Skip to content

Ideal Bite Debrief

First of all, you can see the Clorox commercial at their site, and it’s a bit clearer than it was on my TV, but I still hear "poops."

As for yesterday’s discussion at Ideal Bite–fabulous! Though it’s fine that vegans comment on each other’s sites, I like to venture out into the non-vegan world and mix it up a bit. I’d rather educate someone who loves his dog and eats steak than knock horns with someone who believes abolition can be achieved through incremental reforms.

But that’s me.

And may I just let you all know that I know referring "biters" to Peter Singer may appear to be a less-than-good idea, here’s why I did it (and this is also an entree to another topic for today): It was a direct response to the person (Jessica) who wrote about United Egg Producers. Telling someone to read an entire book that is in direct opposition to what they believe is probably not helpful. However, Singer and Mason’s passage about UEP is reprinted all over the Internet, isn’t that long, and directly addresses what Jessica wrote. Is that an endorsement of all things Peter Singer? I don’t think so. Does it make me look like I’m a utilitarian? Maybe if you know something about Peter Singer, and my guess is that Jessica doesn’t.

The other point for today is this: When the initial post is regarding treatment, as in "chickens who lay eggs in cage-free facilities are happier," and the author appears to be concerned about treatment, do you deal with treatment (and clarify their misconceptions), or do you go right to your belief, which is that we shouldn’t be using chickens at all?

Let’s deconstruct:

  • I went with educating the biters and their audience and pointing them to Peaceful Prairie’s Free-Range Myth, after I mentioned I am a vegan.
  • Then I thought, hmmmm, will some people tune out after they learn I’m a vegan? Isn’t my intention to educate the largest number of people possible? Who cares what I do, anyway?
  • Later in the day my thinking was: Maybe I should have left out the vegan part, done the bit on cruelty, and then mentioned that chickens and their eggs aren’t ours to use, anyway. Would people disregard the first part once they read the second part and deemed it "extreme" (and as we all know, it isn’t. It’s logical if one believes in nonviolence.)? I know that some of you say what you believe and it doesn’t really matter where the other person is coming from. And some of you believe that once the other person has given you some pertinent information (such as "I am interested in reducing cruelty" or "I am interested in the environment"), you play to their interest.
  • Because we are all committed to vegan education, we ought to be assessing the way we conduct ourselves in conversation and on the Internet, and paying careful attention to the responses of others. Those responses tell us how we’re doing. They also tell us a lot about the other person, as in when Jenny uses the word "vehemence," and Ellie doesn’t let her get away with it. Your job is to kindly point out the verbiage of the other person, redefine (or whatever) and move on. But you cannot forget that there’s a reason Jenny used "vehemence" to begin with (she’s probably defensive about her own behavior and is getting schooled). There’s still much to be done.

Here’s what I learned (again): The mainstream–and "biters," although more mainstream than we are, I’d imagine, are nevertheless not exactly John and Josey Q. Public–is woefully uneducated about the treatment of animals. And many people don’t know that abolitionists exist. I don’t know about you, but I spend my days reading, researching and writing (lucky me!), and I sometimes assume that when other people aren’t sure about something, they spend whatever time is necessary researching so they can make informed decisions.

But they don’t. They often believe what they see on television or what "experts" write in mainstream newspapers and magazines, and they don’t think critically. I think our job isn’t so much to tell them what we believe, but to help them question what they believe and why they believe it, and provide them with resources to accompany them on their journey.

34 Comments Post a comment
  1. Ellie #

    Yep, I woke-up to Wayne's comment about "forcing veganism", and I replied. Of course, a vegan diet is a choice, but people should make informed choices. Thinking critically means not falling for the hype of "humane" meat, and believing you help animals by eating them.

    October 4, 2007
  2. "I'd rather educate someone who loves his dog and eats steak…"

    "Because we are all committed to vegan education…"

    *Snort* Except, of course, when it's more fun to insult and belittle.

    Puh-leeze!

    October 4, 2007
  3. Boyd:

    Do you think maybe your perception of being insulted and belittled has anything to do with your perception itself and your hostile attitude toward vegans?

    Oh, and welcome back!

    October 4, 2007
  4. *Snort*

    Good one, Dan. Projection – what you do instead of something.

    Please, pore over everything I've said here and find anything hostile toward vegans. Then pick any 10% of everything you've written and see if you can *avoid* finding something hostile toward omnivores.

