animal rights

[reddevil]

should it be an issue for the movement? note that i distunguish between animal rights and animal welfare

[Sentinel]

Animals can not have equal rights in human society, as they aren't capable to function within it as equals. While we should ensure that unnecessary suffering of animals is minimised, this should never happen on the expense of human welfare and living standards.

Serious socialists should, in other words, always take an anthropocentric (putting humanity in the centre) rather than biocentric (putting the biosphere as whole in the centre) approach.

This topic is more fit for Sciences & Environment than Discrimination, which deals with social discrimination of humans.

Moved.

[Plagueround]

The problem I have with the idea of animal rights is that the ethical positions people advocate are largely utilitarian, and you start getting into vague rationalizations of when it is ok to kill an animal rather than adhering to one idea of rights.

For example, I've been told that as a member of Western society I have the resources to live off of a vegan diet, but in places around the world where they do not have access to the globalized economies that make a vegan diet possible, or for people who cannot thrive on a vegan diet (which in my experience is rather common but hushed amongst vegan circles) it's ok for them to eat animals. If it's ok for them based on their economic and development status, or ok for the people that don't get proper nutrition on such diets, you're assigning the animal rights in relation to humans, not following any sort of universal set of rights such as the ones that are advocated for human beings. If the rights of animals are subjective and secondary to human's utilitarian needs, why is it immoral for me if I decide to eat meat?

Like Sentinel said above, I do see merit in not making animals suffer indiscriminately, but to confer upon them a vague notion of utilitarian rights seems extremely out of touch with reality.

[counterblast]

. If the rights of animals are subjective and secondary to human's utilitarian needs, why is it immoral for me if I decide to eat meat?

It seems to me you've answered your own question in your statement...

The human animal/non-human animal dynamic, like all animal/animal dynamics, can be summed up in one word; survival.

The issue of eating meat out of necessity can be distinguished from eating meat out of malice or disregard, in much the same way as communism or anarchism can be distinguished from capitalism... One method only exploits insofar as it is necessary for survival and there is no other way around it, the other seeks to exploit for for profit or personal gain.

[Plagueround]

It seems to me you've answered your own question in your statement...

The human animal/non-human animal dynamic, like all animal/animal dynamics, can be summed up in one word; survival.

The issue of eating meat out of necessity can be distinguished from eating meat out of malice or disregard, in much the same way as communism or anarchism can be distinguished from capitalism... One method only exploits insofar as it is necessary for survival and there is no other way around it, the other seeks to exploit for for profit or personal gain.

That doesn't answer the question at all because it still applies a selective morality. My point is we do not apply such utilitarian standards to human beings, we seek to ensure all humans have equal rights and opportunity. I don't get to own slaves if I'm not able to take care of myself, but I do eat meat because I don't benefit from veganism.

Let me put it another way. Should we view a person with disdain for eating meat unless they prove they are unable to live on a vegan/vegetarian diet?

[counterblast]

That doesn't answer the question at all because it still applies a selective morality. My point is we do not apply such utilitarian standards to human beings, we seek to ensure all humans have equal rights and opportunity.

I can't speak on behalf of all animal rights advocates; but I do apply this logic to human beings. If I were starving, and my only food source was another human being, I'd eat someone.



I don't get to own slaves if I'm not able to take care of myself, but I do eat meat because I don't benefit from veganism.

First, I don't like where this is going, because you're being unclear why you "don't get to"...? According to whom?

Secondly, this question is also answered in my original post: in a communist or anarchist environment, where duties were collectively distributed, this situation wouldn't exist.

It really seems to me that your criticism is with capitalism and the subsequent dependence on the exploitation it causes; not on the notion of animal rights; because in a communist or anarchist world the necessity of animal exploitation or slave labor would not exist.

In response to your question, however, if your only means of survival is/was the murder/exploitation of another human being or non-human animal than by all means it is justified. Placing your own life above that of another is survival. An AIDS-infected Namibian woman, making her children work two jobs to buy her treatments, is not the same as a rich southern plantation owner exploiting Black labor for profit.

[Plagueround]

I can't speak on behalf of all animal rights advocates; but I do apply this logic to human beings. If I were starving, and my only food source was another human being, I'd eat someone.

If they were still alive and could put up a fight? Interesting.



First, I don't like where this is going, because you're being unclear why you "don't get to"...? According to whom?I "don't get to" because it goes against the idea of equal rights for all humans and it would be subjecting them to my will against theirs. I'm not saying I would want to, I'm demonstrating the extreme difference between the advocacy of all encompassing human rights and subjective, cloudy animal rights. I know that the animal rights tendency is to compare others to slave owners or nazis, but pay attention.


Secondly, this question is also answered in my original post: in a communist or anarchist environment, where duties were collectively distributed, this situation wouldn't exist.Obviously. But since most animal rights activists don't give a shit if capitalism continues, I'm talking about now, and my example wasn't a situation that should exist in any circumstance. Under communism, I'm sure there would still be people unable to survive on vegan diets, so the question still hasn't been fully addressed.


It really seems to me that your criticism is with capitalism and the subsequent dependence on the exploitation it causes; not on the notion of animal rights; because in a communist or anarchist world the necessity of animal exploitation or slave labor would not exist.How? Contrary to vegan and vegetarian propaganda, it would not be sustainable or healthy for all people to not eat animals or animal products.


In response to your question, however, if your only means of survival is/was the murder/exploitation of another human being or non-human animal than by all means it is justified. Placing your own life above that of another is survival. An AIDS-infected Namibian woman, making her children work two jobs to buy her treatments, is not the same as a rich southern plantation owner exploiting Black labor for profit.Are you sure you're a communist and not some sort of utilitarian survivalist?

[counterblast]

If they were still alive and could put up a fight? Interesting.

Assuming that I could overtake them, and that it was my only alternative, of course.


Obviously. But since most animal rights activists don't give a shit if capitalism continues, I'm talking about now, and my example wasn't a situation that should exist in any circumstance. Under communism, I'm sure there would still be people unable to survive on vegan diets, so the question still hasn't been fully addressed.

So wouldn't the logical solution be to familiarize animal rights activists with communist theory?

And the question has been addressed. I clearly stated that there was difference between murdering for pleasure and murdering for survival.

The question you pose is essentially "Why would killing a random person on the street, be different than killing a person intent on killing you?"

Obviously because in one case it is necessary; while in the other it is not. I don't know any other way I could put it.


How? Contrary to vegan and vegetarian propaganda, it would not be sustainable or healthy for all people to not eat animals or animal products.
Can you point me to any sort of study? Even an anti-vegan propaganda one will suffice.

Any amount of land and resources vegetables require, meat will require more because:
A) Humans cannot live on a purely or even predominantly meat-based diet, creating a need for fruits and vegetables, no matter what.
B) All livestock produced for food require food for survival and growth, which uses up more farmland than a plant-based diet (As land and resources must be allocated for animal feed, fruits and vegetables (for humans), and meat (for humans))

The sustainability arguement is pretty circular, and would only vaguely work if you were advocating a society that only consumed meat. (Which is impossible...)

And the only thing a vegan diet cannot produce large quantities of is vitamin B12. And this can be easily produced by harvesting B12-producing bacteria, so this entire argument seems pretty hollow.


Are you sure you're a communist and not some sort of utilitarian survivalist?

I'm an anarcho-communist. But that aside; I'm a realist. Capitalism is an unsustainable economic model, and it is impossible to not exploit someone or something while existing within its confines. This isn't to say people shouldn't be pro-active in reducing their participation in this exploitation; but to even pretend that it is possible to live with exploiting others under capitalism, is living under an illusion.

