Clarifying the Question
I want to make sure that the question is clear, at least in
so far as my analysis of it is concerned.
I certainly believe that we have a moral obligation to care
for the dogs, cats, and other nonhumans whose existence we have caused or
facilitated as part of the institution of “pet” ownership. But I maintain that we
ought to abolish the institution and stop causing or facilitating the existence
of more “companion” animals.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
There are actually a variety of particulars like that to take into consideration. That may be a nice point to convey up. I provide the thoughts above as common inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you convey up the place a very powerful thing will likely be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if finest practices have emerged round issues like that, however I am positive that your job is clearly identified as a good game. Both boys and girls really feel the impression of only a seconds pleasure, for the remainder of their lives. dysesthetic Dormancy Fioricet ingredients municipalities
All I know is, my dogs are much more comfortable than their wild counterparts. My dogs don't have to hunt for their food , worry about competing with other dogs for scraps, or dying of myriad diseases that infect wild dogs. They are always happy to see me when I come home, play with each other in our yard for hours every day, and don't spend all their time whining or howling to indicate the perceived misery portrayed here.
Hell, I wish I could change places with them. I would love to have my food brought to me every day. And how great would it be if my biggest worry in life was, "do I poop over here, or do I poop over there?" And if my dogs are so miserable, why do they return when I leave the gate open and they get out? Plenty of people in my neighborhood feed their dogs outside, so they could get their food elsewhere. And they could run free and stay away. I know, I know. they have become dependent upon me. But I don't see any signs of my dog not being happy.
Sam and Grizz are not my pets . They are my family. Period! End of Discussion!
where exactly do they go? Shall we all set them free simultaneously in a freeing ceremony? Zoos? Certain wildlife parks? Let's try to be practical here.
I mean if we let them ALL go eventually were going to be the pets.
Think about it
Of course we shouldn't abandon domestic animals in the native bushland. They would die and that would be cruel and immoral. Even if they survived, they would be eating native animals and interfering with the local ecology. We should cease to breed all domestic animals. I mean, what right do we have to make them breed, to change their genetics to suit our egotistical desires for a certain look or characteristic to suit our purposes? Animals should exist for their own reasons, not for human's superficial needs. The animals who are alive should be cared for in domestic environments and given the best life possible for the rest of their days. Only wild and free animals should be allowed to breed on their own terms in their natural wild habitat.
the reason that millions of cats and dogs are killed in pounds each year is because they are allowed to breed on their own terms.
Hello Gator girl,
Well no actually because we brought them into existence in the first place. Their very existence is unnatural, we altered their dna in order to make them more exploitable to humans -docile, etc. All domestic animals should be neutered. The real reason why millions of cats and dogs are killed in "shelters" each year is because BREEDERS breed them by the millions in back yards, small professional breeding kennels, and also large scale "puppy mills". This is the source of them. Like a conveyor belt, humans breed them, and on the other end, the consumers who don't want their pet anymore like old dvd players dump them in the pound. The majority of pets killed in shelters are turned in by their owners. A third of them a pedigree animals. Watch the film Earthlings to learn more about this. www.earthlings.com
I am a bit unsure of what's being pushed for here. When you talk about not having pets anymore what are your solutions. Do you want us to abandon them into the wild or just eliminating the species through neutering. Some domesticated animals, and we're talking more than dogs and cats here, have been involved with people in one form or another for thousands of years having been bred to be dependant on us. I live with three manx female and while I'm sure they could survive for a little while on their own, I wouldn't be long before they came out on the wrong end of the food chain.
Human bred domestic animals are not species in and of themselves. All breeds are a part of the same species and connected to the original and natural "race" of animals. If we "lost" domestic pigs, we would not be losing the species because the original, smaller, hair covered, disobedient, wild pig would still be grunting around in the forests and swamps. We would be letting go of an artificial breed, not a species. Similarly, if a small, remote race of humans who lived in a jungle died out, we would not be losing a species because there are many more humans on Earth of many different races or "breeds". The many different races are all of the same animal species -human.
I never seen herds of chickens roaming the savannahs of Africa nor in the rainforests of Brazil, nor in the prairies of North America nor the outback of Australia.
According to the logic of your argument, it would be okay for polar bears to go extinct as long as brown bears survived. It would also be okay for Siberian tigers to go extinct as long as Bengal tigers survived.
It'd be okay for sperm whales to die out because we'd still have blue whales and humpbacks.
Chickens could potentially roam in their native habitat, which is probably not in the environments you described. Chickens are forest floor dwellings birds, scratching in the undergrowth, needing to fly only short distances and roost in the tree branches at night to avoid predators. Funnily enough, I have actually seen chickens living in the wild in the forests of Kauii, in Hawaii. They were walking on the beach until the tourists came and then scattered like lightening into the forest where they vanished. There was a rooster and his harem of hens and baby chicks. Obviously not their native homeland, but it suited them.
