119
Thoughts of Animal Rights 動物權思潮 動物權思潮 動物權思潮 動物權思潮英文版講義 英文版講義 英文版講義 英文版講義 台大 台大 台大 台大通識 通識 通識 通識課程 課程 課程 課程 629 U2260

ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

only for school researching workInstructor:ANDREW C. Y. FEI DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY MEDICINE NTU

Citation preview

Page 1: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Thoughts of Animal Rights

動物權思潮動物權思潮動物權思潮動物權思潮英文版講義英文版講義英文版講義英文版講義

台大台大台大台大通識通識通識通識課程課程課程課程 629 U2260

Page 2: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal Ethics Dilemma: Five aspects of animal ethics

1/5

Animal Ethics Dilemma

From: An interactive learning tool for university and professional training. http://ae.imcode.com/en/1001 The Contractarian View “Morality is based on agreement” The basic contractarian idea is that ethical obligations originate in mutual agreements or contracts between people. Moral duties are similar to the terms and conditions we sign up to when opening a bank account. The thinking here is this. Each of us has his or her own interests. We are perfectly entitled to pursue these, but in most situations we can benefit from the help of others. Others will find it attarctive to help so long as they get some kind of help in return. Hence mutual cooperation is in all of our interests. It is best for everyone. In cooperating we make agreements, and it is these agreements that bring ethical obligations into being. Such agreements need not be formally entered into like commercial contracts. They may be implicit in people’s considered behaviour. Even so, non-human animals cannot make agreements. They lack the understanding and control needed to enter a contractual arrangement. As a result, animals neither create nor have moral duties. We, however, may have indirect ethical obligations towards animals, because they can matter to other humans. If you have agreed with a family that you will look after their cat while they visit relatives in Canada, you should do just that. Hence, the cat is indirectly protected by your agreement. Examples of statements typically made on the basis of this view: “We should care about animal welfare, because consumers demand it and we want to sell products.” “As far as possible one should avoid using cats, dogs, monkeys and other sensitive species for research, because the general public objects.” “I need to treat animals well enough for them to suit my purposes, but I don’t think it is worthwhile doing any more than that.” “To improve the quality of animal research, one should be concerned about animal welfare.”

Page 3: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal Ethics Dilemma: Five aspects of animal ethics

2/5

The Utilitarian View “Morality is about maximising human and animal well-being” Animals, like humans, deserve moral consideration. What matters in our dealings with animals is the extent to which we affect their well-being. In deciding what to do, we must therefore consider welfare consequences for animals as well as potential benefits for humans. Activities which have an adverse impact on the well-being of animals may be justified if, all things considered, they lead to a net increase in welfare (for humans or other animals) Killing animals (e.g. for food) may be justified if the farming conditions are not detrimental to animal welfare and the killing is humanely performed. Examples of statements typically made on the basis of this view: “Modern animal production is problematic because there is a negative effect on animal welfare which is not counterbalanced by the human benefits.” “Some animal research may be justified by its vital importance, as it may enable us to find cures for alleviate painful diseases.” “It is sometimes better for stray cats to be euthanased, as they would otherwise live very poor lives. The remaining stray cat population may benefit as well, because there will be less competition for food.”

Page 4: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal Ethics Dilemma: Five aspects of animal ethics

3/5

The Relational View “Morality grows out of our relationship with animals and one another” The relational view is really a group of associated views. What these views have in common is an emphasis on the ethical importance of relationships between animals and human beings, and between and among humans. In one view, our duties to animals depend on whether they are close to us or not. So we have special duties to domestic animals because they are in our care, although generally speaking we do not have duties to wild animals. Another view focuses on the way in which our treatment of animals might affect our treatment of humans. Thus treating an animal badly is wrong because it reflects a moral attitude that may lead a person to treat humans badly as well. In each case, the relational theorist may hold, simply, that where a close relationship between a person and animals already exists (e.g. a shepherd and flock) special ethical limits on the treatment of the animals apply. However, because the key idea here is that there is value in close relationships, relational theorists often wish to go further and hold that close relationships should be encouraged wherever possible. A comparison which may help to convey this last point is this: most of us think that friendship brings with it responsibilities we do not have to people we don't know, but we also tend to think that friendships are worth encouraging where the opportunity arises because they are valuable in themselves. Examples of statements typically made on the basis of this view: “A dog is a man’s best friend, so it should be treated better than animals on farms and in laboratories.” “We have no duties to pests like mice and rats, except to get rid of them as efficiently as possible.”

Page 5: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal Ethics Dilemma: Five aspects of animal ethics

4/5

The Animal Rights View “Good results cannot justify evil means” Defenders of animal rights believe that fixed ethical rules place limits on our treatment of animals: there are some things that we are not permitted to do to an animal whatever the circumstances. This idea, of a non-negotiable prohibition, is what people are getting at when they talk about “animal rights”. It is one thing to say that animals have rights, and another to say what these rights are. This means that the animal rights view comes in more or less radical forms. Most radically, a defender of animal rights may hold that animals have rights just like our human rights. Obviously, this view would exclude uniquely human rights, such as the right to freedom of speech. However, it would include the right not to be killed for human benefit (except in self-defence.) At the other end of the range, the claim may be merely that animals have the right to be treated “with respect” or “humanely”: roughly speaking, we must not do avoidable harm to animals. Weaker views of this kind need not rule out livestock farming and animal slaughter. There is a vivid contrast here with utilitarianism, since utilitarians believe that, in maximising welfare or happiness, it may be morally acceptable to violate what the defender of rights would call “rights”. Examples of statements typically made on the basis of this view: “Animals are not our slaves.” “Animals have inherent value, and this should be respected.” “Experiments on animals are unacceptable, regardless of the potential benefits involved.”

Page 6: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal Ethics Dilemma: Five aspects of animal ethics

5/5

The Respect for Nature view “We have a duty to protect not just individual animals, but the species to which they belong – and, in particular, the integrity of each species.” For those who hold this view, the problem, when a species becomes extinct, is not just that there is a loss of resources or reduction in recreational opportunities. It is that the species in itself is of value, and it no longer exists. Again, because the preservation of species is in itself morally good, we should respect nature and its rich genetic structures. We should not genetically modify species, since that involves disrespectful interference. A similar view can, of course, be taken about more established ways of interfering with the nature of animals, including traditional selective breeding. Examples of statements typically made on the basis of this view: “We should leave animals the way evolution made them.” “Endangered species have to be protected from extinction.” “Nature must take its course.”

Page 7: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Animal rights From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Animal liberation" redirects here; for other uses, see Animal liberation (disambiguation). For the album by Moby, see Animal Rights (album).

Animal rights, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals, such as the interest in avoiding suffering, should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of human beings.[1] Animal rights advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but they agree that animals should no longer be regarded as property, or used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment, but should instead be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community.[2][3]

The idea of awarding rights to animals has the support of legal scholars such as Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School.[4][2] Steven Wise, also of Harvard Law School, argues that the first serious judicial challenges to what he calls the "legal thinghood" of animals may only be a few years away,[5] while Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby believes that the idea of animal rights has reached the stage the gay rights movement was at 25 years ago.[6] Animal law is now taught in 100 out of 180 law schools in the United States,[7] and in eight law schools in Canada.[6] The concept of animal rights is routinely covered in universities as part of applied ethics or philosophy courses; Robert Garner of the University of Leicester calls it the "new morality."[8] In June 2008, Spain became the first country to introduce animal rights, when a cross-party parliamentary committee recommended that rights be extended to the great apes, in accordance with Peter Singer's Great Ape Project.[9]

Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only human beings have duties and that "[the] corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights."[10] An argument running parallel to this is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long as they do not suffer unnecessarily, a view known as the animal welfare position.[11] There has also been criticism, including from within the animal rights movement, of certain forms of animal rights activism, in particular the destruction of fur farms and animal laboratories by the Animal Liberation Front.

A man holds a monkey by a rope around her neck, a scene epitomizing

the idea of animal ownership.

RightsTheoretical Distinctions

Conceptual DistinctionsNatural and legal rights

Claim rights and liberty rightsNegative and positive rights

Individual rights and Group rightsSubstantial DistinctionsCivil and political rights

Economic, social and cultural rightsThree generations of human rights

Areas of ConcernParticular Groups

Animal rights and Human rightsChildren's rights and Youth rightsFathers' rights and Mothers' rightsMen's rights and Women's rights

Other groups of RightsDigital rightsLabor rightsLGBT rights

Reproductive rights

Contents 1 Development of the idea

1.1 Moral status of animals in the ancient world 1.2 17th century: Animals as automata

1.2.1 1641: Descartes 1.2.2 1635, 1641, 1654: First known laws protecting animals 1.2.3 1693: Locke

1.3 18th century: The centrality of sentience, not reason 1.3.1 1754: Rousseau 1.3.2 1785: Kant 1.3.3 1789: Bentham 1.3.4 1792: Thomas Taylor

1.4 19th century: Emergence of jus animalium 1.4.1 Legislation

1.4.1.1 1822: Martin's Act 1.4.1.2 1824: Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 1.4.1.3 An early example of direct action 1.4.1.4 1866: American SPCA

1.4.2 Other groups 1.4.3 1824: Development of the concept of animal rights

1.4.3.1 1839: Schopenhauer 1.4.4 Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism

1.5 Early 20th century: Tierschutzgesetz; industrialization of animal use 1.5.1 1933: Tierschutzgesetz

1.5.1.1 Significance of the German position 1.5.2 Post 1945: Increase in animal use

1.6 Late 20th century: Emergence of an animal rights movement

Make a donation to Wikipedia and give the gift of knowledge!

Page 1 of 18Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/10/18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

Page 8: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Overview

Further information: Consequentialism, Deontological ethics, and Teleological ethics

There are two main philosophical approaches to the issue of animal rights: a utilitarian approach and

a rights-based one. The former is exemplifed by Peter Singer, professor of bioethics at Princeton, and

the latter by Tom Regan, professor emeritus of philosophy at North Carolina State University.

Their differences reflect a distinction philosophers draw between ethical theories that judge the

rightness of an act by its consequences (called consequentialism, teleological ethics, or

utilitarianism, which is Singer's position), and those who judge acts to be right or wrong in

themselves, almost regardless of consequences (called deontological ethics, of which Regan is an

adherent). A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make

someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is simply wrong.

Within the animal rights debate, Singer does not believe there are such things as natural rights and

that animals have them, although he uses the language of rights as shorthand for how we ought to

treat individuals. Instead, he believes that, when we weigh the consequences of an act in order to

judge whether it is right or wrong, the interests of animals, primarily their interest in avoiding

suffering, ought to be given equal consideration to the similar interests of human beings. That is,

where the suffering of one individual, human or non-human, is equivalent to that of any other, there

is no moral reason to award more weight to either one of them.

Regan's philosophy, on the other hand, is not driven by the weighing of consequences. He believes

that animals are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life," who have moral rights for that reason, and that

moral rights ought not to be ignored.

Utilitarian approach: Peter Singer

Further information: Act utilitarianism, Animal language, Animal Liberation (book), and Preference utilitarianism

Equal consideration of interests

Singer is an act utilitarian, or more specifically a preference utilitarian, meaning that he judges the

rightness of an act by its consequences, and specifically by the extent to which it satisfies the

preferences of those affected, maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. (There are other forms of

utilitarianism, such as rule utilitarianism, which judges the rightness of an act according to the usual

consequences of whichever moral rule the act is an instance of.)

Singer's position is that there are no moral grounds for failing to give equal consideration to the

interests of human and non-humans. His principle of equality does not require equal or identical

treatment, but equal consideration of interests. A mouse and a man both have an interest in not being

kicked down the street, because both would suffer if so kicked, and there are no moral or logical

grounds, Singer argues, for failing to accord their interests in not being kicked equal weight.[81] Singer quotes the English philosopher Henry Sidgwick: "The good of any one individual is of no

more importance, from the point of view ... of the Universe, than the good of any other."[72] This reflects Jeremy Bentham's position: "[E]ach to count for one, and none for more than one."

Unlike the position of a man or a mouse, a stone would not suffer if kicked down the street, and

therefore has no interest in avoiding it. Interests, Singer argues, are predicated on the ability to

第 17 頁,共 26 頁Animal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/4/3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights

Page 9: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Moral absolutism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can

be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. "Absolutism"

is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, which is a belief that moral truths are

relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and to situational ethics, which holds that

the morality of an act depends on the context of the act.

Morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will or character of a God

or Gods, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently moral or

immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or

childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a

culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are

moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would

always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of

moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism—the view that the morality of an

action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity

and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of

Justice.

Moral absolutism and moral objectivism

The difference between these positions is subtle. Absolutism can be seen as a stronger form of

objectivism.

� "Moral absolutism: There is at least one principle that ought never to be violated." [1](p. 50)

� "Moral objectivism: There is a fact of the matter as to whether any given action is morally permissible or impermissible: a fact of the matter that does not depend solely on social custom

or individual acceptance (developed from [1] p. 50)."

Moral absolutism and religion

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding their system of morality as having been

Contents

� 1 Moral absolutism and moral objectivism � 2 Moral absolutism and religion

� 2.1 Graded absolutism � 3 Moral absolutism and free will � 4 See also � 5 Notes � 6 External links

第 1 頁,共 3 頁Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/2/29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_absolutism

Page 10: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Relativism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare moral relativism, aesthetic relativism, social constructionism, cultural relativism, and cognitive relativism.

Relativism is the idea that some element or aspect of experience or culture is relative to, i.e.,

dependent on, some other element or aspect. Some relativists claim that humans can understand and

evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context. The term often

refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is

always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.

One argument for relativism suggests that our own cognitive bias prevents us from observing

something objectively with our own senses, and notational bias will apply to whatever we can

allegedly measure without using our senses. In addition, we have a culture bias — shared with other

trusted observers — which we cannot eliminate. A counterargument to this states that subjective

certainty and concrete objects and causes form part of our everyday life, and that there is no great

value in discarding such useful ideas as isomorphism, objectivity and a final truth. (For more

information on the "usefulness" of ideas, see Pragmatism.)

Relativism does not say that all points of view are equally valid, in contrast to an absolutism which

argues there is but one true and correct view. In fact, relativism asserts that a particular instance Y

exists only in relation to and as a manifestation of a particular framework or viewpoint X, and that

no framework or standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. That is, a non-universal trait Y

(e.g., a particular practice, behavior, custom, convention, concept, belief, perception, ethics, truth, or

conceptual framework) is a dependent variable influenced by the independent variable X (e.g., a

particular language, culture, historical epoch, a priori cognitive architecture, scientific frameworks,

gender, ethnicity, status, individuality). Notably, this is not an argument that all instances of a certain

kind of framework (say, all languages) do not share certain basic universal commonalities (say,

grammatical structure and vocabulary) that essentially define that kind of framework and distinguish

it from other frameworks (for example, linguists have criteria that define language and distinguish it

from the mere communication of other animals). Moreover, relativism also presupposes

philosophical realism in that there are actual objective things in the world that are relative to other

real things. Moreover, relativism also assumes causality, as well as a problematic web of

relationships between various independent variables and the particular dependent variables that they

influence.

Contents

� 1 Forms of relativism and advocates of relativism � 1.1 Anthropological versus philosophical relativism � 1.2 Descriptive versus normative relativism � 1.3 Indian religions � 1.4 Sophists � 1.5 Bernard Crick � 1.6 Paul Feyerabend � 1.7 Thomas Kuhn � 1.8 George Lakoff and Mark Johnson � 1.9 Robert Nozick � 1.10 Joseph Margolis

第 1 頁,共 13 頁Relativism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/4/4http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

Page 11: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Moral agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moral agency is a person's capacity for making moral judgments and taking actions that comport

with morality.

Development and analysis

Most philosophers suggest that only rational beings, people who can reason and form self-interested

judgments, are capable of being moral agents. Some suggest that those with limited rationality (for

example, people who are mildly mentally disabled) also have some basic moral capabilities.

Determinists argue that all of our actions are the product of antecedent causes, and some believe this

is incompatible with free will and thus claim that we have no real control over our actions. Immanuel

Kant argued that whether or not our real self, the noumenal self, can choose, we have no choice but

to believe that we choose freely when we make a choice. This does not mean that we can control the

effects of our actions.

It is useful to compare the idea of moral agency with the legal doctrine of mens rea, which means

guilty mind, and states that a person is legally responsible for what he does as long as he should

know what he is doing, and his choices are deliberate. Some theorists discard any attempts to

evaluate mental states and, instead, adopt the doctrine of strict liability, whereby one is liable under

the law without regard to capacity, and that the only thing is to determine the degree of punishment,

if any. Moral determinists would most likely adopt a similar point of view.

Distinction between moral agency and eligibility for moral consideration

Many, perhaps even most philosophers, tend to view morality as a transaction among rational

parties, i.e., among moral agents. For this reason (e.g., Kant), they would exclude other animals from

moral consideration. Others state that one must draw a distinction between moral agency and being

subject to moral considerations, and that too much emphasis is placed on rationality as a requirement

for being part of the moral realm. Utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer

have argued that the key to inclusion in the moral community is not rationality — for if it were, we

might have to exclude some disabled people and infants, and might also have to distinguish between

the degrees of rationality of healthy adults — but that the real object of moral action is the avoidance

of suffering.

Sources

� Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation, 1975.

Contents

� 1 Development and analysis � 2 Distinction between moral agency and eligibility for moral consideration � 3 Sources � 4 See also

Wikipedia is sustained by people like you. Please donate today.

第 1 頁,共 2 頁Moral agency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/5/24http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_agency

Page 12: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

� This page was last modified on 28 February 2008, at 04:52. � All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free

Harm principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though it is also

articulated in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and in the work of Wilhelm von

Humboldt, to whom Mill is obliged and discusses at length. Mill argues that the sole purpose of law

should be to stop people from harming others. Conversely, Mill concludes that government should

not forcibly prevent people from engaging in victimless crimes such as gambling, drug usage, and

prostitution.

Mill defines the harm principle in Chapter One as follows:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely

the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the

means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public

opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or

collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.

That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a

civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either

physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear

because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the

opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of

anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which

merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own

body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

– John Stuart Mill, [1]

References

1. ^ John Stuart Mill. On Liberty (http://books.google.com/books?id=qCQCAAAAQAAJ&dq=on+liberty&pg=PP1&ots=mj9Q-etlOn&sig=axRYnLMf4-lmq_ltKaCmAtWgz8g&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=&q=On+Liberty&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA21,M1) 21-22. Oxford University. Retrieved on 2008-02-27.

See also

� Golden rule � Victimless crime � Wiccan Rede � Non-aggression principle

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle" Categories: Classical liberalism | Liberalism | Law stubs

Wikipedia is sustained by people like you. Please donate today.

第 1 頁,共 2 頁Harm principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/5/22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Page 13: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Deep ecology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind an

integral part of its environment. Deep ecology places greater value on non-human species,

ecosystems and processes in nature than established environmental and green movements. Deep

ecology has led to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as

originally developed is Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that, like

humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology

describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how"

and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life

as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological

science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is concerned with

resource management of the environment for human purposes.

Development

The phrase deep ecology was coined by the Norwegian philosopher Arne Næss in 1973,[1] and he helped give it a theoretical foundation. "For Arne Næss, ecological science, concerned with facts and

logic alone, cannot answer ethical questions about how we should live. For this we need ecological

wisdom. Deep ecology seeks to develop this by focusing on deep experience, deep questioning and

deep commitment. These constitute an interconnected system. Each gives rise to and supports the

other, whilst the entire system is, what Næss would call, an ecosophy: an evolving but consistent

philosophy of being, thinking and acting in the world, that embodies ecological wisdom and

harmony."[2] Næss rejected the idea that beings can be ranked according to their relative value. For example, judgments on whether an animal has an eternal soul, whether it uses reason or whether it

has consciousness (or indeed higher consciousness) have all been used to justify the ranking of the

human animal as superior to other animals. Næss states that "the right of all forms [of life] to live is a

universal right which cannot be quantified. No single species of living being has more of this

particular right to live and unfold than any other species." This metaphysical idea is elucidated in

Warwick Fox's claim that we and all other beings are "aspects of a single unfolding reality".[3]. As such Deep Ecology would support the view of Aldo Leopold in his book, "A Sand County Almanac"

that humans are ‘plain members of the biotic community’. They also would support Leopold's "Land

Ethic": "a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic

community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."

Deep ecology offers a philosophical basis for environmental advocacy which may, in turn, guide

human activity against perceived self-destruction. Deep ecology and environmentalism hold that the

science of ecology shows that ecosystems can absorb only limited change by humans or other

dissonant influences. Further, both hold that the actions of modern civilization threaten global

ecological well-being. Ecologists have described change and stability in ecological systems in

various ways, including homeostasis, dynamic equilibrium, and "flux of nature".[4] Regardless of which model is most accurate, environmentalists contend that massive human economic activity has

pushed the biosphere far from its "natural" state through reduction of biodiversity, climate change,

and other influences. As a consequence, civilization is causing mass extinction. Deep ecologists hope

to influence social and political change through their philosophy.

Contents

Help us provide free content to the world by donating today!

第 1 頁,共 9 頁Deep ecology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/5/18http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology

Page 14: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Genetic fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any

difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem

from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is

that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[1] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has

assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits. [2]

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, the term originates in Morris Cohen and Ernest

Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method.

Examples

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer, Third Edition p. 36:

There may be reasons why people may not wish to wear wedding rings, but it would be logically

inappropriate for a couple to reject the notion of exchanging wedding rings on the sole grounds of its

alleged sexist origins.

From With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies by S. Morris Engel, Fifth Edition,

pg. 196:

Notes

1. ^ Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) by T. Edward Damer, chapter II, subsection "The Relevance Criterion" (pg. 12)

2. ^ With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies (Fifth Edition) by S. Morris Engel, chapter V, subsection 1 (pg. 198)

External links

� Nizkor: Genetic fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html) � Fallacies of relevance: Genetic fallacy

(http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_genetic.htm) from atheism web � Forms of the genetic fallacy (http://www.friesian.com/genetic.htm) � Fallacy files: Genetic fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html)

“"You're not going to wear a wedding ring, are you? Don't you know that the wedding ring originally symbolized ankle chains worn by women to prevent them from running away from their husbands? I would not have thought you would be a party to such a sexist practice."

“America will never settle down; look at the rabble-rousers who founded it.

Wikipedia is sustained by people like you. Please donate today.

第 1 頁,共 2 頁Genetic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008/5/23http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

Page 15: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

EthicsTheoretical

Meta-ethicsNormative · Descriptive

ConsequentialismDeontologyVirtue ethics

Ethics of careGood and evil · Morality

Applied

Bioethics · Cyberethics · MedicalEngineering · EnvironmentalHuman rights · Animal rights

Legal · MediaBusiness · Marketing

Religion · War

Core issues

Justice · ValueRight · Duty · Virtue

Equality · Freedom · TrustFree will · ConsentMoral responsibility

Key thinkers

Confucius · MenciusSocrates

Aristotle · AquinasHume · Kant

Bentham · MillKierkegaard · NietzscheHare · Rawls · Nozick

Lists

List of ethics topicsList of ethicists

JusticeFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics,rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception ofjustice is one of the key features of society. However, views ofwhat constitutes justice vary from society to society and personto person.

Contents

Concept of justiceJustice concerns the proper ordering of things and personswithin a society. As a concept it has been subject tophilosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debatethroughout history. According to most theories of justice, it isoverwhelmingly important: John Rawls, for instance, claims that"Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is ofsystems of thought."[1]: Justice can be thought of as distinctfrom and more fundamental than benevolence, charity, mercy,generosity or compassion. Studies at UCLA in 2008 haveindicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brainand that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain thatresponds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion thatbeing treated fairly satisfies a basic need" [2]. Researchconducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involvingCapuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other cooperativeanimals also possess such a sense and that "inequalityaversion may not be uniquely human."[3] indicating that ideasof fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

Variations of justiceUtilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishmentis forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve futuresocial benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth ofan action is determined by its outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so thatpunishment is justly imposed and considered as morally-correct and fully deserved. Retributionalso means prosperity, prosperity results in crime prevention.

The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a military theory of retributive justice, which says thatreciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for

Wikipedia is sustained by people like you. Please donate today.

Justice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

1/9 2008/9/3 下午 11:18

Page 16: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

E-mail Print

September 03, 2008 UCLA Home Campus Directory

Search Newsroom

> Advanced Search

Home

All Stories

All Stories

Featured News

News Releases

Advisories

Images

Multimedia

Research

Health Sciences

Arts & Humanities

Student Affairs

Academics & Faculty

Campus News

Beijing Blog

Images

Multimedia

For the MediaContacts

News Releases

Advisories

Current Issues

About UCLA

Faculty Experts

Useful LinksCampus Calendar

Sports

UC Newsroom

RSS Feeds

UCLA Newsroom > Research > News Releases

Brain reacts to fairness as it does tomoney and chocolate, study showsBy Stuart Wolpert | 4/21/2008

The human brain responds to being treated fairly thesame way it responds to winning money and eatingchocolate, UCLA scientists report. Being treated fairlyturns on the brain's reward circuitry. "We may come to be wired to treat fairness as areward," said study co-author Matthew D. Lieberman,UCLA associate professor of psychology and afounder of social cognitive neuroscience. "Receiving a fair offer activates the same braincircuitry as when we eat craved food, win money orsee a beautiful face," said Golnaz Tabibnia, apostdoctoral scholar at the Semel Institute forNeuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA and lead

author of the study, which appears in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science. The activated brain regions include the ventral striatum and ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Humansshare the ventral striatum with rats, mice and monkeys, Tabibnia said. "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats," she said. This isconsistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need, she added. In the study, subjects were asked whether they would accept or decline another person's offerto divide money in a particular way. If they declined, neither they nor the person making the offerwould receive anything. Some of the offers were fair, such as receiving $5 out of $10 or $12, whileothers were unfair, such as receiving $5 out of $23. "In both cases, they were being offered the same amount of money, but in one case it's fair and inthe other case it's not," Tabibnia said. Almost half the time, people agreed to accept offers of just 20 to 30 percent of the total money, butwhen they accepted these unfair offers, most of the brain's reward circuitry was not activated; thosebrain regions were activated only for the fair offers. Less than 2 percent accepted offers of 10 percentof the total money. The study group consisted of 12 UCLA students, nine of them female, with an average age of 21.They had their brains scanned at UCLA's Ahmanson–Lovelace Brain Mapping Center. The subjects sawphotographs of various people who were said to be making the offers. "The brain's reward regions were more active when people were given a $5 offer out of $10 thanwhen they received a $5 offer out of $23," Lieberman said. "We call this finding the 'sunny side offairness' because it shows the rewarding experience of being treated fairly." A region of the brain called the insula, associated with disgust, is more active when people are giveninsulting offers, Lieberman said. When people accepted the insulting offers, they tended to turn on a region of the prefrontal cortexthat is associated with emotion regulation, while the insula was less active. "We're showing what happens in the brain when people swallow their pride," Tabibnia said. "Theregion of the brain most associated with self-control gets activated and the disgust-related regionshows less of a response." "If we can regulate our sense of insult, we can say yes to the insulting offer and accept the cash,"Lieberman said. UCLA is California's largest university, with an enrollment of nearly 37,000 undergraduate andgraduate students. The UCLA College of Letters and Science and the university's 11 professionalschools feature renowned faculty and offer more than 300 degree programs and majors. UCLA is anational and international leader in the breadth and quality of its academic, research, health care,cultural, continuing education and athletic programs. Four alumni and five faculty have been awardedthe Nobel Prize.