[Plagueround]

www.beyondveg.com is probably the most honest website I've seen on the subject. It's written almost entirely by former or current raw foodists, vegans, and vegetarians. It's also where I learned that I wasn't alone in wondering why veganism wasn't working for me even though I followed the diet "religiously". Do realize I was a vegan for a year, and am now almost entirely vegetarian, although I occasionally eat meat. As for the sustainability argument, I have to data stored away somewhere, but I believe it's on my work computer so I'll have to dig it up or get back to you.

[Vanguard1917]

And the only thing a vegan diet cannot produce large quantities of is vitamin B12. And this can be easily produced by harvesting B12-producing bacteria, so this entire argument seems pretty hollow.

This is besides the point anyway. As i understand it, animal rightists don't advocate a vegan diet for health reasons, but for ideological and 'moral' reasons. They oppose meat consumption because they simply do not believe that human beings have the right to kill animals in order to meet human needs or wants. This is the same reason why they also oppose animals being used for scientific research. Although they might argue (against all evidence) that vivisection is ineffective, the real reason why they oppose vivisection is that they don't feel that human beings should utilise animals in the interests of people. Whether vivisection or animal farming is useful to humanity is basically irrelevant.

Opponents of animal rightists sometimes make the mistake of taking their arguments at face value. When animal rightists use 'facts' about health or economic efficiecy to back up their arguments, it is merely a cynical way of winning support for their underlying reactionary agenda.

[JorgeLobo]

Animal - why not bacterial, fungal, helminthic, cestodic, insect, plant etc rights??

[communard resolution]

Animal - why not bacterial, fungal, helminthic, cestodic, insect, plant etc rights??

This is what part of me is thinking too: if humans have no right to kill other living beings, why kill mosquitos? Why brutally murder lice? Why exterminate mould?

Another part of me thinks that according to this logic, we would also have to ask: why human rights? Is there some kind of universal set of morals that forbids us to kill, imprison, and exploit others? Isn't that what human beings have been doing since the dawn of time? Why socialism?

I'm undecided about this issue, but I think the truth is that any notion of 'rights', including the rights of humans not to suffer can only be subjective. Therefore, even if I'm personally not an animal rights advocate, I cannot say they're "wrong".

[apathy maybe]

To the two previous posters, read some Peter Singer. The idea of sentience can be used for a "where to draw the line". Mould can't think, dogs can. Therefore, don't kill dogs, but don't worry about killing mould.

[communard resolution]

Mould can't think, dogs can. Therefore, don't kill dogs, but don't worry about killing mould.

How about rats, which are evidently very intelligent creatures?

[apathy maybe]

How about rats, which are evidently very intelligent creatures?

May I suggest that you read the Peter Singer texts on the matter (you can find a lot of stuff online). While I subscribe in theory to the idea that sentience should be used, I'm not educated as to which animals are more intelligent then others. As such, I can merely suggest that we shouldn't eat or kill wantonly dolphins or chimpanzees, but for other animals, it depends.

Singer will eat shell fish, but won't eat pig.

[Sprinkles]

should it be an issue for the movement? note that i distunguish between animal rights and animal welfare

When the animals start pulling their own weight in the Animal Liberation movement I'll start thinking about supporting them, until then they're pretty tasty.

[Devrim]

but in places around the world where they do not have access to the globalized economies that make a vegan diet possible, or for people who cannot thrive on a vegan diet (which in my experience is rather common but hushed amongst vegan circles) it's ok for them to eat animals.

Many peasants in our country don't eat meat often (maybe a two or three times a year). It is not from choice but from poverty. A vegetarian diet is very possible. It just takes out one of the few things to celebrate in life (like for example killing an animal and having a big meal when you child comes home from Germany for a visit).

Devrim

[Dean]

As human beings, we should make an effort to treat other sentient creatures with respect and dignity. This means that we should do whatever is reasonable to insure that their industrial use is humane and that they do no suffer or die needlessly.

The orientation a society has towards animals is very characteristic of the social standards that they keep for humans. It is in the self interest of humans to treat animals decently, if only for the psychological health and well-being of humans.

[JorgeLobo]

Why sentience? As a previous poster commented - this may drive us to treat animals humanely but it doesn't justify "rights" per se. From bacteria up - all respond to stimuli and, beyond anthropomorphic pain response expression of higher animals, how do we technically define sentience? The choice is arbitrary.

Dean - respect and dignity? What does that mean in this context? Shall we call them e.g. Mr. Horse? Hold a chair for a heifer? You a psychologist or is your PhD in pop psychology?

[Lynx]

For me, it's a question of what is necessary and what is expedient. Its about what kind of protection we extend to animals (including humans!) under which circumstances. It's about protection.

[Mecha_Shiva]

I believe it should be an issue for the movement. I don't believe that you don't have to eat meat to give animals their rights, but reforms to the farming industry and how the animals are treated before they are slaughtered should be a issue. Animals eat other animals to survive, and with humans being animals, eating meat is something we do to live. I would just think that before the animals are killed for there meat, they should be treated to a decent life. But the farming industry, like all other industrys in a capitalistic nation, care only about maximizing profits. So animals are treated like crap, stuffed together in cages in a warehouse where they stay till they die. Treating them humanly would take from the profits.
I do not think that animals should be the exact equals to humans, but you can't disregard them as living beings completly.
Its not only wrong how animals can be treated in farms, but also possibly in households and such. It's wrong for people to buy a dog and chain the animal in the yard to die of starvation and exposure. No matter, what people shouldn't be allowed to torture or neglect their pets or any other animal, just as they shouldn't be allowed to do that to other people.

[Plagueround]

Many peasants in our country don't eat meat often (maybe a two or three times a year). It is not from choice but from poverty. A vegetarian diet is very possible. It just takes out one of the few things to celebrate in life (like for example killing an animal and having a big meal when you child comes home from Germany for a visit).

Devrim

Oh, a vegetarian diet is a possibility and for some veganism is too. Like I have said, I'm almost entirely vegetarian and both my family members are too. I also have seen instances where people simply don't do well on either diet but stay on it out of ethical reasons and pressuring from peers/animal rights organizations, and that's what I have a problem with more than anything.

[joseph_kay]

When the animals start pulling their own weight in the Animal Liberation movement I'll start thinking about supporting them, until then they're pretty tasty.

heh, there's a few graphic videos online of animals fighting back.
i know that the animal liberation front has a rule that their actions cannot hurt any living thing, including humans, so i guess the animals in these videos are too militant for the ALF, as most of them attack people.

i also remember reading a couple articles a few years ago of animals fighting back. i think both were somewhere in asia.
in one, a mother elephant saw her child elephant hit and killed by a train. latter that day the mother elephant charged and derailed a moving train, killing herself in the process.
the other article was a group of apes, or monkeys, who have had a number of their pack (or whatever) hit and killed by cars, attack passing cars. throwing stones at them for example.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Animal welfare? Sure thing. Animal rights? You must be off your rocker.

[Comrada J]

heh, there's a few graphic videos online of animals fighting back.
i know that the animal liberation front has a rule that their actions cannot hurt any living thing, including humans, so i guess the animals in these videos are too militant for the ALF, as most of them attack people.

There's heaps of em, usually attacking a trainer or rampaging after sustained abuse or a traumatic event. Although some animals seem to be more prone to fighting back than others.


Many peasants in our country don't eat meat often (maybe a two or three times a year). It is not from choice but from poverty. A vegetarian diet is very possible.
Very true, as prices go up I see more and more vegetarians appear.

