Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: animal vs human rights, morality
Message-ID: <110@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Feb-85 17:41:28 EST
Article-I.D.: spar.110
Posted: Tue Feb 26 17:41:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 10:56:57 EST
References: <233@usl.UUCP> <1313@bbncca.ARPA>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 49

>We can't know even by report what occurs in animal minds (if they have
>"minds") for they lack language.  Every attempt to demonstrate the exis-
>tence of an "animal language" has been exploded in precisely the same
>way...

    I fail to see what bearing an animal's language ability or intelligence
    has to do with its right to avoid the torture it recieves from humans.

    One fact seems clear to me -- that practically any cow or pig you are
    likely to find is fully capable of experiencing the most hideous pain
    that we humans can force them to submit to.

    That fact alone should indicate that animals should be treated with
    love, dignity, and respect.

    Oddly enough, philosophers and theologists rank among those most guilty
    of perpetuating the cruelty of humans towards their animal cousins.

    The egomaniacal, anthropocentric, and most un-Christ-like `Christian'
    dogma that denies souls to animals (and nonbelievers) perhaps had its
    origins in confining the object of human bloodlust to food (and
    enemies). It's not clear that this planet can or should support such
    primitive luxuries much longer.

    Recently I encountered a most enlightening book by Tom (?) Regan in the
    philosophy section at my local bookstore.  Starting with Descartes, Mr.
    Regan rips through the classic arguments against animal rights.  Along
    the way, he describes the gruesome beatings of dogs by Cartesian
    philosophers who were convinced of their belief that animals have no
    feelings.

    Perhaps we still need to kill animals for experimentation and for
    products required by our society. But if the huge amount of uninspired
    and pointless research aimed at producing `minimal publishable units' in
    other disciplines is any indication of the quantity of unnecessary
    suffering that is being experienced by laboratory animals, I'd suspect
    that research personnel could get by on fewer but more substantial
    experiments, and provide higher quality lives for their victims with
    the money they saved.

    Much has been said elsewhere about the excessive and unhealthy quantity
    of meat the is devoured in this country. Someday, we may cease to be,
    (borrowing from Stanislaw Lem) a world of necrophiliacs.

    But first we must at least admit the possibility that the coinhabitants
    of this planet are as capable of suffering as we are, and that we have
    no more `right' to happiness than anything else in this world.    

-michael