Media ContactsPhil Hampton,[email protected]

Stuart Wolpert,[email protected]

Related Images

Matthew D. Lieberman

Golnaz Tabibnia

Home All Stories Research Health Sciences Arts & Humanities Student Affairs Academics & Faculty Campus News Beijing Blog

Terms of Use University of California Office of Media Relations

© 2008 UC Regents

Media Contacts News Releases About UCLA

Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows ... http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-490...

1/1 2008/9/3 下午 11:15

Page 17: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Thoughts of Animal Rights

Contents

Introduction

Chap. Subjects Questions Pages

I General 1-10 1

II Animals and morality 11-25 9

III Practical issues 26-32 22

IV Arguments from biology 33-38 27

V Insects and plants 39-47 31

VI Farming 48-59 39

VII Leather, fur, and fashion 60-62 47

VIII Hunting and fishing 63-68 50

IX Animals for entertainment 69-74 56

X Companion animals 75-76 61

XI Laboratory animals 77-86 63

XII AR activism 87-91 78

XIII AR information and organisations 92-95 84

XIV Finally 96 101

Page 18: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

Introduction of Animal Rights FAQ, from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

i

Archive-name: ar-faq

Last-modified: 95/Apr/29

Version: ar_faq.txt 2.08a

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

Animal Rights Frequently Asked Questions

(AR FAQ) --------------------------------------------------------------

INTRODUCTION

Welcome to the Animal Rights Frequently Asked Questions text (AR FAQ). This FAQ is intended to

satisfy two basic goals: a) to provide a source of information and encouragement for people exploring

the issues involved in the animal rights movement, and b) to answer the common questions and

justifications offered up by AR opponents. It is unashamedly an advocacy vehicle for animal rights.

Opponents of AR are invited to create a FAQ that codifies their views; we do not attempt to do so here.

The FAQ restricts itself specifically to AR issues; nutrition and other vegetarian/veganism issues are

intentionally avoided because they are already well covered in the existing vegetarianism and veganism

FAQs maintained by Michael Traub. To obtain these FAQs, contact Michael at his e-mail address

given below.

The FAQ was created through a collaboration of authors. The answers have been attributed via

initials, as follows:

TA Ted Altar [email protected]

JE Jonathan Esterhazy [email protected]

DG Donald Graft [email protected]

JEH John Harrington [email protected]

DVH Dietrich Von Haugwitz [email protected]

LJ Leor Jacobi [email protected]

LK Larry Kaiser [email protected]

JK Jeremy Keens [email protected]

BL Brian Luke [email protected]

PM Peggy Madison [email protected]

BRO Brian Owen [email protected]

JSD Janine Stanley-Dunham [email protected]

JLS Jennifer Stephens [email protected]

MT Michael Traub [email protected]

AECW Allen ECW [email protected]

The current FAQ maintainer is Donald Graft (see address above). Ideas and criticisms are actively

solicited and will be very gratefully received. The material included here is released to the public

domain. We request that it be distributed without alteration to respect the author attributions.

This FAQ contains 96 questions. If they are not all present, then a mailer has probably truncated it.

Contact the FAQ maintainer for a set of split-up files.

DG

Page 19: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

1

I. GENERAL

#1 What is all this Animal Rights (AR) stuff and why should it

concern me?

The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live

according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation. This goes further than just

saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It says

animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this

right. The withholding of this right from the nonhuman animals based on their species

membership is referred to as "speciesism".

Animal rights activists try to extend the human circle of respect and compassion beyond our

species to include other animals, who are also capable of feeling pain, fear, hunger, thirst, loneliness,

and kinship. When we try to do this, many of us come to the conclusion that we can no longer support

factory farming, vivisection, and the exploitation of animals for entertainment. At the same time, there

are still areas of debate among animal rights supporters, for example, whether ANY research that

harms animals is ever justified, where the line should be drawn for enfranchising species with rights,

on what occasions civil disobedience may be appropriate, etc. However, these areas of potential

disagreement do not negate the abiding principles that join us: compassion and concern for the pain and

suffering of nonhumans.

One main goal of this FAQ (frequently questions and answers) is to address the common

justifications that arise when we become aware of how systematically our society abuses and exploits

animals. Such "justifications" help remove the burden from our consciences, but this FAQ attempts to

show that they do not excuse the harm we cause other animals. Beyond the scope of this FAQ, more

detailed arguments can be found in three classics of the AR literature.

The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan (ISBN 0-520-05460-1)

In Defense of Animals, Peter Singer (ISBN 0-06-097044-8)

Animal Liberation, Peter Singer (ISBN 0-380-71333-0, 2nd Ed.)

While appreciating the important contributions of Regan and Singer, many animal rights activists

emphasize the role of empathetic caring as the actual and most appropriate fuel for the animal rights

movement in contradistinction對比 to Singer's and Regan's philosophical rationales. To the reader

who says "Why should I care?", we can point out the following reasons:

One cares about minimizing suffering.

One cares about promoting compassion in human affairs.

One is concerned about improving the health of humanity.

Page 20: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

2

One is concerned about human starvation and malnutrition.

One wants to prevent the radical disruption of our planet's ecosystem.

One wants to preserve animal species.

One wants to preserve wilderness.

The connections between these issues and the AR agenda may not be obvious. Please read on as we

attempt to clarify this.

DG

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could

have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

Jeremy Bentham (philosopher)

Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or a man. The

idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage...

Sri Aurobindo (poet and philosopher)

Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all

other living beings, we are still savages.

Thomas Edison (inventor)

The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the

murder of men.

Leonardo Da Vinci (artist and scientist)

see also questions 2-3, 26, 87-91

#2 Is the Animal Rights movement different from the Animal

Welfare movement? The Animal Liberation movement?

The Animal Welfare movement acknowledges the suffering of nonhumans and attempts to reduce

that suffering through "humane" treatment, but it does not have as a goal elimination of the use and

exploitation of animals. The Animal Rights movement goes significantly further by rejecting the

exploitation of animals and according them rights in that regard. A person committed to animal welfare

might be concerned that cows get enough space, proper food, etc., but would not necessarily have any

qualms about killing and eating cows, so long as the rearing and slaughter are "humane". The Animal

Welfare movement is represented by such organizations as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to

Animals, and the Humane Society.

Page 21: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

3

Having said this, it should be realized that some hold a broader interpretation of the AR movement.

They would argue that the AW groups do, in fact, support rights for animals (e.g., a dog has the right

not to be kicked). Under this interpretation, AR is viewed as a broad umbrella covering the AW and

strict AR groups. This interpretation has the advantage of moving AR closer to the mainstream.

Nevertheless, there is a valid distinction between the AW and AR groups, as described in the first

paragraph.

Animal Liberation (AL) is, for many people, a synonym for Animal Rights (but see below). Some

people prefer the term "liberation" because it brings to mind images of other successful liberation

movements, such as the movement for liberation of slaves and liberation of women, whereas the term

"rights" often encounters resistance when an attempt is made to apply it to nonhumans. The phrase

"Animal Liberation" became popular with the publication of Peter Singer's classic book of the same

name. This use of the term liberation should be distinguished from the literal meaning discussed in

question #88, i.e., an Animal Liberationist is not necessarily one who engages in forceful civil

disobedience or unlawful actions.

Finally, intellectual honesty compels us to acknowledge that the account given here is rendered in

broad strokes (but is at least approximately correct), and purposely avoids describing ongoing debate

about the meaning of the terms "Animal Rights", "Animal Liberation", and "Animal Welfare", debate

about the history of these movements, and debate about the actual positions of the prominent thinkers.

To depict the flavor of such debates, the following text describes one coherent position. Naturally, it

will be attacked from all sides!

Some might suggest that a subtle distinction can be made between the Animal Liberation and

Animal Rights movements. The Animal Rights movement, at least as propounded by Regan and his

adherents, is said to require total abolition of such practices as experimentation on animals. The Animal

Liberation movement, as propounded by Singer and his adherents, is said to reject the absolutist view

and assert that in some cases, such experimentation can be morally defensible. Because such cases

could also justify some experiments on humans, however, it is not clear that the distinction described

reflects a difference between the liberation and rights views, so much as it does a broader difference of

ethical theory, i.e., absolutism versus utilitarianism. DG

Historically, animal welfare groups have attempted to improve the lot of animals in society. They

worked against the popular Western concept of animals as lacking souls and not being at all worthy of

any ethical consideration. The animal rights movement set itself up as an abolitionist alternative to the

reform-minded animal welfarists. As the animal rights movement has become larger and more

influential, the animal exploiters have finally been forced to respond to it. Perhaps inspired by the

efforts of Tom Regan to distinguish AR from AW, industry groups intent on maintaining the status quo

(the official site) have embraced the term "animal welfare". Pro-vivisection, hunting, trapping,

agribusiness, and animal entertainment groups now refer to themselves as "animal welfare" supporters.

Several umbrella groups whose goal is to defend these practices have also arisen.

Page 22: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

4

This classic case of public-relations doublespeak acknowledges the issue of cruelty to animals in

name only, while allowing for the continued use and abuse of animals. The propaganda effect is to

stigmatize animal rights supporters as being extreme while attempting to portray themselves as the

reasonable moderates. Nowadays, the cause of "animal welfare" is invoked by the animal industry at

least as often as it is used by animal protection groups. LJ

SEE ALSO: #1, #3, #87-#88

#3 What exactly are rights and what rights can we give animals ?

Despite arguably being the foundation of the Western liberal tradition, the concept of "rights" has

been a source of controversy and confusion in the debate over AR. A common objection to the notion

that animals have rights involves questioning the origin of those rights. One such argument might

proceed as follows:

Where do these rights come from? Are you in special communication with God, and he has told

you that animals have rights? Have the rights been granted by law? Aren't rights something that

humans must grant?

It is true that the concept of "rights" needs to be carefully explicated. It is also true that the concept

of "natural rights" is fraught with philosophical difficulties. Complicating things further is the

confusion between legal rights and moral rights.

One attempt to avoid this objection is to accept it, but argue that if it is not an obstacle for thinking

of humans as having rights, then it should not be an obstacle for thinking of animals as having rights.

Henry Salt wrote:

Have the lower animals "rights?" Undoubtedly--if men have. That is the point I wish to make

evident in this opening chapter... The fitness of this nomenclature is disputed, but the existence of some

real principle of the kind can hardly be called in question; so that the controversy concerning "rights" is

little else than an academic battle over words, which leads to no practical conclusion. I shall assume,

therefore, that men are possessed of "rights," in the sense of Herbert Spencer's definition; and if any of

my readers object to this qualified use of the term, I can only say that I shall be perfectly willing to

change the word as soon as a more appropriate one is forthcoming. The immediate question that claims

our attention is this--if men have rights, have animals their rights also?

Satisfying though this argument may be, it still leaves us unable to respond to the sceptic who

disavows the notion of rights even for humans. Fortunately, however, there is a straightforward

interpretation of "rights" that is plausible and allows us to avoid the controversial rights rhetoric and

Page 23: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

5

underpinnings. It is the notion that a "right" is the flip side of a moral imperative. If, ethically, we must

refrain from an act performed on a being, then that being can be said to have a "right" that the act not

be performed. For example, if our ethics tells us that we must not kill another, then the other has a right

not to be killed by us. This interpretation of rights is, in fact, an intuitive one that people both

understand and readily endorse. (Of course, rights so interpreted can be codified as legal rights through

appropriate legislation.)

It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking of animals as having rights,

that does not imply or require that they possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans

possess all the rights that animals possess. Consider the human right to vote. (On the view taken here,

this would derive from an ethical imperative to give humans influence over actions that influence their

lives.) Since animals lack the capacity to rationally consider actions and their implications, and to

understand the concept of democracy and voting, they lack the capacity to vote. There is, therefore, no

ethical imperative to allow them to do so, and thus they do not possess the right to vote.

Similarly, some fowls have a strong biological need to extend and flap their wings; right-thinking

people feel an ethical imperative to make it possible for them to do so. Thus, it can be said that fowl

have the right to flap their wings. Obviously, such a right need not be extended to humans.

The rights that animals and humans possess, then, are determined by their interests and capacities.

Animals have an interest in living, avoiding pain, and even in pursuing happiness (as do humans). As a

result of the ethical imperatives, they have rights to these things (as do humans). They can exercise

these rights by living their lives free of exploitation and abuse at the hands of humans. DG

SEE ALSO: #1-#2

#4 Isn't AR hypocritical, e.g., because you don't give rights to

insects or plants?

The general hypocrisy argument appears in many forms. A typical form is as follows:

"It is hypocritical to assert rights for a cow but not for a plant; therefore, cows cannot have rights."

Arguments of this type are frequently used against AR. Not much analysis is required to see that

they carry little weight. First, one can assert a hypothesis A that would carry as a corollary hypothesis

B. If one then fails to assert B, one is hypocritical, but this does not necessarily make A false. Certainly,

to assert A and not B would call into question one's credibility, but it entails nothing about the validity

of A. Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is often unwarranted. In the above example, there are

grounds for distinguishing between cows and plants (plants do not have a central nervous system), so

the charge of hypocrisy is unjustified. One may disagree with the criteria, but assertion of such criteria

nullifies the charge of hypocrisy.

Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be reduced in most cases to simple speciesism. For example,

the quote above can be recast as: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a human but not for a plant;

therefore, humans cannot have rights."

Page 24: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

6

To escape from this reductio ad absurdum of the first quote, one must produce a crucial relevant

difference between cows and humans, in other words, one must justify the speciesist assignment of

rights to humans but not to cows. (In question #24, we apply a similar reduction to the charge of

hypocrisy related to abortion. For questions dealing specifically with insects and plants, refer to

questions #39 through #46.)

Finally, we must ask ourselves who the real hypocrites are. The following quotation from Michael

W. Fox describes the grossly hypocritical treatment of exploited versus companion animals. DG

Farm animals can be kept five to a cage two feet square, tied up constantly by a two-foot-long

tether, castrated without anesthesia, or branded with a hot iron. A pet owner would be no less than

prosecuted for treating a companion animal in such a manner; an American president was, in fact,

morally censured merely for pulling the ears of his two beagles. Michael W. Fox (Vice President of

HSUS) SEE ALSO: #24, #39-#46

#5 What right do AR people have to impose their beliefs on others?

There is a not-so-subtle distinction between imposition of one's views and advertising them. AR

supporters are certainly not imposing their views in the sense that, say, the Spanish Inquisition imposed

its views, or the Church imposed its views on Galileo. We do, however, feel a moral duty to present our

case to the public, and often to our friends and acquaintances. There is ample precedent for this:

protests against slavery, protests against the Vietnam War, condemnation of racism, etc. One might

point out that the gravest imposition is that of the exploiter of animals upon his innocent and

defenseless victims. DG

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.

George Orwell (author)

I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell.

Harry S. Truman (33rd U.S. President)

SEE ALSO: #11, #87-#91

#6 Isn't AR just another facet of political correctness?

If only that were true! The term "politically correct" generally refers to a view that is in

synchronization with the societal mainstream but which some might be inclined to disagree with. For

example, some people might be inclined to dismiss equal treatment for the races as mere "political

correctness". The AR agenda is, currently, far from being a mainstream idea.

Also, it is ridiculous to suppose that a view's validity can be overturned simply by attaching the

label "politically correct" or "politically incorrect". DG

#7 Isn't AR just another religion?

Page 25: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

7

No. The dictionary defines "religion" as the appeal to a supernatural power. (An alternate

definition refers to devotion to a cause; that is a virtue that the AR movement would be happy to

avow.)

People who support Animal Rights come from many different religions and many different

philosophies. What they share is a belief in the importance of showing compassion for other

individuals, whether human or nonhuman. LK

#8 Doesn't it demean (貶抑貶抑貶抑貶抑) humans to give rights to animals?

A tongue-in-cheek, though valid, answer to this question is given by David Cowles-Hamar:

"Humans are animals, so animal rights are human rights!"

In a more serious vein, we can observe that giving rights to women and black people does not

demean white males. By analogy, then, giving rights to nonhumans does not demean humans. If

anything, by being morally consistent, and widening the circle of compassion to deserving nonhumans,

we ennoble humans. (Refer to question #26 for other relevant arguments.) DG

The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.

Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

It is man's sympathy with all creatures that first makes him truly a man.

Albert Schweitzer (statesman, Nobel 1952)

For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he

who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.

Pythagoras (mathematician)

SEE ALSO: #26

#9 Weren't Hitler and Goebbels in favor of animal rights?

This argument is absurd and almost unworthy of serious consideration. The questioner implies

that since Hitler and Goebbels allegedly held views supportive of animal rights (e.g., Hitler was a

vegetarian for some time), the animal rights viewpoint must be wrong or dubious.

The problem for this argument is simple: bad people and good people can both believe things

correctly. Or put in another way, just because a person holds one bad belief (e.g., Nazism), that doesn't

make all his beliefs wrong. A few examples suffice to illustrate this. The Nazis undertook smoking

reduction campaigns. Is it therefore dubious to discourage smoking? Early Americans withheld respect

Page 26: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

I --- General , questions #1-10 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

8

and liberty for black people. Does that mean that they were wrong in giving respect and liberty to

others?

Technically, this argument is an "ignoratio elenchus fallacy", arguing from irrelevance.

Finally, many scholars are doubtful that Hitler and Goebbels supported AR in any meaningful way.

DG

SEE ALSO: #54

#10 Do you really believe that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy"?

Taken alone and literally, this notion is absurd. However, this quote has been shamelessly

removed from its original context and misrepresented by AR opponents. The original context of the

quote is given below. Viewed within its context, it is clear that the quote is neither remarkable nor

absurd. DG

When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst,

a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Ingrid Newkirk (AR activist)

SEE ALSO: #47

Page 27: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

9

II. ANIMALS AND MORALITY

#11 There is no correct or incorrect in morals; you have yours and

I have mine, right?

This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became fashionable at the turn of the

century, as reports on the customs of societies alien to those found in Europe became available. It fell

out of fashion, after the Second World War, although it is occasionally revived. Ethical propositions,

we are asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot carry

absolute weight.

The main problem with this position is that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable

ethical practices, such as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's ideas on racial

purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating the Final Solution?

In addition to the inability to denounce practices of other societies, the relativists are unable to

counter the arguments of even those whose society they share. They cannot berate someone who

proposes to raise and kill infants for industrial pet food consumption, for example, if that person sees it

as morally sound. Indeed, they cannot articulate the concept of societal moral progress, since they lack

a basis for judging progress. There is no point in turning to the relativists for advice on ethical issues

such as euthanasia, infanticide, or the use of fetuses in research.

Faced with such arguments, ethical relativists sometimes argue that ethical truth is based on the

beliefs of a society; ethical truth is seen as nothing more than a reflection of societal customs and habits.

Butchering animals is acceptable in the West, they would say, because the majority of people think it

so.

They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to accept that chattel slavery was right before the US

Civil War and wrong thereafter? Can all ethical decisions be decided by conducting opinion polls?

It is true that different societies have different practices that might be seen as ethical by one and

unethical by the other. However, these differences result from differing circumstances. For example, in

a society where mere survival is key, the diversion of limited food to an infant could detract

significantly from the well-being of the existing family members that contribute to food gathering.

Given that, infanticide may be the ethically correct course.

The conclusion is that there is such a thing as ethical truth (otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and

devoid of proscriptive force). The continuity of thought, then, between those who reject the evils of

slavery, racial discrimination, and gender bias, and those who denounce the evils of speciesism

becomes striking. AECW

Many AR advocates (including myself) believe that morality is relative. We believe that AR is much

more cogently argued when it is argued from the standpoint of your opponent's morality, not some

Page 28: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

10

mythical, hard-to-define universal morality. In arguing against moral absolutism, there is a very simple

objection: Where does this absolute morality come from? Moral absolutism is an argument from

authority, a tautology. If there were such a thing as "ethical truth", then there must be a way of

determining it, and obviously there isn't. In the absence of a known proof of "ethical truth", I don't

know how AECW can conclude it exists.

An example of the method of leveraging a person's morality is to ask the person why he has

compassion for human beings. Almost always he will agree that his compassion does not stem from the

fact that: 1) humans use language, 2) humans compose symphonies, 3) humans can plan in the far

future, 4) humans have a written, technological culture, etc. Instead, he will agree that it stems from the

fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. It is then quite easy to show that nonhuman

animals can also suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. The person's arbitrary inconsistency in not according

moral status to nonhumans then stands out starkly. JEH

There is a middle ground between the positions of AECW and JEH. One can assert that just as

mathematics is necessarily built upon a set of unprovable axioms, so is a system of ethics. At the

foundation of a system of ethics are moral axioms, such as "unnecessary pain is wrong". Given the set

of axioms, methods of reasoning (such as deduction and induction), and empirical facts, it is possible to

derive ethical hypotheses. It is in this sense that an ethical statement can be said to be true. Of course,

one can disagree about the axioms, and certainly such disagreement renders ethics "relative", but the

concept of ethical truth is not meaningless.

Fortunately, the most fundamental ethical axioms seem to be nearly universally accepted, usually

because they are necessary for societies to function. Where differences exist, they can be elucidated

and discussed, in a style similar to the "leveraging" described by JEH. DG

To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals

than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the

man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a

shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be thought ridiculous. And that is the

unpardonable crime. Romain Rolland (author, Nobel 1915)

SEE ALSO: #5

#12 The animals are raised to be eaten; so what is wrong with that?

This question has always seemed to me to be a fancy version of "But we want to do these things,

so what is wrong with that?" The idea that an act, by virtue of an intention of ours, can be exonerated

morally is totally illogical.

But worse than that, however, is the fact that such a belief is a dangerous position to take because

it can enable one to justify some practices that are universally condemned. To see how this is so,

consider the following restatement of the basis of the question: "Suffering can be excused so long as

we breed them for the purpose." Now, cannot an analogous argument be used to defend a group of

Page 29: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

11

slave holders who breed and enslave humans and justify it by saying "but they're bred to be our

workers"? Could not the Nazis defend their murder of the Jews by saying "but we rounded them up to

be killed"? DG

Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the eternal essence

that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the

sun! Arthur Schopenhauer (philosopher)

SEE ALSO: #13, #61

#13 But isn't it true that the animals wouldn't exist if we didn't

raise them for slaughter?

There are two ways to interpret this question. First, the questioner may be referring to "the

animals" as a species, in which case the argument might be more accurately phrased as follows:

"The ecological niche of cows is to be farmed; they get continued

survival in this niche in return for our using them."

Second, the questioner may be referring to "the animals" as individuals, in which case the

phrasing might be:

"The individual cows that we raise to eat would not have had a life had we not done so."

We deal first with the species interpretation and then with the individuals interpretation. The

questioner's argument applies presumably to all species of animals; to make things more concrete, we

will take cows as an example in the following text.

It is incorrect to assert that cows could continue to exist only if we farm them for human

consumption. First, today in many parts of India and elsewhere, humans and cows are engaged in a

reciprocal and reverential relationship. It is only in recent human history that this relationship has been

corrupted into the one-sided exploitation that we see today. There IS a niche for cows between

slaughter/consumption and extinction. (The interested reader may find the book Beyond Beef by

Jeremy Rifkin quite enlightening on this subject.)

Second, several organizations have programs for saving animals from extinction. There is no

reason to suppose that cows would not qualify.

The species argument is also flawed because, in fact, our intensive farming of cattle results in

habitat destruction and the loss of other species. For example, clearing of rain forests for pasture has

led to the extinction of countless species. Cattle farming is destroying habitats on six continents. Why

is the questioner so concerned about the cow species while being unconcerned about these other

species? Could it have anything to do with the fact that he wants to continue to eat the cows?

Page 30: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

12

Finally, a strong case can be made against the species argument from ethical theory. Arguments

similar to the questioner's could be developed that would ask us to accept practices that are universally

condemned. For example, consider a society that breeds a special race of humans for use as slaves.

They argue that the race would not exist if they did not breed them for use as slaves. Does the reader

accept this justification?

Now we move on to the individuals interpretation of the question. One attempt to refute the

argument is to answer as follows:

"It is better not to be born than to be born into a life of

misery and early death."

To many, this is sufficient. However, one could argue that the fact that the life is miserable before

death is not necessary. Suppose that the cows are treated well before being killed painlessly and eaten.

Is it not true that the individual cows would not have enjoyed their short life had we not raised them for

consumption? Furthermore, what if we compensate the taking of the life by bringing a new life into

being?

Peter Singer originally believed that this argument was absurd because there are no cow souls

waiting around to be born. Many people accept this view and consider it sufficient, but Singer now

rejects it because he accepts that to bring a being to a pleasant life does confer a benefit on that being.

(There is extensive discussion of this issue in the second edition of Animal Liberation.) How then are

we to proceed?

The key is that the AR movement asserts that humans and nonhumans have a right to not be killed

by humans. The ethical problem can be seen clearly by applying the argument to humans. Consider the

case of a couple that gives birth to an infant and eats it at the age of nine months, just when their next

infant is born. A 9-month old baby has no more rational knowledge of its situation or future plans than

does a cow, so there is no reason to distinguish the two cases. Yet, certainly, we would condemn the

couple. We condemn them because the infant is an individual to whom we confer the right not to be

killed. Why is this right not accorded to the cow? I think the answer is that the questioner wants to eat

it. DG

It were much better that a sentient being should never have existed,

than that it should have existed only to endure unmitigated misery.

Percy Bysshe Shelley (poet)

SEE ALSO: #12

#14 Don't the animals we use have a happier life since they are fed

and protected?

Page 31: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

13

The questioner makes two assumptions here. First, that happiness or contentment accrues from

being fed and protected, and second, that the animals are, in fact, fed and protected. Both of these

premises can be questioned.

Certainly the animals are fed; after all, they must be fattened for consumption. It is very difficult

to see any way that, say, factory-farmed chickens are "protected". They are not protected from

mutilation, because they are painfully debeaked. They are not protected from psychological distress,

because they are crowded together in unnatural conditions. And finally, they are not protected from

predation, because they are slaughtered and eaten by humans.

We can also question the notion that happiness accrues from feeding and protection alone. The

Roman galley slaves were fed and protected from the elements; nevertheless, they would presumably

trade their condition for one of greater uncertainty to obtain happiness. The same can be said of the

slaves of earlier America.

Finally, an ethical argument is relevant here. Consider again the couple of question #13. They will

feed and protect their infant up to the point at which they consume it. We would not accept this as a

justification. Why should we accept it for the chicken? DG

SEE ALSO: #13

#15 Is the use of service animals and beasts of burden considered

exploitative?

A simple approach to this question might be to suggest that we all must work for a living and it

should be no different for animals. The problem is that we want to look at the animals as like children,

i.e., worthy of the same protections and rights, and, like them, incapable of being morally responsible.

