Its the philosophy of allowing nonhuman animals to have the basic rights that all sentient beings desire: the freedom to live a natural life, free from human exploitation, unnecessary pain and suffering, and premature death. What is Animal Rights? is the withholding of these basic rights from nonhuman animals. Discriminating solely on the basis of species is as illegitimate as discriminating on the basis of sex, or race, or the ability to Cha Cha. There is no reason to value some mentally challenged human beings more than some nonhuman animals. Speciesism about working for equality between human and nonhuman animals. Animal Rights is NOT Different creatures -- women, men, children, animals desire different rights -- access to abortion, voting, room to stretch wings Logic. At the foundation of a system of ethics are moral axioms, such as causing unnecessary pain is wrong". Given the set of axioms, methods of reasoning (such as deduction and induction), and empirical facts, it is possible to derive ethical hypotheses. It is in this sense that an ethical statement can be said to be true. From where do AR supporters derive their moral criteria? are nearly universally accepted However, actions from these ethical axioms are not always logically concluded. This can be demonstrated by asking a person why he has compassion for human beings. Typically hell agree that his compassion does not stem from the fact that humans do math or go bowling. Instead, hell say that it stems from the fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, have hopes and desires, etc. It is then easy to show that nonhuman animals can also suffer, etc. The person's inconsistency in not according moral status to nonhumans then stands out starkly. Most fundamental ethical axioms AR logic didnt interest this guy Lets begin with a statement with which most of us agree, and then see if that helps us understand this issue by exploring all logical paths. Something most of us believe: It would be morally wrong for anyone to treat us as animals are treated. (Might we be wrong in that judgment?) The Complete Logic of Animal Rights that it would be wrong for someone to perform harmful (painful, fatal) experiments on you to try to cure someone elses diseases or to increase knowledge in general? Why do you believe What is it about you that makes it wrong to treat you those ways? What ethical hypothesis best explains that fact (if it is a fact)? Moral Rights are like invisible No Trespassing signs; They protect our most fundamental interests in life, avoiding suffering, not being used as mere means, etc. Rights impose respect: if someone has rights, their interests must be respected; he or she is not a mere thing to be used against her will. An answer: We have moral rights that make it wrong to mistreat us At least, beings like us, we tend to think. Who is like us? Some answers: 1. Rational beings, so a being has rights if, and only if, it is can engage in abstract reasoning. 2. Intelligent beings, so a being has rights if, and only if, it is smart enough. 3. Autonomous beings, so a being has rights if, and only if, it can reflect on its life and decide how to best pursue it. 4. Beings who have the concept of rights, so a being has rights if, and only if, it recognizes that it has rights. Who has moral rights? (that rights require sophisticated mental abilities), then none of the following beings are owed respect; they can all be used as mere things: 1. Human babies 2. Severely mentally challenged individuals 3. Alzheimers patients 4. Humans in comas 5. coughBushcough If you think any of the above deserve rights, then the previous rationale is refuted. If any of these claims are true We have rights and we are owed respect because we are human. What do you mean by human? Do you mean biologically human or having human DNA, or being in the human species? If so, then you are suggesting this: A being has rights, if and only if, it is biologically human. Another approach to assigning rights gives rights to: human organs in a vat human cells in Petri dish dead human corpses very early human fetuses Furthermore, assigning rights based simply on a physical characteristic is no more ethical than assigning rights to men, white people, or clowns with big ears. If you accept this, then someone else may use similar logic to exclude you from having rights (and historically someone has done so). Using biology to assign moral rights A being has moral rights is owed respect and is not a thing to be used for pleasure or even serious benefits for others if it is conscious, can feel pain and pleasure, and its life can be better and worse for it, from its own point of view. A rough hypothesis about moral rights Some animals are conscious, can feel pain and pleasure, and its life can be better and worse for it, from its own point of view. Therefore, they moral have rights on this view: they are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. A consequence of this theory If some humans have moral rights, then some animals have moral rights also. The best reasons to think that humans have rights justifies the claim that animals have rights. Logical, rational consistency requires this. Moral rights really have nothing fundamentally to do with biological species. Logical Conclusion 1. Accept the basic argument. 2. Argue that it is unsound. To do this, one needs a better hypothesis that explains why humans have the moral rights they do that covers all the relevant humans. But, this hypothesis cannot apply to any animals either. Responses 1. They are wildly implausible and convoluted explanations why we have rights, or: 2. They imply that its only a contingent fact, or an accident, that babies and mentally challenged humans have rights. 