Spencer Lo's Posts - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-28T21:04:40ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLohttp://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3145333593?profile=original&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=102nak86x2qkk&xn_auth=noAbolitionism and Welfare Reform: A Debatetag:arzone.ning.com,2012-12-19:4715978:BlogPost:1199322012-12-19T23:30:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Professor <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/">Gary Francione</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/">Bruce Friedrich</a> of <a href="http://www.farmsanctuary.org/">Farm Sanctuary</a> recently had a <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-abolitionist-approach-and-farm-sanctuary-discuss-happy-meat-abolition-and-welfare-reform/#.UNELaHfheti">short, substantive exchange</a> on…</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Professor <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/">Gary Francione</a> and <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/">Bruce Friedrich</a> of <a href="http://www.farmsanctuary.org/">Farm Sanctuary</a> recently had a <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-abolitionist-approach-and-farm-sanctuary-discuss-happy-meat-abolition-and-welfare-reform/#.UNELaHfheti">short, substantive exchange</a> on abolitionism and welfare reform, consisting of two opening statements and a response to each. Below is my summary of the exchange. Obviously, nothing can be settled in a short debate, but I hope to highlight and sharpen the areas of disagreements between the two. </span></p>
<h3><span class="font-size-5" style="color: #0000ff; font-family: times new roman,times;">Francione’s Opening Statement</span></h3>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="text-decoration: underline; font-family: times new roman,times;">Differences between regulationists and abolitionists</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><strong>A</strong>. Regulationists focus primarily on animal treatment. They generally support: (1) welfare reform, such as “enriched” cages for hens; (2) single-issue campaigns; and (3) the consumption of “happy” animal products. Moreover, regulationists promote veganism only as a way to reduce suffering, not as a moral baseline.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><strong>B.</strong> Abolitionists reject all animal use on moral grounds, and in addition to rejecting (1)-(3) above, they promote veganism as a moral imperative. Further, abolitionists reject regulationism for three practical reasons:</span></p>
<ul>
<li><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">(i). <em>Animal welfare measures do little to protect animal interests.</em> Animals are property, and since protecting their interests requires money, welfare standards will always remain low. Rather than impose significant costs, many welfare reforms increase production efficiency. Example: controlled-atmosphere killing.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">(ii). <em>Welfare measures encourage continued animal use by making the public feel better about animal exploitation.</em> This occurs when groups like PETA give praise and awards to McDonalds for improved animal treatment.</span></li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">(iii). <em>Single issue campaigns inaccurately characterize some forms of exploitation as worse than others.</em> Example: Fur is not worse than leather or wool.</span></li>
</ul>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><strong>C</strong>. Abolitionists view animal advocacy as a zero-sum game. The more time and money spent on welfare reforms, the less can be spent on vegan/abolitionist education; advocates should focus only on the latter. Doing both sends contradictory and hopelessly confusing messages.</span></p>
<h4><span class="font-size-4" style="color: #0000ff; font-family: times new roman,times;">Friedrich’s Response</span></h4>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">(B) is false: abolitionists <em>can</em> promote veganism as a moral baseline in addition to welfare reforms and single-issue campaigns (examples: Mercy for Animals, Vegan Outreach, PETA, COK, the Humane League, Farm Sanctuary). Welfare reforms reduce suffering, reduce meat consumption, and bring us closer to animal liberation.</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><strong>I.</strong> Welfare reforms reduce suffering</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">B(i) is false. For pregnant sows, there is a meaningful difference between gestation crates and group housing. Similarly, for chickens who have their throats slit while conscious, painless deaths are meaningfully better. Because reforms lessen animal suffering, when the only alternatives are more suffering or less, that alone justifies supporting them.</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><strong>II.</strong> Welfare reforms reduce meat consumption and move us toward animal liberation.</span></p>
<p style="padding-left: 60px;"><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Egg-consumption declined in EU countries that independently banned battery cages. Moreover, according to the <em>Journal of Agricultural Economics,</em> media coverage of certain welfare campaigns have led to reduced consumption in all animal products.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Animal agriculture spends millions fighting welfare reforms, which refutes the notion that they increase the overall profits of regulated industries. Example: the pork and egg industries spent $10 million trying (unsuccessfully) to defeat Proposition 2.</span></p>
