Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV your skill at introducing anarchist points into virtually any discussion is amazing. We could argue all day long about definitions of words like state, democratic, freedoms

I wasn't looking for definitions. I was presenting a hypothetical situation in the face of your dilemma surrounding breaking the law. There was no reference to anarchism in my post.

 

etc but it's so easy to justify any action including terrorism if you conveniently dismiss the accepted concept of state, law and democracy.

Dismiss these concepts? Well yes, I agree, but I was not talking about them being dismissed.

 

If you don't like any law that 99.999% of the population agree to just say you don't recognise the authority of the state etc etc and, hey, job done!

The population don't establish the law. In any case, where the majority to agree that a law be established, you do not think that the moral thing to do is break it? What if a starving man who had no recourse to social welfare stole some bread. Is his act immoral? These are hypothetical situations but I hope they demonstrate the point I am making.

What if the law is wrong about how animals are treated?

Do you think animals have equal right to humans then?

Not, but in our society at present they should rights. And a value which far exceeds that which they are afforded now.

[ballaughbiker]

There was no reference to anarchism in my post.

Maybe not but you were arguing it from an anarchists viewpoint suggesting challenging the state etc. if, hypothetically of course, you believed your perception of injustice could not be resolved in any other way.

 

but I was not talking about them being dismissed

Not directly but you suggested that this was not a problem should the perceived moral justification be strong enough.

 

What if a starving man who had no recourse to social welfare stole some bread

Can you give an example (y'know to make it a bit more of a credible situation) where this has happened in the British Isles recently or it is just another extreme hypothetical situation dreamed up to make a weak point stronger?

 

What if the law is wrong

Get it changed by established processes. Of course, if you instinctively dismiss established process.........

 

Not, but in our society at present they should rights. And a value which far exceeds that which they are afforded now.

Maybe. In what way would you improve them then?

[Evil Goblin]

Well, you are trying to limit it to animals, but my point is that argument becomes problematic - I genuinely do think an oak tree has just as many rights as an ant - just because it is not sentient does not mean we have no responsibility for our exploitation of it. Trying to limit these discussions to a tiny subset of the ecosystem just gets you in pedantic knots.

Whilst I understandyour point, if we do not break things down into manageable chunks we will indeed end up in a morass. It seems to make more sense to deal with things in, say, three categories - sentient beings, other living organisms and inorganic phenomena. Any discussions as to what is or is not a sentient being can be left to later. This way gives us a much better chance of avoiding pedantic knots.

 

My view is that maintaining a sustainable ecosystem and not driving it too far from its equilibrium is the central debate. That makes sustaining rain forest trees just as important as the animals living in them.

Yes, I agree with what you say, but we are speaking of the "rights" which we should grant to different things - this is different from simply maintaining a sustainable ecosystem.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive here.

 

Maybe not but you were arguing it from an anarchists viewpoint suggesting challenging the state etc. if, hypothetically of course, you believed your perception of injustice could not be resolved in any other way.

You’re missing the point. I am not suggesting anything, yet. I am merely discussing the matter of moral actions being taken that would break the law.

 

Not directly but you suggested that this was not a problem should the perceived moral justification be strong enough.

I never suggested this is a problem. I have made no suggestion. I am asking you about the problem you see.

 

Can you give an example (y'know to make it a bit more of a credible situation) where this has happened in the British Isles recently or it is just another extreme hypothetical situation dreamed up to make a weak point stronger?

The credibility in terms of where the example would happen or when it happened is not relevant. Although I think I am satisfying your evasive tendencies, I can provide more examples on the same theme of animal cruelty:

In the case of the Silver Springs laboratory testing, apes were subject to various forms of extreme pain, were left in their shit and piss when not needed, and began to self-mutilate.

Now someone broke in and rescued those animals. This was against the law. But was it moral for them to rescue the apes?

 

Get it changed by established processes. Of course, if you instinctively dismiss established process...

I have little regard for established process, but that is beside the point, I am asking YOU. If the established process is not due, for whatever reason, such as being profitable, what then?

Say the issue relates to beings that are suffering now. Do we allow their suffering to continue until the law is changed?

 

Maybe. In what way would you improve them then?

You could afford them more rights.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Rights I think accrue with ability to understand suffering.

Understand suffering. Surely an ability to suffer is

 

A cow which munches its food in rural idyl and then is instantly dispatched with a single bolt shot to the head suffers very little for its meat. Factory farming complicates that, and I agree with animal welfare measure - though be aware there is a cost in that.

But the issue of suffering is not the sole reason why people object to eating meat.

 

Medical experiments on chimps are a dilemma, but I've read the work of scientists struggling with this, and the protocols they develop to do their research, and it is far far more nuanced than the outrage of extremists who threaten to bomb and kill.

 

LDV - do you really condone the murder of scientists attempting to find a cure for cancer because they use chimps for their work? Your moral certainty at times is disturbing.

I don’t believe they are a dilemma at all. And I care little for the protocols involved in research that have come from their threat to their work. Firstly, animals should not be used as just some resource for our benefit. Moreover, animal should not be allowed to suffer through being a resource for our benefit.

 

The only exception to this is where our survival is threatened, say by pandemic. Where using animals as a resource would or was likely to avert the threat from a deadly global contagion. Even then it ought to be done with attention to reducing suffering to the utmost.