    October 4, 2007
  5. How about you doing the legwork on that one and showing me one instance of my hostility? You might want to save some time and show everyone what I was responding to.

    Besides, what are you trolling around here for anyway? I don't go to hunting blogs telling everyone on the blog that they're wrong.

    October 4, 2007
  6. There ya go educating again, Dan.

    Sorry, I forgot that all you want is an echo chamber instead of dialog. No point in actually trying to discuss the issues since, y'know, you already know everything.

    It ain't trolling, just poking holes in you guys' "ain't we great" theories.

    October 4, 2007
  7. Boyd, you couldn’t poke holes in plastic wrap, much less the bullet proof arguments of animal rights. And yes, you are trolling. Your comments, from the very first one, have been nothing but personal attacks, and this is after you got schooled like a 4 year old a couple of weeks ago in animal rights (the moral superiority series of blog entries) and did not have one cogent reply.

    Anyway, feeding trolls is not really my thing, so I’ll let you have the last word coming up here in a little bit. But first: I recently posted an essay on my blog entitled “The Development of Moral Reasoning: Kohlberg’s Stages”. Click on my name for the blog link.

    Can you tell me where you might fit within that stage framework?

    October 4, 2007
  8. Mike Anderson, Ph.D. #

    bullet proof arguments of animal rights

    As a psychologist, my prognosis indicates delusional disorder.

    October 4, 2007
  9. I’m sure a racist psychologist in the 19th century would have made the same prognosis of an abolitionist who said human rights had bullet proof arguments.

    Also, that you're willing to state a "professional opinion" on such little evidence is indicative that either psychology is psuedo-science or you are reckless.

    October 4, 2007
  10. Cláudio Godoy #

    I just like to ask to the ones who strongly oppose animal rights to present a short essay explaining exactly why the idea of granting basic rights to all sentient beings is so heinous. We are all ears.

    October 4, 2007
  11. Mike Anderson, Ph.D. #

    The need to make absuive comments and negative associative characterizations (eg, "racist") also indicates rigidity, hostility, projection,and isolation, which are part of a wide variety of personality disorders.

    It is quite possible that an imbalanced diet and social isolation are the primary causes of this mentality.

    October 4, 2007
  12. Obviously, Mike, the parallels of racism and speciesism are lost on you. They are legitimate comparisons, not “absuive (sic) comments and negative associative characterizations”.

    As to your attacks on my personality, about which you know nothing, I think those are indicative of “rigidity, hostility, projection,and isolation, which are part of a wide variety of personality disorders.” And perhaps you might be the victim of “an imbalanced diet and social isolation”? It is actually educated omnivores who are the indifferent, cold, calloused psychopaths. Vegans want to treat sentient beings kindly, which is what motivates our behavior.

    It is quite obvious that you know very little about nutrition and my social life, a social life which is excellent, by the way. Thanks for your concern.

    October 4, 2007
  13. BTW, please do address Claudio's request. We are all ears.

    October 4, 2007
  14. Great idea, Claudio. After what occurred on Ideal Bite today, however, I doubt your request will be met, or if so, not in a kind way. There's way too much hostility in the blogosphere for me today, and I am having difficulty understanding its origin.

    October 4, 2007
  15. Why do you anti-animal rights people like animals to be tortured and killed? Are your taste buds that important? Is the thrill of the kill of hunters a good thing? What’s your prognosis, Mike, on a hunter’s “thrill of the kill”? If s/he did that to humans, they’d be considered a sociopath and a psychopath. Please tell me exactly why one is okay and not the other? Because “they’re human”? And why, exactly, does that matter so much? Intelligence? Then why don’t we torture and slaughter and hunt and kill human idiots? Is it “just because they’re human”? What’s the difference between that and it is “just because we’re National Socialists ” or “just because we’re white, propertied males”?

    October 4, 2007
  16. "….the bullet proof arguments of animal rights."

