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).

 

 

 

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hola Eduardo.

 

Muchas gracias por tomarse el tiempo para explicar tan claramente sobre el propósito y las limitaciones de la ética, " closure_uid_7jbo38="56">su explicación es muy útil. Me gusta leer el análisis de conceptos tan importantes, y como siempre aprendo mucho de ti.

 

Many thanks for taking the time to explain so clearly about the purpose and limitations of ethics, it's very helpful. I enjoy reading your analysis of such important concepts, and as always I learn a lot from you.

saludos honorables

[Eduardo Terrer]

Es un placer. Quería ver si podía ayudar a entender lo que (a mi parecer) es un conflicto inevitable.

Creo que Stijn quiere buscar soluciones a ciertos conflictos para establecer que dichas cualidades son relevantes ("calidad emocionalidad", inteligencia)... pero considero que esto escapa a lo ético y que afrontar estas situaciones (las que propone Stijn) nos tienen que llevar a desarrollar la técnica, a lograr medios para hacer un mundo más justo. Pero no nos tiene que llevar a valorar a unos u otros cuando se dan los conflictos. Cada conflicto es un mundo, es una historia diferente, y se va a valorar toda una serie de circunstancias y vivencias de cada uno de los implicados para ver quien debería vivir y quien debería morir. La ética es una serie de criterios universales y objetivos. Así que no puede depender de circunstancias de cada uno, esas que, precisamente, nos hacen únicos e irrepetibles.

 

Voy a parar ya de tratar este tema porque, sinceramente, me parece que va a acabar siendo un poco cargante.

 

Un saludo anti-especista desde España :)

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Here's a rough translation of Eduardo Terrer's lastest comment.

It has not been approved by Eduardo, so consequently it’s likely to contain translation errors.

If you are bilingual in Spanish and English and can offer a better translation of this, or of anything else, then please do offer it.

Thank you.

 

Translation of Eduardo’s comment

 

My pleasure. I wanted to see if I could help you understand what (in my opinion) is an inevitable conflict.

Stijn I think you search for solutions to certain conflicts in order to establish that these qualities are relevant (e.g. “emotional capacity”, intelligence) ... but I think it’s beyond the realms of ethics to deal with these situations (as proposed by Stijn) rather we must endeavour to develop technical means to achieve a more just world. We should not ascribe greater value to one or the other in such conflicts of interests. Each conflict is different, it’s a different story, and it’s necessary to assess a range of circumstances and experiences of each of those who are involved to establish who should live or who should die.

Ethics is a set of universal criteria and objectives, which cannot depend on particular circumstances, such as these,  precisely because of what makes us unique and irreplaceable.

I'll stop addressing this issue now because, frankly, I think it will end up being a bit stuffy.

Anti-speciesist greetings from Spain :)

[Tejas]

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) - Yes

-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) - No human population like this exists today with exceptions of some sort of medical disabilities. In hypothetical case answer is Yes.

-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) - Yes

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) - Yes(only in extremely regulated and well examined cases with killing done in a painless manner). This should be banned as soon as it shows signs of taking a farming approach.

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

Scenario 3: organ transplantation - Same as above

-do you tolerate the killing of an animal (e.g. a pig) to use its organs to save some people by xenotransplantation? -Yes(only in extremely regulated and well examined cases with killing done in a painless manner). This should be banned as soon as it shows signs of taking a farming approach.

-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). -Same as above.

[Stijn Bruers]

Hi all, thanks for the replies. The results so far (from 14 persons - not much yet)

-57% of the respondents agree with the strong hypothesis: they tolerate (condone) the use of any sentient being for food for survival, but do never condone any other use of sentient beings (in experiments, organ transplantation,...).

-22% agree with the weak hypothesis: they are categorically against the use of any sentient beings for experiments and organ transplantation, but are 'situationist' in the case of food for survival. As it comes to hunting for survival: they say they don't know, or are more tempted to avoid the question, or say sometimes yes and sometimes no and it becomes complicated :-)

-14% of the respondents falsify the hypothsis in the negative: they are (in principle) against any use of any sentient being (bad luck for the lion: we should always try to stop the lion whenever we can...)

-7% falsify the hypothesis in the positive: they condone (in principle) any use of sentient beings when it comes to vital needs (on the condition that total utility increased - I guess these respondents are true utilitarians).

Anyway: a  vast majority confirms the weak or strong hypothesis.

When it comes to justification for the hunting, I often encounter answers that are typically used by meat eaters: they say it is "normal", "natural" or "necessary" for the lion to hunt. (these are the three N's that Melanie Joy pointed at in her discussion of carnism!). Some refer to the interests of "the group", but I'm not satisfied with such an answer.

So even some vegans are still tempted to use the same "naturalistic fallacies" that meat eaters use. My guess is that these justifications might shed some light on the question why it is so difficult to convince people to become vegans (it should be easy in principle, because eating animal products is not necessary for survival; yet, people use the naturalistic fallacies a lot). Compare this with convincing people not to wear fur (is rather easy), or convincing them to be against animal testing and xenotransplantation (rather difficult, as vital needs are concerned).

Finally: I myself also agree with the "strong hypothesis", and I was also looking for a justification or a criterium or rule why I do condone the lion but do not condone the use of sentient beings for transplantations,... Here is my attempt: if a being, by a blind evolutionary proces, became dependant on the use of other sentient beings for its survival, and if its very existence is due to this evolutionary proces, than this being is allowed to use other sentient beings until feasible alternatives are found.

[blackpanther]

Stijn, you say:

"So even some vegans are still tempted to use the same "naturalistic fallacies" that meat eaters use".........they must be "bad" vegans!!!!..... LOL! (see my answer to GF' post "oh! my god, these vegans")

[Stijn Bruers]

If you want to define a "bad vegan" as a vegan who is still tempted to use the triple N-argument (normal-natural-necessary), go ahead... ;-)

[Stijn Bruers]

the organ transplantation is also a very real problem. Here in Belgium there is a shortage of organs...

The question is how to care. Take the lion and the zebra. take care of them. But what does that mean? What should we do? Protect te zebra? Protect the lion? Calculate the utility? Maximize the well-being? Alleviate suffering of whom? For what?

It is a kind of discrimination if we care for animals in another way as we would care for humans in similar situations.

I think, as philosophers, we should dare to tackle those questions I rased. There is more to it than just an unclear word 'care'.

[blackpanther]

Inuits eat more burgers than meat nowadays......as they're asked to do so, as the polar bear meat is highly contaminated.....

[Lisa Qualls]

I'm not sure what the difference is between burgers and meat, but I think it is always telling how people will do something they previously "could not do" when it means their own health is at stake. 

[blackpanther]

sorry for not being clear...what I meant was that they don't have to eat meat......they can eat anything.....as "civilization" is there too...and brings different kinds of products, such as vegetables...so they no longer rely on just meat to live

[Lisa Qualls]

Ah.  Thank you!