animal welfare re AfA comments and observations

[Guest guest]

Kim Bartlett wrote:

 

Your view that the misery of animals should not be mitigated because having

more suffering versus less suffering is a greater incentive for people to stop

exploiting animals is held by a segment of animal rights advocates, but can you

provide an example of some horrible animal atrocity that has been effectively

and absolutely abolished without a process of incremental regulation, reform or

reduction?

 

I need to make several points to answer the above.

1. I don't believe anyone, certainly not I, has ever advocated the

continuation of suffering as a tactic for ending exploitation.

2. The animal rights movement has not been going long enough to have reached

the critical mass to effectively and absolutely abolish any of the systems

of animal exploitation. But, if enough people can understand the AR

position, the time will come.

3. The biggest and most obvious example of the thinking behind the AR stance

is of course Slavery. The abolition of slavery was not achieved by treating

slaves more humanely.

3. But already millions of animals have been saved from atrocious treatment

because people like you and me decided not to eat them - think of the number

of animals that would have had to be killed to supply the tables at the AfA

conferences if it had not been decided that the catering should be

vegetarian.

4. If I could still believe that farm animals had pleasant lives and quick

deaths, I (and I am sure many others) would not be motivated to be

vegetarian.

6. I think it is a mistake to use the labels Animal Welfarist and Animal

Rightist when addressing general audiences. The terms can be useful

shorthand when talking to people who have studied the philosophies that gave

rise to them. But they are not self explanatory and are open to

misinterpretation. It is better to say what we mean - that exploitation of

animals (ie making animals suffer for human (often trivial) benefit) is wrong

and that we should be careful when approving incremental measures to avoid

prolonging (maybe indefinitely) the atrocities that we are seeking to end.

John.

 

 

> " Dr John Wedderburn " <john <john%40aapn.org>

>

>Sun, 7 Sep 2008 10:04:04 +0800

>RE: AfA comments and observations

><jwed <jwed%40hkstar.com> >

>

>Kim Bartlett wrote:

>A note about the Fatwa: while it originated in Egypt, it is

>applicable to Muslims throughout the world, and while it is

specific

>to animal transport and slaughter, Sheikh Tantawy made it clear

that

>the Islamic requirement for merciful treatment is applicable to all

 

>animals. Islam does not prohibit meat-eating but neither is it

>required. The AfA resolutions call for humane slaughter but do not

>in any way promote meat-eating.

>

>Dear Kim,

>This last sentence contains the key to understanding the position

of myself

>and other animal rights supporters. The AfA resolutions calling for

humane

>slaughter - if implemented - DO promote meat-eating! If people are

enabled

>to believe that slaughter is humane, they will have reduced

motivation ever

>to become vegetarian.

>In some animal protection issues, incremental improvements can be

seen as

>helpful in the short term while not slowing long term progress. But

very

>often, these improvements allow for complacency and put off the day

when the

>suffering can end.

>The Bali Zoo is a good example. Any efforts to improve this

shocking zoo

>will be used by its owners to make the zoo look more acceptable to

visitors

>and thus diminish any pressure to have it phased out.

>John.

>

=

--

Kim Bartlett, President of Animal People, Inc.

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

email <ANPEOPLE <ANPEOPLE%40whidbey.com> >

web-site:

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ <http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/>

=

[Guest guest]

>3. The biggest and most obvious example of the thinking behind the

>AR stance is of course Slavery. The abolition of slavery was not

>achieved by treating slaves more humanely.

 

 

AR activists who do not know their history keep saying this,

but it is flat factually and incontrovertibly wrong.

 

The anti-slavery movement that eventually succeeded in

abolishing the slave trade and slavery in France, Britain, and the

U.S. grew directly out of the refusal of the slavers to follow the

Biblical injunctions about how slaves should be treated.

 

The slavers kept pointing to the Bible in defense of their

practices, while opponents of slavery pointed out that the Old

Testament accepted slavery only if a long string of conditions were

met which the slavers had no intention of meeting.

 

As the failures of slavers to meet the Biblical welfare

standards became ever better known, the argument evolved from " Meet

the conditions " to " If the conditions cannot be met, abolish the

practice. "

 

The abolitionist phase that people remember and cite was

really only the very last phase of the 100-year struggle, gathering

momentum only after many decades of exposure of abuses had persuaded

much of the French, British, and American public that the slavers

were never going to meet or even try to meet the conditions

prescribed by Moses et al.