[Bilan]

It's not an issue for the movement.
I used to believe strongly in it.
but no longer. It's not an issue for the movement, and has nothing to do with human liberation.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Animal rights are an issue; the way they're abused and treated like machines in todays factory farms is inhumane. We must support groups like the ALF and other anarchists willing to work on the front-lines.

[Vanguard1917]

Factory farming = one of humanity's great achievements

Groups like ALF should stay indoors, for everyone's sake.

[Bilan]

They're not treated like machines, they're treated like commodities. It's a commodity-based system, its nothing surprising.

[Devrim]

Many peasants in our country don't eat meat often (maybe a two or three times a year). It is not from choice but from poverty. A vegetarian diet is very possible.
Very true, as prices go up I see more and more vegetarians appear.
The fact that people can't afford to eat meat is nothing to be pleased about.
Devrim

[Forward Union]

I like eating meat.

Why would I support giving animals rights when It means I can't have meat anymore? Really though. Nothing is obliging me to be nice to animals. Unless something does, I'm not going to do it, because it's not in my interest to do so.

[joseph_kay]

I like eating meat.

Why would I support giving animals rights when It means I can't have meat anymore? Really though. Nothing is obliging me to be nice to animals. Unless something does, I'm not going to do it, because it's not in my interest to do so.

i always considered self-centered arguments like that to be an aspect of the Right not the Left. i suppose the same argument can be used by rich white men to not support the rights of women, people of color, the poor, etc.

eg: why support the rights of women? nothing is obliging me to be nice to them. it is in my interest, as a man, to keep a patriarchal society in place.

[Forward Union]

i always considered self-centered arguments like that to be an aspect of the Right not the Left. i suppose the same argument can be used by rich white men to not support the rights of women, people of color, the poor, etc.

No It can't. The only reason I want communism is because I want to be free. The only way I can be free is by destroying power over me. The only way I can destroy power over myself is by having the force to destroy that relation, and I can't do it alone, thus I require the solidarity of all others in my position. The issue is not "right or left" at all. If you support womens rights because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then you're probably not a communist but a radical liberal.

To get back to the original point, I do not need animals in order to abolish power relations.



eg: why support the rights of women? nothing is obliging me to be nice to them. it is in my interest, as a man, to keep a patriarchal society in place.


It might be in the day to day running of things, and within capitalism, it might mean you get a better job and more pay. But that's not in your best long term interest as a worker. You're best interest is the abolution of capitalism, and that requires mass-participation. As we all know, women are the majority. So to sum up, the need to abolsih capitalism obliges you to support womens equality. That said, the fact that women are paid less does not imemdietly effect me, not negatively at least. This is why women should campaign for themselves, for their own rights etc, in their own interests. I can support them, but not struggle on behalf of them.

Why do you support womens rights if it's not for a material reason? is it religious or moral?

[Dean]

Why sentience? As a previous poster commented - this may drive us to treat animals humanely but it doesn't justify "rights" per se. From bacteria up - all respond to stimuli and, beyond anthropomorphic pain response expression of higher animals, how do we technically define sentience? The choice is arbitrary.

Dean - respect and dignity? What does that mean in this context? Shall we call them e.g. Mr. Horse? Hold a chair for a heifer? You a psychologist or is your PhD in pop psychology?

I call a one Mr. Bovine to the stand. Now you say that, on the day in question, you witnessed the gruesome murder of your partner? And is that person here today? Let the record show that Mr. Bovine identified Robin Hoodie as the culprit. No further questions, your honor.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I have my suspicions this will become a non-issue in the future if the properties of fake meat becomes more appetizing. Our hunger seems to be the only thing that keeps us from treating animals with "dignity."

[Mecha_Shiva]

:( You don't have to stop eating meat to promote animal welfare. You can try to take action against the corporations that are mistreating the animals before they are slaughtered. People are always gonna eat meat and I understand that. But you could at least work to make sure the animals you are benfiting from by eating them are treated to a decent life before you eat them.
Trying to make sure that the conditions the animals kept for slaughter are clean and humane can also benfit the consumer of the meat in the fact that in a clean well ventelated that is not overcrowded there is less of a chance of the spread of disease among the animals, which you then eat.

And being mistreated in factory farms isn't the only place that animals are being mistreated....
I just wonder where everyone else stands on things like that, like animal rights in the fact that someone shouldn't be allowed to buy a dog or a horse or whatever and beat it or starve it to death?

[Rosa Provokateur]

Factory farming = one of humanity's great achievements

Groups like ALF should stay indoors, for everyone's sake.
Have you seen the footage of how it works, its one of humanity's worst accomplishments. If anything it diminishes some of the things that make us human.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have you seen the footage of how it works, its one of humanity's worst accomplishments. If anything it diminishes some of the things that make us human.

Cutting up animals is never going to be pretty, whether you industrialise the process or not.

[Comrada J]

The fact that people can't afford to eat meat is nothing to be pleased about.
Devrim
Why would I be pleased by poverty? wtf? I was simply adding to the argument that poverty generally tends to encourage (practical) vegetarians, by no extend of the imagination am I pleased with having to skip a meal each day. Although a sado/maso complex like that would make life under a capitalist system much easier. :sleep:

[joseph_kay]

No It can't. The only reason I want communism is because I want to be free. The only way I can be free is by destroying power over me. The only way I can destroy power over myself is by having the force to destroy that relation, and I can't do it alone, thus I require the solidarity of all others in my position. The issue is not "right or left" at all. If you support womens rights because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside then you're probably not a communist but a radical liberal.

To get back to the original point, I do not need animals in order to abolish power relations.

see, i figure if i was mainly looking out for myself id become a big time capitalist. I'm a white male in the first world, i think my chances at relative freedom are much higher if i choose to benefit from the opression of others and support the system we have now are better than seeing a sucsesful revolution take place.
the only way for you to be free is to either destroy the power over you, or become that power yourself, and be free while holding power over others.


i support womens right because of moral reasons much more than i do because it is in my self-interest to do so. if that makes me a liberal so be it.




It might be in the day to day running of things, and within capitalism, it might mean you get a better job and more pay. But that's not in your best long term interest as a worker. You're best interest is the abolution of capitalism, and that requires mass-participation. As we all know, women are the majority. So to sum up, the need to abolsih capitalism obliges you to support womens equality. That said, the fact that women are paid less does not imemdietly effect me, not negatively at least. This is why women should campaign for themselves, for their own rights etc, in their own interests. I can support them, but not struggle on behalf of them.

Why do you support womens rights if it's not for a material reason? is it religious or moral?

as an economics once said, in the long term, we are all dead.

but i see how your support for womens liberation would not justify supporting animal liberation. me? i support both for moral reasons.

[Forward Union]

see, i figure if i was mainly looking out for myself id become a big time capitalist.

Easy as that is it? why didn't I think of it!


i support womens right because of moral reasons much more than i do because it is in my self-interest to do so. if that makes me a liberal so be it.

It does.

Where do these morals come from? You're arguing they're not material, so they must therefor be beyond the material world. You're saying that we, as humans, are connected to a set of ethical codes beyond the observable world. This is a religious claim that I suspect you cannot back up.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Cutting up animals is never going to be pretty, whether you industrialise the process or not.
True but the way living creatures are used as commodities, and nothing but commodities, is criminal. Purely criminal.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

True but the way living creatures are used as commodities, and nothing but commodities, is criminal. Purely criminal.

No it isn't. Trading and slaughtering animals for food is perfectly legal in many countries.

I don't see anything wrong with it, especially since most animals that are so used have been domesticated for that very purpose.