But we don't force children into labor! One can make a distinction, however, that goes something like

this: The animals are permanently in their diminished state (i.e., incapable of voluntarily assenting to

work); children are not. We do not impose a choice of work for children because they need the time to

develop into their full adult and moral selves. With the animals, we choose for them a role that allows

them to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them by eating them, etc. If this is done with true

concern that their work conditions are appropriate and not of a sweat-shop nature, that they get enough

rest and leisure time, etc., this would constitute a form of stewardship that is acceptable and beneficial

to both sides, and one that is not at odds with AR philosophy. DG

#16 Doesn't the Bible give Humanity dominion over the animals?

It is true that the Bible contains a passage that confers on humanity dominion over the animals. The

import of this fact derives from the assumption that the Bible is the word of God, and that God is the

ultimate moral authority. Leaving aside for the moment consideration of the meaning of dominion, we

can take issue with the idea of seeking moral authority from the Bible. First, there are serious problems

Page 32: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

14

with the interpretation of Biblical passages, with many verses contradicting one another, and with

many scholars differing dramatically over the meaning of given verses.

Second, there are many claims to God-hood among the diverse cultures of this world; some of

these Gods implore us to respect all life and to not kill unnecessarily. Whose God are we to take as the

ultimate moral authority?

Finally, as Tom Regan observes, many people do not believe in a God and so appeals to His moral

authority are empty for such people. For such people, the validity of judgments of the supposed God

must be cross-checked with other methods of determining reasonableness. What are the cross-checks

for the Biblical assertions?

These remarks apply equally to other assertions of Biblical approval of human practices (such as

the consumption of animals).

Even if we accept that the God of the Bible is a moral authority, we can point out that "dominion"

is a vague term, meaning "stewardship" or "control over". It is quite easy to argue that appropriate

stewardship or control consists of respecting the life of animals and their right to live according to their

own nature. The jump from dominion to approval of our brutal exploitation of animals is not contained

in the cited Biblical passage, either explicitly or implicitly. DG

#17 Morals are a purely human construction (animals don't

understand morals); doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our

morality to animals?

The fallaciousness of this argument can be easily demonstrated by making a simple substitution:

Infants and young children don't understand morals, doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our

morality to them? Of course not. We refrain from harming infants and children for the same reasons

that we do so for adults. That they are incapable of conceptualizing a system of morals and its benefits

is irrelevant.

The relevant distinction is formalized in the concept of "moral agents" versus "moral patients". A

moral agent is an individual possessing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring moral principles to

bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that

way. By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts. The

paradigmatic moral agent is the normal adult human being.

Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held

accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are

proper objects of consideration for moral agents. Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient

or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instances of moral patienthood.

Given that nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral

consideration, and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we

accord to ourselves. DG SEE ALSO: #19, #23, #36

Page 33: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

15

#18 If AR people are so worried about killing, why don't they

become fruitarians?

Killing, per se, is not the central concern of AR philosophy, which is concerned with the

avoidance of unnecessary pain and suffering. Thus, because plants neither feel pain nor suffer, AR

philosophy does not mandate fruitarianism (a diet in which only fruits are eaten because they can be

harvested without killing the plant from which they issue). DG

SEE ALSO: #42-#46

#19 Animals don't care about us; why should we care about them?

The questioner's position--that, in essence, we should give rights only to those able to respect

ours--is known as the reciprocity argument. It is unconvincing both as an account of the way our

society works and as a prescription for the way it should work.

Its descriptive power is undermined by the simple observation that we give rights to a large

number of individuals who cannot respect ours. These include some elderly people, some people

suffering from degenerative diseases, some people suffering from irreversible brain damage, the

severely retarded, infants, and young children. An institution that, for example, routinely sacrificed

such individuals to test a new fertilizer would certainly be considered to be grievously violating their

rights.

The original statement fares no better as an ethical prescription. Future generations are unable to

reciprocate our concern, for example, so there would be no ethical harm done, under such a view, in

dismissing concerns for environmental damage that adversely impacts future generations.

The key failing of the questioner's position lies in the failure to properly distinguish between the

following capacities:

The capacity to understand and respect others' rights (moral agency).

The capacity to benefit from rights (moral patienthood).

An individual can be a beneficiary of rights without being a moral agent. Under this view, one

justifies a difference of treatments of two individuals (human or nonhuman) with an objective

difference that is RELEVANT to the difference of treatment. For example, if we wished to exclude a

person from an academic course of study, we could not cite the fact that they have freckles. We could

cite the fact that they lack certain academic prerequisites. The former is irrelevant; the latter is relevant.

Similarly, when considering the right to be free of pain and suffering, moral agency is irrelevant; moral

patienthood IS relevant. AECW

Page 34: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

16

The assumption that animals don't care about us can also be questioned. Companion animals have

been known to summon aid when their owners are in trouble. They have been known to offer comfort

when their owners are distressed. They show grief when their human companions die. DG

SEE ALSO: #17, #23, #36

#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do

you save first?

The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical decisions we face. I might decide

to save my child before I saved yours, but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to

experiment on your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an emergency

situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to act in ways that protect the rights of

both dogs and babies. LK

Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to which I am emotionally more

attached. Most likely it would be the child. Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before

saving the baby of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about any ethical

principles. DVH

#21 What if I made use of an animal that was already dead?

There are two ways to interpret this question. First, the questioner might really be making the

excuse "but I didn't kill the animal", or second, he could be asking about the morality of using an

animal that has died naturally (or due to a cause unassociated with the demand for animal products,

such as a road kill). For the first interpretation, we must reject the excuse. The killing of animals for

meat, for example, is done at the request (through market demand), and with the financial support

(through payment), of the end consumers. Their complicity is inescapable. Society does not excuse the

receiver of stolen goods because he "didn't do the burglary".

For the second interpretation, the use of naturally killed animals, there seems to be no moral

difficulty involved. Many would, for esthetic reasons, still not use animal products thus obtained.

(Would you use the bodies of departed humans?) Certainly, natural kills cannot satisfy the great

demand for animal products that exists today; non-animal and synthetic sources are required.

Other people may avoid use of naturally killed animal products because they feel that it might

encourage a demand in others for animal products, a demand that might not be so innocently satisfied.

DG

This can be viewed as a question of respect for the dead. We feel innate revulsion at the idea of

grave desecration for this reason. Naturally killed animals should, at the very least, be left alone rather

than recycled as part of an industrial process. This was commonly practiced in the past, e.g., Egyptians

used to mummify their cats. AECW

Page 35: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

17

You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is

concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (author)

#22 Where should one draw the line: animals, insects, bacteria?

AR philosophy asserts that rights are to be accorded to creatures that have the capacity to

experience pain, to suffer, and to be a "subject of a life". Such a capacity is definitely not found in

bacteria. It is definitely found in mammals. There is debate about such animals as mollusks and

arthropods (including insects). One should decide, based upon available evidence and one's own

conscience, where the line should be drawn to adhere to the principle of AR described in the first

sentence.

Questions #39 and #43 discuss some of the evidence relevant to drawing the line. DG

SEE ALSO: #39, #43

#23 If the killing is wrong, shouldn't you stop predators from

killing other animals?

This is one of the more interesting arguments against animal rights. We prevent human moral patients

from harming others, e.g., we prevent children from hitting each other, so why shouldn't we do the

same for nonhuman moral patients (refer to question #17 for a definition of moral patienthood)? If

anything, the duty to do so might be considered more serious because predation results in a serious

harm--death.

A first answer entails pointing out that predators must kill to survive; to stop them from killing is,

in effect, to kill them.

Of course, we could argue that intervening on a massive scale to prevent predation is totally

impractical or impossible, but that is not morally persuasive.

Suppose we accept that we should stop a cat from killing a bird. Then we realize that the bird is

the killer of many snakes. Should we now reason that, in fact, we shouldn't stop the cat? The point is

that humans lack the broad vision to make all these calculations and determinations.

The real answer is that intervening to stop predation would destroy the ecosystems upon which the

biosphere depends, harming all of life on earth. Over millions of years, the biosphere has evolved

complex ecosystems that depend upon predation for their continued functioning and stability. Massive

intervention by humans to stop predation would inflict serious and incalculable harm on these

ecosystems, with devastating results for all life.

Even if we accept that we should prevent predation (and we don't accept that), it does not follow

that, because we do not, we are therefore justified in exploiting moral patients ourselves. When we fail

to stop widespread slaughter of human beings in foreign countries, it does not follow that we, ourselves,

Page 36: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

18

believe it appropriate to participate in such slaughter. Similarly, our failure to prevent predation cannot

be taken as justification of our exploitation of animals. DG

SEE ALSO: #17, #19, #36, #64

#24 Is the AR movement against abortion? If not, isn't that

hypocritical?

Attempts are frequently made to tie Animal Rights exponents to one side or the other of the

abortion debate. Such attempts are misguided. Claims that adherence to the ethics of AR determine

one's position on embryo rights are plainly counter-intuitive, unless one is also prepared to argue that

being a defender of human rights compels one to a particular position on abortion. Is it the case that

one cannot consistently despise torture, serfdom, and other barbaric practices without coming to a

particular conclusion on abortion?

AR defenders demand that the rights currently held by humans be extended to all creatures similar

in morally relevant ways. For example, since society does not accept that mature, sentient human moral

patients (refer to question #17 for a brief description of the distinction between patients and agents)

may be routinely annihilated in the name of science, it logically follows that comparable nonhuman

animals should be given the same protection. On the other hand, abortion is still a moot point. It is

plainly illogical to expect the AR movement to reflect anything other than the full spectrum of opinion

found in society at large on the abortion issue.

Fundamentally, AR philosophers are content with submitting sufficient conditions for the

attribution of rights to individuals, conditions that explain the noncontroversial protections afforded

today to humans. They neither encourage nor discourage attempts to widen the circle of protection to

fetuses. AECW

There is a range of views among AR supporters on the issue of abortion versus animal rights.

Many people believe, as does AECW, that the issues of abortion and AR are unrelated, and that the

question is irrelevant to the validity of AR. Others, such as myself, feel that abortion certainly is

relevant to AR. After all, the granting of rights to animals (and humans) is based on their capacity to

suffer and to be a subject-of-a-life. It seems clear that late-term fetuses can suffer from the abortion

procedure. Certain physiological responses, such as elevated heart rates, and the existence of a

functioning nervous system support this view.

It also can be argued that the fetus is on a course to become a subject-of-a-life, and that by

aborting the fetus we therefore harm it. Some counter this latter argument by claiming that the

"potential" to become subject-of-a-life is an invalid grounds for assigning rights, but this is a fine

philosophical point that is itself subject to attack. For example, suppose a person is in a coma that,

given enough time, will dissipate--the person has the potential to be sentient again. Does the person

lose his rights while in the coma?

Page 37: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

19

While the arguments adduced may show that abortion is not irrelevant to AR, they do not show

that abortion is necessarily wrong. The reason is that it is possible to argue that the rights of the fetus

are in conflict with the rights of the woman, and that the rights of the woman dominate. All may not

agree with this trade-off, but it is a consistent, non-hypocritical stance that is not in conflict with AR

philosophy. See question #4 for an analysis of hypocrisy arguments in general. DG

SEE ALSO: #4

#25 Doesn't the ethical theory of contractarianism show that

animals have no rights?

Contractarianism is an ethical theory that attempts to account for our morality by appealing to

implicit mutually beneficial agreements, or contracts. For example, it would explain our refusal to

strike each other by asserting that we have an implied contract: "You don't hit me and I won't hit you."

The relevance of contractarianism to AR stems from the supposition that nonhuman animals are

incapable of entering into such contracts, coupled with the assertion that rights can be attributed only

to those individuals that can enter into such contracts. Roughly, animals can't have rights because they

lack the rational capacity to assent to a contract requiring them to respect our rights.

Contractarianism is perhaps the most impressive attempt to refute the AR position; therefore, it is

important to consider it in some detail. It is easily possible to write a large volume on the subject. We

must limit ourselves to considering the basic arguments and problems with them. Those readers finding

this incomplete or nonrigorous are advised to consult the primary literature.

We begin by observing that contractarianism fails to offer a compelling account of our moral

behavior and motives. If the average person is asked why they think it wrong to steal from their

neighbor, they do not answer that by refraining from it they ensure that their neighbor will not steal

from them. Nor do they answer that they have an implicit mutual contract with their neighbor. Instead

of invoking contracts, people typically assert some variant of the harm principle; e.g., they don't steal

because it would harm the neighbor. Similarly, we do not teach children that the reason why they

should not steal is because then people will not steal from them.

Another way to point up the mismatch between the theory of contractarianism and our actual

moral behavior is to ask if, upon risking your own life to save my child from drowning, you have done

this as a result of a contractual obligation. Certainly, one performs such acts as a response to the

distress of another being, not as a result of contractual obligations.

Contractarianism can thus be seen as a theory that fails to account for our moral behavior. At best,

it is a theory that its proponents would recommend to us as preferable. (Is it seen as preferable because

it denies rights to animals, and because it seems to justify continued exploitation of animals?)

Arguably the most serious objection to contractarianism is that it can be used to sanction

arrangements that would be almost universally condemned. Consider a group of very rich people that

assemble and create a contract among themselves the effect of which is to ensure that wealth remains in

Page 38: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

20

their control. They agree by contract that even repressive tactics can be used to ensure that the masses

remain in poverty. They argue that, by virtue of the existence of their contract, that they do no wrong.

Similar contracts could be drawn up to exclude other races, sexes, etc.

John Rawls attempts to overcome this problem by supposing that the contractors must begin from

an "initial position" in which they are not yet incarnated as beings and must form the contract in

ignorance of their final incarnation. Thus, it is argued, since a given individual in the starting

position does not know whether, for example, she will be incarnated as a rich woman or a poor woman,

that individual will not form contracts that are based on such criteria. In response, one can begin to

wonder at the lengths to which some will go in creating ad hoc adjustments to a deficient theory. But

more to the point, one can turn around this ad hoc defense to support the AR position. For surely, if

individuals in the initial position are to be truly ignorant of their destiny, they must assume that they

may be incarnated as animals. Given that, the contract that is reached is likely to include strong

protections for animals!

Another problem with Rawls' device is that probabilities can be such that, even given ignorance,

contracts can result that most people would see as unjust. If the chance of being incarnated as a slave

holder is 90 percent, a contract allowing slavery could well result because most individuals would feel

they had a better chance of being incarnated as a slave holder. Thus, Rawls' device fails even to achieve

its purpose.

It is hard to see how contractarianism can permit movement from the status quo. How did alleged

contracts that denied liberty to slaves and excluded women from voting come to be renegotiated?

Contractarianism also is unable to adequately account for the rights we give to those unable to

form contracts, i.e., infants, children, senile people, mental deficients, and even animals to some extent.

Various means have been advanced to try to account for the attribution of rights to such individuals.

We have no space to deal with all of them. Instead, we briefly address a few.

One attempt involves appealing to the interests of true rights holders. For example, I don't eat your

baby because you have an interest in it and I wouldn't want you violating such an interest of mine. But

what if no-one cared about a given infant? Would that make it fair game for any use or abuse?

Certainly not. Another problem here is that many people express an interest in the protection of all

animals. That would seem to require others to refrain from using or abusing animals. While this result

is attractive to the AR community, it certainly weakens the argument that contractarianism justifies our

use of animals.

Others want to let individuals "ride" until they are capable of respecting the contract. But what of

those that will never be capable of doing so, e.g., senile people? And why can we not let animals ride?

Some argue a "reduced-rights" case. Children get a reduced rights set designed to protect them from

themselves, etc. The problem here is that with animals the rights reduction is way out of proportion.

We accept that we cannot experiment on infants or kill and eat them due to their reduced rights set.

Why then are such extreme uses acceptable for nonhumans?

Page 39: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

II --- Animals and Morality, questions # 11-25 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

21

Some argue that it is irrelevant whether a given individual can enter into a contract; what is

important is their theoretical capacity to do so. But, future generations have the capacity but clearly

cannot interact reciprocally with us, so the basis of contractarianism is gutted (unless we assert that we

have no moral obligations to leave a habitable world for future generations). Peter Singer asks "Why

limit morality to those who have the capacity to enter into agreements, if in fact there is no possibility

of their ever doing so?"

There are practical problems with contractarianism as well. For example, what can be our

response if an individual renounces participation in any implied moral contracts, and states that he is

therefore justified in engaging in what others would call immoral acts? Is there any way for us to

reproach him? And what are we to do about violations of the contract? If an individual steals from us,

he has broken the contract and we should therefore be released from it. Are we then morally justified in

stealing from him? Or worse?

In summary, contractarianism fails because a) it fails to accurately account for our actual,

real-world moral acts and motives, b) it sanctions contractual arrangements that most people would see

as unjust, c) it fails to account for the considerations we accord to individuals unable to enter into

contracts, and d) it has some impractical consequences. Finally, there is a better foundation for

ethics--the harm principle. It is simple, universalizable, devoid of ad hoc devices, and matches our real

moral thinking. TA/DG

SEE ALSO: #11, #17, #19, #96

Page 40: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

III --- Practical Issues, questions # 26-32 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

22

III. PRACTICAL ISSUES

#26 Surely there are more pressing practical problems than AR,

such as homelessness; haven't you got better things to do?

Inherent in this question is an assumption that it is more important to help humans than to help

nonhumans. Some would dismiss this as a speciesist position (see question #1). It is possible, however,

to invoke the scale-of-life notion and argue that there is greater suffering and loss associated with

cruelty and neglect of humans than with animals. This might appear to constitute a prima-facie case for

expending one's energies for humans rather than nonhumans. However, even if we accept the

scale-of-life notion, there are sound reasons for expending time and energy on the issue of rights for

nonhuman animals. Many of the consequences of carrying out the AR agenda are highly beneficial to

humans. For example, stopping the production and consumption of animal products would result in a

significant improvement of the general health of the human population, and destruction of the

environment would be greatly reduced. Fostering compassion for animals is likely to pay dividends in

terms of a general increase of compassion in human affairs.

Tom Regan puts it this way: the animal rights movement is a part of, not antagonistic to, the

human rights movement. The theory that rationally grounds the rights of animals also grounds the

rights of humans. Thus those involved in the animal rights movement are partners in the struggle to

secure respect for human rights--the rights of women, for example, or minorities, or workers. The

animal rights movement is cut from the same moral cloth as these.

Finally, the behavior asked for by the AR agenda involves little expenditure of energy. We are

asking people to NOT do things: don't eat meat, don't exploit animals for entertainment, don't wear furs.

These negative actions don't interfere with our ability to care for humans. In some cases, they may

actually make more time available for doing so (e.g., time spent hunting or visiting zoos and circuses).

DG

Living cruelty-free is not a full-time job; rather, it's a way of life. When I shop, I check ingredients

and I consider if the product is tested on animals. These things only consume a few minutes of the day.

There is ample time left for helping both humans and nonhumans. JLS

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

Abraham Lincoln (16th U.S. President)

To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.

Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

Our task must be to free ourselves...by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living

creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (physicist, Nobel 1921)

SEE ALSO: #1, #87, #95

Page 41: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

III --- Practical Issues, questions # 26-32 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

23

#27 If everyone became vegetarian and gave up keeping pets, what

would happen to all the animals?

As vegetarianism grows, the number of animals bred for food gradually will decline, since the

market will no longer exist for them. Similarly, a gradual decrease would accompany the lessening

demand for the breeding of companion animals. In both cases, those animals that remain will be better

cared for by a more compassionate society. LK

SEE ALSO: #75

#28 Grazing animals on land not suited for agriculture increases

the food supply; how can that be considered wrong?

There are areas in the world where grazing of livestock is possible but agriculture is not. If

conditions are such that people living in these areas cannot trade for crops and must raise livestock to

survive, few would question the practice. However, such areas are very small in comparison to the

fertile and semi-arid regions currently utilized for intensive grazing, and they do not appreciably

contribute to the world food supply. (Some would argue that it is morally preferable not to live in such

areas.)

The real issue is the intensive grazing in the fertile and semi-arid regions. The use of such areas

for livestock raising reduces the world food supply. Keith Acker writes as follows in his "A Vegetarian

Source book": Land, energy, and water resources for livestock agriculture range anywhere from 10 to

1000 times greater than those necessary to produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock

agriculture does not merely use these resources, it depletes them. This is a matter of historical record.

Most of the world's soil, erosion, groundwater depletion, and deforestation--factors now threatening the

very basis of our food system--are the result of this particularly destructive form of food production.

Livestock agriculture is also the single greatest cause of world-wide deforestation both historically

and currently (between 1967 and 1975, two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest went to grazing).

Between 1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture land in Central America more than doubled,

almost all of it at the expense of rain forests. Although this trend has slowed down, it still continues at

an alarming and inexorable pace.

Grazing requires large tracts of land and the consequences of overgrazing and soil erosion are

very serious ecological problems. By conservative estimates, 60 percent of all U.S. grasslands are

overgrazed, resulting in billions of tons of soil lost each year. The amount of U.S. topsoil lost to date is

about 75 percent, and 85 percent of that is directly associated with livestock grazing. Overgrazing has

been the single largest cause of human-made deserts.

One could argue that grazing is being replaced by the "feedlot paradigm". These systems graze the

livestock prior to transport to a feedlot for final "fattening" with grains grown on crop lands. Although

this does reduce grazing somewhat, it is not eliminated, and the feedlot part of the paradigm still

Page 42: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

III --- Practical Issues, questions # 26-32 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

24

constitutes a highly inefficient use of crops (to feed a human with livestock requires 16 times the grain

that would be necessary if the grain was consumed directly). It has been estimated that in the U.S., 80

percent of the corn and 95 percent of the oats grown are fed to livestock. TA

I grew up in cattle country--that's why I became a vegetarian. Meat stinks, for the animals, the

environment, and your health. k.d. lang (musician)

#29 If we try to eliminate all animals products, we'll be moving

back to the Stone Age; who wants that?

On the contrary! It is a dependency upon animal products that could be seen as returning us to the

technologies and mind set of the Stone Age. For example, Stone Age people had to wear furs in

Northern climates to avoid freezing. That is no longer the case, thanks to central heating and the ready

availability of plenty of good plant and human-made fabrics. If we are to characterize the modern age,

it could be in terms of the greater freedoms and options made possible by technological advance and

social progress. The Stone Age people had few options and so were forced to rely upon animals for

food, clothing, and materials for their implements. Today, we have an abundance of choices for better

foods, warmer clothing, and more efficient materials, none of which need depend upon the killing of

animals. TA

It seems to me that the only Stone Age we are in any danger of entering is that constituted by the

continuous destruction of animals' habitats in favor of the Portland-cement concrete jungle! DG

SEE ALSO: #60, #62, #95

#30 It's virtually impossible to eliminate all animal products from

one's consumption; what's the point if you still cause animal death

without knowing it?

Yes, it is very difficult to eliminate all animal products from one's consumption, just as it is

impossible to eliminate all accidental killing and infliction of harm that results from our activities. But

this cannot justify making it "open season" for any kind of abuse of animals. The reasonable goal,

given the realities, is to minimize the harms one causes. The point, then, is that a great deal of suffering

is prevented. DG

SEE ALSO: #57-#58

#31 Wouldn't many customs and traditions, as well as jobs, be lost

if we stopped using animals?

Page 43: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

III --- Practical Issues, questions # 26-32 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

25

Consider first the issue of customs and traditions. The plain truth is that some customs and

traditions deserve to die out. Examples abound throughout history: slavery, Roman gladiatorial contests,

torture, public executions, witch burning, racism. To these the AR supporter adds animal exploitation

and enslavement.

The human animal is an almost infinitely adaptable organism. The loss of the customs listed above

has not resulted in any lasting harm to humankind. The same can be confidently predicted for the

elimination of animal exploitation. In fact, humankind would likely benefit from a quantum leap of

compassion in human affairs.

As far as jobs are concerned, the economic aspects are discussed in question #32. It remains to

point out that for a human, what is at stake is a job, which can be replaced with one less morally

dubious. What is at stake for an animal is the elimination of torture and exploitation, and the possibility

for a life of happiness, free from human oppression and brutality. DG

People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing

the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people,

since this has also been done since the earliest of times. Isaac Bashevis Singer (author, Nobel 1978)

SEE ALSO: #32

#32 The animal product industries are big business; wouldn't the

economy be crippled if they all stopped?

One cannot justify an action based on its profitability. Many crimes and practices that we view as

repugnant have been or continue to be profitable: the slave trade, sale of child brides, drug dealing,

scams of all sorts, prostitution, child pornography.

A good example of this, and one that points up another key consideration, is the tobacco industry.

It is a multibillion-dollar industry, yet vigorous efforts are proceeding on many fronts to put it out of

business. The main problem with it lies in its side-effects, i.e., the massive health consequences and

deaths that it produces, which easily outweigh the immediate profitability. There are side effects to

animal exploitation also. Among the most significant are the pollution and deforestation associated

with large-scale animal farming. As we see in question #28, these current practices constitute a

nonsustainable use of the planet's resources. It is more likely true that the economy will be crippled if

the practices continue!

Finally, the profits associated with the animal industries stem from market demand and affluence.

There is no reason to suppose that this demand cannot be gradually redirected into other industries.

Instead of prime beef, we can have prime artichokes, or prime pasta, etc. Humanity's demand for

gourmet food will not vanish with the meat. Similarly, the jobs associated with the animal industries

can be gradually redirected into the industries that would spring up to replace the animal industries.

(Vice President Gore made a similar point in reference to complaints concerning loss of jobs if logging

Page 44: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

III --- Practical Issues, questions # 26-32 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

26

was halted. He commented that the environmental movement would open up a huge area for jobs that

had heretofore been unavailable.) DG

It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human

temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind.

Albert Einstein (physicist, Nobel 1921)

SEE ALSO: #28, #31

Page 45: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IV --- Arguments from Biology, questions # 33-38 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

27

IV. ARGUMENTS FROM BIOLOGY

#33 Humans are at the pinnacle of evolution; doesn't that give them

the right to use animals as they wish?

This is one of many arguments that attempt to draw ethical conclusions from scientific

observations. In this case, the science is shaky, and the ethical conclusion is dubious. Let us first

examine the science.

The questioner's view is that evolution has created a linear ranking of general fitness, a ladder if

you will, with insects and other "lower" species at the bottom, and humans (of course!) at the top. This

idea originated as part of a wider, now discredited evolutionary system called Lamarckism. Charles

Darwin's discovery of natural selection overturned this system. Darwin's picture, instead, is of a

"radiating bush" of species, with each evolving to adapt more closely to its environment, along its

own radius. Under this view, the idea of a pinnacle becomes unclear: yes, humans have adapted well to

their niche (though many would dispute this, asserting the nonsustainable nature of our use of the

planet's resources), but so have bacteria adapted well to their niche. Can we really say that humans are

better adapted to their niche than bacteria, and would it mean anything when the niches are so

different?

Probably, what the questioner has in mind in using the word "pinnacle" is that humans excel in

some particular trait, and that a scale can be created relative to this trait. For example, on a scale of

mental capability, humans stand well above bacteria. But a different choice of traits can lead to very

different results. Bacteria stand "at the pinnacle" when one looks at reproductive fecundity. Birds stand

"at the pinnacle" when one looks at flight.

Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious idea of a pinnacle of evolution, let us

accept that humans are ranked at the top on a scale of intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as

we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy? If we say yes, we open a

Pandora's box of problems for ourselves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also exploit

less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we all be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)? Considering

a different trait, can the physically superior abuse the weak? Only a morally callous person would agree

with this general principle. AECW

SEE ALSO: #34, #37

#34 Humans are at the top of the food chain; aren't they therefore

justified in killing and eating anything?

Page 46: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IV --- Arguments from Biology, questions # 33-38 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

28

No; otherwise, potential cannibals in our society could claim the same defense for their practice.

That we can do something does not mean that it is right to do so. We have a lot of power over other

creatures, but with great powers come even greater responsibilities, as any parent will testify.

Humans are at the top of the food chain because they CHOOSE to eat nonhuman animals. There is

thus a suggestion of tautology in the questioner's position. If we chose not to eat animals, we would not

be at the top of the food chain.

The idea that superiority in a trait confers rights over the inferior is disposed of in question #33.

AECW

SEE ALSO: #33

#35 Animals are just machines; why worry about them?

Centuries ago, the philosopher Rene Descartes developed the idea that all nonhuman animals are

automatons that cannot feel pain. Followers of Descartes believed that if an animal cried out this was

just a reflex, the sort of reaction one might get from a mechanical doll. Consequently, they saw no

reason not to experiment on animals without anesthetics. Horrified observers were admonished to pay

no attention to the screams of the animal subjects.

This idea is now refuted by modern science. Animals are no more "mere machines" than are

human beings. Everything science has learned about other species points out the biological similarities

between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other

animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind. Since both humans and nonhumans evolved

over millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs, there is no reason to think

we do not share a similar mental and emotional life with other animal species (especially mammals).

LK

#36 In Nature, animals kill and eat each other; so why should it be

wrong for humans?

Predatory animals must kill to eat. Humans, in contrast, have a choice; they need not eat meat to

survive.

Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being capable of conceiving of, and acting in

accordance with, a system of morals; therefore, we cannot seek moral guidance or precedent from

nonhuman animals. The AR philosophy asserts that it is just as wrong for a human to kill and eat a

sentient nonhuman as it is to kill and eat a sentient human.

To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral precedents from nonhuman animals, consider the

following variants of the question:

Page 47: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IV --- Arguments from Biology, questions # 33-38 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

29

"In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why should it be wrong for humans [to steal]?"

"In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [to kill and eat

humans]?"

DG

SEE ALSO: #23, #34, #64

#37 Natural selection and Darwinism are at work in the world;

doesn't that mean it's unrealistic to try to overcome such forces?

Assuming that Animal Rights concepts somehow clash with Darwinian forces, the questioner

must stand accused of selective moral fatalism: our sense of morality is clearly not modeled on the laws

of natural selection. Why, then, feel helpless before some of its effects and not before others?

Male-dominance, xenophobia, and war-mongering are present in many human societies. Should

we venture that some mysterious, universal forces must be at work behind them, and that all attempts at

quelling such tendencies should be abandoned? Or, more directly, when people become sick, do we

abandon them because "survival of the fittest" demands it? We do not abandon them; and we do not

agonize about trying to overcome natural selection.

There is no reason to believe that the practical implications of the Animal Rights philosophy are

maladaptive for humans. On the contrary, and for reasons explained elsewhere in this FAQ, respecting

the rights of animals would yield beneficial side-effects for humans, such as more-sustainable

agricultural practices, and better environmental and health-care policies. AECW

The advent of Darwinism led to a substitution of the idea of individual organisms for the old idea

of immutable species. The moral individualism implied by AR philosophy substitutes the idea that

organisms should be treated according to their individual capacities for the (old) idea that it is the

species of the animal that counts. Thus, moral individualism actually fits well with evolutionary theory.

DG

SEE ALSO: #63-62

#38 Isn't AR opposed to environmental philosophy (as described,

for example, in "Deep Ecology")?

No. It should be clear from many of the answers included in this FAQ, and from perusal of many

of the books referenced in question #92, that the philosophy and goals of AR are complementary to the

goals of the mainstream environmental movement. Michael W. Fox sees AR and environmentalism as

two aspects of a dialectic that reconciles concerns for the rights of individuals (human and nonhuman)

with concerns for the integrity of the biosphere.

Page 48: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IV --- Arguments from Biology, questions # 33-38 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

30

Some argue that a morality based on individual rights is necessarily opposed to one based on

holistic environmental views, e.g., the sanctity of the biosphere. However, an environmental ethic that

attributes some form of rights to all individuals, including inanimate ones, can be developed. Such an

ethic, by showing respect for the individuals that make up the biosphere, would also show respect for

the biosphere as a whole, thus achieving the aims of holistic environmentalism. It is clear that a rights

view is not necessarily in conflict with a holistic view.

In reference to the concept of deep ecology and the claim that it bears negatively on AR, Fox

believes such claims to be unfounded. The following text is excerpted from "Inhumane Society", by

Michael W. Fox. DG

Deep ecologists support the philosophy of preserving the natural abundance and diversity of plants

and animals in natural ecosystems. The deep ecologists should oppose the industrialized,

nonsubsistence exploitation of wildlife because...it is fundamentally unsound ecologically, because by

favoring some species over others, population imbalances and extinctions of undesired species would

be inevitable.

In their book "Deep Ecology", authors Bill Devall and George Sessions...take to task animal rights

philosopher Tom Regan, who with others of like mind "expressed concern that a holistic ecological

ethic...results in a kind of totalitarianism or ecological fascism"...In an appendix, however, George

Sessions does suggest that philosophers need to work toward nontotalitarian solutions...and that "in all

likelihood, this will require some kind of holistic ecological ethic in which the integrity of all

individuals (human and nonhuman) is respected".

Ironically, while the authors are so critical of the animal rights movement, they quote Arne Naess

(...arguably the founder of the deep ecology movement)...For instance, Naess states: "The intuition of

biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to

reach their own forms of unfolding and self-realization..."

Michael W. Fox (Vice President of HSUS)

SEE ALSO: #28, #59

Page 49: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

31

V. INSECTS AND PLANTS

#39 What about insects? Do they have rights too?

Before considering the issue of rights, let us first address the question "What about insects?".

Strictly speaking, insects are small invertebrate animals of the class Insecta, having an adult stage

characterized by three pairs of legs, a segmented body with three major divisions, and usually two pairs

of wings. We'll adopt the looser definition, which includes similar invertebrate animals such as spiders,

centipedes, and ticks.

Insects have a ganglionic nervous system, in contrast to the central nervous system of vertebrates.

Such a system is characterized by local aggregates of neurons, called ganglia, that are associated with,

and specialized for, the body segment with which they are co-located. There are interconnections

between ganglia but these connections function not so much as a global integrating pathway, but rather

for local segmental coordination. For example, the waves of leg motion that propagate along the body

of a centipede are mediated by the intersegmental connections.

In some species the cephalic ganglia are large and complex enough to support very complex

behavior (e.g., the lobster and octopus). The cuttlefish (not an insect but another invertebrate with a

ganglionic nervous system) is claimed by some to be about as intelligent as a dog.

Insects are capable of primitive learning and do exhibit what many would characterize as

intelligence. Spiders are known for their skills and craftiness(詭詐); whether this can all be dismissed as

instinct is arguable. Certainly, bees can learn in a limited way. When offered a reward from a perch of

a certain color, they return first to perches of that color. They also learn the location of food and

transmit that information to their colleagues. The learning, however, tends to be highly specialized and

applicable to only limited domains.

In addition to a primitive mental life as described above, there is some evidence that insects can

experience pain and suffering. The earthworm nervous system, for example, secretes an opiate

substance when the earthworm is injured. Similar responses are seen in vertebrates and are generally

accepted to be a mechanism for the attenuation of pain. On the other hand, the opiates are also

implicated in functions not associated with analgesia, such as thermoregulation and appetite control.

Nevertheless, the association of secretion with tissue injury is highly suggestive.

Earthworms also wriggle quite vigorously when impaled on a hook. In possible opposition to this

are other observations. For example, the abdomen of a feeding wasp can be clipped off and the head

may go on sucking (presumably in no distress?).

Singer quotes (引用) three criteria for deciding if an organism has the capacity to suffer from pain:

1) there are behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3) there is an

evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain. These criteria seem to satisfied for insects, if only in

a primitive way.

Page 50: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

32

Now we are equipped to tackle (處理) the issue of insect rights. First, one might argue that the

issue is not so compelling (強迫) as for other animals because industries are not built around the

exploitation of insects. But this is untrue; large industries are built around honey production, silk

production, and cochineal/carmine production, and, of course, mass insect death results from our use of

insecticides. Even if the argument were true, it should not prevent us from attempting to be consistent

in the application of our principles to all animals.

Insects are a part of the Animal Kingdom and some special arguments would be required to

exclude them from the general AR argument. Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of

the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others

may quarrel(爭執) with this line and place it elsewhere. Some may postulate a scale of life with an

ascending capacity to feel pain and suffer. They might also mark a cut-off on the scale, below which

rights are not actively asserted. Is the cut-off above insects and the lower invertebrates? Or should there

be no cut-off? This is one of the issues still being actively debated in the AR community.

People who strive to live without cruelty will attempt to push the line back as far as possible,

giving the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt. Certainly, one can avoid unnecessary cruelty to

insects.

The practical issues involved in enfranchising insects are dealt with in the following two

questions.

DG

I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but I want to

realize identity with all life, even with such things as crawl upon earth.

Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

What is it that should trace the insuperable (不能克服的) line? ...The question is not, Can they

reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Jeremy Bentham (philosopher)

SEE ALSO: #22, #40-#41, #47

#40 Do I have to be careful not to walk on ants?

The Jains of India would say yes! Some of their more devout members wear gauze masks to avoid

inhaling and killing small insects and microbes.

Regardless of how careful we are, we will cause some suffering as a side-effect of living. The goal

is to avoid unnecessary suffering and to minimize the suffering we cause. This is a far cry from wanton,

intentional infliction of cruelty. I refer here to the habit of some of pulling off insects' wings for fun, or

of torching a congregation of ants for pleasure.

Page 51: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

33

This question is an issue for the individual conscience to decide. Perhaps one need not walk

around looking out for ants on the ground, but should one be seen and it is easy to alter one's stride to

avoid it, where is the harm in doing so?

DG

SEE ALSO: #39, #41

#41 There is some evidence of consciousness in insects; aren't you

descending to absurdity to tell people not to kill insects?

Enfranchising (解放) insects does not mean it is never justifiable to kill them. As with all threats

to a being, the rule of self-defense applies. If insects are threatening one's well-being in a nontrivial (特

殊的) way, AR philosophy would not assert that it is wrong to eliminate them.

Pesticides and herbicides are often used for mass destruction of insect populations. While this

might be defended (為…辯護) on the self-defense principle, one should be aware of the significant

adverse impact on the environment, on other non-threatening animals, and indeed on our own health.

(Refer to question #59 for more on the use of insecticides.)

It is not absurd to attempt to minimize the amount of suffering that we inflict (使遭損害) or cause.

<DG>

We should begin to feel for the flies and other insects struggling to be free from sticky fly paper.

There are humane alternatives. Michael W. Fox (Vice President of HSUS)

SEE ALSO: #39-#40, #59

#42 Isn't it hypocritical to kill and eat plants?

It would be hypocritical IF the same criteria or morally relevant attributes that are used to justify

animal rights also applied to plants. The criteria cited by the AR movement are "pain and suffering"

and being "subjects-of-a-life". An assessment of how plants measure up to these criteria leads to the

following conclusions.

First, our best science to date shows that plants lack any semblance(外觀) of a central nervous

system or any other system design for such complex capacities as that of conscious suffering from felt

pain.

Second, plants simply have no evolutionary need to feel pain. Animals being mobile would

benefit from the ability to sense pain; plants would not. Nature does not gratuitously(無端的) create

such complex capacities as that of feeling pain unless there is some benefit for the organism's survival.

The first point is dealt with in more detail in questions #43 and #44. The general hypocrisy

argument is discussed in question #4.

Page 52: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

34

TA

SEE ALSO: #4, #39-#44

#43 But how can you prove that plants don't feel pain?

Lest we forget the ultimate point of what follows, let us not forget the central thesis of AR. Simply

stated: to the extent other animals share with us certain morally relevant attributes, then to that extent

we confer upon them due regard and concern. The two attributes that are arguably relevant are: a) our

capacity for pain and suffering, and b) the capacity for being the "subject-of-a-life", i.e., being such that

it matters to one whether one's life fares (過活) well or ill.

Both of these qualities require the existence of mental states. Also note that in order to speak of

"mental states" proper, we would denote, as common usage would dictate, that such states are marked

by consciousness. It is insufficient to mark off mental states by only the apparent presence of

purposefulness or intentionality since, as we shall see below, many material objects possess

purposeful-looking behaviors.

So then, how do we properly attribute the existence of mental states to other animals, or even to

ourselves for that matter? We cannot infer the presence of felt pain simply by the presence of a class of

behaviors that are functional for an organism's amelioration or avoidance of noxious stimuli.

Thermostats obviously react to thermal changes in the environment and respond in a functionally

appropriate manner to restore an initial "preferred" state. We would be foolish, however, to attribute to

thermostats a capability to "sense" or "feel" some kind of thermal "pain". Even placing quotes around

our terms doesn't protect us from absurdity.

Clearly, the behavioral criterion of even functional avoidance/defense reactions is simply not

sufficient nor even necessary for the proper attribution of pain as a felt mental state.

Science, including the biological sciences, are committed to the working assumption of scientific

materialism or physicalism (see "The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science", E. A. Burtt,

1924). We must then start with the generally accepted scientific assumption that matter is the only

existent or real primordial constituent of the universe.

Let it be said at the outset that scientific materialism as such does not preclude the existence of

emergent or functional qualities like that of mind, consciousness, and feeling (or even, dare I say it,

free will), but all such qualities are dependent upon the existence of organized matter. If there is no

hardware, there is nothing for the software to run on. If there is no intact, living brain, there is no mind.

It should also be said that even contemporary versions of dualism or mind-stuff theories will also make

embodiment of mental states dependent on the presence of sufficiently organized matter.

To briefly state the case, cognitive functions like consciousness and mind are seen as emergent

properties of sufficiently organized matter. Just as breathing is a function of a complex system of

organs referred to as the respiratory system, so too is consciousness a function of the immensely

Page 53: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

35

complex information-processing capabilities of a central nervous system. It is possible, in theory, that

future computers, given a sufficiently complex and orderly organization of hardware and clever

software, could exhibit the requisite emergent qualities. While such computers do not exist, we DO

know that certain living organisms on this planet possess the requisite complexity of specialized and

highly organized structure for the emergence of mental states.

In theory, plants could possess a mental state like pain, but if, and only if, there were a requisite

complexity of organized plant tissue that could serve to instantiate the higher order mental states of

consciousness and felt pain.

There is no morphological evidence that such a complexity of tissue exists in plants. Plants lack

the specialized structures required for emergence of mental states. This is not to say that they cannot

exhibit complex reactions, but we are simply over-interpreting such reactions if we designate them as

"felt pain".

With respect to all mammals, birds, and reptiles, we know that they possess a sufficiently complex

neural structure to enable felt pain plus an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. They

possess complex and specialized sense organs, they possess complex and specialized structures for

processing information and for centrally orchestrating appropriate behaviors in accordance with mental

representations, integrations, and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain

in these animals is well justified. It is not for plants, by any stretch of the imagination.

TA

The absurdity荒謬 (and often disingenuity 不真誠) of the plant-pain promoters can be easily

exposed by asking them the following two questions:

1) Do you agree that animals like dogs and cats should receive pain-killing drugs prior to surgery?

2) Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs prior to pruning 修剪?

DG

SEE ALSO: #42, #44

#44 Aren't there studies that show that plants can scream, etc.?

How can something without vocal apparatus scream? Perhaps the questioner intends to suggest

that plants somehow express feelings or emotions. This notion is popularized in the book "The Secret

Life of Plants", by Tompkins and Bird, 1972. The book describes "experiments" in which plants are

claimed to respond to injury and even to the thoughts and emotions of nearby humans. The responses

consist of changes in the electrical conductivity of their leaves. The truth is, however, that nothing but a

dismal沮喪的 failure has resulted from attempts to replicate these experiments. For some definitive

reviews, see Science, 1975, 189:478 and The Skeptical Inquirer, 1978, 2(2):57.

But what about plant responses to insect invasion? Does this suggest that plants "feel" pain? No

published book or paper in a scientific journal has been cited as indeed making this claim that "plants

Page 54: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

36

feel pain". There is interesting data suggesting that plants react to local tissue damage and even emit

signaling molecules serving to stimulate chemical defenses of nearby plants. But how is this relevant to

the claim that plants feel and suffer from pain? Where are the replicated experiments and

peer-reviewed citations for this putative想像的 fact? There are none.

Let us, for the sake of argument, consider the form of logic employed by the plant-pain promoters:

premise 1: Plants are responsive to "sense" impressions.

premise 2: As defined in the dictionary, anything responsive to sense impressions is sentient.

conclusion 1: Plants are sentient.

premise 3: Sentient beings are conscious of sense impressions.

conclusion 2: Plants are conscious of sense impressions.

premise 4: To be conscious of a noxious stimuli is unpleasant.

conclusion 3: Noxious stimuli to plants are unpleasant, i.e., painful.

There is a major logical sleight-of-hand (花招) here. The meaning of the term "sentient" changes

between premise 2 ("responsive to sense impressions") and premise 3 ("conscious of sense

impressions"). Thus, equivocation模稜兩可 on the usage of "sentient" is used to bootleg非法運輸

the false conclusion 3. There is also an equivocation on the meaning of "painful" ("unpleasant" versus

the commonly understood meaning).

TA

If we can bring ourselves to momentarily (短暫的) assume (falsely) that plants feel pain, then we

can easily argue that by eliminating animal farming, we reduce the total pain inflicted (打擊) on plants,

leading to the ironic conclusion that plant pain supports the AR position. This is discussed in more

detail in question #46. DG

SEE ALSO: #42-#43, #46

#45 But even if plants don't feel pain, aren't you depriving them of

their life? Why isn't that enough to accord moral status to plants?

The philosophy of Animal Rights is generally regarded as encompassing only sentient creatures.

Plants are just one of many non-sentient, living creatures. To remain consistent, granting moral status

to plants would lead one to grant it to all life. It may be thought that a philosophy encompassing all life

would be best, but granting moral status to all living creatures leads to rather implausible (難以置信的)

views.

For example, concern for life would lead one to oppose the distribution of spermicides, even to

overpopulated Third world countries. The morality of any sexual intercourse could be questioned as

well, since thousands of sperm cells die in each act. Also, the sheer (陡峭的) variety of life forms

Page 55: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

37

creates difficulties; for example, arguments have been made to show that some computer

programs--such as computer viruses--may well be called alive. Should one grant them moral status?

There are questions even in the case of plants. The use of weed-killers in a garden would need

defending. And if killing plants is wrong, why isn't merely damaging them in some other way also

wrong? Is trimming hedgerows (灌木) wrong? The problems raised above are not attempts to

discourage efforts to develop an ethics of the environment. They simply point out that according moral

status to all living creatures is fraught (伴隨) with difficulties.

Nevertheless, some people do, indeed, argue that the taking of life殺生 should be minimized

where possible; this constitutes a kind of moral status for life. Interestingly, such a view, far from

undermining (暗中破壞) the AR view, actually supports it. To see why, refer to question #46.

AECW

SEE ALSO: #46, #59

#46 Isn't it better to eat animals, because that way you kill the least

number of living beings.

There are at least two problems with this question. First, there is the assumption that killing is the

factor sought to be minimized, but as explained in question #18, killing is not the central concern of

AR; rather, it is pain and suffering, neither of which can be attributed to plants.

Second, the questioner overlooks that livestock must be raised on a diet of plant foods, so

consumption of animals is actually a once-removed consumption of plants. The twist, of course, is that

passing plants through animals is a very inefficient process; losses of up to 80-90 percent are typical.

Thus, it could be argued that, if one's concern is for killing, per se, then the vegetarian diet is preferable

(at least for today's predominant feedlot paradigm). DG

SEE ALSO: #18, #28, #45

#47 Nature is a continuum; doesn't that mean you cannot draw a

line, and where you draw yours is no better than where I draw mine?

Most people will accept that the diversity of Nature is such that one is effectively faced with a

continuum. Charles Darwin was right to state that differences are of degree, not of kind.

One should take issue, however, with the belief that this means that a line cannot be drawn for the

purpose of granting rights. For example, while there is a continuum in the use of force, from the gentle

nudge of the adoring mother to the hellish treatment visited upon concentration camp prisoners, clearly,

human rights are violated in one case and not the other. People accept that the ethical buck stops

somewhere between the two extremes.

Page 56: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

V --- Insects and Plants, questions # 39-47 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

38

Similarly, while it is true that the qualities relevant to the attribution of rights are found to varying

extents in members of the animal kingdom, one is entitled to draw the line somewhere. After all,

society does it as well; today, it draws the line just below humans.

Now, such a line (below humans) cannot be logically defensible, since some creatures are

excluded that possess the relevant qualities to a greater degree than current rights-holders (for example,

a normal adult chimpanzee has a "higher" mental life than a human in a coma, yet we still protect only

the human from medical experimentation). Therefore, any line that is drawn must allow some

nonhuman animals to qualify as rights-holders.

Moreover, the difficulty of drawing a line does not by itself justify drawing one at the wrong place.

On the contrary, this difficulty means that from an ethical point of view, the line should be drawn a)

carefully, and b) conservatively. Because the speciesist line held by AR opponents violates moral

precepts (律) held as critical for the viability (可行性) of any ethical system, and because some mature

nonhumans possess morally relevant characteristics comparable to some human rights-bearers, one

must come to the conclusion that the status quo fails on both counts, and that the arrow of progress

points toward a moral outlook that encompasses nonhuman as well as human creatures.

In addition, it should be noted that when a new line is drawn that is more in step with緊跟 ethical

truth (something quite easy to do), in no way should one feel that the wanton惡意的 destruction of

non rights-holders is thereby encouraged. It is desirable that a moral climate be created that gives due

consideration to the interests and welfare of all creatures, whether they are rights-holders or not.

AECW

The idea that a continuum makes drawing a line impossible or that one line is therefore no better

than another is easily refuted (駁斥). For example, the alcohol concentration in the blood is a

continuum, but society draws a line at 0.10 percent for drunk driving, and clearly that is a better line

than one drawn at, say, 0.00000001 percent. DG

SEE ALSO: #22, #39-#41

Page 57: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

39

VI. FARMING

#48 The animals are killed so fast that they don't feel any pain or

even know they're being killed; what's wrong with that?

This view can only be maintained by those unfamiliar with modern meat production methods.

Great stress occurs during transport in which millions die miserably each year. And the conveyor-belt

approach to the slaughtering process causes the animals to struggle for their lives as they experience

the agony of the fear of death. Only people who have never watched the process can believe that they

don't feel any pain or aren't aware that they're being killed.

One point that many people are unaware of is that poultry is exempted (排除) from the

requirements of the Humane Slaughter Act. Egg-laying hens are typically not stunned before slaughter.

Also exempt from the act are animals killed under Kosher conditions (see question #49).

But even if no suffering were involved, the killing of sensitive, intelligent animals on a vast scale

(over six billion each year in the U.S. alone) cannot be regarded as morally correct, especially since

today it is demonstrably clear that eating animal flesh is not only unnecessary but even harmful for

people. Fellow-mammals are not like corn or carrots. To treat them as if they were is to perpetuate (不

朽) an impoverished (使赤貧) morality which is based not on rationality but merely tradition.

DVH

Even the climactic (高潮的) killing process itself is not so clean as one is led to believe. Every

method carries strong doubts about its "humaneness". For example, consider electrocution (電刑處死).

We routinely give anesthetics to people receiving electro-shock therapy due to its painful effects.

Consider the pole-axe. It requires great skill to deliver a perfect, instantly fatal blow. Few possess the

skill, and many animals suffer from the ineptness (笨拙) with which the process is administered.

Consider Kosher slaughter, where an animal is hoisted and bled to death without prior stunning. Often

joints are ruptured during the hoisting, and the death is a slow, conscious one. The idea of a clean,

painless kill is a fantasy promulgated by those with a vested interest in the continuance of the practices.

DG

#49 What is factory farming, and what is wrong with it?

Factory farming is an industrial process that applies the philosophy and practices of mass

production to animal farming. Animals are considered not as individual sentient beings, but rather as a

means to an end--eggs, meat, leather, etc. The objective is to maximize output and profit. The animals

are manipulated through breeding, feeding, confinement, and chemicals to lay eggs faster, fatten more

Page 58: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

40

quickly, or make leaner meat. Costs are minimized by recycling carcasses through feed, minimizing

unit space, not providing bedding (which gets soiled and needs cleaning), and other practices.

Battery-hen egg production is perhaps the most publicized form. Hens are "maintained" in cages

of minimal size, allowing for little or no movement and no expression of natural behavior patterns.

Hens are painfully debeaked and sometimes declawed to protect others in the cramped cage. There are

no floors to the cages, so that excrement can fall through onto a tray--the hens therefore are standing on

wire. Cages are stacked on top of each other in long rows, and are kept inside a climate-controlled barn.

The hens are then used as a mechanism for turning feed into eggs. After a short, miserable life they are

processed as broiler chickens or recycled.

Other typical factory farming techniques are used in pig production, where animals are kept in

concrete pens with no straw or earth, unable to move more than a few inches, to ensure the "best" pork.

When sows litter, piglets are kept so the only contact between the sow and piglets is access to the teats.

The production of veal calves is a similar restraining process. The calves are kept in narrow crates

which prevent them from turning; they can only stand or lie down. They are kept in the dark with no

contact with other animals. Factory farming distresses people because of the treatment of the animals;

they are kept in unnatural conditions in terms of space, possible behaviors, and interactions with other

animals. Keeping animals in these circumstances is not only cruel to the animals, but diminishes the

humanity of those involved, from production to consumption.

In addition, the use of chemicals and hormones to maximize yields, reduce health problems in the

animals, and speed production may also be harmful to human consumers. JK

SEE ALSO: #12, #14, #32, #48, #50

#50 But cattle can't be factory-farmed, so I can eat them, right?

At this time, cattle farming has not progressed to the extremes inflicted on some other

animals--cows still have to graze. However, the proponents of factory farming are always considering

the possibilities of extending their techniques, as the old-style small farm becomes a faded memory and

farming becomes a larger and more complex industry, competing for finance from consumers and

lenders貸方. Cattle farming practices such as increasing cattle densities on feedlots, diet

supplementation, and controlled breeding are already being implemented. Other developments will be

introduced.

However, as discussed in question #49, it is not only the method of farming that is of concern.

Transport to the slaughterhouse, often a long journey in crowded conditions without access to food and

water, and the wait at the slaughterhouse followed by the slaughtering process are themselves brutal

and harmful. And the actual killing process is itself not necessarily clean or painless (see question #48).

JK

Page 59: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

41

We can challenge the claim(挑戰下述主張) that “cattle cannot be factory-farmed; it just isn't

true.” We can also challenge the claim that “if it were true, it would justify killing and eating cattle.”