    My, my you're an arrogant one aren't you Dan? Rest assured, such arrogance is grossly deluded. The arguments in favor of animal rights are far from "bulletproof". Indeed, such a notion is laughable, as noted philosophers such as Carl Cohen, R.G. Frey, and Peter Carruthers all have writings debunking it. Rights is a human-created moral and legal construction, the purpose of which is to help govern relationships amongst humans. Rights has at its very core social contractarianism and reciprocation as its basis. Without these two factors, the very foundation of rights crumbles away. Non-human animals do not enter into social, moral, or legal contracts. They do not enter into moral, reciprocal relationships with each other or with humans. In short, animals operate in an AMORAL plane of existence, and thus the human moral/legal construction of rights is meaningless to that existence. I had someone who has a thorough understanding of reciprocation as the basis of rights, and can articulate it better than I can, do a guest post on that subject on my blog. That post, and subsequent discussion, can be accessed here should you wish to read it: http://thespeciesistscorner.blogspot.com/2007/05/reciprocation-and-social.html

    Really Dan, I'm not sure how you think you're going to change anyone's mind to your point of view with the arrogant, sanctimonious tone of your posts. Just my $0.02 .

    October 4, 2007
  17. "I just like to ask to the ones who strongly oppose animal rights to present a short essay explaining exactly why the idea of granting basic rights to all sentient beings is so heinous. We are all ears."

    It isn't that the idea is heinous, it's that it's irrational for the reason I mentioned. Again, please see the commentary I referred to. You will also find on the side of that page links to other essays that explain from various perspectives why animal rights is not logical.

    October 4, 2007
  18. "It is actually educated omnivores who are the indifferent, cold, calloused psychopaths."

    Are you a psychiatrist, psychologist, or psychoanalyst, Dan? Just curious as to what your medical, scientific, or professional credentials are that qualify you to diagnose what is, and what is not, psychopathological.

    October 4, 2007
  19. Ellie #

    First of all, hello Boyd.

    And Grizzly Bear, reciprocation is not the foundation of rights, nor is moral agency– because individuals who cannot and will never reciprocate or be moral agents have rights– as they should. Since I expect your web page will be the same, I'll skip the link. You'll have to do better than that.

    October 4, 2007
  20. Ellie #

    Furthermore, non-human animals have their own code in their own world. The foundation of morality is empathy, which begins with non-human animals.

    October 4, 2007
  21. 'An interesting news tidbit'

    Study of rural households links guns with domestic abuse, animal
    mistreatment

    CanWest News Service

    Thursday, October 04, 2007

    The very presence of firearms in a household serves to silence women, report two researchers in a new study that argues women experiencing "firearms victimization" tend not to tell others about their abusive experiences for a variety of reasons.

    "While abuse sometimes involves having a firearm pointed at them, the very presence of firearms serves to silence women, even when the threats are indirect," said the report.

    Jennie Hornosty and Deborah Doherty surveyed women in transition houses in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to examine links between abuse, animal abuse and guns in rural settings.

    "What we found was in many cases the abusive partner either abuses or threatens to harm the animal — including killing the animal — as a way to try to control and intimidate women," Hornosty said in a phone interview yesterday.

    © Times Colonist (Victoria) 2007

    http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?id=f041bb7d-7ae4-423f-8680-7b4e879064c5

    October 4, 2007
  22. P.S. – here are a couple more articles to 'chew on.'

    'Image makes natural connection' Opinion/Editorial
    Bob Groeneveld, Langley Advance
    Published: Tuesday, September 25, 2007
    Don't get me started on hunters.

    Even more so than boxing, I consider hunting a foul abomination of the concept of sport.

    The whole point of the exercise is to go out into the most beautiful countryside you can find, seek out the most beautiful creatures it is possible to encounter, and with an earth-shattering report created by one of the most environmentally unfriendly substances created by humanity, propel a large blob of lead – from a safe distance, of course – into the vitals of a living, breathing being.

    And all of that is done with the sole hope of terminating the animal's existence.

    I tell you, don't get me started on hunters.

    I'd much rather discuss the International Day of Peace.

    That was Friday, you know?

    You didn't notice?

    Hmmm. Perhaps something went wrong.

    Maybe the notices weren't posted on the right bulletin boards.

    Perhaps somebody should have gone out and personally informed all the people who were too busy shooting at each other to read the press releases.

    Still, unlike hunters, at least warriors are out their taking a risk – their prey at least has an opportunity to shoot back.

    Well, sometimes it's sort of fair – when they're not rounding up women and children, or massacring villages en masse, or dropping bombs from thousands of feet in the air, or spreading mines or planting explosive devices.

    Still, it is sometimes sort of fair, provided one side doesn't have such superior technology that it should be able to smash its opponents like ants. Although, it should be noted that, for some reason, the "ants" often display a strong compulsion to avoid being squashed, and they can even get pretty darned good at avoidance techniques.

    It's sort of like the way most animals, whether they're bears or deer or cougars or ducks, often try to avoid getting shot.

