This blog will contain my thoughts on various topics.
A quote from an earthsave.ca forum discussion
I found this really great argument. I want to provide an extended quote so that you can find it in all the other stuff on this forum discussion. I found this at http://forums.earthsave.ca/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1072&p=22303 posted by user "KelG" on Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:02 pm:
"Humans who believe in a moral code of universal human rights but deny extending rights to nonhumans have two problems. The criteria(s) they use to justify this discrimination (faculty of reason, a soul, divine or evolutionary favor, moral reciprocity, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, a bundle of characteristics or vaguely defined ones etc.) cannot be proven to be possessed by all humans or lacking in all nonhumans. Secondly, the importance of such criteria can be doubted-- shown not to be objective absolute truth, but subjective arbitrary criteria conveniently determined by those who stand to benefit from the discrimination they wish to justify. Nature (and deities), through environmental phenomenon, weather, earthquakes, etc. cannot be shown to care or favor humans over other lifeforms as an absolute objective fact. This subjectivity means that someone who may discriminate against other humans (which happens despite the laws and philosophy designed to curb such incidents) using criteria that is just as subjective (skin colour, gender, class, religion, survival of the fittest, individual selfishness, etc) cannot be effectively condemned by a human rights advocate who denies rights to nonhumans, since both are discriminating according to subjective criteria of value they deem to be important. The only way for a human rights advocate to consistently argue that one ought to have systemic universal human rights and an ethical code based upon this idea is to extend the concept of fairness and justice to nonhumans as much as possible. Because humans develop ethical codes to govern human behavior, and nonhumans do not appear to employ or require such codes in their social interactions, they benefit from the consistency requirement in human concepts of fairness and justice without needing to reciprocate. To expect them to adhere to human moral contracts in order to be eligible for moral regard is like expecting a blind man to be able to read and then punishing him for not doing so. That moral regard may not be possible or practical in all situations due to particular factors (such as scale or absentmindedness or the inability to be perfect), but since the same is true of human on human interactions, it does not invalidate the merits of the argument or provide a loophole for humans to justify systemic exploitation of nonhuman lifeforms (since one could then justify the same for humans). The common argument for animal rights that values sentience as the criteria of moral worth and attempts to define human discrimination against other species as speciesism, analogous to racism and sexism, does not fully address the philosophical nature of human attitudes towards non human lifeforms, or provide sufficient arguments to counter most if not all attempts at refutation as does the formula presented above. One will find the human supremacy/predation double standard blindspot in any anti-animal rights argument (even the rat/dog/human- who would you save? attack)."
Necessary versus unnecessary suffering
With regards to my last entry with regards to the term necessary, I've been thinking more about it and if we define necessary as involving and only involving causing of suffering and death where necessary to defend one's self or someone else against being intensionally harmed in a manner that breaches their basic rights, then I would be fine with that. In other words, if someone needs to harm somone else as a matter of self defense or defense of someone else and they only use the amount of force required to do so then that might be a justifiable use of the term necessary when saying something like: It is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering or death in others.
To kill if "necessary"?
I admire Gary Francione, big time. I think he is one of the smartest people I have ever heard of and I believe he is, at present, the most important person alive in the context of helping prevent injustice toward nonhuman animals. That said, I'm reading one of his arguments and just had a few thoughts on it. I'm not sure I have come to a conclusion of my own yet but it's worth thinking about. Here is the argument, from the Animal Rights pamphlet on the web site at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com.
"We claim to take animals seriously.
We all agree that it is morally wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering or death on animals. But what do we mean by this?
Whatever else it means, it must mean that it is wrong to inflict suffering or death on animals merely because we derive pleasure or amusement from doing so, or because it is convenient to do so, or because it is just plain habit.
But the overwhelming portion of our animal use— just about all of it—cannot be justified by anything other than pleasure, amusement, convenience, or habit."
Supporting Animal Rights Organizations
It can be challenging to find an organization to support. Most welfare and regulation organizations use the term animal rights when that is not actually what they support. Or, they claim to support animal rights but all they do is support campaigns to regulate animal use instead of taking a stand against animal use to begin with; their activity makes animal use more efficient and profitable and makes the public think they are achieving moral victories and that we are meeting our moral obligations. They make people feel good about using animals and thereby prevent realizations that we ought not be using them at all. In other words, they tend to support animal use rather than oppose it.
Furthermore, many of these organizations use immoral or contradictory arguments against animal use; they commit to a sexist approach on the one hand and argue on the other that just as sexism is wrong, so too is speciesism.
Furthermore, they engage in various gimmicks and theatrics that just reinforce the stereotype of animal rights and veganism as strange and crazy or naive. Most of their activities are not geared to promoting veganism and basic rights for sentient beings but rather to fund raising for their own activities. Some of them make a fortune this way and they use the money for these misguided tactics that merely contribute to the problem rather than actually impose it.
SBR Project Now Open
This is our first day of operation. I plan to build the web site steadily this year and I hope for it to become a useful resource for others. One of it's aims is to be a resource for myself, a place I can explore my own intellectual development on the topic, so I hope to achieve strides in that regard as well. My main essay on this web site is the product of many philosophy courses and many years of arguing the points and trying to prove myself wrong and to hone my arguments. In that regard, it is an approximation. I will continue to edit it as I learn. I hope others find it useful as well.