A broad view of factory farming includes practices that force adaptations (often through breeding)

that increase the "productivity" of animal farming. Such increases in productivity are invariably

achieved at the expense of increased suffering of the animals concerned. This broader view definitely

includes cattle, both that raised for meat and for dairy production.

Veal production is paradigmatic factory farming. David Cowles-Hamar describes it as follows:

"Veal calves are kept in isolation in 5'x2' crates in which they are unable even to turn around. They are

kept in darkness much of the time. They are given no bedding (in case they try to eat it) and are fed

only a liquid diet devoid of iron and fiber to keep their flesh anemic and pale. After 3-5 months they

are slaughtered."

Dairy farming also qualifies as factory-farming. Here are some salient顯著的 facts:

* Calves are taken away at 1-3 days causing terrible distress to both the cows and the calves;

many calves go for veal production.

* Over 170,000 calves die each year due to poor husbandry and appalling可怕的 treatment at

markets.

* Cows are milked for 10 months and produce 10 times the milk a calf would take naturally.

Mastitis (udder inflammation) frequently results.

* Cows are fed a high-protein diet to increase yield; often even this is not enough and the cow is

forced to break down body tissues, leading to acidosis and consequent lameness. About 25 percent of

cows are afflicted 折磨.

* At about 5 years of age, the cow is spent and exhausted and is slaughtered. The normal life span

is about 20 years.

Finally, we cannot accept that even if it were not possible to factory-farm cattle, that therefore it is

morally acceptable to kill and eat them. David Cowles-Hamar puts it this way: "The suggestion that

animals should pay for their freedom with their lives is moral nonsense." DG

SEE ALSO: #14, #48-#49

#51 But isn't it true that cows won't produce milk (or chickens lay

eggs) if they are not content?

Page 60: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

42

This is simply untrue. Lactation is a physiological response that follows giving birth. The cow

cannot avoid giving milk any more than she can avoid producing urine. The same is true of chickens

and egg-laying; the egg output is manipulated to a high level by selective breeding, carefully regulated

conditions that simulate a continuous summer season, and a carefully controlled diet.

To drive this point home further, consider that over the last five decades, the conditions for

egg-laying chickens have become increasingly unnatural and confining (see question #49), yet the egg

output has increased many times over. Chickens will even continue to lay when severely injured; they

simply cannot help it. <DG> SEE ALSO: #49, #52, #55

#52 Don't hens lay unfertilized eggs that would otherwise be

wasted?

Yes, but that is no justification for imposing barbaric and cruel regimes on them designed to

artificially boost their egg production. If the questioner is wondering if it is OK to use eggs left by

free-range chickens "to go cold", then the answer from the AR side is that free-range egg production is

not so idyllic 田園詩歌的 as one might like to think (see question #55). Also, such a source of eggs

can satisfy only a tiny fraction of the demand. DG SEE ALSO: #49, #51, #55

#53 But isn't it true that the animals have never known anything

better?

If someone bred a race of humans for slavery, would you accept their excuse that the slaves have

never known anything better? The point is that there IS something better, and they are being deprived

of it. DG

Not having known anything better does not alleviate the suffering of the animal. Its fundamental

desires remain and it is the frustration of those desires that is a great part of its suffering. There are so

many examples: the dairy cow who is never allowed to raise her young, the battery hen who can never

walk or stretch her wings, the sow who can never build a nest or root for food in the forest litter, etc.

Eventually we frustrate the animal's most fundamental desire of all--to live. David Cowles-Hamar

#54 Don't farmers know better than city-dwelling people about how

to treat animals?

This view is often put forward by farmers (and their family members). Typically they claim that,

by virtue of proximity接近 to their farmed animals, they possess some special knowledge. When

pressed to present this knowledge, and to show how it can justify their exploitation of animals or

discount the animals' pain and suffering, only the tired arguments addressed in this FAQ come forth出

現. In short, there is no "special knowledge".

Page 61: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

43

One should also remember that those farmers who exploit animals have a strong vested interest既

得利益 in the continuance of their practices. Would one assert that a logger knows best about how the

forests should be treated?

Technically, this argument is an instance of the "genetic fallacy謬誤". Ideas should be evaluated

on their own terms, not by reference to the originators. DG

#55 Can't we just eat free-range products?

The term "free-range" is used to indicate a production method in which the animals are (allegedly

據稱) not factory-farmed but, instead, are provided with conditions that allow them to fully express

their natural behavior. Some people feel that free-range products are thus ethically acceptable. There

are two cases to be considered: first, the case where the free-range animal itself is slaughtered for use,

and second, the case where the free-range animal provides a product (typically, hens providing eggs, or

cows providing milk).

Common to both cases is a problem with misrepresentation of conditions as "free-range". Much of

what passes for free-range is hardly any better than standard factory-farming; a visit to a large

"free-range egg farm" makes that obvious (and see MT's comments below).

Nutritionally, free-range products are no better than their factory-farmed equivalents, which are

wholly or partly responsible for a list of diseases as long as your arm.

For the case of free-range animals slaughtered for use, we must ask why should a free-range

animal be any more deserving of an unnecessary death than any other animal? Throughout this FAQ,

we have argued that animals have a right to live free from human brutality. Our brutality cannot be

excused by our provision of a short happy life. David Cowles-Hamar puts it this way: "The suggestion

that animals should pay for their freedom with their lives is moral nonsense." Another thing to think

about is the couple described at the end of question #13. Their babies are free-range, so it's OK to eat

them, right?

For the case of products from free-range animals, we can identify at least four problems: 1) it

remains an inefficient use of food resources, 2) it is still environmentally damaging, 3) animals are

killed off as soon as they become "unproductive", and 4) the animals must be replaced; the

nonproductive males are killed or go to factory farms (the worst instance of this is the fate of male

calves born to dairy cows; many go for veal production). BRO

What's wrong with free-range eggs? To get laying hens you must have fertile eggs and half of the

eggs will hatch into male chicks. These are killed at once (by gassing, crushing, suffocation,

decompression, or drowning), or raised as "table birds" (usually in broiler houses) and slaughtered as

soon as they reach an economic weight. So, for every free-range hen scratching around the garden or

farm (who, if she were able to bargain, might pay rent with her daily infertile egg), a corresponding

male from her batch is enduring life in a broiler house or has already been subjected to slaughter or

Page 62: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

44

thrown away to die. Every year in Britain alone, more than 35 million day-old male chicks are killed.

They are mainly used for fertilizer or dumped in landfill sites.

The hens are slaughtered as soon as their production drops (usually after two years; their natural

life span is 5-7 years). Also, be aware that many sites classified as free-range aren't really free-range;

they are just massive barns with access to the outside. Since the food and light are inside, the hens

rarely venture outside. MT

SEE ALSO: #13, #49-#50, #52

#56 Anything wrong with honey?

Bees are often killed in the production of honey, in the worst case the whole hive may be

destroyed if the keeper doesn't wish to protect them over the winter. Not all beekeepers do this, but the

general practice is one that embodies the attitude that living things are mere material and have no

intrinsic value of their own other than what commercial value we can wrench from them. Artificial

insemination involving death of the male is now also the norm for generation of new queen bees. The

favored method of obtaining bee sperm is by pulling off the insect's head (decapitation sends an

electrical impulse to the nervous system which causes sexual arousal). The lower half of the headless

bee is then squeezed to make it ejaculate. The resulting liquid is collected in a hypodermic syringe.

<MT> SEE ALSO: #22, #39-#41

#57 Don't crop harvest techniques and transportation, etc., lead to

the death of animals?

The questioner's probable follow-up is to assert that since we perform actions that result in the

death of animals for producing crops, a form of food, we should therefore not condemn actions (i.e.,

raising and slaughter) that result in the death of animals for producing meat, another form of food. How

do we confront this argument?

It is clear that incidental (or accidental, unintended) deaths of animals result from crop agriculture.

It is equally clear that intentional deaths of animals result from animal agriculture. Our acceptance of

acts that lead to incidental deaths does not require the acceptance of acts that lead to intentional deaths.

(A possible measure of intentionality is to ask if the success of the enterprise is measured by the extent

of the result. In our case, the success of crop agriculture is not measured by the number of accidental

deaths; in animal agriculture, conversely, the success of the enterprise is directly measured by the

number of animals produced for slaughter and consumption.)

Having shown that the movement from incidental to intentional is not justified, we can still ask

what justifies even incidental deaths. We must realize that the question does not bear on Animal Rights

specifically, but applies to morality generally. The answer, stripped to its essentials, is that the rights of

Page 63: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

45

innocents can be overridden in certain circumstances. If rights are genuinely in conflict, a reasonable

principle is to violate the rights of the fewest.

Nevertheless, when such an overriding of the rights of innocents is done, there is a responsibility

to ensure that the harm is minimized. Certainly, crop agriculture is preferable to animal agriculture in

this regard. In the latter case, we have the added incidental harm due to the much greater amount of

crops needed to produce animals (versus feeding the crops directly to people), AND the intentional

deaths of the produced animals themselves.

Finally, many argue for organic and more labor-intensive methods of crop agriculture that reduce

incidental deaths. As one wag puts it, we have a responsibility to survive, but we can also survive

responsibly! DG

SEE ALSO: #58-#59

#58 Modern agriculture requires us to push animals off land to

convert it to crops; isn't this a violation of the animals' rights?

Pushing animals off their habitats to pursue agriculture is a less serious instance of the actions

discussed in question #57, which deals with animal death as a result of agriculture. Refer to that

question for relevant discussion.

An abiding theme is that vegetarianism versus meat eating, and crop agriculture versus animal

agriculture, tend to minimize the amount of suffering. For example, more acreage is required to support

animal production than to support crop production (for the same nutritional capability). Thus, animal

production encroaches侵占 more on wildlife than does crop agriculture. We cannot eliminate our

adverse effects, but we can try to minimize them. DG

SEE ALSO: #57, #59

#59 Don't farmers have to kill pests?

We could simply say that less pests are killed on a vegetarian diet and that killing is not even

necessary for pest management, but because the issue is interesting, we answer more fully!

This question is similar to question #57 in that the questioner's likely follow-up is to ask why it is

acceptable to kill pests for food but not to kill animals for food. It differs from question #57 in that the

defense that the killing is incidental is not available because pests are killed intentionally. We can

respond to this argument in two ways. First, we can argue that the killing is justifiable, and second, we

can argue that it is not necessary and should be avoided. Let's look at these in turn.

Our moral systems typically allow for exceptions to the requirement that we not harm others. One

major exception is for self-defense. If we are threatened, we have the right to use force to resist the

Page 64: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VI --- Farming, questions # 48-59 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

46

threat. To the extent that pests are a threat to our food supplies, our habitats, or our health, we are

justified in defending ourselves. We have the responsibility to use appropriate force, but sometimes this

requires action fatal to the threatening creatures.

Even if the killing of pests is seen as wrong despite the self-defense argument, we can argue that

crop agriculture should be preferred over animal agriculture because it involves the minimization of the

required killing of pests (for reasons described in question #57).

Possibly overshadowing these moral arguments, however, is the argument that the use of

pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and herbicides is not only not necessary but extremely damaging to the

planet, and should therefore be avoided. Let us first look at the issue of necessity, followed by the issue

of environmental damage.

David Cowles-Hamar writes: "For thousands of years, peoples all over the world have used

farming methods based on natural ecosystems where potential pest populations are self-regulating.

These ideas are now being explored in organic farming and permaculture." Michael W. Fox writes:

"Integrated pest management and better conservation of wilderness areas around crop lands in order to

provide natural predators for crop pests are more ecologically sensible alternatives to the continuous

use of pesticides." The point is that there are effective alternatives to the agrichemical treadmill.

In addition to the agricultural methods described above, many pest problems can be prevented,

certainly the most effective approach. For example, some major pest threats are the result of accidental

or intentional human introduction of animals into a habitat. We need to be more careful in this regard.

Another example is the use of rodenticides. More effective and less harmful to the environment would

be an approach that relies on maintenance of clean conditions, plugging of entry holes, and nonlethal

trapping followed by release into the wild.

The effects of the intensive use of agrichemicals on the environment are very serious. It results in

nation-wide ground water pollution. It results in the deaths of beneficial non-target species. The

development of resistant strains requires the use of stronger chemicals with resulting more serious

effects on the environment. Agrichemicals are generally more highly concentrated in animal products

than in vegetables. It is thus enlightened self-interest to eschew animal consumption!

Organic farming and related methods eschew agrichemicals in favor of natural, sustainable

methods. DG

SEE ALSO: #57-#58

Genetic determinism, psychic determinism, environmental determinism. Genetic drift,

Page 65: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VII --- Leather, Fur, and Fashion, questions # 60-62 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

47

VII. LEATHER, FUR, AND FASHION

#60 What is wrong with leather and how can we do without it?

Most leather goods are made from the byproducts of the slaughterhouse, and some is

purpose-made, i.e., the animal is grown and slaughtered purely for its skin. So, by buying leather

products, you will be contributing to the profits of these establishments and augmenting 擴大 the

economic demand for slaughter.

The Nov/Dec 1991 issue of the Vegetarian Journal has this to say about leather: "Environmentally

turning animal hides 皮膚(革) into leather is an energy intensive and polluting practice. Production of

leather basically involves soaking (beamhouse), tanning, dyeing, drying, and finishing. Over 95 percent

of all leather produced in the U.S. is chrome-tanned. The effluent that must be treated is primarily

related to the beamhouse and tanning operations. The most difficult to treat is effluent from the tanning

process. All wastes containing chromium are considered hazardous by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). Many other pollutants involved in the processing of leather are associated

with environmental and health risks. In terms of disposal, one would think that leather products would

be biodegradable, but the primary function for a tanning agent is to stabilize the collagen or protein

fibers so that they are no longer biodegradable." MT

For alternatives to leather, consult the excellent Leather Alternatives FAQ maintained by Tom

Swiss ([email protected]). DG

#61 I can accept that trapping is inhumane, but what about fur

ranches?

Leaving aside the raw fact that the animals must sacrifice their lives for human vanity 虛榮心, we

are left with many objections to fur ranching.

A common misconception about fur "ranches" is that the animals do not suffer. This is entirely

untrue. These animals suffer a life of misery and frustration, deprived of their most basic needs. They

are kept in wire-mesh cages that are tiny, overcrowded, and filthy 邪惡污穢. Here they are

malnourished, suffer contagious diseases, and endure severe stress.

On these farms, the animals are forced to forfeit(因犯錯)喪失 their natural instincts. Beavers,

who live in water in the wild, must exist on cement floors. Minks 水貂 in the wild, too, spend much of

their time in water, which keeps their salivation, respiration, and body temperature stable. They are

also, by nature, solitary 獨居 animals. However, on these farms, they are forced to live in close contact

with other animals. This often leads to self-destructive behavior, such as pelt 攻擊 and tail biting. They

often resort to cannibalism.

Page 66: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VII --- Leather, Fur, and Fashion, questions # 60-62 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

48

The methods used on these farms reflect not the interests and welfare of the animals but the

furriers'皮商 primary interest--profit. The end of the suffering of these animals comes only with

death, which, in order to preserve the quality of the fur, is inflicted with extreme cruelty and brutality.

Engine exhaust is often pumped into a box of animals. This exhaust is not always lethal, and the

animals sometimes writhe 痛苦的扭動身體 in pain as they are skinned alive. Another common

execution practice, often used on larger animals, is anal electrocution. The farmers attach clamps to an

animal's lips and insert metal rods into its anus. The animal is then electrocuted. Decompression

chambers, neck snapping 快速折斷, and poison are also used.

The raising of animals by humans to serve a specific purpose cannot discount or excuse the

lifetime of pain and suffering that these animals endure. JLS

Cruelty is one fashion statement we can all do without 不需要.

Rue McClanahan (actress)

The recklessness 不顧後果/魯莽 with which we sacrifice our sense of decency 合宜/禮度 to

maximize profit in the factory farming process sets a pattern for cruelty to our own kind.

Jonathan Kozol (author)

SEE ALSO: #12, #14, #48-#49

#62 Anything wrong with wool, silk, down?

What's wrong with wool? Scientists over the years have bred a Merino sheep which is

exaggeratedly wrinkled. The more wrinkles, the more wool. Unfortunately, greater profits are rarely in

the sheep's best interests. In Australia, more wrinkles mean more perspiration 汗水/賣力 and greater

susceptibility to fly-strike (wool strike fly), a ghastly 像是死人一樣的 condition resulting from

maggot infestation in the sweaty folds of the sheep's over-wrinkled skin. To counteract this, farmers

perform an operation without anesthetic called "mulesing", in which sections of flesh around the anus

are sliced away, leaving a painful, bloody wound.

Without human interference, sheep would grow just enough wool to protect them from the

weather, but scientific breeding techniques have ensured that these animals have become

wool-producing monstrosities 怪物.

Their unnatural overload of wool (often half their body weight) brings added misery during

summer months when they often die from heat exhaustion. Also, one million sheep die in Australia

alone each year from exposure to cold after shearing 剪羊毛.

Every year, in Australia alone, about ten million lambs die before they are more than a few days

old. This is due largely to unmanageable numbers of sheep and inadequate stockpersons. Of UK wool,

27 percent is "skin wool", pulled from the skins of slaughtered sheep and lambs.

Page 67: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VII --- Leather, Fur, and Fashion, questions # 60-62 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

49

What's wrong with silk? It is the practice to boil the cocoons that still contain the living moth

larvae in order to obtain the silk. This produces longer silk threads than if the moth was allowed to

emerge. The silkworm can certainly feel pain and will recoil and writhe when injured.

What's wrong with down? The process of live-plucking(拔拉摘扯) is widespread. The terrified

birds are lifted by their necks, with their legs tied, and then have all their body feathers ripped out. The

struggling geese sustain injuries and after their ordeal are thrown back to join their fellow victims until

their turn comes round again. This torture, which has been described as "extremely cruel" by veterinary

surgeons, and even geese breeders, begins when the geese are only eight weeks old. It is then repeated

at eight-week intervals for two or three more sessions. The birds are then slaughtered.

The "lucky" birds are plucked dead, i.e., they are killed first and then plucked.

MT

Page 68: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

50

VIII. HUNTING AND FISHING

#63 Humans are natural hunter/gatherers; aren't you trying to

repress natural human behavior?

Yes. Failing to repress certain "natural behaviors" would create an uncivilized society. Consider

this: It would be an expression of natural behavior to hunt anything that moves (e.g., my neighbor's

dogs or horses) and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my employer's money or furniture). It would even

be natural behavior to indulge in unrestrained sexual appetites or to injure a person in a fit of rage盛怒

or jealousy.

In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by two codes: the written law of the land,

and the unwritten law of morality. And this also applies to hunting. It is unlawful in many places and at

many times, and the majority of Americans regard sport hunting as immoral.

DVH

Many would question the supposition that humans are natural hunters. In many societies, the

people live quite happily without hunting. In our own society, the majority do not hunt, not because

they are repressing抑制 their nature--they simply have no desire to do so. Those that do hunt often

show internal conflicts about it, as evidenced by the myths and rituals that serve to legitimize hunting,

cleanse the hunter, etc. This suggests that hunting is not natural, but actually goes against a deeper part

of our nature, a desire not to do harm.

BL

The squirrel that you kill in jest取樂, dies in earnest認真.

Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)

SEE ALSO: #37, #64-#67

#64 The world is made up of predators and prey; aren't we just

another predator?

No. Our behavior is far worse than that of "just another predator". We kill others not just for

nourishment but also for sport (recreation!), for the satisfaction of our curiosity, for fashion, for

entertainment, for comfort, and for convenience. We also kill each other by the millions for territory,

wealth, and power. We often torture and torment others before killing them. We conduct wholesale

slaughter of vast proportions, on land and in the oceans. No other species behaves in a comparable

manner, and only humans are destroying the balance of nature.

Page 69: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

51

At the same time, our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators

kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival. They have no choice: kill or starve.

The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, and that has

the potential to elevate us above the status of "just another predator". Nonhumans lack this capacity, so

we shouldn't look to them for moral inspiration and guidance.

DVH

SEE ALSO: #37, #63, #67

#65 Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would

otherwise get out of hand?

Hunters often assert斷言 that their practices benefit their victims. A variation on the theme is

their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals do not die of

starvation ("a clean bullet in the brain is preferable to a slow death by starvation"). Following are some

facts and questions about hunting and "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening.

Game animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It

is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve. But

the hunters do not seek out and kill only these animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the

strongest and most beautiful animals (for maximum meat or trophy potential). The hunters thus recruit

the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending.

The hunters restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy

potential. If the hunters were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not

perform their "service" for the skunk, or the field mouse? And why is hunting not limited to times

when starvation occurs, if hunting has as a goal the prevention of starvation? (The reason that deer

aren't hunted in early spring or late winter--when starvation occurs--is that the carcasses would contain

less fat, and hence, be far less desirable to meat consumers. Also, hunting then would be unpopular to

hunters due to the snow, mud, and insects.)

So-called "game management" policies are actually programs designed to eliminate predators of

the game species and to artificially provide additional habitat and resources for the game species. Why

are these predator species eliminated when they would provide a natural and ecologically sound

mechanism for controlling the population of game species? Why are such activities as burning,

clear-cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increase the populations of

game animals, if hunting has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation? The truth is

that the management agencies actually try to attain a maximum sustainable yield, or harvest, of game

animals.

The wildlife managers and hunters preferentially kill male animals, a policy designed to keep

populations high. If overpopulation were really a concern, they would preferentially kill females.

Page 70: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

52

Another common practice that belies the claim that wildlife management has as a goal the

reduction of populations to prevent starvation is the practice of game stocking. For example, in the

state of New York the Department of Environmental Conservation obtains pheasants raised in captivity

and then releases them in areas frequented by hunters. For every animal killed by a hunter, two are

seriously injured and left to die a slow death. Given these statistics, it is clear that hunting fails even in

its proclaimed goal--the reduction of suffering.

The species targeted by hunters, both the game animals and their predators, have survived in

balance for millions of years, yet now wildlife managers and hunters insist they need to be "managed".

The legitimate task of wildlife management should be to preserve viable, natural wildlife populations

and ecosystems. In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill hundreds of human beings every year.

Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of human beings die from starvation

each and every day. Should we assume that the reader will one day be one of them, and dispatch him

straight away? Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this same consideration should be accorded to the

deer. DG

Unless hunting is part of a controlled culling process, it is unlikely to be of benefit in any

population maintenance. The number and distribution of animals slaughtered is unrelated to any

perceived maldistribution of species, but is more closely related to the predilections of the hunters.

Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure" or profit, has a history more closely associated with

bringing animals close to, or into, extinction, rather than protecting from overpopulation. Examples

include the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. With the advent of modern "wildlife management", we

see a transition to systems designed to artificially increase the populations of certain species to sustain

a yield or harvest for hunters.

The need for population control of animals generally arises either from the introduction of species

that have become pests or from indigenous animals that are competing for resources (such as the

kangaroo, which competes with sheep and cattle). These imbalances usually have a human base. It is

more appropriate to examine our resource uses and requirements, and to act more responsibly in our

relationship with the environment, than to seek a "solution" to self-created problems through the

morally dubious practice of hunting. JK

….the American public is footing the bill for predator-control programs that cause the systematic

slaughter of refuge animals. Raccoons and red fox, squirrel and skunks are but a few of the many

egg-eating predators trapped and destroyed in the name of "wildlife management programs". Sea gulls

are shot, fox pups poisoned, and coyotes killed by aerial gunners in low-flying aircraft. This wholesale

destruction is taking place on the only Federal lands set aside to protect America's wildlife!

Humane Society of the United States

The creed of maximum sustainable yield unmasks the rhetoric about "humane service" to animals.

It must be a perverse distortion of the ideal of humane service to accept or engage in practices the

Page 71: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

53

explicit goal of which is to insure that there will be a larger, rather than a smaller, number of animals to

kill! With "humane friends" like that, wild animals certainly do not need any enemies.

Tom Regan (philosopher and AR activist)

The real cure for our environmental problems is to understand that our job

is to salvage Mother Nature...We are facing a formidable enemy in this

field. It is the hunters...and to convince them to leave their guns on the

wall is going to be very difficult.

Jacques Cousteau (oceanographer)

SEE ALSO: #66

#66 Aren't hunting fees the major source of revenue for wildlife

management and habitat restoration?

We have seen in question #65 that practices described as "wildlife management" are actually

designed to increase the populations of game species desirable to hunters. Viewed in this light, the

connection between hunting fees and the wildlife agencies looks more like an incestuous relationship

than a constructive one designed to protect the general public's interests. Following are some more

facts of interest in this regard.

Only 7 percent of the population hunt, yet all pay via taxation for hunting programs and services.

Licenses account for only a fraction of the cost of hunting programs at the national level. For example,

the US Fish and Wildlife Service programs get up to 90 percent of their revenues from general tax

revenues. At the state level, hunting fees make up the largest part, and a significant part is obtained

from Federal funds obtained from excise taxes on guns and ammunition. These funds are distributed to

the states based on the number of hunters in the state! It is easy to see, then, how the programs are

designed to appease and satisfy hunters.

It is important to remember that state game officials are appointed, not elected, and their salaries

are paid through the purchase of hunting fees. This ensures that these officials regard the hunters as

their constituents. David Favre, Professor of Wildlife Law at the Detroit College of Law, describes the

situation as follows:

The primary question asked by many within these special [state] agencies

would be something like, "How do we provide the best hunting experience

for the hunters of our state?" The literature is replete with surveys of

hunter desires and preferences in an attempt to serve these constituents.

...Three factors support the status quo within the agency. First, as with

most bureaucracies, individuals are hesitant to question their own

Page 72: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

54

on-going programs...Second, besides the normal bureaucratics, most state

game agencies have a substantial group of individuals who are strong

advocates for the hunters of the state. They are not neutral but very

supportive of the hunting ethic and would not be expected to raise broader

questions. Finally, and in many ways most importantly, is the funding

mechanism...Since a large proportion of the funds which run the department

and pay the salaries are from hunters and fishermen, there is a strong

tendency for the agency to consider itself not as representing and working

for the general public but that they need only serve their financial

sponsors, the hunters and fishermen of the state. If your financial

support is dependent on the activity of hunting, obviously very few are

going to question the ecological or ethical problems therewith.

Many would argue that these funding arrangements constitute a prostitution of the public lands for

the benefit of the few. We can envision possible alternatives to these arrangements. Other users of

parks and natural resources, such as hikers, bird watchers, wildlife enthusiasts, eco-tourists, etc., can

provide access to funds necessary for real habitat restoration and wildlife management, not the

perverted brand that caters to the desires of hunters. As far as acquisition and protection of land is

concerned, organizations such as the Nature Conservancy play an important role. They can do much

more with even a fraction of the funding currently earmarked to subsidize hunting ($500 million per

year). DG/JK

SEE ALSO: #65

#67 Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we kill?

Some vegetarians accept that where farmers or small landholders breed, maintain, and then kill

their own livestock there is an argument for their eating that meat. There would need, at all stages, to

be a humane life and death involved. Hunting seems not to fit within this argument because the kill is

often not "clean", and the hunter has not had any involvement in the birth and growth of the animal.

As the arguments in the FAQ demonstrate, however, there is a wider context in which these

actions have to be considered. Animals are sentient creatures who share many of our characteristics.