<h3><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/abolitionism-and-welfare-reform-a-debate/" target="_blank">Rest here</a></span></h3>Bill and Lou: Two Oxen at a Collegetag:arzone.ning.com,2012-11-05:4715978:BlogPost:1180182012-11-05T20:00:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">There is an <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/a-decision-to-slaughter-oxen-at-a-college-farm-angers-animal-rights-activists/32260">extraordinary</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/oxens-possible-slaughter-prompts-fight-in-vermont.html?emc=eta1&_r=0">story</a> developing about a global effort to save two 11 year-old oxen from slaughter, whose bodies will serve the appetites of students at…</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">There is an <a href="http://chronicle.com/blogs/buildings/a-decision-to-slaughter-oxen-at-a-college-farm-angers-animal-rights-activists/32260">extraordinary</a> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/29/us/oxens-possible-slaughter-prompts-fight-in-vermont.html?emc=eta1&_r=0">story</a> developing about a global effort to save two 11 year-old oxen from slaughter, whose bodies will serve the appetites of students at <a href="http://vtdigger.org/2012/11/04/national-animal-rights-group-blocks-slaughter-of-green-mountain-college-oxen-by-pressuring-local-slaughterhouses/">Green Mountain College</a> (GMC), a small institution in Poultney, Vermont. Bill and Lou, affectionately named, have labored at GMC as part of the college’s <a href="http://www.greenmtn.edu/farm_food/greetings.aspx">Food & Farm Project</a> for over a decade—their tasks included plowing fields and even <a href="http://www.themountaineer.org/2011/05/grass-power-at-gmc/">generating electricity</a>. According to the official <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10151117394282865&id=137783307864">college statement</a>, Bill and Lou are “draft animals,” rescued from neglect and malnutrition to “do important work which would otherwise be performed by equipment that consumes diesel fuel.” Now their ability to do that “important work” has ended: this past July, after stepping into a woodchuck hole, Lou reinjured his left rear leg which rendered him incapable of working, and his friend Bill, while uninjured, will not likely accept a new teammate. So what to do with a pair of unworkable, elderly oxen, GMC residents who have become de facto mascots? Eat them, of course—which was the decision reached in “an open community forum” participated by both students and faculty.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">Bill and Lou are still alive, for now. Although originally scheduled for slaughter by the end of October, immense public pressures – particularly on local slaughterhouses – forced a postponement. Still, GMC remains unwavering in their decision: “Eventually the animals will be processed as planned.” This in spite of a standing offer by <a href="http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/820">VINE Sanctuary</a>, and now also Farm Sanctuary, to provide permanent homes for Bill and Lou at <i>no</i> cost to the college, <i>in addition</i> to offers of tens of thousands of dollars to purchase them from GMC.</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;">GMC’s decision to slaughter and consume two farmed animals is nothing new, since nameless millions are killed every day in factory farms—and yet the public outcry has been astonishing, <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/25/fire-mountain/f8mIXuOFwg201TopTbeXiK/story.html">overwhelming</a> for many at GMC. Several prominent animal advocates have loudly and persistently voiced their opposition, including <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-friedrich/green-mountain-colleges-f_b_1967361.html">Bruce Friedrich</a>, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/steven.m.wise/posts/10151251948737239">Steve Wise</a> (check his fb for updates), <a href="http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201210/bill-and-lou-who-lives-who-dies-and-why">Marc Bekoff</a>, <a href="http://james-mcwilliams.com/?tag=green-mountain-college&paged=2">James McWilliams</a>, as well as others. The situation is unusual in at least one respect: GMC, an institution of higher learning, and a few faculty members, have publically articulated various justifications (and non-justifications) for their decision which are <i>transparently</i> weak. GMC considered the decision as touching upon “complex ethical matters,” one that was “many months in the making, with members of our community carefully weighing alternatives.”</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><span class="font-size-3" style="font-family: times new roman,times;"><a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/11/05/bill-and-lou-two-oxen-at-a-college/#comments" target="_blank">Full essay here</a><br/></span></p>Philosopher Alastair Norcross: Torturing Puppies and Factory-Farmingtag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-29:4715978:BlogPost:1106822012-09-29T18:00:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>If you needed to torture puppies in order to enjoy the taste of chocolate, would doing so be wrong? Wouldn’t doing so be <em>obviously</em> wrong? Most who would say ‘yes’ regularly purchase and consume factory-farmed meat, seeing no problem with the latter, and yet, the two may not be morally distinguishable. According to at least one philosopher, they are not. In a highly <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/anorcross/papers/Puppies.pdf">provocative and creative paper</a>,…</p>