Domestic dogs are not different species to wolves, they are different breeds. The only way to have a breed is by human invention. Races of the same species -human are similar to breeds but they were created by natural selection, not artificial breeding. Polar bears and brown bears are not two different breeds or races, they are totally different species. Siberian tigers and Bengal tigers are totally different species. Sperm whales and blue whales are totally different species.
We should not be obliged to spare the life of an animal just because they are in a group of endangered species, but because they have a right to life as an individual.
According to Wikipedia, the "common definition [of species] is that of a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring (ie. not a mule/infertile), and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen."
Polar bears and grizzly bears have bred in the wild (and probably captivity) to produce fertile offspring.
Siberian tigers and bengal tigers have been bred in captivity and produced fertile offspring.
Thus both the bears and the tigers are merely different "races" of their specie.
Hmm. That's interesting. I do agree with the definition you put up. I had not heard about that with the bears and tigers before. Although they could potentially mate, I would strongly believe they would not choose to do this naturally. They have been artificially mated through human intervention, but I would be willing to bet they'd never do it in the wild. I watched a documentary about Australia's Gouldian finches. There are three different kinds of them with three different distinct body colours. All of them can mate but they selectively prefer to mate with their own colour type. The reason is that if they mate with birds of a different colour pattern, their offspring will have genetic problems leading to health problems. I would guess the same would be for the tigers and the bears if this were studied in depth. I wouldn't advise such a study because it would involve suffering on the part of the animals and isn't necessary either. The animals should only be mating with their own kind. The fact that humans have interfered disturbs me. I am certain that science would call a grizzly bear and a polar bear entirely different species even though they can potentially mate. Tigers however are called sub-species. As I am not sure about the bears, I am only guessing and would have to research for the facts. Thanks for the interesting facts gatorgirl.
As stated the question (even the clarified one) is still abstract. A better question is "Should government punishment those members of society who treat animals as property?" as the answer to this question is actually actionable. The other questions basically try to assert moral superiority by giving a personal value the status of ethical.
From the standpoint of a moral obligation to care; if I did not cause a pet to come into being then do I have an obligation to care for it. If yes then you imply mandatory pet ownership for all members of a society that allows pets (equal numbers or some for of proportion)? If no then at what point do you draw the line where obligation starts. Either way, who is enforcing the obligation? Public chastising only goes so far.
I do not purport to understand what you are saying here but it appears to be that there can be no morality without law--that moral views without the authority of law are meaningless.
If that is what you maintain, then consider: In Nazi Germany, the killing of Jews, Romanies, and other "non-Aryan" humans for no reason other than status was not only permissible but legally mandated. On your view, any expression of the immorality of such activity was a matter of "personal value." And before 1865, statements about the immorality of chattel slavery--when those statements were made in states that allowed chattel slavery--were merely matters of "personal value." Indeed, in both cases, the critic of the Holocaust or of chattel slavery is merely asserting "moral superiority."
Okay. If you say so.
BTW, as someone who teaches criminal law, I can assure you that social reactions to certain anti-social conduct provide a mechanism for controlling social behavior that is as effective--perhaps more effective--than do formal legal norms.
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
I know offender re-offend all the time and often on release. In fact offical statistics is that 43% of released offenders will re-offend within 2 years of release. But how would we enforce a non-violation of animal rights ? Even if one considers that a more effective strategy would be to not even try to enforce this, but to change the wold-view of people, there will always be people who will offend against these rights, just as there are people who commit sexual offences against children when the majority thinks it is wrong to do so, and what is more, there are a lot of such people. So, how would we enforce animal rights? It would be difficult to say the least, given that animals do not speak, hence cannot self-report a crime , cannot give evidence in court, cannot be questioned etc
I do not dispute your "social reactions" comment but in order for it to be effective the person being corrected has to (1) belong to the social group and (2) value the benefit of the social group more than the benefit of the action being denounced. With respect to Nazi Germany another social group denounced the actions of Nazi Germany and, through the use of military force, imposed its moral position upon the country. What I am saying is that neither situation can be considered "morally superior" without specifying who is making the judgment. I do not believe man or any other known sentient species can claim absolute ethical righteousness and to claim such is nothing more than someone saying "I am right because I say I am". The practical reality is that enough people believing in something does indeed make it right but that is only because there is no meaningful way to enact anything different at a social level. If the group wants to punish you for being "wrong" they can do so.
It is worded in such a way that I don't even want to vote in the poll. However, I am going to vote "no," with the understanding that we should be seeking to eliminate the breeding of animals for companionship ("pets"), without necessarily barring the legality of taking care of animals (guardianship/caretaker) status.
I'm a tad confused where the animal rights supporters would draw the lines. For example, I have a relative that owns a fair amount of land. He's come to care for some cats that were wild in the woods on and around his property. Is this acceptable from an animal rights perspective?
If it is, what if the cats breed? Can he place those kittens into good homes? Should he prevent them from breeding?
