Transcript AR Primer - Animal Liberation Front

Is “factory farming” the moral
equivalent to Auschwitz?
No. Humans have more ability
to feel mental and physical pain
than most animals. However,
while they are not morally
equivalent, they are both
wrong. That's the important
concept.
While the Nazi holocaust
and today’s abuse of animals are not morally
equivalent, there are useful analogies.
In both cases the number of individuals tortured is
enormous, the treatment of the oppressed is
indescribable, and the possibility of freedom fully
resides in the hands of some benefactors.
In the United States, billions of animals die each year in
structures like death camps that are hidden from public
view. Like the manufacturers of the Holocaust, animal
killers need a justification to abandon caring for
animals, and they need an industry that efficiently kills
and keeps the blood from seeping into public
consciousness.
People who knew….
Isaac Bashevis Singer: "There is only one little
step from killing animals to creating gas
chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a
la Stalin... There will be no justice as long as
man will stand with a knife or with a gun and
destroy those who are weaker than he is."
Edgar Kupfer was imprisoned in Dachau
concentration camp in 1940. To read his opinion,
click:
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/P
hilosophy/AbuseLinked/Dachau.htm
Nazi holocaust survivor
Georges Metanomski, who fought in the
Warsaw Ghetto uprising: “When I see
cages crammed with chickens from
battery farms thrown on trucks like
bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of
my soul, the Umschlagplatz [the spot in
the Warsaw Ghetto where Jews were
forced onto trains leaving for the death
camps]. When I go to a restaurant and
see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I
see a holocaust on their plates.”
Animals in factory farms
"Veal" calves spend their entire life
individually confined to narrow stalls too
narrow for them to turn around in. cartoon
video:
http://www.noveal.org/forgetaboutit
Laying hens live a year or more in cages the
size of a filing drawer, seven or more per
cage, after which they routinely are starved
for two weeks to encourage another laying
cycle.
See http://www.MeatYourMeat.com,
http://www.VeganOutreach.org,
http://www.TryVeg.com
Hogs & Cows
Female hogs are housed for four or five
years in individual barred enclosures
("gestation stalls") barely wider than
their bodies, where they are forced to
birth litter after litter.
Until the recent "Mad Cow" scare, beef
and dairy cattle too weak to stand
("downers") were dragged or pushed
to their slaughter. [industry is trying
to block “no downer” legislation;
http://www.FarmSanctuary.org]
Kosher Slaughter
Kosher slaughter is where an
animal is hoisted and bled
to death without prior
stunning. Often joints are
ruptured during the
hoisting, and the death is a
slow, conscious one.
What is wrong with leather if it’s
just a by-product of slaughter?
Some cows are grown and slaughtered purely
for their skins.
Regardless, buying leather products
contributes to the profits of slaughtering
cows, which makes cow products more
economically competitive with vegan
products. Which means that more cow
products are sold. Creating more profit.
Which lowers the price again. And on and
on ad-nauseum.
Current reality of meat
Meat producers want the least costly means of
producing meat for human consumption. If
that means that animals are made to suffer by
that process, then, because they are not
deserving of moral respect, producers do not
worry unduly about it.
It might be morally justified to eat meat if that is
all we had to eat, or if meat were the only
thing which would properly nourish us, but
neither of these things is the case.
Don't crop harvest techniques
lead to the death of animals?
Accidental deaths can’t be compared,
morally, to intentional deaths. That’s like
saying, “Since some people die in car
accidents, it must be okay to run over
people in my car.”
In neither case, that of animals on crop
farms or that of people on the road,
should we deliberately take lives. In both
cases we should work to minimize the
number of accidental deaths.
What if I made use of an animal
that was already dead?
While it is wrong to purchase animal-based products, it
may be good for animals to use them if they are
‘already dead’. Obviously, this doesn’t justify buying a
hamburger because it is ‘already dead’, since more
meat will be murdered to replace it.
More practically, this means that if you are given a
leather wallet, you should use it before you go buy a
vegan wallet, because the vegan wallet would cost
money that could be sent to a no-kill shelter.
Ramifications of actions are usually complex, and
each specific situation requires analysis (please don't
over-analyze if it takes time away from helping animals
or earning money that could help animals).
Hypothetical: Is eating meat
intrinsically wrong?
Saying that the mistreatment of
animals in the meat production
process is immoral is one thing,
saying that eating meat itself is
immoral is another.
If we can raise animals for slaughter
that do not suffer, and which are
quickly and painlessly killed, then
would eating meat morally
acceptable?
The morality of painless killing
If it is wrong to kill a person painlessly
why it is not also wrong to kill an
animal painlessly?
Animals are not as complex as human
beings, but they “live in communities,
communicate with one another, have
ongoing social relationships, suffer,
and are capable of happiness, as well
as fear and distress, as we are.”
Why not?
The right to life and painless killing
If we assume that humans have a right to life it would be wrong to murder a normal,
healthy human even if it were done
painlessly - and it is hard to think of any
plausible rationale for granting this right to
humans that does not also apply to other
animals.
So what could be the rational basis for saying
that we have a right to life, but that they
don’t? What could be the rational basis for
saying that a severely retarded person, who
is inferior in every important respect to an
intelligent animal, has a right to life but the
animal doesn’t?
The amelioration argument
The hypothetical amelioration argument: If
animals can be made not to suffer, then
they can be killed (quickly and painlessly)
and eaten.
“The more animals that can be brought to
lead pleasant lives, the more animals that
escape the argument from pain and
suffering and so may be eaten.”
All a concerned individual need do then is to
look for improvements in factory farming
so that animals no longer suffer.