Transcript AR Primer - Animal Liberation Front

How do AR supporters give
“rights” to other species?
Many have concluded that they
can no longer support activities
that take away rights: factory
farming, vivisection, animal
testing, and the exploitation of
animals for clothing and
entertainment.
Since everyone causes some animal suffering
without knowing it, what’s the point?
Although we can’t stop all suffering, that doesn’t
mean we shouldn’t stop any. The goal is to minimize
the harm one causes. In today’s world of many
choices, there are usually "kinder, gentler" ways for
most of us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate
ourselves than by killing animals. A great deal of
suffering can be prevented with a little effort.
Since each and every life is important, helping just
one sentient being should be all the reason that a
compassionate person needs to make an effort.
When you go to sleep, think of the beings who you
helped, don’t dwell on missed opportunities.
Is every life-form equally
worthy of having “rights”?
No. The criteria is the ability to feel
pain and pleasure—physical or mental
(e.g. happiness, loneliness,) and be
subject to a life. We rely on science to
provide data for this. To start with,
sentient beings with a central nervous
system are deemed more worthy than
beings with a ganglionic nervous
system.
Often misquoted,
Ingrid Newkirk said “When it comes to
having a central nervous system, and
the ability to feel pain, hunger, and
thirst: a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”
"Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog
or man. There is no difference there
between a cat or man. The idea of
difference is a human conception for
man's own advantage..."
Sri Aurobindo, 1872-1950 , poet
& philosopher
Where should one draw the line:
animals, insects, bacteria?
AR philosophy asserts that rights are to be
accorded to creatures that have the capacity
to experience pain, to suffer, and to be a
"subject of a life". Such a capacity is definitely
not found in bacteria. It is definitely found in
mammals. There is debate about such animals
as mollusks and arthropods (including
insects). One should decide, based upon
available evidence and consistent logic, where
the line should be drawn.
I can’t draw a line, nature is a continuum
The difficulty of drawing a line means that from an
ethical point of view, the line should be drawn (a)
carefully, and (b) conservatively. If there were no
automobile speed limit, and people were arguing about
a proposed limit while other people were dieing,
compassionate folks would draw a line immediately.
Because the speciesist line violates moral precepts held
as critical for the viability of any ethical system, and
because some mature nonhumans possess morally
relevant characteristics comparable to some human
rights-bearers, one must come to the conclusion that the
status quo fails on both counts, and that the arrow of
progress points toward a moral outlook that
encompasses nonhuman as well as human creatures.
Drawing a line at insects
Some people suggest the following criteria for deciding
if an organism has the capacity to suffer: 1) there are
behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate
nervous system, and 3) there is an evolutionary
usefulness for the experience of pain. These criteria
seem to be satisfied for insects in primitive way.
Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of
the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of
operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others place
the line above insects and the lower invertebrates. Some
postulate a scale of life with an ascending capacity to
suffer. People who strive to live without cruelty will
attempt to push the line back as far as possible, giving
the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt.
Albert Schweitzer’s line
The renowned humanitarian Albert
Schweitzer, who accomplished so much
for both humans and animals in his
lifetime, would take time to stoop and
move a worm from hot pavement to
cool earth. Aware of the problems and
responsibilities an expanded ethic
brings with it, he said we each must
"live daily from judgment to judgment,
deciding each case as it arises, as
wisely and mercifully as we can."
Are there topics of debate
among AR supporters?
Yes (e.g. if any research that harms
animals is justified, and on what
occasions civil disobedience may be
appropriate, etc.).
However, these areas of debate do
not negate the principles that join
us: compassion and concern for the
pain and suffering of nonhumans.
Corollaries and actions
From the basic tenets of the AR
philosophy there are an
unlimited number of corollaries.
Situations will occur that make it difficult
to predict all the effects, short term and
long term, of an action.
For any planned action, all the AR
philosophy asks is that, in your analysis,
you consider the suffering of animals as
having weight consistent with a sound
moral code.
AR critics
Some AR critics would like you to believe
that, since it’s impossible to eliminate all pain
and suffering, this fact should somehow
curtail your support of AR. This is absurd, just
as it would be absurd to suggest that
someone should not support human rights
because they can’t stop to help every human
they encounter.
The AR philosophy strives to eliminate
unnecessary pain and suffering. It doesn’t
fold its tent when suffering is unavoidable.
And it doesn’t look away from it, either.
AR critics
AR critics dream up hundreds of
hypothetical questions such as: “Would
you oppose killing 1 animal to save
1000 humans?”
Somehow they feel they have made a
salient point, regardless of your answer.
It’s easy to deflate their puffed chests
by substituting the word ‘animals’ with
‘humans’, e.g. “Would you oppose
killing 1 human to save 1000 humans?”
Frequently Asked Questions
Some of the following FAQs are topics
of continued debate among AR
supporters.
Some FAQs are merely attempts by AR
critics to justify their desire to applaud
themselves for never helping anyone.
The logic of AR critics is frequently a
variation of “Man is superior, nah-nahnah, I can be a selfish pig if I want.”
Aren’t there more pressing problems
than AR, such as homelessness?