The line with respect to rights is drawn around the interests of the right-holder. We are duty-bound to do the best we can to meaningfully respect other animals' interests, rather than merely serving our own. I would submit that, if the cats were feral to begin with, they ought to have been left alone in the first place. While we are duty-bound to avoid harming feral cats we may encounter, we are not duty-bound to feed and shelter every single one of them, nor to encourage or discourage their procreation by doing so.
I disagree. It actually cruel to let feral cats be feral. Feral cats are still domestic cats who became feral. Unlike true wild cats they do not have immunity to feline aids and leukemia and many are infected and infect other cats including non-ferals. Once infected without proper care they die horrible deaths from immunodeficiency. It is less cruel to get veterinary treatment and to enclose a feral cat than to let it die from leukemia which means it succombs to tumour after tumour.
Where exactly does this duty come from? I don't think it is my duty to either take care or ignore any animal, except of course the ones I have taken as pets , and therefore accepted that responsibility.
And I would be reluctant to say that I am duty bound to ignore feral cats and dogs, considering that many of them end up scrounging in garbage and at the dump for subsistence. Is it really better to let them live this sort of life on the edge than to feed them and make them more comfortable?
If so, why am I also duty bound to feed the homeless people? Animal rights activists often state that animals have the same rights as humans, so either we feed them both or ignore them both. I will err on the side of compassion, and feed them both. I really don't see how you can fault someone for that.
and if I see a feral cat that is injured and likely to freeze to death in the coming winter I should "leave it alone"?
Attempting to draw these clear and absolute lines will break down very quickly.
regarding my relative, he left the cats alone in every way except one. He gave them food. They choose to hang out under his shelter on their own. Either way it is impossible to have "left them alone". He either had to kick them out of his shelter (I'm not sure how this could have be accomplished humanely) or let them stay there by their choosing. If they stay, as they did, then he has to deal with them breeding or spay and neuter them. Either way he couldn't "leave them alone".
Again, attempting to draw absolute lines gets silly really quickly.
The only way I see us humans ethically intervening with the lives of animals of a different species to our own is when they need our help.
There is a group called Alley Cat Allies. They use a technique called TNR -Trap, Neuter, Return. Feral cats are stuck in a nether world. They can never be pets in a caring home because they are too wild and they can never be wild and independant animals because they are too tame and do not have the life skills to survive on their own. Rather than killing the feral cats which is ineffective because it allows new feral cats to move into the same area and repeat the populating, it is wiser and ethical to let them live out their lives without being able to breed.
Wild animals should be left alone. But if a human stumbles upon an orphaned or injured animal in their natural habitat or even in a suburb, I believe we should be obliged to take him in and nurse him back to health. Then these animals should be returned to where they were found if that is safe, or to a sanctuary if they can no longer live where they were found. For wild animals who can no longer survive in the wild, we should if possible, provide a safe santuary for them to live the rest of their lives. Animals should never live in zoos.
Just about any animal who lives in the wild, whether they are native or feral, would take a human up on the offer of a free meal. But this is wrong because it is interfering with their natural life. These animals or birds will quickly become dependant on the food and may die if the feeder moves away or dies. More importantly, the artificial feeding of feral or native animals will alter their natural behaviour, possibly jeopardising their survival or well being. What is acceptable however, is providing a natural habitat in one's own garden to support the animal/bird's natural diet. For example a flowering, seeded bush for birds, or a tropical fruit tree for possums and bats. These trees will only fruit and seed for a short time during their season.
I don’t think AR Blog is trying to “draw clear and absolute lines”. Reckoner, you ask, “Where to draw the line?” and then answer your own question that “clear and absolute lines” can’t be drawn. AR Blog gave a good answer that applies to the vast majority of cases.
When we think about ethics, we often legitimately make general, all-other-things-equal statements as principles to follow; however, given unusual situations (such as the injured feral cat or injured human) we may decide to intervene to help. The important thing is to “first, do no harm”, and then, if we know we can help and decide to go ahead and help, then wonderful, go ahead and help.
but what if the feral cats are killing the native wildlife?
do you kill the cats, or spay/nueter them or try to relocate them?
In my opinion, it would be better for the cats to be dead than to exist as a domestic animal forced to live ferally in a wilderness or alley that were never meant to live in.
Or you could look at it this way.
The cats are being forced to live outside of their natural habitat , which since they have been changed by their 1000's of years of domestication, no longer exists.
Because they have no natural habitat, they can no longer live anywhere in the wild because there is no place where they could live that would not harm the ecosystem (since they would be an invasive, introduced species).
So therefore it would do the least harm LONGTERM to kill every feral cat on sight. You would end the cats' suffering (from dogs, cars, rain, hunger, fleas, ticks, fights, cruel kids , cold, posions, and more) and prevent the native wildlife from suffering from their predation.
is "do no harm" an absolute? I agree with everything you say, but if you read the other comments around here you'll see that many AR advocates are attempting to draw absolute lines with only two binary choices. Read some of my comments that discuss "using" or not "using" animals and the replies from the AR people.