    Oh! Careful there. You don't want to get me started on hunting.

    You see, Saturday was an official hunting day in Alberta.

    The Alberta government proclaimed Sept. 22 as Provincial Hunting Day to encourage old hunters to teach their kids to also go out and kill things. And to try and give the sport a better image.

    Well, in my view, there can't be anything to improve the image of hunting like taking your 12-year-old progeny out into the woods and popping a duck from three hundred paces together.

    Remember the kid who wanted the Red Ryder BB gun, and kept getting told, "You'll shoot your eye out?"

    Much better to give the kid a .303 and let him shoot out a white-tailed deer's eye – maybe even blow its whole head off.

    Just make sure the antlers stay stuck to enough of the skull so you can hang them up nice in the family room, where all your friends can remark on how sporting that young fella of yours has become.

    Yup. A chip off the old block.

    (I mean the kid, not the chunk of skull. It's a figure of speech.)

    Now you see? I went and got started on hunting. I don't like getting started on hunting.

    As one hunter pointed out, after all, "It's about connecting with nature."

    But if they really want to get connected with nature, why do they use a gun and stand so far away from it when they kill it?

    To really get connected with nature, they should kill their prey the natural way – tear it apart with their teeth.

    That I could accept as a natural connection.

    editor@langleyadvance.com

    ref: http://www.canada.com/langleyadvance/news/opinion/story.html?id=5c6221b5-0860-41cd-b255-c650e9a5a6f6

    ———————————————————————————————————

    Follow up opinion column: 'Not too terribly sporting, eh?'

    Bob Groeneveld
    Langley Advance
    Tuesday, October 02, 2007

    First, let me start off by noting that I don't think hunters who kill things to put food on the dinner table are sportsmen.

    They are providers.

    They harvest nature, much the same as a farmer harvests the domesticated animals that most of us eat.

    If those people can accept that I don't think it's "sporting" to kill anything – but I don't rule out the value of hunting for food – we can perhaps find some common ground.

    I freely admit that I sometimes (okay, maybe even more than sometimes) go off somewhere near the deep end – sometimes even all the way off the high board and directly into the deep end – in my quest to stress a point.

    It appears that last week I may have offended a few people without intending to.

    Upon rereading my "rant" on hunting [Image makes natural connection, Sept. 25 Opinion, Langley Advance], I can see that I was not as clear as I could have been about my disdain for trophy-hunting or any other unnecessary dealing in death (which includes unsoldier-like conduct in war zones – of which Canadian soldiers are thankfully only rarely charged), without acknowledging the legitimacy of what I would consider non-sports, or provisional hunting.

    From the multitude of letters I have received in response to last week's column, it is also clear that I offended many people whom I did, indeed, intend to offend.

    While some of the letters bore reasoned and intelligent responses to my diatribe (notably, I admit pride in reporting, most of those originated right here in Langley), many included irrational and personal threats.

    One writer demonstrated that his ignorance of my home town surpassed even that which he ascribed to my understanding of hunting.

    Actually, I do know that duck-hunters don't shoot from "300 paces" away – not if they know what they're doing (or unless they take very small steps). The average 12-gauge shotgun probably wouldn't even reach the broad side of a barn from that distance, let alone bring down a bird.

    I was exaggerating.

    I was also exaggerating when I suggested that a .303 bullet could take off a deer's head (unless you use illegal shot, and you're shooting at a very small deer).

    I know those things.

    But if the letter-writer knew anything about Langley, he wouldn't have suggested that he would be happy to watch me accidentally fall under a bus.

    If he knew anything about TransLink service around these parts, then he would know that, where I live, I would be hard-pressed to find a bus to throw myself at, let alone accidentally stumble under. I'd have a better chance of accidentally winning a major lottery. (Yes! Exaggeration!)

    For the record, he's one of the "sportsmen" I don't feel at all upset about having offended.

    There were so many letters that we won't have room to publish them all at once today, but we'll try to get to them all over the next few editions, without ignoring entirely all those other letter-writers who correspond with us on a host of other topics.

    The usual constraints will apply. Death threats will not be published, for instance. Nor will those written by letter-writers who are refusing to identify themselves for our records (we sometimes publish letters anonymously, upon the writers' reasonable requests, but we still have to know who they are).

    Langley writers always receive precedence. Others may appear only on our website.

    One of my favourites, a nasty parody of my column, comparing editors to lawyers, definitely gets the nod (see page 45).

