. We can agree and work from there to hammer out the details based our sense of fairness, theory of mind and empathy.

I agree with Shermer. We have an evolutionary basis to understand why we have a shared sense of morality and we can understand the utility of consistent moral principles. Time, progress and reason are likely to lead humans to the same moral conclusions. But only if certain conditions exist. If there are insufficient resources for everyone then we are not likely to reach those conclusions. It's all fine and well to sit back and say that in times of famine it's still wrong to steal from your neighbor but in that moment our sense of survival will outweigh our sense of fairness. Is it immoral to steal to feed one's family? The fact that there are moral ambiguities and dilemmas clearly illustrate that morality isn't a clear cut right and wrong proposition. It's nuanced with shades of gray. That isn't to say that we can't work out fairly consistent moral standards. We can and clearly we do.

Now you're contradicting yourself. How can you believe in moral convergence, moral progress? If everything is relative, then the postmodernists are right that "progress" -- a key enlightenment value -- is an illusion.

I read Shermer's book The Science of Good and Evil, and briefly corresponded with him. It's not an original or particularly thoughtful work (see instead Robert Wright's earlier and better work The Moral Animal). An evolutionary response, one that is shared pretty much across cultures, is a revulsion against incest. Brother and sister relations. Pinker discusses this as an example at the beginning of a chapter in The Blank Slate. Our instincts, whether they're justified in the ancestral environment or not, are kinked up the existence of very effective birth control.

-----------------------
Thitical Crinker
I will go to the extreme. Pretend on my farm all the critters are raised with top-notch care all their lives. I wait until one falls over dead from natural causes. I butcher and eat it. I also make a toilet seat cover out of the hide.

Why would anyone, including your fellow vegans, have a problem with that?

Presumably they would have a problem with it because they suspect your motives; a disconnect in how you will supposedly treat it in life and death. Nobody here, so far, including myself, has a problem with it.

Another example of psychological research cited in Pinker's above-mentioned book involves a family dog run over by a car. The family has heard dog meat tastes delicious, so they cook the animal and eat it. I have no problem with that either. Former vegetarian Teek said something about not eating her dead sister. Apart from possibly denying organs to people in need, I see no problem with that either. Where's the harm?

Eating roadkill is fine; dumpster diving for double cheeseburgers outside McDonald's is fine. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating meat.

[volatile]

Presumably they would have a problem with it because they suspect your motives; a disconnect in how you will supposedly treat it in life and death. Nobody here, so far, including myself, has a problem with it.

Another example of psychological research cited in Pinker's above-mentioned book involves a family dog run over by a car. The family has heard dog meat tastes delicious, so they cook the animal and eat it. I have no problem with that either. Former vegetarian Teek said something about not eating her dead sister. Apart from possibly denying organs to people in need, I see no problem with that either. Where's the harm?

Eating roadkill is fine; dumpster diving for double cheeseburgers outside McDonald's is fine. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with eating meat.

You're right, and I certainly agree.

I think a number of vegans would be against your proposal, TC, because they are against farming or, more broadly, using animals as commodities.

I'd certainly have a problem with a battery farm where you did all you could to expidate the death of chickens, albeit 'naturally', in such a system. I also find keeping pets like snakes, lizards, rabbits and even goldfish problematic, though have little issue with keeping dogs, cats, cows and sheep as domestic pets.

But eating wild animals that die of natural causes? I have little issue with that, though obviously such a system could not be used to feed large populations.

[RandFan]

Who is proposing we consult a rule book? No one. That's the problem. Absent a source or basis for the rules we can only use reason to figure them out on our own.

There is a strong argument to be made for democratic decision-making, but let's not pretend that some vague consensus makes a policy action right. What does? Of course I never said anything about "vague".

Societies change. Thus the reason morals change. I understand your point and it's tempting to say that no matter what a society thinks (Nazi Germany for Instance) wrong is wrong.

Now you're contradicting yourself. How can you believe in moral convergence, moral progress? If everything is relative... I never said "everything is relative". Moral convergence is possible because we have near universal mechanisms that given the right circumstances will likely lead to convergence.

Human behavior is the result of genetic predisposition and environment. If people are in a state of famine then the rates of genocide and warfare are likely to increase.

It's not an original or particularly thoughtful work (see instead Robert Wright's earlier and better work The Moral Animal). There's not much philosophically or scientifically that is completely original. Theories are often built on the insights of others. I'm happy to look at your book recommendation. I mention Shermer because his thesis, original or not, explains well why morality is neither absolute nor simply relative.

An evolutionary response, one that is shared pretty much across cultures, is a revulsion against incest. Brother and sister relations. Pinker discusses this as an example at the beginning of a chapter in The Blank Slate. Our instincts, whether they're justified in the ancestral environment or not, are kinked up the existence of very effective birth control.I've no disagreement with this. I still think that we are not that far off in our views.

[Ron_Tomkins]

While we're at it, who here believes in "Sanctity of life"?

[Cain]

No one. That's the problem. Absent a source or basis for the rules we can only use reason to figure them out on our own.

Yes, this is our difficult and lonely task.

What does? Of course I never said anything about "vague".

Your infamous argument, revisited again in this thread, has always been "but society says..."

Thus the reason morals change. I understand your point and it's tempting to say that no matter what a society thinks (Nazi Germany for Instance) wrong is wrong.

Oh, yes, how nice it would be to say Nazi Germany is wrong.

I never said "everything is relative". Moral convergence is possible because we have near universal mechanisms that given the right circumstances will likely lead to convergence.

By "everything" I mean everything subsumed under morality, which is a position you have long maintained, no? One of the main arguments from evolutionary psychology is that human morality across cultures is already essentially the same, but differs, usually in minor ways, in rituals and practices. The example I typically use, undoubtedly recounted in previous threads, comes straight out of an intro to ethics text (The wise old king who brings together Greeks with Cannibals. The Greeks are horrified to learn that the Cannibals eat their dead, and the Cannibals are equally horrified that the Greeks burn their dead, but at heart, they are different ways of demonstrating respect for the dead). Pinker's book cites Donald something's list of cultural universals.

Typically when we talk about convergence we mean people are independently hitting upon a transcultural truth, which is why I thought it was appropriate, if unfair and meaningless, for you to use the example of a child reared in isolation. A human (or alien) raised in an isolated society will probably not be a Christian, because religion is a man-made construct. Independent convergence would be a strong argument for Christianity.

I'd still like to know why you mentioned progress, and if you're using it in the sense of improvement.
------------------------------
Volatile:
I also find keeping pets like snakes, lizards, rabbits and even goldfish problematic, though have little issue with keeping dogs, cats, cows and sheep as domestic pets.

I was going to mention this in my last post, but ran out of time. How do you propose we feed these animals, especially all of the cats and dogs? We would have to go to vegan food all-around.

[nightwind]

How about the rights of a tiger or a shark to eat a human?

Many believe it OK for man to butcher other animals, etc. for food, but really get upset when the tables are turned.

Always thought this curious.

[RandFan]

Your infamous argument, revisited again in this thread, has always been "but society says..." Hmmm... I'm not exactly certain of your point. There's no question that society is a significant variable when it comes to morality. It is society and/or sub groups within society that codify morals into ethics and laws. Our law is a result of common law that evolved over time based on legal precedent, debate and discussion. It wasn't simply a consensus. To describe jurisprudence and ethics and moral philosophy that dates back to ancient Greece simply as a vague consensus is to significantly misunderstand the basis and history of modern moral philosophy. I don't mean to patronize. I know I'm not saying anything you don't understand. I just don't quite understand the context of your statement.

Oh, yes, how nice it would be to say Nazi Germany is wrong. For you and I yes, I agree. But is there anything axiomatic about Nazi Germany being wrong? There have been in history many successful warrior states that have behaved as brutally as Nazi Germany.

I'm not sure how you get around the circular nature of the argument that simply declares in advance what is right and wrong without questioning how we know what is right and wrong and why? Isn't that the whole point of philosophy?

By "everything" I mean everything subsumed under morality, which is a position you have long maintained, no? One of the main arguments from evolutionary psychology is that human morality across cultures is already essentially the same, but differs, usually in minor ways, in rituals and practices. The example I typically use, undoubtedly recounted in previous threads, comes straight out of an intro to ethics text (The wise old king who brings together Greeks with Cannibals. The Greeks are horrified to learn that the Cannibals eat their dead, and the Cannibals are equally horrified that the Greeks burn their dead, but at heart, they are different ways of demonstrating respect for the dead). Pinker's book cites Donald somethings list of cultural universals. I'm a big Pinker fan and this is a great example. We are in complete agreement that there are universals. Sadly, rape and murder of those considered outside of ones group are not included. Neither is infanticide
for members in ones group. Also, it was very easy to kill members of ones tribe so long as there was a pretext for the killing.

Morality has advanced considerably in relative recent history.

Typically when we talk about convergence we mean people are independently hitting upon a transcultural truth, which is why I thought it was appropriate, if unfair and meaningless, for you to use the example of a child reared in isolation. A human (or alien) raised in an isolated society will probably not be a Christian, because religion is a man-made construct. Independent convergence would be a strong argument for Christianity. The problem is that while there are universals that are significant and demonstrate that humans share certain mechanisms that account for morality including theory of mind and empathy (clearly there are others see Dawkin's Selfish Gene). There are many examples of non universal behavior.

Again, the problem is that Cannibals did arise but cannibalism isn't universal. Infanticide and human sacrifice including sacrifice of one's children is also a common but not universal theme. Based on Pinker's observation we can conclude that certain environmental variables (having parents for instance) coupled with genetic predisposition will lead to common moral notions. We can't conclude that the child will be raised to conclude that rape or killing an individual not connected to him by familial bonds are immoral.

I can't agree that the example of raising a child in isolation is unfair or meaningless.

[RandFan]

How about the rights of a tiger or a shark to eat a human? A right? No. Do we punish a tiger or a shark that eats a human? Sadly some want to do that but it makes no sense. It's not a right but simply the nature of the animal. Animals are not moral agents.

[Cain]

Hmmm... I'm not exactly certain of your point.

Well, at least you started out strong...

There's no question that society is a significant variable when it comes to morality. It is society and/or sub groups within society that codify morals into ethics and laws. Our law is a result of common law that evolved over time based on legal precedent, debate and discussion. It wasn't simply a consensus. To describe jurisprudence and ethics and moral philosophy that dates back to ancient Greece simply as a vague consensus is to significantly misunderstand the basis and history of modern moral philosophy. I don't mean to patronize. I know I'm not saying anything you don't understand. I just don't quite understand the context of your statement.

You're patronizing like a chimp dressed in a human costume. When it came to killing individuals with purple hair you did invoke consensus. It is also interesting you would invest authority into a legal system because it goes back thousands of years, drawing on traditions you think are bogus (e.g., natural law).

For you and I yes, I agree. But is there anything axiomatic about Nazi Germany being wrong? There have been in history many successful warrior states that have behaved as brutally as Nazi Germany.


What does this mean? Judging by how the questions follow it seems you want to believe that if there were moral realism woven into the fabricate of the Universe then it would constantly and automatically protest against all evil everywhere. The Universe did not have value until organisms with interests began to pop up. Morality has to do with how these organisms interact with one another.


I'm not sure how you get around the circular nature of the argument that simply declares in advance what is right and wrong without questioning how we know what is right and wrong and why? Isn't that the whole point of philosophy?

Examples. Are you talking about your little Nazi bomb, or what?

Morality has advanced considerably in relative recent history.

This is another, if not more explicit, rephrasing of your casual "progress" statement. How can you say morality has advanced? And this is said against the backdrop of rape and murder rather than more sophisticated reasoning and circumspection. Peter Singer talks about the "expanding circle" -- getting to essential properties of what gives a being value and how we have seen less emphasis placed on arbitrary characteristics such as geographical origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. A crucial and important next step is species.

It's so easy to look backward, see how far we have come, and feel too contented to look forward. It's instructive you would take some lazy example of Germans rather than, oh say, relatively more recent and very brutal American atrocities. When we're talking about challenging ourselves and the status quo in a deep and significant way we're subjected to otherwise neglected grand questions on the origins of morality.

[volatile]

A great, and germane, little article from Sate: It's time to stop killing meat and start growing it. (http://www.slate.com/id/2142547/)

[RandFan]

When it came to killing individuals with purple hair you did invoke consensus.No, overly simplistic. If a society voted one day to kill people with purple hair or to lock up all of the members of a given group, say all Japanese people (this was done during WWII by fiat and not a vote but it's a good example otherwise) out of fear then it would be immoral. Clearly that would likely go against the morals of the society. I don't hold any such view. I do hold that given the right set of circumstances (premises) a society could hold that it is moral to kill people with purple hair and it would be moral for them.

It is also interesting you would invest authority into a legal system because it goes back thousands of years, drawing on traditions you think are bogus (e.g., natural law). I'm not sure how you are coming to these conclusions about me. In any event, I'm reasonably certain that I hold about the same view of naturalistic fallacy as you do. It's reasonable to understand how and why we have a sense of morality (evolution and environment) but we must be careful not to simply appeal to nature to justify any specific moral act.

What does this mean? Judging by how the questions follow it seems you want to believe that if there were moral realism woven into the fabricate of the Universe then it would constantly and automatically protest against all evil everywhere. The Universe did not have value until organisms with interests began to pop up. Morality has to do with how these organisms interact with one another. No. It's simple. Given that morality isn't a truth that can be found in the physical world then humans must reason it and there is no data that can lead us to an absolute determination of what is and is not moral. I will say again, the fact that there are many moral dilemmas and ambiguities demonstrates clearly that morality is far from simply being universal or absolute. There are near universal mechanisms that are the foundation of our morality and there are clearly universal behaviors that would demonstrate the nature of human morality but we can't then simply declare morality universal because it clearly is not.

How can you say morality has advanced?
Given our base premises about morality including the desire of humans to survive and to be free of pain and suffering I don't see how one could say that morality hasn't advanced (see Pinker's History of Violence). Such a statement will always depend on a persons base premises. I'm reasonably certain you and I hold the same base premises and that you and I can both make logically valid argument to support those base premises.

And this is said against the backdrop of rape and murder rather than more sophisticated reasoning and circumspection. Peter Singer talks about the "expanding circle" -- getting to essential properties of what gives a being value and how we have seen less emphasis placed on arbitrary characteristics such as geographical origin, race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. A crucial and important next step is species. My point implicitly assumed the expanding circle. It is one very important reason way I say that morality has advanced. The ability to see others as part of ones in-group, tribe etc., is why homicide, slavery, rape, etc., has been reduced. Again, see Pinker.

It's so easy to look backward, see how far we have come, and feel too contented to look forward. It's instructive you would take some lazy example of Germans rather than, oh say, relatively more recent and very brutal American atrocities. When we're talking about challenging ourselves and the status quo in a deep and significant way we're subjected to otherwise neglected grand questions on the origins of morality. I'm not at all sure of your point or why an example of Germans is lazy. I'm not exactly certain what these grand questions are or why you think I'm ignoring them. Forgive me for saying so but you do not really seem to be arguing or making any significant points but instead are talking in generalities. I'm sorry to say but it's all rather vacuous. I'm not trying to provoke you but you don't seem to have a point other than whatever my position is, it's wrong. If so that's fine. I don't see the point of arguing ad infinitum about any of this.

[GreNME]

The disclaimers, of course, were designed to prevent the 'personal attack' response.

And yet you engaged in two anyway.

When I point to Berman's long history of telling lies on a professional basis, I am not offering a personal attack, but a job description.

No, "liar-for-hire" is hyperbole on your part, and of a personal nature. Further, it's an attempt to try to make the information about Berman to avoid having to be accountable to valid criticisms.

Do you disagree that it's dishonest to present as a consumer interest non-profit a group founded by an industry PR firm (much more dishonest, for example, than presenting yourself as a humane society when you are, in fact, a humane society)?

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say aside from equivocating using a "yeah, well they're worse" defense?

Do you contest that he has regularly deceived the public where it serves his clients interests? Do you think this has no bearing upon his credibility, or that it might warrant extra attention to his claims? The problem here, and the reason why this is germane, is that by relying on a professional liar you run the very serious risk of becoming misinformed.

That is a very tall strawman you've built for yourself. Almost everywhere I've used Berman's site I have followed up with sources unrelated to him. So your accusation that I'm "relying on a professional liar" and somehow trying to associate me with someone who you obviously don't like is misleading on your part.

This is just incredible. Here's a more recent update (http://www.hsus.org/hsus_field/hsus_disaster_center/disasters_press_room/katrina_anniversary/). Are you seriously going to tell me that $6.3 million in direct response (provided primarily by HSUS), $8.35 million for facility reconstruction, $2.3 million in reimbursements for individual groups that paid out of pocket to help, etc. can be handwaved away as not real work?

Since you presumably consider HSUS to be an unreliable source, how about the LA-SPCA (http://www.la-spca.org/adoptions/tails/rescue_2.htm):

That's not an update, that's a press release. When the investigation began against HSUS they came out swinging in response, claiming they spent $25 million dollars. Read the links I gave that quote Pacelle saying exactly that. Three years later that original number has come down quite a bit because, just like the Red Cross, HSUS was not putting all of the money they were taking in from donations into the actual effort for Katrina.

You want to talk about handwaving? Let's do just that. The HSUS revenues for FY2005 were $119,920,506, and their entire program expenses (which doesn't include fundraising and administrative costs) was slightly more than half that number, $67,975,231 [source (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848)]. On their 990 Form to the IRS for FY2005, the total amount listed in grants was $8,100,645 (I can't link their 990). The HSUS press release claims $6.3 million was donated in direct response to Katrina, which falls well below their stated $8.1 million-- but in their 990 Form they are required to list their grants. So, let's look at the total grants made in that area that could have been "in direct response" to Katrina:

Recipient | Location | Amount
Animal Aid - Vermilli | Abbeville, LA | 50,000
Calcasieu Parish Anim | Lake Charles, LA | 10,000
Heckhaven Wildlife Rehab Center | Lake Charles, LA | 10,000
Houston SPCA | Houston, TX | 115,000
Humane Soc South Mis | Gulfport, MS | 623,383
Humane Society of Mississippi | Gulfport, MS | 100,000
Lafayette Animal Cont. | Lafayette, LA | 10,000
Louisiana SPCA | New Orleans, LA | 2,500,000
Louisiana SPCA | New Orleans, LA | 500,000
Louisiana State Uni | Baton Rouge, LA | 100,000
Paws | Belle Chase, LA | 7,500
Pearl River County SP | Picayune, MS | 15,000
Plaquemines Parish An. | Belle Chase, LA | 10,000
Southern Animal Found. | New Orleans, LA | 25,000
St. Bernard Parish An | Chalmette, LA | 10,000
St. Charles Humane Soc. | Luling, LA | 10,000
Walter J Ernst Jr Vet. | Baton Rouge, LA | 50,000
Washington Parish Hum. | Boglusa, LA | 5,000
Wildlife Rehab Natu. | Long Beach, MS | 50,000
TOTAL | | $4,200,883

I don't know about you, but when last I checked $4.2 million is over $2 million less than $6.3 million. Before you protest, even if I added the Florida grants listed it would have been less than a $10,000 difference, which is why I added the larger Houston SPCA donation. Additionally, the total (meaning everywhere, all year) HSUS domestic animals programs spending (per Part III of the 990 Form) for FY2005 (including grants and allocations) was a total of $6.2 million, which also just so happens to fall below $6.3 million (their campaigns, legislation and litigation spending was $10.3 million and their communications [read: marketing] was $10.9 million, but I'll get back to that).

It's difficult to find unbiased sources for how much donations to the HSUS for Katrina were, but judging from the charitynavigator.org chart [link (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848)] FY2005 was their largest year so far. More information is available at that page about what the HSUS was doing at the time-- the historical data says the number of contributions was $116.9 million for the year. The historical data also shows an excess of $38,876,859 for FY2005, more than double that of the year after and nearly five times that of the year before.

So, feel free to do some hand-waving to make up for the money that was claimed to have been paid "in direct response" yet isn't accounted for by their tax filing. By all means explain how the organization managed to end the year with an unprecedented $38.8 million in excess funds but claimed to be putting that money into Katrina efforts.

DART is a program run by the HSUS, and they were the only private group allowed into the area for the purpose of animal rescue immediately after Katrina.

You mean the only private group allowed into the New Orleans area. Municipal groups were also allowed in, and the other private groups weren't far away.

But this charge, that HSUS is banking on the good name of humane societies, does not pass the laugh test. Do you really think the LA-SPCA would invite HSUS to the ribbon-cutting for the new facilities (which the HSUS contributed $4.5 million to) is they felt their good name was being besmirched? Do you think the ASPCA would work so closely with them so often?

Again with the men of straw. I said that HSUS is not the same organization as the local humane societies, and that it's relying on name recognition of "humane society" to imply a connection. However, in their own IRS tax filing as well as their own website [linky (http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/animal_abuse_and_neglect/reporting_animal_abuse_or_neglect.html)] admit this themselves: "The Humane Society of the United States does not have animal control capabilities; that is a function of local animal control programs. The HSUS is neither legally nor contractually affiliated with—nor is a parent organization for—local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies." They have to admit it for legal reasons.

Side note: where did you get your $4.5 million number? I could only find $3 million accounted for to the LA SPCA in their tax filing. Better do some more hand waving.

Do you realize that you linked to the same article twice?

No, that was my mistake. I'm sure you get the picture with two links, though.

I don't actually consider it damning that HSUS is being investigated on the basis of some complaints (which seem to be about difficulties reuniting with pets, rather than malfeasance)--I'll wait for the results of that investigation, but I don't expect it to amount to anything.

The result was that HSUS was asked to leave Louisiana by the AG. HSUS kissed and made up with the state by offering to pay a few hundred thousand for building a shelter.

Bullcrap. They lied to pull in donations, and when they were discovered by those who actually do real work for the dogs in such cases they quickly changed their ads. You're trying to make excuses for what was, in essence, outright fraud. You can't deny it, and trying to justify their fraud is just more of their post-hoc CYA when caught in an outright lie.
How am I doing that? I said the ad was misleading--I don't think it's fraudulent because it's clear from the text that any donation will not be earmarked for caring for Vick's dogs, and the HSUS did have custody of some of Vick's dogs for a time. But I agree that it's misleading, and I'm glad they pulled it.

Since the HSUS admits themselves that they don't have any animal control capabilities-- including a shelter for holding seized dogs-- exactly what gives you the idea that HSUS had custody? You mean when they delivered the dogs to the Virginia Beach SPCA? The HSUS does a lot of taking credit for things, but you're doing a great job of basically repeating their own press releases. So, unless by "custody" you mean "physically transporting" and "for a time" means "long enough to drive them to Virginia Beach" then you're really laying it on thick. They also stayed at the VBSPCA long enough to be evaluated and were then shipped off to Utah and California.

But that's not even the point. The point is that HSUS lied and collected donations using those dogs as the sympathy generator, all the while having none of that money going to care for the dogs and while the head of the HSUS was demanding they be put down. The latter is hypocrisy, the former is just shy of fraud.

