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 Blackpanther,

 

I do remember that story, and I have no problem with those people eating their dead companions. I would have done the same if it was necessary to survive. I wouldn't, however, kill someone to eat them, nor would I condone anyone else doing so.

 

I think as a general matter, it's not possible for a population to be in a position of having to eat humans in order to survive on a permanent basis. There will, obviously, be extenuating circumstances, like this, where decisions made, and moral guidelines may differ.

 

 

[Carolyn Bailey]

Hypotheticals are difficult, if not impossible to answer.

 

Your description of such a world would be analogous to the lion/zebra scenario, so I find it difficult to discount it completely. But then I can't help but go back to reality and say no, humans don't need to kill in order to survive. I guess philosophically I'd have to answer yes, but morally I'd say no. Doesn't make much sense, sorry!

I'd definitely agree with Tim though, contraception would be something we'd have to think about in such a case.

 

[Stijn Bruers]

One more thing, Carolyn. Would you condone if humans ate animals in such circumstances? If not: then what about the lion and the zebra? If yes, then what about antispeciciesm. When you condone a behaviour towards one being (e.g. eating animals) and not condone it towards another (eating humans), and when there is no morally relevant disctinction between those two beings, then it is discrimination...

[Carolyn Bailey]

I would have no problem with humans eating animals/animals eating humans/anyone eating anyone, in the plane crash scenario, and referring to already dead bodies. That's not a rights violation.

 

I'm in agreeance with you in regards to speciesism. To accept the zebra scenario and not the hypothetical human scenario would be speciesist; if the hypothetical was reality, which it isn't.

 

As I said, hypotheticals are difficult, if not impossible to consider. Well, they are for me anyway.

 

 

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn. I shared your poll with the eminent antispeciesist ethicist Eduardo Terrer. He has kindly provided the reply below. English is not his first language and consecuently there are some minor language anomalies within this. He may or may not choose to add his reply himself with revisions.

Even with the minor language differences I'm sure you will agree that what he says helps us through the moral dilemmas relating to the ethics of antispeciesism. He raises key points which can really help our understanding of these extremely important issues. Thank you Eduardo.

 

This is what Eduardo Terrer has sent to me in response to your poll.

 

- Hello. The scenario of hunting for survival.
So at first, I would like to make a clarification. All animals are individuals emotional, not survival machines. Clearly if humans were born in the wild (whatever it is that whatever that means) will lead a life of hunting, gathering, or whatever that would make the hominids in the wild.
However, think about it, the human figure is to survive what they do instead of living would understand the difference between life "for which we adaptively designed" and the life that you are emotionally able to enjoy.

Assuming this, the wildlife should be understood as a necessary evil, not as an ideal. In the wild almost all die and suffer before you even have enjoyed for the first time. The feeling that dominates the wild is fear, sadness, suffering and pain. The "law" of natural selection that many more are born than can survive, translated into the language of ethics, it says that only a few will survive, others die soon after birth, or shortly after birth, and that nobody, absolutely nobody, you can enjoy a peaceful old age (except for rare exceptions).

This introduction seems to me decisive in making this statement, which I think should lead, at all levels, the ethics of the anti-speciesist:
"The wildlife is cruel and all sentient individuals want and are entitled to live happy and as free as can be."

Now, taking this statement to the plane of reality, not a conceptual theory, we face the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of carrying this out.
However, technical problems can not determine the ethical problems. Let there be technical problems only tells us that we have no means to make the world a completely fair for everyone. But, because of technical problems and unethical, it also tells us that they are surmountable, and that working on it, it will become a more just world.

Ideally, no one killed anyone, had no problems of over-population (by eliminating predation) for birth control (sterilization or, perhaps, vasectomies ...) that had vegan food for all animals were in beef-vegetable vitro ...). A lion, like a cat, can be completely happy without killing anyone.

To the case of the lion, from the ethical is undesirable that a person kills another. However, there is a mitigating circumstance that the dilemma of which only one can survive, ethics is meaningless. The ethics only serves to regulate the interaction between different individuals assuming you do not need to harm others. If it turns out that it is necessary to injure, ethics becomes irrelevant. In fact, ethics is to establish a system to prevent or resolve conflicts in the best interest for all involved.

