Just a few words on the issue of spaying/neutering domesticated animals (cats and dogs, specifically). You see vegans raising this time and time again as an infringement of the animals' rights, etc.
Cats and dogs aren't in a position, as humans are, to voluntarily take advantage of birth control methods. Their breeding capacity is immense. I'm not a mathematician, but I once saw the figures for the potential exponential population increase generated by one cat, over a decade, producing one set of offspring every year, with every cat produced in turn producing more every year. If there were no methods of birth control practised on their behalf, you're talking about trillions of animals generated, over a period of time - animals (because of the way humans have engineered them) who aren't able to adequately look after themselves.
My father told me of hearing his mother crying as she drowned kittens in the toilet, when he was a child. (They were very poor and hardly able to feed themselves). Drowning was a fairly standard method of dealing with the population problem at the time (1930s - 40s).
I have taken in dozens of cats over my lifetime - all either homeless or unwanted. The first two I took in after I had first left home were kittens about to be drowned. (The mother was a homeless cat who had taken up residence in a disused room near my workplace. I was informed that she regularly produced litters of kittens and one of the workers there simply drowned them each time).
Anyone who condemns spaying and neutering needs to come up with a solution as to what to do with all the animals left to fend for themselves. There would never be sufficient humans to look after these numbers. So, what happens to them? It's not good enough to criticise people for spaying and neutering without coming up with an alternative solution.
As has been said, making the decision to take away an animal's right to procreate is morally problematic. Leaving billions of animals who aren't adequately equipped to fend for themselves and condemning them to a life of hazard is more so.
People may have seen what happens to some of the millions of homeless dogs throughout the world. It doesn't make pretty viewing. Sometimes, I wonder if theorising vegans live in the real world. Why is so much air time taken with this debate?
Pauline Wooding
--
Another answer:
All exploitation IS wrong. The institution of pet ownership IS wrong. Unfortunately we have to do something with the domestic animals in existence and so that challenge is wrought with ethical dilemmas. What do we feed them? What do we do about their breeding? How do we maximize their autonomy while also protecting and caring for them?
It seems to me that we have to choose between continuing to breed them, killing them and spaying them. The latter one seems to uphold more of their rights and serve to be the least exploitative.
So I'm going to ask you a few questions. I'm going to have to insist you answer each fully:
-Are you against spaying and neutering?
-Are you in favor of continuing to breed animals for companionship? Do you see that as exploitation?
-If spaying them is exploitative, and we agree it's the best course of action amongst all bad options, shouldn't we still aim to eliminate as much exploitation as possible?
-If you take the position that because we have to do something exploitative (which you and I BOTH do) we cannot take the stand that all exploitation is wrong, and therefore cannot criticize HSUS and PETA then on what basis do you criticize AKC or any other non vegan organizations/persons?
-Are you against adopting cats? If so what should we do with them?
Honestly I do not see at all how taking a stand against animal exploitation, while recognizing that spaying, although morally problematic, is the best course of action, is inconsistent.
Chris Palmieri
Visar inlägg med etikett Abolitionist vegan articles. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Abolitionist vegan articles. Visa alla inlägg
söndag 11 maj 2014
fredag 9 maj 2014
Are people comfortable with consuming animal foods?
People are not *very* comfortable. I have many conversations with nonvegans and they are not very comfortable. Some people may be comfortable. A colleague of mine said yesterday when we talked about veganism, that she rather not think about the issue (consuming animal foods and the suffering and death involved in the production of animal foods).
“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.”
http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
Maybe it increased because people felt more comfortable buying it?
Maybe that is why Whole Foods and other supermarkets invest a lot of money in promoting “humane” marketing schemes?
“D'Agostino, the 20-store supermarket chain in New York, said that its sales of veal have jumped 35 percent since it began carrying "certified humane" veal only.”
http://www.humanemyth.org/mediabase/1000.htm
Maybe it increased because people felt more comfortable buying it?
Maybe that is why Whole Foods and other supermarkets invest a lot of money in promoting “humane” marketing schemes?
torsdag 8 maj 2014
Is it immoral to promote Animal welfare reform even if it could save a million of animals?
A person wrote: "Gary Francione holds that it's immoral to support or promote welfare reforms that would meaningfully lessen the suffering of animals -- even if, as an empirical matter, they are effective and will save a million or more animals."
There is no such thing as an animal welfare reform that would "save a million or more animals". It is a mere hypothetical. Why should I engage in discussing hypotheticals. It is an inaccurate statement. It ignores the detrimental effects that promoting Animal welfare reform has. It ignores that promoting Animal welfare reform legitimizes the very institution of animal exploitation.
I have shown above how animal welfare reforms accomplishes the exact opposite - that they make people more comfortable with exploiting animals, that they lead to an increase of consumption of animal foods, and thus an increase in the numbers of animals being exploited.
