Comments on: Thought for the Week – The Vice of Animal Rights http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights Not Facebook Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:58:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1881 Stephen Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:42:51 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1881 Dave had no reason to take offense: he was the one vegetarian I was talking about :) S. Dave had no reason to take offense: he was the one vegetarian I was talking about :)

S.

]]> By: Rosalita Paglia http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1880 Rosalita Paglia Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:48:39 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1880 I'm with Dave and surprisingly Greg.... (and good for Dave for not taking offense to Stephen's little bait at the beginning!) I think it is consistent to want animals treated humanely and still want to eat them too! 'Slaughter not torture'? I’m with Dave and surprisingly Greg…. (and good for Dave for not taking offense to Stephen’s little bait at the beginning!)

I think it is consistent to want animals treated humanely and still want to eat them too!

‘Slaughter not torture’?

]]> By: Dave Powell http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1878 Dave Powell Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:47:16 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1878 I've been a vegitarian since I was 16. I took more of an interest in animal rights as a student but now would see it as a personal ethical decision, and I wouldn't want to dictate to someone else what their ethical position should be. The animal rights people are quite keen on drawing comparisons between Nazi Germany (ironicaly the hunt saboteurs did attract some neo nazis because of Hitlers supposed vegetarianism) and child abuse with animal rights. For them it comes down to Speciesism - which they equate with racism. Any use of animals, not just eating them but having them as pets is wrong - but they get round this by only having strays and rescue dogs as "companions". There are some sensible animal rights activists who campaign on welfare issues that do make a difference to the level of suffering that some animals endure in intensive farming, but they are accused of being ethically inconsistent by the more extreme wing who argue that it should be abolition or nothing - so alot won't even support animal welfare campaigns. I'm sure in some cases direct action garners support for particular causes but in the case of animal rights I think it just makes people think sod em i'm going to McDonalds. They would be a lot more successfull if they just pushed the welfare campaigns without all the other crap - as soon as you hurt a human in the process of campaigning your whole argument falls to pieces because you have hurt another sentient being which is what the whole argument was meant to be about in the first place. I’ve been a vegitarian since I was 16. I took more of an interest in animal rights as a student but now would see it as a personal ethical decision, and I wouldn’t want to dictate to someone else what their ethical position should be.
The animal rights people are quite keen on drawing comparisons between Nazi Germany (ironicaly the hunt saboteurs did attract some neo nazis because of Hitlers supposed vegetarianism) and child abuse with animal rights. For them it comes down to Speciesism – which they equate with racism. Any use of animals, not just eating them but having them as pets is wrong – but they get round this by only having strays and rescue dogs as “companions”.
There are some sensible animal rights activists who campaign on welfare issues that do make a difference to the level of suffering that some animals endure in intensive farming, but they are accused of being ethically inconsistent by the more extreme wing who argue that it should be abolition or nothing – so alot won’t even support animal welfare campaigns.
I’m sure in some cases direct action garners support for particular causes but in the case of animal rights I think it just makes people think sod em i’m going to McDonalds.
They would be a lot more successfull if they just pushed the welfare campaigns without all the other crap – as soon as you hurt a human in the process of campaigning your whole argument falls to pieces because you have hurt another sentient being which is what the whole argument was meant to be about in the first place.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1869 Stephen Thu, 28 Feb 2008 20:30:41 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1869 Greg: Thanks for the response. When you say "If animals don'thave rights they definitely have an expectation of life and good treatment." Which animals are you referring to? Dung beetles as well as Chimpanzees? How accurate would it be to refer to a dung beetle having any expectations whatsoever? And would it be immoral to deliberately stamp on an earwig? "Not that I'm a vegetarian, or an activist. But they should be treated well, that's a moral duty, regardless of whether or not you think it logically leads to the kind of craziness above." You're not a vegetarian - which means you eat meat. But then you say there is a moral duty to treat animals well. Is killing a cow for food "treating it well?" If you really think there is such a moral duty why aren't you a vegetarian, or better still a vegan? Moreover, even if there is a moral duty this does not justify the logical leap from making it a legal duty. So, even if killing a cow for food is immoral this alone does not justify making it illegal. "Ultimately we have to learn to live with other animals and we have a duty to be responsible about it due to the fact that we're (supposedly) the most intelligent among them." This is a rather puzzling deduction. We are more intelligent therefore we have a duty to be responsible towards animals? Does an adult chimp have such a duty towards a baby on the grounds that it's more intelligent? Why is intelligence a source of moral obligation? Should university professors have moral obligations towards cleaning staff because they're more intelligent? That's a rather odd basis for moral responsibility you've got there. I look forward to hearing more about it, after all as a human you are intelligent - supposedly. S. Greg:

Thanks for the response.

When you say

“If animals don’thave rights they definitely have an expectation of life and good treatment.”

Which animals are you referring to? Dung beetles as well as Chimpanzees? How accurate would it be to refer to a dung beetle having any expectations whatsoever? And would it be immoral to deliberately stamp on an earwig?

“Not that I’m a vegetarian, or an activist. But they should be treated well, that’s a moral duty, regardless of whether or not you think it logically leads to the kind of craziness above.”

You’re not a vegetarian – which means you eat meat. But then you say there is a moral duty to treat animals well. Is killing a cow for food “treating it well?” If you really think there is such a moral duty why aren’t you a vegetarian, or better still a vegan?

Moreover, even if there is a moral duty this does not justify the logical leap from making it a legal duty. So, even if killing a cow for food is immoral this alone does not justify making it illegal.

