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).

 

 

 

[Tim Gier]

Hi Stijn,

 

Please allow me to agree with Kate, both that it is good that you are explaining more about why you are asking these questions (which are important ones to ask) and also that the paper she has linked to is an interesting one, given your line of inquiry.

With regard to Scenario 1, please allow me another attempt at explaining my reasoning about the three possibilities, in light of your comments above.

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

Carnivore predators are not moral agents, and so cannot be faulted for their predation.  However, their prey do have the right to life.  This creates the dilemma.  Carnivore predators must eat to live, and their innocent prey deserve to live, so what, if anything should we do about it?  As it stands now, and perhaps as it always will stand, there may be nothing at all that we can do.  We do not now have the ability to provide predators with any substitute for their prey, and while we want to protect the lives of those preyed upon, we can't do so without endangering, perhaps fatally, the predators.  Even if we were to develop the ability to solve this dilemma in some respects, we may never have the means to resolve it without bringing about even worse unintended consequences.  For now, at least, inaction is, generally, the only prudent course.  But, we should recognize it as the problem it is and diligently seek resolution.

>-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 it were true that a human population had to kill and eat other animals in order to stay alive, then I would apply this principle: If doing span style="text-decoration: underline;">fill in the blank> involves killing or otherwise unjustly using other animals, and if one could, without serious detriment to themselves, reasonably abstain from killing or unjustly using other animals, then one ought not to kill or unjustly use other animals.  In this possibility, as you have constructed it, hunters could not, without serious detriment to themselves, refrain from killing other animals.  Therefore, they would have to be excused when they did kill other animals. At the same time, we would be morally obligated to find ways to make it possible for the hunters to give up hunting, even if we thought we had little chance of success.

-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)

If it were true that some humans had to, in absolute terms, eat other humans in order to survive, then they could be excused when indeed they did eat other humans.  As is the case in the other two possibilities, we would need to diligently search for ways to eliminate the need for this practice, and, at the same time, we would be under no obligation to assist one person in the killing of another.  

The only morally relevant difference between the predator, the hunter and the cannibal in these three possibilities as you have constructed them is that the hunter and cannibal are moral agents, who could choose self-sacrifice rather than kill others.  There are no differences between any of the innocents being killed.  In each case, it seems that there is no way for others to intervene to protect the "prey" without causing direct harm to the "predator".  We have no choices in these matters which can satisfactorily resolve the dilemmas as they are presented - either choice in each case ultimately results in equal harm to one or the other party involved.  Ethically, the only right thing to do is not act, while trying to find ways to eliminate whichever conflict causes the dilemmas to exist in the first place.

[Stijn Bruers]

thanks Tim,

but my question was about the difference between the hunting scenarios on the one hand and the experimenting and transplantation scenarios on the other. Especially the organ transplantation scenarios look rather similar to the hunting scenarios (you kill a sentient being and take up some of its body parts into your body). Would you excuse a dad who killed a human or a pig in order to use its heart to save his son with a transplantation? Compare with a father wolf who kills a deer and feeds her son...

[blackpanther]

and I still haven't found a better answer than the group one!

Predators are a large group who cannot live without eating other animals. I don't want them to disappear even if they kill other animal. This is a sad reality. I must admit I also replied like Tim.
But, when it comes to an individual problem: kill a non human for a human to survive or torture a non human in experimentation in order to find ways to save a human, I say no. Because the life of a non human is as important as the life of a human, individually......And although I thought it over, I cannot find a better argument than the group one as difference between the 2 situations.......

but Stijn isn't satisfied with that argument, so I search for others.....

[Stijn Bruers]

...and one more question I forgot to ask in my introduction: are animals allowed to hunt humans? Or even worse: are we allowed to sacrifice humans if that is the only way to save an endangered species? Suppose there is food scarcity somewhere in africa, and there are hungry lions and hungry humans. The lions ate all the other animals, the humans are attacked by the lions and ask us for protection. They also don't want to leave... Do we say: "I'm sorry, the lions are endangered and have to eat something." Or suppose there is a wildlife rescue center and they feed both rats and humans to wild animals. Do we say: "You shouldn't kill humans to feed the animals, you should only kill other animals for feed"? Or would we tolerate it by stating that we should be antispeciecist?