3. They imply theres no reason why anyone should not be tortured for fun and that only laws keep them from these actions; they remove morality entirely. All attempts to do this suffer from these flaws Moral sources beyond logic. Doesn't the Bible give Humanity dominion over animals? Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of England has dominion over her subjects, but that doesn't mean she can eat them, wear them, or experiment on them. Seeking moral authority from the Bible has two problems: 1. the world has many gods. 2. there are serious problems with literal interpretation of Biblical passages. Here is a list of biblical passages and quotes from biblical scholars that support animal rights:s/SortQuotesRelig.htms/SortQuotesRelig.htm Leonardo Da Vinci ( ), artist and scientist The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men. Who developed the animal rights philosophy? The theory of the 'universal kinship' of man & other beings was taught by Buddha, Pythagoras and Plutarch. Subsequent contributors: 1. The question is not Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer? 2. The day may come when the rest of animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them except by the hand of tyranny. Jeremy Bentham ( ) Abraham Lincoln, th US President I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity. Ralph Waldo Emerson , author Leo Tolstoy, author, "What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit to their cruelty. I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't....The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further. Mark Twain, author, Mahatma Gandhi, statesman and philosopher To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. Thomas Edison inventor, 1. If a group of beings from another planet were to land on Earth--beings who considered themselves as superior to you as you feel yourself to be to other animals--would you concede them the rights over you that you assume over other animals? 2. Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are call medical research. George Bernard Shaw author, Albert Schweitzer ( ) By reason of the quite universal idea of participation in a common nature, it is compelled to declare the unity of mankind with all created beings. 2. It is my view that the vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind. 1. Our task must be to free ourselves... by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein , physicist [The day should come when] all of the forms of life...will stand before the court--the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemmings as well as the trout in the streams. William O. Douglas, , U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1. People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times. Isaac Bashevis Singer, , author, Nobel Prize 1978 2. In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought. Isaac Bashevis Singer Peter Singer (1946- ) Princeton Professor If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being. Tom Regan N.C. St. Professor Animals, it is true, lack many of the abilities humans possess. They can't read, do higher maths, build a bookcase or make baba ghanoush. Neither can many humans, and yet we don't (and shouldn't) say that they therefore have less inherent value, less of a right to be treated with respect, than do others. So, the final question is whether it is morally ok to harm animals by way of causing pain and suffering. Common view: yes. Great thinkers argue: no. Evolution of Rights Many have concluded that they can no longer support activities that take away rights: factory farming, vivisection, animal testing, and the exploitation of animals for clothing and entertainment. How do AR supporters give rights to other species? Since everyone causes some animal suffering without knowing it, whats the point? Although we cant stop all suffering, that doesnt mean we shouldnt stop any. The goal is to minimize the harm one causes. In todays world of many choices, there are usually "kinder, gentler" ways for most of us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves than by killing animals. A great deal of suffering can be prevented with a little effort. Since each and every life is important, helping just one sentient being should be all the reason that a compassionate person needs to make an effort. Here is an example of living that philosophy: The Difference He MadeThe Difference He Made No. The criteria is the ability to feel pain and pleasurephysical or mental (e.g. happiness, loneliness,) and be subject to a life. We rely on science to provide data for this. To start with, sentient beings with a central nervous system are deemed more worthy than beings with a ganglionic nervous system. Is every life-form equally worthy of having rights? Ingrid Newkirk said When it comes to having a central nervous system, and the ability to feel pain, hunger, and thirst: a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. "Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or man. The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage..." Sri Aurobindo, , poet & philosopher Often misquoted: AR philosophy asserts that rights are to be accorded to creatures that have the capacity to experience pain, to suffer, and to be a "subject of a life". Such a capacity is definitely not found in bacteria. It is definitely found in mammals. There is debate about such animals as mollusks and arthropods (including insects). One should decide, based upon available evidence and consistent logic, where the line should be drawn. Where should one draw the line: animals, insects, bacteria? The difficulty of drawing a line means that from an ethical point of view, the line should be drawn (a) carefully, and (b) conservatively. If there