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).

 

 

 

[Stijn Bruers]

I have no intention to defend meat eating by pointing at philosophical impurity. I myself am a vegan and author of one of the few Belgian books on animal rights. I am doing a research about opinions of AR activists. You answers do confirm a weak version of a hypothesis that i have. That hypothesis says that we say categorically "no" in situations 2 (experimenting) and 3 (organ transplantation), but are situationist, unsure, undecided, avoiding or tolerant in situation 1 (hunting).

For clarity, I have a question about your answer about the lions and the zebra. Suppose I see a hungry lion and a lonely zebra. I am in a jeep. I can protect the zebra. What should I do? Suppose I see a hungry lion and a lonely human, I am in the jeep. What should I do now?

Should I protect the prey (the human, the zebra), should I let the lion do his stuff, or do you say that I can choose what feels best for me to do? Or another option?

[Stijn Bruers]

okay, thanks Andrew. We're almost there, I guess :-) I can understand that you argue for compassion. Now I have one more question: suppose I would protect the zebra, because I feel compassion with the zebra. And I will not protect the human because the lion has to eat something and I feel compassion with the lion. Would you tolerate my decision? After all, I feel compassion.

I would say you should tolerate my choice; you should tolerate any choice based on compassion. There is no speciecism involved if you would tolerate my choice and i tolerate your choice to protect the human. This is what I would call 'tolerated choice equality': it is a special kind of equality.

Anyway, your answers confirm my hypothesis that there seems to be a consensus between AR people, even when it comes about vital needs.

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Andrew. I am perturbed by the opinion you have stated here.

You say "I think you have to allow for some specism" (by which I assume you mean speciesism).

So I will ask, would you be equally willing to say "I think you have to allow for some racism" or "I think you have to allow for some sexism", etc?

I can find no justification in any of these forms of discrimination.

Perhaps you would be interested in reading this brilliant essay by Dr. Oscar Horta.

http://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blogs/what-is-speciesism-by-oscar

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hola.Evolutivamente, no hay ningún lazo con nuestra especie.La evolución funciona por poblaciones. Las especies agrupan poblaciones diferentes con cierta semejanza y compatibilidad reproductiva. La especie es, realmente, una agrupación más bien estadística (en oposición a precisa).
Incluso las poblaciones no se refiere a agrupaciones sociales estructuradas, si no a individuos que mantienen contacto entre ellos de forma que la interacción modifica la tendencia genética de dichas poblaciones.No entieno la afirmación que hace de superviviencia evolutiva.La superviviencia es adaptativa, no es evolutiva. La evolución es solo un cambio en los alelos poblacionales, siendo por adaptación, o por otras causas no adaptativas.
La evolución es, por tanto, una mera consecuencia de la dinámica de poblaciones, de la inevitable variación genética que "sufre" el imperfecto proceso de replicación genética de un ascendente a su descendiente.
La adaptación funciona a nivel individual. En algunas especies, se supone que existe un altruismo, pero dicho altruismo está basado en un modo de transferencia genética particular que no tenemos los humanos. Y aún así sería inexacto porque atendería a grupos familiares, así que ni siquera afectaría a poblaciones (diferentes grupos familiares de una misma población son competencia, no cooperación).
En conclusión, no hay motivos biológicos para sostener el especismo antropocéntrico. Las razones de nuestro especismo son culturales, a un nivel profundo, pero no tienen base biológica de ningún tipo.Ni para nosotros, ni para ninguna especie.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Hello. 
Evolutionarily, there is no link with our species. 
Evolution works on populations. Grouped species different populations with certain similarities and reproductive compatibility. The species is really rather a statistical grouping (as opposed to precise). 

Even people not refer to structured social groups, if not individuals who have contact with each other so that the interaction modifies the genetic tendency of these populations. 
No entieno the statement that makes evolutionary survival. 
The survival is adaptive, not evolutionary. Evolution is only a change in population allele, being adaptive or maladaptive for other reasons. 

Evolution is therefore merely a consequence of the dynamics of populations, the genetic variation that inevitably "suffer" the imperfect process of genetic replication of an up to his offspring. 

