Today (read last week, when I started writing this) I have had a great day. I was out with Buddy And Ahimsa (companion dogs) for about 5 hours. We were exploring a new part of the forest. They had a lot of fun exploring, and playing in the forest, puddles and rivers. I was reading some in a very important and enlightening book called Presence: The Art of Peace and Happiness by Rupert Spira (see non-duality.rupertspira.com/ ). I was putting up some Lost Animals-posters - http://www.lost-animals.net/ - on trees and electricity poles.
When we approached our cabin there was another dog (and human person :) nearby. The other person asked if they wanted to play, and I said, yes. So I let the dogs of their leashes. I try to have them off their leashes as much as possible and they are totally free when we are in the forest, but some people are unfortunately afraid of rottweilers. So they enjoyed their time with the other dog and were very sensitive and respectful. The other dog seemed to be a bit cautious and was talking using some calming signals after playing for a bit, so Ahimsa and Buddy just stood close to him. It was great to see that they got along so well. It is much harder when dogs are on a leash, and you meet another dog, and the other dog owner doesn’t want them to greet the other dog. Then the dogs can get nervous and insecure and start barking. Ahimsa, Buddy and the other dog had a very nice time :)
I and the other human person had a great conversation. We talked and after a while I led the discussion into veganism. She wondered if I was the one that had put up the flier about veganism that she had seen on a tree while walking in the forest :) I explained why it is wrong to exploit animals.
She shared some about her plans to use bees for honey. I asked her if she believes that bees are sentient beings. She said of course, and told about some amazing things she had read about them. I asked her if she thinks they have an interest of keeping their honey; and explained some more after she answered. She wondered for how long that I had been a vegan, and if it had happened at once or in different steps. I told her that I became a vegan when I realized that it is wrong to exploit animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. I said that I first stopped consuming meat and fish, and when I realized that animals are harmed and exploited for honey, dairy, eggs, and other purposes, I also stopped with this. She was interested in hearing what I was saying. I gave her a flier, and contact information.
For more tips on vegan education, see the above Lost Animals-link and: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/04/vegan-education-planting-seeds-to-grow.html
Visar inlägg med etikett animal exploitation. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett animal exploitation. Visa alla inlägg
lördag 28 juni 2014
torsdag 26 juni 2014
Why research of cultured meat is morally wrong
So they justify the vivisection and animal exploitation that today takes place to produce and research on cultured meat, because that they think that it will lead to less animals exploited in the future.
It is like the scenario when you murder one innocent human, in order to save 2 humans.
Or claiming that you are opposed to nonviolence, but you start a war to reach peace and a world of nonviolence.
Or promoting and legitimizing animal exploitation through Animal welfare reform because that you erroneously think it will lead to a vegan world: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2014/05/abolitionist-veganism-articles.html
Vegan education will lead to a vegan world. Animal exploitation and speciesism will lead to more animal exploitation and speciesism. It is simple.
The author is also wrong about the production of vegetables. We can do vegan permaculture and we don't need to exploit animals in order to get food. I wonder why they don't invest their time in doing and spreading knowledge of vegan permaculture, and instead participate in animal exploitation by promoting cultured "meat".
söndag 8 juni 2014
The moral problem with teaching a dog to dance
There is a video of a dancing dog.
Here are some good comments related to that video:
Yes, as I stated, the human is gaining something--notoriety--at the expense of another animal. In addition, a corporation is gaining advertising and business at the expense of another animal. Pit bulls shouldn't need to made to look human-ish in their behavior to be accepted. They're dogs--plain and simple. Let them be dogs, doing their own thing 100% of the time. I'm reminded of how masters made slaves dance on the plantations to entertain and to show the slaves were happy. The masters even said things like the slaves "enjoyed" their time performing for the masters. Still, no slave would have chosen slavery over freedom. It's interesting that you made the analogy to the human being a parent because many slave owners touted themselves as parents in describing their relationships with their slaves. Defenders of slavery would even refer to owners as parents. Sadly, this kind of defensive language about slavery continues today, especially in the southern U.S. It's a case of language being used to soften reality and distract us from issues related to slavery. With regard to this video and others like it, why can't we refer to domesticated animals as companions, friends or some more egalitarian designation? I don't see the training as problematic because it's "cross-species"--it's problematic because of the relationship of power, because it's anthropomorphic and because no human should gain anything through the exploitation of another human or other animal.
---
Michele Spino Martindill It's easy for humans who are in a position of privilege to say the dog is gaining something, the dog is cute or there's no problem with what's depicted in the video. It's easy for humans to ignore the exploitation; however, the dog doesn't have that privilege. I'm sure if the dog could speak, humans would use their power to control the meaning of the dog's words. As the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote, "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him [sic]."
It's an unequal relationship of power, with the human gaining notoriety (at the very least) at the expense of another animal. The human is making the dog do human centered tricks rather than enabling the dog to do dog centered activities, e.g. walking, running, sniffing, sleeping, eating, licking...you know, dog things
Michele Spino Martindill It's a false analogy (a logical fallacy) to compare the human/child relationship to that of a human/dog. Using paternalism as a way to defend exploitation doesn't work with slavery and it doesn't work as a defense for this video. Also, the use of positive reinforcement comes from a branch of psychology called behaviorism in which it is assumed that there's a person in power who can manipulate those without power through rewards and punishments. To use that kind of strategy on a child or any living being goes against veganism in that it puts humans with power on the top of a ladder of value rather than seeing all of life as interconnected. Veganism, unlike behaviorism, involves interacting with all others by showing respect, working to insure no is manipulated or exploited, and by being sure everyone has an opportunity to live in Peace
-----
I'm aware of so-called progressive training for dogs and other animals, but the point is that they're still being trained by humans for human purposes. The bond between human and dog isn't strengthened in a positive sense--such training is simply a different way for humans to attain and retain power in the relationship. There's no way to prove that "most vegans" are okay dogs being kept indoors or with anything else; however, we do know that in veganism humans have to take responsibility for having historically domesticated dogs and cats, meaning they stop breeding more dogs and cats, and they provide food, shelter and veterinary care for those animals already born. So, yes, it makes perfect "sense" for those who support veganism to be against dogs being trained for human purposes and in favor of allowing dogs to be dogs. Introducing the subject of animals slaughtered for dog food is a red herring in this discussion, an attempt to get off topic in order to distract from a weak argument (one of those pesky logical fallacies again). I know it can be hard to see the exploitation in something our culture has told us for centuries is cute, but it's time to stand against all exploitation.
.----
We can protect animals and be responsible for their care without treating then like circus animals. They do not have to be on display doing tricks. The whole notion of tricks and doing behaviors that are based on human goals and entertainment speaks of exploitation--human gain at the expense of other animals. Using paternalism to justify slavery of any kind violates the basic precepts of veganism. There is no justification for slavery and exploitation. It is interesting to see vegans use paternalism to defend a video of something that is a circus act--a performance for the benefit of humans in terms of entertainment and advertising.
Here are some good comments related to that video:
Yes, as I stated, the human is gaining something--notoriety--at the expense of another animal. In addition, a corporation is gaining advertising and business at the expense of another animal. Pit bulls shouldn't need to made to look human-ish in their behavior to be accepted. They're dogs--plain and simple. Let them be dogs, doing their own thing 100% of the time. I'm reminded of how masters made slaves dance on the plantations to entertain and to show the slaves were happy. The masters even said things like the slaves "enjoyed" their time performing for the masters. Still, no slave would have chosen slavery over freedom. It's interesting that you made the analogy to the human being a parent because many slave owners touted themselves as parents in describing their relationships with their slaves. Defenders of slavery would even refer to owners as parents. Sadly, this kind of defensive language about slavery continues today, especially in the southern U.S. It's a case of language being used to soften reality and distract us from issues related to slavery. With regard to this video and others like it, why can't we refer to domesticated animals as companions, friends or some more egalitarian designation? I don't see the training as problematic because it's "cross-species"--it's problematic because of the relationship of power, because it's anthropomorphic and because no human should gain anything through the exploitation of another human or other animal.
---
Michele Spino Martindill It's easy for humans who are in a position of privilege to say the dog is gaining something, the dog is cute or there's no problem with what's depicted in the video. It's easy for humans to ignore the exploitation; however, the dog doesn't have that privilege. I'm sure if the dog could speak, humans would use their power to control the meaning of the dog's words. As the philosopher Wittgenstein wrote, "If a lion could speak, we could not understand him [sic]."