“Ultimately we have to learn to live with other animals and we have a duty to be responsible about it due to the fact that we’re (supposedly) the most intelligent among them.”

This is a rather puzzling deduction. We are more intelligent therefore we have a duty to be responsible towards animals? Does an adult chimp have such a duty towards a baby on the grounds that it’s more intelligent? Why is intelligence a source of moral obligation? Should university professors have moral obligations towards cleaning staff because they’re more intelligent? That’s a rather odd basis for moral responsibility you’ve got there. I look forward to hearing more about it, after all as a human you are intelligent – supposedly.

S.

]]> By: Greg, Sacramento http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1852 Greg, Sacramento Thu, 28 Feb 2008 04:39:41 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1852 If animals don'thave rights they definitely have an expectation of life and good treatment. Not that I'm a vegetarian, or an activist. But they should be treated well, that's a moral duty, regardless of whether or not you think it logically leads to the kind of craziness above. Ultimately we have to learn to live with other animals and we have a duty to be responsible about it due to the fact that we're (supposedly) the most intelligent among them. If animals don’thave rights they definitely have an expectation of life and good treatment.

Not that I’m a vegetarian, or an activist. But they should be treated well, that’s a moral duty, regardless of whether or not you think it logically leads to the kind of craziness above. Ultimately we have to learn to live with other animals and we have a duty to be responsible about it due to the fact that we’re (supposedly) the most intelligent among them.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1822 Stephen Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:41:03 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1822 John: indeed, nice picture. Did any of them say "hee haw?" S. John: indeed, nice picture. Did any of them say “hee haw?”

S.

]]> By: Stephen http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1821 Stephen Tue, 26 Feb 2008 08:39:17 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1821 Quinney: If they are utilitarians they should be acting so as to promote the greatest happiness. Utilitarianism throws up all manner of problems - in both principle and practice. Interestingly you are right. Take Peter Singer: he believe you should give up to the point that you are sacrificing something of equal moral worth. By his own standards he fails miserably - he gives 20% of his salary to charitable causes, but someone on his salary could easily give much more without sacrificing something of equal moral worth. We might also ask what "equal moral worth" is, and how we could measure it. Utilitarians from Jeremy Bentham to modern day have failed to give any answer to how utility or happiness can be measured and compared. What is the basic unit of happiness? Jeremy Bentham tried to give a rather detailed "utility calculus" which collapses into nonsense. The trouble is no utilitarian can repair it. I think utilitarians in practice adopt some form of intuitivist approach to ethics. Utilitarianism is impossible to live consistently. S. Quinney:

If they are utilitarians they should be acting so as to promote the greatest happiness. Utilitarianism throws up all manner of problems – in both principle and practice. Interestingly you are right. Take Peter Singer: he believe you should give up to the point that you are sacrificing something of equal moral worth. By his own standards he fails miserably – he gives 20% of his salary to charitable causes, but someone on his salary could easily give much more without sacrificing something of equal moral worth. We might also ask what “equal moral worth” is, and how we could measure it. Utilitarians from Jeremy Bentham to modern day have failed to give any answer to how utility or happiness can be measured and compared. What is the basic unit of happiness? Jeremy Bentham tried to give a rather detailed “utility calculus” which collapses into nonsense. The trouble is no utilitarian can repair it. I think utilitarians in practice adopt some form of intuitivist approach to ethics. Utilitarianism is impossible to live consistently.

S.

]]> By: Quinney http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1819 Quinney Tue, 26 Feb 2008 04:30:54 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1819 Nice donkeys John, you might consider adopting one on behalf of Simon Cowell Just to let you know fellas, there's some donkeys in captivity around the world that people are trying to free, maybe that's where he was donating. Anyway have I got you right Stephen that you think it's inconsistent for them to help animals before people? If this is the case, wouldn't they be also in error if they spent time to help an old lady cross the road instead of being on a permanent tour with habitat for humanity? Nice donkeys John, you might consider adopting one on behalf of Simon Cowell

Just to let you know fellas, there’s some donkeys in captivity around the world that people are trying to free, maybe that’s where he was donating. Anyway have I got you right Stephen that you think it’s inconsistent for them to help animals before people? If this is the case, wouldn’t they be also in error if they spent time to help an old lady cross the road instead of being on a permanent tour with habitat for humanity?

]]> By: John http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/comment-page-1/#comment-1816 John Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:06:04 +0000 http://www.john-wright.net/2008/02/25/thought-for-the-week-the-vice-of-animal-rights/#comment-1816 The picture accompanying this post obviously intends to refer to the donkeys Stephen mentions above, but it's actually a picture I captured myself yesterday while out in my Jeep on a desert road in California about 20 minutes from my home. I pulled over to the side of the road and these five wild donkeys came bounding over, proving that they at least don't appear to need Simon Cowell's money! (This is out of character for them actually; they're usually pretty elusive.) As for the piece, I enjoyed it for the sheer sport of poking at animal rights activists. I certainly don't think most vegetarians agree with them - I'd hope not - and Stephen is right to point out the inconsistency. The picture accompanying this post obviously intends to refer to the donkeys Stephen mentions above, but it’s actually a picture I captured myself yesterday while out in my Jeep on a desert road in California about 20 minutes from my home. I pulled over to the side of the road and these five wild donkeys came bounding over, proving that they at least don’t appear to need Simon Cowell’s money! (This is out of character for them actually; they’re usually pretty elusive.)

As for the piece, I enjoyed it for the sheer sport of poking at animal rights activists. I certainly don’t think most vegetarians agree with them – I’d hope not – and Stephen is right to point out the inconsistency.

]]>