<p>If you needed to torture puppies in order to enjoy the taste of chocolate, would doing so be wrong? Wouldn’t doing so be <em>obviously</em> wrong? Most who would say ‘yes’ regularly purchase and consume factory-farmed meat, seeing no problem with the latter, and yet, the two may not be morally distinguishable. According to at least one philosopher, they are not. In a highly <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/anorcross/papers/Puppies.pdf">provocative and creative paper</a>, <a href="http://spot.colorado.edu/%7Enorcross/">Alastair Norcross</a> makes the case that purchasing and eating factory-farmed meat is morally comparable to torturing puppies for gustatory pleasure, and meat-eaters who realize this ought to become vegetarians (or at least give up factory farmed-meat). It’s an argument worth thinking about. (Other arguments for vegetarianism can be found <a href="http://philosophybites.com/2010/06/jeff-mcmahan-on-vegetarianism.html">here</a> and <a href="http://philosophybites.com/2008/05/peter-singer-on.html">here</a>).</p>
<p></p>
<p>The rest: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/torturing-puppies-and-eating-factory-farmed-meat-whats-the-difference/">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/torturing-puppies-and-eating-factory-farmed-meat-whats-the-difference/</a></p>
<p>(And of course, the arguments against factory-farming apply equally to eggs and dairy).</p>The Lack of Ethics in Animal Ethics Committeestag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-28:4715978:BlogPost:1106062012-09-28T18:00:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>Like factory farming, animal experimentation is an entrenched practice, one which causes <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_tox/editorial/editorial.html">extensive suffering</a> to millions of animals <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_overall/lab_anim_tots_2005/lab_anim_tots_2005.html">per year</a> despite the…</p>
<p>Like factory farming, animal experimentation is an entrenched practice, one which causes <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_tox/editorial/editorial.html">extensive suffering</a> to millions of animals <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_overall/lab_anim_tots_2005/lab_anim_tots_2005.html">per year</a> despite the <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/resources/Publications/Animal-research--summaries/AK-expts-ALTEX-Proc-2012-1-289-94.pdf">poor justification</a> in terms of human benefits. Bioethicist Dr. Andrew Knight, author of the book “The Costs and Benefits of Animal Experiments,” discussed the ethical problems of animal experimentation and related issues over at <a href="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/arzone-podcast-47-dr-andrew-knight">ARZone</a> (see also <a href="http://www.animalexperiments.info/studies/summaries/summaries.html">here</a>). Because of the problems with justification, a welcome development is the continuing search for <a href="http://www.andrewknight.info/publications/anim_expts_overall/summaries/AK%20Anim%20expts%20Vet%20Times%202009%2039%2845%29%208,10.pdf">alternatives to animal testing</a>, and animal ethics committees (AECs) set up to scrutinize research proposals are required to consider such alternatives before granting approval, as part of their mandate to ensure compliance with the <a href="http://www.animalethics.org.au/three-rs">3Rs</a>—the principles of Reduction, Refinement, and Replacement. In Australia, for instance, a guiding principle in the <a href="http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ethics/animal/">Australian Code of Practice</a> is to “promote the development and use of techniques that replace the use of animals in scientific and teaching activities.” The Replacement Principle gained further strength <a href="http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/ea18">in 2008</a> with the following guideline: “if a viable alternative method exists that would partly or wholly replace the use of animals in a project, the Code requires investigators to use that alternative.” Thus, at face value, it appears that animal experimentation can be carefully scrutinized and suffering minimized, with animal use permitted only for the most important reasons. </p>
<p></p>
<p><a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/the-lack-of-ethics-in-animal-ethics-committees/">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/the-lack-of-ethics-in-animal-ethics-committees/</a></p>All Volunteer Military? Not If You’re a Dolphintag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-27:4715978:BlogPost:1105332012-09-27T18:00:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>Both from a strategic and moral standpoint, it is no surprise that when military action is contemplated, governments tend to favor effective tactics involving the least risk to human lives. Even better are effective tactics involving <em>low</em> risk to <em>all</em> human lives. If the goal of the military action is justified, what could be morally problematic with using such means? These widely held notions likely motivated the U.S. Navy’s…</p>
<p>Both from a strategic and moral standpoint, it is no surprise that when military action is contemplated, governments tend to favor effective tactics involving the least risk to human lives. Even better are effective tactics involving <em>low</em> risk to <em>all</em> human lives. If the goal of the military action is justified, what could be morally problematic with using such means? These widely held notions likely motivated the U.S. Navy’s <a href="http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/militarys-weapon-against-iranian-mines-high-tech-dolphins/47384/" target="_blank">recent contemplated use</a> of <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/whales/etc/navycron.html" target="_blank">military dolphins</a> in the ongoing conflict between <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Threats_to_close_Persian_Gulf" target="_blank">Iran and United States</a>.</p>
<p></p>
<p>The rest here: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/all-volunteer-military-not-if-youre-a-dolphin/" target="_blank">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/all-volunteer-military-not-if-youre-a-dolphin/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150727144?profile=original" target="_self"><br/></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150727181?profile=original" target="_self"><img width="350" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3150727181?profile=RESIZE_480x480" width="350" class="align-center"/></a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>What's Wrong with Happy Meat?tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-24:4715978:BlogPost:1104562012-09-24T23:30:44.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>My take on the ethics of eating "happy meat."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Suppose animals could be raised humanely, live considerably long lives, and then painlessly killed for food. Would eating such happy creatures be wrong? That question is suggested in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-cows-are-happy-and-food-is-healthy.html?_r=1&emc=eta1">recent article</a> by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, who answered it in the negative. According to…</p>
<p>My take on the ethics of eating "happy meat."</p>
<p></p>
<p>Suppose animals could be raised humanely, live considerably long lives, and then painlessly killed for food. Would eating such happy creatures be wrong? That question is suggested in a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/opinion/sunday/kristof-where-cows-are-happy-and-food-is-healthy.html?_r=1&emc=eta1">recent article</a> by New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof, who answered it in the negative. According to Kristof, as an alternative to consuming tortured animals raised in factory farms, which is problematic, it is possible to consume happy ones raised on efficient farms with “soul.” Some will even have names: like “Jill,” Sophie,” and “Hosta.” In the article, Kristof introduces us to his high school friend Bob Bansen, a farmer raising Jersey cows on “lovely green pastures” in Oregon. Bob’s 400+ cows are not only grass-fed and antibiotic-free, they are loved “like children” – every one of them named. “I want to work hard for them because they’ve taken good care of me… They’re living things, and you have to treat them right.” With great enthusiasm, Kristof concludes: “The next time you drink an Organic Valley glass of milk, it may have come from one of Bob’s cows. If so, you can bet it was a happy cow. And it has a name.” </p>
<p></p>
<p>The rest here: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/whats-wrong-with-happy-meat/</a></p>
<p></p>
<p>Follow up thoughts: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/further-thoughts-on-happy-meat/">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/13/further-thoughts-on-happy-meat/</a></p>The Art of Killing--for Kidstag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-23:4715978:BlogPost:1103472012-09-23T18:57:02.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>This is another recent post of mine over at Animal Blawg, about the encouragement of youths to take up hunting.</p>
<p>In our culture, the moral divide between humans and animals is sharp in numerous areas, but perhaps most consciously so in one: the sport of hunting. Since the activity involves consciously deciding to kill another sentient, sensitive being, the issue of inflicting suffering and death cannot be avoided, at least for the hunter. At some point every hunter will inevitably…</p>
<p>This is another recent post of mine over at Animal Blawg, about the encouragement of youths to take up hunting.</p>
<p>In our culture, the moral divide between humans and animals is sharp in numerous areas, but perhaps most consciously so in one: the sport of hunting. Since the activity involves consciously deciding to kill another sentient, sensitive being, the issue of inflicting suffering and death cannot be avoided, at least for the hunter. At some point every hunter will inevitably confront unsettling questions: Is my having a good time an adequate moral reason to deliberately end an animal’s life? Should I be concerned about my prey’s suffering, as well as the resulting loss for his or her family? These reflective questions, and many others, will now be asked by New York youths (ages 14-15) this Columbus Day weekend during a <a href="http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/84851.html">special deer hunt</a> planned just for them. Armed with either a firearm or crossbow, junior hunters will be <a href="http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/46245.html">permitted</a> to “take <strong>1 deer</strong>…during the youth deer hunt”—no doubt in the hope that the experience will enrich their lives. A <a href="http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2012/03/upside-youth-hunt-remembering-why-hunting-fun">hunting enthusiast</a>once observed after a youth hunt, “I’ve never seen a [9-year old] kid happier…We were all the better for it.”</p>
<p></p>
<p> The rest here: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-art-of-killing-for-kids-2/">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/the-art-of-killing-for-kids-2/</a></p>
<p>In the comments section, I have an exchange with an avid, long time hunter.</p>Bullfighting: Justifying Cruelty with Traditiontag:arzone.ning.com,2012-09-23:4715978:BlogPost:1104362012-09-23T00:30:00.000ZSpencer Lohttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/SpencerLo
<p>I posted the following entry over at Animal Blawg: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/bullfighting-justifying-cruelty-with-tradition/#like-5094" target="_blank">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/bullfighting-justifying-cruelty-with-tradition/#like-5094</a></p>
<p>I posted the following entry over at Animal Blawg: <a href="http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/bullfighting-justifying-cruelty-with-tradition/#like-5094" target="_blank">http://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/bullfighting-justifying-cruelty-with-tradition/#like-5094</a></p>