animal welfare re AfA comments and observations

[Guest guest]

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?

 

Kim

 

 

> " Dr John Wedderburn " <john

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

>RE: AfA comments and observations

><jwed

>

>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 web-site:

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/ =

[Guest guest]

Note from Moderator: I am resending this as in the previous version it was

difficult to see who was saying what. Please read this version! John.

 

Kim wrote:

> 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.

It is not the same at all. The ending of animal suffering as early as possible

is the aim of us all - we only disagree about how to get there.

 

> 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.

Even after reading Merritt's post on the history of slavery today, my

understanding of the slavery history is that no progress was made until the

anti-slavery campaigners embraced abolition as opposed to improved welfare - and

that, indeed, slavery might have been abolished decades earlier if the welfarist

camp had not got in the way.

 

> 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.

Those measures can be likened to McDonalds or KFC agreeing to make chicken cages

bigger.

 

> 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.

Agreed.

 

> 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.

Agreed.

 

> 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.

Agreed.

 

> 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.

Agreed.

 

> 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.

Agreed. But only a small percentage of the AfA delegates or of the readers of

this forum have a useful understanding of the difference between rights and

welfare - hence this discussion!

John.

 

 

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

<john%40aapn.org>

<john%40aapn.org>

><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 <ANPEOPLE%40whidbey.com>

<ANPEOPLE%40whidbey.com> >

web-site: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__________ NOD32 3424 (20080907) Information __________

 

This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.

http://www.eset.com