“Do no harm” is not an absolute, but far too often, I see people helping *some* animals by rescuing them from harm, which is good and right, but then contributing – directly or indirectly – to the harm inflicted on *other* animals.
It would be much better if people “first, did no harm” by leaving animals alone: that is, going vegan and not breeding domesticated animals, even if they did *nothing* whatsoever to help animals outside of merely leaving them alone. After we refrain from harmful actions such as consuming animal products (we torture and slaughter 12 billion in the US; 53 billion worldwide) and breeding animals into a US society that kills tens of millions of domesticated animals annually, THEN we can make sense of helping animals in other ways. Until we overcome that absurd inconsistency, our “helping animals” is an absurd notion.
I'm a vegetarian and have been for over a decade. I completely agree about our industrial food supply, but I don't see the clear wrong with breeding animals generally (outside of the industrial system).
Hey Reckoner. I agree with Sandy, and I'll take the time to explain.
The fact that you're a vegetarian, and not a vegan, helps me understand why you aren't against pet ownership. This is clear since, to sustain your ovo-lacto vegetarianism, you must, directly or indirectly, "own" and "use" other animals (cows and hens in this case) for you to get those "products". Hence, you support the property status of other animals.
The parallels for me are clear. Meat, eggs, dairy and honey are all products of slavery. They all involve treating other animals as mere means to our ends, as "things". For those using them, those animals have no inherent value; only the value that the owner gives to them or to the "products" they steal from them. The owner can do almost anything he wants with them. It's up to her/him. The interests of the slave are always under the mercy of the owner. No rights. No respect.
This is why human slavery was abolished. Not because all slaves were tortured, mistreated, or killed, but because they were someone else's property. That's the underlying problem, and the cause of both, the "nice" forms of exploitation and the "most-cruel" ones. You can't get rid of one and not the other, cuz the differences are just bound to the choices of the slave owner.
That's the AR position, and it doesn't seem so crazy to me. Slavery is slavery, no matter how the slaves are treated. We already recognized the immorality of it when it comes to humans (no matter the gender, ethnicity, intelligence or any other characteristic of the human). Since all of us, sentient beings, share at least the same basic interests, those interests should be protected equally. That protection must entice the abolishment of their property/slave status, no matter the species, intelligence or any other characteristic of the sentient being.
Best,
Samuel.
"There's no love without respect, nor respect without freedom."
" This is clear since, to sustain your ovo-lacto vegetarianism, you must, directly or indirectly, "own" and "use" other animals (cows and hens in this case) for you to get those "products". Hence, you support the property status of other animals."
this is a non sequitur. I do not support the property status of animals and your conclusion that I do does not logically follow from your first point.
"The parallels for me are clear. Meat, eggs, dairy and honey are all products of slavery. "
This is the absolutism that I disagree with. A bee is not the same as a cow and honey is not the same as meat in moral terms. One may be able to make an argument against honey, but it is not the same as meat.
"For those using them, those animals have no inherent value; only the value that the owner gives to them or to the "products" they steal from them. "
This is another non sequitur. It is clearly possible for someone to both "use" an animal and value it as more than a commodity.
"Slavery is slavery, no matter how the slaves are treated."
This assumes that a bee has the cognitive ability to understand abstract ideas like freedom. They don't and comparing human slavery to bees used for honey is a non starter.
"I do not support the property status of animals and your conclusion that I do does not logically follow from your first point."
Unless you only eat eggs from wild and/or rescued hens that will no longer be bred for those purposes, then perhaps you don't support their property status, and I admit I was wrong.
If this is not the case, then you DO support their property status, treating them as "things" by OWNING and USING them for your purposes, whether you admit so or not.
Regarding "dairy", I see no clear way of stealing it without enslaving other animals (unless you get it from wild animals that have been "milked" by some human, and then set free) or rescue some cow that gave birth already, and steal her milk until she stops producing it, and you no longer breed her. If not, you DO support their property status.
And there are other moral issues at stake, even if you don't support their property status, such as the distress you might cause them by stealing their eggs, or by chasing them to "milk them" in the wild, or stealing their "honey" (which bees certainly don't want humans to do; otherwise they wouldn't attack them while trying to steal it).
"This is the absolutism that I disagree with. A bee is not the same as a cow and honey is not the same as meat in moral terms. One may be able to make an argument against honey, but it is not the same as meat."
I haven't said they are the same. I encourage you to re-read what I wrote. I said "[clear] parallels". Certainly, racism is not the same as sexism, or speciesism. But there are clear parallels. Sure, enslaving a woman because she is a woman is not the same as enslaving a black human because of the color of her skin. But that doesn't mean that either is more or less morally reprehensible.
"It is clearly possible for someone to both "use" an animal and value it as more than a commodity."
