Sign This Petition - Page 4

On February 02 2009 06:22 ahrara_ wrote:

Ok, I wasn't going to post about this but I have a serious problem with Frit's position.

Now I am as much of a free market capitalist as any good American, I'm all for free trade and deregulation, and I hate globalization protestors with a passion. But I think it's important to recognize that the price system isn't an ethical system. Profit margins don't account for human, environmental, and animal externalities. By talking about jobs and income as an ethical justification, we strip those people and animals that can't contribute to profit margins of any non-material existence. They become as good as any physical commodity, and just as disposable. It's true that animal rights legislation would probably put human beings out of a job, and we should value human concerns before animals, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about animal suffering at all. I see no reason why we can't impose "human feelings" on animals. If there is some kind of biological distinction between animals and humans that makes their pain different than ours, I don't know about it.

When you say "we aren't in a position to tell them what to do", you're implicitly advocating a system of cultural relativity. If it's true that good and evil is dependent on societal values, then we have no right to condemn the practice of slavery in pre-civil war America, or human rights violations in China. It seems to me the opposite should be true. You would reply that animals aren't humans, but again, I don't know of any biological distinction that indicates we don't share the same facility for pain. We have every right to make ethical judgments wherever there's evil. Further, we have an obligation to act to contain evil if the costs of doing so aren't too great.

On February 02 2009 07:57 Ancestral wrote:
And tec27, the free market does not "work always," insofar as it is not always of benefit to 100% of all people.

I'm not sure how you made that up, but learn anything or observe the world and you'll see otherwise. I don't know if you just took 1 random econ class, or if you are some kind of die-hard anarcho-capitalist, but there is empirical evidence (i.e., history) that shows that at certain times, some groups of people detriment from the free market while others benefit.

However, if you want to argue that in most cases total surplus is maximized in a free market, then you may be right, except of course for the case of externalities, which you boldly claim "are bullshit."

On February 02 2009 15:40 riotjune wrote:
If one can't empathize with the suffering of animals, how can you expect him to empathize with human beings? People who treat animals like shit tend to treat humans in a similar fashion. Sure, that's their choice, but the world can do without them. China still has work to do in order to improve their human rights record but that's to be expected as the western world were the first to put such ideas in writing not too long ago. Old concept, relatively new ink.

This petition will likely be uneffective though. Human rights will have to improve first before the animal rights activists have any footing.

On February 02 2009 17:27 Marradron wrote:
Why are groups of people so eager to enforce THEIR believe upon others ?
Just because you dont think its a good thing doesnt mean you can go arround and enforce everyone to act like you. They have their reasons, you'll probaply never understand.

Humanity has slayed billions animals in thousands of years. Animals are treated quite well these days compared to the pre-industrial age where they were still just beeing hunted and slaughtered.

On February 02 2009 14:42 PH wrote:


That was a well thought out reply. In particular, I like your stance on moral relativity...somehow, I never really looked at it directly from that angle.

Anyway...the one major problem I have with what you wrote is that I am still not convinced that animals deserve similar treatment to humans in any way. You cite that their ability to feel pain is no lesser than humans, but that is a very weak standard, in my opinion.

There are many more and more important differences that I think people overlook from such a perspective.

For one, aren't most western societies based upon the "golden rule" (treat others as you would have them treat you)? And I'm not a particular expert on political science, but as far as I know, the concept of the social contract can still be applied somewhat. Animals, as far as I know, have no ability to reciprocate any of those things that our society is built upon. The only animals that are a direct part of society are domesticated anyway.

If that's the case, then why do we need to offer such special treatment to animals? Sure, I don't mind a certain degree of empathy, but when it starts affecting my practical interests (and not some sick animal cruelty fetish one might have), I feel there is a problem. If the cost of food at the market goes up because of some new law requiring more space for animals born and raised to be slaughtered, then I am not going to be happy.

If brutal treatment is unnecessary and is gratuitous, then sure, I have no problem with putting an end to it. But really...personally, I think there are better places to place your time and energy.

On February 03 2009 05:15 ahrara_ wrote:

My argument is based on the golden rule. We sure as hell wouldn't like to be skinned alive, so we shouldn't skin animals alive. Why does the fact that animals can't contribute mean they should be slaughtered? Do we slaughter mentally disabled people? You don't give me a reason to value this standard over pain. We do need to weigh the pain animals feel vs the pain we cause humans by catering to their rights, but that in no way proves we should ignore how animals feel.

If the right action is that which has the best utility, then I see no better place to put our time and energy. For one, it is one of the most neglected causes of suffering in the world, largely because the victims aren't human. Second, the magnitude of suffering probably surpasses that of all men put together. Literally billions of animals live their entire lives without seeing the sun or having more than few feet of breathing room. In many places, they die in absolute agony. Cows, for example, are strung up by their feet to a machine that systemically slits their throats, one by one, all without any anesthetic. Chickens have it worse.

As for good onto people, getting rid of meat would actually lower food prices dramatically, because demand for grains will fall precipitously when demand from poultry farmers is eliminated. Or to put it in non-economic terms: we won't be competing with cows for food.

Ok, admittedly, I'm kind of a hypocrite about this. In fact, I just had two double doubles from in and out and it was delicious. I have had stretches of vegetarianism in the past though, and if I were in a position of power, I would definitely act to help animals.