The question is not only whether it is acceptable to eat an animal (which we perhaps hunted and killed),

but if it is an appropriate action to take--stalking and murdering another animal, or eating the product

of someone else's killing. Is it a proper action for a supposedly rational and ethical man or woman?

JK

This question reminds one of question #12, where it is suggested that killing and eating an animal

is justified because the animal is raised for that purpose. The process leading up to the eating is used to

Page 73: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

VIII --- Hunting and Fishing, questions # 63-68 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

55

justify the eating. In this question, the eating is used to justify the process leading up to it. Both

attempts are totally illogical. Imagine telling the police not to worry that you have just stalked and

killed a person because you ate the person!

DG

SEE ALSO: #12, #21, #63-#64

#68 Fish are dumb like insects; what's wrong with fishing?

Fish are not "dumb" except in the sense that they are unable to speak. They have a complex

nervous system based around a brain and spinal cord similar to other vertebrates. They are not as

intelligent as humans in terms of functioning in our social and physical environment, but they are

very successful and effective in their own environment. Behavioral studies indicate that they exhibit

complex forms of learning, such as operant conditioning, serial reversal learning, probability learning,

and avoidance learning. Many authorities doubt that there is a significant qualitative difference

between learning in fishes and that in rats.

Many people who fish talk about the challenge of fishing, and the contest between themselves and

the fish (on a one-to-one basis, not in relation to trawling or other net fishing). This implies an

awareness and intelligence in the hunted of a level at least sufficient to challenge the hunter.

The death inflicted by fishing--a slow asphyxiation either in a net or after an extended period

fighting against a barbed hook wedged somewhere in their head--is painful and distressing to a sentient

animal. Those that doubt that fish feel pain must explain why it is that their brains contain endogenous

opiates and receptors for them; these are accepted as mechanisms for the attenuation of pain in other

vertebrates. JK

Some people believe that it is OK to catch fish as long as they are returned to the water. But, when

you think about it, it's as if one is playing with the fish. Also, handling the fish wipes off an important

disease-fighting coating on their scales. The hook can be swallowed, leading to serious complications,

and even if it isn't, pulling it out of their mouth leaves a lesion that is open to infection.

JSD

SEE ALSO: #22, #39

Page 74: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IX --- Animals for Entertainment, questions # 69-74 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

56

IX. ANIMALS FOR ENTERTAINMENT

#69 Don't zoos contribute to the saving of species from extinction?

Zoos often claim that they are "arks", which can preserve species whose habitat has been

destroyed, or which were wiped out in the wild for other reasons (such as hunting). They suggest that

they can maintain the species in captivity until the cause of the creature's extirpation is remedied, and

then successfully reintroduce the animals to the wild, resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population.

Zoos often defend their existence against challenges from the AR movement on these grounds.

There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number of animals required to

maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high, and is never known for certain. If the captive gene pool

is too small, then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth defects, and

mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never be viable in the wild.

Some species are extremely difficult to breed in captivity: marine mammals, many bird species,

and so on. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus of captive breeding efforts for several decades

in zoos around the world, are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the zoos, by

taking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs, constitute a net drain on wild

populations.

The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties. Animals threatened by

poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more) will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms,

material needs, and a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by chemical

contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides and lead shot) will not be candidates for

release until we stop using the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to be

processed out of the environment. Since heavy metals and some pesticides are both persistent and

bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or centuries before it is safe to reintroduce the animals.

Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the process of

reintroduction. Problems such as human imprinting, the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens,

and raise their young are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species.

There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of zoos can preserve under even

the most optimistic assumptions. Profound constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their

limited financial resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species be preserved.

Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals of large mammal species. The need to

preserve scores or hundreds of a particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest

zoos, and even the whole world zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve even a few dozen

species in this manner.

Contrast this with the efficiency of large habitat preserves, which can maintain viable populations

of whole complexes of species with minimal human intervention. Large preserves maintain every

Page 75: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IX --- Animals for Entertainment, questions # 69-74 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

57

species in the ecosystem in a predominantly self-sufficient manner, while keeping the creatures in the

natural habitat unmolested. If the financial resources (both government and charitable), and the

biological expertise currently consumed by zoos, were redirected to habitat preservation and

management, we would have far fewer worries about habitat restoration or preserving species whose

habitat is gone.

Choosing zoos as a means for species preservation, in addition to being expensive and of dubious

effectiveness, has serious ethical problems. Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them

freedom of movement and association, which is important to social animals, and frustrates many of

their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them at least bored, and at worst seriously neurotic. While

humans may feel there is some justifying benefit to their captivity (that the species is being preserved,

and may someday be reintroduced into the wild), this is no compensating benefit to the individual

animals. Attempts to preserve species by means of captivity have been described as sacrificing the

individual gorilla to the abstract Gorilla (i.e., to the abstract conception of the gorilla). JE

#70 Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the wild?

In some cases, this is true. But it is irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decides to exhibit human beings.

They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country and put her on display. Due to the regular

feedings and health care that the zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in captivity. Is this practice

acceptable?

A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality of life is not always decided in favor of quantity.

DG

#71 How will people see wild animals and learn about them without

zoos?

To gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe them in their natural

habitats. The conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior

significantly.

There are several practical alternatives to zoos for educational purposes. There are many nature

documentaries shown regularly on television as well as available on video cassettes. Specials on public

television networks, as well as several cable channels, such as The Discovery Channel, provide

accurate information on animals in their natural habitats. Magazines such as National Geographic

provide superb illustrated articles, as well. And, of course, public libraries are a gold-mine of

information.

Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages. This is unfair and cruel. The

natural instincts and behavior of these animals are suppressed by force. How can anyone observe wild

animals under such circumstances and believe that one has been educated? JLS

Page 76: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IX --- Animals for Entertainment, questions # 69-74 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

58

All good things are wild, and free.

Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)

SEE ALSO: #69-#70

#72 What is wrong with circuses and rodeos?

To treat animals as objects for our amusement is to treat them without the respect they deserve.

When we degrade the most intelligent fellow mammals in this way, we act as our ancestors acted in

former centuries. They knew nothing about the animals' intelligence, sensitivities, emotions, and social

needs; they saw only brute beasts. To continue such ancient traditions, even if no cruelty were involved,

means that we insist on remaining ignorant and insensitive.

But the cruelty does exist and is inherent in these spectacles. In rodeos, there is no show unless the

animal is frightened or in pain. In circuses, animals suffer most before and after the show. They endure

punishment during training and are subjected to physical and emotional hardships during transportation.

They are forced to travel tens of thousands of miles each year, often in extreme heat or cold, with tigers

living in cramped cages and elephants chained in filthy railroad cars. To the entrepreneurs, animals are

merely stock in trade, to be replaced when they are used up. DVH

David Cowles-Hamar writes about circuses as follows in his "The Manual of Animal Rights":

Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of "persuasion" is required

to achieve these performances, and to this end, circuses employ

various techniques. These include deprivation of food, deprivation

of company, intimidation, muzzling, drugs, punishment and reward

systems, shackling, whips, electronic goads, sticks, and the noise

of guns...Circus animals suffer similar mental and physical problems

to zoo animals, displaying stereotypical behavior...Physical symptoms

include shackle sores, herpes, liver failure, kidney disease, and

sometimes death...Many of the animals become both physically and

mentally ill.

DG

The American rodeo consists of roping, bucking, and steer wrestling events. While the public

witnesses only the 8 seconds or so that the animals perform, there are hundreds of hours of

unsupervised practice sessions. Also, the stress of constant travel, often in improperly ventilated

vehicles, and poor enforcement of proper unloading, feeding, and watering of animals during travel

contribute to a life of misery for these animals.

Page 77: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IX --- Animals for Entertainment, questions # 69-74 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

59

As half a rider's score is based on the performance of the bucking horse or bull, riders encourage a

wild ride by tugging on a bucking strap that is squeezed tightly around the animal's loins. Electric prods

and raking spurs are also used to stimulate wild behavior. Injuries range from bruises and broken bones

to paralysis, severed tracheas, and death. Spinal cords of calves can be severed when forced to an

abrupt stop while traveling at 30 mph. The practice of slamming these animals to the ground during

these events has caused the rupture of internal organs, leading to a slow, agonizing death.

Dr. C. G. Haber, a veterinarian with thirty years experience as a meat inspector for the USDA,

says: "The rodeo folks send their animals to the packing houses where...I have seen cattle so

extensively bruised that the only areas in which the skin was attached was the head, neck, legs, and

belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken from the spine and at times puncturing the lungs.

I have seen as much as two and three gallons of free blood accumulated under the detached skin."

JSD

#73 But isn't it true that animals are well cared for and wouldn't

perform if they weren't happy?

Refer to questions #72 and #74 to see that entertainment animals are generally not well cared for.

For centuries people have known that punishment can induce animals to perform. The criminal

justice system is based on the human rationality in connecting the act of a crime or wrongdoing with a

punishment. Many religions are also based, among other aspects, on a fear of punishment. Fear leads

most of us to act correctly, on the whole.

The same is true for other animals. Many years of unnecessary and repetitive psychology

experiments with Skinner boxes (among other gadgets) have demonstrated that animals will learn to do

things, or act in certain ways (that is, be conditioned) to avoid electric shocks or other punishment.

Animals do need to have their basic food requirements met, otherwise they sicken and die, but

they don't need to be "happy" to perform certain acts; fear or desire for a reward (such as food) will

make them do it. JK

SEE ALSO: #14, #51, #72, #74

#74 What about horse or greyhound racing?

Racing is an example of human abuse of animals merely for entertainment and pleasure,

regardless of the needs or condition of the animals. The pleasure derives primarily from gambling on

the outcome of the race. While some punters express an interest in the animal side of the equation,

most people interested in racing are not interested in the animals but in betting; attendance at race

meetings has fallen dramatically as off-course betting options became available.

Page 78: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

IX --- Animals for Entertainment, questions # 69-74 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

60

While some of the top dogs and horses may be kept in good conditions, for the majority of

animals, this is not the case. While minimum living standards have to be met, other factors are

introduced to gain the best performances (or in some cases to fix a race by ensuring a loss): drugs,

electrical stimuli, whips, etc. While many of these practices are outlawed (including dog blooding),

there are regular reports of various illegal techniques being used. Logic would suggest that where the

volume of money being moved around is as large as it is in racing, there are huge temptations to

massage the outcomes.

For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures are common in both flat

and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious

injury.

And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not perform as brilliantly as hoped, it

is disposed of. Horses are lucky in that they occasionally go to a home where they are well treated and

respected, but the knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products derived from

worn-out and old livestock). (Recently, a new practice has come to light: owners of race horses

sometimes murder horses that do not reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime", and then

file fraudulent insurance claims.) The likely homes for a greyhound are few and far between. JK

Race horses are prone to a disease called exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). It is

characterized by the presence of blood in the lungs and windpipe of the horse following intense

exercise. An Australian study found 42 percent of 1,180 horses to be suffering from EIPH.

A large percentage of race horses suffer from lameness. Fractures of the knee are common, as are

ligament sprain, joint sprain, and shin soreness.

Steeple chasing is designed to make the horses fall which sometimes results in the death of the

horse either though a broken neck or an "incurable" injury for which the horse is killed by a

veterinarian. David Cowles-Hamar

SEE ALSO: #72-#73

Page 79: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

X --- Companion Animals, questions # 75-76 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

61

X. COMPANION ANIMALS

#75 What about keeping pets?

In a perfect world, all of our efforts would go toward protecting the habitats of other species on

the planet and we would be able to maintain a "hands off" approach in which we did not take other

species into our family units, but allowed them to develop on their own in the wild. However, we are

far from such a Utopia and as responsible humans must deal with the results of the domestication of

animals. Since many animals domesticated to be pets have been bred but have no homes, most AR

supporters see nothing wrong with having them as companion animals. As a matter of fact, the AR

supporter may well provide homes for more unwanted companion animals than does the average

person! Similarly, animals domesticated for agricultural purposes should be cared for.

However, animals in the wild should be left there and not brought into homes as companions. A

cage in someone's house is an unnatural environment for an exotic bird, fish, or mammal. When the

novelty 新鮮感 wears off消失, wild pets usually end up at shelters, zoos, or research labs. Wild

animals have the right to be treated with respect, and that includes leaving them in their natural

surroundings.

LK

A loving relationship with a proper companion animal, a relationship that adequately provides for

the animal's physical and psychological needs, is not at all inconsistent with the principles and

advocacy of animal rights. Indeed, animal rights advocates have been leaders in drawing attention to

some of the abuses and neglects of our "beloved" pets. Many of the taken for granted practices do need

to be reexamined and changed. The questions that animal rights raises about companion animals are

important questions:

* Can we maintain animals as companions and still properly address their needs? Obviously, we can't

do this for all animals. For example, keeping birds in cages denies those creatures their capacity and

inherent need to fly.

* Is manipulating companion animals for our needs in the best interests of the nonhuman animal as

well?

Tail docking would thus be a practice to condemn in this regard.

* Might some of our taken-for-granted practices of pet keeping be really a form of exploitation?

Animals in circuses or panhandlers using animals on the street to get money from passersby would

arguably be cases of exploitation.

Page 80: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

X --- Companion Animals, questions # 75-76 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

62

* Which attitudes of human caretakers are truly expressions of our respect and love towards these

animals, and which might not be?

Exotic breeding is one example of this kind of abuse, especially when the breeding results in animals

that are at a greater risk for certain diseases or biological defects.

All that animal rights is really asking is that we consider more deeply and authentically the

practice at hand and whether or not it truly meets the benchmark標準 that BOTH the needs of human

AND nonhuman animals be considered. TA

The following points should be considered when selecting a companion animal.

Get a companion animal appropriate to your situation--don't keep a big dog in a flat or small

garden. Don't get an animal that will be kept unnecessarily confined--birds, fish, etc. However, it is a

good policy to try to keep cats inside as much as possible, especially at night, to protect both the cat

and local wildlife. Get your dog or cat from a local pound or animal group; thousands of animals are

destroyed each year by groups such as the RSPCA. The majority are animals who are lost or dumped.

Vicious animals are not adopted out. By getting an animal from such a source you will be saving its life

and reducing the reliance on breeders.

Finally, get your companion neutered. There is no behavioral or biological benefit from being

fertile or from having a litter. And every pup or kitten that is produced will need to find a home.

JK

SEE ALSO: #76

#76 What about spaying and neutering?

Ingrid Newkirk writes:

"What's happening to our best friends should never happen even to our worst enemies. With an

estimated 80 to 100 million cats and dogs in this country already, 3,000 to 5,000 more puppies and

kittens are born every hour in the United States--far more than can ever find good homes. Unwanted

animals are dumped at the local pound or abandoned in woods and on city streets, where they suffer

from starvation, lack of shelter and veterinary care, and abuse. Most die from disease, starvation, and

mistreatment, or, if they're lucky are 'put to sleep' forever at an animal shelter."

The point is that the practice of neutering and spaying prevents far more suffering and harm than it

imposes on the neutered or spayed animals. The net harm is minimized. DG

SEE ALSO: #75

Page 81: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

63

XI. LABORATORY ANIMALS

#77 What is wrong with experimentation on animals?

The claimed large gains from using animals in research makes the practice the most significant

challenge to AR philosophy. While it is easy to dismiss meat production as a trivial indulgence of the

taste buds, such a dismissal is not so easily accomplished for animal research.

First, a definition. We refer to as "vivisection" any use of animals in science or research that

exploits and harms them. This definition acknowledges that there is some research using animals that is

morally acceptable under AR philosophy (see question #80).

The case against vivisection is built upon three planks. They are:

PLANK A. Vivisection is immoral and should be abolished.

PLANK B. Abolition of vivisection is not antiscience or antiresearch.

PLANK C. The consequences of abolition are acceptable.

It is easy to misunderstand the AR philosophy regarding vivisection. Often, scientists will debate

endlessly about the scientific validity of research, and sometimes AR people engage in those debates.

Such issues are part of PLANK C, which asserts that much research is misleading, wrong, or misguided.

However, the key to the AR position is PLANK A, which asserts an objection to vivisection on ethical

grounds. We seek to reassure people about the effects abolition will have on future medical progress

via PLANKS B and C.

In the material that follows, each piece of text is identified with a preceding tag such as [PLANK

A]. The idea is to show how the text fragments fit into the overall case. There is some overlap between

PLANKs B and C, so the assignment may look arbitrary in a few cases. DG

[PLANK A]

Over 100 million animals are used in experiments worldwide every year. A few of the more

egregious examples of vivisection may be enlightening for the uninformed (taken from R. Ryder's

"Victims of Science"):

*Psychologists gave electric shocks to the feet of 1042 mice. They then caused convulsions by giving

more intense shocks through cup-shaped electrodes applied to the animals' eyes or through spring clips

attached to their ears.

*In Japan, starved rats with electrodes in their necks and electrodes in their eyeballs were forced to run

in treadmills for four hours at a time.

Page 82: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

64

*A group of 64 monkeys was addicted to drugs by automatic injection in their jugular veins. When the

supply of drugs was abruptly withdrawn, some of the monkeys were observed to die in convulsions.

Before dying, some monkeys plucked out all their hair or bit off their own fingers and toes.

Basic ethical objections to this type of "science" are presented here and in questions #79 and #85.

Some technical objections are found in questions #78 and #80. Question #92 contains a list of books on

vivisection; refer to them for further examples of the excesses of vivisection, as well as more detailed

discussion of its technical merits.

VIVISECTION TREATS ANIMALS AS TOOLS. Vivisection effectively reduces sentient beings to

the status of disposable tools, to be used and discarded for the benefit of others. This forgets that each

animal has an inherent value, a value that does not rise and fall depending on the interests of others.

Those doubting this should ponder the implications of their views for humans: would they support the

breeding of human slaves for the exclusive use of experimenters?

VIVISECTION IS SPECIESIST. Most animal experimenters would not use nonconsenting humans in

invasive research. In making this concession, they reveal the importance they attach to species

membership, a biological line that is as morally relevant as that of race or gender, that is, not relevant at

all.

VIVISECTION DEMEANS SCIENCE. Its barbaric practices are an insult to those who feel that

science should provide humans with the opportunity to rise above the harsher laws of nature.

The words of Tom Regan summarize the feelings of many AR activists: "The laudatory

achievements of science, including the many genuine benefits obtained for both humans and animals,

do not justify the unjust means used to secure them. As in other cases, so in the present one, the rights

view does not call for the cessation of scientific research. Such research should go on--but not at the

expense of laboratory animals." AECW

Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.

George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)

Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes that a man is at present committing against God

and his fair creation. Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger

the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit for their cruelty.

Leo Tolstoy (author)

Page 83: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

65

I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human

race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward

it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. Mark Twain (author)

SEE ALSO: #78-#82, #85-#86

#78 Do AR people accept that vivisection has led to valuable

medical advances?

[PLANK A]

AR advocates generally believe that vivisection has played a contributing, if not necessarily

essential, role in some valuable medical advances. However, AR philosophy asserts that the end does

not justify the means, and that therefore the answer cannot decide the legitimacy of the stance against

vivisection.

[PLANK C]

That said, many people, including former vivisectors and medical historians, will readily state that

there is ample scientific and historical evidence showing that most vivisection is futile, and often

harmful to those it pretends to serve.

On statistical grounds, vivisection does not deliver: despite the use of 144,000,000 animals in

Britain since 1950, life-expectancy in Britain for the middle-aged has not changed since this date.

Some 85 percent of the lab animals killed between the 1890s and the 1990s died after 1950, but the fall

in death rate during these 100 years was 92 percent complete by 1950. Consider, for a specific example,

these figures for cancer:

CANCER DEATH RATE PER MILLION MEN IN BRITAIN [FOR THOSE > 100 PER MILLION]

Cancer type 1971-1975 1976-1980 % change

Bladder 118 123 + 4.2

Pancreas 118 125 + 5.9

Prostate 177 199 + 12.4

Stomach 298 278 - 6.7

Colorectal 311 320 + 2.9

Lung Trachea Bronchus 1091 1125 + 3.1

[data for women excised除去 for space reasons]

Gains收穫 in the war against cancer are sadly lacking, despite the vast numbers of animals

sacrificed for cancer research. When such analyses are performed across the spectrum of health issues,

it becomes clear that, at best, the contribution of vivisection to our health must be considered quite

Page 84: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

66

modest. The dramatic declines in death rates for old killer diseases, such as, tuberculosis, pneumonia,

typhoid, whooping cough, and cholera, came from improvements in housing, in working conditions, in

the quantity and quality of food and water supplies, and in hygiene. Chemotherapy and immunization

cannot logically be given much credit here, since they only became available, chronologically, after

most of the declines were achieved.

Consider the particular example of penicillin: it was discovered accidentally by Fleming in 1928.

He tested on rabbits, and when they failed to react (we now know that they excrete penicillin rapidly),

he lost interest in his substance. Still, two scientists followed up on his work, successfully tried on mice

and stated:

"...mice were tried in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was,

for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea pig. If we had used guinea pigs exclusively

we should have said that the penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to try to

overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man."

Vivisection generally fails because:

* Human medicine cannot be based on veterinary medicine. This is because animals are different

histologically, anatomically, genetically, immunologically, and physiologically.

* Animals and humans react differently to substances. For example, some drugs are carcinogenic in

humans but not in animals, or vice-versa.

* Naturally occurring diseases (e.g., in patients) and artificially induced diseases (e.g., in lab animals)

often differ substantially.

All this manifests itself in examples such as the one below:

SPECIES DIFFERENCE IN TESTS FOR BIRTH DEFECTS

chemical Teratogen (i.e., causes Birth defects)

yes no

aspirin rats mice cats dogs guinea pigs

monkeys

humans

aminopterin humans monkeys

azathioprine rabbits rats

caffeine rats mice rabbits

cortisone mice rabbits rats

thalidomide Humans rats, mice, hamsters

triamcilanone mice humans

Page 85: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

67

There are countless examples, old and recent, of the misleading effects of vivisection, and there

are countless statements from reputable scientists who see vivisection for what it is: bad science.

Following are just a few of them. AECW

The uselessness of most of the animal models is less well-known. For example, the discovery of

chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely heralded as a triumph due to use

of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are

endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any,

factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed while conflicting animal results have often

delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial

advance in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the

chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancerwere found in a clinical

context rather than in animal studies. Dr. Irwin Bross 1981 Congressional testimony

Indeed even while these [clinical] studies were starting, warning voices

were suggesting that data from research on animals could not be used to

develop a treatment for human tumors.

British Medical Journal, 1982

Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and a hindrance to scientific progress.

Dr. Werner Hartinger

Chief Surgeon, West Germany, 1988

...many vivisectors still claim that what they do helps save human lives.

They are lying. The truth is that animal experiments kill people, and animal

researchers are responsible for the deaths of thousands of men, women and

children every year.

Dr. Vernon Coleman

Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, UK

#79 How can you justify losing medical advances that would save

human lives by stopping vivisection?

[PLANK A]

The same way we justify not performing forcible強制性 research on unwilling humans! A lot of

even more relevant information is currently foregone放棄 owing to our strictures苛責(嚴厲批評)

against human experimentation. If life-saving medical advances are to be sought at all cost, why should

Page 86: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

68

nonhuman animals be singled out for ill-treatment虐待? We must accept that there is such a thing as

"ill-gotten gains不正當獲得", and that the potential fruits of vivisection qualify as such.

This question might be regarded as a veiled insult to the creativity and resourcefulness of

scientists. Although humans have never set foot on Pluto, scientists have still garnered a lot of valuable

scientific information concerning it. Why couldn't such feats of ingenuity be repeated in other fields?

AECW

[PLANK B]

Forcible experimentation on humans is not the only alternative. Many humans would be glad to

participate in experiments that offer the hope of a cure for their afflictions, or for the afflictions of

others. If individual choice were allowed, there might be no need for animal experimentation. The

stumbling block is government regulations that forbid these choices. Similarly, government regulations

are the reason many animals are sacrificed for product testing, often unnecessarily. PM

SEE ALSO: #77-#78, #80-#82, #85-#86

#80 Aren't there instances where there are no alternatives to the

use of animals?

[PLANK A]

The reply to the question here is succinct: "If so, so what?". Let us recall that we are happy

enough (today) to forego knowledge that would be acquired at the expense of commandeering humans

into service, and that we include children, the mentally diminished and even people suffering from

types of disease for which animal models are unsatisfactory (such as AIDS). That is, a prior ethical

decision was made that rules them out from experimentation, and that foregoes any potential

knowledge so derived.

Now the Animal Rights argument is consistent: since no morally relevant difference can be

produced that separates humans spared experimentation from test animals (those that are

subjects-of-a-life), vivisection is exposed as immoral, and the practice must be abandoned.

Just as the insights offered by the Nazis' experiments on concentration camp prisoners were

morally illicit, so are any and all benefits traceable to vivisection. As Tom Regan put it:

"Since, whatever our gains, they are ill-gotten, we must bring an end to

[such] research, whatever our losses."

[PLANK B]

The argument above makes the search for alternatives morally imperative, and if it is objected that

this "just isn't possible", one should reply that belittling the ingenuity of scientists will not do. There

Page 87: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

69

have been cases where alternatives to vivisection had to be sought, and--of course--they were found.

For example, Sharpe writes in The Human Cost of Animal Experimentation:

"Historically, a classic example is the conquest of yellow fever. In 1900, no animal was known to be

susceptible, prompting studies with human volunteers which proved that mosquitoes did indeed

transmit the disease. These observations led to improved sanitation and quarantine measures in Havana

where yellow fever, once rife, was eradicated."

[PLANK C]

We now cite a few alternatives to animal models of human diseases. Two traditional types are: a)

Clinical studies: these are essential for a thorough understanding of any disease. Anesthetics, artificial

respiration, the stethoscope, electrocardiographs, blood pressure measurements, etc., resulted from

careful clinical studies. b) Epidemiology studies: i.e., the study of diseases of whole populations. They,

and not animal tests, have identified most of the substances known to cause cancer in humans. Typical

example: Why is cancer of the colon so frequent in Europe and North America, infrequent in Japan, but

common in Japanese immigrants to North America?

More recent technological advances now allow a host of other investigative methods to be applied,

including:

* Tissue cultures: Human cells and tissues can be kept alive in cultures and used for biomedical

research. Since human material is used, extrapolation problems are short-circuited. Such cultures have

been used in cancer research by FDA scientists, for example, and according to them: "[they] offer the

possibility of studying not only the biology of cancer cell growth and invasion into normal human

tissue, but also provide a method for evaluating the effects of a variety of potentially important

antitumor agents."

* Physico-chemical methods: For example, liquid chromatographs and mass spectrophotometers allow

researchers to identify substances in biological substances. For example, a bioassay for vitamin D used

to involve inducing rickets in rats and feeding them vitamin-D-rich substances. Now, liquid

chromatography allows such bioassays to be conducted quicker and at reduced cost.

* Computer simulations: According to Dr. Walker at the University of Texas: "... computer simulations

offer a wide range of advantages over live animal experiments in the physiology and pharmacology

laboratory. These include: savings in animal procurement and housing costs; nearly unlimited

availability to meet student schedules; the opportunity to correct errors and repeat parts of the

experiment performed incorrectly or misinterpreted; speed of operation and efficient use of students'

time and consistency with knowledge learned elsewhere."