If the lion can not survive if not killing, there is no ethical dilemma. However, someone is in such circumstances means that the ethical society where it is not serving the needs of the individual and, therefore, could not prevent that individual from the conflict. It is the duty of society to avoid ethical conflict between everyone involved. This is clear from human to human. No one proposes allowing some humans reach a situation where their integrity depends on harm to other humans.

Turning to the ethical difficulties, of course, is technically very difficult to make lions live without prejudice. However, this does not mean it is right to allow it. Not the fault of the lion, because he can not help but become so as not be to blame for a human to reach that situation if it were able to avoid it.
The responsibilities fall upon the whole, that is the one who ensures the proper functioning of avoiding conflicts. If you only have individual responsibility and there is no joint liability, would lead to moral relativism. The maxim of "do unto others what you would not want them do unto you" is not enough to ensure a just society.
Necessary to add: "and others can avoid harming each other" because, otherwise, we would be in a society where there would be only an individual responsibility, and when an individual comes to a conflict would depend on him, only him, to be able to avoid it. It would be impossible. Group responsibility to prevent conflicts arising between the members of this group.

So the lion has no responsibility. The responsibility is ours, all the technical difficulties and return to this injustice inevitable, but not fair. The justices are inevitable that shape our world and we must fight back avoidable.
Conclusion that something is inevitable does not make it ethically right, if not technically unavoidable. And therefore, if there are technical means to prevent it will be inevitable, but it will be unfair and, therefore, we have an ethical obligation to solve it.

Among humans can not take that fact and that human society is meant to resolve any problems that affect humans (with their technical difficulties, of course).
Who has human populations that depend on hunting usually means that there are people who, for cultural or ideological reasons want to live in a way. But those reasons, as with any other injustice, can not justify the harm to other individuals. If they are harmful, then there has to be avoided by alternatives.
If you can not because you can not help the poor, then again, we face a technical problem that makes the situation unfair but inevitable.

The example of the disabled do not just understand it. I do not see disability amending it fair or unfair that may be on an ethical level. In fact, one of the bases of anti-speciesism is that intelligence and intellectual capacity does not determine someone's interest in living, not their emotions and therefore do not determine their right to live and do it without being hurt.

---------------

In general the three examples represent unavoidable injustice. Now we would play to decide whether to act or not, if we punish or not.
We obviously can not act because, if it did, the situation would be inevitable and technical difficulties do not exist.
We can punish such injustice, but the dilemma I VS No-I is an unsolvable dilemma and once you get to that situation as unfair is the way I arrived, not the situation itself.
For example, it is unfair that I force a peaceful human and weaker than me to get into a ring to fight me to death. It would be a situation where one could go one with life, and should be punished.
However, if both fall into a pit and you had to kill the other to avoid death by starvation, would be quite different.

--------------------------
Scenario 2: experimentation
"What tolerate animal experiments if we are confident that this will help human beings? (And let's be honest, this kind of situations are possible)
"What tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people for that?

--

This example hides the basic speciesism. That is, the separation between humans and nonhumans as a group to assess whether something is right or wrong. We could talk about animal experimentation on healthy humans to save human animals sick and we would not see right. And besides, would not be developed too much argument.
Similarly, not just the example we would see if we experience in dogs to save cats.

However, we must take into account that I have set examples with individuals with whom we usually have a well-developed empathy.
If we set the example to other individuals (such as sardines or experience in mealybugs to save human babies) we find a situation emotionally distorted by our way of valuing things. But ethics defends the emotional "based on rationality." For example, some people feel more empathy for different insects, and some people do not feel empathy for anyone but himself.

Any example that by putting on both sides of the dilemma individuals with whom we feel a similar empathy seem unfair, it is unjust, regardless of species.

Similarly, the "mitigation" of intellectual disability does not fall within the anti-speciesist base. Not covered by any standard of justice. Only used to illustrate the unfairness of speciesism and, therefore, only provides examples unfair.

-------------------
Scenario 3: organ transplantation
"What tolerate the killing of an animal (eg pig) for their organs to save some people xenotransplantation?
"What tolerate the murder of a mentally disabled orphans use their organs to save others? (That is, the use of his heart, spleen, liver, kidneys to save the lives of five people).