The adaptation works at the individual level. In some species, it is assumed that there is altruism, but altruism that is based on a particular gene transfer so that we are not humans. And yet it would be inaccurate because it would cater to family groups, so He was not even affect populations (different family groups of a population is competition, not cooperation). 

In conclusion, there are no biological reasons to support the anthropocentric speciesism. The reasons of our cultural speciesism are at a deep level, but have no biological basis whatsoever. 
Neither for us nor for any species.

[Stijn Bruers]

I agree with Eduardo. In fact, I know of no animal; who is speciecist. To give some examples:

-paparaptric and sympatric speciation: racism within a species

-other forms of racisme within the species: competition between populations of the same species

-interspecies hybrids (lion+tiger, sheep+goat, dolphin+killer whale, grizzly+polar bear, horse+donkey,...)

-interspecies friendships and empathy (documented long lasting friendships between: lion and oryx, wolf and child, dog and fish, cat and deer, cat and pigeon, dog and human,...)

But most inportantly: speciecism is an ideology, it's not a natural thing. Ideologies are never natural.

And Andrew: because you tolerate my choice to protect the zebra and not the human, you are not speciecist. A true speciecist would not do that. Imagine a nazi. You say to him that you would give food to a hunrgry Jew and not to an hungry Aryan (there is not enough food for both). Would the nazi say: "sure, go ahead! I know you have empathy with that hungry Jew, so I tolerate your choice to help him. Altough I would have helped the Aryan, because I feel more connected with him." Would that nazi guy be a racist? I think not. That's the tolerated choice equality. it is impoirtant, but I didn't encounter it yet in the AR-literature. The reason why I think it is important, is that it is still to some degree in line with our intuitions that we would prefer saving someone above another, and yet there is still some equality hidden.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Si, claro. Es comprensible. Pero que sea comprensible no quiere decir que sea natural ni que deba ser aceptado.Si aceptamos que no es natural (de hecho no es natural) entonces debemos aceptar que es cultural. Y, si es cultural, es tan comprensible como podría ser comprensible el racismo o el sexismo.A ti te parece comprensible porque has nacido y has crecido en una cultura profundamente especista.Antiguamente, sucedía lo mismo con las diferentes razas. Evidentemente es comprensible, pero eso no aporta ninguna justificación. Solo es informativo.
Así pues, si consideramos que es comprensible que exista especismo, deberíamos preguntarnos si eso puede justificar que podamos asumir algún tipo de especismo amparándonos en que es comprensible.Y, del mismo modo, deberíamos preguntarnos acerca de los otros tipos de discriminación arbitraria

 

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

 

Yeah, right. Is understandable. But that is understandable does not mean that it is naturaland it should be accepted.
If we accept that it is not natural (in fact not natural) then we must accept that it is cultural.And if it is cultural, is as understandable as it might be understandable racism or sexism.
You think it is understandable because you were born and have grown in a culture deeply speciesist.
Formerly, it was the same with the different races. It is clearly understandable, but that gives no justification. Is informational only.

So, if we consider that there is understandably speciesism, we must ask if it can prove that we assume some kind of speciesism on the basis that is understandable.
And likewise, we should ask about other types of arbitrary discrimination

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn. Further down this thread you make a statement that I would like to respond to. It seems that I'm unable to add my comment there, so I will add it here instead.

 

I'm glad to know that you also agree with Eduardo Terrer. I totally agree with all the points he makes, and I really appreciate him taking the time to explain the antispeciesist perspective.

 

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I disagree with what you say here, and I think it shows a lack of understanding of speciesism.

"And Andrew: because you tolerate my choice to protect the zebra and not the human, you are not speciecist. A true speciecist would not do that. Imagine a nazi. You say to him that you would give food to a hunrgry Jew and not to an hungry Aryan (there is not enough food for both). Would the nazi say: "sure, go ahead! I know you have empathy with that hungry Jew, so I tolerate your choice to help him. Altough I would have helped the Aryan, because I feel more connected with him." Would that nazi guy be a racist? I think not. That's the tolerated choice equality. it is impoirtant, but I didn't encounter it yet in the AR-literature. The reason why I think it is important, is that it is still to some degree in line with our intuitions that we would prefer saving someone above another, and yet there is still some equality hidden."