were no automobile speed limit, and people were arguing about a proposed limit while other people were dieing, compassionate folks would draw a line immediately. Because the speciesist line violates moral precepts held as critical for the viability of any ethical system, and because some mature nonhumans possess morally relevant characteristics comparable to some human rights-bearers, one must come to the conclusion that the status quo fails on both counts, and that the arrow of progress points toward a moral outlook that encompasses nonhuman as well as human creatures. I cant draw a line, nature is a continuum Some people suggest the following criteria for deciding if an organism has the capacity to suffer: 1) there are behavioral indications, 2) there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3) there is an evolutionary usefulness for the experience of pain. These criteria seem to be satisfied for insects in primitive way. Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others place the line above insects and the lower invertebrates. Some postulate a scale of life with an ascending capacity to suffer. People who strive to live without cruelty will attempt to push the line back as far as possible, giving the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt. Drawing a line at insects The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities an expanded ethic brings with it, he said we each must "live daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and mercifully as we can." Albert Schweitzers line Yes (e.g. if any research that harms animals is justified, and on what occasions civil disobedience may be appropriate, etc.). Are there topics of debate among AR supporters? However, these areas of debate do not negate the principles that join us: compassion and concern for the pain and suffering of nonhumans. From the basic tenets of the AR philosophy there are an unlimited number of corollaries. Corollaries and actions Situations will occur that make it difficult to predict all the effects, short term and long term, of an action. For any planned action, all the AR philosophy asks is that, in your analysis, you consider the suffering of animals as having weight consistent with a sound moral code. Some AR critics would like you to believe that, since its impossible to eliminate all pain and suffering, this fact should somehow curtail your support of AR. This is absurd, just as it would be absurd to suggest that someone should not support human rights because they cant stop to help every human they encounter. The AR philosophy strives to eliminate unnecessary pain and suffering. It doesnt fold its tent when suffering is unavoidable. And it doesnt look away from it, either. AR critics AR critics dream up hundreds of hypothetical questions such as: Would you oppose killing 1 animal to save 1000 humans? AR critics Its easy to deflate their puffed chests by substituting the word animals with humans, e.g. Would you oppose killing 1 human to save 1000 humans? Somehow they feel they have made a salient point, regardless of your answer. Frequently Asked Questions Some of the following FAQs are topics of continued debate among AR supporters. Some FAQs are merely attempts by AR critics to justify their desire to applaud themselves for never helping anyone. The logic of AR critics is frequently a variation of Man is superior, nah-nah- nah, I can be a selfish pig if I want. Arent there more pressing problems than AR, such as homelessness? The animal rights movement is a part of, not antagonistic to, the human rights movement. Many of the consequences of carrying out the AR agenda are highly beneficial to humans. Read excerpts from Tom Robbins Diet For A New America. Stopping the production and consumption of animal products would result in improvement of the general health of the human population, and greatly reduce destruction of the environment. Tom Robbins Diet For A New America. Furthermore, many AR activities, such as NOT buying fur, NOT eating meat, etc. dont take away time from human rights activities. The two arguments have similarities: AR Supports grant rights to animals (and humans) based on their capacity to suffer and to be a subject-of-a-life. And late-term fetuses can suffer from the abortion procedure. However, two factors make the abortion argument different (but not necessarily invalid). 1. A fetus has only potential to become a subject-of-a-life, and exactly where this potential is realized is debatable. Most agree it doesnt include fertilized eggs. 2. The rights of the fetus are in conflict with the rights of the woman, and AR philosophy allows for the rights of the more sentient being to have greater consideration. So, while the arguments adduced show abortion is not irrelevant to AR, they do not show that abortion is necessarily wrong. Therefore, supporting abortion is not in conflict with AR philosophy. Is the AR movement against abortion? If not, isn't that hypocritical? Is it okay if we choose for them a role that allows them to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them by eating them, etc? Yes. If this is done with true concern that their work conditions are appropriate and not of a sweat-shop nature, that they get enough rest and leisure time, etc., this would constitute a form of stewardship that is acceptable and beneficial to both sides, and one that is not at odds with AR philosophy. Is the use of service animals considered exploitative? Whats wrong with having pets? AR supporters see nothing wrong with having pets as companion animals. As a matter of fact, the AR supporter may well provide homes for more unwanted companion animals than does the average person. Our objection is with folks who buy pets from pet stores or breeders--when so many worthy animals are being put to sleep. This is powerful: Fate Of A Shelter DogFate Of A Shelter Dog Spay and Neuter Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would otherwise get out of hand? Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they are nature's way of ensuring that the strong survive. Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing primarily the sick and weak. Hunters, however, kill any animal they come across or any animal they think would look good mounted above the fireplace--often the large, healthy animals needed to keep the population strong. For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously injured and left to die a slow death. Finally, there is an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of human beings die from starvation every day. So is it ethical to thin the human herd? Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we kill? Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims justify his crimes? Furthermore, it is estimated that for every animal a hunter kills and recovers, at least two wounded but unrecovered animals die slowly and painfully of blood loss, infection, or starvation. Those who don't die outright often suffer disabling injuries. The stress that hunting inflicts on animals--the noise, the fear, and the constant chase--severely restricts their ability to eat adequately and store the fat and energy they need to survive the winter. Hunting also disrupts migration and hibernation. For animals like wolves who mate for life and have close-knit family units, hunting can severely harm entire communities. Mother Nature is not the ideal place from which to draft our moral codes. Doing so could lead to the following logic: Animals steal food from each other; so why should it be wrong for humans to steal? Animals eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans to eat humans? Human Nature is equally flawed. Thats why we pass lawsso that men dont follow their human instincts and drag women off into caves. Animals kill and eat each other; so why should it be wrong for humans? Shouldnt you stop predators from killing other animals? Not typically. Since predators must kill to survive, to stop them from killing is, in effect, to kill them. Rarely can one predict all the consequences of an intervention on the local ecosystem. A common exception: discouraging a neighbors fat cat from killing a bird for sport. Trapping is inhumane, but what about fur ranches? On fur "ranches" animals suffer a life of misery, frustration, and severe stress, deprived of their most basic needs. They are kept in wire-mesh cages that are tiny, overcrowded, and filthy. The animals are forced to forfeit their natural instincts. Beavers, who live in water in the wild, must exist on cement floors. Minks, by nature solitary animals, are forced to live in close contact with other animals. The methods used on these farms reflect not the interests and welfare of the animals but the furriers' profit. The end of the suffering comes only with death, which, in order to preserve the quality of the fur, is inflicted with extreme cruelty and brutality. The animals sometimes writhe in pain as they are skinned alive. Another common execution practice is anal electrocution. The farmers attach clamps to an animal's lips and insert metal rods into its anus. The animal is then electrocuted. Decompression chambers and neck snapping are also used. Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no worse than in the wild. At least the animals on factory farms are fed and protected. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered one of society's harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isnt "wild" to the animals who live there; its their home. There they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity. Is factory farming the moral equivalent to Auschwitz? No. Humans have more ability to feel mental and physical pain than most animals. However, while they are not morally equivalent, they are both wrong. That's the important concept. and todays abuse of animals are not morally equivalent, there are useful analogies. In both cases the number of individuals tortured is enormous, the treatment of the oppressed is indescribable, and the possibility of freedom fully resides in the hands of some benefactors. In the United States, billions of animals die each year in structures like death camps that are hidden from public view. Like the manufacturers of the Holocaust, animal killers need a justification to abandon caring for animals, and they need an industry that efficiently kills and keeps the blood from seeping into public consciousness. While the Nazi holocaust Isaac Bashevis Singer: "There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la Stalin... There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is." Edgar Kupfer was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp in To read his opinion, click:hilosophy/AbuseLinked/Dachau.htm From people who knew. Georges Metanomski, who fought in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising: When I see cages crammed with chickens from battery farms thrown on trucks like bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of my soul, the Umschlagplatz [the spot in the Warsaw Ghetto where Jews were forced onto trains leaving for the death camps]. When I go to a restaurant and see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I see a holocaust on their plates. battery farms Nazi holocaust survivor "Veal" calves spend their entire life individually confined to narrow stalls too narrow for them to turn around in. cartoon video:Laying hens live a year or more in cages the size of a filing drawer, seven or more per cage, after which they routinely are starved