[Rosa Provokateur]

It might be legal by the state but ethically its criminal; the factory farm industry and the fur trade are morally bankrupt.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It might be legal by the state but ethically its criminal; the factory farm industry and the fur trade are morally bankrupt.

Animals are amoral beings, so I really don't see how you can apply morals to them.

Same with ethics. Animals have no sense of them - they can't comprehend the concept.

[communard resolution]

Animals are amoral beings, so I really don't see how you can apply morals to them.

Same with ethics. Animals have no sense of them - they can't comprehend the concept.

Couldn't the same be said about mentally retarded people, e.g. those with Down Syndrome? Do we therefore not apply any morals to them?

What keeps us from breeding people with Down Syndrome as cattle to eat them?

EDIT: I'm a born-again carnivore rather than animal rights advocate, so I'm not condemning your choices. It's just that don't I find the line of "animals can't think, they don't understand what's happening to them, etc" a particularly convincing one.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Animals are amoral beings, so I really don't see how you can apply morals to them.

Same with ethics. Animals have no sense of them - they can't comprehend the concept.
Maybe so but we as humans are and thus we should apply them. Causing uneccessary pain to a living creature is unethical, especially when that creature is innocent. Look at the veal industry, it cant be justified.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Couldn't the same be said about mentally retarded people, e.g. those with Down Syndrome? Do we therefore not apply any morals to them?
If it is alive it deserves dignity, whether human or non-human.

[communard resolution]

If it is alive it deserves dignity, whether human or non-human.

What will you do if your pubes get infested with crabs or your kitchen infested with rats?

[Rosa Provokateur]

What will you do if your pubes get infested with crabs or your kitchen infested with rats?
Good question:o

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Couldn't the same be said about mentally retarded people, e.g. those with Down Syndrome? Do we therefore not apply any morals to them?

What keeps us from breeding people with Down Syndrome as cattle to eat them?

EDIT: I'm a born-again carnivore rather than animal rights advocate, so I'm not condemning your choices. It's just that don't I find the line of "animals can't think, they don't understand what's happening to them, etc" a particularly convincing one.

People with Down's Syndrome are the exception, not the rule. We look after people with Down's for the same reason we look after all other members of our species who for whatever reason cannot look after themselves. Domesticated animals by their very nature are amoral, and would perish in a natural environment.

Cannibalism is a taboo in civilised societies, but interspecies predation would happen even in a world without humans. In fact, compared to natural predation, rearing of livestock is incredibly humane. They are kept well fed and safe from predators (barring us of course) and the survival of their species is pretty much gauranteed, unlike hunted animals.


Maybe so but we as humans are and thus we should apply them. Causing uneccessary pain to a living creature is unethical, especially when that creature is innocent.

Domesticated animals live a much better life than they would do in the wild. Any pain they do experience is no worse than the pain they would experience if they lived in the wild. How is dying of some horrible disease or having one's throat ripped out by predators better than recieving a bolt to the brain stem?


Look at the veal industry, it cant be justified.

Veal is hardly the entire output of the meat industry. Just because some sports involving animals are cruel, like dogfighting, doesn't mean all sports involving animals are cruel. The same analogy can be extended to the meat industry.

[joseph_kay]

Where do these morals come from? You're arguing they're not material, so they must therefor be beyond the material world.
i dont know where my morals come from, but they are there. you might not have any, but i do.
what about love? that doesnt have much to do with the material world, does it?
:shrugs:


You're saying that we, as humans, are connected to a set of ethical codes beyond the observable world. This is a religious claim that I suspect you cannot back up.

i said no such thing.
all i said was that i support woman liberation for moral reasons, and certainly not for self-interest. i dont believe i have much self-interest in destroying misogyny. like i said, if i were to pursue self-interest, i would attempt to be a big time capitalist.

do you think it is in your self interest to be vegetarian? it is healthier for you personally, healthier for the planet, and you can produce a lot more vegetarian food with the same amount of resources that you can meat.

[joseph_kay]

People with Down's Syndrome are the exception, not the rule. We look after people with Down's for the same reason we look after all other members of our species who for whatever reason cannot look after themselves.

what reason is that?


Domesticated animals by their very nature are amoral, and would perish in a natural environment.

mostly true, but an interesting fact is that cats would do quite well. i always thought dogs would do well, but most scientists agree that they wouldnt be able to compete with wild animals. but not cats.
i thought it was interesting anyway...



In fact, compared to natural predation, rearing of livestock is incredibly humane. They are kept well fed and safe from predators (barring us of course) and the survival of their species is pretty much gauranteed, unlike hunted animals.
i disagree. for some animals this may be true. organic free range cattle, sure. but when you look at factory farm conditions, i dont think you can honestly argue that they are better than living in the wild.

-if i remember correctly, about 10 percent of animals dont survive to be killed, they die before hand in the crummy conditions they are kept in.
-animals are kept in cages so small they are unable to move. not even to groom.
-social animals are kept separated from one another.
-with chickens, it often is a number of chickens crammed into one cage where the conditions are so bad they at times turn to cannibalism.
-these conditions, both physical and psychological induce a large amount of disease in the animals, which is then counteracted by injecting the animals with anti-biotics and other drugs and hormones.

the only argument you really have is that their species will not go extinct as long as we are around. i dont think that has anything to do with being humane.
and again, there are humane farms out there, and farmers that treat their animals well, but the claim that rearing of livestock as a whole is humane is false.




Domesticated animals live a much better life than they would do in the wild. Any pain they do experience is no worse than the pain they would experience if they lived in the wild. How is dying of some horrible disease or having one's throat ripped out by predators better than recieving a bolt to the brain stem?

yes, being killed by a predator might be equivalent to the way livestock is killed. though the animals in the wild at least have a chance of surviving. but horrible diseases are actually more likely to be encountered in factory farm situations due to the conditions the animals are kept in.
and i think more important than the way in which the animals are killed is the lives they lead up to death, and livestock leads pretty crummy lives, overall.





Veal is hardly the entire output of the meat industry. Just because some sports involving animals are cruel, like dogfighting, doesn't mean all sports involving animals are cruel. The same analogy can be extended to the meat industry.
but you agree that veal cannot be justified?

[Mindtoaster]

Animals taste good, and for the most part I can't as a human, relate in anyway to them other then by the fact that they are living.

Hell, I don't eat dogs because they don't taste good, and because they so signs of intelligence and emotion, something that I can relate to as a human.

Cows are fair game. And during the last Omnivore vs Vegan debate I saw, the vegan said that they would exterminate the entire cow species to put them out of the misery of being a food source. Oh the irony.

[MarxSchmarx]

Originally Posted by NoXion http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1256107#post1256107)
Animals are amoral beings, so I really don't see how you can apply morals to them.

Same with ethics. Animals have no sense of them - they can't comprehend the concept.

Couldn't the same be said about mentally retarded people, e.g. those with Down Syndrome? Do we therefore not apply any morals to them?

What keeps us from breeding people with Down Syndrome as cattle to eat them?


This is one of the most clever retorts I've seen to the question.

There are at least three responses which I see. The first is the obvious - people with down syndrome and who have mental retardation do think, they do love, and they do have a sense of right and wrong. They are some of the most compassionate individuals I know, and this particular analogy is factually vacuous. More apt would be a person in an incurable coma.