 

You interpret Andrew's statement that he would accept your choice of protect a zebra in preference to protecting a human, as if it were compelling evidence that Andrew is not a speciesist. Whilst I agree that Andrew's tolerance/acceptance of such a choice may be a evidence of him thinking without speciesist bias, I consider most of what he says on this thread to be typical of a speciesist position. I am appalled that he thinks we should allow for some speciesism. I wonder if he thinks we should also allow for some racism or for some sexism. As Eduardo explains so well, undertanding that something occurs is not the same as choosing to allow it.

I'm not inclined to label someone a speciesist unless I'm reasonably confident that they have questioned their own speciesist enculturation, and have chosen to support speciesism. However I frequently see people making statements that I think clearly reflect their unexamined speciesism. From statements that Andrew has made here I infer that this is what several of his statements represent.

Your statement -  "And Andrew: because you tolerate my choice to protect the zebra and not the human, you are not speciecist. A true speciecist would not do that."  I think indicates that you have not really thought this through logically. More than that, it's apparent to me that this statement shows a misunderstanding of speciesism.

I hope that this excerpt from the opening few paragraphs of Speciesism Defined by J. Dunayer, may help to explain why I think this, in particular with reference to the last paragraph.

Speciesism Defined - by Joan Dunayer, Chapter 1, Speciesism, pages 1-2

 - Whenever you see a bird in a cage, fish in a tank, or nonhuman mammal on a chain, you're seeing speciesism. If you believe that a bee or frog has less right to life and liberty than a chimpanzee or human, or you consider humans superior to other animals, you subscribe to speciesism. If you visit aquaprisons and zoos, attend circuses that include "animal acts," wear nonhuman skin or hair, or eat flesh, eggs, or cow-milk products, you practice speciesism. If you campaign for more- "humane" slaughter of chickens or less-cruel confinement of pigs, you perpetuate speciesism.

What, exactly, is speciesism? In 1970 psychologist Richard Ryder coined the word speciesism in a leaflet of the same name. Although he didn't explicitly define the term, he indicated that speciesists draw a sharp moral distinction between humans and all other animals. They fail to "extend our concern about elementary rights to the nonhuman animals."

With the 1975 publication of Animal Liberation, philosopher Peter Singer brought the concept of speciesism widespread attention. He defined speciesism as

a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species.

That definition falls short. Consider a comparable definition of racism:

a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own race and against those of members of other races.

Yes, bias toward whites and against all other races is racist. However, bias toward whites and against any number of other races also is racist. All of the following are racist: prejudice against only Semites; prejudice against only Africans, Native Americans, and Australian Aborigines; prejudice against everyone except whites and Asians. Analogously, bias toward humans and against any number of other species (say, all rats and mice) is speciesist. So is bias toward humans and toward any other species (e.g. chimpanzees and gorillas). -

 

Thank you

Antispeciesist greetings

[Stijn Bruers]

Hi Kate, I don't understand your point exactly. Do you understand the principle of "tolerated choice equality" that I was refering at? My question is: can someone be racist or speciecist when he has this tolerated choice equality? And there is another kind of equality: an equal basic right not to e used as merely means (I refer to the examples in that book of Dunayer: circusses, use for skin, hair, meat,...). I guess Andrew would say that all sentient beings have this equal right (with one exception: hunting for survival).

So, the question is: if I have the principle of equal basic right (black people should not be used as slaves,...) and if I have the principle of tolerated choice equality (if you would save the Jew out of a burning house, instead of the Aryan guy, I tolerate your choice), would I still be racist? 

And in fact there is a third subtle equality principle, that all units of well-being of different beings should be measured equally. I guess Andrew would agree with this as well.