--

In this particular case seems similar to the previous. The intellectual capacity does not determine the value, interest, inalienable rights of an individual. If not, if the intellect had validity, then the anti-speciesism would be pointless and would just oppress any individual is less capable than us, regardless of their species. If not, we would fall into speciesism.

The reason for this is that an individual is always going to develop an interest in living, and your life will be so important to him, as it is ours for each of us, regardless of how they feel or perceive. For each individual, his life is the most important thing in the world.

[Stijn Bruers]

Uhm, I'm sorry, I didn't understand almost anything of this. I can say that I disagree with two things:

"The ethics only serves to regulate the interaction between different individuals assuming you do not need to harm others." That would be a too strong restriction for a definition of ethics. In fact, most ethical thinking is concerned with situations where are is inevitable. There is for example a so called 'least harm principle'. And I think that is an ethical principle.

"The intellectual capacity does not determine the value, interest, inalienable rights of an individual. If not, if the intellect had validity, then the anti-speciesism would be pointless and would just
oppress any individual is less capable than us, regardless of their
species. If not, we would fall into speciesism." It is possible to be an anti-speciecist and at the same time claim that mental capacities (intelligence, rational thinking,...) are morally relevant. That would simply mean that unintelligent humans would have less rights. Speciecism says that all humans have more rights than all non-humans. And one can give arguments why intelligence can be considered to be morally relevant. E.g. having intelligence means having complex desires and wishes and life projects and self-consciousness and awareness of own mortality and knowledge of interests.

Ons can say:

-Living beings have complex interests

-Sentient beings have complex interests and can subjectivelly feel those interets

-Intelligent beings have complex interests, can feel them and can understand them.

Another argument why intelligence could be morally relevant. Suppose you will be born as a mentally disabled person or as a mentally healthy person. You can choose. Which life would you prefer? Which life would have the highest quality?

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn. Here is Eduardo Terrer's response to your comment. I will provide it as it was written in Castillian Spanish and I will offer a very rough translation to it.

I agree with all the points that Eduardo is making and I disagree with several of the points that you make. It seems clear to me that your position maybe something to do with anti-speciesism but that it seems not to concur with egalitarianism.

 

Greetings.

 

Eduardo Terrer's reply -

En el punto 1, no sé bien que es eso del menor daño. Lo que sí creo es que no es un criterio ético, si no un criterio de resolución de conflictos. Creo que es diferente el principio ético que iguala a los individuos, y el criterio que los diferencia cuando el conflicto es inevitable.
Por ejemplo, la ética dice que un abuelo y un niño (ambos humanos, por ejemplo) tienen el mismo derecho a vivir. No obstante, ante un conflicto inevitable, podríamos asumir que el niño debería salvarse (por generalizar). Eso no implica en modo alguno que según el criterio ético que manejemos un niño tenga más derecho a vivir que un abuelo. La ética iguala y excluye. La graduación dentro de los conflictos inevitables, el valor que otorgamos a cada individuo (y que suele ser subjetivo), como el abuelo y el niño, no es algo perteneciente al criterio ético.

Por ejemplo, la ética anti-especista establece igualdad independientemente de la especie (en realidad, la ética sería sensocentrista, y el anti-especismo solo indica la ausencia de restricciones arbitrarias en base a la especie). No obstante, ante un conflicto inevitable, en el que un individuo sale más perjudicado, sería tan justo favorecer a uno como a otro individuo. Por ejemplo, sería tan justo salvar al perro como al humano. No obstante, hay quien salvaría al perro. Y hay quien salvaría al humano. Y todos ellos tendrán sus propias razones (inteligencia, pelo, orejotas…)
Pero la ética sensocentrista establece igualdad entre individuos que sienten y pueden desarrollar intereses. Esto es así en la ética antropocéntrica también.
El anti-especismo rompe la arbitrariedad del especismo y extiende la ética sensocentrista a todos los individuos capaces de desarrollar intereses.
Cuando surgen conflictos, el sensocentrismo no tiene nada que decir.