You're right, I can value my watch as more than a commodity, just as I can value "my" hen more than a commodity, and just as human masters could value his human slaves more than a commodity.
But I can only do that because the watch is my property in the first place, as are the hens or cows exploited for their eggs and milk, as the human slave was. And I think you already recognize this, since you talk about the hen as an "it". A "thing". Human property.
"This assumes that a bee has the cognitive ability to understand abstract ideas like freedom. They don't and comparing human slavery to bees used for honey is a non starter."
No, it doesn't assume anything. Do you think that enslaving, and using retarded humans for my purposes cannot be labeled as "slavery" because the retarded humans cannot understand abstract ideas like freedom?
If that's your position, I strongly disagree. Slavery is slavery, even if the slave doesn't understand his/her position.
There's a difference between a moral patient and a moral agent.
Although I think it's irrelevant, you say that bees don't understand (nor have any similar concepts to) freedom. You seem to be very sure about this. Could you point me to anything that "proves" this? Or are you just assuming it because they are too small for you to think that they can reason?
Or is it just because you like the taste of the honey they produce?
If your point is that killing is not the same as enslaving, I agree. Certainly, torturing is not the same as raping.
But the fact that there is a difference between those violations of interests, doesn't mean that one can be morally justified and the other not.
And this is the main point. How can you justify the enslavement of other animals? Is there a true necessity involved?
We all know that you or any other human can live perfectly healthy on a vegan diet, and that if you eat eggs, dairy or honey, it's just because you like it.
And if you think that pleasure it's a relevant moral justification, I bet that many rapists will be more than glad to join your argument ;)
We got into this in the debate on eating animal products. You appear to hold two views:
1. That the killing of animals (as opposed to the imposition of suffering on animals) does not raise a fundamental moral issue.
I have yet to hear you or anyone else--on Opposing Views or anywhere else--come up with a coherent justification for the position that we are justified morally in using and killing animals as long as we do not make them suffer. Although torturing and painfully killing an animal (human or nonhuman) is worse than painlessly killing an animal without the prior torture, killing the animal per se involves the imposition of a significant harm.
Moreover, *any* system--industrial or not (however those terms are understood)--will involve pain and suffering. The argument that I recall you offering (and I apologize if this was someone else) that life invariably involves suffering and death does not work to morally justify bringing beings into existence for the sole purpose of using them as commodities for human consumption.
2. That there is a morally dispositive difference between what you call "the industrial system" and systems that are "outside" the industrial system.
Putting aside that I am not sure how you would distinguish "industrial" and "non-industrial" systems, you do not appear to understand or appreciate the problems presented by the status of nonhumans as economic commodities. This status as a very practical matter limits the sort of protection for animal interests that will be purchased as such protection is not cost-justified once it exceeds what is necessary for efficient exploitation. Even if you have a friend who raises animals in a situation similar to a high-end country club, that situation could never satisfy even a scintilla of a fraction of the demand for animal products. Morever, your position begs the question about the justification for killing per se.
Finally, in the other discussion, I argued that there is no difference between flesh and dairy or eggs. Indeed, to the extent that you do not eat flesh but eat more dairy products, you may be responsible for more suffering as there is probably more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak. There certainly is no meaningful moral distinction that you can make between meat and dairy (or eggs, etc).
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
I think you are confusing me with someone else.
1. I do believe that killing an animal raise a fundamental moral issue. This is why I am a vegetarian. You correctly remembered some of my points but mixed them in with things I didn't say and don't believe. This makes it hard for me to reply in more detail.
2. "you do not appear to understand or appreciate the problems presented by the status of nonhumans as economic commodities."
I think this is were our views begin to diverge. I do believe there are problems with treating sentient beings as commodities. However, we come to different conclusions based on this point at which we agree.
"Even if you have a friend who raises animals in a situation similar to a high-end country club, that situation could never satisfy even a scintilla of a fraction of the demand for animal products. "
I agree, and I think our use of animal products is not sustainable and shouldn't be sustained. However, I do agree with the absolute positions many of the AR advocates in these comments are putting out.
"to the extent that you do not eat flesh but eat more dairy products, you may be responsible for more suffering as there is probably more suffering in a glass of milk than in a pound of steak."
This is where the argument gets interesting for me. I think your statement is true given the current state of our milk product, but I don't believe it has to be that way. What about the glass of milk that is not responsible for more suffering?
"There certainly is no meaningful moral distinction that you can make between meat and dairy (or eggs, etc)."
Only if you assume factory farming. This is what I find disingenuous about many of the arguments flying around here.
"but I don't see the clear wrong with breeding animals generally (outside of the industrial system)"
Don't ask what is wrong with breeding animals for our purposes.
Ask what is right about such a practice, and see if you can answer that question.
To me, imposing our choices over more important preferences of our beings (companion animals, in this case) is reason enough to say that pet breeding is immoral and unjustifiable.
