Prof. Oscar Horta: Different strategies to defend nonhuman animals: a draft

[Tim Gier]

Prof. Oscar Horta has prepared a preliminary draft outline of possible strategies that one might use to defend other animals, including in the outline a number of objections and responses to each objection. Please read the outline here.

Quoting from Prof. Horta's introduction as posted at his website:

I’m currently working on a paper regarding the different strategies that those who oppose the use of nonhuman animals may follow. This is a very tentative draft of an outline of it. Please note it’s work in progress, so it may have mistakes I haven’t noticed. I’ll keep it posted here until the paper is sent to be published.

[Oscar Horta]

Thanks so much, Tim! I'm finishing now the paper, which I'll have to send to the editor very soon, so any criticisms and comments would be greatly appreciated.

[Oscar Horta]

Good point, Roger, thank you! I have sometimes problems in saying exactly what I mean in English because it's not my first language. What I meant is that, just as animal exploitation should be fought against, speciesism must also be fought against, and for reasons that are no less important. I didn't mean that the way in which we should fight speciesism and animal exploitation is necessarily the same. I must say, however, that I think that in general (though not necessarily always) fighting against speciesism is the best way to fight animal exploitation, at least on the long run. Given this and the first claim, I conclude that we should fight against speciesism.

Thanks again.

[Kerry Baker]

I think that a problem with regulatory protection is that it is usually put in place only in relation to the animals relation to humans.  For example companion animals are provided with greater protection than are farmed animals.

People assume that regulation means animals are protected, for example factory farming standards, whereas regulations actually institutionalise cruelty for economic reasons.  The amount of space that a chicken for example is prescribed by regulation is manifestly inadequate.

I wonder if it might be argued that animals should have a bill of rights the same as humans, or perhaps that the laws as they relate to humans in society should be amended to refer to all living things.