Por cierto, lo del menor daño, entiendo que se refiere a que cada uno dañe al menor número de individuos, o que los dañe de la forma menos agresiva posible. No obstante, lo que menor daño suele provocar es que uno mismo se muera. Imagino (aunque no estoy seguro) que ese criterio no contempla esta posibilidad y, por tanto, es un criterio egoísta de resolución de conflictos, no un criterio ético de quien merece consideración. Por ello parte de que nosotros nos tenemos en mayor consideración. El criterio ético no puede partir de la perspectiva de uno mismo, si no que tiene que estar en un nivel por encima, de forma que uno mismo sea uno más.

En el punto 2, el de la inteligencia, creí que se refería a la inteligencia asumiendo que era relevante a un nivel ético. El anti-especismo no es un criterio ético, realmente. El criterio es el sensocentrismo y, por tanto, la capacidad intelectual no es algo que incluya o excluya del círculo de consideración.
Si no era por esa razón, si lo que comenta es que la inteligencia le parece relevante, entonces entiendo que pueda pensar de ese modo (subjetividad inherente a todo pensamiento) pero no entiendo que pueda generalizar una pregunta asumiendo eso como válido.
Yo, por ejemplo, no veo eso como válido. Creo que la capacidad intelectual no es relevante a la hora de recibir derechos y me parece que no puede existir un criterio que estratifique a todos los individuos en un valor subjetivo conforme a una supuesta vara de medir objetiva.
Se respeta los intereses, no la “forma” que tienen dichos intereses. La diferencia entre esto y lo que comentas de la relevancia de la inteligencia viene a determinar que según mi criterio, un conflicto entre dos individuos debería evitarse siempre conforme al tipo de interés (por ejemplo, interés en vivir VS interés en disfrutar haciendo sufrir) y, según tu perspectiva, mi interés en disfrutar haciendo sufrir podría tener mayor relevancia que el interés en vivir de individuos menos capaces (intelectualmente) que yo (aún cuando sienten) y por lo tanto podría dañar a otros individuos.

Ambos puntos se unen para establecer que lo relevante es la capacidad de sentir. La ética no se puede basar en la “forma” de una cualidad, si no en la existencia de una cualidad. De basarse en la “forma”, el “peso”, la “calidad” de la mente que genera los intereses… directamente está graduando el valor de cada individuo, es decir, aportando valor a la resolución de conflictos. Pero… ¿Cuál es, entonces, el principio ético?

Esto es un análisis que seguramente nadie o pocos compartan. Pero siempre que leo sobre ética veo que mezclan todo lo relacionado bajo el mismo término (ética=criterio ético de inclusión/exclusión y el criterio de resolución de conflictos) y se vuelve todo demasiado confuso. Por ejemplo, si mezclamos, da el resultado que expones (que la inteligencia es relevante a nivel ético, y que, por lo tanto, existen individuos sintientes que, por sus limitaciones intelectuales, tendrán unos intereses (incluso el interés en vivir) de menor valor gradual que mi interés en disfrutar con su dolor. Por lo tanto, la capacidad de sentir no tendría validez para muchos individuos que quedarían relegados al mismo valor que una planta (esto es, no merecerían ninguna consideración cuando los más capaces intelectualmente quisieran perjudicarles).

En cambio, al separar criterio ético de criterio de resolución de conflictos tenemos una igualdad animal real a nivel de criterio de inclusión/exclusión, pero, a la hora de resolver conflicto, tendríamos muchos (y diferentes) criterios para decidir (por ejemplo, la inteligencia, o el número de púas, el coeficiente de encefalización…)