 

So yes, if a situation did occur where dogs, cats, or chimps were suffering at the hands of people and those people could not be stopped, then if the last resort could only be to get rid of the people then that would be acceptable.

 

Cancer research is most certainly not a good enough reason for treat animals as a resource. I worry about your morality where you think a common disease (largely caused by our lifestyles in many cases), requires that we find treatment by using animals as some form of tool really does apall me. I don’t think their lives and happiness are worth far more. And should we worth far more to us than that.

[ballaughbiker]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive here.

Ok, I'm not but we always get to this point where we start to argue minutiae and about who meant what and why and "I never said etc".

 

I think I'll take the example of a majority on here who just can't be assed to answer the totally unworkable and unproved notions that pepper your otherwise interesting and intelligent posts. It's a pointless waste of time. It would be entertaining over a few pints but mighty tedious on here.

 

<insert gallic shrug emoticon>

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It happens because you are either evasive due to concern of being shown to be incorrect or you’re just stupid.

 

There is no good why you could not answer a simple hypothetical question and ponder on it. Yet you come across as if you are under threat and respond by making out I am suggesting courses of action and bringing up irrelevant matters, such as credibility of the scenarios.

[Chinahand]

Cancer research is most certainly not a good enough reason for treat animals as a resource. I worry about your morality where you think a common disease (largely caused by our lifestyles in many cases), requires that we find treatment by using animals as some form of tool really does apall me. I don’t think their lives and happiness are worth far more. And should we worth far more to us than that.

As someone who has lost both young and old to cancer I can say to you I am very glad your views are a minority and will stay a minority. I have no idea what your priorities are in life LDV, but it makes me very angry that you can blythly type that lives are not worth the consequences of the medical research to find a cure.

 

If you suffer such disease in yourself or those you love maybe you'll understand, but at this moment I can hardly be polite to you with your support of violence against medical researchers. What do you mean by "the last resort could only be to get rid of the people" - what they do is legal and supported and will carry on despite the intimidation you seem to be advocating to the most extreme extent.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And I find it unfortunate that your views are in the majority, where (essentially) you believe that our happiness is more important than theirs.

Were there to be a hyopothetical situation of a more intelligent species on Earth that had a common disease (again, partly caused by their own behaviour and lifestlye in many cases) and they decided to take us, remove us from our society and use us in testing.

Would they be justified in doing so? If you think so, I would be surprised. If not, how can apply a different principle to animals, such as dogs, chimps, cats, rabbits, mice, etc. Is it simply that we CAN have power over these other beings that justified us in using them to their expense of them being in a natural environment and free from suffering we cause?

 

It makes me angry that people blithely assume that the eradication of disease and ailments for our benefit is justified when it involves the use of other beings who can suffer. What gives us the right?

 

As a last resort, in a situation where a killing were to have an effect of eliminating such suffering where other methods had failed. All I am saying is that it is not an act that I would always assume to be going too far in all circumstances. It can be justified.

In other circumstances, damage to equipment has proved very effective at ending medical testing. I would agree with those methods.

Simply releasing the animals has caused problems for the work undertaken.

[Ruger]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and evasive here.

 

I think I'll take the example of a majority on here who just can't be assed to answer the totally unworkable and unproved notions that pepper your otherwise interesting and intelligent posts. It's a pointless waste of time. It would be entertaining over a few pints but mighty tedious on here.

 

 

 

+1.

[Butters]

+2

[Evil Goblin]

China - I also have lost close relatives to cancer and a close relative is currently suffering from the disease, so I have empathy with you (and anyone else to whom the circumstances apply). Nevertheless, LDV does have a serious point - there is a serious ethical question to be resolved over the use of animals for medical or other research (although the question of how we should treat other living things goes well beyond that specific matter). I do not have the time at the minute to get this ethics argument in order but will come back with it asap.

[ballaughbiker]

EG - The real test of whether the protester was preaching rhetoric or true belief would be if they developed some disease whose only cure was drugs tested on animals. It doesn't have to be cancer (apparently and conveniently the fault of the sufferer in some people's eyes on here) but any life changing serious illness. The definitive test would be choosing, or not, to take the drug knowing it was their only hope.

 

You will always get those who would rather die for their beliefs (eg the zealots who won't have a life saving blood transfusion or much worse won't let their children) but I'll wager the majority would opt for the drug that would save their life. However, if they didn't and chose death instead, I would respect that decision providing they were not making it on behalf of another eg their child.

 

It's so easy to develop ideals (any ideals) in a modern western country with a welfare state and NHS. Nobody really wants animal testing if there was an alternative and for trivial things like cosmetics, it is an abomination if it results in real suffering. But let's get real. Ask a thalidomide victim if they wished the drug that blighted their lives had been properly tested.

[P.K.]

By far the vast majority of foxes are killed on the road.

 

Foxhunting is an extremely cruel way of killing foxes for the gratification of a few, pompous inbreds who should know better. It should be banned with no loopholes at all.

 

If God had wanted us to be vegetarians He wouldn't have made barbecued fillet steak taste so good....

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Evilgoblin, if you could come back to this I think I would find your views particularly interesting.