Personally, I think I might tolerate the killing of seriously mentally disabled orphans for purposes like that (although I would not do it myself), but that we shouldn't tolerate the sacrifice of mentally healthy humans (because they have morally relevant mental capacities that those other humans and animals lack)

 

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn. Thank you for starting and maintaining this discussion. You raise several interesting and useful points and you have provided a useful link which explains more about your own views on these matters.

When time permits I intend responding more to comments you have made in this discussion and elsewhere, including your comment on a blog that I posted "An Unequal Right to Life - by Joan Dunayer. For now I will just respond to a couple of points you raise here.

 

Point 1. You refer to those who are members of endangered species as though this may be a morally relevant criterion - it isn't. Someone's moral right to life and liberty is not affected by whether they happen to be a member of an endangered species or of a highly populous species.

 

Point 2. I am intrigued by this notion of morally relevant mental capacities. It is clear to me that someone's mental capacities (or our estimation of their mental capacities) is not morally relevant in terms of their right to life and liberty.

 

Greetings.

[blackpanther]

You imagine such incredible situations, Stijn, that I'm not able to answer....because I don' t think they can ever happen....anyway, I'll try:

I think I'll let those people and the lions alone, not interfere,.........and find everyone is dead after a while, as when the lions have eaten all those men, then, they are going to die of hunger....

and non humans have always eaten humans. More often before, as now many people live in towns. But predators do eat humans......for me it's the same as eating zebras or cows......

[Stijn Bruers]

ok, we're moving ahead. :-)

some more questions... In which situation would you like me to interfere:

-I see a hungry lion and an unprotected baby zebra...

-I see a hungry lion and an unprotected baby human...

???

[blackpanther]

none! but some people could kill me for that answer!.......or both! that answer doesn't help!

[Stijn Bruers]

interesting,

curious what other people think...

[Lisa Qualls]

I try to keep in mind the quote "you have the right to swing your fist, so long as it does not hit my face".  I also try to imagine the perfect world and do what I can to create it.  I cannot force carnivorous or omnivorous animals to stop eating others, and I can only educate other humans until enough of them stop using other animals so that laws can be passed to prevent others from doing it (just as there are laws to protect most humans from slavery, rape and murder, so should there be for other animals). 

Another tool I use is The Golden Rule: “Don’t do something to someone else if you would not want it to happen to yourself”.  People constantly exclude other animals from that consideration and that is a huge mistake.  It does not matter who the victim is. The Golden Rule is not just to protect your intended victim, but to guide you in identifying whether a considered action is moral or not. 

I cannot be perfect, but without discussing these with others to consider alternatives here are my best answers:

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)  --I don't want it to happen, but it is not like I can realistically do anything about it.  Idealistically, no one should have the right to take another's life.  Every time a carnivore needs to eat someone will die.  If he eats, his victim dies, if he does not eat, he will eventually die, but his need to eat should not trump the other’s right to live.  That is really just thinking in a bubble.  In real life it is much more complicated.  I can’t think of a good solution, so I do not dwell on the problem.  I think there are so many solvable problems that this one is best left to theoretical discussions for the purpose of challenging our views and unlearning speciesism; not for real life solutions.

-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).  --Since there is no population of humans who will die if they don’t eat meat, this is purely hypothetical.  To entertain the hypothetical, I again have an idealistic view and a realistic one.  Idealistically, if someone cannot survive without killing others then they will have to be allowed to die.  If I was the individual who could not survive without killing I would resist that idealistic view and try to kill, but a vegan society would be forced to prevent me from doing it.  If it is just a matter of living in places where vegetation does not grow, then people need to move because their environment does not support their life. 

