What is this, I don't even!
- Thread starter nrg800
- Start date
For those of you who have not yet read the book Sailing With Noah by St Louis Zoo Director Jeffrey Bonner, it has an excellent chapter titled "The Problem With PETA." He very clearly defines the distinction between animal welfare advocates (which most zoo people are) and animal rights activists (which PETA and their kin are). This one chapter is worth the price of the book.
For those of us without easy access to the book can you summarize how he defines animal welfare advocates vs. animals rights activists? This sounds interesting and relevant to some of the discussions that take place here about the justification for zoos, elephant care issues, etc.
"...animal welfare is a combination of an animal's physical well-being and an animal's psychological well-being" (p. 251).
"Animal rights is a philosophical belief system based on the idea that animals should have the same moral rights as humans and the same inherent value." (p. 253).
(Bold type added by me). He goes on to explain how good zoos are concerned with animal welfare (as are virtually all ZooChatters based on what I have read on this site). Animal rights, however, is basically indefensible and impractical in the real world. For example, he quotes the co-founder of PETA as saying she wears plastic shoes instead of leather, since the latter is made from animal skins. The author points out, however, that plastic comes from petroleum, the production of which also likely harms animals. So the solutions are not as cut and dried as animal rights activists would have one believe. He also notes how PETA and some others actually state they would rather see animals die (even go extinct) than have them saved in a zoo.
Does this make sense to anyone? He also points out that most of PETA's donated funds are used for propoganda campaigns and they actually do very little to help animals. (They do run some shelters, having to put most of the cats and dogs to sleep - which seems to be counter to their befiefs.) But they do absolutely zero to aid wildlife conservation - yet they claim to be pro animals?
"Animal rights is a philosophical belief system based on the idea that animals should have the same moral rights as humans and the same inherent value." (p. 253).
(Bold type added by me). He goes on to explain how good zoos are concerned with animal welfare (as are virtually all ZooChatters based on what I have read on this site). Animal rights, however, is basically indefensible and impractical in the real world. For example, he quotes the co-founder of PETA as saying she wears plastic shoes instead of leather, since the latter is made from animal skins. The author points out, however, that plastic comes from petroleum, the production of which also likely harms animals. So the solutions are not as cut and dried as animal rights activists would have one believe. He also notes how PETA and some others actually state they would rather see animals die (even go extinct) than have them saved in a zoo.
Does this make sense to anyone? He also points out that most of PETA's donated funds are used for propoganda campaigns and they actually do very little to help animals. (They do run some shelters, having to put most of the cats and dogs to sleep - which seems to be counter to their befiefs.) But they do absolutely zero to aid wildlife conservation - yet they claim to be pro animals?
dawnforsythe
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but that definition of "animal rights activists" is absolute rubbish. May I commend for your reading this short article by Pete Singer, one of the authors of the Great Ape Project? A planet for all apes - Cyprus Mail. As he explains, many of us "activists" believe that:
"...[G]reat apes have a moral status befitting their nature as self-aware beings who are capable of thought and have rich and deep emotional lives. At a minimum, they should have the rights to life, liberty, and protection from torture that we grant to all members of our own species, regardless of their intellectual abilities."
Life, liberty and freedom from torture is NOT the same as rights granted to humans. Do people really believe that PETA thinks animals should own property? Agree to contracts? Have the right to marry and worship as they want? Please, we can't have a rational discussion if people are going to create canards to prop up their own point of view.
"...[G]reat apes have a moral status befitting their nature as self-aware beings who are capable of thought and have rich and deep emotional lives. At a minimum, they should have the rights to life, liberty, and protection from torture that we grant to all members of our own species, regardless of their intellectual abilities."
Life, liberty and freedom from torture is NOT the same as rights granted to humans. Do people really believe that PETA thinks animals should own property? Agree to contracts? Have the right to marry and worship as they want? Please, we can't have a rational discussion if people are going to create canards to prop up their own point of view.
Im sorry but I think you are creating a canard, the ape personhood movement is entirely separate from the PETA agenda which is that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and moral agents, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.
A moral right is very different to a political right they are usually called natural rights such as life,liberty and freedom from torture.
A political or legal right would be the right to own property or agree contracts.
A moral right is very different to a political right they are usually called natural rights such as life,liberty and freedom from torture.
A political or legal right would be the right to own property or agree contracts.
As an anthropologist I can make the following observation.
Freedom and liberty are not universal concepts, many nonwestern cultures and languages do not have words for these terms. It is fairly recent that these concepts have acquired global recognition.
On the other hand, pain and suffering are human universals and all languages known have words to express this condition.
I know from personal experience that many people from different cultural backgrounds find it difficult to understand the idea of animal rights, but they will often understand that it is not correct to make an animal or human suffer.
Freedom and liberty are not universal concepts, many nonwestern cultures and languages do not have words for these terms. It is fairly recent that these concepts have acquired global recognition.
On the other hand, pain and suffering are human universals and all languages known have words to express this condition.
I know from personal experience that many people from different cultural backgrounds find it difficult to understand the idea of animal rights, but they will often understand that it is not correct to make an animal or human suffer.
dawnforsythe
Well-Known Member
Actually a "moral right" is the ability of an author to control his works. I don't know who decided to claim the phrase to advance their political agenda...
Can we stop trying to define each other by vague terms that have various meanings and therefore no meaning? As mcatee's retort illustrates, even using these phrases is frought with peril.
And thank you, carlos77, for reminding us of the cultural differences that add even more peril to arguing about vague concepts rather than reality.