The second is a related argument: humans, we assume, are ethical creatures unless proven otherwise, because we ourselves are ethical creatures. If we accept that all ethical creatures should not be eaten, and we have good reason to believe humans are ethical creatures, it follows that humans should not be eaten. What we do is therefore say "humans should not be eaten", and adopt this as a categorical rule. However, we must also be epistemologically modest, and admit that even those who can't express themselves (say, the comatose) might still be capable of moral judgment. Therefore, because of our imperfect knowledge, we shouldn't go against this moral dictum lightly. I would argue that given the dire consequences of being wrong, it is better to presume that all living humans have a conscience, and essentially err on the side of caution. Of course this argument could potentially apply to (some) animals. However, in the case of animals we have no reasonable basis to believe this is so. Whereas, for humans, it is easy enough for a lot of us to imagine being in a car accident, go into a coma, and still have our moral faculties largely in tact. To be sure, some religious traditions have "envisioned" themselves being reincarnated as a tapeworm or a cow, but many have not.

The third, which I've made before is this: One has to draw the line somewhere - what are you going to do, eat rocks? Why are cows entitled to more care than the AIDS virus or soy beans? Do we stop at mammals? Vertebrates? Why should a fish have any more rights than an octopus? So animals? Well why sea slugs and not fungi? ad nauseum.

I draw the line at human beings and don't lose sleep over it.

[communard resolution]

I would argue that given the dire consequences of being wrong, it is better to presume that all living humans have a conscience, and essentially err on the side of caution. Of course this argument could potentially apply to (some) animals. However, in the case of animals we have no reasonable basis to believe this is so.

I see, but who or what are you deriving the moral dictum from that we are only obliged to apply morals to those creatures that are capable of doing the same? I genuinely don't understand the logic. If I feel compassion for someone/something, my compassion is not based on the fact that that someone/something could feel compassion for me.

I will not grab a spider and slowly pull its legs out one by one for entertainment, even though the spider could care less if the same happened to me. I did such things when I was a kid, though, which was before I developed a sense of compassion.


The third, which I've made before is this: One has to draw the line somewhere Of course. This seems to me the only valid argument in this entire debate. You've got to draw a line somewhere, but that line is arbitrary - whether you're a vegan or an omnivore there's no way you can prove your stance is correct.


I draw the line at human beings and don't lose sleep over itSo do I, although I have to tell you honestly that I would be more at peace with myself if I could stick to the following maxime: don't eat anything that you don't think you could kill with your own hands. I think I could kill a fish no problem. Maybe a chicken too. Could I kill a pig? Probably only if I were starving and had no alternative source of food.

[Forward Union]

i dont know where my morals come from, but they are there. you might not have any, but i do.
what about love? that doesnt have much to do with the material world, does it?

It's a release of dophamine, oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin), vasopressin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasopressin) and adrenaline, and a variety of other chemicals into the brain, tirggered by social interaction in relation to evolutionary imperatives and the sex drive. So yes, it's entirely to do with the material world.

It's not some mystic mumbo-jumbo.


all i said was that i support woman liberation for moral reasons, and certainly not for self-interest. i dont believe i have much self-interest in destroying misogyny. like i said, if i were to pursue self-interest, i would attempt to be a big time capitalist.

Perhaps, you'd soon have your illusions of being a big time capitlaist shattered though.

Essentially you are arguing that your morals stem from some unknown mystic realm outside of scientific understanding. That you act against your own wants in some subconcious attempt to reach a kantian kingdom of ends. Im afraid this medievil philosophies belong in the fiction department next to hutu cures for devil possesion and dragonology.


do you think it is in your self interest to be vegetarian? it is healthier for you personally, healthier for the planet, and you can produce a lot more vegetarian food with the same amount of resources that you can meat.

Firstly, it's not healthier. That would imply that meat is unhealthy, which it most certainly isn't. Fish and beef inparticular are excelent food stuffs, incredibly nourishing. The point is eating to excess is unhealthy, but that's true of all food types.

Secondly, this efficienty argument is void if you drink. The amount of edible food and indeed time and effort that goes into making alcohol, a substanece with very little practical application, is far greater than that which goes into meat. The point is I drink, and eat meat, because it's enjoyable.

We can take it further, spices are not neccisary for sustainance. I could eat cold chicken, a small block of butter, some dry cabbage etc. But spices make it more enjoyable, think of all those fields used up to grow spices! what a waste. We could be meditating on that land!

[MarxSchmarx]

I see, but who or what are you deriving the moral dictum from that we are only obliged to apply morals to those creatures that are capable of doing the same? I genuinely don't understand the logic. If I feel compassion for someone/something, my compassion is not based on the fact that that someone/something could feel compassion for me.

Yes, you are correct; I was under the impression that the assumption being thrown around here was:


Animals are amoral beings, so I really don't see how you can apply morals to them.

If we accepted this as a valid claim, it would seem to follow that we should restrict compassion and ethical considerations to those that can do the same. Of course, if we don't accept this assumption, and I agree with you the case for it is not particularly strong, then the second argument I raised is a moot point.

[Oneironaut]

Animals can not have equal rights in human society, as they aren't capable to function within it as equals. While we should ensure that unnecessary suffering of animals is minimised, this should never happen on the expense of human welfare and living standards.

Serious socialists should, in other words, always take an anthropocentric (putting humanity in the centre) rather than biocentric (putting the biosphere as whole in the centre) approach.

I couldn't agree with you more. I would not be opposed to building a pipe through a lake that could potentially cause the extinction of a fish if it was the only way to get potable water to a human population. This is theoretical of course, but does it make me not an environmentalist?

[Forward Union]

I couldn't agree with you more. I would not be opposed to building a pipe through a lake that could potentially cause the extinction of a fish if it was the only way to get potable water to a human population. This is theoretical of course, but does it make me not an environmentalist?

So would I

However it may turn out that the extinction of that fish fucks up the entire ecosystem, causing all kinds of problems for the local human population. (in the case of fish it's unlikely) But in the case of everyone havng 4x4 cars and free short-distance flights to wherever, it's rather objectively understood that if everyone did have these things, there would be an apocyliptic environmental breakdown leading to our mass extinction.

So of course, we all want whats best for humanity as a whole. But often desroying the environment to make immediate gains can be to our detriment in the long run. I don't think this means we need to stop technological improvements, or regress. It means is that we'd need to find a better way of building, for exampple a pipe in a lake, so that it wouldn't damage the area around it. And I am optimisitc that humanity is capable of such progress.

I certainly agree that a anthropocentric outlook is the only logical one for a human. Anything else is, in my opinion no different from mysticism, moralism, and other ugly forms of human ignorance. It's middle class in nature.

But as it stands, capitalism couldn't give two shits, any pipes built (badly) are for profit and not human need.

[Oneironaut]

So would I

However it may turn out that the extinction of that fish fucks up the entire ecosystem, causing all kinds of problems for the local human population. (in the case of fish it's unlikely) But in the case of everyone havng 4x4 cars and free short-distance flights to wherever, it's rather objectively understood that if everyone did have these things, there would be an apocyliptic environmental breakdown leading to our mass extinction.

So of course, we all want whats best for humanity as a whole. But often desroying the environment to make immediate gains can be to our detriment in the long run. I don't think this means we need to stop technological improvements, or regress. It means is that we'd need to find a better way of building, for exampple a pipe in a lake, so that it wouldn't damage the area around it. And I am optimisitc that humanity is capable of such progress.

I certainly agree that a anthropocentric outlook is the only logical one for a human. Anything else is, in my opinion no different from mysticism, moralism, and other ugly forms of human ignorance. It's middle class in nature.

But as it stands, capitalism couldn't give two shits, any pipes built (badly) are for profit and not human need.

We are on the same page. We should advocate for environmentalism but never at the expense of the immediate needs of humanity. I think this is where we become drastically different then some of the radical eco groups.

