h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Lurking and reading around and about, and I see you repeatedly asking for *someone* to debate animal issues with you. And I'd love to do, except that I wonder if you might find *me* morally or intellectually defective if I did.

And then there's these pesky people at the office who keep interrupting me with the expectation that I'll do some actual *work*... which means sometimes I can't spend as much time *thinking* about what I want to say as I'd like, and I frequently don't manage a proper response to a thoughtful question. Which makes me think I might come across as being evasive, or unsure of my position (though I'm not necessarily convinced my way of thinking is the only "right" way, I don't think I'm wishy-washy).

But otherwise I'd love to "debate" you, although I'd hope for more of an exchange of ideas. I don't want to try to change your mind- I quite like you the way you are.

It's equally possible that I'm morally defective - hence the point of the debate. I was slightly peeved when A.N. Other seemed to open up the possibility of debate and then stormed off in disgust when I turned out not to be in 100% agreement.

That can get frustrating. It's happened to me, too.

For instance, I have serious qualms with animals being used for medical purposes. I don't always have a *choice* in the matter. I don't engage in criminal activity to protest these medical labs, but I do communicate my concerns to them. And I also don't purchase products made by companies who use animals IF there is another alternative available. I don't think this makes me a hypocrite, nor do I think that it's impossible for me to discuss with someone who feels differently.

I'm also not entirely convinced that anyone is necessarily morally defective in regards to the animal rights thing. It seems quite possible to me that some people do things that I feel are unethical simply because that's the way things are done.

It's difficult for me, as an ex-christian, not to assume that a majority of people who aren't concerned with animal welfare fall into that "dominionist" way of thinking. Especially because I've never felt that way, as long as I can remember.

Hmm, I have lots of qualms about the way we treat animals but can't afford to be too strident about it as I'm still working out what I feel and think about some issues and haven't completely changed my lifestyle yet.

If you take out the religious and self-interest reasons for treating people as more important than animals is there any other logical reason for doing so?

From Matholwch:

OK Eddie, I'll bite...

"I do wish someone wanted to debate animal rights with me, though. I promise I'm not *quite* as horrible as Jez imagines. It's not like I eat critters or anything."

Animals do not have rights, and that includes human animals. One planet, one population.

However, we have a responsibility, as the senior evolved being on the planet (unless the dolphins at the back want to intervene at this point? No? I shall continue then), to ensure the continued diversity of the planetary population of fauna, flora and bacteria. To do anything else would be bone-headed beyond belief.

You can interpret that as enlightened self-interest if you like, but it is a responsibility nonetheless. No other species is presently capable of doing this, so it falls to us.

OK, that said we humans are beings that have evolved such social conventions as mercy and kindness (developments, no doubt, of nurturing instincts), and have tried (with varying degrees of success) to remove the necessity for suffering from our fellow humans. Again enlightened self-interest could be used to explain this.

It is my position that we should also extend this removal of suffering, wheresoever we can, from our fellow travellers on this little blue planet. We have no real need to kill and eat our fellow travellers, being able to more efficiently feed our population if we do not waste land feeding billions of overbred and modified animals. They suffer to feed our greed, not our need.

Moving on from this, with the development of our technology to its present level it is becoming increasingly untenable to believe that we need animals for medical experimentation. Research into the subject is finding less and less cases where using animals actually aids science, and an increasing number of cases where it is being proven to be actually counterproductive.

As an immediate step it would be rational to ban animal experimentation except where this has direct and proveable experimental and medical benefits. Testing vanity and other essentially unnecessary products on animals is a waste of life.

While unnecessary cruelty towards any species survives it will remain an aspect of our culture generally.

That will do as a first foray methinks.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

From Jez:

Oh, and before anyone gets on to the vegetarianism/omnivore/religion track, I'll just state that I, another polytheist pagan though not a druid, eat meat (though I check sources and welfare issues) and wear fur (though secondhand or from meat-raised animals) and in fact make garments and shoes from leather and fur obtained from sources that would otherwise have goone to landfill (yes, that's what charity shops mostly do with fur donations because of the animal-rights people who have targeted them in the past).

And though I think we should as a species be eating less meat, I understand that the landscape of the UK and other places has parts which are suitable for turning grass into sheep and not growing human-edible crops.

The issues (from my PoV) are to do with the welfare and the way that animals are bred, kept, transported and slaughtered, and the way their food is produced, fertilised, et al.

And I don't have objections to medical research on animals, where it is unavoidable rather than simply cheaper than the alternatives. I simply say, look for alternatives, and keep the welfare of the animal at the top of your head while you plan what you are doing.

