The True Meaning of Animal Rights

[Brandon Becker]

Learn about the true meaning of animal rights, including what is and is not rights advocacy and examples of rights advocacy compared to other advocacy: http://www.rpaforall.org/rights.html

From the introduction:
-----
"Animal rights" is almost always used incorrectly by the news industry and most animal organizations and advocates. This hampers animal-rights advocacy by creating confusion about its goal, divergence from rights-promoting strategies, and delusion about what constitutes progress toward animal rights. People have helped animals in countless ways for thousands of years without promoting rights for them. Promoting rights means describing the rights other animals need to lead fulfilling lives, why meaningful protection is impossible without rights, and why human beings as well as other animals will benefit when all have the rights they need.
------

[Bonn1997]

I don't think you're being fair to any of Adriano's arguments. In your latest reply, you seem to ignore the fact that Adriano's position would involve the least slaughtering of innocent individuals - the "several billions" you cite are exponentially smaller than all their victims.

Kerry Baker said:

Adriano, go away and come back when you have a model that will not involve the slaughter of several billion individuals so you can get rid of species that you don't like.  make sure you have addressed the ecosystem so that it will be able to support a world filled with herbivores.  And most importantly, find a way to stop human animals inflicting the most abhorrent violence and cruelties on other species for no reason other than the ignorant belief that animals are in some way beneath us and that they don't have feelings like we do. Then you will have some credibility because at the moment what you are suggesting has nothing to do with animal rights.

Adriano Mannino said:

(Actually, the fact that you're willing to take up arms and violate our rights shows at least some consequentialist-utilitarian spirit!)

[David Pearce]

[Kerry,  please forgive this brief reply. I am on the road and will tackle each of your points above later]

"Species fascism" is a strong epithet to use against advocates of global veganism. On reflection, would you like to reconsider it? Yes, we would like e.g. to use sterilants to ensure the Anopheles mosquito disappears in the wild. This will finally bring the scourge of malaria to an end. Are we thereby violating the rights of individual Anopheles mosquitos to breed? Does this make us "species fascists"? 

Critics can use inflammatory "exterminatory" language to describe the health programs in question. But no sentient being would be harmed - and the lives of hundreds of millions immeasurably improved.

"Reprogramming" lions and other obligate carnivores is under discussion precisely so as to avoid the species extinction of "charismatic megafauna" while retaining a commitment to a cruelty-free world. Now one might argue that a genetically tweaked lion who didn't harm, kill, or otherwise cause suffering to other sentient beings wasn't "truly" a lion. But then one might argue that a (human) serial killer or rapist who ceased killing or raping would have lost part of his identity as well. To which I can only say: some traits really are worth losing, species-typical or otherwise.

[Rob Brevendt]

Kerry Baker, I suggest you come back 1) when you have read and understood Oscar Horta's and David Pearce's papers and 2) when you can tell valid and invalid arguments apart. Only then will you be able to sensibly tackle the question of what does and what doesn't have something to do with animal rights and anti-speciesism. "Species preservation" doesn't. The protection of sentient individuals against attackers of any sort does. As does the systematic alleviation of the suffering of individuals that are dying slow and horrible deaths due to starvation and disease. This happens all the fucking time in nature, millions of times each and every day. If you cruelly choose to stop us from carefully trying to do something about this catastrophe, then I guess we should consider taking up arms against you. Or how do you suggest we deal with people who want to stop us from trying to systematically eradicate human starvation? David is being far too polite with you. He's dedicated his life to the well-being of all sentience and the abolition of all involuntary suffering. And you call him a "fascist". WTF. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Brandon Becker]

Tom Regan argues in the preface to The Case for Animal Rights (new 2004 preface, same 1983 book), that members of endangered species are owed compensatory justice because of their genocidal treatment at the hands of humans. I agree with him. He also argues in the book that when it comes to animals in the wild, the rights view means "Let them be!" I agree with him. This is the definitive book on animal rights philosophy. You, and other utilitiarian "welfarists", cannot co-opt "animal rights" to make it consistent with extreme utilitarian "welfarism." Rights and utilitarianism are incompatible approaches as Regan rigorously argues in his book. And "anti-speciesism" simply means opposing speciesism, not necessarily doing so within a specific philosophical framework. Stop trying to claim ownership over this term as well.

By the way, I said I was done with this thread, but it's extremely difficult to ignore your remarks when they are so inflammatory.

[Bonn1997]

"He also argues in the book that when it comes to animals in the wild, the rights view means "Let them be!" I agree with him."

I admire the attention to animal protectionism that Regan has had. That said, "let them be" is a meaningless platitude that is impossible to follow. Are we letting insects be when we mow lawns and shred them to death? Are we letting animals be when we pollute their environment by driving cars? Our mere existence cannot "let the nonhuman world be."

[Kerry Baker]

David, Adriano stated;

"I reject the forced genetic enhancement of humans. But I do insist on my and our personal right to do it voluntarily and ethically. Whoever rejects this right is claiming ownership over other people's bodies for no objective reason (such as that they are causing others to suffer). That's fascism."

How then if what is done to humans is fascism, is not fascism when done to another species? 