for two weeks to encourage another laying cycle. SeeAnimals in factory farms Female hogs are housed for four or five years in individual barred enclosures ("gestation stalls") barely wider than their bodies, where they are forced to birth litter after litter. Until the recent "Mad Cow" scare, beef and dairy cattle too weak to stand ("downers") were dragged or pushed to their slaughter. [industry is trying to block no downer legislation; Hogs & Cows Kosher slaughter is where an animal is hoisted and bled to death without prior stunning. Often joints are ruptured during the hoisting, and the death is a slow, conscious one. Kosher Slaughter Some cows are grown and slaughtered purely for their skins. Regardless, buying leather products contributes to the profits of slaughtering cows, which makes cow products more economically competitive with vegan products. Which means that more cow products are sold. Creating more profit. Which lowers the price again. And on and on ad-nauseum. What is wrong with leather if its just a by-product of slaughter? Current reality of meat Meat producers want the least costly means of producing meat for human consumption. If that means that animals are made to suffer by that process, then, because they are not deserving of moral respect, producers do not worry unduly about it. It might be morally justified to eat meat if that is all we had to eat, or if meat were the only thing which would properly nourish us, but neither of these things is the case. Accidental deaths cant be compared, morally, to intentional deaths. Thats like saying, Since some people die in car accidents, it must be okay to run over people in my car. In neither case, that of animals on crop farms or that of people on the road, should we deliberately take lives. In both cases we should work to minimize the number of accidental deaths. Don't crop harvest techniques lead to the death of animals? What if I made use of an animal that was already dead? While it is wrong to purchase animal-based products, it may be good for animals to use them if they are already dead. Obviously, this doesnt justify buying a hamburger because it is already dead, since more meat will be murdered to replace it. More practically, this means that if you are given a leather wallet, you should use it before you go buy a vegan wallet, because the vegan wallet would cost money that could be sent to a no-kill shelter. Ramifications of actions are usually complex, and each specific situation requires analysis (please don't over-analyze if it takes time away from helping animals or earning money that could help animals). Hypothetical: Is eating meat intrinsically wrong? Saying that the mistreatment of animals in the meat production process is immoral is one thing, saying that eating meat itself is immoral is another. If we can raise animals for slaughter that do not suffer, and which are quickly and painlessly killed, then would eating meat morally acceptable? The morality of painless killing If it is wrong to kill a person painlessly why it is not also wrong to kill an animal painlessly? Animals are not as complex as human beings, but they live in communities, communicate with one another, have ongoing social relationships, suffer, and are capable of happiness, as well as fear and distress, as we are. The right to life and painless killing If we assume that humans have a right to life - it would be wrong to murder a normal, healthy human even if it were done painlessly - and it is hard to think of any plausible rationale for granting this right to humans that does not also apply to other animals. So what could be the rational basis for saying that we have a right to life, but that they dont? What could be the rational basis for saying that a severely retarded person, who is inferior in every important respect to an intelligent animal, has a right to life but the animal doesnt? The amelioration argument The hypothetical amelioration argument: If animals can be made not to suffer, then they can be killed (quickly and painlessly) and eaten. The more animals that can be brought to lead pleasant lives, the more animals that escape the argument from pain and suffering and so may be eaten. All a concerned individual need do then is to look for improvements in factory farming so that animals no longer suffer. Why Animal Testing: Why does it raise ethical issues? Cats, dogs, nonhuman primates and other animals are drowned, suffocated, and starved to death. They are burned and subjected to radiation. Their eyes are removed, their hearing is destroyed. They have limbs severed and organs crushed. Invasive means are used to give them heart attacks, cancers, and seizures. They are deprived of sleep, subjected to electric shock, and exposed to extremes of heat and cold fully and thats on a good day, when the testing labs are following the guidelines. All the procedures on the previous slide comply fully with the Animal Welfare Act. Each procedure conforms with what Animal Plant Health Inspection Service inspectors count as humane care and treatment. And testing labs have done much crueler things, unnecessarily. The following slides show examples (no graphic photos) of fully approved tests Fully approved: E. Sander Connollys (Columbia Univ.) experiments Strokes were (are?) induced in baboons by removing their left eyeballs to reach and clamp a critical blood vessel to their brains. Metal pipes were (are?) surgically implanted in monkeys skulls for the purpose of inducing stress in order to study the connection between stress and menstrual cycles. Nicotine was (is?) pumped into pregnant baboons who are strapped into backpacks full of instrumentation and tethered inside cages. More info at Experiments Funded by March of Dimes The March of Dimes has