P.S: You say you are vegetarian. I take it that you are not Vegan and that you meant lacto/ovo/lacto-ovo vegetarian. If that is the case, then it does not matter whether you are "vegetarian" or not. In my eyes a meat-eating non-Vegan is the same as milk-drinking non-Vegan is the same as a leather-purchasing non-Vegan.
"In my eyes a meat-eating non-Vegan is the same as milk-drinking non-Vegan is the same as a leather-purchasing non-Vegan."
if you're not with us you're against us. Reminds me of one of our Presidents ;)
As I understood Sandy's posting, she was maintaining that there is no coherent justification for distinguishing between meat and other animal products. As I discussed in the debate about "meat," that position is, indeed, correct. There is as much if not more suffering involved in the production of dairy products than there is in meat. Animals used for dairy generally live longer, are treated as badly if not worse than "meat" animals, and end up in the same slaughterhouse after which we consume their flesh anyway. All laying hens are eventually killed and have horrible lives before they are killed--whether they are in conventional battery cages, "enriched" cages, "cage-free" barns, or on "organic" farms.
To say that one does not eat flesh but that one eats dairy or eggs is similar to saying that one eats the flesh of large cows who have spots but does not eat the flesh of large cows without spots.
Sandy's position is in no way similar to the claim that "if you are not with us, you're against us."
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
"All laying hens are eventually killed and have horrible lives before they are killed"
This is what makes me so frustrated in this debate. Your claim is patently false. ALL hens that lay eggs for human consumption are NOT killed. I personally know people that raise hens for eggs and do NOT kill them. I also know first hand that ALL do NOT lead horrible lives.
Here is my problem. Taking the situation that happens in our industrial processes claiming that it's either this or nothing is an attempt to take a complex issue and reduce it to black and white.
You keep telling us about how you grew up in the south and you know of animals there that have great lives and die of old age after living in Ritz Carlton-like conditions and that you have a friend who does not kill his animals and they live in Waldorf Astoria-like conditions. You claim to abhor animal suffering but you are not vegan because it is, according to you, possible not to make animals used for dairy and eggs suffer. But even if that is true (and I dispute it), you are eating animal products now that are not produced in those conditions. Or do you eat only animal products from animals who are not killed directly or indirectly. And can you tell me what happens to all of the male calves produced as the result of the constant impregnation of cows required to produce the humane milk and cheese that you claim does not involve killing?
Your argument appears to be: it is morally acceptable for you to eat animal products because it is in theory possible to produce them under morally acceptable conditions although they are not so produced presently.
I am sorry but that is just silly.
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor Rutgers University
"Your argument appears to be: it is morally acceptable for you to eat animal products because it is in theory possible to produce them under morally acceptable conditions although they are not so produced presently."
I guess it's easier for the AR people to impose an oversimplified black and white world view than to deal with the myriad of possibilities. What is silly is refusing to address other possible ways of dealing with animals and conflating everything with the industrial system.
You want to say with absolute certainty that never ever consuming any animal products is the only moral option by sweeping the nuances under the rug. I've made my points clear and no one has addressed them so I'll let them stand until addressed.
Also, allow me to throw a hypothetical out since this is a philosophical discussion. Let's say someone rescues a hen and will not breed it. Is it immoral to eat eggs from a rescued hen that is treated well?
Reckoner:
I participate in these debates not because I enjoy discussing or have the time to discuss how many angels can sit on the head of a pin but because I regard the violence toward animals (human and nonhuman) that we tolerate, support, and facilitate to be a matter of grave moral concern.
First, let's focus on your hypothetical: if you had a hen who was rescued, not bred, treated as a member of the family, etc., then it would seem that that the morality of eating of eggs in that situation would depend on whether:
1. the hen was distressed when her eggs were taken;
2. whether your practice would encourage others to continue to eat eggs as a general matter;
3. whether you were engaged in violence toward yourself by eating something that may harm your health
I would not eat the eggs in this situation but if these were the only animal foods being consumed on the planet, then I suppose that I would not regard this as an issue meriting much thought and the people at Opposing Views would never have proposed these discussions.
Moreover, at no point in this debate or the "meat" debate has this been the issue that you have proposed for discussion. You have been repeatedly telling us that dairy products and eggs can as a general matter be produced under circumstances in which there is no suffering or killing (directly or indirectly), which is absurd, and alternatively, that the morality of animal consumption depends on whether domesticated nonhumans suffer less as domesticates than they would in the wild. You are now claiming that your question all along has been this. Okay. Thanks for clarifying the question. I have answered your question. It's not a particularly interesting or relevant question so please forgive me for giving an equally uninteresting response.
Second, you claim to be a "vegetarian" but to eat dairy and eggs.You argue that you eat the latter because although these products presently involve a great deal of suffering and death, that is not necessarily the case and they could be produced without suffering and death. The fact that you are consuming them despite the suffering and death that presently exists indicates that you do not really hold that moral view, or that you do not hold it seriously, because it is apparently not affecting your behavior. Moral views that do not result in behavioral expressions are useless. Again, maybe this is just an intellectual exercise for you.