[Black Sheep]

With the same logic applied, why shouldn't plants have the same rights?Insects?
Bacteria?

[Mecha_Shiva]

With the same logic applied, why shouldn't plants have the same rights?Insects?
Bacteria?


I dunno, but if your talking about animal rights and welfare, then youd stick to anything in the animal kingdom Id guess. Bacteria and plants are in their own kingdoms, like fungi and protists also have.

[Invincible Summer]

I'm a vegan, and arguments have been made already, so I won't bring them back up. However, I think that we are (or will be very soon) technologically advanced enough to create cruelty-free meat products that provide the same nutritional benefits as normal meat.

Hell, you can go to any vegetarian/Buddhist Chinese restaurant and get mock meats made from wheat gluten ("seitan") that tastes just like meat and has a similar texture. Probably not as nutritionally advantageous, but it's very close otherwise.

[communard resolution]

mock meats made from wheat gluten ("seitan") that tastes just like meat and has a similar texture.

I think I recently bought some of that stuff. Doesn't taste like meat at all if you ask me, but it's very tasty in its own way.

[The Feral Underclass]

As human beings, we should make an effort to treat other sentient creatures with respect and dignity. This means that we should do whatever is reasonable to insure that their industrial use is humane and that they do no suffer or die needlessly.

How is the industrial slaughter/use of animals respectful or dignified in the first place?

[The Feral Underclass]

never at the expense of the immediate needs of humanity.

But meat is not a necessity.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But meat is not a necessity.

Lots of things are "not a necessity", but I still want my bacon sarnies.

[Vanguard1917]

How is the industrial slaughter/use of animals respectful or dignified in the first place?

It's not. Nor does it have to be.

(The idea that any kind of slaughter can be 'respectful' makes very little sense in itself.)

[Mecha_Shiva]

[quote=NoXion;1256282]
Domesticated animals live a much better life than they would do in the wild. Any pain they do experience is no worse than the pain they would experience if they lived in the wild. How is dying of some horrible disease or having one's throat ripped out by predators better than recieving a bolt to the brain stem?
[quote]


I know that whether in the wild, or in captivity, they will die.

But the difference is the time in between that, the time when they are alive. In factory farms that is spent in a tiny, crowded, dark pen with poor air circulation, without even enough room to turn around. Just because in both captivity and the wild, animals are born then they die, doesn't mean that the time inbetween is irrelevant.

Again, I do not think people should not eat meat. I think it is fine for people to eat it. It's the way of life, animals eat other animals. For some people it may be healthy to cut meat out of their diet, but it isn't healthy for everyone, like anemic people who need a lot of iron. Everyone is different and one diet won't work for every person.

But I am against the treatment of animals in the factory farms. So I would never eat meat that is from a farm where the animals are treated this way. Just like people are against the way workers are treated in sweatshops, so they do not buy clothes from places that they know that are made in sweatshops. You don't just stop wearing clothes because of sweatshops, but you do educate yourself and go out of your way not to support these places and work to help the people that are being taken advantage of.

And it's not only the animals that would benefit from better living conditons. It would be healthier for people if there were higher standards in the living conditions. Disease spreads more rapidly when animals are kept in cramped areas, and there is no ventalation. Then, to stop the disease that is spreads more rapidly because of the poor conditions, animals are given anti-biotics that we then consume. Over use in anti-biotics can then result in the more bacteria becoming resistant to them. And this is partly also happening because of americans love affair with everything anti-bacterial, form hand soap to lysol. And the fact that they go to the doctor and are medicated even for a little cold. But thats another can of worms.

And there are other areas of animals welfare besides the animals that are eaten. Like animal abuse, zoos, the number of homeless animals and the trade of exotic animals are a few. Would these things be adressed if a workers revolution was to happen? Would animals have any protection from these things in a workers state? I mean I could see if they were put on a back burner during the revolution, cuz I guess a lot would be going on during it. But after I would hope these things would be taken seriously, and not just ignored.

[Patchd]

How is the industrial slaughter/use of animals respectful or dignified in the first place?
Should it matter if it is respectful or dignified at all? Why should we apply our rights to other species that do not contribute in the same way to society as we do, they contribute to us by being alive, eaten or used as entertainment (zoos etc.).

And also what NoXion said.


Just because in both captivity and the wild, animals are born then they die, doesn't mean that the time inbetween is irrelevant.
Why is that time relevant to us?

[The Feral Underclass]

Should it matter if it is respectful or dignified at all?

But why wouldn't it?

[Patchd]

But why wouldn't it?
I'm not answering a negative, I believe you posited the position that the industrial use of animals is not respectful or dignified, it is your responsibility to prove that. :p

[Mecha_Shiva]

Should it matter if it is respectful or dignified at all? Why should we apply our rights to other species that do not contribute in the same way to society as we do, they contribute to us by being alive, eaten or used as entertainment (zoos etc.).

And also what NoXion said.


Why is that time relevant to us?


The rest of my post says why its relavant.

I'm not saying you should apply human morals to animals, as a lot of people who have posted before this are against as they say animals are amoral beings. Though I think bringing up morals isn't a good idea seeing as morals themselves are so ambiguous.

But you can have a certain sensitivity to other life forms on this planet. They may no contribute in society in a way you think is useful, though I think providing meat to feed people is a pretty good thing, they are still also living things. Remeber that people are also animals, nothing more nothing less. Not every person in the world contributes to society, does that mean they're right should be taken away. I don't think what you contribute should say whether or not its ok to abuse you.

We as human beings I think should take(according to you we have morals) the higher moral ground and see that animals are of a higher standing than to be tortured. They have pain receptors like any of us do, why would we subject them to a life of pain and misery we ourselves would decry. This has nothing to do with applying morals to other species, it has to do with (I'm not sure if I want to use the word but it seems to fit) respect for other life forms in general. Just because other species don't have morals, means humans, as beings with morals, can treat another species any way we want and it's not seen as immoral?

[Killfacer]

There is a tendancy on this site for certain people to show callousnes towards animal welfare, simply to distance themselves from the stereotype of the leftist tree hunging hippy.

[Patchd]

But you can have a certain sensitivity to other life forms on this planet. They may no contribute in society in a way you think is useful, though I think providing meat to feed people is a pretty good thing, they are still also living things.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't go around killing puppies for the lulz. I do believe in animal welfare to an extent. When it comes to factory farming, I see benefits in it, mainly being that it produces a greater yield, higher efficiency.

True that in in our current state, some of that increased yield, no a lot of it actually, is wasted by the distributors who see no profit from giving it away to the needy. However, in a post-revolutionary situation, I believe factory farming can be very beneficial for those who lack food, perhaps even freezing and transporting surpluses to underdeveloped areas of the world would be better, rather than burning or crushing the surplus.


Just because other species don't have morals, means humans, as beings with morals, can treat another species any way we want and it's not seen as immoral?
Well the reason I would support animal welfare to an extent is because I think as civilised humans we should at least show some compassion to our animal counterparts as we do to other humans, however, if animal research or factory farming can benefit us, then I say go for it.

[Invincible Summer]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't go around killing puppies for the lulz. I do believe in animal welfare to an extent. When it comes to factory farming, I see benefits in it, mainly being that it produces a greater yield, higher efficiency.


Meat is hardly efficient. (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#diet)

From the article:





Farm animals are inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. In 1993, US farm animals were fed 192.7 million tonnes of feed concentrates, the bulk of it corn, in order to produce 31.2 million tonnes of carcass meat – making for a ratio of 6.2 to 1.