    © Langley Advance 2007

    Ref: http://www.canada.com/langleyadvance/news/opinion/story.html?id=42beb78b-7fe8-427c-947e-624e118043c0

    October 4, 2007
  23. "And Grizzly Bear, reciprocation is not the foundation of rights, nor is moral agency– because individuals who cannot and will never reciprocate or be moral agents have rights– as they should. Since I expect your web page will be the same, I'll skip the link. You'll have to do better than that."

    Oh, but reciprocation is the foundation of rights. If it is not, then what is Ellie? That vapid, overused term "sentience" ( which is not only arbitrary, but vague because not all animals possess the same level of awareness )? Can you even give an objective definition of the term? Terms like "sentience", "profound interests", "capacity to suffer" and the like are arbitrary, subjective and vague. They don't cut it. As far as the stale "argument from marginal human cases" it is utterly flawed in its logic. The essay I linked to explains that as well, but it seems to you are too narrow-minded and wrapped up in your own ideological beliefs to explore this line of reasoning. Sad. Why the closed-mindedness and intellectual cowardice?

    October 4, 2007
  24. "Furthermore, non-human animals have their own code in their own world."

    Proof please? Which animals have such a code? Do all animals abide by this code? If a hawk eats a rabbit or a house cat tortures a mouse to death by utilizing it as a plaything are they violating said code? Can you name any species other the Homo sapiens that utilizes true moral judgment, true free will, and reason as the driving force behind its behavior? If you're going to make such a statement, you're going to have to back it up with hard, objective, empirical, scientific evidence. Philosopho-babble won't cut it. Besides, if animals do "have their own code in their own world" as you claim, then wouldn't it also be logical to claim that humans also have "our own code in our own world" that applies only to us? Is it possible that the concept of rights would be part of such a code?

    October 4, 2007
  25. I wouldn't waste time arguing with moral relativists, which is what all people who say that rights hinge on a "social contract" are.

    October 5, 2007
  26. Mike Grieco #

    I am grateful for the ability to read.
    I am grateful to have a wonderful healthy meal every day by not taking the life of another.
    I am grateful knowing that there are wonderful compassionate human beings that "strive to be the change they want to see in the world."
    Happy,happy, and thank you, thank you…again!-for all you do, Mary Martin 🙂

    **Shine On**

    October 5, 2007
  27. Cláudio #

    Dear Grizzly Bear,

    First of all, I'd like to thank your for the link, because I've always been extremely curious to understand the rationale of people who have read about animal rights and seems to really understand the true meaning of the concept and, despite of this fact, are still unconvinced and try to debunk this idea with supposedly rational arguments. I haven't read it yet, but I will, because usually the comments I hear against animal rights come from people who are totally in the dark about the subject.

    Before reading this copious website, I'd like to make some comments in advance. Nobody is arguing that the abstract concept of rights can be created by non-human animals, that non-human animals should be members of our society and that non-human animals should apply the concept of moral rights in their daily lives. And even if all human beings were potential moral agents and all non-human animals were solitary and totally unempathetic towards any other sentient being, this still wouldn’t be relevant for the matter of having rights. The only pre-condition for moral patience is the ability to have interests. And since we, moral agents, have defined the meaning of rights (a way to protect an interest), we cannot grant them in an arbitrary fashion. We can’t even grant rights, because all we can do is recognize the existence of rights according to the principle of equal consideration.

    We can’t be proud of our moral agency and ability to reason and say how superior we are while being keen to behave like wild animals at the same time. Moral agency has a “cost”.

    October 5, 2007
  28. Ellie #

    Grizzly Bear, sentience is self awareness and thus self interest. Self interest is the foundation of rights, not intelligence, age, ability, species, or status. Absent these irrelevant conditions, living beings are equal in that they all have an interest in themselves.

    There are numerous examples of moral codes in animal societies. To name a few, parent elephants intervene when their children are being unfair to others; primates are punished if they don't share food; when a female tiger harmed cubs, she was driven from the group. I'm not suggesting animals are 'moral agents' or that their codes are as complex as ours– we have far more options than they do, and hence more complex and greater obligations.

    Free will of itself does not require complex thought. Don't confuse culpability with free will.

    October 5, 2007
  29. Ellie #

    Grizzly Bear, the argument in the link you offered is flawed for a number of reasons:

    First of all, rights are protections. Carol says infants and children don't have rights, but rather protections. In fact, they are one and the same– infants and children do indeed have rights.