Third, you claim that dairy products can be produced without killing. If what you are saying is that we could produce milk and not kill male calves and just let all of these animals wander in the fields and die of old age as bovine members of our families who have enjoyed excellent care and treatment, then, again, putting aside the question of whether domestication per se can be justified, the issue becomes one that is profoundly uninteresting--and just plain silly--in that milk is *never* going to be produced under those circumstances.
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
I think there is a clear moral difference between killing a living being and extracting milk from it.
Putting words in my mouth does not help. I suspect you know what I actually meant, but wanted to marginalize my argument with this "Us and Them" response.
I mean this: That there is no morally difference between eating meat, and drinking milk and using leather. Therefore, if eating meat is unethical, so are the other two.
if you dont agree, you must show what the morally relevant difference between them is.
GLF wrote about this "clarification" on the Meat debate earlier as well.
How can you say you love your animal when you leave it in a kennel, back yard or garage for 10-12 hours. You leave the house for work and are gone for hours on end and tell me that's humane! Then you feel so guilty that you've left them, that you have to bring them EVERYWHERE with you. But do you walk them,no, you leave them in hot cars to suffer. Again that's really humane. You go to a festival and there are the dogs, trying to attack one another because they are such good babies they don't need a leash.God help the child that gets between them.Then anyone who comes to your house has to put up with some dog either trying to hump their leg or putting their head in your lap or jumping on you.That's really fun especially if their allergic! What do we hear "they are my baby". Ugh!And the dog hair. And the dog hair when you visit someone. Or the dog bite because maybe you moved funny or you scared them somehow the poor babies. Ridiculous
when we go to work or school, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO with our dogs ???
I agree that leaving them in a (small) kennel isn't exactly nice, but we have to put them SOMEWHERE. Should we just let our dogs wander around the neighborhood while we're away working?
dogs that try to attack one another "at festivals" need obediance training and responsible owners. Dogs that hump legs need to be neutered. Dogs that jump need obediance training. Dogs that put their head in your lap just want to be petted - is that so wrong?
As for allergic friends, I don't decide the important decisions in my life based on my friends' and potential future friends' possible conditions .
I'm sorry that you're allergic to dogs and I have three. I'll vacuum before you come over, or we'll meet in the park or at your house. Or, we can sit on the porch instead - it's such a beautiful day, anyway.
I'm not going to buy a house with a frontdoor that's wheelchair accessible just because a friend of mine uses a wheelchair - they can come in through the garage. I'll paint the walls of my house (inside and out) HOT PINK, even if it bothers or offends you. (For the record, I hate the color pink, but it was a good example)
NOT ALL DOGS SHED.
you sound like a dog-hater to me.
and what about other pets : cats, horses, fish, birds, snakes, lizards, turtles, monkeys, rodents, monkeys, big cats, hedgehogs, etc
if you assume the worst case then we shouldn't allow people to have children either. Clearly that's illogical.
"How can you say you love your CHILD when you leave it at home or in a terrible daycare for 10-12 hours. You leave the house for work and are gone for hours on end and tell me that's humane! Then you feel so guilty that you've left them, that you have to bring them EVERYWHERE with you. But do you play with them, read to them; no, you leave them in hot cars to suffer. Again that's really humane. You go to a festival and there are the kids, trying to insult and fight one another because they are such good babies they don't need discipline."
I'm convinced, let's end reproduction of the human species!
A huge thanks goes out to 'Clancy' for the tip about this story - one of the most amazing canine stories we've ever heard - dachshund or otherwise. Get ready to meet 2.5-year-old red smooth 'Sam,' who hails from Clarksville, Tennessee. Sam's human passed away on Monday, and Sam, who wears an electric fence collar, escaped his yard and was found 2.5 days later at the church where the funeral was being held. Sam had to cross busy highways to arrive at the church, which was six miles from his home. Excerpt from WKRN: Ever since Sam was a puppy, he rarely left his owner's side.
When owner Teddy Crockarell lost his battle with cancer last Monday, his wife Marcene believes Sam must have sensed something was wrong.
The dog, who wears an electric fence collar, ran away from the couple's home on Kimbrough Road.
Two and a half days later, after searching for Sam, the family arrived at a church on Trenton Road, over six miles from their home, for Teddy's funeral and discovered Sam was waiting for them.
Marcene Crockarell said, "He was just shivering and sitting there by the doors. We just lost it and all we were doing was hollering, 'Sam! Sam!' and here he comes and he was just all over all three of us."
There is no way to know what prompted Sam, who had never left home on foot, to run away and end up at a church he'd never seen, but is family has a theory.
"If he walked those six miles he was looking for his papa... but he found him, and that's what's good about this whole situation, he found him and he found his way back here," said Marcene Crockarell's son-in-law Howard.
or is this a response of a slave?