-----
A person wrote: "Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"
Spencer,
"Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"
I think that the statement is an oxymoron. I think that the statement is so far away from the reality about what Animal welfare reform accomplishes. I believe there is alot of evidence that Animal welfare reform accomplishes the opposite; and Whole foods and animal industry are promoting "happy meat" and "Welfare standard"-ratings because they know that it increases their sales. This is how businesses operates.
So I don't like simplified statements that ignore the reality that we live in, and ignore the consequences of promoting a certain position.
A person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote the exploitation of one individual in order to save 2 individuals from being exploited. Similarly person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote and legitimize the exploitation of 1000+ billions of animals by promoting Animal welfare reform (e.g. promoting that hens should be exploited in slightly bigger cages).
Such a person would also say that it is not ethical to promote and to endorse "humane rape" of one person, even if it could save 1 000 000 people from being exploited. It is not ethical to murder one person, in order to hinder 5 people from being exploited.
So ignoring that the question doesn't reflect reality, and is a false hypothesis that will never occur in real life: I belive that Gary Francione would say that it is immoral to promote Animal welfare reform in that specific situation, because that it legitimizes the exploitation of sentient beings.
Further reading:
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/622783841074707
There is no such thing as an animal welfare reform that would "save a million or more animals". It is a mere hypothetical. Why should I engage in discussing hypotheticals. It is an inaccurate statement. It ignores the detrimental effects that promoting Animal welfare reform has. It ignores that promoting Animal welfare reform legitimizes the very institution of animal exploitation.
I have shown above how animal welfare reforms accomplishes the exact opposite - that they make people more comfortable with exploiting animals, that they lead to an increase of consumption of animal foods, and thus an increase in the numbers of animals being exploited.
-----
A person wrote: "Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"
Spencer,
"Why not directly answer a clarifying question about Francione's position?"
I think that the statement is an oxymoron. I think that the statement is so far away from the reality about what Animal welfare reform accomplishes. I believe there is alot of evidence that Animal welfare reform accomplishes the opposite; and Whole foods and animal industry are promoting "happy meat" and "Welfare standard"-ratings because they know that it increases their sales. This is how businesses operates.
So I don't like simplified statements that ignore the reality that we live in, and ignore the consequences of promoting a certain position.
A person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote the exploitation of one individual in order to save 2 individuals from being exploited. Similarly person who isn't utilitarian would say that it is not ethical to promote and legitimize the exploitation of 1000+ billions of animals by promoting Animal welfare reform (e.g. promoting that hens should be exploited in slightly bigger cages).
Such a person would also say that it is not ethical to promote and to endorse "humane rape" of one person, even if it could save 1 000 000 people from being exploited. It is not ethical to murder one person, in order to hinder 5 people from being exploited.
So ignoring that the question doesn't reflect reality, and is a false hypothesis that will never occur in real life: I belive that Gary Francione would say that it is immoral to promote Animal welfare reform in that specific situation, because that it legitimizes the exploitation of sentient beings.
Further reading:
https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach/posts/622783841074707
lördag 19 april 2014
Why Abolitionist vegans oppose the promotion of welfare reforms
A more correct analogy would be:
The slave welfare movement goes to the slave owners and say that we have done research that proves that slaves perform better if they are not hyper confined. Thus we can increase the efficiency and our profit by making laws that give the slaves more space.
Lets make a deal:
You make a statement that you will implement these laws within 10 years. Create a new label which is called "Compassionate slavery". We will market this and call it a victory and get more donations. You will get publicity and an increased sell of your slave labor products.
Yes, I would object to this. Because I think it is an immoral sell-out of a sentient beings interest. We have no right to promote other persons exploitation. Not as the end goal and not as a means to reach an end. I don't believe in the utilitarian philosophy, which would allow the murder of one person if you can maximize everyone's happiness and minimize everyone's suffering by doing this.
Furthermore, it is a complete myth that promoting "happy exploitation"/reforms leading to "happier exploited animals" will lead to a vegan world. I see regularly the completely opposite effect when an animal organization applauds the industry for exploiting animals through "free range" instead of cage hens, etc. Whole Foods cooperate with sell out-"animal organizations" because they know it leads them to an increased profit.
We are not objecting industry making reforms. We are objecting that the animal welfare movement applauds and paints exploitation as morally acceptable.
The slave welfare movement goes to the slave owners and say that we have done research that proves that slaves perform better if they are not hyper confined. Thus we can increase the efficiency and our profit by making laws that give the slaves more space.
Lets make a deal:
You make a statement that you will implement these laws within 10 years. Create a new label which is called "Compassionate slavery". We will market this and call it a victory and get more donations. You will get publicity and an increased sell of your slave labor products.
Yes, I would object to this. Because I think it is an immoral sell-out of a sentient beings interest. We have no right to promote other persons exploitation. Not as the end goal and not as a means to reach an end. I don't believe in the utilitarian philosophy, which would allow the murder of one person if you can maximize everyone's happiness and minimize everyone's suffering by doing this.