Por último, la calidad de vida, la pregunta de la decisión, comete un error conceptual. La felicidad, plenitud y disfrute es una experiencia subjetiva. Empieza y acaba dentro de la propia mente. Si me preguntas ¿Serías más feliz siendo deficiente o siendo intelectualmente audaz? No lo sé. Quizás sería más feliz siendo deficiente.
No obstante mi mente va a desarrollar una trampa psicológica. Va a imaginar todo lo que me pierdo y va a hacer una representación de mi mismo con mi forma de sentir, pero en una situación donde ignoro la realidad que ya conozco. Eso mi mente lo asume como una carencia. No obstante, cuando yo era niño y era menos capaz, no sentía ninguna carencia. La carencia la conoces cuando haces retrospección.
En caso de ser un perro, un cerdo, un deficiente… no haría retrospección y mi felicidad dependería de unos parámetros diferentes. De lo que conocería en ese momento.
¿Preferiría ser deficiente o ser un Einstein?
Podrías preguntarme lo siguiente y mi respuesta, en ambos casos, se basaría en la misma reflexión ¿Preferiría vivir sin conocer el problema del especismo y los no-humanos?
En ambas preguntas mi preocupación es que quiero ayudar en todo lo que pueda a cambiar el mundo. Eso es lo que tiene mi cerebro en mente cuando pienso en una vida sin ser capaz de luchar por la liberación animal. En definitva, al imaginarme en una situación donde tengo menor capacidad intelectual me invade la sensación de carencia.
Pero sé que sería más feliz sin conocer todo esto (creo que lo era cuando lo desconocía). Del mismo modo, creo que mientras más ignorantes eres más feliz eres, o más plenamente vives las cosas. Pero eso es una observación subjetiva, no demostrable, como tampoco es demostrable que Einstein fuese más feliz que un deficiente, o que un cerdo persiguiendo el rastro de polen de una mariposa no viva ese momento mucho más plenamente de lo que pueda vivir cualquier experiencia en toda mi vida.

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Here is a very rough translation of Eduardo Terrer's reply to Stijn's comment, which provides us with a helpful explanation of these important issues relating to the ethics of antispeciesism.

- In Section 1, I'm not sure about this being about least harm. I do believe that there is an ethical criterion, if not a conflict resolution approach. I think that is different from the ethical principle that equates to individuals, and the criterion that the difference when the conflict is inevitable.
For example, ethics says that a grandparent and a child (both human, for example) have the same right to live. However, in an inevitable conflict, we may assume that the child should be saved (for all). That does not imply in any way as we handle the ethical criteria a child has more right to live as a grandparent. The ethics of equality and exclusivity. Graduation within the inevitable conflicts, the value we attach to each individual (and often subjective), as the grandfather and the child is not a thing of the ethical criterion.

For example, anti-speciesist ethics establishes equality regardless of species (in fact, would sensocentrista ethics, and anti-speciesism only indicates the absence of arbitrary restrictions based on the species). However, in an inevitable conflict, in which an individual leaves most affected would be as fair as favoring one other individual. For example, it would be so just save the dog and the human. However, there are those who would save the dog. And there are those who would save the human. And they all have their own reasons (intelligence, hair, big ears ...)
But ethics sensocentrista establishes equality among individuals who feel and can develop interests. This is in anthropocentric ethics.
Anti-speciesism breaks the arbitrary and sensocentrist speciesist ethics and extends to all individuals capable of developing interest.
When conflicts arise, the sensocentrism has nothing to say.

By the way, what the minimum damage, I referred to each damage to the lower number of individuals, or that the damage in the least aggressive possible. However, what usually causes little damage is self dies. I imagine (though I'm not sure) that that approach does not contemplate this possibility and, therefore, is a selfish approach to conflict resolution, not an ethical criterion of who deserves consideration. Thus part of that we have more consideration. The ethical approach can not start from the perspective of self, but it has to be at a level above, so that self to the list.

In point 2, the intelligence, I thought he was referring to intelligence that was relevant to taking an ethical level. We can question wether anti-speciesism is an ethical approach, really. The criterion is the sensocentrism and therefore intellectual ability is not something that circle included or excluded from consideration.
If it was not for that reason, if what he says is that intelligence seems relevant, then I understand that you can think that way (subjectivity inherent in all thought) but I do not understand a question that can generalize that assumption as valid.
I, for one, do not see that as valid. I think intellectual capacity is not relevant at the time of receiving rights and I can not seem to be a criterion to stratify all individuals in a subjective value as a supposed objective yardstick.
Respecting the interests, not the "form" with those interests. The difference between this and what you comment on the relevance of intelligence is to determine what in my opinion, a conflict between two individuals should be avoided as long as the interest rate (eg, interest in life interest in enjoying doing VS suffer) and , depending on your perspective, my interest in enjoying doing it suffered to be more relevant to the interest in live individuals less capable (intellectually) that I (even feel) and therefore may harm other individuals.

