New Yorker: The Logic-AR's Mouvement

[Lou]

How Far Should We Carry the Logic of the Animal-Rights Movement?​

People who think seriously about the use and abuse of nonhuman creatures often end up calling for changes that might seem indefensible—at least, at first.

In this month's New Yorker there is an article titled "Beastly Matters". You can read it online using the link at the bottom of the page. Although The New Yorker is behind a pay wall - they allow you to read a few articles each year for free. Or you can probably read it online via your public library.

I know that a few of us like to debate and discuss philosophy in regards to veganism. I recommend this article to all of them. And encourage them to come back to this space to discuss this article.

First off when I started the article I thought it was going to be a book review. Its not. Although it does discuss two books it really doesn't go into them in depth. In fact, I'm not sure what category to put this article in. Maybe it's an opinion piece. I don't think it's good journalism. It's pretty obvious that the author has some biases and prejudices against if not the Animal Rights Movement in general, at least against some of the authors he mentions.

The author appears to be very well informed on Animal Rights. He discusses the history and background very clearly. Judging by his use of quotes is very well read on the subject. However he colors or at least tints most of those things he discusses. If he is spotlighting some things he is doing so in an unfavorable light.

I got sort of annoyed with the author about 3/4 of the way thru and skipped to the end to see what his conclusion was - and I really couldn't find one.

How Far Should We Carry the Logic of the Animal-Rights Movement?

People who think seriously about the use and abuse of nonhuman creatures often end up calling for changes that might seem indefensible—at least, at first.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Graeme M]

I thought it a good article. The main thrust seems to be that our use of animals is always a multi-faceted and fractured arrangement in which we seem torn by the wish to use and eat animals against the knowledge that we do so much wrong by them. I felt he sought to highlight how no-one seems to have provided a sound conception of the best way to go, while referring to several well-known thinkers in the field. His conclusion seems to be that whatever the merits of various arguments might be, in the end it all comes back to each of us individually.

One thing he did observe that I suppose I'd not given much thought to is that it seems inconsistent to argue for protection of minimally sentient creatures like oysters, clams, perhaps even crabs while endorsing abortion. I think that's a fair observation, but surely on empirical grounds we can agree that if a fetus is aborted before the age at which sentience truly emerges, then we are not being inconsistent.

Where it gets tricky perhaps is when the fetus is likely to be sentient, but here again, I am not so much moved by claims that sentience reduces to suffering. Suffering matters, but surely not to the exclusion of other salient features. After all, the ability to feel pain is simply a fact about the world - many animals have evolved this capacity to enable more complex behaviours. But on its own, does it matter that much? A mature crab has more than just pain capacity - it has the ability to learn, to adapt behaviours and to make some kinds of plans. I doubt that any fetus has those capacities. Still, if a fetus being aborted feels pain and suffers, vegans seem compelled to oppose the act.

In the end and getting back to animal rights, the central question - how far should we carry the logic of the animal rights movement - is surely an individual one. As I have suggested before, in the absence of laws directing our behaviour, any theory of animal rights still rests upon a voluntary disposition by a human being. So for most of us, veganism/animal rights reduces to behaviours we can (and are willing) to undertake.

The answer is, as far as we want to. But we can hope to influence others and have better laws enacted to minimise the worst of animal mistreatments and maximise the best ways to behave towards them.

 

[g0rph]

One thing he did observe that I suppose I'd not given much thought to is that it seems inconsistent to argue for protection of minimally sentient creatures like oysters, clams, perhaps even crabs while endorsing abortion. I think that's a fair observation, but surely on empirical grounds we can agree that if a fetus is aborted before the age at which sentience truly emerges, then we are not being inconsistent.

Where it gets tricky perhaps is when the fetus is likely to be sentient, but here again, I am not so much moved by claims that sentience reduces to suffering. Suffering matters, but surely not to the exclusion of other salient features. After all, the ability to feel pain is simply a fact about the world - many animals have evolved this capacity to enable more complex behaviours. But on its own, does it matter that much? A mature crab has more than just pain capacity - it has the ability to learn, to adapt behaviours and to make some kinds of plans. I doubt that any fetus has those capacities. Still, if a fetus being aborted feels pain and suffers, vegans seem compelled to oppose the act.

If a pig or a rabbit or a dog was growing inside me, sentient, I would have zero problem getting it removed. Same goes for a baby human, sentient or not.

Abortion is not a vegan issue, it's one of bodily autonomy.

Just to clarify though, I hate abortion. It's repulsive. But it isn't MY body. It should always be a discussion between a pregnant person and a doctor.

 

[FlandersOD]

Pretty struck sense of consistency and I would say it should go all the way.

 

[veganfortheanimalss]

Just follow these 2 rules...
# First, leave the animals alone from human acts of torture/suffering/killing(aka, don't do evil things by torturing or/and killing them for your pleasure).
# Second, protect/help them from naturally occurring pain/suffering and death(aka, do good things as much as possible).

Sentient Animals have a right to be left alone. That alone is the biggest right to be upheld. Life is hard for them without human involvement. With human involvement it's impossible for them to survive. Just leave them alone. That alone is the biggest right to be upheld.

-----

Abortion is just like veganism. Just like you should not put your pleasure above the life of a sentient animal, you should not put the pleasure of sex above the death of a developing life. So morally abortion is wrong unless the woman got raped or her life is under threat. However from the view point of humans generally being awful, the last thing we need are more humans so abortion is preventing more awful humans to get born, and them contributing to the ongoing suffering of livestock animals and holocene mass extinction. So I'm being pulled morally on one side and suffering on the other. So can't take a stand against abortion as it's very grey area because of these 2 factors.