Which, with HRT, is the commercial reality. Premarin is not an essential to human life. We don't need to keep mares pregnant in boxes fixed up to urine catheters for months of their life and then kill the foals off as soon as possible to repeat the process.

And if you thik that as humans we somehow have the (rationally arrived at) right to do this, then you are as blinkered, from where I stand, as the worst theist claiming a (god-given) right to do something he/she fancies doing which brings harm to another sentient being.

Thanks Eddie

I'll carry this one on over here then. Nice to see you going all tangential for a change

Blessings,
Matholwch .

>Animals do not have rights, and that includes human animals. One planet, one population< (Math>

On one hand, I disagree with "no rights", but I think I may agree with Math's overall logic here.

>I have lots of qualms about the way we treat animals but can't afford to be too strident about it as I'm still working out what I feel and think about some issues and haven't completely changed my lifestyle yet< (Blackberry Cat)

Same here. Though I have made some lifestyle changes, including not eating animals and most byproducts. I won't wear fur, don't own any genuine leather or silk, and stick to natural, cruelty-free personal care and house cleaning products to the extent I am able. But I'm sure I still have a long way to go.

I really do try not to be "preachy", though. My better half eats meat- though he calls himself an "enlightened omnivore" and has made some changes to his lifestyle as well. I don't try to invalidate other people's feelings/opinions, and will only discuss my feelings on the matter when expressly asked.

>... we humans are beings that have evolved such social conventions as mercy and kindness (developments, no doubt, of nurturing instincts), and have tried (with varying degrees of success) to remove the necessity for suffering from our fellow humans. It is my position that we should also extend this removal of suffering, wheresoever we can, from our fellow travellers on this little blue planet. We have no real need to kill and eat our fellow travellers, being able to more efficiently feed our population if we do not waste land feeding billions of overbred and modified animals. They suffer to feed our greed, not our need< (Math again)

Bingo! That sums my position up quite nicely.

I believe every creature with a will to live, with the ability to suffer and the capacity to experience a range of feelings (from happiness to fear and everything in between), has inherent worth. While it's not possible to afford equal "rights" or equal treatment to all living things, surely they all deserve equal consideration?

>Moving on from this, with the development of our technology to its present level it is becoming increasingly untenable to believe that we need animals for medical experimentation. Research into the subject is finding less and less cases where using animals actually aids science, and an increasing number of cases where it is being proven to be actually counterproductive.

As an immediate step it would be rational to ban animal experimentation except where this has direct and proveable experimental and medical benefits.< (Math)

Again, total agreement with Math on this one!

Jez makes a lot of good points, even if I feel differently than she. I don't know as that I think anyone who has rationally arrived at a position that subjugates other sentient creatures to human animals is necessarily "blinkered", per se... but I do agree that I don't see a lot of difference from the god-given dominion over the Earth that adherents of Abrahamic religions claim.

OK...First off, to avoid anyone jumping to conclusions too early, I'm probably closer to all of the above than you might think - at least in terms of outcomes. This is possibly surprising because, if push comes to shove, I'd place myself firmly on the 'wrong' side of the animal rights barricade. That said - while I agree with many of the motives and deired outcomes above, I think various bits of thinking are confused.

Let me try and state some positions. (Not necessarily firm positions: there'd be no point debating if I never changed my mind on things),

Math first...
As you know, I think that your frequent point about humans not having rights is idle harumphery. If you mean there are no 'natural' rights sown into the fabric of the universe - I fully agree. Nevertheless, as civilised animals, we have constructed a set of notional rights to allow us to live together. If you like, you can think of them as a list of te duties we impose on ourselves to uphold for one another. To stop each other being killed, tortured, having our family lives or freedom of thought interfered with...etc. etc.

However - these are human rights. I do not think there's a morally compelling case for extending these to animals on the grounds that they are incapable of reciprocating. Ask any crocodile what he thinks of our right to life. I don't think this is 'Dominionist', PC. It just is.

Now let's think of the evolutionary aspects. We exist at the expense of other animals - either by out-predating them or by more succesfuly carving an ecological niche. There's simply no morality involved there. Again, it just is - it's what species do. The leopard has no fundamental duty towards a zebra or a human than a human does towards a leopard or a zebra. (Note that human rights demand that we have moral duties towards other humans. Wheter or not leopards have duties towards other zebras or zebras towards zebras is their business, not ours).