Furthermore, it is a complete myth that promoting "happy exploitation"/reforms leading to "happier exploited animals" will lead to a vegan world. I see regularly the completely opposite effect when an animal organization applauds the industry for exploiting animals through "free range" instead of cage hens, etc. Whole Foods cooperate with sell out-"animal organizations" because they know it leads them to an increased profit.
We are not objecting industry making reforms. We are objecting that the animal welfare movement applauds and paints exploitation as morally acceptable.
This is a good website where you can learn more: www.abolitionistapproach.com
-------------
In a sexist society advocating for "humane rape" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards woman.
In a speciesist society advocating for eggs from "free range hens" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards animals.
I regularly see how nonvegans are made to feel proud, happy and satisfied over themselves for e.g. consuming eggs from "free range hens", when an animal organization is applauding the industry of implementing an animal welfare reform.
This is why I say that promoting an animal welfare reform sends either the explicit or the implicit message that animal exploitation is morally desirable.
Just like promoting "humane rape" sends the moral message that rape is morally acceptable.
As I said - it is my daily experience that nonvegans interpret the campaigns of Animal Welfare-organizations in this way.
And because I am not an utilitarian I wouldn't advocate a capaign that sends an implicit moral message of either exploitation against women, nor exploitation against animals.
I don't find it justified to exploit one animal or to promote the exploitation of one animal in order to save 10 animals or 1 million animals. Neither do I think that this ever would be the outcome of exploiting another sentient being.
And I don't think that promoting speciesism will lead more people to go vegan.
-----
Would you advocate animal welfare reforms if that could save 1 million animals:
The same answer that I would give as an answer to the following question:
"A murderer says to you. If you murder this person I will not kill 1 million people. If you refuse to murder this person, I will kill 1 million people."
I would say: No!
I am not a utilitarian. I don't justify exploitation or the promotion of exploitation.
There is a good reason why Whole Foods supposedly are implementing "animal welfare reforms". To promote "happy meat", etc., increases the sales. This is obviously not to the advantage of the animals. Good article for anyone following this debate who hasn't already read it: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that the promotion of animal welfare reform doesn't create a reduction of animal exploitation. I believe that it leads to consumers that are more comfortable with promoting animal exploitation and that thus it will lead to an overall increase in the exploitation of animals.
I agree with this: "Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.
Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/
-------------
In a sexist society advocating for "humane rape" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards woman.
In a speciesist society advocating for eggs from "free range hens" will make the public more comfortable about violence towards animals.
I regularly see how nonvegans are made to feel proud, happy and satisfied over themselves for e.g. consuming eggs from "free range hens", when an animal organization is applauding the industry of implementing an animal welfare reform.
This is why I say that promoting an animal welfare reform sends either the explicit or the implicit message that animal exploitation is morally desirable.
Just like promoting "humane rape" sends the moral message that rape is morally acceptable.
As I said - it is my daily experience that nonvegans interpret the campaigns of Animal Welfare-organizations in this way.
And because I am not an utilitarian I wouldn't advocate a capaign that sends an implicit moral message of either exploitation against women, nor exploitation against animals.
I don't find it justified to exploit one animal or to promote the exploitation of one animal in order to save 10 animals or 1 million animals. Neither do I think that this ever would be the outcome of exploiting another sentient being.
And I don't think that promoting speciesism will lead more people to go vegan.
-----
Would you advocate animal welfare reforms if that could save 1 million animals:
The same answer that I would give as an answer to the following question:
"A murderer says to you. If you murder this person I will not kill 1 million people. If you refuse to murder this person, I will kill 1 million people."
I would say: No!
I am not a utilitarian. I don't justify exploitation or the promotion of exploitation.
There is a good reason why Whole Foods supposedly are implementing "animal welfare reforms". To promote "happy meat", etc., increases the sales. This is obviously not to the advantage of the animals. Good article for anyone following this debate who hasn't already read it: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/
--------------------------------------------------
I believe that the promotion of animal welfare reform doesn't create a reduction of animal exploitation. I believe that it leads to consumers that are more comfortable with promoting animal exploitation and that thus it will lead to an overall increase in the exploitation of animals.
I agree with this: "Why does anyone believe that welfare reform will lead to abolition? If we look at the history of animal welfare reform, we see that most reforms are minor, most are not even enforced, and most actually increase production efficiency and provide economic benefits to producers. We have had the animal welfare paradigm for 200 years now and we are exploiting more animals now in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.
Why does anyone believe that promoting “happy” exploitation is going to lead to the abolition of exploitation? Use your common sense. “Happy” exploitation won’t lead anywhere but to a public that feels better about particular forms of animal exploitation. If that were not the case, the animal exploitation industries, in partnership with the large animal welfare corporations, would not be investing all the resources that they are investing in “happy” exploitation campaigns and labels."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/got-faith-in-animal-welfare/
PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)