No, their reasons were horrible....
I disagree. I think the fact that so many pit bulls--pit bulls not trained to be aggressive--are euthanized calls into question the wisdom of expending so many resources on rehabilitating dogs that received attention as a result of Vick's notoreity, where those resources would be better spent training and finding homes for other dogs. The point here is that the disproportionate attention to these dogs distorts the distribution of resources, in order to create a happy ending for us, rather than helping as many dogs as possible.

Spoken like someone completely without a clue as to dog behavior. The dogs were sent to locations-- one of which should be familiar to you (BAD RAP) since HSUS has donated money to them in the past-- whose very existence is to deal with dog rehabilitation. Further, you make the rehabilitation process sound like it's way more work than it really is compared to normal shelter work. It certainly does require someone with an understanding of dog behavior and training by a behaviorist-- so the requirements are higher than working at a typical dog shelter-- but that's what these people are trained to do in the first place. Hell Cesar Milan might be a pop-culture example who mostly does one- or two-trick pony stuff on television, but he's just a high-profile example that rehabilitating a dog is the easy part. The hard part is educating the people.

As to your misconceptions on pit bulls, I recommend reading The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression (http://www.amazon.com/Pit-Bull-Placebo-Politics-Aggression/dp/0972191410). You'll find that the use of specific 'breeds' of dogs for histrionics and political purposes isn't new, it's just the breeds being used have changed. You'd be surprised at some of the claims that used to be made with the same consistency and fervency as those with pit bulls today, and how ridiculous they might seem in hindsight.

Editorial correction? This was an obvious non-retraction retraction ("our lawyers made us do it") which followed from threat of a defamation action. These guys simply invent charges about support for terrorism, which I think reflects badly on them. Again, this is relevant because it establishes credibility, and I'm comparing deception to deception. One of these looks far worse to me.

More backpedaling and trying to make this about Berman. You should do some searching on John Paul Goodwin, the former ALF and CAFT activist who was hired by HSUS [link (http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF03i.htm)]. So, if you want to talk credibility you might want to ask why HSUS is doing recruiting from 'activist' groups known for violent behavior.

This is just false. Here's a list of their accomplishments (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2007/12/2007-accomplish.html) for 2007, which clearly include efforts on behalf of dogs and cats.

Again with the press releases. For an organization that spends the bulk of its expenses on mailings ($28.6 million FY2005 by their tax filing) and marketing media, you certainly give them a lot of free press.

And the idea that they're trying to pass themselves off as being concerned primarily with dogs and cats--laughable. Look at their website. Look at their media exposure (their recent Hallmark investigation, for example). Look at their logo.

Wait, which of their websites should I look at? Animal Sheltering .org (http://www.animalsheltering.org/)? Humane Society University (http://www.humanesocietyu.org/)? Pet Fullfillment (http://hsus.petfulfillment.com/)? Sorry, but since the HSUS has so many websites, you're going to have to be more specific. And their media exposure? You mean like how they used the Vick case to pull in donations? Or how they used Katrina to pull in donations?

They are clearly express a broad mandate to protect all animals, not merely pets.

They just fight for legislation to make it more difficult to actually have any pets.

So, you're saying that, for the last ten years, Richard Berman (the guy you personally attacked) and his organization have been forcing PETA to have the highest kill rate of any shelter in the US? As Carl Sagan said, for extraordinary claims you need to provide extraordinary evidence.
No. What I'm saying is that the CCF is clearly manipulating the media.

Would you like to back up your conspiracy theory with some evidence?

Why is it newsworthy that the CCF, which exists to discredit anyone who threaten their clients' interests, makes an absurd request of Virginia state government that will never get anywhere? This is just a way of disguising the nakedness of the insinuation.

I don't know if you checked (I assume not), but the numbers I posted of PETA's ever-growing kill rates (now the highest in the nation) come from PETA's own filings to the state of Virginia, which they are required to do. Why you're trying to turn this into something about Berman and the CCF is a bit on the ridiculous side.

And instead of actually refuting my accusation-- which was PETA's leading kill rates-- you pull another emotion-based "you too" argument in the attempt to try to prove... what? That you think two wrongs make a right?
The problem here is that you aren't following the argument.

No, I know a tu quoque argument when I see one. I just wanted to see you try to justify it.

I pointed that out because I was making it clear that these numbers are not damning on their face (as you implied they were with your "Yes, 19,000" parenthetical). I said as much. We need to look at the context, and when we do, PETA's high ratio of euthanasia to placement doesn't look so strange.

Not "high," they're the highest.

I'm not refuting your accusation that they have a high euthanasia rate--I'm pointing out that there's nothing inherently wrong with a high kill rates, particularly if they result from PETA's shelter specializing in humane euthanasia and offloading the burden from surrounding shelters.

You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with high kill rates. You see, that's where I and (and most people who actually care about animal welfare) disagree. Burning down the forest is not saving it.

And your ignorance is showing yet again, parroting AR lies. Yes, there are instances like local humane societies who have low turnover rates because they hay hold the dogs for more than a year, but they are also selective in who they will accept by somewhat arbitrary "adoptable" criteria that depends on which location you go to.
These aren't 'AR lies', they are obvious problems of implication.

Implication? You only partially quote a longer explanation and you're preaching to me about context and implication?

Where no-kill shelters have adoptability criteria, they will leave the least adoptable animals in traditional shelters.

That's a lie. Only private ones are allowed to do that. Tax-funded shelters are obligated to take all animals in.

What would we expect to happen in that situation? Effectively, no-kill shelters increase the overall space available for warehousing animals, and will generally bias the shelter population towards adoptability (however this is defined), but this is akin to solving the problem of the spill from water pouring into a full glass by getting a bigger glass: if you don't plug the source, you're only forestalling a return to similar rates of spill. And in a city with something like 10% neuter/spay rates, you clearly have a problem at the spigot. I'm not saying that no-kill shelters can't work, or that it's not an admirable goal--I'm pointing out that it has to be coupled with aggressive neutering campaigns, or it won't work.

And yet San Francisco was the first city (municipality) to prove it can be done and in an economically responsible fashion.

Higher adoption rates are not higher turnover rates.

Yet you can't dispute that tax-funded no-kill shelters have a better record than kill shelters.

Tompkins County. I grew up there. My mother was on the board of the SPCA for a time, in fact. The local shelter was already almost no-kill before Nathan Winograd came along. They are now about to abandon no-kill as a goal, because the larger shelter he encouraged them to build is unsustainably expensive. Read this (http://kcascreatures.blogspot.com/2008/03/more-on-no-kill-and-thompkins-county.html) for more information. Winograd is famous for this: he comes into a shelter, brings in a lot of money and energy, reduces euthanasia rates, and then the shelter fails after he leaves, the money dries up, and people burn out. He responds to this charge tangentially at the link you provided. Tompkins County is also a fairly unique situation--it's a small community containing one of the best-known vet schools in the world, and a superabundance of skilled volunteers.

Is the blog post you link to is talking about the expense of the "green shelter (http://www.spcaonline.com/new_green.htm)" that was built there? I also notice it's a blog post. Any news of this from a news source, a city hall page, or something a little less agenda-prone than blogs? Some questions I have regarding blog's argument:


If the problem is mainly funding, why isn't the HSUS or PETA helping out?
Was the situation successful before Winograd left?
Why is Winograd's absence keeping it from continuing to be successful?




Basically, do you recall those excesses I mentioned earlier? From looking at their FY2004 through FY2006 [linky (url=http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848) (requires registration to view historical data)], the HSUS has had over $10 million in excess every year, and even more that three times that in 2005. However, no matter which data I look at-- whether it's the California spending table, their own IRS forms, or the basic interface from Charity Navigator or some other charity reporting site-- every time I look into what part of the organization gets the most spending, two of the highest (one of the two always being the highest are marketing/mailing expenses or legislation lobbying/legal expenses.

And now I live in New York. I do (or, well, have done--haven't done it in a while) volunteer TNR work. The reduction in euthanasia rates is largely a result of the Mayor's Alliance for NYC's Animals, which has set a no-kill goal while aggressively pushing for greater rates of spaying/neutering (including mandatory spaying of all shelter animals).

Forcing city residents to spay or neuter their animals even if they've never seen a shelter, you mean? Because that's what happened here. I support TNR programs. Interestingly enough, the 'feral' population was supposedly the largest concern that this mandatory-for-all ordinance is supposed to address, even though our at-large population is mostly considered 'wild' or 'feral'.

No-kill is certainly possible, but it requires exactly the kind of measure you oppose. Without money, commitment, and force of law, and especially without high rates of spaying/neutering, it just isn't sustainable.

And yet again with the straw men. You don't seem to know what I oppose. Forcing everyone to sterilize their pet is a ridiculously insane and overbearing measure, and is exactly what was done here in Dallas. Anyone who doesn't want to spay or neuter their animal has exactly two choices: pay fines or pay for a "breeder license" (even if they aren't a breeder).

I don't have a problem with requiring animals who wind up in a shelter be sterilized if not immediately claimed, because there are obvious issues regarding question of health or behavioral problems (two major reasons dogs get abandoned), along with the obvious implications of irresponsible owners contributing to a problem. However, there is no reason for the government to mandate that all dogs and cats be spayed or neutered, especially if they've never seen a shelter and never been a stray. That's excessive and is punishing responsible ownership for the behavior of irresponsible ownership.

An investigation is not an indictment. Exactly two people have been brought up on charges.


I'm sorry, but mentioning an indictment without mentioning a conviction and then presenting a conviction a different, lesser, charge to justify the omission is a factual, not semantic, difference.

Oh, I'd love to show more information, especially concerning the many FBI investigations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901777.html) on PETA (you can read the redacted FOIA copies of various investigations here (http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles/jttf/PETA1.pdf), here (http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles/jttf/PETA2.pdf), and here (http://www.aclu.org/spyfiles/jttf/PETA3.pdf))

I have not claimed, at any point, that PETA had high adoption rates. It's just that I think there are worse things that can happen to animals than euthanasia.

I never accused you of saying PETA did have high adoption rates, I am taking issue with you making up excuses for their high kill rates when, not far from the PETA facility where they do most of their killing, there is an SPCA facility with an over 70% adoption rate. So far your excuses range from blaming the facilities that show proven better results and using the "there are worse things than death" claim. Did you look at the link I gave showing images of some of PETA's kills? They aren't just kills from the two who were caught and charged, they are photos of other euthanized animals killed by PETA, most of whom except for being dead have no evidence of anything signifying they were suffering something "worse than death," some of which are young animals.

Blowing things up is not non-violent. Advocating smashing property and blowing things up is not non-violent. Paying the defense funds for political terrorists is not advocating non-violence. You are creating your own cognitive dissonance by trying to justify these crimes.
PETA would presumably disagree--they would characterize these actions as non-violent because they take pains to avoid hurting people.

And federal, state, and local laws would disagree with PETA and say they qualify as violence. Asking the perpetrators or supporters of the perpetrators of crimes whether they think their crimes are violent or not is, no matter how you spin it, ridiculous.

I disagree with property-destruction tactics. I also disagree that they constitute terrorism, which is a loaded term. And it's frustrating that if I should contest a charge of terrorism, suddenly I'm 'justifying' crimes. I'm not, although I would certainly justify at least some crimes (trespassing for the purpose of gathering evidence of abuse, for an obvious example).

The designation of terrorism for those actions predates 9/11, and the definition of terrorism is using violent action in the attempt to force a political agenda. That is exactly what the criminal groups are doing. You scoff that you're justifying their crimes, yet you make excuses about whether PETA would define the actions of the criminals as crimes and you even admit you would justify crimes you thought were for vigilante purposes.

That's a dangerous and damaging precedent, and not because of the implications about the AR movement. I oppose those types of tactics across the board for two reasaons: 1. they remove the moral high ground and 2. they are the same excuses used by those who would commit other violent acts. We have laws in the country for a reason, and breaking the law because it doesn't suit some activist's need for immediate gratification is still breaking the law.

What it shows is that I don't trust the CCF and I require some evidence before I accept their figures. The burden of proof, and all that. Rick Berman making a claim is not evidence in support of that claim.

Berman isn't the one making the claim, he's repeating it. The ACLU, the FBI, numerous non-profit watchdogs, and others have noted PETA's support for at the very least defense funds for criminals, and at most their approval of criminal behavior. I gave you a link to audio of the VP of PETA saying in his own words that they advocate criminal behavior. Those FOIA FBI papers linked earlier are linked straight from the ACLU. You're dismissing the evidence because it goes against your preconceived notions. That's why I called what you are doing cognitive dissonance.

It's not an appeal to authority to point out that you're opposed to the position all of the major animal welfare organizations and not just AR groups, it's just a statement of fact.

It's an appeal to authority because you are claiming to know what I support and what I don't support. You're too busy making emotional appeals, repeating blogs from the HSUS president or linking directly to HSUS press pages, and accusing me of bias while you disregard loads of evidence to even know what I support and don't support.

I also happen to the think that the AVMA and the ASPCA are appropriate authorities, and so it would not be a fallacious to rely on their authority. I'll also rely on my own experience here in New York, where we have compulsory spaying/neuter laws for shelters (although not for owners).

Wait a second: you're relying on your experience in NY where there aren't compulsory spay/neuter laws for everyone to tell me I'm wrong to oppose compulsory spay/neuter laws for everyone? And you're defending groups who are pushing for compulsory spay/neuter laws for everyone?

Boy, that's just rich.

Great. In looking at it along side the originally-proposed ordinance (which isn't online any longer, I acquired it directly from the City of Dallas), it looks like the opposition to the AR-proposed legislation changed a number of things, though the ordinance is still highly flawed and I'm willing to bet you $100 USD that in six, twelve, eighteen, and more months from now that there will be no changes in the dog-at-large problem (which is why they pushed it).
The narrative you're creating here isn't really believable. Remember when I was just supposed to trust you? Now there was a heroic last-ditch victory against animal rights groups like, y'know, the SPCA.

Now you're calling the fact that I could obtain a copy of the ordinance myself? You really have some cajones. The original form of the ordinance required spay or neuter at four months[link (http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3481)], no exceptions without a "breeder license" paid as a fee. After much debate the time frame for sterilization changed, apparently adding exemptions to that, plus adding an exemption for "competition animals" (show dogs / cats) in addition to their "breeder permit," the latter also having its originally-proposed cost of $500 changed to $70. Hardly a "heroic last-ditch victory" since the ordinance still got passed, but are you seriously trying to say that there weren't people actively fighting it? Why did the TKC (Texas version of the AKC) send a lawyer down to help review the proposed ordinance with the group who was opposing it? Why were some NRA folks in the area opposing it because of the precedent it was setting?

The reason was because Texas already has some of the nation's harshest laws agaist dogs-at-large, especially dogs-at-large who attack people [link (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01355E.htm)], and this ordinance was adding extreme measures instead of moving to enforce the laws already in place. Not enforcing the laws already in place while adding new laws instead is excessive and only serves those lobbying for more legislation instead of those of us who would rather have the laws enforced in the first place.

The problems with the ordinance:
Most pet dogs and cats tend to be spayed/neutered already
The majority of the dogs and cats showing up in shelters, especially here in Dallas, are either abandoned or otherwise have no owner.
Irresponsible owners aren't going to suddenly become responsible because a new law is passed.

The problems that result from such laws:
Animal registrations go down.
As a result, animals getting shots for diseases drops (which is a requirement for a licensed dog).
People begin dumping pets, causing shelter intakes and euthanasias to go up.
Costs of enforcement (if it even takes place) rise, causing greater expense to communities (especially the police force).

What works better and cheaper:
Education on responsible pet care -- Dallas is severely lacking in this.
Enforcement of leash laws -- Dallas' leash laws are almost uniformly unenforced. (in their defense, the Dallas police force is way underfunded, as is the AC division)
Providing city-wide available low-cost spay/neuter services for low-income and other disadvantaged pet owners -- I can get you the PDFs of the study if you want to have a discussion just on this topic alone, but this is the most damning information. There are districts that were used as examples in the city council meetings as having a problem that only have 1, 2, or in at least one case zero vet clinics. The bulk of the clinics are located in affluent areas, where most of the local AR folk already live.

But sure, I'll take that bet. PM me and we'll work out the details.

You still want to take that bet even though I apparently had to clarify for you that the ordinance was compulsory for everyone and not just sheltered animals (which already existed)? If so, then we can make a separate thread on it and work it out there. There's no need for PMs until it's time for you to pay me. It's too bad we didn't have this discussion when Fort Worth still had their ordinance on the books. It's since been repealed due to declining registrations and a rise in rabies cases. They aren't the only ones this happened to, though. If you seriously want to be educated on the failures of these mandatory spay/neuter laws in various places throughout the US, quite a few of whom have since repealed them, we can always move the topic to its own thread.

After they are no longer capable of working? Exactly what do you believe happens to service dogs after they get old? You are under several very flawed and twisted impressions based on your odd justifications in your posts.
I was presenting PETA's position, not my own. But I imagine that some of them continue to live with their owners, some of them are rehomed, and some of them are euthanized. You'd have to ask PETA what their specific complaints are, any whether they can back them up.

I don't have to ask PETA anything, because I know what happens to service dogs. Most of them remain with their owners for life, and in cases where their owner can't care for them there are specific rescue groups who work at moving the dogs to either long-term foster care or permanent re-adoption. Service dogs don't get euthanized just because they get old, and if you honestly believe that you need to rethink where you get your information. Almost all service dogs become lifelong companions for the people they service.

You asked to show you how PETA's goals would make it a crime to have a seeing-eye dog. PETA's goals are to completely remove domesticated animals from human civilization.
No, I didn't ask you that. I asked you to demonstrate to me that she would want to put blind people in jail or give them fines for having seeing eye dogs. You still haven't done that.

Now you're moving goalposts. What you're demanding is some quote where Newkirk says "owners of seeing-eye dogs should go to jail" or something similar. What I've shown you is that Newkirk wants service dogs outlawed, which basically means the same thing-- but understandably requires you to have the logic to understand that "against the law" means "if you break the law you get fined or jailed." So, what I haven't done is give you some overly-specific quote you want worded a specific way, and instead showed you how they are saying the same thing through implication.

An improv of the old saying: you can lead a horse to information, but you can't force it to think.

John Lennon didn't pay the defense funds of terrorists, nor did John Lennon lobby governments to outlaw religions. Your ridiculous analogy is flawed because of your emotional appeal in trying to tie John Lennon to Ingrid Newkirk. PETA regularly supports legislation that works to make it more difficult for people to have domesticated animals. The organization pays the defense fees for criminals. Their vice president outright advocates violent action. Considering PETA's behavior, your attempt to compare anyone in PETA to John Lennon is a joke.
I'm sorry, what? The analogy was not an emotional appeal at all. It was designed to point out that a similar kind of idealism implies nothing about specific policy prescriptions. I am making no claims about whether her goals are good or bad (on the face of it, they're totally neutral).

On their face, they aren't totally neutral. They are totally extreme. Comparing Newkirk to Lennon is an emotional appeal because Newkirk is a hypocrite while Lennon was (whether you agreed with him or not) internally consistent. They claim to be for the welfare of animals, yet 98% of the animals they take are killed by them. They claim to be against animal testing of all kinds, yet the last I heard Newkirk still uses insulin (a product of animal testing). They claim to be a non-violent organization, yet they give to defense funds of violent criminals, have in the past hired from violent organizations (see the FBI files I linked earlier), and the founder as well as the VP of the organization have made statements advocating violence.

So, not only was it an emotional appeal, it was a highly flawed analogy.

Your argument here boils down to, "Ingrid Newkirk does bad things, therefore she would apply criminal penalties to blind people with seeing eye dogs."

You seem to have a problem following logic, so I'll list the logic in steps for you:

Ingrid Newkirk opposes ownership of animals
Ingrid Newkirk specifically opposes ownership of service animals
Ingrid Newkirk would like all domestic animal ownership to be outlawed
If domestic ownership of animals were outlawed, owning a pet would be illegal
If someone does something illegal, the consequences are either jail time or fines
Thus, according to Ingrid Newkirk's views on animal ownership, owners of seeing-eye dogs would be breaking the law and face consequences of either jail time or fines for doing so.


It's not a personal attack to point out that you have a grudge against animal rights groups, it's a conclusion from reading your posts.

Just because you claim it isn't a personal attack doesn't change the fact that you are making the argument that my statements aren't reliable because you perceive something you can't quantify without tautological logic. You say I'm biased because I'm disagreeing with your arguments and instead supplying quite a bit of information to back up my reasons to disagree. You, on the other hand, consistently use materials almost strictly from the groups you are defending (tautology) or blog posts from people who openly advocate for the groups I have criticized in the first place. I have not only made it a point to stick to either news or as many factual accounts as possible, but when you criticized one of the links I've used I've been able to provide other information from unrelated sources that point to the same conclusions.

The problem with a lot of your arguments from the start is that you assumed I didn't know what I was talking about and was simply repeating 'sound byte' sayings. My problems with HSUS are very close to my problems with Red Cross and other organiztions who have histories of misleading donors as to where their money is going. My problem with PETA is that they are an extreme activist organiztion with a history of supporting (and suspected of funding) eco-terrorist and AR-terrorist groups. I've already posted to someone else that while I don't agree totally with the SPCA, they have and normally do back up their words with on-the-ground action and, with a few exceptions, a donor can know with a reasonable level of confidence where their money is going. I've also repeated my opposition to across-the-board mantatory spay/neuter laws, while pointing out that I'm not against spaying and neutering of pets-- basically, you can't legislate problems away.

Also, since we're linking to press material, let's see what the ALF had to say about the firebombings (http://www.animalliberationpressoffice.org/press_releases/pr_08_08_04_ucscarsons.htm) the other day. I found the following part at the end to be remarkably enlightening of the mindset of these criminals: "This is historically what happens whenever revolutionaries begin to take the oppression and suffering of their fellow beings seriously , whether human or non human. It's regrettable that certain scientists are willing to put their families at risk by choosing to do wasteful animal experiments in this day and age." So, they're basically saying "we're sorry we have to do this to you." So, abuser self-justification is being used for bombing, burning, and vandalizing.

[Fnord]

There is about as much of a chance of convincing me to give up eating meat as there is in convincing me to give up buying japanese cars. The alternatives are both bland and too much trouble.

[dudalb]

Another thread in which Cain proclaims himself to be the only judge for what is moral and proper, and anybody who does not agree with him is either stupid, a hypocrite, or evil.
Why am I not surprised?
Hopefully, someday he will grow up.

[Ron_Tomkins]

How about the rights of a tiger or a shark to eat a human?

Many believe it OK for man to butcher other animals, etc. for food, but really get upset when the tables are turned.

Always thought this curious.

Good point. Vegetarians have a lot of rhetorical answers to that one. But of course, it's all about what's convenient to believe.

[Cain]

No, overly simplistic. If a society voted one day to kill people with purple hair or to lock up all of the members of a given group, say all Japanese people (this was done during WWII by fiat and not a vote but it's a good example otherwise) out of fear then it would be immoral. Clearly that would likely go against the morals of the society. I don't hold any such view. I do hold that given the right set of circumstances (premises) a society could hold that it is moral to kill people with purple hair and it would be moral for them.