It's an unequal relationship of power, with the human gaining notoriety (at the very least) at the expense of another animal. The human is making the dog do human centered tricks rather than enabling the dog to do dog centered activities, e.g. walking, running, sniffing, sleeping, eating, licking...you know, dog things
Michele Spino Martindill It's a false analogy (a logical fallacy) to compare the human/child relationship to that of a human/dog. Using paternalism as a way to defend exploitation doesn't work with slavery and it doesn't work as a defense for this video. Also, the use of positive reinforcement comes from a branch of psychology called behaviorism in which it is assumed that there's a person in power who can manipulate those without power through rewards and punishments. To use that kind of strategy on a child or any living being goes against veganism in that it puts humans with power on the top of a ladder of value rather than seeing all of life as interconnected. Veganism, unlike behaviorism, involves interacting with all others by showing respect, working to insure no is manipulated or exploited, and by being sure everyone has an opportunity to live in Peace
-----
I'm aware of so-called progressive training for dogs and other animals, but the point is that they're still being trained by humans for human purposes. The bond between human and dog isn't strengthened in a positive sense--such training is simply a different way for humans to attain and retain power in the relationship. There's no way to prove that "most vegans" are okay dogs being kept indoors or with anything else; however, we do know that in veganism humans have to take responsibility for having historically domesticated dogs and cats, meaning they stop breeding more dogs and cats, and they provide food, shelter and veterinary care for those animals already born. So, yes, it makes perfect "sense" for those who support veganism to be against dogs being trained for human purposes and in favor of allowing dogs to be dogs. Introducing the subject of animals slaughtered for dog food is a red herring in this discussion, an attempt to get off topic in order to distract from a weak argument (one of those pesky logical fallacies again). I know it can be hard to see the exploitation in something our culture has told us for centuries is cute, but it's time to stand against all exploitation.
.----
We can protect animals and be responsible for their care without treating then like circus animals. They do not have to be on display doing tricks. The whole notion of tricks and doing behaviors that are based on human goals and entertainment speaks of exploitation--human gain at the expense of other animals. Using paternalism to justify slavery of any kind violates the basic precepts of veganism. There is no justification for slavery and exploitation. It is interesting to see vegans use paternalism to defend a video of something that is a circus act--a performance for the benefit of humans in terms of entertainment and advertising.
fredag 23 maj 2014
Only veganism help animals.
Some people get frustrated when I point out that veganism is the only
way to help animals. There will always be someone who says they *could*
kill an animal. It's not my right to give you that permission to go
ahead then if you can. It's not my right to say that others should be
given more straw, one more hour of daylight or a dirty cramped barn
instead of a cage when the freedom they crave is not the result. They
are still used, abused, exploited and murdered. It's not my right to say that one death is more preferable over another, how do I know that when I haven't gone through it?
It's not my right, speaking only through arrogance and ego, that I deem one animal more worthy due to perceived intellect, only measured with my own.
It's not my right, speaking only through arrogance and ego, that I deem one animal more worthy due to perceived intellect, only measured with my own.
It shouldn't be
anyone's right to do or suggest such things. It doesn't affect *me* and
it doesn't affect *you* so of course it's easy to say it's OK and give
your permission. *We* don't come into it.
It's not our right, but it should be the animals right. Listen to them.
Let them be free by being vegan.
www.vegankit.com
www.humanemyth.org
Quote from: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000066596384&fref=ts
It's not our right, but it should be the animals right. Listen to them.
Let them be free by being vegan.
www.vegankit.com
www.humanemyth.org
Quote from: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000066596384&fref=ts
söndag 18 maj 2014
Nonviolent vegan protest against animal exploitation of Mc Donalds and other restaurants/stores?
How about a nonviolent protest against all animal exploitation inside or outside of any non-vegan food
store or food restaurant? Not a single issue campaign-protest, but a protest
that shows that all animal exploitation for food, clothing and other purposes
is wrong. No a campaign that e.g. focuses on fur, and confuses people to think that there is a moral distinction between fur and other animal use.
Based on what I read in that article and other thoughts, I wrote this:
Based on what I read in that article and other thoughts, I wrote this:
We could
stand with signs depicting images of certain animals, and saying e.g.: ‘This
animal wanted to live but was killed to be used for meat. We have no
nutritional need for meat and other animal foods, and it all involves
unnecessary suffering and death. Go vegan!”
Another sign: “This animal wanted to live and be with her family. This animal was used for dairy and got slaughter when she was 5 years old. Each year they forcefully made her pregnant, and when her baby was born she was ripped away from her within a week. She mourned immensely, just like any mother would by losing her baby. Her male babies was slaughtered when they younger than 6 months for veal, or 18 months year old to become meat.” In parallel we could hand out Abolitionist vegan fliers to people passing by.
Another sign: “This animal wanted to live and be with her family. This animal was used for dairy and got slaughter when she was 5 years old. Each year they forcefully made her pregnant, and when her baby was born she was ripped away from her within a week. She mourned immensely, just like any mother would by losing her baby. Her male babies was slaughtered when they younger than 6 months for veal, or 18 months year old to become meat.” In parallel we could hand out Abolitionist vegan fliers to people passing by.
The benefits of these campaigns are many:
-Raising awareness, making people opt out of animal exploitation and go vegan (including choosing not to buy their animal foods-product at the store/restaurant).
-Creating
media coverage and visibility among the public. Especially if you manage to get
a movement of many vegans that do this outside of many different stores in parallel.
-Getting
and inspiring vegans to do vegan education wherever they are. Creating a
movement of vegans how arrange vegan stalls and protests outside of
stores/restaurants, etc., serving products of animal exploitation.
-Getting
vegans to come in contact with us and learn more about Abolitionist veganism.
-Showing
vegans involved in SIC’s, that you can do demonstrations and protests, create
awareness and make people go vegan without engaging in SIC’s.
-Educating
vegans about the difference between a SIC-protest and an Abolitionist vegan
protest.
Some things
that “Direction Action everywhere” do are a bit misguided, but we could learn
from the good they are doing. They are very effective and reaching many through
what they are doing, e.g. their protest against all animal food, including
attacking them for serving “humane animal foods”, directed towards ‘Chipotle’.
-" strong, confident, and inspirational social movement that can resist social erosion and corporate influence to create real and permanent change. In short, we need to start being assertive"
Of course we can also arrange vegan stalls; but protests are also good and seem to in many instances get some more coverage and reaching some more people. E.g. there were not that many people who noticed the stall I had on a street with lots of traffic in Oslo.
Pauline Wooding I totally agree with you, Anders. Excellent post. I think this is what is needed now. It will make people stop in their tracks and break out of their comfortable complacency - even if just for a few minutes. I've been thinking that this is more the way to go, with activism needing to be a bit more visible than it is. A few people simply declining to consume animal products feels passive and not making sufficient impact. I agree that it could be a protest outside any outlet that sells animal products (peaceful, of course), as they'e all as bad as each other.
---
Thank you for the chance to have this interesting discussion, Anders.
Smara AnAnimal:
I like and agree with your points above. Not sure if “offense” is the right word though.
“According to historian Paul Goodman, the antislavery movement grew by 45950% (not a typo) in half a decade after William Lloyd Garrison shifted the rhetoric of the movement away from reaction to assertion.”
Assertion is a better and more appropriate word, I think. From looking up the definition of “offense” it is usually connected with violence. Whether an unequivocal, peaceful, and just for all vegan message can cause offence to nonvegans is of course irrelevant.
I think that a peaceful, non-invasive, well thought of and planned, vegan-antispeciesist, non-SIC, non-obsessive, non-ridiculous, non-brainless and non-speciesist/non-sexist/non-racist etc. demonstration can have positive results--along with the ‘traditional’ (which can be very original nevertheless) vegan education of course. However, the ones I have seen so far suffer either from not being really peaceful or not vegan-antispeciesist, or from the lack of one or more ‘nons’ from the ones I mentioned here.
----
Another post by Smara:
I think the demo in the picture of the link you gave looks wrong for many reasons.
1. It looks hostile, like “we won’t let you pass until you squeeze between us, because we dislike you so much and want to make your life difficult”.
2. No one will sit in front of those people the way they have arranged themselves to be able to read the signs and see the pictures.
3. They imply that the problem is Chipotle and not the public who consumes the animals and their products.
4. It is a SIC about farmed animals, and if I see well it is mostly about the use of their flesh.
5. They don’t allow dialogue with the public, and they don’t seem to have anything for them to give them to take home.
6. They don’t give a vegan and anti-speciesist message about that all nonhuman animal use is wrong.
7. They are unoriginal and uninspiring.
Learn more:
torsdag 15 maj 2014
Why we should rescue animals from animal shelters
Some persons say that we shouldn't adopt animals from animal shelters and claim that this legitimizes breeding.
We have 2 choices as vegans (now I am talking about each individual, since everyone isn't capable of adopting animals):
1. You choose to ignore the animals being killed at animal shelters. You look with a blind eye while they are being exploited. You look with a blind eye when the kill shelters are exploiting innocent animals. Blindly you look while they are killing the animals, while they are commiting moral atrocities.
You may even defend PeTA's killing of healhty animals. Vegans don't kill animals, but you still defend PeTA for commiting these moral atrocities.
2.You rescue an animal from an animal shelter. This animal wants to live and is happy to be rescued from the animal shelter.
These may have some negative consequences. This doesn't make the action in itself wrong. Some people who see you may think that you think it is a good idea with pets
(if you don't have the chance to talk with them). This doesn't make the action in itself wrong.