That's a lot of corn that could have been used to produce food for people who need it, instead of half-diseased factory farm animals who are dying and probably won't benefit as much from the food as humans would.


Although it's obvious that revolutionary class struggle is a higher priority than animal rights (AR), I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.

For example:

Cows produce milk for the same reason that humans do: to nourish their babies. In order to force the animals to continue giving milk, factory farmers impregnate them using artificial insemination every year. Calves are generally taken from their mothers within a day of being born—males are destined for veal crates, and females are sentenced to the same fate as their mothers. (from http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_Dairy.asp)

Taking the product of a (supposedly) natural process in order to sell on the market as a commodity, then slaughtering the young males and enslaving the females in order to do the same.

Sentient life (which all animals - including humans - are) should be free of authoritative and involuntary coercion in order to be free to do as they please, most of us can agree on that. Therefore, it doesn't seem right to treat animals as wholly inferior beings and exert dominance over them.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Meat is hardly efficient. (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#diet)

From the article:



That's a lot of corn that could have been used to produce food for people who need it, instead of half-diseased factory farm animals who are dying and probably won't benefit as much from the food as humans would.

Irrelevant. We already produce enough food to feed everyone. It is the distributory system (capitalism) which is insufficient for human needs, not the means of production.


Although it's obvious that revolutionary class struggle is a higher priority than animal rights (AR), I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.

For example:
(from http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_Dairy.asp)

Taking the product of a (supposedly) natural process in order to sell on the market as a commodity, then slaughtering the young males and enslaving the females in order to do the same.


I've yet to hear a communique from the Bovine Liberation Front. Wait, there isn't one?

Could it be because cows aren't sapient? Well, blow me down. How can you exploit something that cannot even conceive of the concept of exploitation?


Sentient life (which all animals - including humans - are) should be free of authoritative and involuntary coercion in order to be free to do as they please, most of us can agree on that. Therefore, it doesn't seem right to treat animals as wholly inferior beings and exert dominance over them.

You are confusing sentience and sapience. Crows are sentient, yet you would likely have no problem with chasing them away from eating your crops. Isn't that coercion?

[BobKKKindle$]

There is a tendancy on this site for certain people to show callousnes towards animal welfare, simply to distance themselves from the stereotype of the leftist tree hunging hippy.The onus is on you to show that humans have a moral and/or legal obligation to protect the welfare of animals when doing so undermines our ability as a species to use animals for our own advantage. The use animals as research subjects has allowed us to develop medicines which have helped improve the lives of people around the world suffering from infectious diseases and even today millions of people living in oppressed nations are dependent on animals for transportation and agricultural labour - calling for the use (or "exploitation" if you prefer) of animals to be banned or otherwise obstructed on abstract moral grounds would have a negative impact of all of these individuals as well as the general welfare of our species and so is an inherently misanthropic position. It may be the case that eating meat is not necessary for our survival - but mere survival should not be the aim of the communist movement, instead we should seek to attain the highest standard of life possible for as many people as possible, and this aim necessarily involves allowing people to eat meat, given that meat is widely considered to be tasty and an important part of many cuisines, and producing meat in the most efficient way possible, including factory farming.

[bellyscratch]

Meat is hardly efficient. (http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/#diet)

From the article:



That's a lot of corn that could have been used to produce food for people who need it, instead of half-diseased factory farm animals who are dying and probably won't benefit as much from the food as humans would.


Although it's obvious that revolutionary class struggle is a higher priority than animal rights (AR), I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.

For example:
(from http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_Cows_Dairy.asp)

Taking the product of a (supposedly) natural process in order to sell on the market as a commodity, then slaughtering the young males and enslaving the females in order to do the same.

Sentient life (which all animals - including humans - are) should be free of authoritative and involuntary coercion in order to be free to do as they please, most of us can agree on that. Therefore, it doesn't seem right to treat animals as wholly inferior beings and exert dominance over them.

I agree with this guy
:D

[Pawn Power]

animal rights activists found guilty of blackmail (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/23/animal-rights-activists-blackmail-guilty)

[Vanguard1917]

I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.

Dear oh dear.

[Pawn Power]

Although it's obvious that revolutionary class struggle is a higher priority than animal rights (AR), I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.What do you mean by this? The process of exploitation? That they have similar moral implications? The capitalists see the working class as just as animals to be exploited? That we should view animals as an "exploited class"? It is not very clear.

Either way, the enslavement and exploitation of humans has very different social implications, ones that the caging and exploitation of other animals can never have.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think that caging animals, slaughtering them and using their parts/natural processes for our own gain is hardly different than capitalist exploitation of the working class.

Marxists do not view "exploitation" as an emotional or even a moral concept. Instead, exploitation refers to the means by which the bourgeoisie accumulates capital - paying workers less than the value of what they produce to generate surplus value. Therefore, it makes no sense to view animals as being exploited, because animals are used in the same way as humans, and do not receive the same form of payment for the labour they perform.

[FreeFocus]

Marxists do not view "exploitation" as an emotional or even a moral concept. Instead, exploitation refers to the means by which the bourgeoisie accumulates capital - paying workers less than the value of what they produce to generate surplus value. Therefore, it makes no sense to view animals as being exploited, because animals are used in the same way as humans, and do not receive the same form of payment for the labour they perform.

Well, good for Marxists. The poster you were addressing isn't even a Marxist, so your point means nil, unless you are trying to recruit him. It's like when Christians debate non-Christians and use only the Bible as a source of evidence. lol. Self-justification?

I support animal rights. I do not support factory farming, for example, which is a disgusting capitalist practice. Some communists hope to continue it, unfortunately, but they should be wholly opposed in their efforts. For a lot of things, it depends on the situation: I do not, out of principle, disagree with eating animals. That's natural. How the food is acquired or produced is another matter, and thus my support or disagreement is situational and conditional. Let's take testing. While cruel forms should be avoided, if there were absolutely no other choices (which is extremely rare) available, then I would reluctantly support it in a given situation.

[Brother No. 1]

well I think animals should not be mistreated and abused but they cant have the equal rights as us for they cant live to those expectations

[BobKKKindle$]

FreeFocus, the last time we had this discussion the only argument you could come up with to support your position that animals should be entitled to rights and protected from mistreatment was the idea that allowing animals to be "exploited" makes it more likely that humans will also suffer exploitation, and helps perpetuate racism because historically oppressed ethnic groups have been compared to animals by their oppressors to create an ideological and quasi-biological justification for the system of oppression. This, however, is a bogus argument - to paraphrase Nozick, butchers and the people who work at factory farms (i.e. those who are involved in what you see as the violation of rights on a daily basis) are not more likely to commit murder or any other violent crime than other members of society, and conversely, communities which uphold animals as possessing rights or other special properties have shown themselves to be capable of committing terrible acts of violence despite their alleged belief in the dignity of all living things - the radical wing of the animal rights movement and Hinduism being prime examples of this. Where is the imperative to give animals rights?

[Brother No. 1]

you make a point

[Invincible Summer]

We already produce enough food to feed everyone. It is the distributory system (capitalism) which is insufficient for human needs, not the means of production.

True.


I've yet to hear a communique from the Bovine Liberation Front. Wait, there isn't one?

Could it be because cows aren't sapient? Well, blow me down. How can you exploit something that cannot even conceive of the concept of exploitation?

You are confusing sentience and sapience. Crows are sentient, yet you would likely have no problem with chasing them away from eating your crops. Isn't that coercion?

The working class under false consciousness can be considered to not understand their exploitation by the capitalists. Therefore, they are being exploited without knowledge of the concept.