The 'one planet' argument of Maths is, I think, a red herring. Yes, using land to grow soyabeans to fatten up Big Macs is an obscene waste of resources and reflects economic disparities. But that's a Human Rights argument - not a moral argument against eating animals. Note that there are some protein-yielding animal crops that can be fed from agricultural waste products (guinea rabbits - and especially tilapia) and, as Jez points outs, various species that can be farmed on marginal land unsuitable for arable production (sheep, goats, deer, water buffalo). It's hard to argue a moral case against eating these on the basis of resource use.

Should we be allowed to kill non-farmed animals? Well - there're not many pandas and rhinoceroses left. We'd miss them if they were gone. Plus there might be unguessed at syetemic effects that would mean that wiping out whole species could make the world unsustainable. We'd all die. But again - that's a Human Rights issue.

So...I think it's hard to argue a moral case against the killing of animals by humans - and I think I'd be happy to exend this *as a general principle* to their medical use. How about fur rearing animals? It's not fundamemtally less moral than eating animals - and in some parts of the world it's the most effective way of keeping warm (in Canada, I wore a parks with culled wolf fur around the hood). Mink? It's maybe a vain waste of resources...and then there's the welfare issues which I'm about to get onto.

Is it important that we treat animals with compassion?

It seems to me that this comes down to a matter of personal taste. Humans have a capacity to empathise with animals, stemming from the evolutionary benefits of being able to empathise with one another. We can 'read' an animal's pain-related behaviour and feel the pain as our own. The strength of this capacity probably varies from person to person (pet lovers to abbatoir workers) and species to species (cuddly kittens vs spiders). Thus it is that *on the whole* we don't think it's particularly shocking that a deer should be killed by a clean shot, but most of us would feel squeamish at a bonobo being kept in a tiny cage and poked with sharp sticks. Never mind the reasons for this - it's just how we humans are. We're entitled to our own judgements as to how comfortable we feel about other humans in the level and type of suffering they're prepared to tolerate. And I'm prepared to admit that I might be at the more morally deviant end of the spectrum than others - although I can asure you I'm not as cruel as some.

(I *hope* we'd all feel even more squeamish if it were a human in the cage. I have zero sympathy with the "I prefer animals to humans" argument.)

However - all human use of animals involves some degree of suffering. If we grant that we have no more fundamental case against causing *some* animal suffering than we do against a leopard slowly disembelling a zebra, the question becomes a utilitarian one:
"How much squeamishness are we prepared to ignore for the human benefit derived?" Because we live in a society, this is inevitably a collective decsion, with some dissenters. I don't think that we have an a priori moral inperative to reduce animal suffering in the same way that we do to reduce human suffering? - Are we going to protect zebra against leopards? No. Would we shoot a leopard about to pounce on a human? I hope so. *However* as societies become more comfortable, they may have the freedom to indulge in animals. It may be that attitudes will develop against all animal suffering. The heard hearted like me will go with the flow.

That's the principles as best as I can express them. Now some practical examples:

- Is it wrong to farm animals for meat? I personally don't eat them - but I'm not much bothered that others do. I note that more and more people are caring about the source of their dead flesh as they become aware of what the inside of factory farms look like - but surely they're kidding themselves if they think animals enjoy abbatoirs?

- Is it wrong to keep mink in tiny cages and kill them with a red-got poker up the arse? It doesn't seem very nice, especially given the waste of resources and the fact that perfectly good furs can be obtained as byproducts of caribou farming and the associated culling of wolves.

- Is it wrong to take packs of dogs into the countryside with the aim of tearing up foxes? I tend to be suspicious of people who could enjoy that - but they might well be reasonably decent in other respects.

- Is it wrong to torture kittens for fun? I think our alarm bells would tend to ring and we would suspect the torturers general moral sensibilities. (see also animal abuse as an indication of familial abuse).

- Would it be wrong to breed pigs for human organ donation, even if it would mean having to keep them in less-than-free-range laboratory conditions? I'd not feel comfortable about denying people the benefits derived.

- Would it be wrong (hypotheticaly) to use bonobos for pain research? I'd kind of prefer not to - but if there were no other way, I can't think of a compelling case against - although I might reasonably expect to be given some resons for why it was the only suitable way and that there was some achievable benefit over the horizon.

- Is it wrong to breed mares attached to catheters to produce HRT? I do not feel entitled to argue against it myself. Others may choose to disagree and are entitled to try to persuade us otherwise. (Incidentally - I'm not convinced that HRT is a non-essential. It's not just about hot flushes and vaginal dryness. In the pre-HRT days, my great aunt died horribly from gangrene after what would have been a minor fall if she had not been calcium-depleted. Post HRT, the incidence of fractures in the elderly has been vastly decreased. Note that this is not what I'm basing my judgement on, though)

- Are we morally compelled to seek out alternatives to animal use for medical production and experimemntation? I don't think so: it is reasonable for us to work with what we can. If others wish to find alternatives, it's open to them to do so and to demonstrate that they are more effective - but my own vote would be to put the resources directly into the end-product research. But, hey, it's a democracy.

