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.
------

[Brandon Becker]

The case for intervention doesn't become any stronger by rejecting that premise. You don't have to believe the natural order is "good" to want to keep it in place. You simply have to have valid reasons for your position on the issue (and the burden of proof should be on those who want change) and there are many valid reasons to object to intervention, such as listed by myself and others in this thread.

[Brandon Becker]

I wouldn't label it "advance[d]" if we had the means to "reduce suffering and predation" because my goal in this movement and as an individual isn't the reduction of suffering and predation, it's animal liberation. And the opposite of liberation is the domination and control of all life. As I said to David Pearce earlier in the thread, I don't believe in objective morality and cannot find any grounding for moral obligations other than The Golden Rule or equal consideration and those don't demand human tyranny over all life.

[David Pearce]

Brandon, is it arrogant to believe that we have an obligation to intervene to prevent the mass killing and / or infliction of severe harm by members of one ethnic group on another?
( cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide )
Most (but not all) ethicists would agree that the international community, under the auspices of the United Nations, has a duty to intervene to prevent genocide and systematic human rights abuses. But if this so for members of other ethnic groups, then why, in principle, should we deny highly sentient beings of other species the same protection that we aim to provide members of other races?

For sure, for now humanity could provide the functional equivalent of cradle-to-the grave care only to all members of a handful of large mammalian species such as elephants. But though comparisons are invidious, elephants and other large mammals are also among the most sentient members of the animal kingdom.

I am not a Singularitarian (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinge%27s_Singularity )
But Ray Kurzweil is right in one sense at least. The exponential growth of computer power will give intelligent agents later this century unimaginable powers of fine-grained control over every square metre of the planet.

Preserving the cruelties of Nature in our "wildlife parks" is certainly an option. I just think it is an unethical option - or at least an option that needs to be carefully argued.

[Brandon Becker]

Your analogy doesn't work for these reasons:
1. We can communicate with other humans and get consent for our help. In contrast, you advocate species imperialism with regards to our treatment of other animals.
2. We can be reasonably sure of the outcome dealing with human conflicts. Not so with the vast ecological linkages and the complex interactions of plants, animals, fungi, and protists in the natural environment.
3. Carnivores are not committing genocide against other animals, but simply killing to survive. Meanwhile, you advocate genocide against carnivores, denying autonomy and self-determination.

[David Pearce]

You make three strong points that any advocate of compassionate intervention will need to address in depth. However, my responses in a nutshell would be as follows:

1. Consent need not be verbal. It may be explicit or implicit. Prelinguistic human toddlers and nonhuman animals alike cannot verbally assent to rescue from famine, predation or disease. But their desire not to suffer or be harmed is not seriously in doubt.
Is it paternalist - or "imperialist" - for a more cognitively advanced agent to protect the interests of a more cognitively humble creature?
Maybe so. I would still argue that such protection is warranted, and sometimes morally obligatory - regardless of age, race, species or linguistic competence.

2. The thermodynamics of a food chain (more strictly, food web) and its different "trophic levels" are well understood by ecologists. Interventions can be computationally modelled and remodelled as needed. Pilot studies can be conducted in individual wildlife parks / nature reserves. Yes, humans have an immense capacity to screw things up. But human fallibility is an argument for rigorous analysis and in-depth empirical research, not for maintaining the status quo. Recall that conservation biologists, captive breeding teams and "rewilding" enthusiasts can screw things up too.

3. I argue for the genetic tweaking and/or behavioural modification of human and nonhuman predators to protect their victims precisely to avoid anything that remotely smacks of "genocide". Yes, I agree: we should respect the autonomy and right to self-determination of human and nonhuman animals alike. But we should do so only insofar as it does not violate the autonomy and right to self-determination of other sentient beings. Your argument cuts both ways.

[Rob Brevendt]

Brandon, suppose we ourselves were obligate carnivores and the only way to go vegan was by tweaking our genome. Should we then prolong our mass killing of sentient animals indefinitely or should we go about developing a safe method to compassionately alter our own and our children's genome? I think there is no question about it. If there was a way to do it, then we ought to. And it would in no way be problematic ("paternalistic", "oppressive" or whatever) to decide the question for our children because we would be deciding on their genetic make-up anyway: If you can alter something but decide against it, then that's your decision too. If you're choosing between two options, it's your choice either way. It doesn't matter what the "default" option is, for that option may well be much worse in ethical terms.

So why shouldn't we do our best to find out how to compassionately alter the genome of feline children, say? If we decide against it, we decide on their genomes and lives (and especially also on their victims's horrible suffering!) too. But that would be a cruel and unethical decision to make, wouldn't it?

[Brandon Becker]

Humans are not obligate carnivores (or carnivores at all for that matter) so the hypothetical is irrelevant. Regardless of circumstances, I oppose genetically altering myself and others, for all the reasons stated earlier. I would not want to be so self-hating and alienated from nature that I would alter my biology or forcibly alter others' genetics. My hate is for utilitarianism and the atrocities it rationalizes for the supposed "greater good."

[Brandon Becker]

1. What about the desire of predator animals not to suffer or be harmed? You still are only looking at it from the view of prey animals. As I argued earlier, the fair solution is non-intervention.

2. I oppose captive breeding as violations of individual autonomy. In addition, the breeding of carnivores can have other harmful consequences as cattle enslavers and "sport" hunters will persecute (poison, trap, shoot, etc) carnivores for killing the prey animals these speciesist humans want to murder.

3. Autonomy and self-determination are preserved by non-intervention. Intervention violates it, regardless of your motives in doing so.

[Rob Brevendt]

Hate is the enemy of clear thought and rational action. And you're illustrating this quite well, I'm afraid.

It doesn't matter whether the hypothetical obtains or not. You don't seem to understand how hypotheticals (whether they obtain or not) function in ethical arguments. The point is that IF we'd choose to alter our children's genome so as to be able to stop the massacre of billions of sentient and suffering creatures each and every year, then there's no reason not to alter the genome of other carnivorous children also. I guess many vegans would clearly be in favour of tweaking our genome if that were the only way to go vegan. It wouldn't have anything to do with "self-hate", but with compassion. And I put it to you that it would be an expression of extreme egoism and hate of other creatures if you continued to murder them notwithstanding the fact that there was a way to alter your behaviour so as to end this atrocity.

Your glorification of "nature" is - I'm sorry to say - completely irrational (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html). Haven't you realized that Mother Nature is not our friend (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-edge-annual-question-20...)? There's really no reason whatsoever to look to nature for ethical guidance. What is more, are you claiming that you're not living a life that's very much alienated from nature already? Human life in the state of nature was nasty and short (life expectancy: 30 at best). And that's the cruel state wild animals find themselves in.

Well, if we can make choices about the genetic make-up of future creatures (and we can and do), then we can either forcibly let them stay the way they are (and thus perpetuate carnivorous genocides) or we can forcibly, but compassionately alter it for the greater good. Yes, for the greater good. What does that mean? It simply means for the good of all the individual creatures that are living now and that will be living in the future. It would therefore be utterly immoral not to try to maximize the greater good, i.e. the well-being (and non-suffering) of all the present and future animals in this world.

Apologies if I've been too bold. But then what do you expect when you're 1) ignoring or evading our arguments and 2) crudely defaming utilitarianism when debating utilitarians?

[David Pearce]

Kerry, isn't an interest in not being harmed universal to all sentient beings?

 Brandon:

1) when the interests or appetites of human and nonhuman predators conflict with their victims, I think we should put the interests of the victim first. This is not to say we should blame the predator - who may be hungry, sexually frustrated or whatever - but one cannot ethically be neutral.

2) Here we agree - though conservation biologists and some animal advocates would dissent. One consequence of non-intervention will be that most if not all large terrestrial predators will go extinct later this century through habitat destruction.

3) Intervention to help a young, prelinguistic sick, vulnerable or otherwise threatened member of one's own ethnic group may be essential to preserve their capacity - or potential capacity - for self-determination. Likewise with intervention to help a threatened member of a different ethnic group. I cannot see the species barrier makes any difference where indisputable potential harm to a victim is at stake.

[Rob Brevendt]

Regarding autonomy and self-determination, you're still missing the point. David isn't looking at it from the perspective of prey animals, he is looking at it objectively and choosing the lesser of two evils - in the very name of autonomy and self-determination!
The options are two: Either do nothing and let one single carnivorous animal violate the autonomy of very many other animals in a horribly painful way. Or violate the autonomy of one carnivorous animal and thereby protect the autonomy of many other animals. If you value autonomy and self-determination, then you'll join David in choosing the lesser evil.

What is more, non-intervention isn't always the ethically best solution in the human case either. There are cases where it's immoral not to intervene. It is sometimes absolutely necessary to stop some human beings from brutally violating the autonomy of many other human beings.

[Carolyn Bailey]

Brandon, I completely agree with your argument, and have right throughout this thread. I don't really have anything to add, because you've said it all so well already, but wanted to thank you for doing so! :)