If Andrew has to save a black and a white person from a burning house, he might first save the white person, because perhaps he has more contact with white people and therefore has a bias or whatever. But he would definitely tolerate my choice to save the black person. A true racist would say to me: "Stijn, you made the wrong choice, you should have saved the white person, because black people have lower value and a lower right to life etc..." Andrew would not say such a thing.

[Eduardo Terrer]

Realmente ante un conflicto inevitable, los prejuicios arbitrarios son dificiles de detectar. Los prejuicios se perciben cuando la situación es evitable. Ahí es donde (como ocurre con el veganismo) se puede valorar si se cae o no en una discriminación arbitraria. Pero ante la disyuntiva de salvar a dos individuos, el prejuicio arbitrario pasa a tener la misma condición que cualquier otra valoración.Entre un judío y un ario, podemos elegir de forma racista. También podemos elegir según su nivel cultural. Del mismo modo, podemos elegir según su forma de mirar...
Pero al final vamos a perjudicar a uno por encima de otro. En tales situaciones carece de sentido hablar de -ismo (especismo, racismo...)Creo que podemos hablar de -ismo cuando al llegar al conflicto, realmente si podríamos evitar dicho conflicto, aunque supusiese un esfuerzo terrible. Y seguramente dicho esfuerzo lo haríamos si fuésemos nazis y estuviese en peligro la vida de un humano ario en vez de la vida de un judío.Creo que las discriminaciones arbitrarias no se deberían medir tanto según la elección ante un conflicto, si no en base al esfuerzo para evitar dicho conflicto.Todos somos especistas (en mayor  menor grado) según el grado de incomodidad y esfuerzo que requiere evitar perjudicar a otro.Por ejemplo, si tenemos una piscina y creemos que puede caer dentro un gato, perro, erizo... estaremos todo el día atentos, pondremos sistemas de detección,...Pero sabemos que muchos insectos mueren y lo asumimos y seguimos con nuestras vidas.Si me preguntan si un insecto tiene menos derecho a la vida, diré que no, que tiene el mismo derecho.Si me das a elegir entre un insecto y un mamífero, intentaré no ser especista (aunque no sé si podríamos hablar de especismo, o de otro tipo de discriminación más generalista) y haré esfuerzos por elegir ?de forma que el insecto no salga perjudicado por el hecho de ser un insecto.Pero si me toca dejar de andar por el campo para no matar insectos, por ejemplo, entonces ¿lo haré?
Hay un tipo de discriminación ligada directamente al esfuerzo que requiere evitar perjudicar. Es aquí donde podemos valorar nuestro grado de especismo. No en la elección ante un conflicto, si no en lo dispuestos que estamos para evitar dicho conflicto.
Si voy caminando por el campo y el suelo está lleno de cachorros de perro, me quedaré quieto hasta que vengan a sacarme de allí para evitar matar a ningún cachorro.Si en vez de ser perros, son caracoles... ¿haré lo mismo?
Ante el caso del judío y el ario, si con el mismo esfuerzo pudiese salvar a cualquiera de los dos, sería injusto dejar de hacerlo porque el perjudicado no me interesa, sobre todo si en caso contrario si que haría dicho esfuerzo.

 

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

 

Really a conflict inevitable, arbitrary prejudices are hard to detect. The bias is seen when the situation is avoidable. That's where (as with veganism) can assess if you fall or not an arbitrary discrimination. But faced with the choice to save two individuals, the arbitrary bias happens to have the same status as any other evaluation. 
Between a Jew and an Aryan, we can choose a racist manner. We can also choose according to their cultural level. Similarly, we can choose according to your way of looking ... 

