RE: [SouthBayVeggies] Peter Singer at Stanford Wed. April 23, 7 PM

April 22, 2008

Hi, at the risk of starting a severe flame war, I want to chime in here - I

read Peter Singer's position on the controversial subject in question:

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

and to me it seems to say that he is an enemy of the disabled is not

correct. In my humble opinion, your Rutgers lecturer friend, is

overreacting and reacting emotionally without rationally analyzing or fully

reading Singer's views.

Well, because I don't really want to start a flame war here, I just stated

my opinion and I don't want to discuss it further, of course anyone is

welcomed to have a differing opinion on Peter Singer's views.

Mark

On Behalf Of Sage, Mike

Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:51 PM

ActivistsForAnimals ;

Cc: isage

[southBayVeggies] Peter Singer at Stanford Wed. April 23, 7 PM

Just a reminder about Peter Singer's talk. See below (two e-mails

below) for details.

Although Singer's writings are seen as foundational to the animal rights

movement, I should note that some of Singer's views (e.g., concerning

euthanasia of disabled babies) have been met with dismay. See

http://en.wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer>

..org/wiki/Peter_Singer for some details. I am noting

this because a Rutgers University lecturer (and vegetarian activist)

e-mailed this to me:

" I wish that I could be there to protest Peter Singer, a great enemy of

the disabled. ... I am surprised that you are not yet aware of the great

harm that Peter Singer is doing to the disabled community and its

struggle to achieve a modicum of respect from the 'abled' community.

Shame on you... "

April 23, 2008

Well since it seems someone has raised a philosophic discussion topic on

this list, I will add my bit, hoping to not incite a flame war.

Having lightly read some things by Singer, and some of the controversy

around him, my general take is this. He raises questions about why we value

things, like life (human life, animal life). He seems to push people to

have a consistent notion of value between species. He then asks very tough

questions along the lines of, " if it's mental functioning that entails

value, then is a mature pig of more value than a severely brain-damaged

embryo? "

Plus he has gone on to propose things resembling euthanasia for severely

disabled babies.

I can certainly see why disabled people have reacted negatively to some of

his work. On the same token, as someone who shares Singer's perspective

broadly, I think these issues of life and death are hard to decide. They

are especially hard when one is asked to decide them *in a consistent way*

for humans and animals. Without resorting to " meta-physical " and specist

statements like " humans are intrinsically better, " as opposed to " higher

mental function is intrinsically better. "

We can have a very deep and productive discussion on these issues,

independent of Singer or whoever raised them. Perhaps that would be

Singer's greatest service.

Dave

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Mark Galeck <mark_galeck

wrote:

> Hi, at the risk of starting a severe flame war, I want to chime in here

> - I

> read Peter Singer's position on the controversial subject in question:

>

> http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm

>

> and to me it seems to say that he is an enemy of the disabled is not

> correct. In my humble opinion, your Rutgers lecturer friend, is

> overreacting and reacting emotionally without rationally analyzing or

> fully

> reading Singer's views.

>

> Well, because I don't really want to start a flame war here, I just stated

> my opinion and I don't want to discuss it further, of course anyone is

> welcomed to have a differing opinion on Peter Singer's views.

>

> Mark

>

> <%40>

> [ <%40>]

> On Behalf Of Sage, Mike

> Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:51 PM

> To:

ActivistsForAnimals <ActivistsForAnimals%40>;

> <%40>

> Cc: isage <isage%40ucsd.edu>

> [southBayVeggies] Peter Singer at Stanford Wed. April 23, 7 PM

>

> Just a reminder about Peter Singer's talk. See below (two e-mails

> below) for details.

>

> Although Singer's writings are seen as foundational to the animal rights

> movement, I should note that some of Singer's views (e.g., concerning

> euthanasia of disabled babies) have been met with dismay. See

> http://en.wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer>

> .org/wiki/Peter_Singer for some details. I am noting

> this because a Rutgers University lecturer (and vegetarian activist)

> e-mailed this to me:

>

> " I wish that I could be there to protest Peter Singer, a great enemy of

> the disabled. ... I am surprised that you are not yet aware of the great

> harm that Peter Singer is doing to the disabled community and its

> struggle to achieve a modicum of respect from the 'abled' community.

> Shame on you... "

>

April 24, 2008

Hi,

I did attend Peter Singer's talk at Stanford last evening and did want to

add some comments. I believe that the agenda for this group is not limited to

setting up dinners, etc. but also to exchange ideas *without making it a flame

war*.

I did want to walk up to the mike and ask Peter some questions but I was too

shy. :-(

So, I sent him an email instead which may never get read. :-)

One thing which always surprises me is that I always find it odd that people

feel better about eating, for example, free-range chicken rather than those from

the cages. Singer did have a slide about whether it mattered if a human being

died young (and as a result, missed out on some many experiences or

opportunities) whereas this may not make a difference to an animal. In a twisted

sense, maybe eating a caged chicken is better (since it would put an end to its

misery) whereas eating a free-range chicken is actually ending a happy life and

is, in that sense, more cruel.

