From: black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236))
Subject: Re: Better to be slaughtered than never to have lived? Re: Meat eaters (LONG)
Keywords: meat vegans vegetarian food veal factory farms
Organization: Clinical Products Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:14:43 GMT

In article <1ht162INNn0c@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.184512.21569@clpd.kodak.com> black@che.serum.kodak.com (Robert Black (x37236)) writes:
>>In article <1hpsboINN8av@agate.berkeley.edu> linan@argon.berkeley.edu (Mike Linan) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec24.224052.22825@bmerh85.bnr.ca> myhui@bnr.ca (Michael Hui) writes:
>
>>>....  Only problem is that the "F" in ARF stands for "fanatic"
>>>and their views often include pretending that animals should be humans.
>
>>Mike, can you please give us some examples of people whose "views often
>>include pretending that animals should be humans."  I'm looking not just
>>for names, but statements made by these people.  I realize you don't
>>archive old posts, so paraphrasing to the best of your recollection
>>would suffice.  Thank you.
>
>
>Okay Robert.  Making me think are you?  My comment was made from what I
>interpret from situations and comments made relative to those situations.
>For example, when people complain about chickens being confined to small
>cages.  It seems they feel they wouldn't like that done to them and relate
>that to how they imagine the chicken must feel.  Sure it would be great if
>the chicken could roam free and I'm not saying they shouldn't but, who 
>knows if being so confined is as miserable as it would be for humans?  
>Many people like to equate animals feeling with our feeling.  ...

I question whether people are really "equating" here.  It seems to
me that people are recognizing unnecessary suffering when they
see it.  Whether the suffering is less than, equal to, or greater than
that experienced by humans in the same state is difficult to determine. 
In fact it's unlikely that even two humans would suffer equally under
the same treatment. 

But the fact remains that when anatomical, physiological, and behavioral
evidence indicates the presence of animal suffering, it seems like such
treatment of animals should be opposed whenever there are other
alternatives. 

>...They may or
>may not be similar.  Nobody knows for sure unless they have been an animal
>in a prior life.  ...

If we're really epistemologically rigid about it, then I don't even
"know for sure" if any other human is similar to me.  But it's
reasonable to conclude that they are in certain ways.  Few would
dispute that conclusion.  Likewise modern ethologists have taught us
alot about animals, and it's reasonable to draw some conclusions about
ways in which they are similar to humans.

>...The concept of animal "rights" is another issue.  Animal
>welfare would perhaps be a better term.

IMO animal "rights" is animal "welfare" carried to its logical
conclusion.  The unrelenting logic of even the "welfare" philosophy
leads there.  But that's another whole discussion.  If here by welfare,
you mean to imply that chickens should be treated humanely up to and at
the time of their slaughter for human consumption, then I certainly
support the call for humane treatment - not because I *equate* chickens
with humans but because I see certain important *similarities* between
humans and chickens.  I really don't know anyone who pretends that
animals are humans. 

---
Robert Black 
black@serum.kodak.com  - The ONLY email address that MIGHT work.
These views are not necessarily the views of my employers.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals