poll: animal rights and vital needs

[Stijn Bruers]

Hi all, I'm doing a research on the ethical consistency of animal rights activists.

Background: animal rights based on antispeciecicism is a very consistent theory, but most of the activists have troubles when it comes to moral dilemma's where vital needs are in danger, the "emergency scenarios". Let's talk about three scenarios, and keep in mind the anti-speciecist viewpoint. In particular, consider an animal and a seriously mentally disabled orphan whose illness cannot be treated by current means. (the reason why I want you to consider this disabled human is not important now).

Scenario 1: eating meat (hunting) for survival.

-do you tolerate that lions eat zebras, or should that be forbidden? (knowing that carnivores need to eat meat to survive)

-would you tolerate the hunting done by a human population who survives by hunting? (suppose we find a population who will die if they don't eat meat)

-would you tolerate cannibalism done by a human population who survives on human meat? (suppose we discover a population who eat mentally disabled humans, and who will die if they don't eat them)

Scenario 2: experimenting

-do you tolerate experiments on animals if we are pretty sure that this will help humans?  (and let's be honest, such situations are very well possible)

-do you tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people by that?

Scenario 3: organ transplantation

-do you tolerate the killing of an animal (e.g. a pig) to use its organs to save some people by xenotransplantation?

-do you tolerate the killing of a mentally disabled orphan to use its organs to save some other people? (i.e. use its heart, spleen, liver, kidneys to save the lives of five other people).

 

So, feel free to answer, and preferably to state why you would tolerate or forbid something. (especially if you give different answers I'd like to receive more information about your choices)

I cannot give you much more details on the background of this research (because that might influence you).

 

 

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hi Stijn,

 

Interesting poll, I'll try to answer as best I can.

 

Scenario 1:

 

- Lions eat zebras as they're carnivores. That's life and perfectly acceptable. It's a shame we can't leave them to live on their own terms more.

- I wouldn't tolerate a population of hunters who claim they'll die without eating flesh. That would be untrue,  humans are not carnivores.

- I think it's exactly the same to suggest a population of people can't survive without human flesh.

 

Scenarios 2 and 3:

- I wouldn't tolerate any of these examples. Each individual who is not only part of the world, but aware of being part of it, should be afforded the right to live their lives without being exploited or commodified.

 

Hope that little bit of information helps, feel free to ask me to elaborate, I'm just in a rush at the moment.

 

Good luck!

 

Carolyn

 

 

 

[Trent Engelhart]

Scenario 1: eating meat (hunting) for survival.

-do you tolerate that lions eat zebras, or should that be forbidden? (knowing that carnivores need to eat meat to survive)
lions don't have our resources; lions don't have farms or supermarkets, or any form of currency or welfare programmes, and can't survive on plant foods.

-would you tolerate the hunting done by a human population who survives by hunting? (suppose we find a population who will die if they don't eat meat)
there is no human population who will die if they do not consume meat, if they are biologically human they can survive on a plant based diet. developing nations are usually agriculturally viable, or could be helped to become so. if agriculture and water was an important enough issue, and we weren't believing people must kill to survive, there may be more programmes to help with water and plant based diets. in most developed nations hunting is expensive, at least more expensive than buying food from a local source. this is not a political statement but an anti-hunting one: Sarah Palin recently said on a tv show that it was time to hunt for her "kidses meals this winter", by spending US $42,000.00 on chartered planes to private hunting camps with rented gear to shoot game paid for by a Guided Hunting Vacation package. it costs money to travel, buy equipment, take time off work and transport and process meat, so this hypothetical population of carnivorous people would be an undeveloped nation that could benefit and thrive with agricultural assistance.

-would you tolerate cannibalism done by a human population who survives on human meat? (suppose we discover a population who eat mentally disabled humans, and who will die if they don't eat them)
again, there is no population of people, if they are biologically human, who need meat to survive (human or deer or cow et al.) and cannot survive on a plant based diet, with adequate food

Scenario 2: experimenting

-do you tolerate experiments on animals if we are pretty sure that this will help humans?  (and let's be honest, such situations are very well possible)
experiments on animals that are not human are unnecessary and inconclusive, because all animals are biologically different in important ways. a dog will die if given chocolate, so if you were to test chocolate in a lab on dogs, and all of them were to die, would this prove that people would have died? likewise, a study on the effects of dehydration is incorrect garbage if you use a camel, or gerbil, or monkey as the subject of the study. the same goes for medications, cosmetics, gene splicing, etc. animals do not willingly submit to testing, but a person afflicted by the illness the experiment may benefit might be willing to submit to testing.

-do you tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people by that?
no, because like my first answer, a mentally disabled person, or a person speaking a language foreign to the people involved in the experiments, or an animal who can't verbally agree or decline or understand, shouldn't be subject to experiments they didn't submit to and this is a crime when it involves people, but not animals, which I think makes no sense.

Scenario 3: organ transplantation

-do you tolerate the killing of an animal (e.g. a pig) to use its organs to save some people by xenotransplantation?
no. people have been saved by human organ transplants, with willing and aware donors who have signed documents and agreed prior, either in life or in arrangements made before death. a pig can't volunteer or decline, neither can a small child or mentally disabled person.

-do you tolerate the killing of a mentally disabled orphan to use its organs to save some other people? (i.e. use its heart, spleen, liver, kidneys to save the lives of five other people).
no, same answer as above

[Tim Gier]

Scenario 1: eating meat (hunting) for survival.

-do you tolerate that lions eat zebras, or should that be forbidden? Yes. I tolerate it, as most do, but I consider it a pressing problem considering that I would certainly intervene if a lion were to attempt to eat a human, as I assume most others would. It seems speciesist of us to look the other way while lions eat zebras, blithely excusing it away as a natural thing.

-would you tolerate the hunting done by a human population who survives by hunting? If it were true that a population of humans would die if they were not to hunt, there would be no way to resolve this dilemma without violating rights – either the rights of the humans (by forcing them to starve) or the rights of those hunted (by killing them). My inclination is to side with the humans, and allow hunting, even though it presents a serious moral problem. After all, I don't object to the hunting of zebras by lions. However, I don't accept that there is such a population of humans that can ONLY survive by hunting, as is currently true of predators in the wild.

-would you tolerate cannibalism done by a human population who survives on human meat? Again, if it were true that a certain population of humans could only survive by eating the flesh of other humans, there would be no way to resolve this dilemma, except perhaps to disallow them to reproduce, thereby ending the cycle of violence eventually.

Scenario 2: experimenting

-do you tolerate experiments on animals if we are pretty sure that this will help humans? No.

-do you tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people by that? No.

Scenario 3: organ transplantation

-do you tolerate the killing of an animal (e.g. a pig) to use its organs to save some people by xenotransplantation? No.

-do you tolerate the killing of a mentally disabled orphan to use its organs to save some other people? No.

 

 

 

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

 

Hello Stijn. Thanks for starting this discussion.

I would be interested to know any details on the background of this research.

I hope you will share that information with us at some point.

 

Here are my responses to your questions.

 

-do you tolerate that lions eat zebras, or should that be forbidden? (knowing that carnivores need to eat meat to survive)

I recommend you read this.

http://cla.calpoly.edu/bts/issue_10/10horta.pdf

I agree with Dr Horta's perspective.

 

-would you tolerate the hunting done by a human population who survives by hunting? (suppose we find a population who will die if they don't eat meat)

If by tolerate you mean condone then the answer is no.

I may have no choice but to tolerate something, but that does not mean I would condone it.

I would not condone it.

 

-would you tolerate cannibalism done by a human population who survives on human meat? (suppose we discover a population who eat mentally disabled humans, and who will die if they don't eat them).

I don't know why you refer to the group of humans as being mentally disabled as if this would be relevant to the value of their lives. I find this question to be offensive.

I would not condone this.

 

do you tolerate experiments on animals if we are pretty sure that this will help humans?  (and let's be honest, such situations are very well possible)

If by animals you mean nonhuman animals then the answer is no, I would not condone it.

If by animals you mean both human animals and nonhuman animals then I may condone it if it may help the individual who had taken part in the experiment. I would not condone it other than that.

 

do you tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people by that?

Whether someone is mentally disabled or an orphan or not is irrelevant when considering their right not to be experimented upon. You have stated it would be for the purpose of saving the lives of other people and not those who had been experimented upon therefore I would not condone it.

 

do you tolerate the killing of an animal (e.g. a pig) to use its organs to save some people by xenotransplantation?

No. To kill a pig for their organs is to murder them. I would not condone it.

 

do you tolerate the killing of a mentally disabled orphan to use its organs to save some other people? (i.e. use its heart, spleen, liver, kidneys to save the lives of five other people).

No. It is not relevant whether or not someone is mentally disabled or an orphan in considering their right to life and liberty. To kill them for their organs is to murder them. I would not condone it.

 

Thank you.

[Stijn Bruers]

thanks for the answers.

For scenario 1: suppose in a hypothetical world there are people that look like us and can interbreed with us (let's call them humans), but have to eat flesh in order to survive, and suppose that there are no supplements or things like that to save those humans. I know it's hypothetical, but in philosphy we sometimes have to dare to look at hypothetical situations to see where our ethics at the end comes down to.

[Stijn Bruers]

about scenario 1: see my reply on Carolyn Bailey

about scenario 2: perhaps we can skip this for the moment

about scenario 3: there is in fact a shortage of organs from willing and aware donors. If there is a shortage, would we use another human or animal, or would we let the patient die?

[Stijn Bruers]

Thanks Kate,

I will read Horta later

Yes, I mean something like 'condone'; the opposite of saying something like "that is immoral and should be stopped"

about scenario 1: you said you would not condone the hunting and cannibalism done by humans? So does that mean you would say that that behavior should be forbidden (and implicitly say that is is better for those people to die than to allow their hunt)? Or would you say "we disapprove their hunting"

about the mentally disabled orphans: I took this as an example in order to exclude from the start any objections like

-but humans can sign a social contract

-but humans can understand rights and duties

-but humans have rational thinking

-but its parents will protect the rights of their disabled child

-but its parents can sign a social contract

-....

So it is not meant to be offensive (although I realize that most people - especially meat eaters - find it offensive, as in fact this "argument of marginal cases" is in my opinion the strongest rational argument to defend animal rights. I realize that for most animal rights activists the information that a being is a mentally disabled orphan is morally irrelevant)

[blackpanther]

as far as cannibalism is concerned you surely all remember the crash of that plane in South America I think, years ago. They crashed in a region of high mountains, and nobody rescued them, so after a while, they decided to eat the dead bodies in order to survive, and they would all have died if they hadn't eaten their dead companions. So, the situation isn't impossible, Carolyn........I don't know what I would have done........probably eaten them too.......

[Stijn Bruers]

I haven't seen that movie. I was wondering: did they eat the persons who died by starvation, or did they kill living persons and then eat them?

[blackpanther]

it's not a movie, it's a true story!

no, they ate the dead persons, as the plane was full and many died in the crash, and of their wounds afterwards........they were 45 and 16 survived

the whole story here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

 

 

[Stijn Bruers]

Eating dead corpses is one thing, killing is something else. There is another true story: two survivors on a liferaft after the ship sunk. They were desperate and at one point one of them killed to other and ate him. He was convicted for murder, but lower sentence.

[blackpanther]

true it must be less difficult!