But in the end we will hurt one over another. In such situations no sense to speak of-ism (speciesism, racism ...) 
I think we can talk about-ism when reaching the conflict, indeed if we could avoid conflict, but would involve a terrible effort. And surely this effort we would if we were Nazis and was in danger of a human life instead of Aryan life of a Jew. 
I believe that arbitrary discrimination should be measured not so much as the election to a conflict, if not on the effort to avoid conflict. 
Everyone speciesists (more less) depending on the degree of discomfort and effort required to prevent harm to others. 
For example, if you have a pool and believe it can fall into a cat, dog, hedgehog ... all day we watch, we'll detection systems ... 
But we know that many insects die and what we assume and continue on with our lives. 
If you ask me if an insect has less right to life, say no, that has the same right. 
If you give me a choice between an insect and a mammal, try not to be speciesist (although I do not know if we could talk about speciesism, or other more general type of discrimination) and efforts will you choose? So that the insect would not be affected atthe fact of being an insect. 
But if I have to stop walking through the countryside to avoid killing insects, for example, then why do it? 

One type of discrimination linked directly to the effort required to prevent harm. This is where we assess our level of speciesism. Not in the election to a conflict, if not in how willing they are to avoid conflict. 

If I'm walking down the field and the ground is full of puppies, I'll stay quiet until they come to me out of there to avoid killing any puppy. 
If instead of dogs, are snails ... "I will do the same? 

To the case of the Jew and the Aryan, whether with the same effort could save either, it would be unfair not to do so because the injured person does not interest me, especially if it would otherwise if that effort. 

However, when warranted no racism or sexism, or speciesism.

[Kate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥ]

Hello Stijn. I'm unfamiliar with what you refer to as the principle of "tolerated choice equality". I'm interested to know more about it if you would care to try to explain it further.

You compare this principle of "tolerated choice equality" to what you refer to as "another kind of equality: an equal basic right not to be used as merely means". Then you offer examples from one of Dunayer's books. I have to assume that you are not very familiar with Dunayer's egalitarian philosophies, as they go far beyond simply the right not to be used merely as means. Dunayer's egalitarianism acknowledges that every individual sentient being has an equal right to life and liberty. This is regardless of whether or not they are, or potentially may be, used merely as means to achieve a purpose.

I appreciate that you offer an example of "the principle of tolerated choice". You imply that it could be used effectively to defend a decision as being morally justifiable if someone were to choose to save someone in preference to someone else, based solely on their race. If someone makes a decision to save someone in preference to someone else based solely on their race (for whatever reason) whilst this may be understandable and considered by some to be a choice that could be "tolerated", it would still be racist, and therefore it would be morally indefensible. If this is what is meant by "tolerated choice principle" then I think it's clearly false to describe it as being a kind of equality. If it represents the defence of choices based on an inequality of consideraton and respect to all those concerned, then it should be recognised and rejected as "the principle of tolerated choice inequality".

Thank you

Antispeciesist greetings

[Stijn Bruers]

Kate, I can refer to the draft of a series of articles I'm working on http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/a-model-for-a-theory-of...

they explain also this tolerated choice equality. I expect chances are low that one has this tolerated choice equality principle and still prefers to save someone based on race. Take again the burning house dilemma. You have time to save only one: my child or your child? You save your child. Is this discrimination of other children? Yes it is, if you would not tolerate my choice to save my child. If you would say to me: "Stijn, you should have saved my child, because the interests of my child are more important and my child has more intrinsic value and has a stronger right to life etc etc...". But if you say "Stijn, although I'm sad that my child died, I understand your choice to save your child", then there is no discrimination between our children. There is still an emotional inequality, but a tolerated choice equality. And what's more: the fact that I saved my child does not imply that I can use your child, kill him, use is kidneys, if my child has a deadly kidney disease. Again it's one child or another, but here the basic right of our children (the right not to be used as merely means) trumps the simple right to be saved by use (a concrete notion of the right to life - the right to life itself is very vague).

So, add up the emotional inequality, the tolerated choice equality, the equal basic right principle and the equal interests (equal well-being units), and you arrive at a non-discrimination ethics that fits with at least my moral intuitions. My intuition says to save my child in the burning house, not to sacrifice your child if my child has a disease,...

Note that tolerated choice equality can be accompanied with emotional inequality, with the fact that I feel more connection with my child, I love my child more than yours,... Now, chances are low that I love all and only beings of the same race. Skin colour is not related to my emotions of empathy and solidarity. That is why chances are low that one makes racist decisions if one applies tolerated choice equality.