FACTORY FARMED ANIMALS TORTURED AND SLAUGHTERED TO FEED SO CALLED "COMPANION ANIMALS"

[Nath Miles]

It is becoming clear that as a society we are becoming more and more speciesist.

 

What do you think about those who feel it is completely ok to factory farm, torture and slaughter animals so as to feed them to sustain so called companion animals (dogs and cats) rather than having them put to sleep?

 

 

Does this not seem to be completely hypocritical?

 

Many prominent animal rights advocates struggle with this question.

With many feeling the best way forward is the one with the "least harm" to ALL animals.

If this is the case then it would appear that the "least harm" would then be to humanely put the huge over population of excess companion animals to sleep as to keep them alive and sustain them hundreds of animals would have to suffer and  die.

 

So why is it that our society has become so speciesist?

 

[red dog]

Only people who *don't* endorse animal rights should be allowed to rescue, adopt, spay and neuter? You're kidding, right?

[red dog]

Part of the problem is that the term "animal welfare" has been co-opted so it's basically meaningless. It could mean anything from rescuing a dog to trying to convince a vivisector to modify his/her tests very slightly while continuing to vivisect animals. I oppose welfare in the second sense of the word, but not the first.

[Sam Hillyer]

I wasn't condoning it was a must, I just believe it is a path that some people may have taken, however, I will lead the literature by the authors you have proposed because I am interested in the way of thinking.

Thank you Roger :)

[Sam Hillyer]

Good point red dog, I don't think anybody could disagree with that

[Tim Gier]

I think what Roger is saying is that if a person has 10 hours each week to devote to working for the rights of nonhuman animals, that time would be better spent working to spread a vegan message from an animal rights perspective.  Now, it may be possible to do that while at the same time working with traditional animal welfare groups as they rescue at risk dogs and cats, but, since the welfarist mindset dominates, and since most, if not all, of the large animal groups are welfarist, do they really need the help of those interested in respecting the actual rights of nonhumans?  

 

If we want to treat the symptoms of the problem, we should do animal welfare.  If we want to strike at the root of the problem, we should do animal rights.  Every step we take that is not towards a vegan world based on the rights of all sentient beings to life and liberty, is a step we take away from it.  We all only have so much time, and so many steps, available to us in our short time here.  We should be making the most of them.

 

This not to say that any person ought not to personally adopt or rescue at-risk nonhumans.  If they can do so, and can provide a proper home and care, then they ought to do so.  But that's not the same thing as working on welfare campaigns.

[DEN FRIEND]

Hi Roger

Those animal welfarist's are potential animal rightist's, are they not?

The situation is not simple, as is borne out by our discussion; people believe that they are abolitionist (like me) and believe they can still be involved in 'welfare'. I think there is a distinction to be made between those welfarist's who campaign for bigger cages and those, like me, who want to see an end to animals being bred unnecessarily and are doing something practical to bring about change. Do I detect a note of superiority here? When you say you would encourage anyone who does not endorse animal rights to do 'it' (welfare).  This implies that you do not think I do not endorse animal rights!! Can I just ask, how do we measure the impact of our approach to AR? Is being vegan enough? Is passing an email around enough? Are long drawn out discussions on the internet really achieving anything? I believe that working on the ground with the public and welfarist's (who after all are the public) is crucial to achieving our aims. A dog is put to sleep every minute in the uk, clearly non AR welfarism is not working. Unless we are happy with the staus quo, we need AR people to get involved.

[blackpanther]

I agree with you......

We should clearly define what a welfarist is, and what an abolitionist is.........now I know there are good and bad vegans (LOL), are there good and bad abolitionists??????

[blackpanther]

I read some of these, but will read more, specially rain without thunder, thanks........

but am still not convinced for the moment.......that may come!

[DEN FRIEND]

Sorry Roger

I've got to go rescue an animal.... or should I stay here and hypothesize?

You see I can be vegan, I can be an abolitionist AND I can help alleviate animal suffering! No wonder all those vegans sit at home doing nothing, now I know why, they think they are doing their bit! Lol

 

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hello.
First of all apologize because I have not read all the messages. I find it hard to read, especially because I use the
google translator and many I have to reread it because he did the translation.

So I will give my opinion on
what I could understand the discussion.