None of this "it would be moral for them" crap. I thought we went beyond this pre-adolescent nonsense. And the Germans could sincerely think they were carrying out God's plan. I do not understand why you decided to further muddle this tripe by describing Japanese internment as "immoral." Are you sure you do not mean that "it was immoral for that society"? No, we're subjected to further incoherence by some fear factor.

No. It's simple. Given that morality isn't a truth that can be found in the physical world then humans must reason it and there is no data that can lead us to an absolute determination of what is and is not moral. I will say again, the fact that there are many moral dilemmas and ambiguities demonstrates clearly that morality is far from simply being universal or absolute. There are near universal mechanisms that are the foundation of our morality and there are clearly universal behaviors that would demonstrate the nature of human morality but we can't then simply declare morality universal because it clearly is not.

Here you go with the "clearly" business, which indicates you have nothing. Clearly this, clearly that, clearly, clearly, clearly. Human beings are apes with pants; we did not evolve to understand morality or answer any of the great questions, really. We do understand the biology of insects. Not even highly trained physicists understand the nature of our reality on a basic level; there are all kinds of ambiguities and disagreements. Only a few thousand years ago the smartest man in the world -- Aristotle -- believed all of earth was made up of four elements.

Animal rights does not require some grand belief in morality. Combining the argument against speciesism with the argument from marginal cases, we can take almost any view and test it for internal contradictions. That's more or less the approach taken by the original post in this thread: most people oppose torturing animals -- Why? Answering these arguments and questions, however, is something you must avoid at all costs because it implies conclusions that highlight weaknesses of mind and will.

I'm curious if you would make any of the same B.S. non-arguments about the nature of rights if the subject was racism. So somebody is arguing in favor of equal rights for Jews and/or the Japanese (to use your own examples), and another person, we'll call him AynFan (A is A), starts spewing uninformed crap about metaphysics, legal traditions, alleged ambiguities, evolutionary psychology and the history of human conflict. Others would undoubtedly interrupt to pose such provocative questions as, "Why should we treat a person of Japanese descent as an equal if the Japanese refuse to do the same for a Caucasian in THEIR society?" (Compare with the all too-common, "but a lion does not recognize a human's rights!")

I want to know why in all of the other threads on all of the other subjects with a moral dimension, I have never, ever seen you bring up this moral relativism crap. And it's not just you. I want to know why it's much more frequently brought up in threads of this kind. I suspect the reason why I see it so often in threads such as this is because people such as yourself do not have an anything remotely resembling a strong, coherent, credible argument. And that's why this particular argument is so dishonest.

--------------------

Dudalb

Another thread in which Cain proclaims himself to be the only judge for what is moral and proper, and anybody who does not agree with him is either stupid, a hypocrite, or evil.
Why am I not surprised?
Hopefully, someday he will grow up.

Yet another form reply from Dudalb, typically meaningless and repetitive. If you're wondering, you fall into the first category.

[Dogdoctor]

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute. That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans. If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral. Period. End of story.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists.


While I agree basically with what you say, I think there are variations on this theme which bear upon the topic of the OP. I think we have inherited behavior that is based upon our perception of the world. This means that we may have an inherited desire to get ahead or to create buffers from the borderline of survival. But these inherited drives depend upon how we perceive things so we don't stop at a preset point and instead continue to adapt. We may have inherited behavior urging us to protect family or significant others yet the perception of who these significant others are will vary. If we are starving, then it will be minimal others but if we have a large buffer from starvation then it may include lots of others since we no longer are worried about ourselves or close significant others so much. Some people take this to include animals (I do) so we may feel a need to protect animals which is actually just a concern for animal welfare and not animals rights as the OP has mentioned.
Just a sideline but thought I would air out this concept for criticism. I haven't read this entire thread yet so if I am duplicating something here I apologize for my laziness.

[RandFan]

None of this "it would be moral for them" crap. I thought we went beyond this pre-adolescent nonsense. And the Germans could sincerely think they were carrying out God's plan. I do not understand why you decided to further muddle this tripe by describing Japanese internment as "immoral." Are you sure you do not mean that "it was immoral for that society"? No, we're subjected to further incoherence by some fear factor. I don't see an argument in there anywhere. I don't see a rebuttal to anything that I've said. I'm sorry but there's nothing really to respond to.

Human beings are apes with pants; we did not evolve to understand morality or answer any of the great questions, really. We do understand the biology of insects. Not even highly trained physicists understand the nature of our reality on a basic level; there are all kinds of ambiguities and disagreements. Only a few thousand years ago the smartest man in the world -- Aristotle -- believed all of earth was made up of four elements. So, forgive me, but it seems to me that what you are saying is that you think we've made no progress since Aristotle? You dismiss any and all philosophical insights into morality and evolutionary psychology? Is that right?

Animal rights does not require some grand belief in morality. Combining the argument against speciesism with the argument from marginal cases, we can take almost any view and test it for internal contradictions. That's more or less the approach taken by the original post in this thread: most people oppose torturing animals -- Why? Answering these arguments and questions, however, is something you must avoid at all costs because it implies conclusions that highlight weaknesses of mind and will. I'm still not getting exactly what your point is. Is there something specific that you want me to address? I don't think we should torture animals. I don't see any point to that. It seems to me to be unnecessarily sadistic. To take pleasure for the sake of causing pain. I'm not sure what that has to do with killing an animal for the purpose of consumption.

I'm curious if you would make any of the same B.S. non-arguments about the nature of rights if the subject was racism. So somebody is arguing in favor of equal rights for Jews and/or the Japanese (to use your own examples), and another person, we'll call him AynFan (A is A), starts spewing uninformed crap about metaphysics, legal traditions, alleged ambiguities, evolutionary psychology and the history of human conflict. Others would undoubtedly interrupt to pose such provocative questions as, "Why should we treat a person of Japanese descent as an equal if the Japanese refuse to do the same for a Caucasian in THEIR society?" (Compare with the all too-common, "but a lion does not recognize a human's rights!") I'd be happy to address this line of argument. I find it interesting. Are you sincerely interested in such a discussion or was that meant to be rhetorical?

That said, I'm sincerely curious, why bother at all with me? If you truly see my posts as spewing uninformed crap then what's the point? I would think you probably feel that you have sufficiently demonstrated my incompetence by now, right? Surely everyone sees that I'm entirely uniformed and at best am just foaming at the mouth incoherent.

If so then save us both some time and effort. Declare yourself the victor (though I'm not sure what it is that you disagree with me about) and move on.

Don't get me wrong. I've no ax to grind with you. I'd be happy to have a discussion about morality and entertain your arguments.

I want to know why in all of the other threads on all of the other subjects with a moral dimension, I have never, ever seen you bring up this moral relativism crap. And it's not just you. I want to know why it's much more frequently brought up in threads of this kind. I suspect the reason why I see it so often in threads such as this is because people such as yourself do not have an anything remotely resembling a strong, coherent, credible argument. And that's why this particular argument is so dishonest. I think you are confusing me with someone else. While I'm not strictly a moral relativist and never have been I have always, to the best of my recolection, taken a hard line against moral absolutism.

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

While I agree basically with what you say, I think there are variations on this theme which bear upon the topic of the OP. I think we have inherited behavior that is based upon our perception of the world. This means that we may have an inherited desire to get ahead or to create buffers from the borderline of survival. But these inherited drives depend upon how we perceive things so we don't stop at a preset point and instead continue to adapt. We may have inherited behavior urging us to protect family or significant others yet the perception of who these significant others are will vary. If we are starving, then it will be minimal others but if we have a large buffer from starvation then it may include lots of others since we no longer are worried about ourselves or close significant others so much. Some people take this to include animals (I do) so we may feel a need to protect animals which is actually just a concern for animal welfare and not animals rights as the OP has mentioned.

Just a sideline but thought I would air out this concept for criticism. I haven't read this entire thread yet so if I am duplicating something here I apologize for my laziness.Thanks,

I think your point valid. I think human behavior to be complex and nuanced and likely an interplay of many variables including both genetic and envioronmental.

I kinda see this along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). A somewhat flawed theory but valid at the basic level.

[GreNME]

I kinda see this along the lines of Maslow's hierarchy of needs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs). A somewhat flawed theory but valid at the basic level.

What flaws do you see? Like you I'm not 100% behind the theory, but every time I've tried to work out a useful criticism it always rang too much like moral absolutism for me to be convinced.

In the context of the larger conversation about animal rights in this thread, I think it's a very good theory to bring up.

[JoeEllison]

I believe in eating the flesh of animals, including fellow mammals. I feel that this belief is based on simple biology, as well as the nummyness of bacon. That said, I don't accept that we have to be cruel to animals in the process. I also reject any comparison involving animals and humans. Any idiot who would compare Jewish or Japanese humans to cattle is a gigantic racist whether they accept it or not.

[RandFan]

What flaws do you see? Like you I'm not 100% behind the theory, but every time I've tried to work out a useful criticism it always rang too much like moral absolutism for me to be convinced.

In the context of the larger conversation about animal rights in this thread, I think it's a very good theory to bring up. It's been awhile since I've defended the theory and I can't remember all of the criticisms. I do think it becomes a bit new-age woo toward the self-actualization and if I remember right there was some problems with Maslows methodology. Intuitively it rings true through to the social needs but I'm not sure after that. Self esteem always seemed to me to fit on the same rung as social. I'm too lazy to google at the moment.

I do think there should be renewed social experiments but perhaps social scientists have come to see Maslow as anachronistic. I'm not sure I just don't think there has been much interest for some time. Perhaps it will be revived.

I agree with you that it is apropos, of course. :)

[Minadin]

I believe in eating the flesh of animals, including fellow mammals. I feel that this belief is based on simple biology, as well as the nummyness of bacon. That said, I don't accept that we have to be cruel to animals in the process. I also reject any comparison involving animals and humans. Any idiot who would compare Jewish or Japanese humans to cattle is a gigantic racist whether they accept it or not.

Cheezus H. Spaghettimonster, I agree with Joe for once.

Especially about the bacon.

[JoeEllison]

Cheezus H. Spaghettimonster, I agree with Joe for once.

Especially about the bacon.
I'm usually right... so, you might want to re-read my posts, this time while snacking on some fried pork products? I've got a genius IQ and read three books a week... even if I happen to be wrong, at least my facts are right. :D

[RandFan]

Mmmmm.... bacon...

"The American Way: deep fried, on a stick, wrapped in bacon, stuffed in a twinkie that's been aged in the anus of an American bald eagle..." --John Stewart.

Everything tastes better wraped in bacon. :)

[JoeEllison]

Everything tastes better wraped in bacon. :)

Yep... and that's tied up in our biology. I wish to a god I don't believe in that they would raise pigs more humanely. Until they do, bacon will remain a guilty pleasure.

[Darth Rotor]

Not only do I not believe in animal rights, I believe that Vegans ought to be treated as the herbivores that they have chosen to become: they ought to be farm raised, commercially ranched, and slaughtered as the food animals that they are to feed humans, and the pets of humans who are carnivorous and omnivorous.

RealVegan(TM) brand dog food: meat byproducts of the highest, and most philosophically inane, quality.

DR

(For those of you who can't figure out what part of that post is a joke, please report to the ranch.)

[Cain]

I don't see an argument in there anywhere. I don't see a rebuttal to anything that I've said. I'm sorry but there's nothing really to respond to.

Well, you're not exactly the most perceptive person I have ever encountered...

So, forgive me, but it seems to me that what you are saying is that you think we've made no progress since Aristotle? You dismiss any and all philosophical insights into morality and evolutionary psychology? Is that right?

Not even close.

I'm still not getting exactly what your point is. Is there something specific that you want me to address? I don't think we should torture animals. I don't see any point to that. It seems to me to be unnecessarily sadistic. To take pleasure for the sake of causing pain. I'm not sure what that has to do with killing an animal for the purpose of consumption.

Well, this is rather interesting when read after the ode to bacon. :rolleyes: People eat animals for pleasure; its consumption is not necessary. If you take into account the moral significance of causing suffering in the case of torture, then one must also take into account the moral significance of suffering under a regime of factory farming. But your discrimination does not stop there; it goes at both ends: you're discriminating against different types of pleasure. So do you think the state should outlaw animal torture? Christian conservatives admit they do not see the point of anal sex, especially when it involves two men. The common counter-argument is: who is being harmed?

I'd be happy to address this line of argument. I find it interesting. Are you sincerely interested in such a discussion or was that meant to be rhetorical?

Go ahead.

That said, I'm sincerely curious, why bother at all with me? If you truly see my posts as spewing uninformed crap then what's the point? I would think you probably feel that you have sufficiently demonstrated my incompetence by now, right? Surely everyone sees that I'm entirely uniformed and at best am just foaming at the mouth incoherent.

If so then save us both some time and effort. Declare yourself the victor (though I'm not sure what it is that you disagree with me about) and move on.

Don't get me wrong. I've no ax to grind with you. I'd be happy to have a discussion about morality and entertain your arguments.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. While I'm not strictly a moral relativist and never have been I have always, to the best of my recolection, taken a hard line against moral absolutism.

I do often wonder why I bother. Maybe it's to see how often you can force civility and evade arguments. The "hi," "thanks," "forgive me," "sincerely" put-on amuses me... somewhat.

---------------------
JoeEllison:
I believe in eating the flesh of animals, including fellow mammals. I feel that this belief is based on simple biology, as well as the nummyness of bacon. That said, I don't accept that we have to be cruel to animals in the process. I also reject any comparison involving animals and humans. Any idiot who would compare Jewish or Japanese humans to cattle is a gigantic racist whether they accept it or not.

This is a rather good example of thoughtless, knee-jerk liberal instincts. Of course, humans are animals, and comparisons abound in the biology you're mistakenly appealing to. This foolishness reminds me of saying, "Of course we can eat animals. We're nothing alike! Of course we need animal testing. They're just like us!" I would really like to know how I am a "gigantic racist" -- a rather serious, if also laughable accusation. This reminds me of the hostility from segments in the black community when homosexuality is compared to being black. The inverted bigotry is noted.

[Minadin]

Are you accusing Joe of being a humanist? :confused:

[Fnord]

Are you accusing Joe of being a humanist? :confused:

It seems more like he's accusing Joe of being a human.

[mumblethrax]

Ok, so this post is way too long. I'm going to try to excise some of the less relevant lines of argument and respond to the general gist of what remains. Apologies if you consider this unfair.

So first, on the general abuse of the language of critical thinking, the repeated accusations of fallacy ("Personal attack! Straw man! Appeal to authority! Appeal to emotion!"): you do not seem to have a good grasp on what these words mean. It's telling that you respond with "Straw man!" to a series of questions designed to tease out your position on the importance of credibility. The neener-neener responses when I point out that I'm trying to avoid having you respond in the manner of a watercooler logician, when I indicate that these are not in fact personal attacks, are only that much more frustrating.

In general, however, you're engaging in a tactic favored by first-year philosophy students, guarding the exit to Plato's cave while the sun shines on your back. All of my arguments must take the form of a deductively valid syllogism, a ridiculous criterion to introduce in the context of an (extremely) informal forum like this one. Yours, meanwhile, are immune from any such requirement. You accuse me of a personal attack when I indicate that you have a grudge against animal rights groups on the basis of your own comments, while you freely accuse me of bias.

Most people figure out pretty quickly that we'll need to introduce a few deductively invalid criteria and move on with their lives. For example:

I'm sorry, what are you trying to say aside from equivocating using a "yeah, well they're worse" defense?
What I've been trying to tell you is this: credibility matters. If it does not, then you cannot introduce any source into the debate, because I can just give the knee-jerk skeptical response in all cases ("Evidence that this reporter is being truthful? Evidence that this is a genuine recording? Evidence that it is possible to have any knowledge beyond that relating to our particular experiences?"). As a courtesy to you, in order to make it possible for us to talk about much of anything, and because it would be totally ludicrous to do otherwise, I'm going to accept credible sources like The New York Times, because I recognize that they have a long history of being mostly truthful, and because there are built-in incentives for doing good reporting and consequences making stuff up.

So when I point out that the CCF's reason for being is to further the interests of the clients of a PR man, that they have a specific and documented record of being mistruthful (and worse, of ****************), that there are no internal consequences for inacccuracy, what I'm saying is that I don't trust them to give me the correct time of day. I'm further saying that I do not trust them to properly frame the discussion, which is why I have to object that you're just going to their site and then following the trail of links. It's way too easy for people to create a false impression by presenting an incomplete picture, which is exactly what they (and therefore you) are doing.

On to the specific charges of malfeasance on the part of HSUS:

That's not an update, that's a press release. When the investigation began against HSUS they came out swinging in response, claiming they spent $25 million dollars. Read the links I gave that quote Pacelle saying exactly that. Three years later that original number has come down quite a bit because, just like the Red Cross, HSUS was not putting all of the money they were taking in from donations into the actual effort for Katrina.
Here you go through a tedious process of presenting stupid, pointless and false challenges to practically every word that I use. There is no contradiction, for example, between 'press release' and 'update.' The amount of money HSUS claims to have spent has gone up, not down. In every case, you take the least generous reading of anything anyone you disagree with says. Well, if you bother to read them at all....

You want to talk about handwaving? Let's do just that. The HSUS revenues for FY2005 were $119,920,506....
You're not reading with an eye for detail. HSUS claims to have allocated $6.3 million on direct response. Given that HSUS itself was the primary actor here, given that they list the kind of expenses they're talking about (supplies, payroll, transportation, contracting, etc.) there's no reason to believe that these expenses would show up on a list of grants to other organizations. They go on to describe money spent on things like reconstruction, etc.

Further, I have this idea that expenditures related to emergency relief, reconstruction, reimbursement, etc. for a major disaster that happened in August of 2005 might bleed into 2006, 2007, even right up until today. Given that the update I linked to was issued in the middle of 2007, I think he might be including all expenditures over the course of HSUS efforts in the wake of Katrina up until that point.

It's difficult to find unbiased sources for how much donations to the HSUS for Katrina were, but judging from the charitynavigator.org chart [link (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3848)] FY2005 was their largest year so far. More information is available at that page about what the HSUS was doing at the time-- the historical data says the number of contributions was $116.9 million for the year. The historical data also shows an excess of $38,876,859 for FY2005, more than double that of the year after and nearly five times that of the year before.
And? Compare this to other (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656), similarly situated (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3286) charities (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3789). There's a trend lately in the US for people to get upset when huge spikes in donations during a period of crisis are not entirely and immediately allocated to that crisis. But there's obviously a point of diminishing marginal utility, where it no longer makes sense to keep pouring money into direct relief. Insisting that charities spend all of the donations they take in during a crisis for immediate relief, even where they don't have the capacity to spend money that quickly, invites exactly the sort of corruption that people then take as evidence not to give the rest of the time, which only makes the situation worse.

But anyway, I notice HSUS has the highest possible rating on that site.

Side note: where did you get your $4.5 million number? I could only find $3 million accounted for to the LA SPCA in their tax filing. Better do some more hand waving.
From the update on their website, which again was issued in 2007 and will presumably include more than just 2005 expenditures. Considering that the new facilities weren't completed until May of 2007, it wouldn't be surprising.

No, that was my mistake. I'm sure you get the picture with two links, though.
I do get the picture, although it's probably not the one you want me to get. The impression I'm getting is that you're just throwing up anything you can find that casts HSUS in a bad light, without thinking about it, without reading it, without even looking at it. This is the online version of a Gish gallup--you come up with any charge you can find, and I have to do the difficult work, the real work of debunking it.

The result was that HSUS was asked to leave Louisiana by the AG. HSUS kissed and made up with the state by offering to pay a few hundred thousand for building a shelter.
I'd like to see some evidence of that.

So, unless by "custody" you mean "physically transporting" and "for a time" means "long enough to drive them to Virginia Beach" then you're really laying it on thick. They also stayed at the VBSPCA long enough to be evaluated and were then shipped off to Utah and California.
Yes, that's what I mean by 'custody'. Just to steer this back on track, I was pointing out their that their claim was not fraudulent, which doesn't require me to believe that they did the better part of caretaking.

But that's not even the point. The point is that HSUS lied and collected donations using those dogs as the sympathy generator, all the while having none of that money going to care for the dogs and while the head of the HSUS was demanding they be put down. The latter is hypocrisy, the former is just shy of fraud.
He wasn't demanding that they be put down, he merely suggested it. Looking at HSUS 2005 tax return, I see that they donated to the very sanctuary where twenty-two of Vick's dogs ended up (Best Friends). You're following a generally pattern of distorting language to cast HSUS in the worst possible light. They 'acquired' (implying a for-profit motivation) FFA, they spend money on 'marketing' rather than fundraising, and now they 'demand' rather than advise.

Spoken like someone completely without a clue as to dog behavior. The dogs were sent to locations...
How does anything I said entail a claim about dog behavior? I pointed out that resources have been--are being--spent on these dogs, while other pit bulls are euthanized. The judge in the Vick case set aside almost $1 million for their lifetime care, for example.

As to your misconceptions on pit bulls...
What particular misconceptions do you believe I have? The only thing I've said about pit bulls is that it makes more sense to spend resources on adopting out pit bulls that have not been trained to be aggressive than to spend resources rehabilitating and warehousing pit bulls that have. It's only necessary for the cost of rehabilitating and providing for any special long-term care that these dogs require to be greater than zero for this to be true. We have to consider their fate in light of the fate of other dogs, and when we do it starts to look a little weird and difficult to understand why these particular dogs should be spared while so many others are euthanized.

More backpedaling and trying to make this about Berman. You should do some searching on John Paul Goodwin, the former ALF and CAFT activist who was hired by HSUS [link (http://www.furcommission.com/news/newsF03i.htm)]. So, if you want to talk credibility you might want to ask why HSUS is doing recruiting from 'activist' groups known for violent behavior.
That link is totally laughable. Fur Commission USA? The 'conflict industry'? Even the Audubon Society is smeared.

Anyway, JP Goodwin was hired by HSUS only after he renounced his support for property destruction tactics and the ALF.

Wait, which of their websites should I look at? Animal Sheltering .org (http://www.animalsheltering.org/)? Humane Society University (http://www.humanesocietyu.org/)? Pet Fullfillment (http://hsus.petfulfillment.com/)? Sorry, but since the HSUS has so many websites, you're going to have to be more specific. And their media exposure? You mean like how they used the Vick case to pull in donations? Or how they used Katrina to pull in donations?
You really can't figure out that when I talk about the HSUS's website, I'm referring to the website website for HSUS, and not one of the two program-specific websites you listed? Ok. Do you realize that hsus.petfulfillment.com is a branded version of a commercial site, and is not an HSUS site at all?

And by their 'media exposure' I mean their exposure in the media. A Google news search gives a story about farm animal initiatives, the reward offered in the Santa Cruz, a dog rescue in Stuttgart, a ban on seal hunting, a story about what happens to pets in foreclosure cases, something about horses, etc. The most prominent recent story is the Hallmark investigation.

They just fight for legislation to make it more difficult to actually have any pets.
And child labor laws made it more difficult to raise children. Maybe the idea here is to improve conditions for animals, while placing minor burdens on their caretakers.