funded experimenters who have sewn cats eyes shut, implanted wires into the uteruses of pregnant monkeys, cut open the skulls of ferrets and injected chemicals directly into their brains, and administered cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol to pregnant rats even though the harmful effects of these substances on developing fetuses is well known. Info: Humane Charity Seal of Approval Harry Harlow, Primate Research Experiments on a monkeys instinct to cling to its mother even when the mother subjects it to rejection and pain. (Research conducted by Harry Harlow at the Primate Research Centre at Madison, Wisconsin, see Singer 1995, ) More examples Removing monkeys eyes to discover whether their facial expressions resembled that of sighted monkeys when deprived of their mothers. They did. (See Gendin 1986, 200) Testing the pressure on a hose when monkeys bit it in response to electric shocks on their tails compared to the biting pressure resulting from amphetamines, etc. (See Gendin 1986, 2001) Dont we need to experiment on animals because of the benefit? So therefore it is morally justified. This response assumes that animals dont have moral rights. Also, it makes the scientific assumption that there are great medical benefits from animal research. AND, it assumes theres NOTHING BETTER than can be done for humans than animal research. What about pain and suffering-free research? If an animal is killed, thats still a harm-- something bad has happened to the animal. They miss out on all they would have experienced; their lives are cut short. We dont think that if someone killed us painlessly, that would make it morally ok. The response, Well, treating these animals in these ways would be OK if done humanely and with every effort to minimize pain needs serious defense.serious defense Whats wrong with testing cosmetics on animals? Companies dont put lipstick and rouge on a pig, take it to a bar, and see if anybody picks it up. A "researcher" pries open the eye of a young rabbit (as it squirms to break free) and pours in a vial of drain cleaner. Is it okay to use a medicine that has been tested on animals? Take the generic version of the drug--this won't put money into the pockets of the company that tested it on animals. Just as driving on roads that were built by slaves doesn't mean that one supports slavery, using medicines that were tested on animals doesn't mean one supports animal testing. If there is no generic version of a drug that was tested on animals, but taking the drug makes a person better able to help animals today, that person should do so for the sake of animals. There is no one-to-one correlation between consumer drug purchases and animal misery (as there is with the correlation of food consumption, leather, etc.). Ironically, in some cases it helps animals to support the companies testing on them (but we dont recommend this). One company, when doing financially well, invested money in alternative testing and cut the number of animal tests. Protesting, and law changes, will make companies change their policies. Boycotting products may be only symbolic. Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who gets legal rights is determined by the opinion of todays legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not so arbitrary. Look at some of the other things that have at one time been legal in the U.S.child labor, human slavery, the oppression of women. If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be illegal In the US, it used to be Illegal to possess a bathtub in Massachusetts. Legal for parents to have their children hung for disobedience. Legal to kill someone if others thought them to be a witch. If youd guess that laws are more logical now, then please smile at the following 2 slides (a small sampling of the dumb laws still on the books) and take laws with several grains of salt.a small sampling Laws which still exist in the US In Arkansas, a man is permitted to beat his wife, but no more than once a month. In Montana, seven or more native Americans together are considered a raiding or war party, and it is legal to shoot them. In Vermont, it is illegal to deny the existence of God. In Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time. Children of incestuous couples are deemed legitimate. In Arizona, when being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person possesses. Any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red mask is considered a felony. In Tombstone: It is illegal for men and women over the age of 18 to have less than one missing tooth visible when smiling. Laws which still exist in the US California. In Chico: Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine. In San Francisco: Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street. In Indian Wells: It is illegal for a trumpet player to play his instrument with the intention of luring someone to a store. Colorado. In Denver: It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor Florida: A law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. Illinois: In Normal, it is against the law to make faces at dogs. Iowa: One-armed piano players must perform for free. In Fort Madison: The fire department is required to practice fire fighting for fifteen minutes before attending a fire. Isn't breaking the law (e.g., destruction of property) wrong? Those who object to law-breaking under all circumstances would have to condemn: The Tiananmen Square demonstrators. The Boston Tea Party participants. Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. World War II resistance fighters. The Polish Solidarity Movement. Vietnam War draft card burners. The list could be continued almost indefinitely. "Certainly one of the highest duties of the citizen is a scrupulous obedience to the laws of the nation. But it is not the highest duty." --Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. President) Isn't breaking the law wrong? From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Opponents of direct action often argue that illegal actions undermine the rule of law, and they view civil disobedience as a threat to political order. Among other things, this perspective presupposes that the system in question is legitimate or cannot be improved. It misrepresents direct activists as people who lack respect for the principles of law, when arguably they have a higher regard for the spirit of law and its relation to ethics and justice than whose who fetishize political order for its own sake. Moreover, this argument fails to grasp that many direct action advocates are anarchists who seek to replace the states and legal systems they hold in contempt with the ethical substance of self- regulating decentralized communities. Isn't ALF supposed to be non-violent? From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Broadening the term "violence" to include store windows, buildings, laboratory equipment, and assorted physical objects can easily trivialize the violence done to human and nonhuman animals and may blur the critical distinction between living beings and nonliving things. There is a huge difference between breaking the neck of a mink and smashing a fur store window, but the values of society are revealed all too clearly when only the latter action is condemned as a crime worthy of intense opprobrium and legal action. Isn't sabotage violence? From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? If sabotage is violence, it pales in comparison to what industries inflict on animals in the speciesist Gulags, factories, and killing fields/seas of industrial capitalism. Animal liberationists rightly underscore the ironic disparity between the outcry over home demonstrations, liberations, and property damage and the silence over the obscene violence inherent in the torture and killing of billions of animals every year for food, fashion, sport, entertainment, and science. Let moral outrage be put in proper perspective. Whos violent? From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? Proponents of the "sabotage is violence" argument seem to assert that there is violence (1) in the action itself and (2) in its effect on human targets. In the act of property destruction, objects are defaced, smashed, burned, and demolished. If this is violence, then one certainly ought to open up the definition of violence and terrorism to include corporate destruction of oceans, rivers, marshes, mountains, forests, and ecosystems of all kinds. Those who cry "eco-terrorist" the loudest are typically those who profit the most from violence and killing, and those who seek to disguise their own crimes against life by vilifying others. Tom Regan on Violence Here are the main outlines of a possible justification of violence (against property): 1. Animals are innocent. 2. Violence is used only when it is necessary to rescue them so that they are spared terrible harms. 3. Excessive violence is never used. 4. Violence is used only after nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted, as time and circumstances permit. 5. Therefore, in these cases, the use of violence is justified. Doesn't extreme activism give the AR movement a bad name? Extreme action is a political tactic that dramatizes issues and places them before the public when they otherwise would be ignored in the media, applies pressure to corporations and government agencies that otherwise are able to resist "legitimate" pressure from law-abiding organizations, and broadens the spectrum of activism so that lobbying by mainstream groups is not considered "extremist". Furthermore, in the long run, people may agree with the message even while hating the messenger. Example: The demonstrators who threw bricks at building in protest of the Vietnam War were hated. But they made news, and their message hit home. Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name? ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or believed otherwise. They have resulted in official filing of criminal charges against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of abusive labs for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs. Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name? ALF raids may give the ALF a bad name, but the movement is not ALF, or vice versa. Some believe that ALF acts as the "bad cop" to the "good cop' of other AR advocates. Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X created the same dynamic in the civil rights movement. Malcolm X preached change powered by violent confrontation. Malcolm X adamantly spoke out against the white people, calling them white devils. Did this hinder the movement or strengthen it? On one hand, the appeal of Malcolm X and King to separate groups made for a larger following in shear numbers increasing awareness more effectively than just one group could. Those two, using their unintended good cop-bad cop strategy ended up appealing to more people. Welcome to the Automatic ALF Pledge Donation Page Please answer the following question. Your pledge amount will depend on your answer!!! Next YESNO Click on your response. Will you pledge your entire years salary to support the ALF? YES NO Click on your response. Will you pledge your entire years salary to support the ALF? YES NO Click on your response. Will you pledge your entire years salary to support the ALF? Thank You! We knew we could count on you! Send to ALF Click the button below to mail your response to us Thanks for your pledge. The ALF will be expecting your donation soon. Exit