Of course number 2 is the best choices, since it considers the animal's interest of not being killed.
Legally under law this animal is your property. That of course is a moral problem. But, releasing the animal to the wild, would be a worse choice morally. Domestication is all wrong, but you are now doing
the best you can. You are choosing between 2 bad choices: 1. Releasing the animal to the wild. 2. In some ways controlling and limiting the freedom of the animal.
You choose the choice that will bring as little harm to the animal you adopted as possible.
We have 2 choices as vegans (now I am talking about each individual, since everyone isn't capable of adopting animals):
1. You choose to ignore the animals being killed at animal shelters. You look with a blind eye while they are being exploited. You look with a blind eye when the kill shelters are exploiting innocent animals. Blindly you look while they are killing the animals, while they are commiting moral atrocities.
You may even defend PeTA's killing of healhty animals. Vegans don't kill animals, but you still defend PeTA for commiting these moral atrocities.
2.You rescue an animal from an animal shelter. This animal wants to live and is happy to be rescued from the animal shelter.
These may have some negative consequences. This doesn't make the action in itself wrong. Some people who see you may think that you think it is a good idea with pets
(if you don't have the chance to talk with them). This doesn't make the action in itself wrong.
Of course number 2 is the best choices, since it considers the animal's interest of not being killed.
Legally under law this animal is your property. That of course is a moral problem. But, releasing the animal to the wild, would be a worse choice morally. Domestication is all wrong, but you are now doing
the best you can. You are choosing between 2 bad choices: 1. Releasing the animal to the wild. 2. In some ways controlling and limiting the freedom of the animal.
You choose the choice that will bring as little harm to the animal you adopted as possible.
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
Help or harm animals by promoting Animal welfare reform?
You
have a good heart, you want to help the animals; and you are promoting
Animal welfare reform because you believe that this will reduce the
suffering of animals. You promote say a reform that will make the hens
get some inches bigger space.
But you may not be aware of that you are:
-Legitimizing the animal exploitation by telling industry that they should reform it. It is like promoting a “happy rape”-scheme or “happy murder”-scheme for disenfranchised people groups of our society, instead of advocating against all exploitation that these groups are facing. You are telling the industry to reform the exploitation. You are not saying: ‘Stop the exploitation’. You are saying: ‘Continue the exploitation, but do it in a way that makes the nonhumans suffer slightly less”.
-Sending the implicit message to the consumer that the products based on the “Animal welfare reform” are morally acceptable and can be consumed as a “conscientious omnivore”.
-Increasing production efficiency, so the animal industry will get a bigger revenue.
Does the privileged groups of the society have the right to tell others of HOW they should exploit other individuals of our society? Do we have a right to encourage sexists and racists HOW they should exploit women and people of color? Do you think that they appreciate that you encourage others to exploit them in a way that supposedly causes them a less degree of suffering? Would you being a person who was daily subjected of exploitation like others to work for reforming the exploitation that you are a part of, and making the say traffickers earn a bigger revenue by increasing their ‘production efficiency’; or would you like others to work for abolishing the exploitation all together? Would you appreciate that people supposedly fighting for your rights not to be exploited, to tell the exploiters HOW to exploit you? Does it make sense to advocate, and is it moral to advocate exploitation of an individual as a means to a reach an end? Can starting wars lead to peace in our world? Can using and advocating for unprovoked violence result in a peaceful world?
You say that ‘the world won’t go vegan overnight’ so we have to promote these reforms. We have been doing Animal welfare reform for the last 200 years, and more and more animals are exploited for every day, which is not only caused by the increase of the world population, but also an increase the average animal exploitation that every non-vegan participates in.
If we make consumers more comfortable and happy with consuming “animal foods”, they will continue to consume animal foods. There is a reason why Whole Foods promote “happy meat” and “Welfare ratings” for the exploited animals. How can increasing the production efficiency of producers result in ending the exploitation?
---
If everyone educate one person to become a vegan and become an vegan educator every year; and we started with 125 vegans in Sweden doing this, Sweden would have a vegan majority after 17 years. There are many effective vegan educators in the world that educate several people to go vegan and to become vegan educators every year. We just need more people to educate themselves of how to effectively educate others and then to engage lots of their energy and time into this.
More reading:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-clear.../...
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/.../are-anti-cruelty.../
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/.../abolitionist-veganism...
The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?
: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/ (Ask for it in your library)
But you may not be aware of that you are:
-Legitimizing the animal exploitation by telling industry that they should reform it. It is like promoting a “happy rape”-scheme or “happy murder”-scheme for disenfranchised people groups of our society, instead of advocating against all exploitation that these groups are facing. You are telling the industry to reform the exploitation. You are not saying: ‘Stop the exploitation’. You are saying: ‘Continue the exploitation, but do it in a way that makes the nonhumans suffer slightly less”.
-Sending the implicit message to the consumer that the products based on the “Animal welfare reform” are morally acceptable and can be consumed as a “conscientious omnivore”.
-Increasing production efficiency, so the animal industry will get a bigger revenue.
Does the privileged groups of the society have the right to tell others of HOW they should exploit other individuals of our society? Do we have a right to encourage sexists and racists HOW they should exploit women and people of color? Do you think that they appreciate that you encourage others to exploit them in a way that supposedly causes them a less degree of suffering? Would you being a person who was daily subjected of exploitation like others to work for reforming the exploitation that you are a part of, and making the say traffickers earn a bigger revenue by increasing their ‘production efficiency’; or would you like others to work for abolishing the exploitation all together? Would you appreciate that people supposedly fighting for your rights not to be exploited, to tell the exploiters HOW to exploit you? Does it make sense to advocate, and is it moral to advocate exploitation of an individual as a means to a reach an end? Can starting wars lead to peace in our world? Can using and advocating for unprovoked violence result in a peaceful world?
You say that ‘the world won’t go vegan overnight’ so we have to promote these reforms. We have been doing Animal welfare reform for the last 200 years, and more and more animals are exploited for every day, which is not only caused by the increase of the world population, but also an increase the average animal exploitation that every non-vegan participates in.
If we make consumers more comfortable and happy with consuming “animal foods”, they will continue to consume animal foods. There is a reason why Whole Foods promote “happy meat” and “Welfare ratings” for the exploited animals. How can increasing the production efficiency of producers result in ending the exploitation?
---
If everyone educate one person to become a vegan and become an vegan educator every year; and we started with 125 vegans in Sweden doing this, Sweden would have a vegan majority after 17 years. There are many effective vegan educators in the world that educate several people to go vegan and to become vegan educators every year. We just need more people to educate themselves of how to effectively educate others and then to engage lots of their energy and time into this.
More reading:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/some-clear.../...
http://uvearchives.wordpress.com/.../are-anti-cruelty.../
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/.../abolitionist-veganism...
The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?
: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/books/ (Ask for it in your library)
lördag 19 april 2014
PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens
PETA is promoting the gassing of chickens because that it is supposedly more "humane". I claim that promoting the gassing of chickens makes the public more comfortable about exploiting animals.
I don't want the public to exploit animals. Thus I am opposed to PETA promoting the gassing of chickens.
If the industry made a reform to change itself, which they would do without the involvment "animal rights"-organizations in order to increase their production efficiency, I wouldn't oppose this.
I am not opposing the reform I am opposing a supposedly "animal rights"-organization promoting the reform.
Obviously I would act exactly the same in an identical situation during the slavery era a couple of hundreds of years ago. I would advocate abolition and not reform.
"PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-principled-veganism-screw-the-principle/#.U1K7JVfzISM
I don't want the public to exploit animals. Thus I am opposed to PETA promoting the gassing of chickens.
If the industry made a reform to change itself, which they would do without the involvment "animal rights"-organizations in order to increase their production efficiency, I wouldn't oppose this.
I am not opposing the reform I am opposing a supposedly "animal rights"-organization promoting the reform.
Obviously I would act exactly the same in an identical situation during the slavery era a couple of hundreds of years ago. I would advocate abolition and not reform.
"PETA explicitly recognizes that gassing chickens is an economically efficient thing to do. The symbiotic relationship between large animal groups and institutional exploiters is clear when we see that groups like PETA and institutional exploiters are involved in a drama whereby animal advocates target an economically vulnerable practice; industry puts up a token fight; the reform, or some modification of the reform, is eventually accepted because it does not harm, and usually helps, industry; the animal groups declare victory; the animal exploiters bask in the praise that industry gets from animal advocates. Only the animals lose."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ingrid-newkirk-on-principled-veganism-screw-the-principle/#.U1K7JVfzISM
tisdag 30 juli 2013
Vegan reply to: "I eat meat, because if I don't eat and kill animals, they will have a worse life in the wild."
Lauren,
You wrote: "I have been inside a few abattoirs in Australia and I have no problem in the way that they operate,"
You don't have a problem, but it is not about you, it is about the animals.
Do you really believe that they want to be killed by humans? Do you believe it is morally justified to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for pleasure/convenience/habit or tradition.