No, I know a tu quoque argument when I see one. I just wanted to see you try to justify it.
You consistently fail to understand that we must understand actions in light of context. It's not a tu quoque to point out that--in context--the 19,000 animals PETA euthanized over a period of several years does not amount to an indictment of PETA, and the same is true of your local shelter. I'm not saying that your shelter does it, therefore it's ok, I'm saying that when we take a closer look, in both cases, we begin to understand why both shetler euthanize so many animals.

You're arguing that there's nothing wrong with high kill rates. You see, that's where I and (and most people who actually care about animal welfare) disagree. Burning down the forest is not saving it.
I think you'll find that controlled burns are an important strategy in preventing forest fires, which you might want to think about. PETA is clearly engaged in a 'controlled burn', since euthanasia tends not to spread.

What I said is that there's nothing inherently wrong with high death rates, which of course you distort by omitting the word 'inherently'. What I mean of course is that if the best way to reduce animal suffering is to euthanize animals, even lots of animals, then this is what we should do. And, once again, the fact that PETA goes out into the community and takes over responsibility for euthanasia in neighboring shelters will obviously distort the numbers. This 'people who actually care about animal welfare' stuff is divisive and obnoxious. You're insinuating that anyone who has ever accepted that euthanasia is a necessarily strategy in exercising responsible stewardship doesn't really care about animals.

Is the blog post you link to is talking about the expense of the "green shelter (http://www.spcaonline.com/new_green.htm)" that was built there? I also notice it's a blog post. Any news of this from a news source, a city hall page, or something a little less agenda-prone than blogs? Some questions I have regarding blog's argument:
It's the self-same shelter that Winograd requested when he came in.

If the problem is mainly funding, why isn't the HSUS or PETA helping out?
So here's the sequence of events as you see them: PETA and HSUS warn about the feasibility of creating no-kill shelters without a strong and lasting commitment from the community. Winograd goes ahead with a no-kill policy. The shelter, lacking a strong commitment in the face of mounting costs, is threatened with the possibility of abandoning its no-kill policy. Your solution: HSUS and PETA should bail them out.

Well, maybe they will, I really don't know. But they'll probably do so while emphasizing that they can't do this everywhere, and that perhaps, perhaps it is irresponsible to pursue these doctrinaire no-kill policies.

Was the situation successful before Winograd left?
I guess that depends on how you define 'successful'. It was certainly one of the better-run shelters in the country.

Why is Winograd's absence keeping it from continuing to be successful?
Because money dries up, people burn out, etc. He has generally unrealistic ideas about what dedicated people can do without sustained commitment from the community.

However, no matter which data I look at-- whether it's the California spending table, their own IRS forms, or the basic interface from Charity Navigator or some other charity reporting site-- every time I look into what part of the organization gets the most spending, two of the highest (one of the two always being the highest are marketing/mailing expenses or legislation lobbying/legal expenses.
So what? This isn't unusual in the charity world. You spend money on fundraising because it yields more donations, and legislative efforts are well within the scope of their mission. Again, compare to Habitat for Humanity, a widely respected charity.

Anyone who doesn't want to spay or neuter their animal has exactly two choices: pay fines or pay for a "breeder license" (even if they aren't a breeder).
Good?

However, there is no reason for the government to mandate that all dogs and cats be spayed or neutered, especially if they've never seen a shelter and never been a stray. That's excessive and is punishing responsible ownership for the behavior of irresponsible ownership.
Failing to neuter and spay your pets is irresponsible, so the cost is exactly where it belongs. If you're worried about behavioral problems, vasectomies and tubal ligation are available (which will fulfill the requirements under the new ordinance).

I never accused you of saying PETA did have high adoption rates, I am taking issue with you making up excuses for their high kill rates when, not far from the PETA facility where they do most of their killing, there is an SPCA facility with an over 70% adoption rate.
So if PETA picks up animals scheduled for euthanasia from local shelters and euthanizes them in a manner they consider more humane (which they do), here's what I'm going to suggest will happen:

a) PETA will see their euthanasia-to-placement rate go up
b) Local shelters will see their placement-to-euthanasia rates go up

They aren't just kills from the two who were caught and charged, they are photos of other euthanized animals killed by PETA, most of whom except for being dead have no evidence of anything signifying they were suffering something "worse than death," some of which are young animals.
This is true of almost all animals euthanized in traditional shelters. You are failing to understand the reason that shelters euthanize otherwise healthy animals.

And federal, state, and local laws would disagree with PETA and say they qualify as violence. Asking the perpetrators or supporters of the perpetrators of crimes whether they think their crimes are violent or not is, no matter how you spin it, ridiculous.
Ahhh, PETA didn't perpetrate these crimes, and it's not ridiculous to ask them why they support a certain class of criminal actions. You're equivocating on the definition of violence, introducing a legal definition where we were having a conversation about more general connotations, where most people wouldn't understand property damage as violent. But if you want to shift into the domain of law--it's not illegal to pay for the defense of the accused, whether their alleged crimes are violent or not. You can't have it both ways.

You scoff that you're justifying their crimes, yet you make excuses about whether PETA would define the actions of the criminals as crimes and you even admit you would justify crimes you thought were for vigilante purposes.
I was talking about whether PETA considered their actions violent, not whether they considered them criminal.

And yes, I will justify a large number of non-violent crimes where the law falls down on the job. If I were to wake up tomorrow in the antebellum South, I'd find ways to liberate people, property laws be damned.

We have laws in the country for a reason, and breaking the law because it doesn't suit some activist's need for immediate gratification is still breaking the law.
So you think civil disobedience is wrong, for example? I think the world can survive a little criminality in the name of justice. By the way, it is not the activists, but the abused who are in need of immediate relief.

The ACLU, the FBI, numerous non-profit watchdogs, and others have noted PETA's support for at the very least defense funds for criminals, and at most their approval of criminal behavior. I gave you a link to audio of the VP of PETA saying in his own words that they advocate criminal behavior. Those FOIA FBI papers linked earlier are linked straight from the ACLU. You're dismissing the evidence because it goes against your preconceived notions. That's why I called what you are doing cognitive dissonance.
Ok, you'll have to excuse me for a moment while I revel in this.

I saw that you linked to the PDFs obtained by the ACLU earlier. Now you're claiming that these are an indication of the ACLU "noting PETA's support for at the very least defense funds for criminals."

Here is the reason those documents exist on the ACLU's site (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html):

NEW YORK -- According to new documents released today by the American Civil Liberties Union, the FBI is using counterterrorism resources to monitor and infiltrate domestic political organizations that criticize business interests and government policies, despite a lack of evidence that the groups are engaging in or supporting violent action.

The ACLU said that the documents released today on Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) show the FBI expanding the definition of “domestic terrorism” to include citizens and groups that participate in lawful protests or civil disobedience.

“The FBI should use its resources to investigate credible threats to national security instead of spending time tracking Americans who criticize government policy, or monitoring groups that have not broken the law,” said Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU. “Labeling law abiding groups and their members ‘domestic terrorists’ is not only irresponsible, it has a chilling effect on the vibrant tradition of political dissent in this country.”
Bolding mine. It's once again made obvious that you are simply trawling for anything that you think paints PETA and HSUS in a negative light, with absolutely no attention to context.

It's an appeal to authority because you are claiming to know what I support and what I don't support.
*blink* I don't even understand how anyone could think that makes sense.

What I'm telling you is that you've misidentified the faultlines in this particular debate. It's a question that cuts both the animal welfare community and animal rights community in two. You've told me that you think animal welfare people are on one side, the AR crowd on the other. You are simply wrong, because the SPCA, the leading animal welfare organization in the US is on the opposing side. I'm not trying to tell you what you think, just that you've miscast the sides here.

You still want to take that bet even though I apparently had to clarify for you that the ordinance was compulsory for everyone and not just sheltered animals (which already existed)?
Where do you get this from? I volunteered that New York was different from Dallas in that we rely on an aggressive push for neutering and mandatory neutering in shelters. But yes, I'll take that bet. Let me know when you've created the thread, and we'll talk about the terms.

Now you're moving goalposts. What you're demanding is some quote where Newkirk says "owners of seeing-eye dogs should go to jail" or something similar. What I've shown you is that Newkirk wants service dogs outlawed, which basically means the same thing-- but understandably requires you to have the logic to understand that "against the law" means "if you break the law you get fined or jailed." So, what I haven't done is give you some overly-specific quote you want worded a specific way, and instead showed you how they are saying the same thing through implication.
Uh, no. I'm asking you to show me exactly what I've been asking you to show me through-out this thread--to demonstrate why you believe she would support jailing and fining blind people for having seeing eye dogs.

On their face, they aren't totally neutral. They are totally extreme.
Do you understand that distance from the norm is not a way of measuring whether a specific goal or action is good or bad?

Comparing Newkirk to Lennon is an emotional appeal because Newkirk is a hypocrite while Lennon was (whether you agreed with him or not) internally consistent.
This makes little to no sense. An appeal to emotion is an argument of the form "P is associated with good emotions, therefore P is true." It would be something like saying John Lennon is right to favor a world without religion, because John Lennon rules. I would never say that; I hate that song. It could also be something like "Ingrid Newkirk must support jailing blind people for owning seeing eye dogs, because Ingrid Newkirk sucks." Just as an example.

The point of the analogy was to compare concepts that are similar in nature (statements about ideal worlds) and then show that they share similar implications as to specific policies about how to get there (that is to say, exactly none).

What you're doing is saying that because John Lennon and Ingrid Newkirk are different in some way, therefore the analogy is flawed. But every analogy will include difference as well as similarities--otherwise, you'd just be comparing identical things.

I'll point you to Wikipedia here:

Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.
The relevant point: you can't conclude that Ingrid Newkirk would apply specific penalties to blind people who own guide dogs just because she expresses preference for a world where we wouldn't keep animals.

They claim to be for the welfare of animals, yet 98% of the animals they take are killed by them. They claim to be against animal testing of all kinds, yet the last I heard Newkirk still uses insulin (a product of animal testing). They claim to be a non-violent organization, yet they give to defense funds of violent criminals, have in the past hired from violent organizations (see the FBI files I linked earlier), and the founder as well as the VP of the organization have made statements advocating violence.
Do you remember earlier when I told you you didn't know anything about the animal rights movement? For some reason you took this as an accusation that you didn't know anything about dogs. But this quote makes it clear that, well, you don't know anything about the animal rights movement. The primary concern of the animal rights movement is animal suffering, not animal death. You commit a genetic fallacy in highlighting Newkirk use of insulin--this is akin to saying that because Nazi Germany was bad, therefore Volkswagen must be bad. And then there's the repetition of the 'support for violent criminals' nonsense.

You seem to have a problem following logic, so I'll list the logic in steps for you:

Ingrid Newkirk opposes ownership of animals
Ingrid Newkirk specifically opposes ownership of service animals
Ingrid Newkirk would like all domestic animal ownership to be outlawed
If domestic ownership of animals were outlawed, owning a pet would be illegal
If someone does something illegal, the consequences are either jail time or fines
Thus, according to Ingrid Newkirk's views on animal ownership, owners of seeing-eye dogs would be breaking the law and face consequences of either jail time or fines for doing so.

You really aren't clever enough to have that much 'tude. Anyway, you have a false premise in step 3.

[Alex Libman]

I believe all rights come from human self-ownership and animals should be absolute property. You want to waste however much it costs to torture and kill a thousand cute baby chimps at your next backyard party? Your loss.

[Dogdoctor]

It's telling that you respond with "Straw man!" to a series of questions designed to tease out your position on the importance of credibility.
If not a strawman then intetionally misleading posting. What would that logical fallacy be? I say it is a variation on a strawman.

[mumblethrax]

If not a strawman then intetionally misleading posting. What would that logical fallacy be? I say it is a variation on a strawman.
I'd really like to know why you think it's intentionally misleading to question the credibility of a completely bogus source when that source is being treated as evidentiary.

[RandFan]

Well, you're not exactly the most perceptive person I have ever encountered... I've got thick skin. If I can help you with your self esteem then by all means.

Not even close. That's odd given your last response. Oh well. It doesn't really matter. [insert insult here]

If you take into account the moral significance of causing suffering in the case of torture, then one must also take into account the moral significance of suffering under a regime of factory farming. It's likely better than dying at the hand of a predator shortly after birth. Or dying of the elements. Of course, we can actually do something about the suffering under a regime of factory farming.

If you were honest enough you would admit that you don't care that animals suffer. You just don't want animals to suffer as a result of humans. You would sleep perfectly fine if every animal on earth suffered night and day so long as humans were not involved.

I do often wonder why I bother. Maybe it's to see how often you can force civility and evade arguments. I kinda doubt that you could actually identify a single argument that I've evaded. You'll be sure to prove me right, wont you?

Oh, and I'm sorry for being civil. I guess I'm beginning to mature emotionally. It had to happen sooner or later. Sadly it can't happen for all of us as is evident by all the people who can't even avoid being suspended.

But if you think about it, morals are relative, they don't apply to all of us equally. Some people, like children for example, must be punished in order to get them to behave in a moral manner. Others just grow up.

Thanks Cain,

RandFan

:)

[GreNME]

Ok, so this post is way too long. I'm going to try to excise some of the less relevant lines of argument and respond to the general gist of what remains. Apologies if you consider this unfair.

No, I consider this par for the course when someone comes in preaching that I'm working from mistaken ideas and then not bothering to actually address the concerns I brought up.

So first, on the general abuse of the language of critical thinking, the repeated accusations of fallacy ("Personal attack! Straw man! Appeal to authority! Appeal to emotion!"): you do not seem to have a good grasp on what these words mean. It's telling that you respond with "Straw man!" to a series of questions designed to tease out your position on the importance of credibility. The neener-neener responses when I point out that I'm trying to avoid having you respond in the manner of a watercooler logician, when I indicate that these are not in fact personal attacks, are only that much more frustrating.

As I've mentioned with others before, if you want to have an argument about rhetorical method I suggest we have that argument in another thread.

You made a personal attack against Berman ("liar for hire") without even once providing any type of logical reason for questioning credibility (not backed up with any fact, at least). This is the same faulty argument tactic that kooks like Alex Jones use when articles are pointed out that he doesn't like-- he discounts them as biased and "working for them" without any substantiation. I use AJ as an example because of your conspiracy theory like answer when I questioned you about why PETA's kill rates have consistently risen year after year for at least the last decade (you blamed it on Berman and his organization).

In general, however, you're engaging in a tactic favored by first-year philosophy students, guarding the exit to Plato's cave while the sun shines on your back. All of my arguments must take the form of a deductively valid syllogism, a ridiculous criterion to introduce in the context of an (extremely) informal forum like this one. Yours, meanwhile, are immune from any such requirement. You accuse me of a personal attack when I indicate that you have a grudge against animal rights groups on the basis of your own comments, while you freely accuse me of bias.

I don't accuse you of bias, I accuse you of basically parroting the press releases of the organizations I'm criticizing or linking to blog posts of others who make their arguments based on said press releases. I base this on your own supplied links for sourcing. You base your assessment of a grudge on the fact that I criticized organizations you apparently advocate-- which is another form of personal attack by implying lack of validity through some agenda.

Most people figure out pretty quickly that we'll need to introduce a few deductively invalid criteria and move on with their lives. For example:
I'm sorry, what are you trying to say aside from equivocating using a "yeah, well they're worse" defense?
What I've been trying to tell you is this: credibility matters.

The only credibility you have established is that HSUS and Berman don't get along. What you fail to establish is that Berman is lying or wrong. However, in the spirit of not turning this into a conversation about someone I have little (or no) concern for-- Berman, in this case-- I've supplied several other sources corroborating or supporting those claims. You, so far, have supplied little more than "yeah, they're worse!" and "those guys do it, too!" as your defenses on HSUS, and you jump through hoops trying to avoid accepting pretty well-known accusations against PETA (and its leaders).

If it does not, then you cannot introduce any source into the debate, because I can just give the knee-jerk skeptical response in all cases ("Evidence that this reporter is being truthful? Evidence that this is a genuine recording? Evidence that it is possible to have any knowledge beyond that relating to our particular experiences?"). As a courtesy to you, in order to make it possible for us to talk about much of anything, and because it would be totally ludicrous to do otherwise, I'm going to accept credible sources like The New York Times, because I recognize that they have a long history of being mostly truthful, and because there are built-in incentives for doing good reporting and consequences making stuff up.

So, what you're saying is that you reserve the right to pick and choose what you'll accept as a source, based on your own opinion.

That's not a conversation, and this is not a classroom. If that is your definition of debate or conversation, then you're pretty much asking for the conversation to be over.

So when I point out that the CCF's reason for being is to further the interests of the clients of a PR man, that they have a specific and documented record of being mistruthful (and worse, of ****************), that there are no internal consequences for inacccuracy, what I'm saying is that I don't trust them to give me the correct time of day. I'm further saying that I do not trust them to properly frame the discussion, which is why I have to object that you're just going to their site and then following the trail of links. It's way too easy for people to create a false impression by presenting an incomplete picture, which is exactly what they (and therefore you) are doing.

Whether you personally trust them or not is irrelevant, because it's obvious that I don't trust the HSUS or PETA and you apparently don't trust those critical of those organizations. I am offering as much information as I can to specify why I don't trust them, while you are dismissing with no explanation other than you don't trust them.


Here you go through a tedious process of presenting stupid, pointless and false challenges to practically every word that I use. There is no contradiction, for example, between 'press release' and 'update.' The amount of money HSUS claims to have spent has gone up, not down. In every case, you take the least generous reading of anything anyone you disagree with says. Well, if you bother to read them at all....

The money HSUS has officially claimed may have gone up, but Wayne Pacelle is the one who made (admittedly, one of several of his) ridiculous remarks. The article I linked to with Pacelle's statement shows that. If you want to bicker that I should have specified Pacelle's words, then I can accept that I should have specified Pacelle-- the head of HSUS who was making a public statement on HSUS.

You're not reading with an eye for detail. HSUS claims to have allocated $6.3 million on direct response. Given that HSUS itself was the primary actor here, given that they list the kind of expenses they're talking about (supplies, payroll, transportation, contracting, etc.) there's no reason to believe that these expenses would show up on a list of grants to other organizations. They go on to describe money spent on things like reconstruction, etc.

All of which is listed in their tax forms? Oh, wait, no it isn't.

You see, non-profits have to distinctly list their different kinds of money spent on their Form 990. Trying to mix administrative and transportation in with other forms of money spent in press releases and internet arguments is all well and good when someone isn't looking at the actual forms the organization is obligated to file to the IRS. However, since I've pointed out more than $2 million in unaccounted for money to their "direct" relief claim, either you have to admit that their "direct" relief wasn't so direct or you have to tell me where the unaccounted for money went.

Further, I have this idea that expenditures related to emergency relief, reconstruction, reimbursement, etc. for a major disaster that happened in August of 2005 might bleed into 2006, 2007, even right up until today. Given that the update I linked to was issued in the middle of 2007, I think he might be including all expenditures over the course of HSUS efforts in the wake of Katrina up until that point.

You have "this idea" of that, do you? Could you maybe do something a bit more substantial and provide evidence? There should be somewhere between $300000 and $600000 in the end of 2006 or the beginning of 2007 for a contribution they supposedly made for a hurricane pet shelter, but that falls way short of the other money HSUS claims to have ready or to be giving.

And? Compare this to other (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656), similarly situated (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3286) charities (http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3789). There's a trend lately in the US for people to get upset when huge spikes in donations during a period of crisis are not entirely and immediately allocated to that crisis. But there's obviously a point of diminishing marginal utility, where it no longer makes sense to keep pouring money into direct relief. Insisting that charities spend all of the donations they take in during a crisis for immediate relief, even where they don't have the capacity to spend money that quickly, invites exactly the sort of corruption that people then take as evidence not to give the rest of the time, which only makes the situation worse./quote]

You're dismissing a valid criticism of overly-large organizations who manage to retain non-profit status while offering abysmal returns on donation. My main criticisms of the HSUS apply to several large charities not related to animal rights, and that criticism is that there is a lack of efficacy when organizations pass a certain degree of bureaucratic bloat. Waving away the argument by effectively saying "of course there's bureaucratic bloat" is not much of a defense against the criticism.

But anyway, I notice HSUS has the highest possible rating on that site.

Oh, well that makes everything okay then, doesn't it?

[quote=GreNME]Side note: where did you get your $4.5 million number? I could only find $3 million accounted for to the LA SPCA in their tax filing. Better do some more hand waving.
From the update on their website, which again was issued in 2007 and will presumably include more than just 2005 expenditures. Considering that the new facilities weren't completed until May of 2007, it wouldn't be surprising.

I showed the $3 million and I mentioned the alleged $300k-600k. That's still around a million short even assuming the best.

No, that was my mistake. I'm sure you get the picture with two links, though.
I do get the picture, although it's probably not the one you want me to get. The impression I'm getting is that you're just throwing up anything you can find that casts HSUS in a bad light, without thinking about it, without reading it, without even looking at it. This is the online version of a Gish gallup--you come up with any charge you can find, and I have to do the difficult work, the real work of debunking it.

You're the one preaching about context. So what was the context of HSUS being investigated for not actually allocating the money they took in under donation drives for the purpose they stated (in this case, Katrina)? I didn't even get into the list of lawsuits from a large number of the original owners of the animals in Louisiana [link (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0721/p01s03-ussc.html)]. The reason why I didn't is because while I think it's stupid of those who were adopting out these animals, I'm willing to give the groups the benefit of the doubt that they meant well. However, Pacelle and his outrage because the state of Louisiana was asking for accountability for using their state's disaster as an opportunity to bring in more than $30 million in just the first month of donation drives exemplifies the type of over-entitled and over-privileged status these groups enjoy because they get to use emotions to fund their organization.

The result was that HSUS was asked to leave Louisiana by the AG. HSUS kissed and made up with the state by offering to pay a few hundred thousand for building a shelter.
I'd like to see some evidence of that.

The shelter was supposedly a hurricane pet shelter facility in southern Louisiana, but I don't think it's the one in New Orleans. Since it may not be in New Orleans then good luck finding an article on it.

As to the asking HSUS to leave part, since I can't find a source online I'll simply let that one drop for the sake of this thread. I heard about it through some channels in LA directly from rescue circles in the summer of 2006. It may be related to Foti's comments from 2006 in this article (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/04/la_humane_society.html): "Once again we will be on the lookout to make sure that those who seek to raise money for Hurricane victims in our state, do exactly what they claim to do when soliciting funds," stated General Foti, "While I commend the work of the many wonderful charitable organizations that have come forward to help us in our time of need, I also want people to know that they cannot take advantage of our situation in any way."

If you want to take serious issue on that point, since I don't have a web link for you I think it's reasonable to let drop.

Yes, that's what I mean by 'custody'. Just to steer this back on track, I was pointing out their that their claim was not fraudulent, which doesn't require me to believe that they did the better part of caretaking.

So you want to argue whether it was legally fraud. I am saying it was factually a lie. The point is that they did not care for Vick's dogs and they definitely didn't do the "better part" of any caretaking. You make a ridiculous claim like that even though HSUS admits themselves that they run no shelters and have no facilities for doing any such thing. The Vick dogs didn't go to an FFA facility or the Texas ranch, they were carted to the SPCA and then sent to facilities from there.