Adriano.  Where did I suggest that I would take up arms?  I said you would have to literally go over my dead body to implement your program.  The Sea Shepherd for example is on the front line against whaling, which it does by putting itself between whales and whalers to protect them.  You jump to conclusions too readily my friend.

David I note that one of the articles cited, The Importance of Wild Animal Suffering, (and this is noted in several others you have referred to), points out that it is impossible to quantify the numbers of animals in the wild who you are talking about. It also agrees with the point Singer makes about human interference generally ending up making matters worse and the best thing is to leave them alone.  And refers to Everett who suggests that predation may via causal chains contribute to the wellbeing of animals.

What Adriano has suggested is the extirmination of whole species, and then justifies that argument by stating that it is OK if it's species because it's the individuals who are the point of this exercise. There are many species that simply could not survive as herbivores and to conduct aggressive genetic modifications so that they no longer resemble what you have eliminated is the extirmination of the species, no doubt about it. We do not for example refer to birds as dinosaurs, although it is these days accepted that they evolved from dinosaurs.

In one of your references there is an example used to support human intervention relating to a cull of kangaroos in the defence force facility in Canberra. The argument was that they had reached plague proportions and were starving. This IS something I can discuss with authority as I lived there 3 years and have been opposed to kangaroo slaughter for several years. This also relates to one of my earlier posts that until you change the economic and social systems of humans, you will never eradicate animal suffering. The fact is that Canberra is a very tiny territory that now has self-government. It is basically an industry town for public servants. As there is a largely itinerant workforce, the government makes a huge amount of revenue through taxes imposed on buying and selling of property. It is known as the 'Bush Capital', but there's not that much bush left because of humans encroaching into native animal habitat to build housing. The problem consequently is not that kangaroos are in plague proportions at all. It is a lie to circumvent the real issue which is unchecked human growth.

My position is that what you are unprepared to do to humans you have no right to do to another species. Animals hunt for food. We slaughter animals for many reasons, mostly unnecessary, and have developed horrendous practices in the doing.

The rhetoric that has been spun in this thread about the horrors of nature is both patronising and misleading. I think everyone who is involved in AR is well aware of what goes on in the wild. The constant mantra about having an idealised image of nature is the rationale to do nothing about human cruelty.

Before you even contemplate looking at what happens in the wild, you must address human cruelty, because no amount of change to animals will succeed until the main predator, human animals, is controlled.  And yes while humans may be capable of developing some wonderful technologies to progress a better world, my personal experience of humanity over nearly 58 years of observation is that humans can not be trusted, and the suggested use of technology will not be used for good but rather for human greed.

[Rob Brevendt]

Brandon Becker, what's your argument, exactly? Tom Regan said it - therefore it must be true? Congrats!

Regan's theory is problematic in many ways. As I said, it would be speciesist to accord greater weight to the interests of an individual just because it's the last one of a certain species group. It doesn't matter how many groups there are in the world. Groups are not conscious beings, they don't have interests. Individuals do. The whole idea of "compensatory justice" is dubious. What's relevant is that all individuals that do exist now and that will exist in the future be able to live good lives. We cannot change what happened in the past. We can and should learn from it, but it doesn't make sense to "compensate" and privilege some contemporary individuals for what happened to other individuals in the past. You cannot discriminate based on who had the ancestors that were worst off.

"Let them be!" is a speciesist principle too. When humans are dying slow and horrible deaths due to starvation and disease (which is the fate of thousands of wild animals each and every day), should we let them be? When humans (or other animals) are preying upon and killing helpless humans, do human rights dictate that we let them be? But then why should animal rights dictate any such thing?

Which proves, for the umpteenth time, that ethical intervention in nature is not necessarily based on utilitarianism. It follows from both the utilitarian and the rights approach.

[Rob Brevendt]

"Whoever rejects this right is claiming ownership over other people's bodies for no objective reason (such as that they are causing others to suffer). That's fascism."
"How then if what is done to humans is fascism, is not fascism when done to another species?"

Because when there is an objective moral reason, intervening in others' bodies may be the lesser evil  (whether in humans or non-humans). One predator harms and kills many prey animals. So either one intervention occurs (us --> predator) or many interventions occur (predator --> many prey animals). If you don't choose the lesser evil, you're not giving each individual the same weight. That's discrimination.

"humans can not be trusted, and the suggested use of technology will not be used for good but rather for human greed."

Which is precisely why transhumanists are in favour of getting rid of the egoistic and aggressive malware in our genome.

[Kerry Baker]

Adriano, in a way you have just supported my argument.  To backtrack a little however, your comments about groups are not conscious beings and don't have interests is absolutely correct.  The same notion applies to organisational theory. But, to effect change you can only do so by acting upon individuals, so your point is moot.

Secondly, the comment about humans dying slow and horrible deaths due to starvation made no sense whatever in the context of this discussion. Are you saying that we have to manage animals so that the human race can live comfortably?  Maybe you just didn't express yourself clearly, but if that's what you are saying it is typical of the human supremacist idea that other species always have to pay for our quality of life.  That's largely the argument here.  Some of us are saying that humans have no right to impose our notions of what they should be like on other animals.