You wrote: "The fact is that these animals would be having a far less peaceful life and death of they were out in the wild which is exactly where they would be if they were not grown for food."
This is an assumption. And you are assuming the animals rather be confined and domesticated, that cows and calves prefer being separated from each other within a week of the birth of the calf, and then finally murdered by humans.
And then you try to defend this by saying that some other animals would inflict even worse suffering and death upon these harmless sentient beings. Lets assume it was true.
Lets apply your reasoning to a human context.
A person knows that another person will be tortured and murdered by another human. In order to prevent this he/she goes to the person that she knows is a victim of a planned murder, and kills him/her in a less painless way.
Then he/she try to morally justify the murder by saying that he/she prevented more cruelty and harm.
Do you think that this is morally justified?
I find it incredible how many non-vegans believe in nonsensical "justifications" to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for "palate pleasure"/convenience/habit or tradition.
The need to come up with such excuses shows that they on a deep level don't believe it is morally justified to consume animal foods.
I opted out from animal exploitaiton last autumn and went vegan. You can do the same. It only requires that you care about the animals.
You wrote: "I have been inside a few abattoirs in Australia and I have no problem in the way that they operate,"
You don't have a problem, but it is not about you, it is about the animals.
Do you really believe that they want to be killed by humans? Do you believe it is morally justified to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for pleasure/convenience/habit or tradition.
You wrote: "The fact is that these animals would be having a far less peaceful life and death of they were out in the wild which is exactly where they would be if they were not grown for food."
This is an assumption. And you are assuming the animals rather be confined and domesticated, that cows and calves prefer being separated from each other within a week of the birth of the calf, and then finally murdered by humans.
And then you try to defend this by saying that some other animals would inflict even worse suffering and death upon these harmless sentient beings. Lets assume it was true.
Lets apply your reasoning to a human context.
A person knows that another person will be tortured and murdered by another human. In order to prevent this he/she goes to the person that she knows is a victim of a planned murder, and kills him/her in a less painless way.
Then he/she try to morally justify the murder by saying that he/she prevented more cruelty and harm.
Do you think that this is morally justified?
I find it incredible how many non-vegans believe in nonsensical "justifications" to inflict unnecessary harm and unnecessary death on sentient beings for "palate pleasure"/convenience/habit or tradition.
The need to come up with such excuses shows that they on a deep level don't believe it is morally justified to consume animal foods.
I opted out from animal exploitaiton last autumn and went vegan. You can do the same. It only requires that you care about the animals.
tisdag 28 maj 2013
PETA endorses Burger King's "Veggie" burger, which contains milk, eggs and animal exploitation
Hello Jill,
“Thank you for your post and for the links that you shared. I would be happy to share some links with you, too! Best wishes,”
Thanks! Best wishes to you also!
I understand that you sincerely believe in PETA and their methods.
I don’t have the time to comment everything you write at the moment, but I would like to comment your statement:
“Because of PETA, even Burger King now has a "BK Veggie" burger!.”
It contains eggs and milk.
PETA promotes Burger King and their animal exploitation-burger under their section ‘Eating Vegan at Fast Food Chain Restaurants ‘ and they are celebrating and promoting Burger King for what certainly is animal exploitation.
So PETA’s supporters will believe that they are helping the animals by [lacto-ovo]-“vegetarianism”, which is a label that makes people feel good about exploiting animals, skipping the meat, but still exploiting animals by consuming milk and eggs. Calling milk and eggs and label it vegetarian or veggie is certainly normalizing the animal exploitation - labelling it as being the same as "veggies" [vegetables].
Some other problems with PETA:
PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;
PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;
PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;
PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;
PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”
To say that this does not constitute support for “happy” or “humane” exploitation is simply not correct.
[Quote and references: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UaTzk5xc18E ]
“Thank you for your post and for the links that you shared. I would be happy to share some links with you, too! Best wishes,”
Thanks! Best wishes to you also!
I understand that you sincerely believe in PETA and their methods.
I don’t have the time to comment everything you write at the moment, but I would like to comment your statement:
“Because of PETA, even Burger King now has a "BK Veggie" burger!.”
It contains eggs and milk.
PETA promotes Burger King and their animal exploitation-burger under their section ‘Eating Vegan at Fast Food Chain Restaurants ‘ and they are celebrating and promoting Burger King for what certainly is animal exploitation.
So PETA’s supporters will believe that they are helping the animals by [lacto-ovo]-“vegetarianism”, which is a label that makes people feel good about exploiting animals, skipping the meat, but still exploiting animals by consuming milk and eggs. Calling milk and eggs and label it vegetarian or veggie is certainly normalizing the animal exploitation - labelling it as being the same as "veggies" [vegetables].
Some other problems with PETA:
PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;
PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;
PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;
PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;
PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”
To say that this does not constitute support for “happy” or “humane” exploitation is simply not correct.
[Quote and references: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UaTzk5xc18E ]
lördag 25 maj 2013
Are vegans justified to use violence to liberate animals?
I wrote 3 paragraphs on the rescue-campaigns above (+ the quote I included). Here are some more thoughts.
I am quite new to nonviolence. Before the end of this autumn I did justify violence, e.g. I justified many wars. Sometime after becoming vegan I also changed my position about nonviolence. So I will do my best to apply this principle according to my current understanding.
Read this post first: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/illegal-rescue-actions-of-animals.html
Also read this article: On Militant Direct Action
Our goal should be to abolish all animal exploitation. We want to do our best to abolish the violence in the world against human and nonhuman animals. I think the principle of self-defense only applies in situations where someone tragically has to use violence, either the attacker or the person defending himself/herself. It is not ‘morally justified’, but it is morally excusable [See footnote 1]. I.e. there is no way at all to solve the conflict without any violence being involved. This applies to very, very few situations and can’t be used to e.g. justify starting a war. It is not justified to use violence as a way to reach nonviolence (e.g. wars). Neither, I would say, can it be used to justify killing an innocent animal for survival. It could be used if a human or nonhuman animal is attacking you in the purpose of killing you.
The rescue-campaigns don’t accomplish the abolition of slavery and violence towards either human or nonhuman animals and they don’t help in our goal of reaching the abolition of all animal slavery. As I will show below they increase the overall violence in the world. The rescued animals get replaced by other animals, since the rescue-campaigns haven’t educated people about why animal exploitation is wrong. There will always be someone filling the huge demand for animal products.
This paragraph is painting a general picture. It doesn’t apply to every individual. Non-vegans don’t understand animal rescue-campaigns. They see it as destroying someone’s property and violence against the farmers. They see it as animal advocate are abusing the farmers that are exploiting animals. The farmers that are exploiting animals themselves get more angry and violent, and are also using this to attack and belittle vegans in their campaigns trying to perpetuate and normalize the eating of animal products. Some violence may be included in revenge-actions either by them themselves or someone else getting angry of what they regard as the mistreatment and abuse of farmers. Non-vegans, who can’t understand the rescue campaigns and see it as something bad, get another argument in their way of becoming a vegan.
If most of the world was vegan, and we had the possibility to enforce laws that would make it possible to rescue all the farmed animals and put them on animal shelters, and to prohibit, enforce and educate of why domestication is morally wrong to everyone, and to end all domestication, then I believe open rescue would be beneficial (which then would be able to accomplish the abolition of all animal slavery). Now, however, it doesn’t end the violence of animals in the world and it doesn’t lead us any closer to the end of abolishing all animal slavery.
If we instead want to do something beneficial towards ending the violence and animal slavery in the world, we can engage ourselves in vegan education and we can rescue animals legally from animal shelters. There is an incredible need for this; and it can involve all vegans, as well as many non-vegans; and at the same time, it has a huge educational value if it is combined and advocated for in combination with vegan education, and is done in a context that also non-vegans can understand.
Everyone being involved in vegan education and doing it effectively – both presenting coherent and relevant arguments and presenting them with love, compassion and without being judgmental, know that it works and that people are going vegan and that many people starting to think much more clearly, and that many seeds are planted that eventually are leading to people going vegan.
"The history of humankind is a history of violence. If violence worked we would be living in an utopia right now. We are not. The world is more violent than it has every been."
What do you all think?
----End of post.
Footnote 1:
'Excusable' or justifiable.
I make the distinction like this example:
"I explore these ideas in this podcast: http://bit.ly/JA5VU Although I do not think that it is morally justifiable to feed cats animal products, it is also not morally justifiable to kill cats, who are here as "pets" only because *we* created and promoted and facilitated that horrible institution. I argue that it may be morally excusable if we have exhausted all options. That does *not* make it right; but it recognizes that this is a plausible solution in a no-win situation that is inherently speciesist and for which humans, and not have cats, bear the ultimate moral responsibility." [Quote: Gary Francione]
My reply to another post:
I agree with this thoughtful quote: "As you know, I am opposed to all violence on moral grounds. (See, e.g., A Comment on Violence and More on Violence and Animal Rights) I accept the concept of Ahimsa.