That you continue to insist that HSUS was responsible for those dogs when I already provided more than one link describing those who actually did take responsibility for them-- as well as pointing out Pacelle's cries that they be put down-- is displaying how little you're relying on facts and instead pulling a rhetorical "nuh-uh" without providing any real fact to back up your claim.

He wasn't demanding that they be put down, he merely suggested it. Looking at HSUS 2005 tax return, I see that they donated to the very sanctuary where twenty-two of Vick's dogs ended up (Best Friends). You're following a generally pattern of distorting language to cast HSUS in the worst possible light. They 'acquired' (implying a for-profit motivation) FFA, they spend money on 'marketing' rather than fundraising, and now they 'demand' rather than advise.

They gave to lots of places, but their grants amount to less than one tenth of their earnings. Of their spending, nearly five times ($28+ million) what they put out to other organizations ($6.3 million) who do actual work goes to marketing, and nearly $5 million more than that ($11.1 million) goes to fundraising. Those are the actual numbers, while you're trying to make excuses about it and calling my criticisms hand-waving. Can you justify why less than a tenth of their total yearly revenue actually goes into the programs they keep taking credit for?

How does anything I said entail a claim about dog behavior? I pointed out that resources have been--are being--spent on these dogs, while other pit bulls are euthanized. The judge in the Vick case set aside almost $1 million for their lifetime care, for example.

Then condemn the judge, not my arguments. There are organizations who exist solely for the rehabilitation and hope to re-home dogs from fighting rings, from abuse cases, and other horrible situations. To claim that these efforts are a waste is ridiculous on your part, because the goal is to save as many of these dogs as possible, not label some as not worth the effort because it might be hard.

What particular misconceptions do you believe I have? The only thing I've said about pit bulls is that it makes more sense to spend resources on adopting out pit bulls that have not been trained to be aggressive than to spend resources rehabilitating and warehousing pit bulls that have. It's only necessary for the cost of rehabilitating and providing for any special long-term care that these dogs require to be greater than zero for this to be true. We have to consider their fate in light of the fate of other dogs, and when we do it starts to look a little weird and difficult to understand why these particular dogs should be spared while so many others are euthanized.

I see two glaring misconceptions.

The first is the whole "trained to be aggressive" part. That's a misconception (and why I recommended the book) that has been self-perpetuating since about the late 1980's about what happens to these dogs. They aren't "trained" much at all, and are instead tortured, starved, and then thrown at each other to provoke a fight. There is a media-hyped image of dogfighting pit bulls as these conditioned killing machines with some urban legend accounts of supposed supernatural powers. That is nothing like the reality, and even more moderate assessments implying any real conditioning outside of the natural reaction from steady torture and starvation is completely incorrect. The approach to dealing with a dog formerly used to fight is the same as with dogs who have suffered abuse on a regular basis, with about the same (surprisingly low) percentage of "non-rehabilitate-able" cases.

The second is that it takes much more work than with many shelter cases. The fact is that many shelter cases are the result of abuse, abandonment, strays, or inhospitable environments. They almost always require some amount of recovery period, and just as with former fighting dogs once a regular meal schedule and non-threatening environment is established a lot of them become quickly responsive. The difference with former fighting dogs is mostly due to breed prejudices, not the amount of effort needed. There is damage to the dog's mental state and the proper method to rehabilitate is to provide an environment that's stable and let their minds re-adjust according to normal dog behavior. Because so much of dog behavior (as opposed to human behavior) is instinctual-- and please, let's not get into a debate on whether humans have instincts-- the rehabilitation process is not so extensive as you might think.

Besides: most of the Vick dogs were rehabilitated inside of a year. Some within months. Exactly what extra measures do you think took place to garner results that quick?

That link is totally laughable. Fur Commission USA? The 'conflict industry'? Even the Audubon Society is smeared.

Anyway, JP Goodwin was hired by HSUS only after he renounced his support for property destruction tactics and the ALF.

I'd like to see some evidence of that.

You really can't figure out that when I talk about the HSUS's website, I'm referring to the website website for HSUS, and not one of the two program-specific websites you listed? Ok. Do you realize that hsus.petfulfillment.com is a branded version of a commercial site, and is not an HSUS site at all?

It's one of their e-commerce revenue generators, just like their other sites.

What I was pointing out is that they provide a flurry of pet-centric revenue generators, while their focus is not really the impression their advertising and pleas for donations tend to imply... that is, unless you get the impression from their materials that HSUS focuses on animal legislation and taking the credit for work done by local humane societies and SPCAs.

And by their 'media exposure' I mean their exposure in the media. A Google news search gives a story about farm animal initiatives, the reward offered in the Santa Cruz, a dog rescue in Stuttgart, a ban on seal hunting, a story about what happens to pets in foreclosure cases, something about horses, etc. The most prominent recent story is the Hallmark investigation.

You're making a lot of assumptions on where their donations are coming from. They get negative attention on things like their Katrina donation drives and their Vick dogs ads because those are the things that get the public's attention, and those are cases where the money for donations does not go proportionally to the causes for which they are donated.

And child labor laws made it more difficult to raise children. Maybe the idea here is to improve conditions for animals, while placing minor burdens on their caretakers.

Two things: 1. it only took six pages, but the anthropomorphizing finally begins; 2. punishing responsible dog owners for the behavior of irresponsible dog owners does not logically lead to the irresponsible dog owners to change their behavior.

You consistently fail to understand that we must understand actions in light of context. It's not a tu quoque to point out that--in context--the 19,000 animals PETA euthanized over a period of several years does not amount to an indictment of PETA, and the same is true of your local shelter. I'm not saying that your shelter does it, therefore it's ok, I'm saying that when we take a closer look, in both cases, we begin to understand why both shetler euthanize so many animals.

What you consistently fail to understand is the inherent cognitive dissonance of an agency that claims to be protecting the welfare of animals, when in reality their actions are showing that their "protection" amounts to killing 98% of the animals they take in.

I think you'll find that controlled burns are an important strategy in preventing forest fires, which you might want to think about. PETA is clearly engaged in a 'controlled burn', since euthanasia tends not to spread.

Controlled burns don't destroy 98% of the forest to save it. I understand the logical necessity of some cases of euthanasia. My objection is the degree of the practice to the point beyond necessity.

What I said is that there's nothing inherently wrong with high death rates, which of course you distort by omitting the word 'inherently'. What I mean of course is that if the best way to reduce animal suffering is to euthanize animals, even lots of animals, then this is what we should do. And, once again, the fact that PETA goes out into the community and takes over responsibility for euthanasia in neighboring shelters will obviously distort the numbers. This 'people who actually care about animal welfare' stuff is divisive and obnoxious. You're insinuating that anyone who has ever accepted that euthanasia is a necessarily strategy in exercising responsible stewardship doesn't really care about animals.

More assumptions on your part. I have stated more than once already that I'm not against euthanasia, but I am against a 98% kill rate. Trying to frame that in the context that PETA is going around killing all the animals for everyone is absurd. The numbers I listed for PETA's kill rates come from one facility of theirs for euthanasia-- in Norfolk, VA. You can't seriously be arguing that this single facility is taking in all the euthanasia cases from not only the immediate surrounding area, but also from other parts of the country who also enjoy significantly lower (usually by half) kill rates.

Your argument is seriously inflating PETA's involvement in pet euthanasia across the country, which is a common AR apologist misconception (along with the "overpopulation" myth).

It's the self-same shelter that Winograd requested when he came in.

You didn't answer my question. Since you grew up there, you have the opportunity to clarify based on your proximity. I'm offering you the opportunity to do just that.

If the problem is mainly funding, why isn't the HSUS or PETA helping out?
So here's the sequence of events as you see them: PETA and HSUS warn about the feasibility of creating no-kill shelters without a strong and lasting commitment from the community. Winograd goes ahead with a no-kill policy. The shelter, lacking a strong commitment in the face of mounting costs, is threatened with the possibility of abandoning its no-kill policy. Your solution: HSUS and PETA should bail them out.

Here's the sequence as you see them: HSUS and PETA, not wanting the program to work, make public accusations that it doesn't work beforehand and, after they do that and wait a few years for some financial trouble, they decide not to give any money to that program even though they supposedly fund other programs throughout the country.

The reality: that's probably not your take on events, but it's exactly the kind of distortion you performed on my words. So, again I ask: if HSUS and PETA are giving funds to so many shelter programs across the country, why are they skipping this one? I ask about HSUS in particular, since you've extolled the virtues of their press claims to having been so generous to pet welfare.

Well, maybe they will, I really don't know. But they'll probably do so while emphasizing that they can't do this everywhere, and that perhaps, perhaps it is irresponsible to pursue these doctrinaire no-kill policies.

Maybe they will? You have to realize the ridiculousness of your assumption here. Not only is the "can't do it everywhere" completely inaccurate for an organization that can maintain tens of millions in surplus every year, but you're talking about the two most media-present organizations in the nation. But "maybe they will?" Has anyone asked?

Was the situation successful before Winograd left?
I guess that depends on how you define 'successful'. It was certainly one of the better-run shelters in the country.

Well, to your credit you aren't engaging in the "whine-ograd" attacks like in the comments of the blog you posted. If it was one of the better-run shelters, what changed?

Why is Winograd's absence keeping it from continuing to be successful?
Because money dries up, people burn out, etc. He has generally unrealistic ideas about what dedicated people can do without sustained commitment from the community.

That doesn't explain why it isn't working, that is a criticism of his model after you already stated it was previously one of the better-run facilities. As for money drying up: have you considered the current economic state of the nation (recession, semi-recession, pick your political buzz word) might have something to do with that? Animal shelters don't exist in a bubble.

However, no matter which data I look at-- whether it's the California spending table, their own IRS forms, or the basic interface from Charity Navigator or some other charity reporting site-- every time I look into what part of the organization gets the most spending, two of the highest (one of the two always being the highest are marketing/mailing expenses or legislation lobbying/legal expenses.
So what? This isn't unusual in the charity world. You spend money on fundraising because it yields more donations, and legislative efforts are well within the scope of their mission. Again, compare to Habitat for Humanity, a widely respected charity.

I already stated I have a wide number of criticisms for a lot of over-buracracized charities. Regarding HfH in particular, I normally suggest people donate goods and their own time to the charity if they want to see results.

Anyone who doesn't want to spay or neuter their animal has exactly two choices: pay fines or pay for a "breeder license" (even if they aren't a breeder).
Good?

And this affects the people who are creating the problem-- irresponsible owners who, on the whole, don't register their pets anyway-- how exactly?

Failing to neuter and spay your pets is irresponsible, so the cost is exactly where it belongs. If you're worried about behavioral problems, vasectomies and tubal ligation are available (which will fulfill the requirements under the new ordinance).

You just stated that not sterilizing your pet is irresponsible. If everyone in the country sterilized their pet, where would pets come from? Who gets to choose which pets get to breed in your world?

So if PETA picks up animals scheduled for euthanasia from local shelters and euthanizes them in a manner they consider more humane (which they do), here's what I'm going to suggest will happen:

a) PETA will see their euthanasia-to-placement rate go up
b) Local shelters will see their placement-to-euthanasia rates go up

That's a creative "if" scenario. Now prove it actually happens.

This is true of almost all animals euthanized in traditional shelters. You are failing to understand the reason that shelters euthanize otherwise healthy animals.

And you are failing to accept that there are proven cases (San Fran., Tomkins Co.) where this is unnecessary. You also fail to take into account that there exists a network of rescue groups who perform transports specifically to keep animals out of such circumstances (distributed sheltering, if you will). Even the SPCA engages in such transports [link (https://secure2.convio.net/tspca/site/Donation2?df_id=1360&1360.donation=landing)]. Just because you're not willing to consider such alternatives does not discount their validity.

Ahhh, PETA didn't perpetrate these crimes, and it's not ridiculous to ask them why they support a certain class of criminal actions. You're equivocating on the definition of violence, introducing a legal definition where we were having a conversation about more general connotations, where most people wouldn't understand property damage as violent. But if you want to shift into the domain of law--it's not illegal to pay for the defense of the accused, whether their alleged crimes are violent or not. You can't have it both ways.

I never said their support for criminals was illegal. I said it was questionable, dubious, despicable, and that I think lower of the organization for it. I find the statements of the leaders of the organization to be extremist in advocating for crime. The fact that the FBI seems to believe there may be more of a link than just defending criminals also puts into question whether giving money to an organization that defends criminals, advocates violence, and has been the subject of numerous investigations is really a wise choice if the donor's goal is to give in favor of animal welfare.

I was talking about whether PETA considered their actions violent, not whether they considered them criminal.

Breaking things is violent.

And yes, I will justify a large number of non-violent crimes where the law falls down on the job. If I were to wake up tomorrow in the antebellum South, I'd find ways to liberate people, property laws be damned.

Again with the anthropomorphizing.

So you think civil disobedience is wrong, for example? I think the world can survive a little criminality in the name of justice. By the way, it is not the activists, but the abused who are in need of immediate relief.

When the view of who the actual "abused" are is distorted to the level that PETA does, your argument becomes irrelevant due to extremity.

Ok, you'll have to excuse me for a moment while I revel in this.

I saw that you linked to the PDFs obtained by the ACLU earlier. Now you're claiming that these are an indication of the ACLU "noting PETA's support for at the very least defense funds for criminals."

Here is the reason those documents exist on the ACLU's site (http://www.aclu.org/safefree/spying/23124prs20051220.html):

Bolding mine. It's once again made obvious that you are simply trawling for anything that you think paints PETA and HSUS in a negative light, with absolutely no attention to context.

The context being the ACLU criticizing the FBI's spying. Now explain how that's relevant to the fact that the FBI was, indeed, investigating PETA. But you want to talk context? It couldn't be because PETA has given money to groups labeled as domestic terrorists [link (http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2005-12/msg03339.html)]: "Did you know, for example, that PETA gave $1500 to the Earth Liberation Front back in 2001? That would be the same Earth Liberation Front recently described as one of the nation's top domestic terror threats. According to the Center for Consumer Freedom, this "gift" (acknowledged in PETA's end of the year tax return) is the only public donation the Earth Liberation Front has received. PETA's tax returns show some other interesting payments as well. A $2,000 payment to a David Wilson, at the time a spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front. A $5,000 payment to Joshua Harper, a self-described anarchist who faces terrorism charges for smoke bombing an insurance company with ties to a medical research firm."

It's an appeal to authority because you are claiming to know what I support and what I don't support.
*blink* I don't even understand how anyone could think that makes sense.

You speak presumptively of what I supposedly support or don't support, and then try to claim authorities are the opposite of what you are claiming I support. You cite the SPCA and AVMA-- show me the official AVMA support for the across-the-board spay/neuter ordinance in Dallas. I'm aware of a non-committal document from them that talked about spaying and neutering and the health risks involved, but no approval-- tacit or otherwise-- going in either direction. I know the local SPCA groups campaigned in favor of the ordinance, but I don't know of the ASPCA taking an official stand. But regardless of that, you keep arguing as if I'm against spay/neuter in all cases. I've laid out how I believe otherwise more than once already, but you keep coming back to your arguments requiring me to hold a position I don't hold.

What I'm telling you is that you've misidentified the faultlines in this particular debate. It's a question that cuts both the animal welfare community and animal rights community in two. You've told me that you think animal welfare people are on one side, the AR crowd on the other. You are simply wrong, because the SPCA, the leading animal welfare organization in the US is on the opposing side. I'm not trying to tell you what you think, just that you've miscast the sides here.

This is a perfect example of what I mean with your arguments requiring that I hold some extreme position that I don't actually hold. I didn't say that there are two groups, the AR and the AW people. I said that I don't think that the "animal rights movement" in its most vocal and media-present examples is representative of actual animal welfare. I pointed out that there are loads of folks out there who won't touch these loud, obnoxious, and deceitful organizations with a ten foot pole. I've also gone into descriptions of groups who have organized enough to get wider reach for their activities than just their localities. I keep pointing them out because I am describing to everyone else reading this that there isn't just the extreme AR folk and a bunch of anti-AR folk, that there are instead groups of people who are busting their butts for the sake of animal welfare out there who aren't funding themselves through fancy marketing blitzes or cashing in on disasters, and that these groups are in pretty much every major city in the US and in quite a few of the not-so-major cities in the US.

Furthermore, you must not have read my post to someone else on the SPCA, where I specifically pointed out that while I don't agree with some of the legislation they have backed and though I have some criticisms on a general level, I credit the organization for actually being out there and for actually doing things that have been positive for animal welfare. That you're determined to paint me as completely opposed to your claimed authorities when I've already made clear my actual opinions on the matter gives me the impression that you aren't really reading my posts, you're just scanning them for little "gotcha" marks where you can stick in more of your tangential or emotional arguments.

You still want to take that bet even though I apparently had to clarify for you that the ordinance was compulsory for everyone and not just sheltered animals (which already existed)?
Where do you get this from? I volunteered that New York was different from Dallas in that we rely on an aggressive push for neutering and mandatory neutering in shelters. But yes, I'll take that bet. Let me know when you've created the thread, and we'll talk about the terms.

No problem, I just wanted to make sure you weren't also under the mistaken impression that this ordinance was similar to New York's, and that it's actually more far-reaching than New York's.

Uh, no. I'm asking you to show me exactly what I've been asking you to show me through-out this thread--to demonstrate why you believe she would support jailing and fining blind people for having seeing eye dogs.

Okay, let's take a socratic route: do you believe that Ingrid Newkirk would prefer that all domestic animals no longer be owned by people?

On their face, they aren't totally neutral. They are totally extreme.
Do you understand that distance from the norm is not a way of measuring whether a specific goal or action is good or bad?

Since the comment you quoted was disagreeing that the group is neutral, are you accepting that they are, indeed, extreme?

This makes little to no sense. An appeal to emotion is an argument of the form "P is associated with good emotions, therefore P is true." It would be something like saying John Lennon is right to favor a world without religion, because John Lennon rules. I would never say that; I hate that song. It could also be something like "Ingrid Newkirk must support jailing blind people for owning seeing eye dogs, because Ingrid Newkirk sucks." Just as an example.

Okay, let's take a socratic route: do you believe that Ingrid Newkirk would prefer that all domestic animals no longer be owned by people?

The point of the analogy was to compare concepts that are similar in nature (statements about ideal worlds) and then show that they share similar implications as to specific policies about how to get there (that is to say, exactly none).

No, this is a similar musing to Lennon's: "In the end I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether" (Ingrid Newkirk, Newsday, Feb. 21 1988). That one is a "wouldn't it be nice" kind of quote. Statements like "will be phased out" is less of a musing and more of an action plan kind of language.

The relevant point: you can't conclude that Ingrid Newkirk would apply specific penalties to blind people who own guide dogs just because she expresses preference for a world where we wouldn't keep animals.

The relevant response: when you're talking about the head of an organization that engages in such "protests" as going to dog shows and opening kennels or openly advocates for legislation to make pet ownership more and more difficult, the number of comments where that head of an organization "expresses preference" begins taking on a whole new context.

Do you remember earlier when I told you you didn't know anything about the animal rights movement? For some reason you took this as an accusation that you didn't know anything about dogs. But this quote makes it clear that, well, you don't know anything about the animal rights movement. The primary concern of the animal rights movement is animal suffering, not animal death. You commit a genetic fallacy in highlighting Newkirk use of insulin--this is akin to saying that because Nazi Germany was bad, therefore Volkswagen must be bad. And then there's the repetition of the 'support for violent criminals' nonsense.

I wasn't aware that Volkswagen was the direct result of Nazi Germany.

If the primary concern of the AR movement was about animal suffering, then why is taking advantage of something the AR activists consider one of the worst forms of suffering--- animal testing-- not a matter of hypocrisy?


Ingrid Newkirk opposes ownership of animals
Ingrid Newkirk specifically opposes ownership of service animals
Ingrid Newkirk would like all domestic animal ownership to be outlawed
If domestic ownership of animals were outlawed, owning a pet would be illegal
If someone does something illegal, the consequences are either jail time or fines
Thus, according to Ingrid Newkirk's views on animal ownership, owners of seeing-eye dogs would be breaking the law and face consequences of either jail time or fines for doing so.
You really aren't clever enough to have that much 'tude. Anyway, you have a false premise in step 3.

Your personal jab aside, you do absolutely nothing to support your accusation on step 3. You already admitted that Newkirk was "express preference" for a world where pets were not allowed. In Newkirk's preferred world, what do [i]you say would be the consequences of blind people having seeing-eye dogs?

I'd really like to know why you think it's intentionally misleading to question the credibility of a completely bogus source when that source is being treated as evidentiary.

Because you question the credibility but provide no sustainable reason for questioning outside of the fact that he obviously is a critical source. Being a critical source is not enough justification to imply a question of credibility, and if you are going to accuse one 501(c)(3) of being questionable for criticizing another 501(c)(3), then I think it's reasonable to require you to provide more substantiation to you "liar for hire" attack and your "corporate blah blah" designation for them. If large corporate donations are enough to discredit the validity of a non-profit, then you've pretty much made my case for me. :)

[Cain]

Minadin
Are you accusing Joe of being a humanist?

Yes! That's exactly what I'm doing.

---------------

fnord
It seems more like he's accusing Joe of being a human.

No, wait, THIS is exactly what I meant. Thanks guys.

-----------------------------

It's likely better than dying at the hand of a predator shortly after birth. Or dying of the elements. Of course, we can actually do something about the suffering under a regime of factory farming.

If you were honest enough you would admit that you don't care that animals suffer. You just don't want animals to suffer as a result of humans. You would sleep perfectly fine if every animal on earth suffered night and day so long as humans were not involved.

No, that's yet another mistaken argument. "Ought" implies "can": Humans should do whatever we can to reduce suffering. It just so happens the easiest and most effective way to reduce the suffering of animals is to stop consuming them.

I kinda doubt that you could actually identify a single argument that I've evaded. You'll be sure to prove me right, wont you?

You only "kinda doubt" it? After writing: "I'd be happy to address this line of argument. I find it interesting." I told you to "Go ahead" and then in this very post, you "kinda doubt" I can find a "single argument"?? You're unbelievable. I got a wild hair up my ass and started browsing this forum. I think it was the Mythbusters thread where, sure enough, my old buddy RandFan has a comment to the effect, "I have long been an outspoken supporter of gay and lesbian rights." Of course! It's so sickeningly narcissistic. I wonder if in threads involving equal rights for homosexuals you have ever raised issues of moral relativism, or how you reacted to people doing the same. You have continually evaded arguments -- not just in this thread, we have a history -- that raise animal rights in the context of an already formed moral framework, especially arguments against speciesism and for marginal cases. You cannot follow through on your own arguments regarding "fears" vis-a-vis Japanese internment camps, support claims of moral progress, a follow up on alleged circularity (this last bit also probably missing on threads regarding the so-called rights of gays and lesbians). Looking over a previous post perhaps I had overestimated you with regard to scientific progress (see my last comments on Aristotle); maybe it was genuine incompetence rather than artful dodge. Of course, it's always difficult to tell with you.

Oh, and I'm sorry for being civil. I guess I'm beginning to mature emotionally. It had to happen sooner or later. Sadly it can't happen for all of us as is evident by all the people who can't even avoid being suspended.