On your comment above about killing for food, animals are no different to us. Humans are actually responsible for eating many more animals per individual than are animals. One of the papers you referenced made the point that animals don't eat every day for example. Humans do and most humans are meat eaters, meat and three vegetables every day is still the staple diet of your average first world white race.  What you are proposing, that is to extirminate certain whole species, is a form of predation in itself.

Your comment about fascism is your view.  It does not happen to be mine.  Slaughter is slaughter, cruelty is cruelty and so on no matter what species you are talking about.  Humans are every bit as predatory as are other animals.  So if the idea of forced genetic change is abhorrent to you as a form of fascism, it is equally abhorrent to me.  As the human race learns more about animals we find less and less differences between them and us.  Cows cry for up to 7 days grieving for their babies taken away so humans can drink their milk.  Read Dr Christina Barnards description of the reaction to his killing an ape by that animals companion for the first heart transplant.  The more we learn, the less justification we find to do the kinds of things you are proposing.

On your comment about being the lesser evil, that's precisely what the 'leave them alone' argument is about. The survival of the ecosystem is a key concern and sometimes the damage, and subsequent unintended suffering through killing top order predators, is the greater evil than would have occurred by just letting them be.

[Lukas Gloor]

To Kerry,
No one here is advocating to rush through with something that will likely produce more suffering than there already is. If empirical reasearch suggests that we can't do anything about it -- that's it. But it's pointless to argue about empiricial details. David and Adriano have already mentioned several ways in which populations can be kept at reasonable levels and in which ecosystems can still be managed. Whether it's going to work is a question that should be settled by research. (But one question to ask would be: can it really get that much worse?) There's no need to keep throwing in half-baked practical objections based on utilitarian reasoning; it's too soon to tell. The important question is of normative ethical nature: should compassionate intervention, if it turns out to be feasible, be a goal of us?

"So if the idea of forced genetic change is abhorrent to you as a form of fascism, it is equally abhorrent to me."
How about the genetic change that happens naturally? All the variety of life, all the difference of "natures" of animal species, have come about through evolution. This means that the "true nature" of all species has been messed with again and again and again. A "species" is not some Platonic ideal, it's a snapshot of a more fluid concept. If "forced genetic change" is so abhorrent, would we be compelled to intervene as to stop evolution from happening? What's so different about natural change -- over which the animals have just as little control -- and human induced change? Unless you're assuming that nature has some kind of good higher plan, there seems to be no reason to think that one is worse than the other. (Again, for the sake of discussion we are postulating that human induced change will keep the ecosystems functioning.) And now the main point: Evolutionary change is blind and indifferent. The change interventionists are proposing is, on the other hand, beneficial for the well-being of as many animals as possible. What could possibly be wrong with that?

No one wants to reprogram or drive extinct predators simply because they belong to a certain species. There are ethically relevant differences, namely that predators cause a lot of suffering. So it's not speciesist at all to intervene. Being antispeciesist doesn't mean that one should ignore all the differences there are, it only means that one should ignore differences that aren't ethically relevant. (If plants aren't sentient, it's not speciesist to not give "rights" to them too.) And causing suffering is certainly very relevant. Equal consideration demands that we interfere.

To those who think this is "playing god", and therefore bad:
The future will likely bring us extremely powerful technologies. We will have the capacity to make huge changes on earth. Actually, we already have that capacity. No matter what we do, we'll have to make a decision. And no matter what we decide, we'll be "playing god" either way. If we have the capacity to end most of the suffering in the natural world and choose not to do so, then we are implicitly making a judgment, namely that the natural world is perfect. That is "playing god". It is "forcing our morals onto the other animals".

Whether we like it or not, there is a responsibility that comes with our knowledge and our technological capabilities. And we can't just avoid acting at all, hiding behind the status quo. We'll have to make a decision, one that should be based on careful reasoning and empirical research, and certainly not on gut reactions and platitudes about god.

[Rob Brevendt]

The use of force is justified if it's the lesser evil, i.e. if it prevent more violence, suffering and death than it causes. Every good law is a form of violence that's justified in just this way. At this point, for instance, it would be counterproductive to use violence to protect animals' rights. But there will (I hope) come a point where abolitionist laws will be feasible. And then we'll stop people who try to unnecessarily exploit animals with violent means. The same principle (about force being justified in case it's the lesser evil) applies to any question.

[Kerry Baker]

Thanks Lukas and Adriano.  This discussion has really become somewhat circular and there is probably little point in going on with it.  Lukas just to answer your question, yes there is a big difference between evolution in the Darwinian sense, and human genetic engineering.

It seems we have two camps that will never agree.  On the one hand are people like myself who see what you are proposing as a violation of animal rights.  That is, their right to live without human interference.  Your camp has a different view, to intervene to stop carnivorous activity. 

In any case, if and when it gets to the point where the first genetic manipulation is going to happen, it will not be just me who you will be arguing with.  It will be organisations like Greenpeace, WSPA, HSI, IFAW and so on. And yes I will be personally doing everything I can to stop it.

Enjoy the rest of your day.