TOKYO, JAPAN - Loyalty, faithfulness and unconditional love are qualities that have earned dogs the title of "man's best friend". One particular Akita dog took these qualities to such an extreme, he has earned a place in the hearts of all Japanese people, and has kept that place for over sixty years!
Nestled amid hoards of harried commuters, a variety of shops and department stores, and a giant television screen that covers half a skyscraper, a life sized bronze statue of a dog can be found at Tokyo's busy Shibuya Train Station. Despite the diminutive size of the statue in comparison to the massive neon flash of the city, it isn't difficult to find. Millions of Tokyoites have been meeting at the landmark since 1934 and continue to do so today.
Chu-ken Hachiko (lit. the faithful dog Hachiko) was born in Akita in 1923 and was first brought to Tokyo in 1924. He and his owner, Mr. Eisaburo Uyeno, were inseparable friends right from the start. Each day "Hachi" would accompany Eisaburo, a professor at the Imperial University, to the train station when he left for work. Upon returning, the professor would find the dog patiently waiting, tail wagging. This happy routine continued until one fateful day in 1925, when the professor was taken ill on the job and unfortunately died before he could return home.
Despite the fact that Hachiko was less than two years old at the time, the bond between dog and owner was strong. Hachiko continued to wait each day at Shibuya station for a friend who was never coming back. At times, he wouldn't return home for days at a stretch.
The Akita became a familiar sight to commuters as he kept his vigil for over ten years. On March 8, 1935, Hachiko finally went to meet his master. He died on the very same spot he last saw his friend alive.
Both accounts smack of free will and love! So are you telling these animals that loved their humans so much that they are slaves? Animals do love as well as humans do. Have you never had a pet? My Akita of seven years behaves as if she gave birth to my son not me. She sleeps by his side and even kicks him out of bed. She is a bed hog. She is a member of our family. I prefer her company to the company of most humans.
You ignore the main relevant distinction between the dog and your child in your analogy.
Your child belongs in our society. Its the only society he can belong to in a way congenial to himself and for his well-being. The dog, on the other hand, does not belong in a human society.
I believe a valid analogy would be to compare a dog in our society as a "pet" and a human child brought up by some hypothetical Martians on their planet.
Surely, such a child wouldn't be living a natural life, or find available to him means to exercise his preferences and inborn human tendencies. Therefore, it would be immoral for Martians to breed humans as "companions".
By analogy, it is immoral for us to bring animals into existence solely for the purpose of enjoying their companionship.
Immoral for us to bring animals into existence solely for the purpose of enjoying their companionship?!?!? What's up with that? Does that even make any sense? WE cannot bring animals into existence because we can't give birth to them. What would you like to do euthanize all animals you considered pets?
I'm going to assume that by "natural life" you mean living in their natural habitat without the interference of humans.
some of our pets ' today no longer have or have never had a natural habitat. There is no "natural life" without humans available to, or even possible, for them.
Cats: Persians with their long fur that tangles easily and flat faces that hinder their sense of smell. Sphynx and Rex cat breeds with their hairlessness and curly fur. What about them? Do we let these man-made breeds die off? Or because they are man-made is it okay for THEM to be pets?
Dogs: Chihuahuas, Poodles, Dauschunds, Collies
I've never heard anyone dispute the claim that dogs came from wolves, so do we drop our Spaniels, Labradors, Schnauzers, Terriers, Greyhounds, Shepherds, Great Danes, and Retrievers off at Yellow Stone and cross our fingers, in the hope that mans' best friend will intergrate with mans' oldest enemy?
The Yorkie and Chihuahua breeds were created to catch rats. Does that make their natural habitat warehouses full of grain and corn? Because they definitely don't belong in Africa running alongside its packs of Wild Painted Dogs.
Standard Poodles (60pounds) were created to retrieve fowl from the icy waters of Germany. Do we send them to Canada and hope they can catch the geese? AND WHAT ABOUT THE TOY AND TEACUP POODLES?
The Dauschund breed was created to catch/flush rodents (rats and rabbits) out of their tunnels by going underground into their tunnels after them. What is the Dauschunds natural habitat? The rabbit burrows of Australia?
Collies are energetic, intelligent animals that have an incredible herding instinct. Do we send them to Australia, with its enormous flocks of sheep and hope they get along with the dingos? Or are they better suited to herding the bison of Yellow Stone?
Big cats like tigers and lions, definitely belong in the wild. Little cats like, servals, civets, and lynx do, too. I agree that no one should have seals and gators in their backyard unless they live on waterfront property or run a rehab facility. Monkeys belong in the jungle, not in peoples houses, wearing diapers and being a human's surrogate child.
Birds, well, honestly, I really don't like (or care too much about) birds unless they're being abused or neglected, but I do agree that the cages most are kept in are MUCH too small. They need to be able to TRULY FLY. And the larger, more intelligent birds (like macaws) need to have proper mental stimulation. Predatory birds, like eagles, hawks, and ospreys should never be pets.