To all:
I have thus far refrained from participation, because this is obviously an incendiary subject. However, I can be silent no longer. I cannot agree that intelligence levels, and ability (or lack thereof) to exact retribution should be the criteria on which a decision(s) of whether or not being cruel is based. This specious argument can be used in many situations, one example being the slavery trade and subsequent ill-treatment of Africans and their descendants. The prevailing thought of the times was that Africans were mentally inferior, and as they were under extreme subjugation, could extract little or no retribution. And if they were able to do so, they were summarily exterminated, so they were of little or no threat. Every being on this planet deserves to right to life without un-necessary cruelty. Humans have no right to make such decisions as to who or what life forms can be treated badly without penalty. The suggestion that the ability to reason on a human' s level, and "fight
back," as the deciding factor, sounds extremely callous.
Whether or not the government should legislate these types of activities, is not clear to me. However, if we are as many have claimed, "superior" to other life forms, (a position that I feel based on my many years of study of human behaviour through-out the centuries, is on shaky ground at best,) we should strive to value each life for its own sake, and avoid un-necessary suffering whenever possible. This is one of the denotations of a "superior" being. Cruelty to anyone or anything saddens me greatly, and reflects no credit upon the perpetrator.
Leilani
Postscript: I am an avid supporter of The Animal Liberation Front, and hope that they continue to refrain from any sort of cruelties towards humans, as I do not believe that cruelty to stop cruelty is sound.
Starchild <sfdreamer@...> wrote:
Rob,
I appreciate your thoughtful response, and I think you make some
points that deserve to be addressed. I'm glad that your conception of
rights leaves the door open to the possibility of intelligent
extra-terrestrials, and does not accord rights only to human beings
simply because they are human.
Perhaps a tree does experience some form of distress at being cut
down -- I think there is some evidence for this. But I acknowledge that
our current level of development forces us to draw the line somewhere.
Perhaps tomorrow -- a distant tomorrow -- we will all be sufficiently
well provided for that it will be possible to care for each tree, each
plant, each micro-organism. A universe in which every living being can
be empowered to exist under conditions that allow it to reach its full
potential, and enjoy life without externally-imposed suffering, is a
worthwhile goal for the human race.
However this is obviously much more impractical at present than even a
ban on meat. Again, I acknowledge that we must draw the line somewhere.
It makes most sense to me to draw the line between plants and animals.
In biological terms, this is where the largest division of life lies.
Humans are much more like cows then either species are like trees.
Non-human animals feel pain, as we do. Just because they are not
intelligent compared to humans does not necessarily mean that pain is
more bearable for them. Though I think more advanced species of animals
are generally more hardwired to experience pain. I believe in a
hierarchy of life: To kill a human is worse than to kill a cow is worse
than to kill a fish, is worse than to kill a grasshopper, is worse than
to kill a tree, is worse than to kill a sprout. In other words, a
system of rights -- or legal protection, if you will -- based on a
being's capacity for suffering. This is Peter Singer's thesis in his
influential book "Animal Liberation," and it makes more sense to me
than any other solution I've come across.
I don't think one can solve the problem of where to draw the line
simply by saying it's rational to ascribe rights of life, liberty, and
property to beings of approximately equal intellect because they might
fight back. As Steve pointed out, this is "might makes right" --
ultimately, a lack of any morality. Under such a code, anyone who has
the ability to murder you and get away with it has a perfect right to
do so.
And where does this approach leave severely retarded human beings? If
you say that their rights must be respected simply because torturing
and killing them would piss off too many other people who would fight
back on their behalf -- well, I submit to you that this is rapidly
becoming the case with various categories of non-human animals as well.
I assume you've heard of the Animal Liberation Front. So far they have
limited themselves to things like arson and break-ins, explicitly
refrained from killing people in defense of animals. But I predict that
if human progress, freedom, and wealth continue on an upward curve, the
animal rights movement will only grow larger, stronger, and more
vehement. At some point, some people will be willing to fight back on
behalf of animals using all the means normally used by groups of humans
engaged in armed struggle against each other. I'm not making a moral
judgment about this course of action, simply stating that I believe it
will happen. A purely rational approach might want to take this likely
consequence into consideration and weigh it against the importance of
maintaining a right to abuse non-human animals at will.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>