First, do not believe that
protectionism (dogs and cats) from within welfarism. The idea of freedom for non-humans is an abstract idea
and impractical. Animals that were born wild and free we
are not prepared to live wild and free.
I think very few animals can
live operated that way. In fact, if restated the premise of
"any individual who feels entitled to live and to do so freely." I express ground and "everyone who feels entitled
to live and make it as freely as the individual can bear." It is absurd to think of releasing a pig, chicken,
turkey or cow in the bush. Die insurance.

There is widespread
confusion because we use many different descriptions to refer to the objective
of this movement:
Animal Liberation.
Animal rights.
Abolition of animal
exploitation.
Anti-speciesism ...
And yet, mean very different
things. Can not find the animal liberation not
releasing animals in holding facilities. Avoid having exploited in the future is not free. Free someone is out of a hostile place.

I particularly, having
reflected on the subject, I think the goal is to establish an anti-speciesist
ethics and human ethics extend to all individuals who feel. It is not only avoid animal exploitation, but it is
going further and avoid adversely affecting the interests of one who feels. Nobody can imagine a future human right to live like
herds of wolves, or as groups of chimpanzees.
Similarly, we should not
imagine a future fair to the non-human living wild, with about killing others.
The anti-speciesism is much
deeper than veganism.

Therefore, it is not just a
chicken out of a life hardships and certain death, to leave in a hostile
environment, which also suffer and die. Sure.
I just get that chicken is a
hostile environment and taken to safety. A shrine, for example.
That would be just for a
chicken, and it would be fair to a human. No one would consider taking a human is not out of a
cage and bring it to Amazon (which is done in some cases, such as mink, must,
in my opinion, more a technical difficulty to an ethical decision).

However, it is surprising
that a chicken living in a sanctuary, free-living (as much as she can handle)
will cause many deaths. Chickens killed hundreds of insects. So do all day.Looking for seeds
and insects.
The curious paradox is that
the hens in battery cages cause far fewer, proportionately, but the causes
muchasmás free chicken deaths which is more fair?

Maybe someone can say that
is more just that the chicken is operated on the farm to prevent it from
causing more deaths. Perhaps someone could argue that it is
better then welfarism, painlessly kill free-range hens, to deliver them.

Similarly, humans caused
hundreds of deaths. Even vegans. The car, walking, moving things, sweeping ... generate
ongoing impacts, not only to other insects.
Dogs, cats ...
Is it more ethical to ask to
kill all animals leaving alive only to individuals that less harm to other
animals?

My account is not. Ethics is based on avoiding harm. To respect the interests of each individual. And on this fundamental pillar to avoid having conflicts
where some harm to others. If you would build only to avoid conflict
would become completely incoherent because ethics, which is a set of rules to
regulate the interaction between various individuals, would aim to eliminate
individuals, and thus any possibility of an ethics (thefailing
society.)
We find that, but not
talking about ethics.
Also, I think what you are
looking for two things. Normally it seems that it is only to
avoid suffering. But, in turn, it is possible happiness. We do among humans. Do not remove an unhappy man because, although we do
without such human suffering, it also removed some future experiences.

If we eliminate every
individual sentient, then remove the suffering. If we make a world anti-speciesist, but really
anti-speciesist, then we will build on an imperative that will always seek to
help others, all others so that their interests are harmed.
We will veganizar obligation
to everyone, making everyone eat other individuals.Obviously
we can not now. So by the imperative to extend the
inter-human ethic to other animals, end up developing technical solutions to
enable justice ethics.

A dog that lives with a
human and poultry feeds an injustice. This dog living on the street to eat
other animals. If you killed (the euphemism for
euthanasia is misused in these cases because it did not save any suffering
inevitable) will prevent many chickens die.
What happens is that if we
do that with the dog, you have to do with all humans who are not vegans why?
For dogs, today, can be
vegan. Like humans. However, there are dogs that are not vegan for various
reasons, just as there are humans who are not vegans for several reasons.
If we rely on a perspective
of anthropocentric speciesism, we conclude that it just is not killing humans
speciesist, if not make them vegan.
From this perspective there
is no problem in killing dogs and cats that are not vegan.

But applying an
anti-speciesist perspective should conclude that it is not right to kill dogs
and cats that are not vegan, if that right is to make them vegan.

If while trying veganizar
the world (not just human, if not all individuals) are deaths of other animals
is something we have to assume. It is inherent in a movement of
awareness. We could take other routes, such as
violent, then the outlook could be different.

It is unfair that the
chickens die on farms. But it is also unfair that dogs die in
the homes of humans to prevent chickens from dying on farms.
Ethical solutions have the
problem in its development. What to make avoidable unavoidable
conflicts, and avoid conflict is to make the lives of some not involving the
death of others.
After all, if we kill all
the dogs that farmers are not going to release the chickens.

As to whether it is more
important to release individuals or human awareness, see it not so clear. I think it is important to free individuals but that is
so complicated on a technical level that makes it less efficient. However, I believe that there is an imperative inherent
in the anti-speciesism. This imperative states that all humans
have a duty to do everything possible to try to free help free many individuals
as possible. If you believe that awareness is the most
efficient tool right now, then there is a duty to give everything you need to
raise awareness. But the implications of a movement of
awareness is simply to allow a future release.
If our goal is to end animal
abuse what do we want to achieve?
If we are to ensure that no
individuals exploited, then only we rely on to avoid suffering.
Now if we assume that we
have a duty to prevent the interests of others are affected, not only have a
duty to prevent suffering. We will have a duty to allow them to be
happy, at least as much as they can be.
To do this we must assume a
duty to get them out of hell to bring them to safety.
"You would see ethical
if there comes a time when a ban on the exploitation of animals, and to do so
would lead to billions of animals exploited at that time to the slaughterhouse?
I think the ethical thing
would give them the opportunity to live at all times, to live without anyone
harm, to meet their positive interests (and to avoid suffering).

That can not happen if it
does not work. There is a duty to the individuals
exploited. We have to avoid being unhappy, and we
must allow them to be happy.
I believe that our duty is
to dedicate the other side of time and resources to enhance the positive part
of animal liberation. To achieve where individuals suffering
can stop suffering and can enjoy a decent life for all sentient individuals
deserve.

Greetings

[Eduardo Terrer]

In Spanish:

 

Hola.

Ante todo disculparme porque no he leído todos los mensajes. Me cuesta leerlos, especialmente porque uso el traductor de google y muchos me toca releerlos porque no hizo bien la traducción.

 

Por eso voy a dar mi opinión acerca de lo que he podido entender de la discusión.

 

Primero, no creo que el proteccionismo (perros y gatos) entre dentro del bienestarismo. La idea de la libertad para los no-humanos es una idea abstracta y poco práctica. Los animales que no hemos nacido libres y
salvajes no estamos preparados para que vivamos libres y salvajes.

Creo que muy pocos animales explotados pueden vivir de esa manera. De hecho, siempre reformulo la premisa de “todo individuo que siente tiene derecho a vivir y a hacerlo libremente”. Yo lo suelo expresar así “todo
individuo que siente tiene derecho a vivir y a hacerlo tan libremente como
dicho individuo pueda soportar”. Es absurdo pensar en liberar a un cerdo,
gallina, pavo o vaca en el monte. Morirían seguro.

 

Hay una confusión generalizada porque usamos muchas descripciones diferentes para referirnos al objetivo de este movimiento:

Liberación animal.

Derechos para los animales.

Abolición de la explotación animal.

Anti-especismo…

Y, no obstante, implican cosas muy diferentes. No se puede buscar la liberación animal si no se libera a los animales de los centros de explotación. Evitar que haya explotados en el futuro no es liberar. Liberar
a alguien es sacarlo de un lugar hostil.

 

Yo particularmente, tras haber reflexionado sobre el tema, creo que el objetivo es establecer una ética anti-especista, y extender la ética humana a todos los individuos que sienten. No es solo evitar la
explotación animal, si no que es ir más allá y evitar que se perjudiquen los
intereses de alguien que siente. Nadie imagina un futuro justo con humanos
viviendo como manadas de lobos, o como grupos de chimpancés.

Del mismo modo, no deberíamos imaginar un futuro justo con los no-humanos viviendo de forma salvaje, con unos matándose a otros.

El anti-especismo es mucho más profundo que el veganismo.

 

Por lo tanto, lo justo no es sacar a una gallina de una vida privaciones y muerte segura, para dejarla en un entorno hostil, donde también sufrirá y morirá. Seguro.

Lo justo es sacar a dicha gallina de un entorno hostil y llevarla a un lugar seguro. Un santuario, por ejemplo.