Page 88: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

70

* Computer-aided drug design: Such methods have been used in cancer and sickle-cell anemia drug

research, for example. Here, 3D computer graphics and the theoretical field of quantum pharmacology

are combined to help in designing drugs according to required specifications.

* Mechanical models: For example, an artificial neck has been developed by General Motors for use in

car-crash simulations. Indeed, the well-known "crash dummies" are much more accurate and effective

than the primates previously employed.

This list is by no means exhaustive.

[PLANK B]

There are instances where the benefits of experimentation accrue directly to the individual

concerned; for example, the trial of a new plastic heart may be proposed to someone suffering from

heart disease, or a new surgical technique may be attempted to save a nonhuman animal. This may

qualify, in the mind of the questioner, as an instance of use of animals. The position here is simple: The

Animal Rights position does not condemn experimentation where it is conducted for the benefit of the

individual patient. Clinical trials of new drugs, for example, often fall in this category, and so does

some veterinary research, such as the clinical study of already sick animals. Another example of

acceptable animal research is ethology, i.e. the study of animals in their natural habitat. AECW

[PLANK B]

Following is a list of alternatives to much, if not all, vivisection:

* Cell, tissue, and organ cultures

* Clinical observation

* Human volunteers (sick and well)

* Autopsies

* Material from natural deaths

* Noninvasive imaging in clinical settings

* Post-market surveillance

* Statistical inference

* Computer models

* Substitution with plants

These alternatives, and others not yet conceived, will ensure that scientific research will not come

to a halt upon abolition of vivisection. DG

Page 89: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

71

#81 But what if animals also benefit, e.g., through advance of

veterinary science?

[PLANK A]

The Animal Rights philosophy is species-neutral, so the arguments developed elsewhere in this

section apply with equal force. The immorality of rights-violative practices is not attenuated by

claiming that the victims and beneficiaries are of the same species. AECW

#82 Should people refuse medical treatments obtained through

vivisection?

[PLANK A]

This is a favorite question for the defenders of vivisection. The implication is that the AR position

is inconsistent前後矛盾 or irrational because AR people partake共享 of some fruits of vivisection.

As a first answer, we can point out that for existing treatments derived from vivisection, the

damage has already been done. Nothing is gained by refusing the treatment. Vivisectors counter that

the situation is analogous to our refusal to eat meat sold at the grocery; the damage has been done, so

why not eat the meat? But there is a crucial difference. Knowledge is a permanent commodity; unlike

meat, it is abstract, it doesn't rot腐敗. Consider a piece of knowledge obtained through vivisection. If

vivisection were abolished, the knowledge could be used repeatedly without endorsing or further

supporting vivisection. With meat consumption, the practice of slaughter must continue if the fruits are

to continue to be enjoyed. Another point is that, had the vivisection not occurred, the knowledge might

well have been obtained through alternative, moral methods.

Are we to permanently foreclose取消債權 the use of an abstract piece of knowledge due to the

past folly愚蠢 of a vivisector? The same cannot be said of meat; it cannot be obtained without

slaughter.

If the reader finds this unpersuasive沒有說服力的, she should consider that the AR movement

sincerely wants to abolish vivisection, eliminating ill-gotten fruits. If this is achieved, the original

question becomes moot有討論空間的, because there will be no such fruits. DG

[PLANK A]

This is another "where should I draw the line" question, with the added twist that one's personal

health may be on the line. As such, the right answer is likely to depend a good deal on personal

circumstances and judgment. It is certainly beyond the call of duty to make an absolute pledge, since

the principle of self-defense may ultimately apply (particularly in life-or death cases). Still, many

people will be prepared to make statements against animal oppression, even at considerable cost to

their well-being. For these, the following issues might be worth considering.

Page 90: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

72

[PLANK C]

WHAT IS THE TRUE CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION TO THE

DEVELOPMENT OF THE TREATMENT? Most treatments owe nothing to animal experimentation at

all, or were developed in spite of animal experimentation rather than thanks to it.

Insulin is one good example. The really important discoveries did not proceed from the celebrated

experiments of Banting and Best on dogs but from clinical discoveries: According to Dr. Sharpe: "The

link between diabetes and the pancreas was first demonstrated by Thomas Cawley in 1788 when he

examined a patient who had died from the disease. Further autopsies confirmed that diabetes is indeed

linked with degeneration of the pancreas but, partly because physiologists, including the notorious

Claude Bernard, had failed to produce a diabetic state in animals...the idea was not accepted for many

years." One had to wait until 1889 for the link to be accepted, the date at which two researchers,

Mering and Minkowski, managed to induce a form of diabetes in dogs by removing their entire

pancreas. Autopsies further revealed that some parts of the pancreas of diabetics were damaged, giving

birth to the idea that administering pancreatic extracts to patients might help.

Other examples of treatments owing nothing to vivisection include the heart drug digitalis, quinine

(used against malaria), morphine (a pain killer), ether (an anesthetic), sulfanilimide (a diuretic),

cortisone (used to relieve arthritic pains, for example), aspirin, fluoride (in toothpastes), etc.

Incidentally, some of these indisputably useful drugs would find it hard to pass these so-called

animal safety tests. Insulin causes birth defects in chickens, rabbits, and mice but not in man; morphine

sedates man but stimulates cats; doses of aspirin used in human therapeutics poison cats (and do

nothing for fever in horses); the widespread use of digitalis was slowed down by confounding results

from animal studies (and legitimized by clinical studies, as ever), and so on.

IS THE TREATMENT REALLY SAFE? The nefarious effects of many newly-developed, "safe"

compounds often take some time to be acknowledged. For example, even serious side-effects can

sometimes go under-reported. In the UK, only a dozen of the 3500 deaths eventually linked to the use

of isoprenaline aerosol inhalers were reported by doctors. Similarly, it took 4 years for the side-effects

of the heart drug Eraldine (which included eye damage) to be acknowledged. The use of these drugs

were, evidently, approved following extensive animal testing.

WILL THE TREATMENT REALLY HELP? This question is not as incongruous as it may appear. A

1967 official enquiry suggested that one third of the most prescribed drugs in the UK were "undesirable

preparations". Many new drugs provide no advantage over existing compounds: in 1977, the US FDA

released a study of 1,935 drugs introduced up to April 1977 which suggested that 79.4 percent of them

provided "little or no [therapeutic] gain". About 80 percent of new introductions in the UK are

reformulations, or duplications of existing drugs. A 1980 survey by the Medicines Division of UK

Department for Health and Social Security states : "[new drugs] have largely been introduced into

therapeutic areas already heavily oversubscribed and...for conditions which are common, largely

Page 91: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

73

chronic and occur principally in the affluent Western society. Innovation is therefore largely directed

toward commercial returns rather than therapeutic needs."

[PLANK B]

ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TREATMENT? A better appreciation of the benefits of

"alternative" practices has developed in recent years. Often, dietary or lifestyle changes can be effective

treatments on their own. Adult-onset diabetes has been linked to obesity, for instance, and can often be

cured simply by weight-loss and sensible dieting. Other types of alternative medicine, such as

acupuncture, have proven useful in stress relief, and against insomnia and back pains. AECW

[PLANK A]

In modern society, I think it would be almost impossible NOT to use medical information gained

through animal research at some stage--drug testing being the most obvious consideration--without

opting out of health care altogether. It is important, therefore, that we emphasize the need to stop now.

The past is irretrievable. JK

#83 Farmers have to kill pests to protect our food supply. Given

that, what's wrong with killing a few more rats for medical research?

[PLANK A]

First, we object to the casual attitude of the questioner to the killing of rights holders. A

nonspeciesist philosophy, such as that of Animal Rights, sees that as no different from suggesting:

Humans are killed legitimately every day. Given that, what's wrong with

killing a few more humans for medical research?

Hopefully, the reply is now obvious: in the original question, the fate of pests is an irrelevant

consideration (here), and the case for the liberation of laboratory animals must be evaluated on its own.

Seeking to dilute a number of immoral killings into a greater number of arguably defensible ones is a

creative but illogical attempt at ethical reasoning. AECW

SEE ALSO: #59

#84 What about dissection; isn't it necessary for a complete

education?

[PLANK A]

Page 92: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

74

Dissection refers to the practice of performing exploratory surgery on animals (both killed and

live) in an educational context. The average person's experience of this practice consists of dissecting a

frog in a high-school biology class, but fetal chipmunks, mice, rabbits, dogs, cats, pigs, and other

animals are also used.

Dissection accounts for the death of about 7 million animals per year. Many of these animals are

bred in factory-farm conditions. Others are taken from their natural habitats. Often, strayed companion

animals end up in the hands of dissectors. These animals suffer from inhumane confinement and

transport, and are finally killed by means of gassing, neck-snapping, and other "inexpensive" methods.

The practice of dissection is repulsive to many students and high-schoolers have begun to speak

out against it. Some have even engaged in litigation (and won!) to assert a right to not participate in

such unnecessary cruelty. California has a law giving students (through high school) the right to refuse

dissection. The law requires an alternative to be offered and that the student suffer no sanctions for

exercising this right.

Having dealt with the sub-question "What is dissection?", let's consider whether it is necessary for

a complete education.

[PLANK B]

There are several very effective alternatives to dissection. In some cases, these alternatives are

more effective than dissection itself. Larger-than-life models, films and videos, and computer

simulations are all viable methods of teaching biological principles. The latter option, computer

simulation, has the advantage of offering an additional interactive facility that has shown great value in

other educational contexts. These alternative methods are often cheaper than the traditional practice of

dissection. A computer program can be used indefinitely for a one-time purchase cost; the practice of

dissection presents an ongoing expense.

In view of these effective alternatives, and the economic gains associated therewith, the practice

of dissection begins to look more and more like a rite of passage into the world of animal abuse, almost

a fraternity initiation for future vivisectors. This practice desensitizes students to animal suffering and

teaches them that animals can be used and discarded without respect for their lives. Is this the kind of

lesson we want to teach our children? JLS/DG

[PLANK C]

Dissecting animals is often described as necessary for the complete education of surgeons. This is

nonsense. Numerous surgeons have stated that practicing on animals does not provide adequate skills

for human surgery. For example, dogs are the favorite test animal of surgery students, yet their body

shape is different, the internal arrangement of their organs is different, the elasticity of their tissues

under the scalpel is different, and postoperative effects are different (they are less prone to infection,

for one thing). Also, many surgeons have suggested that practicing on animals may induce in the mind

of the student a casual attitude to suffering.

Page 93: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

75

Following are the thoughts of several prestigious surgeons on this issue.

AECW

...wounds of animals are so different from those of [humans] that the

conclusions of vivisection are absolutely worthless. They have done far

more harm than good in surgery.

Lawson Tait

…Any person who had to endure certain experiments carried out on animals which perish slowly

in the laboratories would regard death by burning at the stake as a happy deliverance. Like every one

else in my profession, I used to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our knowledge of medical and

surgical science to animal experiments. Today I know that precisely the opposite is the case. In surgery

especially, they are of no help to the practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by them.

Professor Bigelow

...the aim should be to train the surgeon using human patients by moving gradually from stage to

stage of difficulty and explicitly rejecting the acquisition of skills by practicing on animals...which is

useless and dangerous in the training of a thoracic surgeon.

Professor R. J. Belcher

Practice on dogs probably makes a good veterinarian, if that is the kind of practitioner you want

for your family.

William Held

[End surgeon quotes]

Animal life, somber mystery. All nature protests against the barbarity of man, who misapprehends,

who humiliates, who tortures his inferior brethren.

Jules Michelet (historian)

Mutilating animals and calling it 'science' condemns the human species

to moral and intellectual hell...this hideous Dark Age of the mindless

torture of animals must be overcome.

Grace Slick (musician)

SEE ALSO: #77-#81, #92

#85 What is wrong with product testing on animals?

Page 94: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

76

[PLANK A]

The practice of product testing on animals treats animals as discardable and renewable resources,

as replaceable clones with no individual lives, no interests, and no aspirations of their own. It callously

enlists hapless creatures into the service of humans. It assumes that the risks incurred by one class of

individuals can be forcibly transferred onto another.

Product testing is also unbelievably cruel. One notorious method of testing is the Draize irritancy

test, in which potentially harmful products are dripped into the eyes of test animals (usually rabbits).

The harmfulness of the product is then (subjectively) assessed depending on the size of the area injured,

the opacity of the cornea, and the degree of redness, swelling and discharge of the conjunctivae, and in

more severe cases, on the blistering or gross destruction of the cornea.

[PLANK C]

The use of animals in medicine is often challenged on scientific grounds, and product tests are no

exception. For example, one widely used test is the so-called LD50 (Lethal Dose 50 percent) test. The

toxicity level of a product is assessed by force-feeding it to a number of animals until 50 percent of

them die. Death may come after a few days or weeks, and is often preceded by convulsions, vomiting,

breathing difficulties, and more. Often, this test reveals nothing at all; animals die simply because of

the volume of product administered, through the rupture of internal organs.

How such savage practices could provide any useful data is a mystery, and not just to AR activists.

It is seen as dubious by many toxicologists, and even by some Government advisers. Animal models

often produce misleading results, or produce no useful results at all, and product testing is no exception.

One toxicologist writes: "It is surely time, therefore, that we ceased to use as an index of the toxic

action of food additives the LD50 value, which is imprecise (varying considerably with different

species, with different strains of the same species, with sex, with nutritional status, environmental

status, and even with the concentration at which the substance is administered) and which is valueless

in the planning of further studies."

[PLANK B]

The truth is that animal lives could be spared in many ways. For example, duplication of

experiments could be avoided by setting up databases of results. Also, a host of humane alternatives to

such tests are already available, and the considerable sums spent on breeding or keeping test animals

could be usefully redirected into researching new ones.

AECW

The animal rights view calls for the abolition of all animal toxicity tests. Animals are not our

tasters. We are not their kings.

Tom Regan (philosopher and AR activist)

Page 95: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XI --- Laboratory Animals, questions# 77-86 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

77

SEE ALSO: #86

#86 How do I know if a product has been tested on animals?

There are two easy ways to determine whether a product uses animal products or is tested on

animals. First, most companies provide a toll-free telephone number for inquiring about their products.

This is the most reliable method for obtaining up-to-date information. Second, several excellent guides

are available that provide listings of companies and products. The section entitled "Guides, Handbooks,

and Reference" in question #92 lists several excellent guides to cruelty-free shopping. For maximum

convenience, you can obtain a wallet-sized listing from PETA. Send a stamped, self-addressed

envelope with your request for the "PETA Cruelty-Free Shopping Guide" to:

PETA: 501 Front St., Norfolk, VA 23510, U.S.A.

Another thing to think about is the possibility of avoiding products by making safe, ecologically

sound alternative products yourself! Several of the guides described in question #92 explain how to do

this. DG

SEE ALSO: #85, #92

This is a website of PETA helping you to search the information concerning the

animal test: http://search.caringconsumer.com/

Page 96: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

78

XII. AR ACTIVISM

#87 What are the forms of animal rights activism?

Let us first adopt a broad definition of activism as the process of acting in support of a cause, as

opposed to privately lamenting and bemoaning the current state of affairs. Given that, AR activism

spans a broad spectrum, with relatively simple and innocuous actions at one end, and difficult and

politico-legally charged actions at the other. Each individual must make a personal decision about

where to reside on the spectrum. For some, forceful or unlawful action is a moral imperative; others

may condemn it, or it may be impractical (for example, a lawyer may serve animals better through the

legislative process than by going on raids and possibly getting disbarred). Following is a brief sampling

of AR activism, beginning at the low end of the spectrum.

The spectrum of action can be divided conveniently into four zones: personal actions,

proselytizing, organizing, and civil disobedience. Consider first personal actions. Here are some of the

personal actions you can take in support of AR:

Learning -- Educate yourself about the issues involved.

Vegetarianism and Veganism -- Become one.

Cruelty-Free Shopping -- Avoid products involve testing on animals.

Cruelty-Free Fashion -- Avoid leather and fur.

Investing with Conscience -- Avoid companies that exploit animals.

Animal-Friendly Habits -- Avoid pesticides, detergents, etc.

The Golden Rule -- Apply it to all creatures and live by it.

Proselytizing is the process of "spreading the word". Here are some of the ways that it can be

done:

Tell your family and friends about your beliefs.

Write letters to lawmakers, newspapers, magazines, etc.

Write books and articles.

Create documentary films and videos.

Perform leafletting and "tabling".

Give lectures at schools and other organizations.

Speak at stockholders' meetings.

Join Animal Review Committees that oversee research on animals.

Picket, boycott, demonstrate, and protest.

Page 97: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

79

Organizing is a form of meta-proselytizing--helping others to spread the word. Here are some of

the ways to do it:

Join an AR-related organization.

Contribute time and money to an AR-related organization.

Found an AR organization.

Get involved in politics or law and act directly for AR.

The last category of action, civil disobedience, is the most contentious and the remaining

questions in this section deal further with it. Some draw the line here; others do not. It is a personal

decision. Here are some of the methods used to more forcefully assert the rights of animals:

Sit-ins and occupations.

Obstruction and harassment of people in their animal-exploitation activities (e.g., foxhunt sabotage).

The idea is to make it more difficult and/or embarrassing for people to continue these activities.

Spying and infiltration of animal-exploitation industries and organizations. The information and

evidence gathered can be a powerful weapon for AR activists.

Destruction of property related to exploitation and abuse of animals (laboratory equipment, meat

and clothes in stores, etc.). The idea is to make it more costly and less profitable for these animal

industries.

Sabotage of the animal-exploitation industries (e.g., destruction of vehicles and buildings). The idea

is to make the activities impossible.

Raids on premises associated with animal exploitation (to gather evidence, to sabotage, to liberate

animals).

It can be seen from the foregoing material that AR activism spans a wide range of activities that

includes both actions that would be conventionally regarded as law-abiding and non-threatening, and

actions that are unlawful and threatening to the animal-exploitation industries. Most AR activism falls

into the former category and, indeed, one can support these actions while condemning the latter

category of actions. People who are thinking, with some trepidation, of going for the first time to a

meeting of an AR group need have no fear of finding themselves involved with extremists, or of being

coerced into extreme activism. They would find a group of exceedingly law-abiding computer

programmers, teachers, artists, etc. (The extreme activists are essentially unorganized and cannot afford

to meet in public groups due to the unwelcome attention of law-enforcement agencies.)

DG

One person can make all the difference in the world...For the first time in recorded human history,

we have the fate of the whole planet in our hands.

Chrissie Hynde (musician)

Page 98: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

80

This is the true joy in life; being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, and

being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod.

George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)

Nothing is more powerful than an individual acting out of his conscience, thus helping to bring the

collective conscience to life. Norman Cousins (author)

SEE ALSO: #5, #88-#93, #95

#88 Isn't liberation just a token action because there is no way to

give homes to all the animals?

If one thinks of a liberation action solely in terms of liberation goals, there is some validity in

viewing it as a token, or symbolic, action. It is true that liberation actions could not succeed applied en

masse (集體), because there aren't enough homes for all the animals, and even if there were,

distribution channels do not exist for relocating them. Having said this, however, one needs to

remember that for the few animals that are liberated, the action is far from a token one. There is a

world of difference between spending one's life in a loving home or a sanctuary and spending it

imprisoned in a cage waiting for a brutal end.

Liberation actions need to be viewed with a less literal mind set. As Peter Singer points out, raids

are effective in obtaining evidence of animal abuse that could not otherwise have come to light. For

example, a raid on Thomas Gennarelli's laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania obtained

videotapes that convinced the Secretary for Health and Human Services to stop his experiments.

One might also bear in mind that symbolic actions have been some of the most powerful ones seen

throughout history. DG

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke (statesman and author)

SEE ALSO: #89-#91

#89 Isn't AR activism terrorism because it harasses people,

destroys property, and threatens humans with injury or death?

The answer to question #87 should make it clear that most AR activism cannot be described as

extreme and, furthermore, that not even all acts described as extreme could be thought of as "terrorism".

For example, a peaceful sit-in is highly unlikely to put others in a state of intense fear. Thus, it is not

correct to characterize AR activism generally as terrorism.

Page 99: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

81

One of the fundamental guidelines of the extreme activists is that great care must be taken not to

inflict強加 harm in carrying out the acts. This has been borne out證實 in practice. On the very rare

occasions when harm has occurred, the mainstream AR groups have condemned the acts. In some cases,

the authors發起人 of the acts have been suspected to be those allied against the AR movement; their

motives would not require deep thought to decipher破解.

The dictionary defines "terrorism" as the systematic use of violence or acts that instill intense fear

to achieve an end. Certainly, harassment of fur wearers, or shouting "meat is murder" outside a butcher

shop, could not be considered to be terrorism. Even destruction of property would not qualify under the

definition if it is done without harming others. Certainly, the Boston Tea Party raiders did not consider

themselves terrorists.

The real terrorists are the people and industries that inflict pain and suffering on millions of

innocent animals for trivial purposes each and every day.

DG

If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behavior.

Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)

I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not

retreat a single inch and I will be heard.

William Lloyd Garrison (author)

SEE ALSO: #87-#88, #90-#91

#90 Isn't extreme activism involving breaking the law (e.g.,

destruction of property) wrong?

Great men and women have demonstrated throughout history that laws can be immoral, and that

we can be justified in breaking them. Those who object to law-breaking under all circumstances would

have to condemn:

The Tiananmen Square demonstrators.

The Boston Tea Party participants.

Mahatma Gandhi and his followers.

World War II resistance fighters.

The Polish Solidarity Movement.

Vietnam War draft card burners.

The list could be continued almost indefinitely.

Page 100: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

82

Conversely, laws sometimes don't reflect our moral beliefs. After World War II, the allies had to

hastily write new laws to fully prosecute the Nazi war criminals at Nuremburg. Dave Foreman points

out that there is a distinction to be made between morality and the statutes of a government in power.

It could be argued that the principle we are talking about does not apply. Specifically, the law

against destruction of property is not immoral, and we therefore should not break it. However, a related

principle can be asserted. If a law is invoked to defend immoral practices, or to attempt to limit or

interfere with our ability to fight an immoral situation, then justification might be claimed for breaking

that law.

In the final analysis, this is a personal decision for each person to make in consultation with their

own conscience. DG

Certainly one of the highest duties of the citizen is a scrupulous obedience to the laws of the

nation. But it is not the highest duty.

Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. President)

I say, break the law.

Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)

SEE ALSO: #89, #91

#91 Doesn't extreme activism give the AR movement a bad name?

This is a significant argument that must be thoughtfully considered. In essence, the argument says

that if your actions can be characterized as extremist, then you are besmirching the actions of those

who are moderate, and you are creating a backlash that can negate the advances made by more

moderate voices.

The appeal to the "backlash" has historical precedent. Martin Luther King heard such warnings

when he organized civil-disobedience protests against segregation. Had Dr. King yielded to this appeal,

would the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts have been passed?

Dave Foreman, writing in "Confessions of an Eco-Warrior", points out that radicals in the

anti-Vietnam War movement were blamed for prolonging the war and for damaging the "respectable"

opposition. Yet the fear of increasingly militant demonstrations kept President Nixon from escalating

the war effort, and the stridency eventually wore down the pro-war establishment.

The backlash argument is a standard one that will always be trotted out by the opponents of a

movement. Backlash can be expected whenever the status quo is challenged, regardless of whether

extreme actions are employed. The real question to ask is: Does the added backlash outweigh the gains

achieved through extreme action? The answer here is not clear and we'll leave it to the informed reader

Page 101: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XII --- AR Activism, questions # 87-91 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

83

to make a judgement. Two books that might help in assessing this are "Free the Animals" by Ingrid

Newkirk, and "In Defense of Animals" by Peter Singer.

The following argument is paraphrased from Dave Foreman: Extreme action is a sophisticated

political tactic that dramatizes issues and places them before the public when they otherwise would be

ignored in the media, applies pressure to corporations and government agencies that otherwise are able

to resist "legitimate" pressure from law-abiding organizations, and broadens the spectrum of activism

so that lobbying by mainstream groups is not considered "extremist".

DG

My doctrine is this, that if we see cruelty or wrong that we have the power to stop, and do nothing,

we make ourselves sharers in the guilt. Anna Sewell (author)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favour freedom, and yet

deprecate agitation, are people who want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean

without the roar of its many waters. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it

never will. Frederick Douglass (abolitionist)

SEE ALSO: #87-#90

Page 102: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

84

XIII. AR INFORMATION AND

ORGANIZATIONS

#92 What are appropriate books and periodicals to read for more

information on AR issues?

There are hundreds of books that could be recommended. We provide only a sampling of books

and periodicals below. Please refer to question #94 for further book references and reviews. Space

limitations forced us to avoid children's books. Refer to the guide books listed for full bibliographies.

TA/DG/JLS/AECW

Animal Production and Factory Farming

"Animal Factories", Jim Mason and Peter Singer, AAVS, 801 Old York Rd, Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA

19046-1685, $12.95. Facts and photos on farms that mass produce animals for meat, milk, and eggs.

[1980, 1990]

"Factory Farming: The Experiment That Failed", Animal Welfare Institute, P.O. Box 3650,

Washington, DC 20007. Fact-packed indictment of factory-farming on welfare and economic grounds.

[1988]

"Waste of the West: Public Lands Ranching", Lynn Jacobs, P.O. Box 5784, Tucson, AZ 85703.

"Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages?", Michael Appleby, The Athene Trust, 5a Charles St, Petersfield,

Hants GU32 3EH. Scientific evidence of hen suffering. [1991]

"Alternative to Factory Farming", Paul Carnell, Earth Resources Research Publishers, London. Factory

farming challenged on economic grounds. [1983]

"Chicken and Egg: Who pays the price?", Clare Druce, Green Print Publishers, London. A criticism of

the poultry industry. [1989]

"Taking Stock: Animal Farming and The Environment", Alan Durning and Holly Brough, Worldwatch

Paper 103, WorldWatch Institute, 1776 Mass. Avenue N.W., Washington, DC 20036-1904. The

environmental cost of animal farming. [1991]

"Assault and Battery", Mark Gold, Pluton Publishers, London. Effects of farming on animals, humans

and the environment. [1983]

Page 103: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

85

"Animal Machines", Ruth Harrison, Vincent Stuart Publishers, London. The first book on factory

farming. [1964]

"Facts about Furs", G. Nilsson, et. al., Animal Welfare Institute, (op. cit.). On fur-farming and trapping.

[1980]

"Pulling the Wool", Christine Townend, Hale and Ironmonger Publishers, Sydney, Australia. The

Australian wool and sheep industry. [1985]

Animal Rights History

"All Heaven in a Rage", E. S. Turner. Provides a history of the animal protection movement up to the

1960's. [1964]

"Animal Warfare", David Henshaw, Fontana Publishers, London. The rise of direct action for Animal

Rights. [1984]

"History of the Humane Movement", Charles D. Niven, Johnson Publishers, London. From antiquity to

today. [1967]

"Animal Revolution", Richard Ryder, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Overview of the history of AW

and AR movements. [1985]

"The Animal Liberation Movement: Its Philosophy, Its Achievements and Its Future", Peter Singer,

Old Hammond Press Publishers, Nottingham, [1986]

"Man and the Natural World", Keith Thomas, Penguin, London. History from 1500 AD to 1800 AD.