    Second, Carol says "marginal cases" have limited rights. Wrong! Humans with diabilities have limited entitlements, but their basic right to stay alive is protected. They're also protected from designation as property, from being forced to reproduce, from research and other exploitation, even when they are incapable of understanding they will be harmed.

    Question: Carol says anencephalic infants don't have rights. Does that mean she thinks they can be killed? If so, I think she's in no position to talk about morality.

    Third, contractualism cannot apply to animal rights because protection of their personal interests means they cannot accomodate human society. They will no longer be property because animal rights means they will be free to experience their lives on their own terms. (And no, it won't be an exodus of farm animals and pets.) Animal rights does not mean we enter into a social contract with them, so Carol's talk of reciprocation and punishment is irrelevant. And if you think that invalidates the concept of rights, read the above paragraphs again.

    Maybe Carol needs more than empathy to motivate her morality, but I don't. My interest in pets, or enjoying the taste of meat does not overide the interest animals have in themselves. That's the crux of the issue, not contracts based on legal fiction. And Carol is not a 'former animal rights activist' if she doesn't understand that.

    I gather the rest of the link is a repeat of the above, so I haven't read further, but if I've missed anything substantial, please do let me know.

    October 5, 2007
  30. Cláudio Godoy #

    After reading all the essays debunking animal rights from that link, two things called my attention.

    The first one is the frequent appeal to the so-called Argument from Species Normality in a vain attempt to explain why human marginal cases should have rights even lacking rationality. This principle is nothing more than a pompous name for discrimination, where individuals are judged by the group where they belong instead of their real individual characteristics. Therefore, if the majority of human beings can respond for their acts, the humans who are not responsible for their acts should be judged as if they were normal in the case they commit a crime. If the majority of human beings can walk without help, all the facilities for handicapped people should be abolished. And so on.

    The second one is that, although the idea of animal rights seems absurd to the authors, there's a unanimous concern about the welfare of the non-human animals. This is quite bizarre because in doing that they are recognizing that the interests of non-human animals matter without realizing that these own interests are the very foundation of the animal rights.

    Considering all that was written, it seems that all that effort is nothing more than a need to find a justification to the exploitation that humans impose on the other animals, a kind of rationalization to allow them to eat their steaks in peace.

    October 5, 2007
  31. First, I’d like to thank Claudio and Ellie for their excellent posts explaining some of the basics to Grizzly Bear.

    Second, I think you should check out my blog (Unpopular Vegan Essays), Grizzly Bear, and you see that to civilized, morally advanced humans, as opposed to “law of the jungle” morally retarded humans, the animal rights argument is bullet proof. That you get you jollies torturing and killing the innocent doesn’t make it right.

    About your comments on my attempts to change people’s minds; you are forgetting that it is not my job to change people minds. People are responsible for changing their own minds, and what they think of me or my “arrogance” is irrelevant. I say things to make people think, not to be their friend. I may lead them to water by informing them of new information or a new perspective, but ultimately, we all must think for ourselves. I have found that telling it like it is, is quite effective in changing opinions, but that’s me. The fact that you, Grizzly Bear, are so infuriated by what I’ve said tells me that everything is going great. Not that you’ll ever change your mind, but I’ve obviously hit a nerve with you, and that’s a good thing in my book.

    October 5, 2007
  32. Aloha.

    I finally got around to reading the comments, as well as the Grizzly Bear material, and I can't possibly add anything that Dan, Ellie, and Claudio haven't articulated, and better than I can.

    "Reciprocation as the basis of rights"? (Contracts between species?) And mocking the importance of sentience?

    All I see is people trying really hard to concoct a reasonable excuse to continue to use animals (and "they taste good" doesn't qualify).

    October 5, 2007
  33. Cláudio Godoy #

    Just to rectify: my last post may give a false impression that in my opinion marginal human cases shouldn’t have rights because of their lack of rationality. Actually, this would be the case if our rights depended on rationality, as it is professed by contractualists. And of course I’m not qualifying myself as a welfarist when I say that the authors of the anti-animal rights essays recognize that the interests of non-human animals matter when they defend welfarist measures. I just tried to underline that they at least recognize that non-human animals have some interests, and the sole fact that they have interests are the base for their having rights.

    October 5, 2007
  34. Ellie #

    Understood, Claudio, and I agree completely.

    October 5, 2007

Leave a Reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS