Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Do you remember your first dog or cat? Perhaps even your first boa constrictor? Whatever your preference, pets can play a huge role in our lives, even becoming full-fledged family members. But is domestication really in an animal’s best interest? Does pet ownership create a loving bond between human and animal, or does it only serve our own interests?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Help, but first, do no harm
do no harm
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.
- reckoner
August 29, 2008 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do no harm is prerequisite, not an absolute
“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.
- dan August 29, 2008 12:52PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
for the record
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).
- reckoner
August 29, 2008 1:31PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You beg the question
"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.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 8:33AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
if you're not with us you're against us
"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 ;)
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 9:55AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
you see straw men everywhere
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.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 10:13AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
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
- Gary L Francione
August 30, 2008 11:40AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
a clear moral difference
I think there is a clear moral difference between killing a living being and extracting milk from it.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
patently false
"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.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Response to Reckoner
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
- Gary L Francione
August 30, 2008 11:27AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
response to Gary
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.
- reckoner
August 30, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The clear wrong with breeding other animals.
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."
- Liberacion Igualdad
August 30, 2008 10:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
non sequitur
" 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.
- reckoner
September 1, 2008 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Enslaving someone and not agreeing with her property status?
"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 ;)
- Liberacion Igualdad
September 1, 2008 3:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.