Violence against institutional exploiters is not only immoral but it is incoherent—it makes no sense. The institutional exploiters are not “the enemy.” We are the ones who demand animal products. If we stopped consuming animal products, institutional users would shift their capital elsewhere. We are the ones who continue to believe the myth that vivisection will make us live longer and better lives and, as a result, we continue to support it, if only by not demanding of our politicians that they ensure that the alternatives that Penman mentions are used and that others are developed."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-vivisection-and-violence/#.UaJM3Jxc18E
----
In any case wishing the death of a person is not the same as self-defense, it is being violent with words and thoughts.
And animal exploitation will never end by hurting or killing those exploiting animals [which also is morally wrong], which right now is about 99% of the population. Using violence will only increase the violence. The exploitation of animals won't decrease since the demand remains. The animal exploitation will only end by vegan education.
------------
Many good thoughts by Scott Newman:
Interesting discussion. I disagree with Steve Best's approach, and specifically with one example he uses in his speech. He states that when activists like the ALF use violence, it sparks some public interest, that people begin to take notice, and it gets some to consider the movement simply because if a group is so passionate about it, there must be something to it that they hadn't considered before! I'm sure there are a few (very very few) cases where such violent protest has influenced people to change. However, I believe that most carnist's [note of Anders Branderud: non-vegans should be used (carnist only refers to meat-eaters)] who see vegans on the news burning farms down, or screaming at people as they enter a McDonald often think "those vegans are crazy and militant wackos!" or "vegans think they are morally superior, but look what they do, they seem so angry!". Steve Best's approach can in some cases actually be a disservice or "counter productive" to the animal rights movement [Anders Branderud: I would say: in many cases], and can easily turn many people off to ever going vegan. In my opinion, Vegans must first seek out true peace of mind, and eventually others will take notice, and be jealous of what they have, for deep down that's what we all want! We need to work as a team, we'll only free the animals by freeing the hearts of people first, and by showing them a path back to their true nature, which is compassion and love. Namaste' , don't sell your fellow humans short, the same thing that exists within you, exists within all people, help them find it today.
---
I am quite new to nonviolence. Before the end of this autumn I did justify violence, e.g. I justified many wars. Sometime after becoming vegan I also changed my position about nonviolence. So I will do my best to apply this principle according to my current understanding.
Read this post first: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/05/illegal-rescue-actions-of-animals.html
Also read this article: On Militant Direct Action
Our goal should be to abolish all animal exploitation. We want to do our best to abolish the violence in the world against human and nonhuman animals. I think the principle of self-defense only applies in situations where someone tragically has to use violence, either the attacker or the person defending himself/herself. It is not ‘morally justified’, but it is morally excusable [See footnote 1]. I.e. there is no way at all to solve the conflict without any violence being involved. This applies to very, very few situations and can’t be used to e.g. justify starting a war. It is not justified to use violence as a way to reach nonviolence (e.g. wars). Neither, I would say, can it be used to justify killing an innocent animal for survival. It could be used if a human or nonhuman animal is attacking you in the purpose of killing you.
The rescue-campaigns don’t accomplish the abolition of slavery and violence towards either human or nonhuman animals and they don’t help in our goal of reaching the abolition of all animal slavery. As I will show below they increase the overall violence in the world. The rescued animals get replaced by other animals, since the rescue-campaigns haven’t educated people about why animal exploitation is wrong. There will always be someone filling the huge demand for animal products.
This paragraph is painting a general picture. It doesn’t apply to every individual. Non-vegans don’t understand animal rescue-campaigns. They see it as destroying someone’s property and violence against the farmers. They see it as animal advocate are abusing the farmers that are exploiting animals. The farmers that are exploiting animals themselves get more angry and violent, and are also using this to attack and belittle vegans in their campaigns trying to perpetuate and normalize the eating of animal products. Some violence may be included in revenge-actions either by them themselves or someone else getting angry of what they regard as the mistreatment and abuse of farmers. Non-vegans, who can’t understand the rescue campaigns and see it as something bad, get another argument in their way of becoming a vegan.
If most of the world was vegan, and we had the possibility to enforce laws that would make it possible to rescue all the farmed animals and put them on animal shelters, and to prohibit, enforce and educate of why domestication is morally wrong to everyone, and to end all domestication, then I believe open rescue would be beneficial (which then would be able to accomplish the abolition of all animal slavery). Now, however, it doesn’t end the violence of animals in the world and it doesn’t lead us any closer to the end of abolishing all animal slavery.
If we instead want to do something beneficial towards ending the violence and animal slavery in the world, we can engage ourselves in vegan education and we can rescue animals legally from animal shelters. There is an incredible need for this; and it can involve all vegans, as well as many non-vegans; and at the same time, it has a huge educational value if it is combined and advocated for in combination with vegan education, and is done in a context that also non-vegans can understand.
Everyone being involved in vegan education and doing it effectively – both presenting coherent and relevant arguments and presenting them with love, compassion and without being judgmental, know that it works and that people are going vegan and that many people starting to think much more clearly, and that many seeds are planted that eventually are leading to people going vegan.
"The history of humankind is a history of violence. If violence worked we would be living in an utopia right now. We are not. The world is more violent than it has every been."
What do you all think?
----End of post.
Footnote 1:
'Excusable' or justifiable.
I make the distinction like this example:
"I explore these ideas in this podcast: http://bit.ly/JA5VU Although I do not think that it is morally justifiable to feed cats animal products, it is also not morally justifiable to kill cats, who are here as "pets" only because *we* created and promoted and facilitated that horrible institution. I argue that it may be morally excusable if we have exhausted all options. That does *not* make it right; but it recognizes that this is a plausible solution in a no-win situation that is inherently speciesist and for which humans, and not have cats, bear the ultimate moral responsibility." [Quote: Gary Francione]
My reply to another post:
I agree with this thoughtful quote: "As you know, I am opposed to all violence on moral grounds. (See, e.g., A Comment on Violence and More on Violence and Animal Rights) I accept the concept of Ahimsa.
Violence against institutional exploiters is not only immoral but it is incoherent—it makes no sense. The institutional exploiters are not “the enemy.” We are the ones who demand animal products. If we stopped consuming animal products, institutional users would shift their capital elsewhere. We are the ones who continue to believe the myth that vivisection will make us live longer and better lives and, as a result, we continue to support it, if only by not demanding of our politicians that they ensure that the alternatives that Penman mentions are used and that others are developed."
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-vivisection-and-violence/#.UaJM3Jxc18E
----
In any case wishing the death of a person is not the same as self-defense, it is being violent with words and thoughts.
And animal exploitation will never end by hurting or killing those exploiting animals [which also is morally wrong], which right now is about 99% of the population. Using violence will only increase the violence. The exploitation of animals won't decrease since the demand remains. The animal exploitation will only end by vegan education.
------------
Many good thoughts by Scott Newman:
Interesting discussion. I disagree with Steve Best's approach, and specifically with one example he uses in his speech. He states that when activists like the ALF use violence, it sparks some public interest, that people begin to take notice, and it gets some to consider the movement simply because if a group is so passionate about it, there must be something to it that they hadn't considered before! I'm sure there are a few (very very few) cases where such violent protest has influenced people to change. However, I believe that most carnist's [note of Anders Branderud: non-vegans should be used (carnist only refers to meat-eaters)] who see vegans on the news burning farms down, or screaming at people as they enter a McDonald often think "those vegans are crazy and militant wackos!" or "vegans think they are morally superior, but look what they do, they seem so angry!". Steve Best's approach can in some cases actually be a disservice or "counter productive" to the animal rights movement [Anders Branderud: I would say: in many cases], and can easily turn many people off to ever going vegan. In my opinion, Vegans must first seek out true peace of mind, and eventually others will take notice, and be jealous of what they have, for deep down that's what we all want! We need to work as a team, we'll only free the animals by freeing the hearts of people first, and by showing them a path back to their true nature, which is compassion and love. Namaste' , don't sell your fellow humans short, the same thing that exists within you, exists within all people, help them find it today.
---
Veronique Perrot HC I
agree with you Scott. It is already difficult enough to be taken
seriously by non-vegans when they see us leafleting, so let alone ALF
stuff. We are not gonna change anyone by doing these stunt, however well
intentioned they are.
Quote by Jeff Perz:
Jeff Perz:
Thanks very much, Tammy, for your eloquently worded question.
When you speak of “direct action” above, you appear to be limiting it to removing animals from situations of exploitation. If this is indeed all that you mean, my view is that sometimes rescuing animals is morally acceptable or desirable, sometimes it is not clear whether a rescue is acceptable and other times rescues are clearly immoral.
I will start with the rescue situations that I am ambivalent about. On the one hand, there are individual healthy animals in need of rescuing, and it would be cold to turn one's back on them. On the other hand,
rescuing healthy animals will cause more animals to be bred into existence to replace those rescued. In other words, the act of rescuing one healthy animal is casually connected to the response of the exploiter, who will respond to the demand that the rescuer has created, phone his supplier, and ask that more animals be bred into existence, used and killed. The rescuer is the cause of this suffering and death NOW. So, I am of mixed minds when it comes to rescuing healthy animals.