-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).--  My answer to this is the same as the population eating other animals.  There is absolutely no moral difference between cannibalism and eating other animals.  If the cannibals waited until a human died of natural causes and then ate their remains I would not really have a big problem with it except that it would perpetuate the concept that others are here to be eaten, and it would likely lead to killing.

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). -- Since this is a reality I can say that I do have a problem with it.  The ends do not justify the means.  We do not have the right to harm others to benefit ourselves. 

-do you tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, if you can save the lives of other people by that?--  No.  Others are not here to benefit those powerful enough to exploit them.  A world that allows that sort of thing to happen harms itself by creating a tolerance for exploitation.  So, even if the person was just a shell and not able to be harmed physically or emotionally, the practice of harvesting them could degrade the “scientist” and the society. 

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.  Someone always dies in this scenario.  A pig’s life is no less valuable than a human’s life.  It is not okay to kill someone to save someone else.

-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.  Spock and Captain Kirk had this argument sometimes.  It is very unfortunate that those 5 people need to kill someone in order to live, but their problem should not be made the problem of anyone else.  If there was someone who made a compelling argument for sacrificing himself to save those 5 then I would consider his argument, but in general it is not okay to decide to kill based on numbers.

 

[DEN FRIEND]

As a vegan I, and I imagine others have thought about and discussed similar hypothetical situations.

Needless to say we do not always agree...

Scenario 1: eating meat (hunting) for survival.

I do have trouble with this and when I fantasize about my perfect world, animals eating other animals have no place in it. They would have to adapt to a veggie diet! Although I know it is natural behaviour for a carnivore to eat other animals, I cannot even bear to watch animals kill each other on television and have to switch it off. It has a physical effect on me. When I was a hunt sab in the past, I felt upset, agitated and capable of violence when confronted by hunts people, even though I actually never was violent.

 

No, I would not tolerate people killing and eating any animal, not even those people who could only survive by hunting. Although I accept that those people may have less impact on ours and animals quality of life, as well as the environment.

The idea of eating any flesh is personally repugnant to me. Justifying eating the victim because they are mentally disabled is disgusting but no more disgusting than eating a non human animal. Disabled people could be singled out as they are just as defenceless and dis-empowered as non human animals. I am trying to imagine the circumstances in which it might be considered 'humane' to keep, kill and eat the disabled and I can't, any more than I can image the 'humane' killing of animals, so no, flesh eating of any type in not ok. I wouldn't have a problem with the eating of people or maybe even animals that had died of natural causes.

Scenario 2: experimenting

I do not tolerate any experiments on animals, even if they were to help humans. I don't agree with you when you state that such situations are possible. I don't consider experiments carried out on animals are reliable, nor do I think them moral. Of course some experiments carried out on animals will prove to be useful to humans, but this is simply by the law of averages, not by the experiments being of value themselves.

I certainly would not tolerate experiments on mentally disabled orphans, or in fact any other sentient being, unless they gave their consent. Even though the results from experiments on people would be more valuable than those conducted on non human animals, it would still be morally indefensible.

Scenario 3: organ transplantation

I do not tolerate the killing of non human animals so as to provide organs for people. Non human animals are not there simply to provide for us, they are there in their own right and that right should be respected.

I would not approve of killing mentally disabled orphans and using their organs to save the lives of even 5 people.

On the question of a 'consistently' ethical vegan stance one dilemma that you have not mentioned is preserving a companion animals life at the expense of another animal. I am thinking of say a dog/cat being fed on tinned meat.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hola de nuevo.

Según mi forma de verlo, la ética es un conjunto de reglas que preservan la integridad de los individuos que forman el conjunto. La ética es, y debe ser, un conjunto de reglas que sea aplicable a cada individuo. Y siendo aplicado a todos ellos, al final debe dar como resultado una sociedad más justa.