[1991]

Animal Rights Legislation

"Animals and their Legal Rights", The Animal Welfare Institute, Washington D.C. [1990]

"Animal Rights, Human Wrongs", S. Jenkins, Lennard Publishings, Harpenden, UK. An RSPCA

officer's experiences demonstrate the lack of adequate animal legislation. [1992]

"Up against the Law", J. J. Roberts, Arc Print, London. 1986 Public Order Act and its implications for

Animal Rights protests. [1987]

Page 104: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

86

"Animals and Cruelty and Law", Noel Sweeney, Alibi, Bristol UK. A practicing barrister argues for

Animal Rights from the legal standpoint. [1990]

Animal Rights Philosophy

"The Case for Animal Rights", Tom Regan, University of California Press. [1983]

"The Struggle for Animal Rights", Tom Regan, International Society for Animal Rights, Inc., Clarks

Summit, PA. [1987]

"Animal Liberation", Peter Singer, PETA Merchandise, P.O. Box 42400, Washington, D.C. 20015,

$3.00 post-paid. The book that popularized Animal Rights. [1975, 1990]

"In Defense of Animals", Peter Singer.

"Animals' Rights", Henry Salt, AAVS (op. cit.), $6.95. Written a century ago, a true classic, anticipates

many of today's arguments.

"No Room, Save in the Heart: Poetry and Prose on Reverence for Life--Animals, Nature and

Humankind", Ann Cottrell Free, AAVS (op. cit.), $8.95.

"The Unheeded Cry: Animal Consciousness, Animal Pain and Science", Bernard Rollin. [1989]

"Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism", James Rachels. [1990]

"Morals, Reason and Animals, Steve Sapontzis. [1987]

"Political Theory and Animal Rights", Clarke and Lindzey (Eds.). This book provides interesting

excepts from thinkers since Plato to Regan on the issue of our relations and duties towards animals.

[1990]

"The Nature of the Beast: Are Animals Moral?", Stephen Clark.

"Animals, Men and Morals", Godlovitch et. al. [1971]

"Fettered Kingdoms", John Bryant, Fox Press Publishers, Winchester. Includes a well-known

indictment of pet keeping. [1990]

Page 105: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

87

"The Moral Status of Animals", Stephen Clark, Oxford University Press Publishers, Oxford. The roots

of humans' treatment of animals in sentimental fantasy. [1977]

"The Savour of Salt--A Henry Salt Anthology", G. and W. Hendrick, Centaur Press Publishers,

Fontwell. [1989]

"Animals and Why They Matter: A Journey Around the Species Barrier", Mary Midgley, Penguin

Publishers, London. [1983]

"Beast and Man", Mary Midgley, Harvester Press Publishers, Brighton. [1979]

"Animal Rights--A Symposium", David Paterson and Richard Ryder, Centaur Press Publishers,

Fontwell. [1979]

"Inhumane Society: The American Way of Exploiting Animals", Michael W. Fox, St. Martins Press,

New York. [1990]

"The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory", Carol J. Adams. [1990]

"Rape of the Wild: Man's Violence against Animals and the Earth", Andree Collard with Joyce

Contrucci. [1989]

"The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery", Marjorie Spiegel, Mirror Books, NY. [1988]

Animal Rights Theology

"Christianity and the Rights of Animals", Andrew Linzey, Crossroad, New York. [1987]

"Animal Sacrifices -- Religious Perspectives on the Use of Animals in Science", Tom Regan (Ed.),

Temple University Press, PA. [1986]

Circuses, Rodeos, and Zoos

"The Rose-Tinted Menagerie", William Johnson, PETA (op. cit.), $16.50. Describes behind-the-scenes

action in circuses, aquariums, and zoos.

"Animals in Circuses and Zoos--Chiron's World?", Marthe Kiley-Worthington, Little Eco Farms

Publishing, Basildon, UK. Investigation into the treatment of animals by zoos and circuses. [1990]

Page 106: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

88

"The Last Great Wild Beast Show", Bill Jordan and Stefan Ormrod, Constable Publishers, London.

How animals are snatched from the wild to be shipped to zoos worldwide. [1978]

"Beyond the Bars", Virginia McKenna, William Travers, Jonathan Wray (eds.), Thorsons Publishers,

Wellingborough, UK. The immorality of animal captivity. [1987]

Diet Ethics

"Diet for a New America", John Robbins, PETA (op. cit.), $12.50 post-paid. Examines problems with

animal-based food systems with solutions, info on the link between diet and disease.

"Compassion: The Ultimate Ethic", V. Moran, American Vegan Society, NJ, USA. Exploration of

veganism: its roots in eastern and western philosophy. [1991]

"Food: Need, Greed and Myopia", G. Yates, Earthright, Ryton UK. World food problem seen from a

vegetarian/vegan standpoint. [1986]

"Radical Vegetarianism", Mark Braunstein, Panjandrum Books, Los Angeles. [1983]

Guides, Handbooks, and Reference

"Save the Animals! 101 Easy Things You Can Do", Ingrid Newkirk, PETA (op. cit.), $4.95.

"67 Ways to Save the Animals", Anna Sequoia, Harper Perennial, $4.95. [1990]

"The Animal Rights Handbook -- Everyday Ways to Save Animal Lives", Berkley Books, New York,

$4.50. [1993]

"PETA's Shopping Guide for Caring Consumers", PETA (op. cit.), $4.95. A must have! Lists names

and addresses of cruelty-free companies.

"Keyguide to Information Sources in Animal Rights", Charles R.Magel, AAVS (op. cit.), $24.95.

"A Shopper's Guide to Cruelty-Free Products", Lori Cook, Bantam Books, New York, $4.99. [1991]

"Animal Rights: A Beginner's Guide", Amy Achor, Writeware Inc., Yellow Springs, OH, $14.95.

[1992]

Page 107: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

89

"The PETA Guide to Action for Animals", PETA (op. cit.), $4.00.

"The Extended Circle: A Commonplace Book of Animal Rights", Wynne-Tyson (Ed.). Provides

hundreds of quotes and short excepts from thinkers throughout history. [1989]

"The Animal-Free Shopper", R. Farhall, R. Lucas, and A. Rofe A. (Eds.), The Vegan Society, 7 Battle

Road, St. Leonards on Sea, East Sussex, TN37 7AA, UK. [1991]

"The Animal Welfare Handbook", C. Clough and B. Kew, 4th Estate, London, UK [1993]

Laboratory Animals and Product Testing

"Vivisection and Dissection in the Classroom: A Guide to Conscientious Objection", Gary L.

Francione and Anna E. Charlton, AAVS (op. cit.), $7.95. Legal citings, sample pleadings, and letters.

"Animals in Education: The Facts, Issues and Implications", Lisa Ann Hepner, Richmond Publishers,

Albuquerque NM. [1994]

"Entering the Gates of Hell: Laboratory Cruelty You Were Not Meant to See", Brian Gunn, AAVS (op.

cit.), $10.00.

"Animal Experimentation: The Consensus Changes", Gill Langley (Ed.), MacMillan Publishers,

London. Collection of essays outlining the change in morality. [1991]

"Slaughter of the Innocent", Hans Ruesch, Civitas Publications, Swaine, NY. [1983]

"Naked Empress: The Great Medical Fraud", Hans Ruesch, CIVIS, Klosters, Switzerland. Why

vivisection is a major cause of human disease. [1982]

"Victims of Science: The Use of Animals in Research", Richard Ryder, National Anti-Vivisection

Society, Centaur Press Publishers, Fontwell. Classic denunciation of vivisection. [1983]

"The Cruel Deception: The Use of Animals in Medical Research", Robert Sharpe, Thorsons Publishers,

Wellingborough, UK. Detailed study of the barbarity and uselessness of vivisection. [1989]

"Free the Animals!", Ingrid Newkirk, PETA (op. cit.), $14.00. Story of the Animal Liberation Front in

America.

Page 108: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

90

Periodicals

"Animals Magazine", 350 Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02130.

"The Animals' Agenda", P.O. Box 6809, Syracuse, NY 13217-9953.

"Animal People", P.O. Box 205, Shushan, NY 12873.

"The Animals' Voice", P.O. Box 341-347, Los Angeles, CA 90034.

"Between the Species", P.O. Box 254, Berkeley, CA 94701.

"Bunny Hugger's Gazette", P.O. Box 601, Temple, TX 76503-0601.

Wildife

"The Politics of Extinction", L. Regenstein, Collier-Macmillan, London. Classic denunciation of the

wildlife carnage. [1975]

"Wildlife and the Atom", L. Veal, London Greenpeace, 5 Caledonian Road, London N1 9DX, UK. The

use of animals by the nuclear industry. [1983]

SEE ALSO: #1, #94

#93 What organizations can I join to support AR?

There are hundreds of AR-related organizations scattered around the globe. In addition, there are

many vegetarian and vegan groups. This FAQ is already too long to list all of these groups. This FAQ

gives only AR-related groups in the United States and the United Kingdom. Later editions of the FAQ

may cover other countries. For a full listing of vegetarian and vegan groups worldwide, refer to the

excellent FAQs maintained by Michael Traub (Internet address [email protected]).

The following data on US organizations comes from the book "The Animal Rights Handbook",

Berkley Books, New York, 1993, ISBN 0-425-13762-7. DG/AECW

UNITED STATES

Multi-Issue

Page 109: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

91

Alliance for Animals, P.O. Box 909, Boston, MA 02103

American Humane Association, 63 Inverness Drive East, Englewood, CO 80112-5117

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), 424 E. 92nd St., New York, NY

10128

Animal Allies, P.O. Box 35063, Los Angeles, CA 90035

Animal Liberation Network, P.O. Box 983, Hunt Valley, MD 21030

Animal Protection Institute of America, P.O. Box 22505, Sacramento, CA 95822

Animal Rights Mobilization, P.O. Box 1553, Williamsport, PA 17703

Animal Welfare Institute, P.O. Box 3650, Washington, DC 20007

Citizens to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation (CEASE), P.O. Box 27, Cambridge, MA 02238

Defenders of Animals, P. O. Box 5634, Weybosset Hill Station, Providence, RI 02903, (401)

738-3710

Doris Day Animal League (DDAL), 227 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Suite 100, Washington, DC 20002

Focus on Animals, P.O. Box 150, Trumbull, CT 06611

Friends of Animals, P.O. Box 1244, Norwalk, CT 06856

The Fund for Animals, 200 West 57th St., New York, NY 10019

Humane Society of the United States, 2100 L St., NW, Washington, DC 20037

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510

World Society for the Protection of Animals, 29 Perkins St., P.O. Box 190, Boston, MA 02130

Companion Animals

Page 110: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

92

The Anti-Cruelty Society, 157 W. Grand Ave., Chicago, IL 60616

Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA), 350 S. Huntington Ave.,

Boston, MA 02130

Progressive Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), 15305 44th Ave. W, P.O. Box 1037, Lynnwood, WA

98046

San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SFSPCA), 2500 16th St., San

Francisco, CA 94103

Sports and Entertainment

Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting, P.O. Box 44, Tomkins Cove, NY 10986

Performing Animal Welfare Society, 11435 Simmerhorn Rd., Galt, CA 95632

Farm Animals

Food Animal Concerns Trust (FACT), P.O. Box 14599, Chicago, IL 60614

Farm Animals Reform Movement (FARM), 10101 Ashburton Lane, Bethesda, MD 20817

Farm Sanctuary, PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891

Humane Farming Association, 1550 California Street, Suite 6, San Francisco, CA 94109

United Animal Defenders, Inc., P.O. Box 33086, Cleveland, OH 44133

United Poultry Concerns, PO Box 59367, Potomac, MD 20889

Laboratory Animals

Alternatives to Animals, P.O. Box 7177, San Jose, CA 95150

Page 111: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

93

American Anti-Vivisection Society, 801 Old York Rd., Suite 204, Jenkintown, PA 19046

In Defense of Animals, 21 Tamal Vista Blvd., No. 140, Corte Madera, CA 94925

Last Chance for Animals, 18653 Venture Blvd., No. 356, Tarzana, CA 91356

National Anti-Vivisection Society, 53 W.Jackson Blvd., Suite 1550, Chicago, IL 60604

New England Anti-Vivisection Society, 333 Washinton St., Boston, MA 02135

Professional Organizations

Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), 1363 Lincoln Ave., San Raphael, CA 94901

Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, 15 Dutch St., Suite 500-A, New York, NY 10038

National Association of Nurses Against Vivisection, P.O. Box 42110, Washington, DC 20015

Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine, P.O. Box 6322, Washington, DC 20015

Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O. Box 1297, Washington Grove, MD

20880-1297

Scientists Center for Animal Welfare, 4805 St. Elmo Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814

Scientists Group for Reform of Animal Experimentation, 147-01 3rd Ave., Whitestone, NY 11357

Legislative Organizations

Committee for Humane Legislation, 30 Haviland, South Norwalk, CT 06856

The National Alliance for Animal Legislation, P.O. Box 75116, Washington, DC 20013-5116

United Action for Animals, 205 E. 42nd St., New York, NY 10017

Page 112: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

94

Marine Life Preservation

American Cetacean Society, P.O. Box 2639, San Pedro, CA 90731

Center for Marine Conservation, 1725 DeSales St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Greenpeace, P.O. Box 3720, 1436 U St., NW, Washinton, DC 20007

Marine Mammal Fund, Fort Mason Center, Bldg. E, San Francisco, CA 94123

Wildlife

Defenders of Wildlife, 1244 19th St., NW, Washington, DC 20036

Earth Island Institute, 300 Broadway, Suite 28, San Francisco, CA 94133

International Fund for Animal Welfare, P.O. Box 193, Yarmouth Port, MA 02675

Rainforest Action Network, 301 Broadway, Suite A, San Francisco, CA 94133

Wildlife Information Center, Inc., 629 Green St., Allentown, PA 18102

Specific Animals

American Horse Protection Association, 1000 29th St., NW, Suite T100, Washington DC 20007

Bat Conservation International, P.O., Box 162603, Austin, TX 78716

The Beaver Defenders, Unexpected Wildlife Refuge, Inc., Newfield, NJ 08344

Friends of the Sea Otter, P.O. Box 221220, Carmel, CA 93922

Greyhound Friends, 167 Saddle Hill Rd., Hopkinton, MA 01748

International Primate Protection League, P.O. Box 766, Summerville, SC 29484

Page 113: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

95

Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation, P.O. Box 1896, Sacramento, CA 95809

Primarily Primates, P.O. Box 15306, San Antonio, TX 78212

Save the Manatee Club, 500 N. Maitland Ave., Suite 210, Maitland, FL 32751

Special Interest

Feminists for Animal Rights. P.O. Box 16425, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

International Network for Religion and Animals, P.O. Box 1335, North Wales, PA 19454

Jews for Animal Rights, 255 Humphrey St., Marblehead, MA 01945

Student Action Corps for Animals (SACA), P.O. Box 15588, Washington, DC 20003-0588

UNITED KINGDOM

Animal Aid, 7 Castle Street, Tonbridge, Kent TN9 1BH, UK

Animal Concern, 62 Old Dumbarton road, Glasgow G3 8RE, UK

Animal Liberation Front Supporters Group, BM 1160, London WC1N 3XX, UK

Animal Research Kills, P.O. Box 82, Kingswood, Bristol BS15 1YF, UK

Athene Trust, 5a Charles Street, Petersfield, Hants GU32 3EH, UK

Beauty Without Cruelty, 57 King Henry's Walk, London N1 4NH, UK

Blue Cross Field Centre, Home Close Farm, Shilton Road, Burford, Oxfordshire OX18 4PF, UK

Born Free Foundation, Cherry Tree Cottage, Coldharbour, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6HA, UK

British Hedgehog Preservation Society, Knowbury House, Knowbury, Ludlow, Shropshire SY8 3LQ,

UK

Page 114: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

96

British Trust For Ornithology, The Nunnery, Nunnery Place, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, UK

British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, 16a Crane Grove, Islington, London N7 8LB, UK

Campaign for the Abolition of Angling, P.O. Box 130, Sevenoaks, Kent TN14 5NR, UK

Campaign for the Advancement of Ruesch's Expose, 23 Dunster Gardens, London NW6 7NG, UK

Campaign to End Fraudulent Medical Research, P.O. Box 302, London N8 9HD, UK

Cat's Protection League, 17 King's Road, Horsham, West Sussex RH13 5PN, UK

CIVIS, P.O. Box 338, London E8 2AL, UK

Disabled Against Animal Research and Exploitation, P.O. Box 8, Daventry, Northamptonshire NN11

4QR, UK

Donkey Sanctuary, Slade House Farm, Salcombe Regis, Sidmouth, Devon EX10 0NU

Dr. Hadwen Trust for Humane Research, 6c Brand Street, Hitchin, Hertfortshire SG5 1HX, UK

Earthkind, Humane Education Centre, Bounds Green Road, London N22 4EU, UK

Elefriends, Cherry Tree Cottage, Coldharbour, NR Dorking, Surrey RH5 6HA, UK

Environmental Investigation Agency, 2 Pear Tree Court, London EC1R 0DS, UK

Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, Eastgate House, 34 Stoney Street,

Nottingham NG1 1NB, UK

Green Party Animal Rights Working Party, 23 Highfield South, Rock Ferry, Wirral L42 4NA, UK

Horses and Ponies Protection Association, Happa House, 64 Station Road, Padiham, N. Burnley,

Lancashire BB12 8EF, UK

Humane Research Trust, Brook House, 29 Bramhall Lane South, Bramhall, Stockport, Cheshire SK7

2DN, UK

Page 115: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

97

Hunt Saboteurs Association, P.O. Box 1, Carlton, Nottingham NG4 2JY, UK

International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals, P.O. Box 215, St Albans, Herts

AL3 4PU, UK

International Primate Protection League, 116 Judd Street, London WC1H 9NS, UK

League Against Cruel Sports, 83-87 Union Street, London SE1 1SG, UK

International League of Doctors for the Abolition of Vivisection, UK Office, Lynmouth, Devon EX35

6EE, UK

National Anti-Vivisection Society, Ravenside, 261 Goldhawk Road, London W12 9PE, UK

National Canine Defence League, 1 Pratt Mews, London NW1 0AD, UK

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, P.O. Box 3169, London NW6 2QF, UK

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Causeway, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1HG,

UK

Student Campaign For Animal Rights, P.O. Box 155, Manchester M60 1FT, UK

Teachers For Animal Rights, 29 Lynwood Road. London SW17 8SB, UK

Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, 19A James Street, Bath, Avon BA1 2BT, UK

Zoocheck, Cherry Tree Cottage, Coldharbour, Dorking, Surrey CR0 2TF, UK

#94 Can you give a brief Who's Who of the AR movement?

TOM REGAN -- Professor of Philosophy at North Carolina State University.

His book "The Case For Animal Rights" is arguably the single best recent work on animal rights. It is a

demanding text but one that is well worth the effort to read and study carefully. Everybody that is

seriously interested in the issues should read this rigorously argued case for AR. It starts with some

core concepts of inherent value theory, the same concepts that played an important and significant role

Page 116: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

98

in the progress of human civil liberties since the 17th century and which began to be extended to

nonhumans during the 19th century. The notion of inherent value continues to be vital and important

for progress in both human and animal rights. A less demanding but still informative book by Regan

is "The Struggle for Animal Rights". One might wish to first read this book before tackling Regan's

more difficult text.

PETER SINGER -- Professor of Philosophy at Monash University, Melbourne.

Singer is best known for his book "Animal Liberation", probably the most widely read book on AR

philosophy. Singer, unlike Regan, is not an abolitionist as many people incorrectly surmise. His

utilitarian position

allows for the possibility or necessity of killing animals under certain circumstances. What is often

lost sight of is that the obvious and patent abuses of animals covers so much ground that both Regan

and Singer share common views on far more issues than those on which they differ. Other

important books by Singer include "In Defense of Animals" and "Animal Factories".

MARY MIDGLEY -- Senior Lecturer of Philosophy at the University of Newcastle.

Midgley's book "Beast and Man" has not been given the attention that it deserves. She deals with the

contemporary facts of biology and ethology head-on to provide an ethical argument for the respectful

treatment of animals that takes seriously scientific discoveries and thoughts about animals. The

"Humean fork" (or so-called logical divide) between facts and values is here carefully crossed by

observing that we are foremost "animals" ourselves and that the similarities between ourselves and

other animals is more important and relevant for our ethics and self-understanding than are the often

over-inflated differences.

CAROL ADAMS -- Author.

Adams' book "The Sexual Politics of Meat" has made a valuable contribution in combining cultural and

ethical analysis by pointing out the political implications of the metaphors we unthinkingly employ.

The primary metaphors she analyses in her book relate to meat. Such metaphors have

been applied to women, but the most insidious aspect of the metaphors is the way that they hide the life

that is killed to produce meat. Instead of "cow", we have "beef" on our plates. Adams argues that the

system that kills animals is the same system that oppresses women; hence, there is an important and

striking connection between vegetarianism and feminism.

RICHARD RYDER -- Senior Clinical Psychologist at Warneford Hospital, Oxford.

Ryder is the originator of the key term "speciesism". Ryder's book "Animal Revolution" provides

both an historical perspective and a critical analysis of animal welfare and attitudes towards animals.

HENRY SALT -- 1851-1939.

Page 117: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

99

Salt was a remarkable social reformer who championed the humane reform of schools, prisons, society,

and our treatment of animals. He also exerted a critical and important influence upon Gandhi. His book

"Animals' Rights" was the first to use that title and therein he gives voice to almost all of the essential

arguments for AR that we see being advanced and refined today. The book provides an excellent

biography of earlier European writers on animal issues during the 18th and 19th centuries.

VICTORIA MORAN -- Author.

Moran's book "Compassion the Ultimate Ethic" makes a fine contribution regarding the less discursive

but perhaps more fundamental intuitive basis for animal rights.

MARJORIE SPIEGEL -- Author.

Spiegel's book "The Dreaded Comparison" is a slim but courageous volume comparing the treatment of

African-American slaves and the treatment of nonhuman animals. In text and pictures, Spiegel

discloses remarkable similarities between the two systems. A picture of slaves packed into

a slave ship is matched with a photograph of battery hens. A picture of a woman in a muzzle is paired

with a picture of a dog in a muzzle. The parallels are striking and revealing. Few other writers have

been as open or as unequivocal as Spiegel in likening cruelty to animals to traffic in human beings.

TA

It is hard to keep a Who's-Who list at a reasonable length. Here are a few other prominent people:

STEPHEN R. L. CLARK -- Professor of Philosophy at Liverpool University.

MICHAEL W. FOX -- Vice President of Humane Society of the US, nationally

known veterinarian, and AR activist.

RONNIE LEE -- Founder of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

JIM MASON -- Attorney and journalist.

INGRID NEWKIRK -- Co-founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals (PETA); prominent activist.

ALEX PACHECO -- Co-founder of PETA; exposer of the Silver Spring monkeys

abuses.

"VALERIE" -- Founder of ALF in the United States.

DG

#95 What can I do in my daily life to help animals?

Indeed, the buck must first stop here in our own daily lives with the elimination or reduction of

actions that contribute to the abuse and exploitation of animals.

Page 118: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIII --- AR Information and Organisations, questions # 92-95 from: http://www.animal-rights.com

100

Probably the single most important thing you can do to save animals, help the ecology of the

planet, and even improve your own health, is to BECOME A VEGETARIAN. It is said that "we are

what we eat". More accurately, "we are what we do" and what we do in order to eat has a profound

consequence on our self-definition as a compassionate person. As long as we eat meat, we share

complicity in the intentional slaughter of countless animals and destruction of the environment for

clearly trivial purposes.

Why trivial? No human has died from want of satisfying a so-called "Mac Attack", but countless

cows have died in order to satisfy our palates. On a more positive note, vegetarians report that one's

taste and enjoyment of food is actually enhanced by eliminating animal products. Indeed, a vegetarian

diet is not a diet of deprivation; far from it. Vegetarians actually eat a GREATER variety of foods than

do meat-eaters. Maybe the best kept culinary secret is that the really "boring" diet actually turns out to

be the traditional meat-centered diet.

Next, STOP BUYING ANIMAL PRODUCTS LIKE FUR OR LEATHER. There are plenty of

good plant and synthetic materials that serve as excellent materials for fabrics and shoes. Indeed, all the

major brands of high-quality running shoes are now turning to the use of human-made materials. (Why?

Because they are lighter than leather and don't warp or get stiff after getting wet.)

There are many less obvious animal products that are being used in many of our everyday

household and personal products. After first attending to those obvious and most visible products like

leather and fur, then consider what you can do to reduce or eliminate your dependency on products that

may contain needless animal ingredients or were brought to market using animal testing. Two very

good product guides are:

Shopping Guide for the Caring Consumer, PETA, 1994.

A Shopper's Guide to Cruelty-Free Products, Lori Cook, 1991.

Then GET INFORMED AND READ AS MUCH AS YOU CAN ON THE ISSUE OF ANIMAL

RIGHTS. Besides reading about animal rights from the major theorists, also read practical guides and

periodicals. Question #92 lists many appropriate books and periodicals.

Finally, you can GET INVOLVED IN A LOCAL ANIMAL RIGHTS OR ANIMAL WELFARE

ORGANIZATION. Alternatively, if you lack the time, consider giving donations to those organizations

whose good work on behalf of animals is something you appreciate and wish to materially support.

TA

SEE ALSO: #87, #92-#93

Page 119: ANIMAL RIGHTS THOUGHTS (Whole Text)

XIV --- Finally, questions #96 from: http://www.animal-rights.com/faqfile.html

101

XIV. FINALLY...

#96 I have read this FAQ and I am not convinced. Humans are

humans, animals are animals; is it so difficult to see that?

This FAQ cannot reflect the full variety of paths which have led people to support the concept of

Animal Rights. A more complete compilation would include, for instance, religious arguments. For

example, some Eastern religions stress the importance of the duties of humans toward animals. A

Christian case for Animal Rights has been presented. Also, legal arguments have been put forward, by

some barristers in the UK, for instance. Still, some people may remain skeptical about the viability of

all of these other approaches as well. For those people, here is a short quiz:

What is wrong with cannibalism?

What is wrong with slavery?

What is wrong with racial prejudice?

What is wrong with sexual discrimination?

What is wrong with killing children or the mentally ill?

What is wrong with the Nazi experiments on humans?

Animal Rights proponents can reply instantly and consistently. Can you? Do your answers involve

qualities that, if you are objective about it, can be seen to apply to animals? For example, were the Nazi

experiments wrong because the subjects were human, or because the subjects were harmed??? AECW

It is not difficult to see that humans are humans and animals are animals. What is difficult to see is

how this amounts to anything more than an empty tautology! If there are relevant differences that

justify differences in treatment, then let's hear them. AR opponents have consistently failed to support

the differences in treatment of humans versus animals with relevant differences in capacities.

Yes, an animal is an animal, but it can still suffer terribly from our brutality and lack of

compassion. DG

I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.

Abraham Lincoln (16th U.S. President)

[The day should come when] all of the forms of life...will stand before the court--the pileated

woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams.

William O. Douglas (late U.S. Supreme Court Justice)