It is interesting that we human beings use this to console ourselves when

someone who has suffered a lot in life, dies. We tell ourselves and others that

at least the person is no longer suffering.

Singer also had a slide about the Million Dollar Meat and Peta's proposal. If I

or someone came up with the same idea for cloning human flesh (in vitro flesh),

would we be comfortable with human beings who would like to be cannibals

(without the moral issues) eating some cloned flesh? I believe that Peta's

answer should be yes to both possibilities. Even though I don't believe in the

" Million Dollar Meat " proposal.

-Siva

April 25, 2008

I'm trying to keep my response polite but I strongly disagree with his reasoning

there regarding suffering.

When we say, " at least their suffering is over " , it's a rationalization, it's a

coping strategy. It's not the same as saying, " if they suffer, they're better

off dead. " I'd rather chickens weren't eaten at all, but if their lot is to

die, I'd rather they have every chance in the world to enjoy the time they have.

Saying that we should eat caged birds to end their suffering is about as

ridiculous as the assertion that if we stopped eating meat, we'd be overrun by

the animals. The only reason these animals suffer is because we eat them in the

first place. But short of converting everyone to veganism, the cage-free option

puts that uneasy thought into someone's head that they are eating life and

eating misery. The Tao says naming a quality gives rise to its opposite. The

existence of cage-free birds means somewhere there are caged birds. A lot of

people don't think much about where their food comes from so this is an asset, a

reminder. It may be

the seed of vegetarianism germinating. Or it may just be rationalization. But

volunteering at an animal sanctuary has taught me the difference it makes to an

animal is immense.

The other problem with his rationalization is that it has the hint of doing

these animals a favor. Our appetites cage them, not their unfortunate lot in

life. Unlike say a disabled or diseased human who likely had no deciding role

in their suffering, we do have influence over animal suffering. Supporting cage

free animals is by no means a perfect solution but it begins to put dollars

behind our values. Since dollars are pretty much the only language these

corporations understand (certainly not fluent in the language of compassion),

choosing free range is voting against suffering.

I know he's just a pot stirrer and he raises philosophical debates like these to

get people thinking but having heard this example, I can see why so many are

upset with him. He tries to draw human animal parallels to non-human animal

dilemmas. Except that I am specieist and I think you'll find most people are.

Humans for their capacity to effect change in the lives of themselves and

others, the environment, the planet, and on a more personal note, for their

ability to comprehend their suffering or the suffering of others, deserve at

least a tiny bit of special consideration over the lives of animals. That

doesn't mean that I don't have compassion for animals. But I also don't treat

animal issues the same as human issues. I euthanized my cat two years ago

because she was dying from a virtually untreatable cancer. Sure, there might

have been a chance that she'd be the 1 in a 100 or 1 in a 1000 case that was

cured or that I could have added a month

or six to her life. But she couldn't comprehend the suffering she'd go through

for that gamble. Neither could she comprehend the greater good the money spent

on her could achieve being spent on giving another cat the best life opportunity

I could afford for her. Would I have acted the same way with a human? Gosh, I

hope not! Three of my relatives had cancer in the last three years. Would it

have better to say, " sucks for you, let's put you down now since you're going to

suffer, and use the money we'd save on treatment to give your kids a better

chance. " ? It doesn't take a Peter Singer to answer that question.

I actually think the philosophy of animal welfare and animal rights is a huge

obstacle to getting anything done. Whether we try to equate animal suffering to

human suffering or we don't, there will always be detractors saying the former

is ridiculous and the latter is hypocritical. At the end of the day, a chicken

is still dying whether it was caged or free-ranging in chicken nirvana.

I respect Singer for making people think but I also respect those who turn

thoughts into actions. I'm not sure how turning us upon each other is really

helping the animals. But then I'm not sure what his agenda and feelings about

animals are.

As for million dollar meat, I'm all for it. If someone has an appetite for

meat, they should have to confront and own up to that appetite no matter what

form it takes. It's funny how people are perfectly comfortable having a chicken

sandwich but if you offer them a chickens sandwich, that minor linguistic

difference is enough to make them a little uneasy. I guess it makes them think

of the animal instead of the food as if they were two separate compartments in

their rationalizing brain. Anyway, if million dollar meat reduces or eliminates

animal suffering, let them all eat clones of each other. It's only a matter of

time before they're eating cloned animals anyway.

~Matthew

Siva Kumar <the_second_amigo

Thursday, April 24, 2008 3:06:53 PM

Re: [southBayVeggies] Peter Singer at Stanford Wed. April 23, 7 PM