La ética preserva los intereses de los individuos. Pero la ética no busca el mayor bien para el mayor número de individuos. En todo caso, la ética preserva los intereses de los individuos y, haciendo esto, busca el mayor bien para el mayor número de individuos.

La ética es un conjunto de reglas que si funciona es porque los individuos lo aceptan. Si la ética no preserva nuestra integridad no podemos aceptarla.

Todos los criterios éticos van a tener un poco de incoherencia. Esto es así porque la ética se sustenta sobre un principio biológico de supervivencia. Es por eso que ni el mejor criterio ético va a evitar los conflictos. La ética no puede evitar todos los conflictos. Pero la ética sí que puede evitar todos los conflictos inevitables.

Esto hay que entenderlo para entender qué es la ética y qué no es. Y así mismo, que puede lograr la ética y qué no puede lograr.

La ética logrará una sociedad más justa. Si la ética pudiese establecer que, ante un conflicto inevitable, unos individuos deben morir y otros no, entonces la coherencia de la ética implicaría que todos los individuos sintientes que generamos impacto para el resto de sintientes, y que provocamos de forma directa e indirecta muertes, deberíamos morir.

Lo coherente sería eliminar a todos los individuos hasta que solo quedasen los individuos sintientes que generasen el menor número de conflictos con otros.

No obstante, esto no sería ética, ya que no preservaría los intereses de los individuos incluidos. Un sistema no funcionaría por una razón fundamental. Digamos que la ética es un sistema donde cada uno es responsable de sus actos. En caso de que un criterio estableciese que muchos debemos morir, muchos se rebelarían. Evidentemente, cuando estamos al borde de la muerte somos capaces de lo mejor, y de lo peor.

Solo podría funcionar si hubiese alguien que impusiese ese criterio. Fácilmente puedo aceptar que es más justo que yo no viva. Solo hace falta que alguien me enseñe ejemplos numéricos de cuantas emociones se pierden por cada muerte que provoco diariamente. Cuantos sueños perdidos…

Con el coche, al andar, al comprar en el supermercado…

Pero eso no sería congruente con la ética, ya que esta asume, o debería asumir, que el conflicto de Yo VS No-Yo es irresoluble, y que llegados a ese punto no existe ningún mecanismo que garantice que las cosas vayan a desarrollarse de un modo determinado.

La coherencia implica trabajar por un mundo más justo. Por ello indicaba entre la diferencia entre la ética y la técnica. La ética establece que nunca hay que perjudicar los intereses básicos de los demás, a no ser que sea evitable. Y la técnica tiene como función convertir los conflictos inevitables en conflictos evitables.

El caso de los leones y las cebras, de los cazadores y caníbales, escapan al ámbito de la ética. Lo ético no es que ellos hagan o dejen de hacer algo (si es realmente inevitable). Y cualquier decisión no puede ser absoluta porque dependerá de valoraciones subjetivas que no son defendibles en un debate (como la inteligencia, o el aspecto…).

Lo ético, como decía, no es que ellos hagan algo o dejen de hacerlo. Ahí la ética nos afecta a nosotros, no a ellos. Por tanto, lo ético es que el resto haga que esa situación sea evitable. En el caso de caníbales y cazadores humanos es sencillo. Lo ético es cogerles y llevarles a un lugar donde puedan vivir sin perjudicar a otros.

En el caso del león, las dificultades técnicas son mayores y por lo tanto requieren mayor desarrollo técnico.

Por eso hablaba de la responsabilidad del grupo. No se puede solucionar de manera ética un conflicto inevitable, y la justificación que da Stijn de la inteligencia y emocionalidad no es objetiva y no puede hacerse universal.

Es importante entender que la ética siempre puede solucionar, si la técnica lo permite. Lo ético es desarrollar la técnica para poder evitar cualquier conflicto. Pero no se puede resolver conflictos inevitables en base a establecer unos criterios subjetivos como si fuesen objetivos. Entre otras cosas, porque si eso fuese posible, dichos criterios pasarían a valorar las vidas de los demás en una escala gradual. Eso implicaría, como explicaba en otro comentario, que existiría el individuo sintiente cuyos intereses básicos tendrían menos valor que mis intereses prescindibles, y podría hacer con dicho individuo lo que quisiera, aunque eso le perjudicara.