- Should we test cosmetics on animals? We don't need to do that!

Rather long, I'm afraid. Comments welcome.

(sorry for the even-more-than-usual No. of typos. )

Hi Eddie

Part the first - Doctor Rat vs. the Cuddly Bunnies.
I must admit, having read your essay twice, that I can see very little clear blue water between you and the Dominionists.

You seem to be saying that as we are the dominant species we can do pretty much as we like, though we might draw a line where people seem to derive fun from the suffering of animals.

So bull-fighting is wrong, but eating veal isn't. Fox-hunting is wrong, but wiring up bobnobos to the mains and frying them for pain research isn't? Skinning a small furry animal to provide you with a snug parka is OK, but farming mink for the same general reason may not be?

As for evolution well we've just about dispensed with that for the human race haven't we. There is no ecologicla niche our technology won't let us live in, and modern medicine has removed the biological opportunities for evolution of our species by allowing the weak to survive (and even thrive).

Part the Second - Human Rights vs. Bonobo Rights.
The fact that we have artificially constructed the notion of rights, (and then denied them to 75% of the world's population) does not mean they should or do really exist.

Having rights implies some sort of authority from which these rights stem. My argument was that it was enlightened self-interest for the human species to maintain our only home's biodiversity. Rights doesn't even come into it.

There are those who wish to maintain some moral high ground for humanity who would claim we have a responsibility to the planet and its other inhabitants. These are the people who try and blow up researchers from Huntingdon Life Sciences. That is about as fallacious as the argument regarding rights, animal or otherwise.

Either we start looking after our only home or it will begin to fail us.

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

Wise words indeed.

Blessings,
Matholwch .

But the last bit is a poem about *Human* rights, Math. We only care about the destruction of the planet because it would kill us. But I don't think we should be ashamed that, for example, Homo Sapiens squeezed out Homo Neanderthaliensis from their ecological niche. (Isolated specimens survive, though. One of 'em plays for Man U.)

Your conclusions are right(ish). Your thinking is muddled.

I think we should be honest to say that it comes down do a matter of taste. The reason we (collectively) don't want to wire up bonobo brains if its for no benefit is because we just don't like it. And you know what - that's fine.

Maybe that is dominionist. In that case...maybe the question I should be asking is "What's wrong with that?" We can choose to treat the place as though we're the boss, if we want. After all, many other species do. Of course, it goes without saying that we should protect our assets.

To add another view, quite similar to Ed's:

My view is that killing animals is wrong, in much the same way that killing people is wrong, but it's different and we treat it differently. I have a certain amount of empathy and generosity, and a certain amount of selfishness. My attitude towards eating animals can be explained by my attitude towards helping others. I give a certain amount of my money and time to helping others, but it's less money and time than I could give if I really dedicated myself to it. I've found one particular balance, other people find a different balance.

Same with eating animals. In an ideal world, we wouldn't kill and eat animals, but we're not in that ideal world and the question I face is which selfish pleasures I deny myself and which ones I don't. I do eat animals (net effect: bad for animals), but I don't vote Tory (net effect: good for people) - am I better or worse than a Tory voting vegetarian? The reason I've come to the balance I have done is that I tend to prioritise human welfare over animal welfare.

That said, I eat a lot less meat than I used to, and probably less than most meat eaters. The balance can change over time. I believe that - assuming no disasters occur - human society will evolve to the point where we don't eat meat. This will happen when we have the wealth and technology to make it not too much effort not to. See my blog entry on artificially grown meat (or 'meat sacks'): http://thesamovar.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/meat-without-the-nervous-system/

Will engage with the debate a bit later, but I'm at work now so I'll leave it at that for the moment...

Bon travail!

Well expressed. Yeah...I meant to add something about balances. Is it morally 'wrong' to find it acceptable to use mares for HRT...or is it simply putting the balance in a different place - different weightings given to costs and benefits? It seems to me that it can't be an absolute if we're content to accept a degree of animal suffering for other benefits.

- Is it wrong to farm animals for meat? I personally don't eat them, either. I *am* bothered that others do- but I don't hassle them about it. Most of the time it's more out of habit than any ill will toward animals.