Both points are joined to establish that what matters is the ability to feel. Ethics can not be based on the "form" of a quality, if not the existence of an attribute. Be based on the "form", "weight", "quality" of the mind which the interest is graduating ... directly the value of each individual, ie, adding value to the resolution of conflicts. But ... What, then, the ethical principle?

This is an analysis that surely no one or few share. But whenever I read about ethics mixing all things under the same terms (ethics = ethical criteria for inclusion / exclusion criteria and conflict resolution) and it becomes all too confusing. For example, if we mix, gives the result that you post (that intelligence is relevant to ethical standards, and therefore, there are sentient individuals who, by their intellectual limitations, have some interest (even the interest in living) lower value gradually my interest in enjoying your pain. Therefore, the ability to feel it would be valid for many individuals who would be relegated to the same value as a plant (ie not deserve any consideration as the most intellectually able want yours) .

In contrast, the ethical criterion criterion separate dispute resolution have a real animal equality at the level of inclusion / exclusion, but at the time resolve conflict, we would have many (different) criteria for deciding (for example, intelligence, or the number of spikes, the coefficient of encephalization ...)

Finally, the quality of life, the question of the decision, makes a conceptual error. Happiness, fulfillment and enjoyment is a subjective experience. Begins and ends within his own mind. If you ask me Would you be happy being poor or being intellectually daring? I do not know. You may be happier to be weak.
However my mind is to develop a psychological trap. Will imagine how much I miss and will make a representation of myself with how I feel, but in a situation where I ignore the reality that I know. That my mind takes it as a deficiency. However, when I was a child and were less able, he felt no lack. The lack of know when you look back.
In case of a dog, a pig, someone who is deficient ... no looking back and my happiness would depend on different parameters. From what I known at that time.
Would you rather be deficient or an Einstein?
You could ask the following, and my answer, in both cases would be based on the same consideration you rather live without knowing the issue of speciesism and non-humans?
On both questions my concern is I want to help as much as you can to change the world. That's what my brain has in mind when I think of life without being able to fight for animal liberation. In definitva, to imagine a situation where I have less intellectual capacity I am filled with feelings of lack.
But I know I would be happier without knowing all this (I think it was when it was unknown). Similarly, I believe that the more ignorant you are happier you are, or more fully live everything. But that's a subjective observation, not shown, nor is it demonstrable that Einstein was happier than a poor or a pig chasing the trail of pollen from a butterfly does not live that far more fully than any experience to live all my life. - (Eduardo Terrer)

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello everyone.

If anyone can provide a better translation that the one I have offered this would, of course, be very welcome.

Thank you.

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

In providing this translation it seemed to me that certain phrases did not translate well. In the hope of reducing any potential ambiguity, I asked Eduardo for clarification of these phrases. Despite being busy, he was kind enough to reply with these clarifications.

 

"No sé bien que es eso del menor daño" = No entiendo que es eso de "least harm principle". Me puedo hacer una idea, pero no sé qué es concretamente. Imagino que es "Reducir el daño al mínimo".

- "La ética iguala y excluye" = La ética es un principio de igualdad (iguala) donde los individuos que entran dentro del criterio (por ejemplo, sensocentrismo especista) son considerados iguales (es decir, tienen mismos derechos éticos) y, a su vez, excluye a los que no cumplen esos criterios (excluye). Así pues, la ética es un principio de exclusión de individuos, y a su vez, un principio de igualdad de consideración de los individuos considerados.
Por ejemplo, el sensocentrismo especista determina que los no-humanos no merecen consideración (excluye) y que los humanos si la merecen (incluye) y que, además, todos los humanos merecen la consideración que hace que un humano tenga el deber ético de evitar perjudicar a otro humanos siempre que sea posible (igualdad).

- "El anti-especismo no es un criterio ético, realmente"= El criterio ético es el sensocentrismo, que significa que lo relevante es que un individuo sea capaz de generar intereses, sufrir y disfrutar. El anti-especismo solo significa que el sensocentrismo, por definición (basado en la capacidad de sentir, no en como siente cada individuo) no es coherente si se aplica el sensocentrismo basándose en la especie. Porque la especie no determina si un individuo es capaz de sentir.
El criterio ético es el sensocentrismo, y el anti-especismo es una forma de no-limitar el círculo de inclusión, ese círculo que indica quien merece y quien no merece consideración.
Es decir, el anti-especismo es un movimiento, una declaración de intenciones. Es una lucha. La lucha anti-especista es la lucha por hacer que la ética (sensocentrismo, respeto a los intereses de los demás, sea quien sea) se extienda a todos los individuos que puedan sentir.

Al menos esa es mi forma de verlo, particular, claro.

 

-

-  (Gracias Eduardo).

----------------------------------------------------------

An automatic translation of the response Eduardo provided for clarification.

"I'm not sure is that the least damage" = do not understand what you mean by "least harm principle". I can not get the idea, but do not know what specifically. I guess that is "Reduce the damage to a minimum."

- "Ethics and excludes equals" = Ethics is a principle of equality (equal) where individuals who fall within the criteria (for example, sensocentrismo speciesist) are considered equal (ie, have equal rights ethics) and, in time, excludes those who do not meet those criteria (excluded). Thus, ethics is a principle of exclusion of individuals, and in turn, a principle of equal consideration of the individuals concerned.
For example, speciesist sensocentrismo determined that non-humans do not deserve consideration (excluding) and humans if the warrant (included) and, moreover, all humans deserve consideration as a human does have an ethical duty to avoid human harm to others whenever possible (equal).

- "The anti-speciesism is not an ethical approach, really" = The ethical approach is the sensocentrismo, which means that what matters is that an individual is able to generate interest, experience and enjoy. The anti-speciesism sensocentrismo just means that, by definition (based on the ability to feel, not how you feel each individual) is not consistent when applying the sensocentrismo based on the species. Because the species does not determine whether an individual is able to feel.
The ethical approach is the sensocentrismo, and anti-speciesism is a form of no-limit circle of inclusion, indicating that circle who deserves and who does not deserve consideration.
That is, the anti-speciesism is a movement, a statement of intent. It is a struggle. The anti-speciesist is the struggle to make ethics (sensocentrismo, respect for the interests of others, whoever they are) to be extended to all individuals who may feel.

At least that's the way I see it, particularly, of course.

 

-

(Thank you Eduardo) :)

[Stijn Bruers]

Hi all,

just a quick note to reveal more about my intentions of this poll. As becomes more and more clear, there seems to be a kind of consensus between animal rights people, in moral dilemma's where vital needs are at stake. Almost everyone replied that testing on animals and humans (scenario 2), as well as killing an animal or human to use his organs (scenario 3) should not be tolerated or is not condoned. However, on the issue of hunting for meat (scenario 1), people are more willing to condone this. Even cannibalism in some very hypothetical scenarios. Why are we prepared to tolerate this? Some argue it has to do with a kind of intrinsic value of a group,... But I'm not yet satisfied with the answers I received. I have some rough hypotheses that can be of some relevance:

-if the individual is part of an evolutionary line of beings
adapted (by a blind evolutionary process) to be meat eaters (so if
nature forces someone to be a meat eater...) and/or

-if meat eating is a crucial condition of the very existence of the individual (if the individual would not have lived otherwise),

then the individual is still allowed to eat meat if he dies
otherwise.

I'm still not completely satisfeid with this hypothesis either. But there must be something.It's not a coincidence anymore...

It reminds me about the famous trolley dilemmas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Typiccaly, most people give the answers in the different trolley dilemmas, but they often cannot immediately say what is the morally relevant difference between the dilemmas. (there are in fact two morally relevant differences, but people often cannot give them)

Best

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn.

Thank you for providing this information about the intentions and purpose of your poll.

It's much appreciated.

Thanks also for providing a link to the famous trolley dilemmas that these moral dilemmas remind you of.

I recommend this thought experiment, which seems very relevant to some of the issues you are considering.

www.pensataanimal.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...

 

Greetings