You don't need to apologize for being civil. The real problem is that you're a big phony -- have been for as long as I remember -- and you're more concerned with how others perceive you than in generating informed arguments and counter-arguments. Your approach to this topic is particularly dishonest, and the signing of your name in the last two posts is risible. I'm sure eyes glaze over this thread and see your superficial civility contrasted with my fully justified vituperation. Why have you suddenly taken to signing your handle? Your screenname is already right next to the post, so why do you also need it underneath?

But if you think about it, morals are relative, they don't apply to all of us equally. Some people, like children for example, must be punished in order to get them to behave in a moral manner. Others just grow up.

Oh, geez, when you put it like that it all suddenly becomes so clear. Or, um, wait, this is a non sequitur piggybacking on equivocation. People are different, and personal morality -- surprise, surprise -- varies person to person. However, it does not follow that morality is relative. If we have some principle seeking to effect a morally desirable outcome (in the vague case above), then we should not confuse an argument against universality with uniformity. You would benefit from reading a book on morality some time. I believe in the very first chapter of Practical Ethics Peter Singer compares striking a horse and an infant with equal force.

OK, here's a great idea. You read Practical Ethics and I'll read ANY nutty book of your choosing (but under 1000 pages, so no Atlas Shrugged). Preferably it will be one on animal rights/animal liberation.

Best,
Cain

P.S............................................... .................................................. ................................Cain.

[Ron_Tomkins]

As usual:

The question is not wether I believe in animal rights or not.
It's about wether animal rights need me to believe in them, for them to be real. :)

[RandFan]

No, that's yet another mistaken argument. "Ought" implies "can": Humans should do whatever we can to reduce suffering. It just so happens the easiest and most effective way to reduce the suffering of animals is to stop consuming them. I make no such argument that "ought" implies "can". I just note that suffering has little if anything to do with it. If we eliminated all human caused suffering today it would have no bearing on your opinion one way or the other regardless of how we eliminated the suffering. At the end of the day there would be X number of animals suffering and you wouldn't care. You honestly wouldn't. It's really just that simple.

No, I can't justify the killing of animals based on the fact that animals in the wild die of predation or the elements. I never said otherwise. I just don't buy that people really give a damn about animal suffering in general. I think people suffer guilt concerning human caused suffering of animals but that is a completely different subject.

BTW, it's arguable that the most effective way to reduce the suffering of animals is to stop consuming them.

You only "kinda doubt" it? After writing: "I'd be happy to address this line of argument. I find it interesting." I told you to "Go ahead" and then in this very post, you "kinda doubt" I can find a "single argument"??
I'll grant you that. It's true. I did skip that argument. I apologize. I won't do it again.

"I have long been an outspoken supporter of gay and lesbian rights." Of course! It's so sickeningly narcissistic.First, I don't think I said that. If I did I will go back and retract it because just a few years ago I argued against the rights of gays and lesbians?


And "narcissistic"? Where on earth did you get that?

Look, I admitted my hang ups. I grew up a bigot of gays and lesbians. I was raised to see homosexuality as immoral but once I gave up my religious beliefs I couldn't find a single reasonable argument to be against gay rights. So I'm dealing with my hang-ups. And for that you call me a narcissist? It doesn't make any sense.

In all honesty you have the wrong view of me. I think I understand how you got that view but it's not accurate. It really isn't.

I doubt there is much I can do to convince you otherwise. I guess it's not important.

I wonder if in threads involving equal rights for homosexuals you have ever raised issues of moral relativism, or how you reacted to people doing the same. You have continually evaded arguments -- not just in this thread, we have a history -- that raise animal rights in the context of an already formed moral framework, especially arguments against speciesism and for marginal cases. You cannot follow through on your own arguments regarding "fears" vis-a-vis Japanese internment camps, support claims of moral progress, a follow up on alleged circularity (this last bit also probably missing on threads regarding the so-called rights of gays and lesbians).
I did support claims of moral progress.

Look, can we move forward. If there is something you would like me to go back and address let me know and I will commit to addressing each and every one of your arguments from here on out.

I ask one favor. Can you separate the abuse and rhetoric from the arguments. I honestly have a difficult time picking through it all. I really don't give a damn about the petty insults. I understand your need for them. Feel free to post them just put your arguments in separate paragraphs.

No, I confess that alone is not reason enough to justify missing an argument and it's not meant as justification. Just help me out here.

Cain, FTR, I'm not a moral relativist. I have had a number of rather long debates with Earthborn and I believe Mumblethrax and Kevin Lowe arguing against moral relativism. I could be wrong about the last two. It's been awhile.

Looking over a previous post perhaps I had overestimated you with regard to scientific progress (see my last comments on Aristotle); maybe it was genuine incompetence rather than artful dodge. Of course, it's always difficult to tell with you. Your last post on Aristotle in context with your follow-up made no sense whatsoever. You dismiss all progress made since Aristotle and when questioned on it you simply deny what you clearly did.

Oh, geez, when you put it like that it all suddenly becomes so clear. Or, um, wait, this is a non sequitur piggybacking on equivocation. It wasn't really an argument Cain. It was rhetorical.

OK, here's a great idea. You read Practical Ethics... I've read quite a bit about Singer and his philosophy. I've watched him in a number of debates. I'm happy to order the book.

...and I'll read ANY nutty book of your choosing (but under 1000 pages, so no Atlas Shrugged). I'm not certain what the point is. Are you trying to understand my POV or do you want me to justify my position that morality is neither absolute nor strictly relative. Or is it simply to justify my view of animal husbandry and the consumption of animals is based on something more than my own bias?

I've got a few books in mind but I'd like to know your answer first.

One last thing. If there is a specific argument of yours that you would like me to address then I will. I honestly have not taken you very seriously because I have found more abuse and rhetoric than argument. I'm sorry for that. I'm sincere when I say I will respond to your arguments and I will dispense with my rhetoric. Feel free to continue as you have been. Just, if you can, keep the arguments separate.

[Cain]

I make no such argument that "ought" implies "can". I just note that suffering has little if anything to do with it. If we eliminated all human caused suffering today it [ought implies can??] would have no bearing on your opinion one way or the other regardless of how we eliminated the suffering. At the end of the day there would be X number of animals suffering and you wouldn't care. You honestly wouldn't. It's really just that simple.

Your incompetence is astounding. Where did I say you made the argument "ought" implies "can"? I'm using that observation of Kant's to refute your silly accusation. This is also very poor writing, which leads me to wonder if you're even faithfully expressing your true ideas. First there's my basic correction: we ought to reduce animal suffering as much as we can, regardless of the cause and regardless of whether or the event causing the suffering is consciously intended; how many times have I emphasized sunk costs? Do you honestly think that given the option to save one animal from a factory farm versus rescuing hundreds of thousands from a natural disaster area, I would choose the former? If you can even recognize my true view it seems as if you're saying, "If we did our very best and reduced animal suffering as much as we possibly could, then Cain would be indifferent to any remaining suffering."

No, I can't justify the killing of animals based on the fact that animals in the wild die of predation or the elements. I never said otherwise.

What are you replying to here? Or perhaps I should ask "who are you replying to here?"

I just don't buy that people really give a damn about animal suffering in general. I think people suffer guilt concerning human caused suffering of animals but that is a completely different subject.

You're projecting... and going off on a tangent.

First, I don't think I said that. If I did I will go back and retract it because just a few years ago I argued against the rights of gays and lesbians?

Are you asking me? Judging by the rest your post it would seem this should not be a question.

Here's the sentence in question: "I've been very vocal in my support of the rights of gays and lesbians." And my paraphrase: "I have long been an outspoken supporter of gay and lesbian rights."

And "narcissistic"? Where on earth did you get that?

Look, I admitted my hang ups. I grew up a bigot of gays and lesbians. I was raised to see homosexuality as immoral but once I gave up my religious beliefs I couldn't find a single reasonable argument to be against gay rights. So I'm dealing with my hang-ups. And for that you call me a narcissist? It doesn't make any sense.

Way to miss the mistake the forest for your ego. It appears the operative word for you is "long," which I could not care less about. I am not interested in your biography. The argument, you know, the one you've been promising to address but haven't, is that you rarely (if ever) raise meta-ethical concerns when discussing rights for humans as opposed to animals.

In all honesty you have the wrong view of me. I think I understand how you got that view but it's not accurate. It really isn't.

I doubt there is much I can do to convince you otherwise. I guess it's not important.

You mean that you're extremely self-conscious in the most superficial, "they like me -- they really like me" way? You can convince me otherwise, but by showing rather than telling. Oh, and you're actually right -- it's not important.

I did support claims of moral progress....

Cain, FTR, I'm not a moral relativist. I have had a number of rather long debates with Earthborn and I believe Mumblethrax and Kevin Lowe arguing against moral relativism. I could be wrong about the last two. It's been awhile.

Let's agree on a definition for moral relativism. Here's Wikipedia:

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth; moral subjectivism is thus the opposite of moral absolutism. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (moral subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute rights and wrongs, only different situations.

Are you saying this does not describe you?

Your last post on Aristotle in context with your follow-up made no sense whatsoever. You dismiss all progress made since Aristotle and when questioned on it you simply deny what you clearly did.

Clearly :rolleyes:

We can revisit it, starting with what you wrote:

...the fact that there are many moral dilemmas and ambiguities demonstrates clearly that morality is far from simply being universal or absolute.

And here's my answer: Not even highly trained physicists understand the nature of our reality on a basic level; there are all kinds of ambiguities and disagreements. Only a few thousand years ago the smartest man in the world -- Aristotle -- believed all of earth was made up of four elements.

Its' an analogy, which is, like, when you compare one thing... to another thing. It does not mean there has been no scientific progress, just that you cannot expect human beings to understand everything.

It wasn't really an argument Cain. It was rhetorical.

Do you know what rhetorical means? Maybe I shouldn't ask it that way since it's partly rhetorical. :rolleyes: What was the point of that bit that you're now disclaiming? It had no bearing on anything and you included it just because...?

I've read quite a bit about Singer and his philosophy. I've watched him in a number of debates. I'm happy to order the book.

Super.

Cain (apparently) wrote:

...and I'll read ANY nutty book of your choosing (but under 1000 pages, so no Atlas Shrugged).

I'm not certain what the point is. Are you trying to understand my POV or do you want me to justify my position that morality is neither absolute nor strictly relative. Or is it simply to justify my view of animal husbandry and the consumption of animals is based on something more than my own bias?

*sigh* I know my posts are littered with grammatical errors, but at least I do not drone on and on and on.... and on. I'm extending a basic courtesy -- you read one book, and, hell, I'll do the same. If it reflects your point of view, fine, I guess; if it demonstrates morality is neither absolute nor relative -- whatever that means -- um, OK; if it's on husbandry and the consumption of animals, that's cool too. I had just naively assumed it was understood you would select one that you think would best help me become better informed, particularly on this subject of animal rights/animal liberation.

[Darth Rotor]

Your incompetence is astounding. Where did I say you made the argument "ought" implies "can"? I'm using that observation of Kant's to refute your silly accusation. This is also very poor writing, which leads me to wonder if you're even faithfully expressing your true ideas.
For those following this conversation, that was the abuse part. Here's the argument part.
First there's my basic correction: we ought to reduce animal suffering as much as we can, regardless of the cause and regardless of whether or the event causing the suffering is consciously intended; how many times have I emphasized sunk costs? Do you honestly think that given the option to save one animal from a factory farm versus rescuing hundreds of thousands from a natural disaster area, I would choose the former? If you can even recognize my true view it seems as if you're saying, "If we did our very best and reduced animal suffering as much as we possibly could, then Cain would be indifferent to any remaining suffering."
Let me examine this element by element.
we ought to reduce animal suffering as much as we can, regardless of the cause and regardless of whether or the event causing the suffering is consciously intended
Before we look at this, which is tied to the third element, a quick answer to this:
how many times have I emphasized sunk costs?
More than once.
Now, the third element.
Do you honestly think that given the option to save one animal from a factory farm versus rescuing hundreds of thousands from a natural disaster area, I would choose the former?
Having read your pile of prose here, I am left with the impression that element one and element three are tied together.

At what point is self interest of humans supported by prioritizing the saving of animals during a natural disaster over that of humans? I can see where it would be a priority, in the case of livestock, but I don't see the priority in the case of wild animals who generally look after themselves.

Case in point: a significant forest fire, which we will assume for argument's sake was begun by a lightning strike. The wild animals will do their best to use the tools at their disposal to get away from the fire. What is the need of a human to add to that? Wild animals have been dealing with the problems of the wild for long enough to not heed our help.

Is the purpose of firefighting efforts the saving of wildlife, humans, both, or something else?

The reason I raise self interest is that much morality is rooted there. When you, much earlier in the thread, appealed to a universal morality, you rather shot yourself in the foot, rhetorically, since that abstraction is useless in arriving at a policy or a decision on which measures ought, or ought not to, be applied as a rule regarding animals.

To add to that thought, a universal morality, which I infer means that you'd include animal sensibilities alongside human sensibilities, is an absurdity thanks to the significant difference in brain function, higher brain function, reasoning ability and symbol usage and interpretation between other animals and humans. Granted, it varies among animal classes, but you run into the problem of a quid pro quo in this allusion to some universal agreement between the species on rights and morals. If the other animals are not involved in the development of this morality, you have merely established a human conceit aimed at other humans. (Hmmmmm, where have I seen this before, I wonder?)

While a hungry human can be reasoned with, thanks to reasoning powers inherent to humans, you'll have trouble reasoning with a hungry shark, so get out of the water. When the sharks agree to sign up to a universal morality, such as you have appealed to, it will be time to take an interest in such a construct.

Until then, no.

To get back to the topic a bit more, the treatment and stewardship of animals, both wild and domesticated, becomes a series of elective rules and norms based in human self interest. What this leads, as I see it, is a variation on what volatile linked to a bit earlier, which is the growing meat concept.

Let's cross self interests here, and note that growing meat, which can be expected to reduce the size of livestock herds, might have an added benefit of reducing the carbon foot print, bovine farts / methane et al, of the livestock industry. Might be some win-win transactions there. It's an intriguing line of thought.
Clearly :rolleyes:
Again, for those playing the home game, the abuse.
Its' an analogy, which is, like, when you compare one thing... to another thing. It does not mean there has been no scientific progress, just that you cannot expect human beings to understand everything.
A bit more argument.
*sigh* I know my posts are littered with grammatical errors, but at least I do not drone on and on and on.... and on.
This thread provides evidence contrary to that assertion, however, it's been mildly interesting to read your passionate positions, and some of your arguments.

So, thanks for that, from a spectator.

DR

[RandFan]

Your incompetence is astounding. Rhetorical.

Where did I say you made the argument "ought" implies "can"? I'm using that observation of Kant's to refute your silly accusation. What silly accusation? You are not at all clear in your argument as to the is-ought problem and how it applies to my point.

This is also very poor writing, which leads me to wonder if you're even faithfully expressing your true ideas. Rhetorical.

First there's my basic correction: we ought to reduce animal suffering as much as we can regardless of the cause and regardless of whether or the event causing the suffering is consciously intended;Why? This is not axiomatic. We could round up coyotes and put them in cages to reduce the suffering they cause to the wildlife they kill.

That is something that we can do. That we can do it doesn't mean that we ought to do it.

how many times have I emphasized sunk costs?. None that I know of but I'm not sure of the point.

Do you honestly think that given the option to save one animal from a factory farm versus rescuing hundreds of thousands from a natural disaster area, I would choose the former? If you can even recognize my true view it seems as if you're saying, "If we did our very best and reduced animal suffering as much as we possibly could, then Cain would be indifferent to any remaining suffering." I was presumptuous but yes. I do think that.

What are you replying to here? Or perhaps I should ask "who are you replying to here?" My statement raises the question. I answered it.

You're projecting... and going off on a tangent. Rhetorical.

Are you asking me? Judging by the rest your post it would seem this should not be a question.

Here's the sentence in question: "I've been very vocal in my support of the rights of gays and lesbians." And my paraphrase: "I have long been an outspoken supporter of gay and lesbian rights." Your "paraphrase" is wrong.

Way to miss the mistake the forest for your ego. Rhetorical.

It appears the operative word for you is "long," which I could not care less about. I am not interested in your biography. The argument, you know, the one you've been promising to address but haven't, is that you rarely (if ever) raise meta-ethical concerns when discussing rights for humans as opposed to animals. That you don't care is not at issue. Just get it right. It's substantively important to me.

Why is it important for me to raise meta-ethical concerns when discussing rights for humans as opposed to animals? Please to clarify?

You mean that you're extremely self-conscious in the most superficial, "they like me -- they really like me" way? You can convince me otherwise, but by showing rather than telling. Oh, and you're actually right -- it's not important. Fair enough.

Are you saying this does not describe you? That is correct. It doesn't describe me precisely. It's not entirely incorrect either.

Morality is an interplay of complex evolutionary and environmental factors. To say that there is no objective means to deduce what is and is not moral for humans is incorrect. To state that there are absolute objective moral standards is also incorrect.

Its' an analogy, which is, like, when you compare one thing... to another thing. It does not mean there has been no scientific progress, just that you cannot expect human beings to understand everything. Fair enough. Though it's not much of a point. Rather a trivial truth. I'm not sure how it bears on the subject at hand. So what if human beings cannot be expected to understand everything?

Do you know what rhetorical means?Do you?

Maybe I shouldn't ask it that way since it's partly rhetorical. :rolleyes: What was the point of that bit that you're now disclaiming? It had no bearing on anything and you included it just because...? Because I'm not overly impressed with the way you display your own sense of morality. You often act like a petulant child.

I know my posts are littered with grammatical errors, but at least I do not drone on and on and on and on. I think your empty filler exceeds mine considerably.

I'm extending a basic courtesy -- you read one book, and, hell, I'll do the same. If it reflects your point of view, fine, I guess; if it demonstrates morality is neither absolute nor relative -- whatever that means -- um, OK; if it's on husbandry and the consumption of animals, that's cool too. I had just naively assumed it was understood you would select one that you think would best help me become better informed, particularly on this subject of animal rights/animal liberation. I don't have a single book or tome that would comprehensively convey to you my view of morality. Shermer's books Mind Of The Market and How We Believe are probably the closest. Robert wright's The Moral Animal is very good as is Dawkins Selfish Gene. I recently started E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology and think that a fair starting point.

You choose from any of those, page count notwithstanding. I'll order Singer's book today.

You state "demonstrates that morality is neither absolute nor relative --whatever that means".

I thought we were on the same page with that but I guess not. I'm curious, given the dichotomy which do you choose?

[Cain]

For those following this conversation, that was the abuse part. Here's the argument part.

Let me examine this element by element.

Before we look at this, which is tied to the third element, a quick answer to this:

More than once.
Now, the third element.

Having read your pile of prose here, I am left with the impression that element one and element three are tied together.

This close reading suggests a relevant argument will follow, but the next part -- the important part -- demonstrates otherwise.

At what point is self interest of humans supported by prioritizing the saving of animals during a natural disaster over that of humans? I can see where it would be a priority, in the case of livestock, but I don't see the priority in the case of wild animals who generally look after themselves.

All of that grand buildup in order to completely miss the point? This has nothing to do with RandFan's original claim, which is that I only care about suffering caused by humans. You're introducing foreign elements -- self-interest and relative worth.

I am going to reverse the order of the next two paragraphs:

To add to that thought, a universal morality, which I infer means that you'd include animal sensibilities alongside human sensibilities...

No...

The reason I raise self interest is that much morality is rooted there. When you, much earlier in the thread, appealed to a universal morality, you rather shot yourself in the foot, rhetorically, since that abstraction is useless in arriving at a policy or a decision on which measures ought, or ought not to, be applied as a rule regarding animals.

One of the interesting things about this circle of self-interest you've drawn around humanity here is that it is arbitrary. What justifies it? Why not, oh say, nationalism, which still holds sway for most Americans. Why should we bother helping poor tsunami victims in southeast Asia? Or the sophisticates who say morality is shaped by reproductive success. Or, for Rand fans, the material advantage of the individual.

Morality, indeed universal morality, is not rooted in self-interest. Quite the opposite, actually. Human beings, many of them, possess the capacity to be moral agents, but not necessarily the predisposition in certain areas. Let's just look at males and females. I think it's pretty well-established that men are more violent than women, and I think you will further agree it has something to do with our biology because disparities in violence hold across cultures. Does that mean there is a different morality for men than women? In one sense, that's true. Just in our own society surveys show women are more reluctant to go to war, less enthusiastic about military spending, more tolerant of homosexuals, and more inclined to want to help the environment and the poor. But do these different preferences mean morality is different for men and women? Does it mean, for instance, that it's less objectionable for men to kill? In the aforementioned Moral Animal Wright even has a throwaway line saying different strategies adopted by the sexes might lead one to believe we are talking about two different species. A universal morality means there are rights and wrongs regardless of how we are constituted. The caveat is that our different constitutions might render us incapable of doing the right thing (which is the case for sharks, and here again ought implies can). Humans are apes with pants, and a lot of morality has to do with taming the beast within the man.

While a hungry human can be reasoned with, thanks to reasoning powers inherent to humans, you'll have trouble reasoning with a hungry shark, so get out of the water. When the sharks agree to sign up to a universal morality, such as you have appealed to, it will be time to take an interest in such a construct.

This had to have been addressed at least once in this thread: you're failing to distinguish moral patients from moral agents.

To get back to the topic a bit more [ :rolleyes: ], the treatment and stewardship of animals, both wild and domesticated, becomes a series of elective rules and norms based in human self interest. What this leads, as I see it, is a variation on what volatile linked to a bit earlier, which is the growing meat concept.

Let's cross self interests here, and note that growing meat, which can be expected to reduce the size of livestock herds, might have an added benefit of reducing the carbon foot print, bovine farts / methane et al, of the livestock industry. Might be some win-win transactions there. It's an intriguing line of thought.

I agree, growing meat sounds good.
------------------------

I see RandFan has adopted this scorecard style, which is cool. I like seeing the juicy parts of movie reviews quoted without context, as in Rottentomatoes: "This movie sucks," "...horrible," and one of my favorite actual reviews: "is so bad in so many different ways that perhaps you should see it, as an example of the lowest slopes of the bell-shaped curve. This is the kind of movie that gives even its defenders fits of desperation."

Rhetorical.
And true...

What silly accusation? You are not at all clear in your argument as to the is-ought problem and how it applies to my point.

I almost sympathize with the question. The silly accusation is that I care only about human-caused suffering. Where on earth do I reference the is-ought problem? Reduced to loose associations, you're not even bothering to read for comprehension.

Why? This is not axiomatic. We could round up coyotes and put them in cages to reduce the suffering they cause to the wildlife they kill.

That is something that we can do. That we can do it doesn't mean that we ought to do it.

Did I say "Can" implies "ought". We can just kill nearly all life on earth by firing off every nuclear weapon known to man. Surely that would reduce suffering, no? I am pretty sure stuffing coyotes into cages would cause suffering to coyotes (what would we feed them?), and it would disrupt their former ecosystem.

