This blog will contain my thoughts on various topics.
Weblog
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."
It is common to see the argument that we ought not cause unnecessary suffering or death. Of course, that does not imply logically that the arguer is saying that causing necessary suffering and death is acceptable. I guess it might depend on how we define necessary. Let's say that necessary refers to having to do something in order to prevent suffering or death for ourselves. That's more that simple minor hardship. So, please note, I am not attributing this argument to Francione; that cannot be inferred from his statements. But, it is sometimes thought to be the case, so Francione's comments were the inspiration for my thoughts.
Is someone's need really a claim on our rights? Are we really prepared to appreciate basic rights not to be treated as the property of others as meaning 'as long as we don't need it.'? Should I worry that, if someone deems it necessary for their interests, that they may ethically exploit me. I would say no. My starving does not excuse my steeling of food for instance. If basic rights are going to carry strength and be useful protection of our individual interests to maintain our liberty, then it must be immutable to such a rider. Basic individual rights would mean very little if they could be trumped in this way. We could learn incredible things by performing horrible psychological experiments on children for instance. We simply live without this information because our need (it would prevent suffering and death for sure) is not a trump on the rights of children.
It occurred to me that we do revoke certain basic rights when someone commits crimes and we need to defend ourselves as a society from them. But the difference here is that they are an active threat and have relinquished their basic rights with their own choices. Being exploited simply because someone has a need that can be satisfied by harming us is completely different; we make no such unethical choices to cause this revoking of rights.
I worry that when we make arguments involving premises that "it is morally wrong to inflict ‘unnecessary’ suffering or death on animals." that we tend to suggest to some people that it would be okay if it were necessary. That's a false inference, a fallacy, of course but it does lead many people there. I would personally rather focus the argument away from how necessary our exploitation is and focus on the immutability of basic rights and the just application of them. I might change my mind, I do all the time as I mull arguments over and attempt to prove myself wrong or unreasonable. But for now, it's something to think about.
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.
Most people don't even know there is a serious movement with reasonable and intelligent argumentation; they think it is just people screaming slogans at the door steps of biomedical institutions or throwing red paint on people or wearing big bunny costumes or going naked rathe than wear fur etc.
These organizations often defend their tactics by claiming that without getting public attention, the public will not be aware of the problem and that they can promote welfare and regulation toward a rights end. The problem is that the tactics alienate people or promote a flaky commitment at best and the welfare and regulation endeavors are just making matters worse. In other words, their tactics are counterproductive and misguided.
But, again, if you are looking for an organization to support financially or otherwise, look for this. Look past their primary claim to advocate for animal rights. Look to what they actually do. One way to tell what they really stand for is to look at their actions. Are they supporting or praising in any way animal users? Do they praise McDonalds or KFC for using more comfortable chicken cages? Are they out fighting for laws that make animal use more humane? Remember, certainly less torture and suffering is better than more. But, nothing will change for the better unless we advocate against animal use rather than merely regulating it. The problem is that we use animals at all, not how we use them. Just as their is no such thing as humane rape or humane murder or humane torture, there is no humane nonhuman animal use.
Just look behind the "animal rights" term when choosing an organization to support.
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.