- Is it wrong to keep mink in tiny cages and kill them with a red-got poker up the arse? Absolutely.

- Is it wrong to take packs of dogs into the countryside with the aim of tearing up foxes? Absolutely- and I find it difficult to be comfortable around the sort of people who think this is OK.

- Is it wrong to torture kittens for fun? Absolutely. And not *just* because animal abusers tend to go on to abuse other humans.

- Would it be wrong to breed pigs for human organ donation, even if it would mean having to keep them in less-than-free-range laboratory conditions? Most likely yes. IMO, human organs should be used for human organ donation. I've heard argument that it would be unethical to force all humans to donate organs- and that it would be wrong to breed humans for organ harvesting. I see no difference between breeding animals for human organ donation than breeding/forcing humans to do the same.

- Would it be wrong (hypotheticaly) to use bonobos for pain research? Yes- I am against animal research unless it is medically necessary. Pain research isn't medically necessary, and any research should be conducted through voluntary human studies.

- Is it wrong to breed mares attached to catheters to produce HRT? Most likely yes.

- Are we morally compelled to seek out alternatives to animal use for medical production and experimemntation? Absolutely! Especially when in vitro testing on human tissue, or test studies done using human volunteers, have proven to be more accurate in many cases.

- Should we test cosmetics on animals? Absolutely not.

>We only care about the destruction of the planet because it would kill us<

That's not true for all of us. I don't feel that way. Sure, my primary concerns are myself and my loved ones. But I care about the destruction of the planet because I care about other living things, too.

OK - but are all these matters of personal taste or of morality?

Jains believe they should not harm living creatures (or vegetables grown underground. Are they more moral than Muslims who believe they should sacrifice animals on special holy days?

Is a person who eats meat less moral than one who doesn't?

Is a person who would accept an animal transplant less moral than someone who would refuse one?


Maybe the answer to all of these is 'Yes' and it's a moral failing for me not to see this. But I'm trying to get to the bottom of the reason why. Is the principle a simple "Animals should not be harmed?"
Why not?
Is it an absolute?

I can justify humanist morality in terms of mutual self-interest, but I'm finding it harder to fit animals in. If the answer is "It's icky" - I can relate to that.
I don't like the idea of harming them either.

(All in a devil's avocado/ Socrates-lite spirit, you'll understand)

Iit's probably a little of both, to be honest, isn't it? Aren't some "morality" issues also matters of personal taste?

I really do feel that some of these things- testing products on animals, breeding animals for transplants, and factory farming/wholesale slaughter are unethical (I prefer that word to "immoral). It's not the eating of animal flesh itself I think is immoral- it's the methods used to get the meat to the table.

I don't think that someone who eats meat is less "moral" than someone who doesn't; perhaps less sensitive, or less "enlightened"? Or maybe just not bothered by the knowledge that their doing so supports suffering on such a massive scale.

I think Jainism takes it a bit far out there, though- of course eating a carrot will result in the death of the plant, but are plants sentient? Do they experience pain, suffering, hapiness, love, etc?

For me, the "icky" factor has no more bearing on how I treat animals than how I treat humans. It's not that I prefer animals to humans, (though some humans are definitely less likeable ), but rather I find it difficult to think of animals as having less inherent worth. It's not so much "I think this is icky" as "I cannot in good conscience do/contribute to this".

>>Iit's probably a little of both, to be honest, isn't it? Aren't some "morality" issues also matters of personal taste?

This is the nub. Is morality more than personal taste?

Put it another way: can one legitimately base one's morality on a personal dislike of (eg) homosexual sex?

See what I'm driving at? Why should someone else trust your (or my) taste?

<>

I think this is at the heart of the matter. We'd put a lower (negative) value on the suffering of a fish compared to a chimp, pretty universally, Jains apart. Why? Well, essentially because apes are more like us, in two ways. First, we can empathise with their suffering because we have many more features in common. We could *see* by their facial expressions and body language that they were suffering, which is how we tell the same thing in each other. I've heard that if whales could scream, then nobody would even think of hunting them. Second, we value sentience and other things which indicate intelligence. Because they're traits we have in spades.

I'd think that this would be a recognition that the qualities we have are inherently worthy, rather than anthropomorphism or speciesism, but it's kinda hard to tell.

Well, if sentience is one of our worthy qualities, we'd better have a good think wjat it is. How do we measure it? Or even detect it?

And might there be a continuum of sentience? Thermostats down at one end, us at the top and bonobos and human babies somewhere behind. In that order. In a straight Sophie's Choice between a bonobo and a human baby - who should we choose?