Regarding rescue situations that I believe are morally acceptable or desirable, these would involve “unhealthy” animals, or animals that the exploiter does not want for whatever reason. If the animals are so
unhealthy that they would be discarded by the animal exploiter, then I support efforts to rescue them, so long as nothing is paid for them, not even $1. These situations do not create demand for breeding more animals into existence, whom would then be exploited and killed. Rescues are clearly unethical when not enough consideration is paid to the well-being of the animals. For example, cases of releasing minks from mink farms, where the minks have died of dehydration, starvation, or have been hit by cars. All of that said, it is a better use of an activist's time to do vegan education than to rescue animals. Vegan education saves* many more lives. One could spend days (or more) planning and executing an open or covert rescue. Perhaps that would save 10-50 animals. Or, instead, one could spend that same time doing vegan education. Helping just one person in her 20s to go vegan would save*(i.e. prevent _thousands_ of animals from being bred into existence, exploited and killed) NOW. As Francione notes, we’re in a zero sum game: every minute spent doing a rescue is one minute less that we could have been doing vegan
education, saving more lives.
So, in general, this is the reason why I believe direct action via rescue is not the best approach to abolish all animal use. That said, I do not actively oppose all rescues, as I explain above.
-------
Property damage and violence
Colin Wright:
Property damage is actually a form of violence. When you destroy property and the people observing this (especially after the fact) have no understanding of why the property should have been destroyed (in the case of labs being burned for example), it creates in them the feeling that their houses or businesses may be next, which they regard as terrorism.
Quote by Jeff Perz:
Jeff Perz:
Thanks very much, Tammy, for your eloquently worded question.
When you speak of “direct action” above, you appear to be limiting it to removing animals from situations of exploitation. If this is indeed all that you mean, my view is that sometimes rescuing animals is morally acceptable or desirable, sometimes it is not clear whether a rescue is acceptable and other times rescues are clearly immoral.
I will start with the rescue situations that I am ambivalent about. On the one hand, there are individual healthy animals in need of rescuing, and it would be cold to turn one's back on them. On the other hand,
rescuing healthy animals will cause more animals to be bred into existence to replace those rescued. In other words, the act of rescuing one healthy animal is casually connected to the response of the exploiter, who will respond to the demand that the rescuer has created, phone his supplier, and ask that more animals be bred into existence, used and killed. The rescuer is the cause of this suffering and death NOW. So, I am of mixed minds when it comes to rescuing healthy animals.
Regarding rescue situations that I believe are morally acceptable or desirable, these would involve “unhealthy” animals, or animals that the exploiter does not want for whatever reason. If the animals are so
unhealthy that they would be discarded by the animal exploiter, then I support efforts to rescue them, so long as nothing is paid for them, not even $1. These situations do not create demand for breeding more animals into existence, whom would then be exploited and killed. Rescues are clearly unethical when not enough consideration is paid to the well-being of the animals. For example, cases of releasing minks from mink farms, where the minks have died of dehydration, starvation, or have been hit by cars. All of that said, it is a better use of an activist's time to do vegan education than to rescue animals. Vegan education saves* many more lives. One could spend days (or more) planning and executing an open or covert rescue. Perhaps that would save 10-50 animals. Or, instead, one could spend that same time doing vegan education. Helping just one person in her 20s to go vegan would save*(i.e. prevent _thousands_ of animals from being bred into existence, exploited and killed) NOW. As Francione notes, we’re in a zero sum game: every minute spent doing a rescue is one minute less that we could have been doing vegan
education, saving more lives.
So, in general, this is the reason why I believe direct action via rescue is not the best approach to abolish all animal use. That said, I do not actively oppose all rescues, as I explain above.
-------
Property damage and violence
Colin Wright:
Property damage is actually a form of violence. When you destroy property and the people observing this (especially after the fact) have no understanding of why the property should have been destroyed (in the case of labs being burned for example), it creates in them the feeling that their houses or businesses may be next, which they regard as terrorism.
The connection between animal slavery and exploitation for food and slavery of humans
This
is a great article covering the connection between animal slavery and
human slavery, and how our violence against the animals is enslaving us:
http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/
He is also the author of one of my favourite books World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle. Have you read it?
http://www.worldpeacediet.org/ .He also has some very interesting lectures on his website, like this one: http://vimeo.com/17538152
The enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook
He is also the author of one of my favourite books World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle. Have you read it?
http://www.worldpeacediet.org/ .He also has some very interesting lectures on his website, like this one: http://vimeo.com/17538152
The enslavement of animals, the domestication, also has resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. It is covered in this book that I want to read: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook
fredag 24 maj 2013
Illegal rescue actions of animals doesn't result in reduced animal exploitation
Some of my thoughts about direct action involving rescuing animals and property damage:
“I oppose all violence—including violence against property. Those who claim that there is such a thing as destroying a building or engaging in a break-in that does not result in harm or the risk of harm to sentient beings (humans and nonhumans alike) are simply deluding themselves.
For the reasons that I have stated on numerous occasions, I regard violence as the problem and not as any part of the solution and I encourage those who are concerned about animal exploitation to go vegan and to engage in creative, non-violent vegan education.“ [Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/hey-is-that-milk-on-your-balaclava/#.UZ-JCpxc18E ]
I agree with this quote, since it reflects the lifestyle that I believe in. Such rescue-actions may also result in animal exploiters becoming more violent against those defending animals, “justifying” this by the violence that was done to their property.
It sends the message/perpetuates the message that violence against someone’s property for some “justifiable cause” is justified. It is common that violence against someone’s property leads to violence against individuals through revenge actions.
It doesn’t help ending the animal slavery. The demand is still there, and the exploited animals are getting replaced by other animals to fill the big demand that didn’t change because of the rescue.
If the time instead is used for vegan education, people would go vegan, start transitioning towards veganism and/or seeds will be sown that will cause people of this world to practice less violence against animals.
The public doesn’t understand the rescue. Many look upon veganism and animal rights in a bad light because of the property damage involved. They don’t have any context in which they can interpret the action that has taken place. It doesn’t change the way in which they view the animals, animal rights, and their obligations towards the animals, i.e. it doesn’t reduce the violence and animal exploitation in the world.
We can rescue animals without using violence and without increasing the violence in this world, and this is a very good moral deed. There are tens of millions "pets" killed in the world every year that we can save by adopting and/or fostering them.
“I oppose all violence—including violence against property. Those who claim that there is such a thing as destroying a building or engaging in a break-in that does not result in harm or the risk of harm to sentient beings (humans and nonhumans alike) are simply deluding themselves.
For the reasons that I have stated on numerous occasions, I regard violence as the problem and not as any part of the solution and I encourage those who are concerned about animal exploitation to go vegan and to engage in creative, non-violent vegan education.“ [Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/hey-is-that-milk-on-your-balaclava/#.UZ-JCpxc18E ]
I agree with this quote, since it reflects the lifestyle that I believe in. Such rescue-actions may also result in animal exploiters becoming more violent against those defending animals, “justifying” this by the violence that was done to their property.
It sends the message/perpetuates the message that violence against someone’s property for some “justifiable cause” is justified. It is common that violence against someone’s property leads to violence against individuals through revenge actions.
It doesn’t help ending the animal slavery. The demand is still there, and the exploited animals are getting replaced by other animals to fill the big demand that didn’t change because of the rescue.
If the time instead is used for vegan education, people would go vegan, start transitioning towards veganism and/or seeds will be sown that will cause people of this world to practice less violence against animals.
The public doesn’t understand the rescue. Many look upon veganism and animal rights in a bad light because of the property damage involved. They don’t have any context in which they can interpret the action that has taken place. It doesn’t change the way in which they view the animals, animal rights, and their obligations towards the animals, i.e. it doesn’t reduce the violence and animal exploitation in the world.
We can rescue animals without using violence and without increasing the violence in this world, and this is a very good moral deed. There are tens of millions "pets" killed in the world every year that we can save by adopting and/or fostering them.
söndag 21 april 2013
Eating foie grass fed geese is unethical, and so is eating any other meat, or animal product
Hello :)
Single issue-campaigns don't help non-vegans to understand the problem of all animal explitation and the necessity to go vegan, and they: 'invariably convey the impression that some forms of animal exploitation are morally distinguishable from others and are worse or should be singled out for special criticism. For example, a campaign against fur conveys the impression that there is some morally relevant difference between fur and other forms of animal clothing, such as leather or wool.'
[ Quote from very good article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vegan-education-made-easy-part-2/#.UXQRxMqwD-E ]
A campaign against foie grass fed animals conveys the impression that eating this is morally more objectionable than eating other meat, or drinking milk or eating eggs.
I think we should show people the problem with animal exploitation, including eating animal products, and inspire people to go vegan, instead of signing single-issue-campaign-petitions. Giving the information, raising their consciousness, and enable them to make loving, compassionate and nonviolent decisions. People are brainwashed by the indoctrination of our culture since their childhood, and need our help to understand this.
If you join the group above, please write and show how all animal exploitation is bad, and why we have to go vegans in order to stop participating in animal exploitaiton.
Today I was out with the dogs we take care of and had a great conversation with two persons, and had a really good conversation about veganism. I recommended them the wonderful book - World Peace Diet (www.worldpeacediet.org ) written by Will Tuttle.
I also spend most of my leisure time educating people about the necessity to treat all animals with love, compassion and nonviolence.
Have a great day!
Single issue-campaigns don't help non-vegans to understand the problem of all animal explitation and the necessity to go vegan, and they: 'invariably convey the impression that some forms of animal exploitation are morally distinguishable from others and are worse or should be singled out for special criticism. For example, a campaign against fur conveys the impression that there is some morally relevant difference between fur and other forms of animal clothing, such as leather or wool.'
[ Quote from very good article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/vegan-education-made-easy-part-2/#.UXQRxMqwD-E ]
A campaign against foie grass fed animals conveys the impression that eating this is morally more objectionable than eating other meat, or drinking milk or eating eggs.
I think we should show people the problem with animal exploitation, including eating animal products, and inspire people to go vegan, instead of signing single-issue-campaign-petitions. Giving the information, raising their consciousness, and enable them to make loving, compassionate and nonviolent decisions. People are brainwashed by the indoctrination of our culture since their childhood, and need our help to understand this.
If you join the group above, please write and show how all animal exploitation is bad, and why we have to go vegans in order to stop participating in animal exploitaiton.
Today I was out with the dogs we take care of and had a great conversation with two persons, and had a really good conversation about veganism. I recommended them the wonderful book - World Peace Diet (www.worldpeacediet.org ) written by Will Tuttle.
I also spend most of my leisure time educating people about the necessity to treat all animals with love, compassion and nonviolence.
Have a great day!
lördag 13 april 2013
Do you know what the animals are going through that produce the milk and the eggs (they are suffering, they are being killed and their purpose is taken away from them)?
My post to a friend:
Hope you are doing well! How is everything going in Taiwan?
Do you know what the animals are going through that produce the milk and the eggs (they are suffering, they are being killed and their purpose is taken away from them)?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgGnP0pWzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rg3Yfdbs24I
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5RrqMTUtM [and other videos at: www.vegankit.com ]
Please tell me your thoughts.
Have a wonderful day!!
Hope you are doing well! How is everything going in Taiwan?
Do you know what the animals are going through that produce the milk and the eggs (they are suffering, they are being killed and their purpose is taken away from them)?
See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLgGnP0pWzM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Rg3Yfdbs24I
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu5RrqMTUtM [and other videos at: www.vegankit.com ]
Please tell me your thoughts.
Have a wonderful day!!
söndag 7 april 2013
Violence is always wrong and does not help to end animal exploitation
If we want the animal exploitation to end:
"Putting aside the moral/spiritual aspects of violence [see e.g.: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/ ], .. Institutional users engage in animal exploitation because the public demands it. Institutional users are, for the most part, indifferent to whether they are selling beef or bananas. They will put their capital wherever they’ll get the best return.
Most people regard animal use as “normal” in the same sense that breathing and drinking water are considered as “normal.” They demand animal products. If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built or ten existing ones will expand production (and probably make production more economically efficient). If you shut down a supplier of animals used for vivisection, and the public continues to support vivisection, which it clearly does, then another supplier will emerge. So as a purely practical matter, violence is a strategy that cannot work.
As long as animal use is regarded as normal and as not raising a fundamental moral question, nothing will ever change. But we are not going to get people to think about animal use through intimidation, fear, and acts of violence. Education, if it is to be effective, can never be violent; it can never seek to intimidate or make people fearful. It must open their hearts and their minds. The non-violent strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively, constantly, and creatively to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends."
Read more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-violence/#.UWF3hcpEBKY
"Putting aside the moral/spiritual aspects of violence [see e.g.: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-comment-on-violence/ ], .. Institutional users engage in animal exploitation because the public demands it. Institutional users are, for the most part, indifferent to whether they are selling beef or bananas. They will put their capital wherever they’ll get the best return.
Most people regard animal use as “normal” in the same sense that breathing and drinking water are considered as “normal.” They demand animal products. If you destroy ten slaughterhouses today, as long as demand remains, ten more slaughterhouses will be built or ten existing ones will expand production (and probably make production more economically efficient). If you shut down a supplier of animals used for vivisection, and the public continues to support vivisection, which it clearly does, then another supplier will emerge. So as a purely practical matter, violence is a strategy that cannot work.
As long as animal use is regarded as normal and as not raising a fundamental moral question, nothing will ever change. But we are not going to get people to think about animal use through intimidation, fear, and acts of violence. Education, if it is to be effective, can never be violent; it can never seek to intimidate or make people fearful. It must open their hearts and their minds. The non-violent strategy is anything but passive; it involves our working actively, constantly, and creatively to shift a fundamental paradigm—the notion that animals are things, resources, property; that they are exclusively means to human ends."
Read more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/on-violence/#.UWF3hcpEBKY
fredag 29 mars 2013
Peter Singer is promoting animal exploitation by endorsing non-vegan food habits
It is not at all about taking quotes out of their context. Peter Singer is clearly promoting animal exploitation by encouraging and not opposing non-vegan choices. See e.g this interview with him:
" I do want to emphasize that I don’t think eating ethically, particularly from a utilitarian point of view, is a matter of saying, “Here’s this strict law that I have to do everything possible comply with.” I think we can be ethically conscientious and recognize that sometimes there are going to be compromises. Sometimes it’s going to be very difficult, very inconvenient, to get the best choice, so we’ll settle for something else. As you were saying before with the steak, there’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that. If what they’re doing nine days out of ten is good, I’m not going to criticize them for being less than perfect on the tenth day. Sure, you’ll make mistakes, but don’t flagellate yourself if you do."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/chew-right-thing#13645525980271&action=collapse_widget&id=812441
We need to promote veganism as a clear moral baseline since all animal exploitation is wrong, and lead as an example with our lives. Be the change we want to see in others. Gary Francione is doing an excellent job and has encouraged thousands of persons to become vegans. His excellent Facebook-page: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
LiveVegan Writes:
In another group someone posted a link to a speech by Peter Singer speaking about altruism. Many large animal organisations consider Prof. Peter Singer the "father of the animal rights movement" and promote his welfare position. Please consider the following.
Prof. Peter Singer (the so-called "father of the animal rights movement") advocates the bestiality is morally acceptable in some circumstances.
Peter Singer believes the speciesist welfarist notion that the lives of nonhumans are of lesser moral value than the lives of humans.
He is a utilitarian and a "flexible vegan".
Peter Singer believes if someone (human or nonhuman) cannot plan for the future (and in the case of nonhumans does not have an intelligence that is "like us"), they are of lesser moral value, so that means that humans who have had head injuries and who have serious cognitive problems or who are in a coma are lesser. It's also a speciesist position because many nonhuman animals are forward-looking, can plan and do plan, but whether nonhumans are "like us" in their cognition or whether they have similar intelligence to us is irrelevant. All that matters is sentience.
Peter Singer also believes the practice of murdering disabled children in some cultures is ethical and believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies murdered after they are born.
These are just a few of the issues regarding Singer's work. We should seriously question whether someone with these moral inconsistencies should be taken seriously regarding nonhuman or human rights. Just a thought
-------------------------------------
----------------------
How come in a 2007 interview with The Vegan, Singer gave his endorsement for "a world in which people mostly eat plant foods, but occasionally treat themselves to the luxury of free range eggs, or possibly even meat from animals who live good lives under conditions natural for their species, and are then humanely killed on the farm" ?
How come in a 2009 interview, Singer stated these arrogant, speciesist claims: "You could say it's wrong to kill a being whenever a being is sentient or conscious. Then you would have to say it's just as wrong to kill a chicken or mouse as it is to kill you or me. I can't accept that idea. It may be just as wrong, but millions of chickens are killed every day. I can't think of that as a tragedy on the same scale as millions of humans being killed. What is different about humans? Humans are forward-looking beings, and they have hopes and desires for the future. That seems a plausible answer to the question of why it's so tragic when humans die." ?
Singer calls himself a vegetarian and a "flexible vegan". In his May 2006 interview in Mother Jones, he states:
"I don't eat meat. I've been a vegetarian since 1971. I've gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I'm a flexible vegan. I don't go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I'm traveling or going to other people's places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan."
Dave Gilson (3 May 2006). "Chew the Right Thing". Mother Jones. Retrieved 13 March 2009.
He hasn’t done any rebuttal in public of any of these statements. Peter Singers public statements in these interviews clearly show his position.
-------------------
To clarify more how I reason:
1.Although Singer has stated this position at various places in his writings, his interview in The Vegan contains a recent, brief, and clear reiteration of his view:
I do think that there are morally relevant differences between various species, because the cognitive capacities of beings are relevant to, for example, the wrongness of killing them. I think it is worse to kill a self-aware being, that is, a being who is aware of its own existence over time, and is able to have desires for the future, than a being who may be conscious, but is not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present. (The Vegan, Autumn 2006)
2. Based on this he justifies the consumption of animal products from an animal with the characteristic that she/he ‘lives in a kind of eternal present.’
3.Peter Singer still doesn’t advocate veganism as a moral baseline. He still justifies the consumption of animal foods from farmed animals and fish. He has never publicly retracted his non-vegan quotes that I referred to above, and claimed that now he thinks that veganism is the moral baseline.
4.Based on this I think as I quoted in my previous comment:
it is either the case that Singer really has not changed his views about animals lacking mental continuity sufficient to give rise to nonhuman personhood, or he thinks that any mental continuity in animals is qualitatively different from humans so that their lives have a lesser moral value and they can be used as replaceable resources if they are “humanely killed.”
5. Based on Peter Singer’s position outlined in #1 and him still advocating that a non-vegan diet, including the consumption of "humanely treated" farmed animals is morally justified, I don’t think it is inaccurate to say that Peter Singer claims that most animals are ‘not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present’.
If he believed otherwise, then according to his own philosophy, he would morally object the consumption of farmed animals, milk and eggs from farmed animals, and fish. He doesn’t object the consumption of this if the animals were treated “humanely”.
-------
Peter Singers position remains the same:
"The dinner was a vegetarian/vegan meal - and delicious! There were drinks beforehand and time afterwards to chat to Peter Singer himself. I took this opportunity to ask him something that I wasn’t clear on his position on - would a world in which animals were humanely reared and humanely killed be significantly worse than a world in which everyone was vegan? Some of his writing on personhood seemed to indicate it would be - if a being has a sense of themselves through time, an inner mental life, there is something wrong about frustrating those future ambitions - even if there is no physical pain involved.
His answer somewhat surprised me - essentially, no. I brought up the personhood thing, and he asked if I really thought that cows had that capacity. As far as I can recall, there’s research to suggest they feel secondary emotions, and have best friends (my Googling has been ineffective - if anyone can find the papers I’d love to see them) - so it seems to me somewhat compelling evidence that they have fairly complex mental lives. I like to err on the side of caution though, anyway. I’d always thought that he would think the killing of a being such as a cow or pig would always be wrong in some sense because of personhood - but turns out I’m more radical than him!"
Quote: http://ohheybiology.tumblr.com/post/49802108453/peter-singer-comes-to-oxford-ethical-food-veganism
" I do want to emphasize that I don’t think eating ethically, particularly from a utilitarian point of view, is a matter of saying, “Here’s this strict law that I have to do everything possible comply with.” I think we can be ethically conscientious and recognize that sometimes there are going to be compromises. Sometimes it’s going to be very difficult, very inconvenient, to get the best choice, so we’ll settle for something else. As you were saying before with the steak, there’s a little bit of room for indulgence in all of our lives. I know some people who are vegan in their homes but if they’re going out to a fancy restaurant, they allow themselves the luxury of not being vegan that evening. I don’t see anything really wrong with that. If what they’re doing nine days out of ten is good, I’m not going to criticize them for being less than perfect on the tenth day. Sure, you’ll make mistakes, but don’t flagellate yourself if you do."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2006/05/chew-right-thing#13645525980271&action=collapse_widget&id=812441
We need to promote veganism as a clear moral baseline since all animal exploitation is wrong, and lead as an example with our lives. Be the change we want to see in others. Gary Francione is doing an excellent job and has encouraged thousands of persons to become vegans. His excellent Facebook-page: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach
LiveVegan Writes:
In another group someone posted a link to a speech by Peter Singer speaking about altruism. Many large animal organisations consider Prof. Peter Singer the "father of the animal rights movement" and promote his welfare position. Please consider the following.
Prof. Peter Singer (the so-called "father of the animal rights movement") advocates the bestiality is morally acceptable in some circumstances.
Peter Singer believes the speciesist welfarist notion that the lives of nonhumans are of lesser moral value than the lives of humans.
He is a utilitarian and a "flexible vegan".
Peter Singer believes if someone (human or nonhuman) cannot plan for the future (and in the case of nonhumans does not have an intelligence that is "like us"), they are of lesser moral value, so that means that humans who have had head injuries and who have serious cognitive problems or who are in a coma are lesser. It's also a speciesist position because many nonhuman animals are forward-looking, can plan and do plan, but whether nonhumans are "like us" in their cognition or whether they have similar intelligence to us is irrelevant. All that matters is sentience.
Peter Singer also believes the practice of murdering disabled children in some cultures is ethical and believes that parents should be given the choice to have their disabled babies murdered after they are born.
These are just a few of the issues regarding Singer's work. We should seriously question whether someone with these moral inconsistencies should be taken seriously regarding nonhuman or human rights. Just a thought
-------------------------------------
Glad you
found it interesting!
Regarding
Peter Singer:
He makes an
exception for 'great apes', dolphins, and maybe some more species.
But he
has no problem of consuming chickens and other farmed animals and fish if they
are killed and raised supposedly "humanely". Based on what I
understand from the following quote, he would exempt most animals from the
right of not being killed, because he is claiming that most animals are not
'self-aware' according to his definition of 'self-aware'. That they are not ‘self-aware’
according to his definition, includes that they ‘live in a kind of eternal
present’
Why do
you believe he doesn’t include ‘most species’ in this?
--
Quote:
Although
Singer has stated this position at various places in his writings, his
interview in The Vegan contains a recent, brief, and clear reiteration of his
view:
" I do think that there are morally
relevant differences between various species, because the cognitive capacities
of beings are relevant to, for example, the wrongness of killing them. I think
it is worse to kill a self-aware being, that is, a being who is aware of its
own existence over time, and is able to have desires for the future, than a
being who may be conscious, but is not self-aware and lives in a kind of
eternal present." (The Vegan, Autumn 2006)
In other
words, Singer maintains that if a being is not self-aware in the way that a
normal human is self-aware—that is, the being does not have what we call
reflective self-consciousness—then the being is not self-aware in the morally
relevant way that would give rise to that being having an interest in her life
and that would make killing that being a significant moral wrong.
Singer calls himself a vegetarian and a "flexible vegan". In his May 2006 interview in Mother Jones, he states:
-------------------
To clarify more how I reason:
1.Although Singer has stated this position at various places in his writings, his interview in The Vegan contains a recent, brief, and clear reiteration of his view:
I do think that there are morally relevant differences between various species, because the cognitive capacities of beings are relevant to, for example, the wrongness of killing them. I think it is worse to kill a self-aware being, that is, a being who is aware of its own existence over time, and is able to have desires for the future, than a being who may be conscious, but is not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present. (The Vegan, Autumn 2006)
2. Based on this he justifies the consumption of animal products from an animal with the characteristic that she/he ‘lives in a kind of eternal present.’
3.Peter Singer still doesn’t advocate veganism as a moral baseline. He still justifies the consumption of animal foods from farmed animals and fish. He has never publicly retracted his non-vegan quotes that I referred to above, and claimed that now he thinks that veganism is the moral baseline.
4.Based on this I think as I quoted in my previous comment:
it is either the case that Singer really has not changed his views about animals lacking mental continuity sufficient to give rise to nonhuman personhood, or he thinks that any mental continuity in animals is qualitatively different from humans so that their lives have a lesser moral value and they can be used as replaceable resources if they are “humanely killed.”
5. Based on Peter Singer’s position outlined in #1 and him still advocating that a non-vegan diet, including the consumption of "humanely treated" farmed animals is morally justified, I don’t think it is inaccurate to say that Peter Singer claims that most animals are ‘not self-aware and lives in a kind of eternal present’.
If he believed otherwise, then according to his own philosophy, he would morally object the consumption of farmed animals, milk and eggs from farmed animals, and fish. He doesn’t object the consumption of this if the animals were treated “humanely”.
-------
Peter Singers position remains the same:
"The dinner was a vegetarian/vegan meal - and delicious! There were drinks beforehand and time afterwards to chat to Peter Singer himself. I took this opportunity to ask him something that I wasn’t clear on his position on - would a world in which animals were humanely reared and humanely killed be significantly worse than a world in which everyone was vegan? Some of his writing on personhood seemed to indicate it would be - if a being has a sense of themselves through time, an inner mental life, there is something wrong about frustrating those future ambitions - even if there is no physical pain involved.
His answer somewhat surprised me - essentially, no. I brought up the personhood thing, and he asked if I really thought that cows had that capacity. As far as I can recall, there’s research to suggest they feel secondary emotions, and have best friends (my Googling has been ineffective - if anyone can find the papers I’d love to see them) - so it seems to me somewhat compelling evidence that they have fairly complex mental lives. I like to err on the side of caution though, anyway. I’d always thought that he would think the killing of a being such as a cow or pig would always be wrong in some sense because of personhood - but turns out I’m more radical than him!"
Quote: http://ohheybiology.tumblr.com/post/49802108453/peter-singer-comes-to-oxford-ethical-food-veganism
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)