 

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

[Guest guest]

Excuse me for any misunderstanding, John, but you wrote, " The AfA

resolutions calling for humane

slaughter - if implemented - DO promote meat-eating! If people are

enabled to believe that slaughter is humane, they will have reduced

motivation ever to become vegetarian. " Being against measures to

lessen suffering would seem to be the same as advocating the

continuation of suffering as a tactic for ending exploitation.

 

There was actually a movement for humane treatment of slaves at the

same time as the movement to abolish slavery. Whether or not the

slave welfare movement actually accomplished anything, it does not

seem to have led to complacency or to have impeded abolition.

 

Human slavery and its eventual end in most of the world offers the

best possible model for understanding what may eventually happen with

animal exploitation. While Europe abolished human slavery via

legislation, Americans fought a war over it, but preceding the war,

there had been a number of legislative measures which sought to

regulate slavery.

 

Where human slavery and animal exploitation differ - and this is a

profound difference - was that human slaves could act and advocate on

their own behalf, whereas animals must depend on people, and people

always put other people first, unfortunately.

 

People give up eating meat for many reasons. For some it is the

cruelty of slaughterhouses and for some it is the way animals are

raised and not the act of killing. For others it is killing, whether

it is relatively painless or not, which tends to be the religious or

spiritual reason. Some give up meat for health reasons, and some are

giving up meat because of the environmental degradation of meat

production. Whatever the reason people become vegetarian, people

tend to become more sensitive to animals after they stop eating them,

probably because there is no need to continue the psychological

defenses that allow meat-eating.

 

Some people respond positively to images of graphic cruelty, but

others turn away, refusing to deal with it. Unfortunately, there is

no one formula for reaching people.

 

I see no conflict between advocating for animal rights and supporting

incremental animal welfare measures designed to lesson suffering. It

is true that one must guard against supporting welfare measures that

may codify the status quo or preclude further progress. Things must

be analyzed on a case by case basis.

 

I think you are right in saying that it is counterproductive to try

to explain rights vs welfare to a general audience, but discussion of

the concepts among people who are already working for animals helps

them to intellectualize their feelings and decide where they stand on

the spectrum.

 

Kim

 

 

> " Dr John Wedderburn " <<john%40aapn.org>john

><john%40aapn.org>

>

>Kim Bartlett wrote:

> Your view that the misery of animals should not be mitigated

>because having more suffering versus less suffering is a greater

>incentive for people to stop exploiting animals is held by a segment

>of animal rights advocates, but can you provide an example of some

>horrible animal atrocity that has been effectively and absolutely

>abolished without a process of incremental regulation, reform or

>reduction?

>

>I need to make several points to answer the above.

>1. I don't believe anyone, certainly not I, has ever advocated the

>continuation of suffering as a tactic for ending exploitation.

>2. The animal rights movement has not been going long enough to have reached

>the critical mass to effectively and absolutely abolish any of the systems

>of animal exploitation. But, if enough people can understand the AR

>position, the time will come.

>3. The biggest and most obvious example of the thinking behind the AR stance

>is of course Slavery. The abolition of slavery was not achieved by treating

>slaves more humanely.

>3. But already millions of animals have been saved from atrocious treatment

>because people like you and me decided not to eat them - think of the number

>of animals that would have had to be killed to supply the tables at the AfA

>conferences if it had not been decided that the catering should be

>vegetarian.

>4. If I could still believe that farm animals had pleasant lives and quick

>deaths, I (and I am sure many others) would not be motivated to be

>vegetarian.

>6. I think it is a mistake to use the labels Animal Welfarist and Animal

>Rightist when addressing general audiences. The terms can be useful

>shorthand when talking to people who have studied the philosophies that gave

>rise to them. But they are not self explanatory and are open to

>misinterpretation. It is better to say what we mean - that

>exploitation of animals (ie making animals suffer for human (often

>trivial) benefit) is wrong and that we should be careful when

>approving incremental measures to avoid prolonging (maybe

>indefinitely) the atrocities that we are seeking to end.

>John.

>

 

--

Kim Bartlett, President of Animal People, Inc.

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

email <ANPEOPLE web-site: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

I do agree that the focus for AFA is more on animal welfare and I personally

believe this is the best way forward. Most Asian societies are not ready for

animal

rights yet and feel its too extreme. This is especially the case in Singapore

and we can gain some ground if we focus on animal welfare first.

 

Having said that, whether a campaign is an animal rights or animal welfare one

is really on a case by case basis. In certain cases for ACRES, we have gone on

the animal rights angle where we have advocated for the release or phasing out

of the keeping of polar bears and dolphins in captivity but only because we feel

the public will understand and accept our position well.

 

Best wishes,

Louis

ACRES