From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Putting People First
Keywords: Putting People First
Organization: Eastman Kodak
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 16:54:54 GMT

In article <sftooINNjcp@agate.berkeley.edu> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:
>PEOPLES RIGHTS ORGANIZATION propounds that:
>
>>  Some of these extremists say that the termites have as much 
>> "right" to eat your house as you do to live in it.
>
>In the first place, the "peoples right's" types probably made
>this up.  Secondly, these anti-animal types so frequently rely
>on this "reducto ad absurdium" argument that you wonder if their
>brains produce any substantial thought.  ("Do minerals have rights
>too?  what about squashing a mosquito? etc.)  One can always make
>up an absurd situation, then knock it down.  Rather than argue
>directly against the animal advocates, who are making some very 
>substantial points, they choose to create their own strawman.  A
>good sign that they don't have a case to begin with, and aren't
>to be taken seriously.  

Very well put.

>>     "Obviously I believe that when our side is heard very few
>> people would choose to become an animal "rights" proponent.  Common
>> sense shows it's people who have rights, not animals.
>
>Which is why those of us who favor better, more humane
>treatment of animals should not talk in terms of animals 
>having "rights", and instead debate how humans should treat
>animals.  Any concept of "rights" is purely a product of
>of human thought, society, and culture.  Whereas whether a
>mink is suffering horribly in a mink farm is objective.  Does
>the mink have to have "rights" before we decide to not make
>it suffer??  Society has long ago accepted the idea that animals 
>should not be mistreated, and there are plenty of laws 
>mandating that they not be.  All us animal advocates want
>to do is close a few silly loopholes that allow fur farms,
>wanton animal testing, badger baiting, and other cruelties.

Interesting points here.  There are those within the AR movement who
believe that they shot themselves in the foot (or worse) by selecting 
a word like "rights" to characterize their movement.  Rights are a
fuzzy concept to some people, a strictly human construct to others,
and almost a mystical thing to yet others.  That third approach even
seems to be embodied within the founding documents of this nation ("We 
hold these truths to be self-evident ... endowed with certain 
inalienable rights...").  What do these words REALLY mean?  Do we
REALLY believe them literally?

Peter Singer, considered by many to be the "father" of the modern day
animal rights movement, did not actually propose a "rights" philosophy;
rather he called for humans to consider the "interests" of all sentient
beings.  When he did use the word "rights", he used it in the sense that
Jeremy Bentham did - as a "shorthand way of referring to protections that
people and animals morally ought to have."  And he wished to avoid "getting
embroiled in philosophical controversies about the ultimate nature of
rights."

However, isn't this much ado about almost nothing?  If sentient beings
"deserve" or "ought to have" some humane level of treatment, then it's
because of some quality or attribute they have.  If you perceive that
attribute to be synonymous with "right", is that really incorrect?  It
may be a tactical mistake to present that attribute in such a way, but is 
it technically incorrect?  A more philosophically astute person should 
address that.

The important point is that animals have some inherent characteristic
which causes humans to have a "direct duty" toward them.  This is
substantially different from the indirect duties that we have toward
another's property.  In contrast, a direct duty derives directly from the
inherent nature of object itself.  To many, this is tantamount to saying 
that animals have rights.  However others, who claim to support the "humane 
treatment" approach or the "animal welfare" doctrine, seem to get very
agitated at the introduction of the term "rights", so much so that AR
people too frequently become the undeserved targets of derision and 
vilification.

>The thing I wonder is, who is the money behind these
>"people's rights" phonies?  I'll bet that would be illuminating.
>Could be the fur farmers.  Most of them are, as I understand it, 
>pretty unsavory sorts.  One article I read alleged that a
>disproportionate number of people who own or operate fur farms are 
>convicted murderers, child molesters, and others with a history
>of antisocial violence.  Not unexpected.  (Of course, since the 
>article was penned by animal activists it might have been a tad 
>slanted.)

Interesting.  Can you recall where you saw the article?

>
>-- steve

RB (black@serum.kodak.com)
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.