Lo de las especies, como decía Kate, no es relevante a nivel ético. No obstante, ese es un tema aparte que no se puede tratar sin entrar de lleno en un debate sobre ecologismo VS Antiespecismo.

Un saludo 

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

In English:

Hello again.

According to the way I see it, ethics is a set of rules that preserve the integrity of individuals within the group. Ethics is, and should be, a set of rules that apply to each individual. And being applied to all of them, at the end should result in a fairer society.

Ethics preserves the interests of individuals. But ethics does not seek the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals. In any case, ethics preserves the interests of individuals and in doing so, seeks the greatest good for the greatest number of individuals.
Ethics is a set of rules that it works is because people accept it. If ethics do not preserve our integrity, we can not accept it.

All ethical criteria will have a bit of inconsistency. This is because ethics is based on a biological principle of survival. That's why even the best ethical approach is to avoid conflict. Ethics can not avoid all conflicts. But ethics itself can avoid all unavoidable conflicts.

This must be understood to understand what is ethical and what is not. And likewise, we could achieve the ethical and what is not achievable.
Ethics achieve a more just society. If ethics could provide that, before an inevitable conflict, individuals must die and others do not, then the consistency of ethics would imply that all sentient individuals generate impact for other beings, and we cause a direct and indirect deaths , should die.
I consistently would eliminate all individuals until only sentient individuals that generate the least number of conflicts with others.

However, this would not be ethical because it does not preserve the interests of individuals included. A system would not work for one fundamental reason. Let's say that ethics is a system where everyone is accountable. If established criteria that many must die, many will rebel. Obviously, when we are on the verge of death are capable of the best and the worst.

Could only work if there is anyone that would impose such an approach. I can easily accept that it is more just that I do not live. You just need someone to teach me few numerical examples of emotions are lost for each death which caused daily. How many lost dreams ...
With the car, walking, shopping at the supermarket ...
But that would not be consistent with the ethics, and it assumes, or should I assume that the conflict of I VS No-I is insoluble, and at that point there is no mechanism to ensure that things are going to develop a certain way.

Consistency involves working for a fairer world. Therefore indicated by the difference between ethics and technology. Ethics states that we must never harm the basic interests of others, unless it is avoidable. And the technique has the function to convert the inevitable conflicts in avoidable conflicts.

The case of lions and zebras, hunters and cannibals, beyond the realm of ethics. The ethical is not that they do or stop doing something (whether it is really inevitable). And any decision can not be absolute because they depend on subjective assessments that are not tenable in a debate (such as intelligence, or appearance ...).
Ethics, as I said, not that they do something or stop doing. That ethics affects us, not them. Therefore, the ethical is that other then that this situation is avoidable. In the case of cannibals and human hunters is simple. The ethical is to catch them and bring them to a place where they can live without harming others.
In the case of the lion, the technical difficulties are greater and thus require further technical development.

So talking about the responsibility of the group. Unable to resolve an ethical conflict inevitable, and the justification given by Stijn and emotional intelligence is not objective and can not be universal.
It is important to understand that ethics can always solve, if the technique permits. The ethical is to develop the technique to avoid any conflict. But you can not resolve the inevitable conflicts based on subjective criteria set as if they were targets. Among other things, because if that were possible, these criteria would then value the lives of others on a sliding scale. That would mean, as explained in another comment that there would be a sentient individual whose basic interests would have less value than my interests expendable, and could do with that individual what he wanted, even if it hurt him.

The species, as Kate said, is not relevant to ethical standards. However, this is a separate issue that can not be fully treated without entering into a debate about environmentalism Antiespecismo VS.

Greetings