You don't have to know what something is to have it done to you.


The point is this: we use animals against their will for our own gain - that's different than chasing crows away.


What do you mean by this? The process of exploitation? That they have similar moral implications? The capitalists see the working class as just as animals to be exploited? That we should view animals as an "exploited class"? It is not very clear.

Either way, the enslavement and exploitation of humans has very different social implications, ones that the caging and exploitation of other animals can never have.

The way we treat animals is, in my opinion, much like how capitalists use workers: capitalists hinder the desired livelihood of a worker through the use of wage labour; animals have their livelihoods hindered through our reliance on them to produce things such as food and clothing.

While you're right that enslavement/exploitation of humans has different implications than animals, I still think it's important to keep in mind that animals are not here solely for our use and that they have their own lives to live, albeit different ones than ours.



Marxists do not view "exploitation" as an emotional or even a moral concept. Instead, exploitation refers to the means by which the bourgeoisie accumulates capital - paying workers less than the value of what they produce to generate surplus value. Therefore, it makes no sense to view animals as being exploited, because animals are used in the same way as humans, and do not receive the same form of payment for the labour they perform.

I understand that, and I knew I would get response based on my use of the term "exploitation," given how left tendencies are full of ideological jargon (not meaning this in a derogatory way).
However, I cannot conceive any other word that is appropriate to describe the treatment of animals in a capitalist system.

With all I've said, I do think that so long as the factory-farm system is abandoned in a communist society, AR will improve. After all, it is that very system that treats animals solely as commodities to be sold on the market.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The working class under false consciousness can be considered to not understand their exploitation by the capitalists. Therefore, they are being exploited without knowledge of the concept.

You don't have to know what something is to have it done to you.

This is about capability of understanding, not knowledge. Humans can become activists and revolutionaries. Cows moo.

Why is the capability to understand such concepts important? Because it gives one an opportunity to understand something. Once you understand something, you can work to change it.

So...


The point is this: we use animals against their will for our own gain - that's different than chasing crows away.

No understanding = no change. So why should we do it for them? Animals certainly have a more immediate sense of suffering, so we should be mindful of animal welfare. But beyond that - animal rights? Why?

[Pawn Power]

True.
The way we treat animals is, in my opinion, much like how capitalists use workers: capitalists hinder the desired livelihood of a worker through the use of wage labour; animals have their livelihoods hindered through our reliance on them to produce things such as food and clothing.

While you're right that enslavement/exploitation of humans has different implications than animals, I still think it's important to keep in mind that animals are not here solely for our use and that they have their own lives to live, albeit different ones than ours.


While I agree that capitalist do treat workers like non-human animals (as a resource to exploit) I don't think that the relation necessarily means that animals "deserve" to be treated akin to humans. I don't know what you mean that "animals are not here solely for our use." What are they here for? Do they have a different "destiny"? Of course they weren't created for us but they also don't have a preordained reason for existence. There lives is bound by the natural world. We manipulate nature, obviously. This doesn't mean we have to beat dogs and stack pigs in kennels like bricks. We can choose how to treat animals based on our own needs, desires, and feelings.

[Vanguard1917]

I do not, out of principle, disagree with eating animals.

But in practice you do disagree with it, since, if we got rid of factory farming (i.e. the mass production of meat), as you believe that we should, meat consumption will be heavily restricted. The most likely consequence of abolishing mass meat production will be that meat will once again become a product which can be consumed regularly only by the very privileged, i.e. by the rich.

The mass production of meat has made meat less expensive for millions, allowing more and more people to add meat to their regular diets. This is a good thing. I doubt very many working class people who can now afford to eat meat want to return to the days when meat was a scarce luxury that they had to break their backs for to be able to enjoy once a week, if that.

[RedSonRising]

Peter Singer's arguments are the most attractive to me , focusing more on animal welfare than animal rights per se. The principle by which we judge in this case is the ability for the animal in question to feel pain. While one can surviv on a Vegan diet, I have been told that supplements and iron pills do not account for the loss of iron and resulting brittle bones from not receiving natural protien and all the other good stuff that comes from meat. In this case, I would not mind if the animal I was eating did not feel pain and was treated well. In some countries the cow is in fact pampered before it is slaughtered. Also, if the revolution works out great and we establish a democratic society where we have a stable biosphere, animal population control will once again be needed as it is now in some parts (as opposed to more popular threat of endangerment and/or extinction), and hunting deserves merit as tradition in my opinion.

[Dimentio]

should it be an issue for the movement? note that i distunguish between animal rights and animal welfare

You cannot have rights if you do not have obligations.

Animals do not have any obligations, therefore, they cannot have rights.

[Mecha_Shiva]

I'm not saying that animals should stop being used for research or for meat. Obviously this needs to be done. We can't ignore the needs of our species because we don't want to hurt any other species. The world is like that, survival of the fittest.
But us as humans have moved past just living as survival of the fittest. And while I do believe that yes, we do need to eat animals ans yes we do need drug research. there should still be a sensitivity to the life of the animal in the process, because we do see ourselves as concsiouss beings who have morals. We should try to make the lives of the animals as pain free and nomal as we possible can while we are benefitting fom their life.
And I'm not sure that even if factory farming is the most efficient thing for people to use, I would support it, and I don't really believe that it is the most efficient
(disease spread and thrives in the conditions of a factroy farm). I think there is a line between efficient and cruel. And how far over that line do we want to be? I think there should be a balance between efficency and cruelty, because obviously the meat industry is alway going to be there and it is always going to be somewhat cruel. But how far is it ok to go? I think that factory farming has crossed that line.

As for animals not being able to protest the way they are treated and that making it ok to treat them anyway at all, just because animals can't verbally speak to us and say the words "no" does not mean that it is ok to abuse them or that they have no way of communicating that the behavior is abuse. I mean if you corner a dog and beat it with a stick, it will either whimper with its tail between its legs and cower or it will bear its teeth growl and bite you. Those are two ways the animal communicates that it is being abused and it is not ok with how it is being treated. Trying to say that just because animals do not protest abuse the behaivor is not abuse is just rediculous. When a farmer brands a cow, the cow is obvioulsy protesting. Like three guys have to hold the cow down, and when the cow is branded, it crys out in pain. But wait, just because the cow didn't say "Ow" means it has no problem with what happened.

[Mecha_Shiva]

animals rights activists found guilty of blackmail

I don't understand why this post is relavant? Because a few animal rights activists were wrong means that all other animal rights actvisits are wrong too, or that because of this animals don't deserve protection from abuse? Only because of a few stupid people in the world?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As for animals not being able to protest the way they are treated and that making it ok to treat them anyway at all, just because animals can't verbally speak to us and say the words "no" does not mean that it is ok to abuse them or that they have no way of communicating that the behavior is abuse. I mean if you corner a dog and beat it with a stick, it will either whimper with its tail between its legs and cower or it will bear its teeth growl and bite you. Those are two ways the animal communicates that it is being abused and it is not ok with how it is being treated. Trying to say that just because animals do not protest abuse the behaivor is not abuse is just rediculous. When a farmer brands a cow, the cow is obvioulsy protesting. Like three guys have to hold the cow down, and when the cow is branded, it crys out in pain. But wait, just because the cow didn't say "Ow" means it has no problem with what happened.

You are confusing abuse and exploitation. Animals certainly feel pain, but they do not suffer anywhere near the same extent of mental anguish as humans do. Which is why it is generally considered wrong to kick around a dog for fun, but OK to put one down after attacking someone, rather than taking them to court. Their minds simply cannot comprehend the concept of "death row".