Cain wrote: Do you honestly think that given the option to save one animal from a factory farm versus rescuing hundreds of thousands from a natural disaster area, I would choose the former? If you can even recognize my true view it seems as if you're saying, "If we did our very best and reduced animal suffering as much as we possibly could, then Cain would be indifferent to any remaining suffering."

RandFan: I was presumptuous but yes. I do think that.

So you acknowledge that I do not care exclusively about human caused suffering? I don't think you understand the implications of reducing animal suffering to a minimum. If we agree that it has been accomplished -- and we never will, either agree or reduce it to a minimum -- then what is the proper reaction? I think it should be one of euphoria because it would probably dwarf any and all previous accomplishments. And why didn't you describe the above as "rhetorical"? I'm disappointed now.

Your "paraphrase" is wrong.

Do the scare quotes mean that it's not a paraphrase? It most certainly is. Does my paraphrase exclude some crucial belief? Well, I guess that depends on what one considers important, but since you completely missed why I raised it in the first place I can see why you would think it's wrong.

Why is it important for me to raise meta-ethical concerns when discussing rights for humans as opposed to animals? Please to clarify?

Because it shows a double-standard; that you're not entering this argument in good faith. To borrow from last night's Daily Show, Bill Clinton was asked months ago if certain Democratic nominees were ready to be president. "Is Joe Biden ready to be president?" Clinton gives a definite yes. "Chris Dodd?" Yes. "Bill Richardson?" Yes. In a recent interview he was asked the same question about Barack Obama and he said (be careful, I'm paraphrasing): "Well, it could be argued that no one is ready to be president." I'm willing to excuse Clinton's off-the-cuff comment, but your behavior has remained constant, and it's not prompted by some unexpected question. On questions of animal rights you have lunged for cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism, and anything else to evade the question.

Re: Moral Relativism:
That is correct. It doesn't describe me precisely. It's not entirely incorrect either.

Morality is an interplay of complex evolutionary and environmental factors. To say that there is no objective means to deduce what is and is not moral for humans is incorrect. To state that there are absolute objective moral standards is also incorrect.

Sigh. Sentiments are the product of blah blah blah evolution, culture, etc. See the italicized part of my reply to Darth Rotor above.

Fair enough. Though it's not much of a point. Rather a trivial truth. I'm not sure how it bears on the subject at hand. So what if human beings cannot be expected to understand everything

So earlier this point demonstrated that there is no universal morality, but now it's just a rather trivial truth. Astonishing.

I don't have a single book or tome that would comprehensively convey to you my view of morality. Shermer's books Mind Of The Market and How We Believe are probably the closest. Robert wright's The Moral Animal is very good as is Dawkins Selfish Gene. I recently started E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology and think that a fair starting point.

OK, so you're not recommending a book that deals explicitly with the morality of animal rights? I've read the Wright and Dawkins books. In fact, if you have not already, you should see what Wright and Dawkins have said about Peter Singer.

[balrog666]

http://www.zjxingdi.com/image/eel/eel.jpg

[RandFan]

The silly accusation is that I care only about human-caused suffering. Where on earth do I reference the is-ought problem? Reduced to loose associations, you're not even bothering to read for comprehension. You are correct. I was unfamiliar with Kant's "ought" implies "can". I had made the wrong connection.

Did I say "Can" implies "ought". We can just kill nearly all life on earth by firing off every nuclear weapon known to man. Surely that would reduce suffering, no? Yes, my point exactly.

I am pretty sure stuffing coyotes into cages would cause suffering to coyotes (what would we feed them?), and it would disrupt their former ecosystem. I'm sure we could find a square mile that we could find and come up with some solution to enforce the duck's right to life within that area without causing too much suffering to the coyotes or the ecosystem.

Surely there is something we can do to reduce the suffering caused by predation?

So you acknowledge that I do not care exclusively about human caused suffering? Not enough to act on that "care". You wouldn't start a thread espousing our need to do something about the suffering of baby animals in the wild.

I don't think you understand the implications of reducing animal suffering to a minimum. If we agree that it has been accomplished -- and we never will, either agree or reduce it to a minimum -- then what is the proper reaction? I think it should be one of euphoria because it would probably dwarf any and all previous accomplishments. And why didn't you describe the above as "rhetorical"? I'm disappointed now. There are many things that we could do to reduce animal suffering that have nothing to do with human interaction. You could go out and rescue baby animals every day of the year and count the number of individuals saved from suffering in the thousands. But you are not going to do that.

Do the scare quotes mean that it's not a paraphrase? It most certainly is. Does my paraphrase exclude some crucial belief? Well, I guess that depends on what one considers important, but since you completely missed why I raised it in the first place I can see why you would think it's wrong. I'm not going to debate this as it has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Because it shows a double-standard; that you're not entering this argument in good faith. That's not an answer. Why is it not in good faith? No, the subsequent example does not elucidate.

To borrow from last night's Daily Show, Bill Clinton was asked months ago if certain Democratic nominees were ready to be president. "Is Joe Biden ready to be president?" Clinton gives a definite yes. "Chris Dodd?" Yes. "Bill Richardson?" Yes. In a recent interview he was asked the same question about Barack Obama and he said (be careful, I'm paraphrasing): "Well, it could be argued that no one is ready to be president." I'm willing to excuse Clinton's off-the-cuff comment, but your behavior has remained constant, and it's not prompted by some unexpected question. There's nothing that is equivalent between Clinton's behavior and mine. I don't equate humans with ants or fungi so I'm not going to make the same argument to protect them. I don't even equate humans with chimps but then I don't equate chimps with ants. It's more of a continuum.




On questions of animal rights you have lunged for cultural relativism, ethical subjectivism, and anything else to evade the question. What question?

I think the argument to include animals in the expanding circle will likely prevail in subsequent generations and I've made that point many times on this forum. I seriously doubt meat consumption and current attitudes toward animals will continue as they are now. Environmental contributions to the memes of morality will change perceptions.
I don't see animals in the same light as humans and I don't see why I should have the same consideration for animals as humans. Animals are not moral agents. Even if we decrease to the point of elimination the consumption of animals that has no bearing on the fact that we will never give the same rights to animals that we give to humans because it is simply impractical. A baby duck does not have a right to life that supersedes the coyotes right to life.
I believe in ending any and all suffering of humans. I don't believe in ending any and all suffering of non-human animals.
Sigh. Sentiments are the product of blah blah blah evolution, culture, etc. See the italicized part of my reply to Darth Rotor above. I don't dismiss the italicized part of your reply. I'm quite familiar with criticisms of Wright. It doesn't obviate the fact that morality isn't something that we can simply declare. Your earlier example of Pinker's is an excellent one. Why didn't the cannibals figure out that eating humans was wrong?

We can't escape the biological basis of morality. We can reason beyond it though. Given that women are moral agents and that men and women have many significant points in common when it comes to yearning for equality, self fulfillment and an improved quality of life and if we consider that there is utility in treating men and women equally it really is a no brainer that societies would eventually adopt equality rights for women.

So earlier this point demonstrated that there is no universal morality, but now it's just a rather trivial truth. I'm not sure of your point. When did that point demonstrate that there is no universal morality? Sorry.

OK, so you're not recommending a book that deals explicitly with the morality of animal rights?I don't know of any. I'm not sure of the importance of that.

I've read the Wright and Dawkins books. In fact, if you have not already, you should see what Wright and Dawkins have said about Peter Singer. I'm familiar with things both have said about Singer. Is there something that you think is particularly significant?

In any event, my view has never been a grand dichotomy of humans and non-humans. I see a continuum that goes from humans to virus though I'm not 100% certain about the virus.

You didn't answer the question about the dichotomy between absolute morality and relative morality. On which side do you fall? I honestly don't know.


I see RandFan has adopted this scorecard style, which is cool. I like seeing the juicy parts of movie reviews quoted without context, as in Rottentomatoes: "This movie sucks," "...horrible," and one of my favorite actual reviews: "is so bad in so many different ways that perhaps you should see it, as an example of the lowest slopes of the bell-shaped curve. This is the kind of movie that gives even its defenders fits of desperation."
And true...

I almost sympathize with the question.

Astonishing.
A significant decrease. Thank you. Sincerely.

[RandFan]

Another Choice

Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Moral-Minds/Marc-D-Hauser/e/9780060780722)

Marc D. Hauser

Podcast with Marc Hauser. (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Moral-Minds/Marc-D-Hauser/e/9780060780722)

We are born with a moral grammar that gives us the potential for certain moral behaviors.
There is a difference between social convention and moral judgments.

[Fnord]

If humans are not supposed to eat animals, then animals would not have evolved to taste good to humans.

[Darth Rotor]

This close reading suggests a relevant argument will follow, but the next part -- the important part -- demonstrates otherwise.

All of that grand buildup in order to completely miss the point? This has nothing to do with RandFan's original claim, which is that I only care about suffering caused by humans. You're introducing foreign elements -- self-interest and relative worth.
I was not interested in going over old ground, I was more interested in bridging some of the thoughts that were floating around in the thread due to the core issue you are addressing in the course of this thread, when it is able to remain on topic: human behavior as the issue at hand. Human behavior is indeed informed by choices, values, and in some cases, morals, the latter of which you have suggested require a universal basis. (You note my lack of agreement with that.)
One of the interesting things about this circle of self-interest you've drawn around humanity here is that it is arbitrary. What justifies it?
You assume a need for justification, which I do not. Good stewardship of animal resources has shown, over human history, to be a sound choice, embedded in human self interest. Indeed, your thread touches on that from the outset, that human beings interact with animals, so policies and rules ought (as you suggest because they can, or because animals Kant? :) ) to be in place.
Why should we bother helping poor tsunami victims in southeast Asia?
Why not? There are downstream positive effects, potentially, political and economic, not to mention feel good points and good will (business also has a value for that) that argue for undertaking some humanitarian missions.
Or the sophisticates who say morality is shaped by reproductive success.
Now who is dragging in foreign material? ;)
Or, for Rand fans, the material advantage of the individual.
We risk a derail here, as not all advtages are material. Some are spiritual, or emotional, or some other "soft" commodity.
Morality, indeed universal morality, is not rooted in self-interest. Quite the opposite, actually. Human beings, many of them, possess the capacity to be moral agents, but not necessarily the predisposition in certain areas.
So which human has the arrogance to lay down this universal morality, and apply it to other humans, animals being beside the point? Or are you suggesting that another agency can do so? What other agency?
Let's just look at males and females. I think it's pretty well-established that men are more violent than women, and I think you will further agree it has something to do with our biology because disparities in violence hold across cultures.
You are touching on archetypical roles, and while it is an intriguing discussion, not worth derailing to here. Men are perhaps more physically violent than women.
A universal morality means there are rights and wrongs regardless of how we are constituted.
(I snipped some interesting stuff you put in front of that)
Given that morality is a human construct, this discussion is fascinating regarding how we interact with other humans, and how humans interact. When you cross the species line, you are reaching. I do not agree than an omnivore ought to deliberatey limit its choices for food. Such limitations come often enough as it is.
The caveat is that our different constitutions might render us incapable of doing the right thing (which is the case for sharks, and here again ought implies can).
So there is no quid pro quo. Not much of a moral system, as I see it, in terms of transactions.
Humans are apes with pants, and a lot of morality has to do with taming the beast within the man. [/I]
Not apes anymore. But yes, on the role morality has for human social groups.
This had to have been addressed at least once in this thread: you're failing to distinguish moral patients from moral agents.
Your argument in favor of this elusive universal morality smacks of "with great power comes great responsibility" {obligation} platitudes, (not sure if that was lurking in the background as you wrote) which I reject as missing the point: with great power comes great flexibilty.

Any such obligation is arbitrily constructed. Wait, were you not casting a dim view on the arbitrary a bit earlier in your response to me?
I agree, growing meat sounds good.
And hunting it is fun.

At any rate, you have far greater passion for this topic than I -- you started the thread. I do thank you for your response. I'll see if this thread keeps going or fades.

DR

[Cain]

Yes, my point exactly.

Then you are grossly are mischaracterizing my view. Would you adopt this argument if someone wanted to end all human suffering in the world?

I'm sure we could find a square mile that we could find and come up with some solution to enforce the duck's right to life within that area without causing too much suffering to the coyotes or the ecosystem.

This example is as labored as it is obtuse. Rounding up coyotes, feeding them, and monitoring a square mile of land to protect ducks (a relatively mobile animal). Do you really think that's where the low hanging fruit is?

Not enough to act on that "care". You wouldn't start a thread espousing our need to do something about the suffering of baby animals in the wild.

Well, in fairness to me, I'm not an idiot. First of all, I am not quick to privilege babies over, say, young adults. Second, how do you propose we locate babies suffering in the wild? We should invest untold billions in surveillance equipment. I guess you're stupid enough to think this line of argument is somehow clever. It's strained. I am rather confident we can locate factory farms, where, you know, there's a high concentration of animals and they're enduring miserable conditions for no good reason.

There are many things that we could do to reduce animal suffering that have nothing to do with human interaction. You could go out and rescue baby animals every day of the year and count the number of individuals saved from suffering in the thousands. But you are not going to do that.

What does this even mean? How does this have anything to do with the moral significance of animal suffering? Yes, we can analyze my personal life on a micro-level. Why do I have a Netflix subscription when those same funds could go to UNICEF? If I was truly interested in reducing suffering, then shouldn't I be out right now wearing tights and fighting injustice rather than arguing with morons on the Internet? The thought has crossed my mind (without the tights).

That's not an answer. Why is it not in good faith? No, the subsequent example does not elucidate.

There's nothing that is equivalent between Clinton's behavior and mine. I don't equate humans with ants or fungi so I'm not going to make the same argument to protect them. I don't even equate humans with chimps but then I don't equate chimps with ants. It's more of a continuum.


What more can I say -- except note that you went off on yet another ill-advised tangent. I mean, I'm making a rather simple observation, and I think my explanation of how it's in bad faith is reasonably clear. As for why it's in bad faith -- why you do what you do -- is, I confess, not of great interest to me.

What question?
[LIST]
I think the argument to include animals in the expanding circle will likely prevail in subsequent generations and I've made that point many times on this forum. I seriously doubt meat consumption and current attitudes toward animals will continue as they are now. Environmental contributions to the memes of morality will change perceptions.

Holy ****, we got Nostradamus up in here.

I don't see animals in the same light as humans and I don't see why I should have the same consideration for animals as humans.

You have a habit of abusing language -- seen above with "equivalent" and "equate", and down below with "absolutism" and "relativism". The this thread, the original post, is hardly demanding the same consideration for non-humans as humans. You probably would not give the same moral consideration to your kid as any other kid. It's really just a matter of considering the interests of animals.

I've been meaning to say something about the libertarian guy above who said there's only such thing as human self-ownership, and we can do whatever we please to non-humans (I think the same guy had some similar brilliant insight as "taxes are theft"). That kind of, um, thinking (for lack of a better word) has the virtue of consistency.

Animals are not moral agents.

Babies are not moral agents either.

Even if we decrease to the point of elimination the consumption of animals that has no bearing on the fact that we will never give the same rights to animals that we give to humans because it is simply impractical. A baby duck does not have a right to life that supersedes the coyotes right to life.

This is a poor comparison. Here's a stream-of-consciousness thinking I seem to encounter quite often:

Humans need to eat to live. We choose to eat meat. It's literally keeping us alive. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's completely different than torturing animals for fun.

The problem is that while humans need to eat to live, we do not need to eat meat to live. We have other options available to us. If you're stranded on an island and you have no means of survival except killing a pig, then of course I understand. Despite being wily beasts, I have never heard of coyotes raising crops. The key part of being a moral agent is that we have choices. I'm saying people ought to choose to be rational, sensitive animals who do not live at the expense of others. This is supposedly precisely what makes us so great. However, we see people in this thread repeatedly say they eat animals because animals taste good. The irony is they maintain they're better than the lowly animals, which justifies consuming them, which means succumbing to their appetites and behaving like beasts.

Look at this stooge, Fnord:
If humans are not supposed to eat animals, then animals would not have evolved to taste good to humans.

Flag this one men -- it's an excellent excuse to cheat on your wife. :rolleyes:

I believe in ending any and all suffering of humans. I don't believe in ending any and all suffering of non-human animals.

So why aren't you out saving babies right now? [/stupid argument]


I don't dismiss the italicized part of your reply. I'm quite familiar with criticisms of Wright. It doesn't obviate the fact that morality isn't something that we can simply declare. Your earlier example of Pinker's is an excellent one. Why didn't the cannibals figure out that eating humans was wrong?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The cannibals aren't doing anything wrong (and that example comes from James Rachels).

We can't escape the biological basis of morality. We can reason beyond it though.

Except, for some reason, when it comes to animals.

Given that women are moral agents and that men and women have many significant points in common when it comes to yearning for equality, self fulfillment and an improved quality of life and if we consider that there is utility in treating men and women equally it really is a no brainer that societies would eventually adopt equality rights for women.

There was a thread on another forum making a similar argument for vegetarianism: harms to the planet, improvement of diet, and so on. (This has been suggested again by Darth Rotor in good stewardship): It's a utilitarian argument where we only consider the interests of humans. You're not really addressing my male-female argument as intended, but that's no matter. Separately, the argument for women's rights had primary and secondary dimensions. On the one hand women should be treated as equals because they are not substantively different than men. Take your pick of an Islamic country and the double-standards for women. Any remotely sane and decent person is outraged by the crimes themselves: female circumcision, veils, lack of freedoms. Since this is exactly what close-minded bigots in power find attractive we have to appeal to material advantage: "Well, look, countries where women are educated and have equal rights are just much more prosperous. You'd actually be much happier if you didn't treat them like ****." The problem is that's not really a moral argument.


I'm not sure of your point. When did that point demonstrate that there is no universal morality? Sorry.

You, earlier:
...the fact that there are many moral dilemmas and ambiguities demonstrates clearly that morality is far from simply being universal or absolute.

----------------------

Darth Rotor:
You assume a need for justification, which I do not. Good stewardship of animal resources has shown, over human history, to be a sound choice, embedded in human self interest. Indeed, your thread touches on that from the outset, that being a set who interact with animals, policies and rules ought (as you suggest) to be in place.

What's so great about human self-interest? Why not male self-interest? Or why not individual self-interest?

On helping tsunami victims:

WHy not? There are down stream positive effects, potentially, political and economic, not to mention feel good point, that argue for undertaking humanitarian missions.

I highly doubt even most of the people contributing to relief ever entertained such considerations apart from the "feel good point." But then we do not necessarily desire things because they make us feel good; rather, we feel good because we desire them.


earlier you had written: The reason I raise self interest is that much morality is rooted there.

I mentioned reproductive success to which you replied:

Now who is dragging in foreign material?

I think that's crazy. The dominant paradigm today is that morality is rooted not in the self-interest of individuals, but the self-interest of genes. This insight goes a long way explaining reciprocity, kin-altruism. It also poses a strong argument against people arguing for the "good of the species." That more or less comes straight out of Dawkins' Selfish Gene.

So which human has the arrogance to lay down this universal morality, and apply it to other humans, animals being beside the point?

What do you mean by "lay down"? Impose on others like laws prohibiting murder? Or champion human rights in foreign societies, like Amnesty International?

Given that morality is a human construct, this discussion is fascinating regarding how we interact with other humans, and how humans interact. When you cross the species line, you are reaching.

Morality is presumably constructed by conscious adults, right? What about infants who have no concept of morality? Why should you extend it to them? How is a Terri Shavio more apart of this construct than Koko the gorilla? You're using a very blunt instrument for discrimination.

So there is no quid pro quo. Not much of a moral system, as I see it, in terms of transactions.

Again, morality demands doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Are you familiar with the exchange between Socrates and Thrasymachus in The Republic?

Your original argument smacked of "with great power comes great responsibility" platitudes, which I reject out hand: with great power comes great flexibilty. Any obligation is arbitrily constructed. Wait, were you not casting a dim view on the arbitrary a bit earlier in your response to me.

With great power DOES come great responsibility. In the most exciting philosophy I have ever read Socrates has a showdown your homeboy Thrasymachus. Over the course of the discussion a thought-experiment is introduced. What if you get a ring that confers the power of invisibility? So far Thrasymachus has been saying a person should look after his own self-interest, but taking care not to develop a bad reputation; you can be greedy, lie, cheat and steal, but be smart about it by not getting caught. Well, with the Ring of Gyges you can do whatever you want and get with it. Rob people, kill enemies, listen in conversations to blackmail others, and even rape women. Your quid-pro-quo comments, and just general orientation in this thread, leads me to believe you would agree with Thrasymachus in getting away with whatever you could.

[GreNME]

Cain, real quick: is the only way a person can be moral by behaving in the way that you believe you should?

[RandFan]

Then you are grossly are mischaracterizing my view. Would you adopt this argument if someone wanted to end all human suffering in the world? I only note that it is something we could do. As I keep saying, there is much we could do. Ending suffering isn't in itself an end game. Life is a bit more complicated than that.

This example is as labored as it is obtuse. Rounding up coyotes, feeding them, and monitoring a square mile of land to protect ducks (a relatively mobile animal). Do you really think that's where the low hanging fruit is? I think it is a great example but I'm not married to it. We can come up with hundreds if not thousands of examples of things for you to do to reduce suffering.

Well, in fairness to me, I'm not an idiot. First of all, I am not quick to privilege babies over, say, young adults. Second, how do you propose we locate babies suffering in the wild? We should invest untold billions in surveillance equipment. I guess you're stupid enough to think this line of argument is somehow clever. It's strained. I am rather confident we can locate factory farms, where, you know, there's a high concentration of animals and they're enduring miserable conditions for no good reason. I never said you had to save every baby. I'm saying you could save some. The point is simply to demonstrate that there is a limit to your carrying. There are many things you could do to reduce suffering but we both know you won't do.

What does this even mean? How does this have anything to do with the moral significance of animal suffering? Yes, we can analyze my personal life on a micro-level. Why do I have a Netflix subscription when those same funds could go to UNICEF? If I was truly interested in reducing suffering, then shouldn't I be out right now wearing tights and fighting injustice rather than arguing with morons on the Internet? The thought has crossed my mind (without the tights). Makes you wonder who exactly the moron is. I agree with your argument about UNICEF. My point exactly. Don't feed me with your guilt when you are no better than I.

What more can I say -- except note that you went off on yet another ill-advised tangent. I mean, I'm making a rather simple observation, and I think my explanation of how it's in bad faith is reasonably clear. As for why it's in bad faith -- why you do what you do -- is, I confess, not of great interest to me. It's not. It's a flawed analogy because humans are comparative to humans. Chickens are not. I don't need to defend chickens each time I defend the rights of gays and lesbians.

FTR, so far in this thread you've done little but gainsay.

You have a habit of abusing language -- seen above with "equivalent" and "equate", and down below with "absolutism" and "relativism". The this thread, the original post, is hardly demanding the same consideration for non-humans as humans. You probably would not give the same moral consideration to your kid as any other kid. It's really just a matter of considering the interests of animals. Then what is this stuff about rights? I'm happy to give consideration to animals.

I've been meaning to say something about the libertarian guy above who said there's only such thing as human self-ownership, and we can do whatever we please to non-humans (I think the same guy had some similar brilliant insight as "taxes are theft"). That kind of, um, thinking (for lack of a better word) has the virtue of consistency. Good for him.