The animal rights movement is a part of, not
antagonistic to, the human rights movement.
Many of the consequences of carrying out the AR
agenda are highly beneficial to humans. Read excerpts
from Tom Robbins’ “Diet For A New America”.
Stopping the production and consumption of animal
products would result in improvement of the general
health of the human population, and greatly reduce
destruction of the environment.
Furthermore, many AR activities, such as NOT buying
fur, NOT eating meat, etc. don’t take away time from
human rights activities.
Is the AR movement against abortion?
If not, isn't that hypocritical?
The two arguments have similarities: AR Supports grant rights to
animals (and humans) based on their capacity to suffer and to be
a subject-of-a-life. And late-term fetuses can suffer from the
abortion procedure.
However, two factors make the abortion argument different
(but not necessarily invalid).
1. A fetus has only ‘potential’ to become a subject-of-a-life,
and exactly where this ‘potential’ is realized is debatable. Most
agree it doesn’t include fertilized eggs.
2. The rights of the fetus are in conflict with the rights of the
woman, and AR philosophy allows for the rights of the more
sentient being to have greater consideration.
So, while the arguments adduced show abortion is not
irrelevant to AR, they do not show that abortion is necessarily
wrong. Therefore, supporting abortion is not in conflict with AR
philosophy.
Is the use of service animals
considered exploitative?
Is it okay if we choose for them a role that
allows them to contribute; in return, we do
not abuse them by eating them, etc?
Yes. If this is done with true concern that their
work conditions are appropriate and not of a
sweat-shop nature, that they get enough rest
and leisure time, etc., this would constitute a
form of stewardship that is acceptable and
beneficial to both sides, and one that is not
at odds with AR philosophy.
What’s wrong with having pets?
AR supporters see nothing wrong with
having pets as companion animals. As a
matter of fact, the AR supporter may well
provide homes for more unwanted
companion animals than does the average
person.
Our objection is with folks who buy pets
from pet stores or breeders--when so many
worthy animals are being put to sleep.
This is powerful: Fate Of A Shelter Dog
Spay and Neuter
Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations
that would otherwise get out of hand?
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are
nature's way of ensuring that the strong survive.
Natural predators help keep prey species strong by
killing primarily the sick and weak. Hunters,
however, kill any animal they come across or any
animal they think would look good mounted above
the fireplace--often the large, healthy animals
needed to keep the population strong.
For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously
injured and left to die a slow death.
Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider.
Thousands of human beings die from starvation every
day. So is it ethical to ‘thin’ the human herd?
Isn't hunting OK as long as we
eat what we kill?
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify
his crimes? Furthermore, it is estimated that for every
animal a hunter kills and recovers, at least two
wounded but unrecovered animals die slowly and
painfully of blood loss, infection, or starvation. Those
who don't die outright often suffer disabling injuries.
The stress that hunting inflicts on animals--the noise,
the fear, and the constant chase--severely restricts
their ability to eat adequately and store the fat and
energy they need to survive the winter. Hunting also
disrupts migration and hibernation. For animals like
wolves who mate for life and have close-knit family
units, hunting can severely harm entire communities.
Animals kill and eat each other; so
why should it be wrong for humans?
“Mother Nature” is not the ideal place from
which to draft our moral codes. Doing so
could lead to the following logic:
“Animals steal food from each other; so why
should it be wrong for humans to steal?”
“Animals eat humans; so why should it be wrong
for humans to eat humans?”
“Human Nature” is equally flawed. That’s why
we pass laws—so that men don’t follow their
human instincts and drag women off into
caves.
Shouldn’t you stop predators
from killing other animals?
Not typically. Since predators must
kill to survive, to stop them from
killing is, in effect, to kill them.
Rarely can one predict all the
consequences of an intervention on
the local ecosystem.
A common exception: discouraging a
neighbor’s fat cat from killing a bird
for sport.
Trapping is inhumane, but what
about fur ranches?
On fur "ranches" animals suffer a life of misery, frustration, and
severe stress, deprived of their most basic needs. They are kept
in wire-mesh cages that are tiny, overcrowded, and filthy.
The animals are forced to forfeit their natural instincts.
Beavers, who live in water in the wild, must exist on cement
floors. Minks, by nature solitary animals, are forced to live in
close contact with other animals.
The methods used on these farms reflect not the interests and
welfare of the animals but the furriers' profit. The end of the
suffering comes only with death, which, in order to preserve the
quality of the fur, is inflicted with extreme cruelty and brutality.
The animals sometimes writhe in pain as they are skinned alive.
Another common execution practice is anal electrocution. The
farmers attach clamps to an animal's lips and insert metal rods
into its anus. The animal is then electrocuted. Decompression
chambers and neck snapping are also used.
Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no
worse than in the wild. At least the animals on
factory farms are fed and protected.
The same could also be said of people in
prison, yet prison is considered one of
society's harshest punishments.
Animals on factory farms suffer so much
that it is inconceivable that they could be
worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t "wild"
to the animals who live there; it’s their
home. There they have their freedom and
can engage in their natural activities. The
fact that they might suffer in the wild is
no reason to ensure that they suffer in
captivity.