Eso sería lo justo para una gallina, y sería lo justo para un humano. Nadie se plantearía sacar a un humano que no ha salido de una jaula y llevarlo al amazonas (el que se haga en algunos casos, como los
visones, se debe, a mi parecer, más a una dificultad técnica que a una decisión
ética).

 

Ahora bien, lo sorprendente es que una gallina que vive en un santuario, que vive libre (tanto como ella pueda soportar) va a provocar muchas muertes. Las gallinas matan cientos de insectos. Es lo que hacen todo el
día. Buscan semillas y también insectos.

La curiosa paradoja es que la gallina en la jaula de batería no provocan bastantes menos, proporcionalmente, pero la gallina libre provoca muchasmás  muertes ¿qué es más
justo?

 

Quizás alguien pueda afirmar que es más justo que la gallina sea explotada en la granja para evitar que provoque más muertes. Quizás alguien pueda argumentar que entonces es mejor el bienestarismo, matar sin
dolor a las gallinas camperas, que liberarlas.

 

Del mismo modo, los humanos provocamos cientos de muertes. Incluso los veganos. El coche, el andar, el mover cosas, barrer… generamos impactos continuos, y no solo a otros insectos.

Los perros, los gatos…

¿Es más ético plantearnos asesinar a todos los animales dejando vivos únicamente a los individuos que menos perjudiquen a otros animales?

 

Mi consideración es que no. La ética se basa en evitar perjudicar. En respetar los intereses de cada individuo. Y sobre este pilar fundamental, evitar que haya conflictos donde unos perjudiquen a otros. Si se
basase solo en evitar los conflictos se volvería completamente incoherente
porque la ética, que es un conjunto de reglas para regular la interacción entre
varios individuos, tendría como fin eliminar a los individuos, y con ello toda
posibilidad de que exista una ética (al no haber sociedad).

Podemos buscar eso, pero no estaríamos hablando de ética.

Además, creo que lo que se busca son dos cosas. Normalmente parece que se trata únicamente de evitar el sufrimiento. Pero, a su vez, se trata de posibilitar la felicidad. Así lo hacemos entre humanos. No eliminamos
a un humano infeliz porque, aunque lo hagamos sin que dicho humano sufra,
también le quitamos unas experiencias futuras.

 

Si eliminamos a todo individuo sintiente, entonces eliminaremos el sufrimiento. Si hacemos un mundo anti-especista, pero realmente anti-especista, entonces nos basaremos en un imperativo que hará que busquemos
siempre ayudar a los demás, a todos los demás, para que sus intereses no se
vean perjudicados.

Tendremos la obligación de veganizar a todos, de hacer que nadie se coma a otros individuos. Evidentemente ahora no podemos. Por eso, por el imperativo de extender la ética inter-humanos a los demás animales,
acabaremos desarrollando soluciones técnicas para hacer posible la justicia
ética.

 

Un perro que vive con un humano y se alimenta de pollos comete una injusticia. Dicho perro viviendo en la calle comerá a otros animales. Si le asesinamos (el eufemismo de eutanasiar está mal usado en estos
casos ya que no le ahorramos ningún sufrimiento inevitable) evitaremos que
mueran muchos pollos.

Lo que sucede es que, si hacemos eso con el perro, lo tendremos que hacer con todos los humanos que no son veganos ¿por qué?

Porque los perros, a día de hoy, pueden ser veganos. Como los humanos. No obstante, hay perros que no son veganos por diversas razones, y del mismo modo hay humanos que no son veganos por diversas razones.

Si nos basaramos en una perspectiva de especismo antropocéntrico, podríamos concluir que lo justo no es asesinar a los humanos especistas, si no hacerlos veganos.

Bajo esta perspectiva no habría problema en asesinar a los perros y gatos que no son veganos.

 

Pero al aplicar una perspectiva anti-especista deberíamos concluir que no es justo asesinar a los perros y gatos que no son veganos, si no que lo justo es hacerlos veganos.

 

Si mientras intentamos veganizar al mundo (no solo a humanos, si no a todos los individuos) hay muertes de otros animales, es algo que tenemos que asumir. Es inherente a un movimiento de concienciación.
Podríamos tomar otras vías, por ejemplo violentas, y entonces la perspectiva
podría ser diferente.

 

Es injusto que los pollos mueran en las granjas. Pero también es injusto que los perros mueran en las casas de los humanos para evitar que los pollos mueran en las granjas.

Las soluciones éticas tienen ese problema en su desarrollo. Que hay que convertir los conflictos inevitables en evitables, y evitar dicho conflicto consiste en hacer que la vida de unos no implique la
muerte de otros.

A fin de cuentas, aunque matemos a todos los perros los granjeros no van a liberar a los pollos.

 

Respecto a si es más importante liberar individuos o concienciar a humanos, no lo veo tan claro. Creo que es más importante liberar individuos pero que es tan complicado a nivel técnico que hace que sea menos
eficiente. No obstante, considero que hay un imperativo inherente al
anti-especismo. Dicho imperativo establece que todo humano tiene el deber de
hacer todo lo posible por intentar liberar a ayudar a liberar a tantos
individuos como le sea posible. Si consideramos que la concienciación es la
herramienta más eficiente ahora mismo, entonces hay un deber de dedicar todo lo
necesario a concienciar. Pero las implicaciones de un movimiento de concienciar
no es otro que permitir liberar en un futuro.

Si nuestro objetivo es terminar con la explotación animal ¿qué pretendemos lograr?

Si pretendemos lograr que no haya individuos explotados, entonces solo nos basamos en evitar el sufrimiento.

Ahora bien, si suponemos que tenemos el deber de evitar que los intereses de otros se vean perjudicados, no solo tendremos el deber de evitarles sufrir. Tendremos el deber de permitirles ser felices, al menos tanto
como puedan serlo.

Para ello debemos asumir el deber de sacarles del infierno para llevarles a un lugar seguro.

¿Veríais ético si llegase un momento en que se prohibiese la explotación animal, y para ello se llevase a los billones de animales explotados en ese momento al matadero?

Yo creo que lo ético sería darles la oportunidad, a los que viven en cada momento, de vivir sin que nadie les perjudique, de satisfacer sus intereses positivos (así como evitar el sufrimiento).

 

Eso no puede suceder si no se trabaja en ello. Hay un deber con los individuos explotados. Tenemos que evitar que sean infelices, y tenemos que permitirles que sean felices.

Considero que nuestro deber es dedicar la otra parte del tiempo y recursos a potenciar la parte positiva de la liberación animal. De lograr los lugares donde los individuos que sufren puedan dejar de sufrir y puedan
disfrutar de una vida digna que todos los individuos sintientes merecemos.

 

Un saludo

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi blackpanther!

Who suggested we do nothing? I certainly would never suggest doing nothing.

We've recently had what is perceived as a "victory" here in Australia, in Tasmania for the end to the use of sow crates. This will become law in 2017, with a voluntary start in 2014.

The people who advocated for this "victory" are people who believe we should all be advocating in a similar way. Getting out there and making a difference they call it. Doing something for the animals who are suffering now they also call it.

When this was announced, people in Australia commented that they could now start eating dead pigs again, could begin eating more dead pigs, and could do so happily, because the dead pigs they began eating the day after this announcement were quite happy to die for them.

Of course, the animals suffering now will not be benefit from this decision, nor will her children or her children's children. This law is currently being challenged and will continue to be challenged until 2017, and beyond, likely never being introduced at all.

The exploiters will benefit from this decision, because they are now selling more dead pigs to the Australian public, they are now breeding more pigs to be exploited and slaughtered to meet this demand.

So, this "victory" has caused more pigs to be exploited, slaughtered and eaten, it has allowed humans to feel good about doing so and it has allowed a major welfare org to receive loads more donations. It has also been a great win for the exploiters too. This "victory" has been a victory for everyone, except the animals who are "suffering now".

If you refer to open rescues when referring to helping animals suffer now, I'm not opposed to open rescues at all and think they can be beneficial and educational, when conducted well, but I'm referring to the traditional welfare campaign.

Vegan education creates new vegans, educates people on veganism and why exploitation is wrong, educates people on why we owe other animals a minimum requirement of not eating and exploiting them. These are achievable goals and longstanding ones. In my opinion, vegan education is helping those animals who are suffering now a lot more than regulating their treatment, whilst allowing them to continue being exploited.

This is my opinion anyway, and I hope it added some clarity as to why I feel welfare campaigns may be harmful to the end goal of abolition.