Babies are not moral agents either. That's right. They do however share the genes of other humans.

The problem is that while humans need to eat to live, we do not need to eat meat to live. We have other options available to us. If you're stranded on an island and you have no means of survival except killing a pig, then of course I understand. Despite being wily beasts, I have never heard of coyotes raising crops. The key part of being a moral agent is that we have choices. I'm saying people ought to choose to be rational, sensitive animals who do not live at the expense of others. This is supposedly precisely what makes us so great. However, we see people in this thread repeatedly say they eat animals because animals taste good. The irony is they maintain they're better than the lowly animals, which justifies consuming them, which means succumbing to their appetites and behaving like beasts. Now this, excellent. My hats off to you sir. This really is the best work you've done in this thread. Yes, we have other option available to us. Perfectly reasonable options that would likely keep most of us alive and healthy. Hell, perhaps healthier than we are now. Of course their are exceptions to that. People Like Laura Dern, an avid vegetarian, she has been told by her doctor that she needs to eat some animal protein because of deficiency she suffers from. That's not given to justify everyone eating animals only to demonstrate that it is unlikely that at this time everyone can become complete vegans. I think in the near future they will.

Yes, I grant you your argument. It is why I think subsequent generations will forgo eating of meat. However, it's not the end all of the subject. I choose to eat animal products because I don't see animals as equivalent of humans. I don't believe they should have rights in the sense that humans have rights. I think farming can be advantageous in many ways to life in the wild as it guarantees life to the vast majority of those born into it. I'm happy to support those that would further regulate and control factory farming to end abuses. So I see no reason for prohibition in my mind. I've no cognitive dissonance in that choice.

FTR, you are the one that questioned the suggestion that moral absolutism and moral relativism is a false dichotomy. Accusing me of abusing words is not an argument.

Where do you fall on this dichotomy? It's not a difficult question.

Holy ****, we got Nostradamus up in here.Rhetorical.

[Darth Rotor]

Then you are grossly are mischaracterizing my view. Would you adopt this argument if someone wanted to end all human suffering in the world?
I'd like to see a working framework, a practical one, for "all human suffering" rather than this appeal to a platitude.

Is menopause suffering? Is getting kicked in the nuts suffering? Is your dog crapping, yet again, one the carpet suffering?
I am rather confident we can locate factory farms, where, you know, there's a high concentration of animals and they're enduring miserable conditions for no good reason.
You have characterized the conditions as miserable. From a human perspective, that may be a good characterization. From a chicken's perspective . . . how do you pretend to know?
If I was truly interested in reducing suffering, then shouldn't I be out right now wearing tights and fighting injustice rather than arguing with morons on the Internet? The thought has crossed my mind (without the tights).
As it crossed mine. This is Whoville, to paraphrase Luke T, and I wonder at this venue for your crusade. I agree with your fashion choice, however, in terms of eschewing tights. Chafing is a significant risk.
I've been meaning to say something about the libertarian guy above who said there's only such thing as human self-ownership, and we can do whatever we please to non-humans (I think the same guy had some similar brilliant insight as "taxes are theft"). That kind of, um, thinking (for lack of a better word) has the virtue of consistency.
Yes, but unless it is posed with a temporally aware mind, it also risks being self defeating. Kill the cow today, or, milk it, mate it with a bull, and over time, always have a bit of food, rather than a whole bunch right now? The same is true of agricultural and other endeavours. All too often, the temporal dimension is ignored in favor of an immediate reward.
Babies are not moral agents either.

Moral Agent, Man, Moral Agent, Man
He's given you a number
But taken away your thumb!
(dar na dar na na na dar na dar . . .)
Humans need to eat to live. We choose to eat meat. It's literally keeping us alive. What could possibly be wrong with that? It's completely different than torturing animals for fun.
The problem is that while humans need to eat to live, we do not need to eat meat to live. We have other options available to us.
And we also have the option of eating meat. Why toss out that option? It's a fine source of proetin.

Since you mentioned cannibals: if they defeat my team in battle, they can enslave me, free me, or have me for dinner. It's all a matter of how they choose to exercise their Power over me. If their deal is that I am to be the Darth Souffle for dinner, so it goes, I recycle as cannibal turd and help another tree in the forest/jungle grow. Silver lining, and all that.
This has been suggested again by Darth Rotor in good stewardship: It's a utilitarian argument where we only consider the interests of humans.
Why shouldn't we, once again, since the sharks have yet to show that they give a flying fart about humans, except as dinner, see also cannibals above, and lawyers, who use human suffering as sustenance. (See civil litigation, writ large. )
You're not really addressing my male-female argument as intended, but that's no matter. Separately, the argument for women's rights had primary and secondary dimensions. On the one hand women should be treated as equals because they are not substantively different than men.
For particular values of substantively, sure, but for others, no. Men can't gestate, nor give birth to, the next generation. Uh, that's substantive. Entire books have been written on how that feature informs human norms and patterns. I won't try to reproduce one here.
Take your pick of an Islamic country and the double-standards for women.
Why does that matter to you? You don't live there. How is that your ox being gored?
Any remotely sane and decent person is outraged by the crimes themselves: female circumcision, veils, lack of freedoms.
I am not outraged. I am disappointed that Islamic society is run by some card carrying a-holes. Doubtless, they'd find me likewise an immoral a-hole, for their part.

I am not arrogant enough to think that Kumbaya is other than an abstraction, and thus they should do what I think is right. Trust me, Cain, I am plenty arrogant, but not that arrogant.
Since this is exactly what close-minded bigots in power find attractive we have to appeal to material advantage: "Well, look, countries where women are educated and have equal rights are just much more prosperous. You'd actually be much happier if you didn't treat them like ****." The problem is that's not really a moral argument.
I see your point, and agree that it is not really a moral argument, but so what?

A moral argument on how to treat women can be found in the Bible, Cain.
1. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
2. Ephesians 5:20-25, one of a variety of expositions on how mutual sacrifice is how a marriage works. So, why won't you use it?
Darth Rotor:

What's so great about human self-interest? Why not male self-interest? Or why not individual self-interest?
Since you are discussing interspecies relationships, one of the important categories is human self interest, since it can influence the other species. The other red herrings you can have with capers, onions, and a glass of vodka, if you like. Being human, human self interest interests me. Contemplating bovine self interest is a luxury I can now and again afford myself.
I highly doubt even most of the people contributing to relief ever entertained such considerations apart from the "feel good point." But then we do not necessarily desire things because they make us feel good; rather, we feel good because we desire them.
Then you need to get out more. There is more to humanitarian operations that "feel good" points, and I will point to you that a NEO or other relief operation is framed, strategically, as a good will generating operation.
I think that's crazy. The dominant paradigm today is that morality is rooted not in the self-interest of individuals, but the self-interest of genes. This insight goes a long way explaining reciprocity, kin-altruism. It also poses a strong argument against people arguing for the "good of the species." That more or less comes straight out of Dawkins' Selfish Gene.
Since that wasn't my argument, take it up with Dawkins, or someone making that argument.
What do you mean by "lay down"? Impose on others like laws prohibiting murder? Or champion human rights in foreign societies, like Amnesty International?
Exactly what I meant. Lay down, levy, demand, enforce. You have to be pretty arrogant to assume, as the Pope does now and again, that your moral framework is The Only One. In your case, its this Universal Morality thing. Sorry, You Have Not Made Your Sale, so far. You are welcomed to try another sales pitch.
Morality is presumably constructed by conscious adults, right? What about infants who have no concept of morality? Why should you extend it to them?
The best answer lies, once again, in the temporal frame: how do you want to influence the future? If you don't care, so be it.
How is a Terri Shavio more apart of this construct than Koko the gorilla? You're using a very blunt instrument for discrimination.
Terri Shiavo was kept alive by what I consider a cynical and heartless, and greedy, medical system. Here was a fine example of Kant's Can implies Ought abusing a vegetable, which as a Vegan, I figured you'd be against.
Again, morality demands doing the right thing because it's the right thing. Are you familiar with the exchange between Socrates and Thrasymachus in The Republic?
Yeah.
With great power DOES come great responsibility. No, that is an idea, not how power works in Reality.
In the most exciting philosophy I have ever read Socrates has a showdown your homeboy Thrasymachus. Over the course of the discussion a thought-experiment is introduced. What if you get a ring that confers the power of invisibility? So far Thrasymachus has been saying a person should look after his own self-interest, but taking care not to develop a bad reputation; you can be greedy, lie, cheat and steal, but be smart about it by not getting caught.
He was thinking temporally.
Well, with the Ring of Gyges you can do whatever you want and get with it. Rob people, kill enemies, listen in conversations to blackmail others, and even rape women.
Yes you can, and you have to wake up every morning and know that this is exactly what you did. I'll also point out that for me, Thrasymachus Plato's strawman, but it's been a while since I read The Republic. Might be worth looking at it again, considering what I've learned over the past few decades.
Your quid-pro-quo comments, and just general orientation in this thread, leads me to believe you would agree with Thrasymachus in getting away with whatever you could.
No. I am not fool enough to consider such things in isolation from the continuum that is life. Philosophy, and philosophical models such as yours or Socrates' silly hypotheticals, are allowed to so isolate things as an experiment in order to attempt to find second and third order effects of choices.

DR

[Cain]

GreNME:

Cain, real quick: is the only way a person can be moral by behaving in the way that you believe you [s/he??] should?

This has the you think you're better than me, don't you? ominous undertone I have railed against elsewhere. Most of our lives are occupied with tackling life projects of our own choosing. Above RandFan thinks he's scoring a point by saying there are limits even I will observe, even though I have never touted myself as remarkable or special in any respect. One should refrain from causing harm to animals, just as one should refrain from harming humans. As I set out in the original post, I think this belief is rather common; people have failed to live it because they have failed to draw a logical conclusion.

-------------------------
I only note that it is something we could do. As I keep saying, there is much we could do. Ending suffering isn't in itself an end game. Life is a bit more complicated than that.

Indeed, so why would you assume otherwise in reducing animal suffering?

I never said you had to save every baby. I'm saying you could save some. The point is simply to demonstrate that there is a limit to your carrying. There are many things you could do to reduce suffering but we both know you won't do.

Makes you wonder who exactly the moron is. I agree with your argument about UNICEF. My point exactly. Don't feed me with your guilt when you are no better than I.

This is another form of the "You think you're better than me, don't you." There is a natural gap in what we would like to do and what we do do.

It's not. It's a flawed analogy because humans are comparative to humans. Chickens are not. I don't need to defend chickens each time I defend the rights of gays and lesbians.

FTR, so far in this thread you've done little but gainsay.

Careful here -- you're testing the limits of B.S. meter. Rights for homosexuals and rights against animals fits within the overall context of rights. You just said earlier that humans and animals exist along a continuum. If you argued in good faith, then you would have focused the vast majority of your time and attention addressing the basic argument against speciesism, helpfully included below, but you don't. Over a period of years you pathetically cop-out by challenging shared ground, taking things to a more obscure realm, one where it just so happens you are about as clueless as George W. Bush in an advanced organic chemistry class (i.e., moral absolutism vs. moral relativism. I have long maintained a position of moral universalism).

Species is a morally arbitrary classification. We need to discriminate on the basis of morally relevant characteristics. As noted probably on the first page, we can imagine an alien species which possess attributes much like our own, or even far beyond our own. Evolution threatens your paradigm just as it threatens the theist who asks, "When did the soul evolve? Homo habilis? Homo erectus? Homo sapien? What about a successor species? Humans are after all created from animals, so where do we draw boundaries? This was talked about much earlier regarding abortion.

You, replying to the fact babies are not moral agents:
That's right. They do however share the genes of other humans.

So how is THAT morally relevant? We share genes in common with non-humans as well, so is that compelling argument for their rights? We shared genes in common with Teri Shavio as well. :rolleyes:

On stream of consciousness thinking:
Yes, we have other option available to us. Perfectly reasonable options that would likely keep most of us alive and healthy. Hell, perhaps healthier than we are now. Of course their are exceptions to that. People Like Laura Dern, an avid vegetarian, she has been told by her doctor that she needs to eat some animal protein because of deficiency she suffers from. That's not given to justify everyone eating animals only to demonstrate that it is unlikely that at this time everyone can become complete vegans. I think in the near future they will.

It's weird how people routinely say vegans and vegetarians are suffering from some deficiency when most dietary problems in advanced countries are due too overconsumption. But OK, let's say for health reasons we need to consume certain animals, or their byproducts. This does not open up the floodgates because we have maintained from the beginning that we want to make sincere efforts to minimize harm.

------------------------
I'd like to see a working framework, a practical one, for "all human suffering" rather than this appeal to a platitude.

Is menopause suffering? Is getting kicked in the nuts suffering? Is your dog crapping, yet again, one the carpet suffering?

Reducing unnecessary suffering means addressing structural causes. Getting hit in the nuts by a baseball is probably a more random event. If kids were tyrannizing middle aged men with bats and balls, then we would probably need to take collective action. I'm not remotely familiar with menopause, so I'll skip to the dog crapping on one's carpet. This is another trivial example, and I am not aware of an epidemic of dog crap in living rooms, and besides, it's probably something that can be addressed on an individual level. It's more of an annoyance. I think this is rather obvious to anyone who is not morally retarded.

You have characterized the conditions as miserable. From a human perspective, that may be a good characterization. From a chicken's perspective . . . how do you pretend to know?

This is another non-argument that is difficult to take seriously. How can I really know another human is experiencing pain when I strike her with a crowbar? We are talking about stuffing chickens into the tiniest cages... I generally do not discuss, let alone demonstrate, these miserable conditions for three reasons: 1) People cry about an appeal to emotion; 2) Most people are willing to accept that animals can and do suffer; 3) Most importantly, it's pointless case if you do not already willing to accept the relevance of non-human suffering.

Why shouldn't we, once again, since the sharks have yet to show that they give a flying fart about humans, except as dinner, see also cannibals above, and lawyers, who use human suffering as sustenance. (See civil litigation, writ large. )

This recalls Japanese internment. Why should we grant rights to Japan (circa WWII) if imperial Japan refuses to grant rights to outsiders?

For particular values of substantively, sure, but for others, no. Men can't gestate, nor give birth to, the next generation. Uh, that's substantive. Entire books have been written on how that feature informs human norms and patterns. I won't try to reproduce one here.

Yes, men cannot give birth, so, in at least one respect they lack a freedom women possess: the choice to terminate a pregnancy. For similar reasons, and contrary to pro-animal killing straw men, dogs will not have the right to vote because they have no conception of voting. But a sorry fact remains: you're pussyfooting around the argument. Do men and women have different moralities, not just empirically, but normatively?

I see your point, and agree that it is not really a moral argument, but so what?

A moral argument on how to treat women can be found in the Bible, Cain.
1. Love thy neighbor as thyself.
2. Ephesians 5:20-25, one of a variety of expositions on how mutual sacrifice is how a marriage works. So, why won't you use it?

Because I don't think they're compelling arguments. Just because there are other arguments available does not mean obligated to use them, especially when "mutual sacrifice" really means entirely one-sided subservience.

Since you are discussing interspecies relationships, one of the important categories is human self interest, since it can influence the other species. The other red herrings you can have with capers, onions, and a glass of vodka, if you like. Being human, human self interest interests me. Contemplating bovine self interest is a luxury I can now and again afford myself.

I never suggested bovine self-interest. If we are going to accuse each other arrogance, then how does Darth Rotor speak to (collective) human self-interest? Why not, as I suggest, individual self-interest, or, in other words, Darth Rotor's self-interest?

Then you need to get out more. There is more to humanitarian operations that "feel good" points, and I will point to you that a NEO or other relief operation is framed, strategically, as a good will generating operation.

Now you're conflating what I said about the motivations of donors with vague benefits.

Since that wasn't my argument, take it up with Dawkins, or someone making that argument.

No, it was not your argument. It was an improvement on your (rather dim) argument, which you'll recall went as follows: "The reason I raise self interest is that much morality is rooted there." You refuse to support the basis of this self-interest, let alone look at its real root. For all of his evolutionary enthusiasm toward Wright, Dawkins, Hauser, Pinker, Shermer, and others, I am curious about RandFan's silence on this point.

Exactly what I meant. Lay down, levy, demand, enforce. You have to be pretty arrogant to assume, as the Pope does now and again, that your moral framework is The Only One. In your case, its this Universal Morality thing. Sorry, You Have Not Made Your Sale, so far. You are welcomed to try another sales pitch.

Then you're ignoring previous posts. The argument for universal morality is not necessarily an argument for a particular universal morality. Moreover, ought implies can. Forget more complicated international problems, it would be impossible to enforce a ban on animal consumption in this country starting tomorrow.

Cain wrote: Morality is presumably constructed by conscious adults, right? What about infants who have no concept of morality? Why should you extend it to them?

DR's non-reply:
The best answer lies, once again, in the temporal frame: how do you want to influence the future? If you don't care, so be it.

Cain wrote: How is a Terri Shavio more apart of this construct than Koko the gorilla? You're using a very blunt instrument for discrimination.

DR's non-reply:

Terri Shiavo was kept alive by what I consider a cynical and heartless, and greedy, medical system. Here was a fine example of Kant's Can implies Ought abusing a vegetable, which as a Vegan, I figured you'd be against.

Re: With Great Power comes Great Responsibility:
No, that is an idea, not how power works in Reality.

Fine, but let's just be clear that you choose to evade normative questions. Also, I now choose to revise "Great power, great responsibility" as responsibility proportionate to power.

Yes you can, and you have to wake up every morning and know that this is exactly what you did. I'll also point out that for me, Thrasymachus Plato's strawman, but it's been a while since I read The Republic.

OK, here's the example I give to my students.

You wake up in a small, white room. A voice explains that you have been captured to conduct a moral experiment. On a screen you are shown profiles of a dozen people described as "normal and decent." Your captor says they will all die unless you push the red button before you. There are also personal consequences for choosing the red button. Your memory of this event will be wiped clean and a significant sum of money will be deducted from bank account. Alternatively, you can push the blue button, in which case all of the people shown will be killed (but made to look like accidents). Some will die quite horribly. Choosing this button will also wipe your memory of the event clean, but your funds will remain in tact. Should I bother pre-empting silly control questions ("do I believe this evil guy?" Yes. "memory wiping is impossible!" Not here. "How do I know he's not going to continually do this to me?" He won't, and you believe him. "Will I read about one of these people dying in the newspaper?" No. And so on. )?

OK, so to summarize. You can save people at the expense of your finances, but your heroism will be forgotten. Alternatively, you can allow these innocent people to die, remaining blissfully unaware of your role. So I think this controls for psychological benefits, or "soft commodities," and you do not need to wake up each morning guilt-stricken. Now, if you're a self-interest guy, I should think you would press the blue button...

No. I am not fool enough to consider such things in isolation from the continuum that is life. Philosophy, and philosophical models such as yours or Socrates' silly hypotheticals, are allowed to so isolate things as an experiment in order to attempt to find second and third order effects of choices.

No, it's to bracket out all of the other nonsense in order to get down to fundamentals.

[GreNME]

GreNME:


This has the you think you're better than me, don't you? ominous undertone I have railed against elsewhere. Most of our lives are occupied with tackling life projects of our own choosing. Above RandFan thinks he's scoring a point by saying there are limits even I will observe, even though I have never touted myself as remarkable or special in any respect. One should refrain from causing harm to animals, just as one should refrain from harming humans. As I set out in the original post, I think this belief is rather common; people have failed to live it because they have failed to draw a logical conclusion.

Please do me a favor and try not to get too wrapped up in trying to rhetorically cut me off, and simply answer the question. Just so you are aware, I'm not presuming to tell you what you think-- you probably know better than I what you think-- but I'm trying to decide if it's worth trying to explain to you that while I commend you on your moral choice I don't find it intellectually tenable for many (possibly even most) people. If you can't do me the simple service of letting me know if you personally feel there is a single path of morality on the issue or not-- or, even better, if you think it is a black-or-white issue to begin with-- then I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you how I feel. I'm willing to offer you good faith, but only under the condition that I receive good faith in return. Ask Randfan (whom I respect, but may not always agree with) if you don't believe me: I'm pretty adamant about that, because otherwise the argument gets wrapped up in talking past each other and resulting in the previous conversation you saw me in on this thread where someone seemed to be assuming I held beliefs very different from what I actually held.

So, sum it up for me. Should I give it a shot, or are you currently under too much attack for me to add to the mix?

[volatile]

One should refrain from causing harm to animals, just as one should refrain from harming humans. As I set out in the original post, I think this belief is rather common; people have failed to live it because they have failed to draw a logical conclusion.

My reasoning entirely. I think it bears re-stating that this singular observation is at the very core of all we've been discussing.

If you are of the general belief that humans should refrain from unnecessarily harming animals (and I think many or most people are of this belief - there are, for example, a number of laws in place codifying such a belief), then why would we eat them when alternatives are available? The position that we should minimize harm until and only until our taste-buds get the better of us seems to me (and to Cain, it seems), a logical absurdity.

[Cain]

Please do me a favor and try not to get too wrapped up in trying to rhetorically cut me off, and simply answer the question. Just so you are aware, I'm not presuming to tell you what you think-- you probably know better than I what you think-- but I'm trying to decide if it's worth trying to explain to you that while I commend you on your moral choice I don't find it intellectually tenable for many (possibly even most) people. If you can't do me the simple service of letting me know if you personally feel there is a single path of morality on the issue or not-- or, even better, if you think it is a black-or-white issue to begin with-- then I'm not going to bother trying to explain to you how I feel. I'm willing to offer you good faith, but only under the condition that I receive good faith in return. Ask Randfan (whom I respect, but may not always agree with) if you don't believe me: I'm pretty adamant about that, because otherwise the argument gets wrapped up in talking past each other and resulting in the previous conversation you saw me in on this thread where someone seemed to be assuming I held beliefs very different from what I actually held.

So, sum it up for me. Should I give it a shot, or are you currently under too much attack for me to add to the mix?

Well, that's an unexpected rant. Even though your question was not exactly a model of clarity (see my quotation), I think I provided a relevant answer. If you want to get into the game of how I, Cain, classify people as either "moral" or "immoral" -- a judgment that rarely crosses my mind -- then I don't want to play. Instead let's argue over the moral status of specific behavior. Consuming animals, which includes but is not limited to eating them, is immoral in the presence of other options. You can still be an honest, considerate, generally well-meaning person, but I believe what you're doing in this one area is wrong. Whether or not that makes a person "moral" or "immoral" on the whole is not generally worth the bother.

Volatile
The position that we should minimize harm until and only until our taste-buds get the better of us seems to me (and to Cain, it seems), a logical absurdity.

Yeah, exactly. We're weighing the worth of an animal's one and only life against a relatively trivial concern -- taste. And there's also the inconsistency over how animals are treated, such as China's Olympic ban on restaurants serving dog.

[DC]

Sure Animals have rights.
but i like meat :) but they should have a relative nice live, no unnecesery pain or stress etc.
sure we cannot handle all animals like Kobe cows, but when you see how we transport animals sometimes it is just a freakin shame for humans...