Hunting Ban Free Vote In The Commons

[Evil Goblin]

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.

I would certainly take advantage of any treatment which would save my life (or anyone's), irrespective of what had been involved in its' development. There would be no moral or ethical question in my mind because what had been done had been done and no decision of mine could change those things. However, this is somewhat different from justifying drug testing, etc. on animals because it might in future lead to a cure for a disease I might well contract in future. Also,of course,such treatments would already have been trialed on human subjects.

 

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.

My previous posting is highly relevant to this.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

My guess is that you are willing to take all the advantages of our immorality (and of course you think capitalism is immoral, something as you know I am willing to challenge you one) while feeling almost any action is in itself wrong.

Why not make use of the knowledge from animal testing now that we have it? It would be foolish to discard it. Yet the issue is how we proceed.

 

I am interested in the naturalistic fallacy - what is nature is not what is moral - but I tend to shrug my shoulders at being an omnivore etc.

I’m afraid I do not see the relevance of the naturalistic fallacy in this argument. Can you explain further? I am not sure whether you maybe misunderstand you context in which ‘nature’ is being referred to in that fallacy.

 

Where you can gain consent, do so. Where you can't do not cause suffering, and practice it sustainably.

Poor argument to make. Essentially you are saying that where you cannot gain consent by explicit agreement to an action being taken then just make sure you don’t cause them suffering and that you allow the flow/birthrate/number of test subjects coming through to be constant. Or along those lines.

 

If you are going to say those principles result in immorality I'm going to push back - if you are going to say any use of animals/nature is exploitation and immoral you have to answer for the suffering you will cause by denying people access to nature's bounty.

Nature’s bounty? That evokes a rather strange image.

 

Firstly, my issue is with using animals as a resource because that is treating self-aware and conscious beings with feelings and thoughts and emotions as a means to our own ends. I find that immoral because of the perspective on animals that it creates and maintains. Such behavior afford no value to the animal for the qualities they have in themselves. We don’t see them for exactly what they are, but coloured by what they can do for us.

Such treatment of animals also degrades and dirties us, as we cannot sustain a good argument that we are intrinsically more important than other self-aware animals that can suffer, be happy, be sad, etc. When we subject animals to things that do not like or which is not natural to them we only damage the moral principles that most of us abide by and support.

Moreover, the interference in the natural lifestyle of the animal is what very often occurs when animals are used. What right do we have to control these beings?

 

But how exactly would we suffer without use of animals? I would agree that people would suffer because investigation into drugs would take place at a slower pace in the case of animal testing. But we ought not to reduce our suffering by using animals

 

Now, this is not a black and white matter with me. As mentioned, in cases of contagious disease threatening millions that has just hit humanity, a good argument could be made for using some animals causing the least possible harm and suffering. In that case, the exploitation of the animals might be the necessary evil. But in our society today we are really nowhere near to the situation. At the moment, all manner of drugs used for depression, parkinsons, cancer, alzheimers are tested on animals.

 

Moreover, nor do I see things black and white in terms of other societies were humans are dependent on animals. The necessary evil is that the cow is utilized as a resource for the near starving. But WE in the West are not in that position. The child born in...the Sahel who then grows up and makes his living on the land cannot easily escape his circumstances. He is dependent on a particular lifestyle to a large degree. We can find it very unfortunate that animals are used to service him and others for food.

 

We turfed those cave bears out and I am glad there wasn't a moral debate about it with you wasting precious time with your worries about our exploitation of the bear's resources.

Maybe not. But maybe in our necessity were we in identical situation we could allow some sympathy for the bear at what it has possibly cost him from losing his home. Were we to be of the mindset where that would happen, we would be so easy to then go on and use beings similar to bears to ensure our longevity just because it is easier and more efficient.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Have a look here LDV:

 

http://www.basc.org....n/conservation/

 

And then, instead of asking about the moral implications of killing things, ask who would pay for, and do the work that goes on to protect the countryside.

I am afraid I dislike reading links. I would much prefer for you to explain yourself unless you do not feel you can explain, in which case I might take a look at the link.

 

Do you understand what I am saying though? I appreciate that you have given reference to a process of looking after the countryside. But the examples you gave were ones where people maintain the population of animals so they can kill them later, so a type of birds' population is keep up for the sake of shooting them later.

Is that what you are referring to alone?

[Ruger]

Some of the best conserved and wildlife orientated bits of agricultural land I have seen are where shoot syndicates exist. If it wasn’t for the shoots it would be just agricultural land. Alan has made a very valid point here, one which you appear to be taking a very blinkered view of. All the additional habitat, the flora, it doesn’t just benefit the target species. May I also point out that its not about “maintaining” an existing population for the benefit of shooting them later, these birds are bread, released, and cared for for the purpose, and most of which seems to escape onto neighboring land and away from the shoots boundary. A game bird would be a rare sight indeed with out this

.

I have to say, considering you have or had absolutely no conception of any of this, I’m shocked that you felt compelled to make such a bold statement earlier on.

 

The fact you wont read links only suggests to me a great deal of ignorance I'm afraid. Why not take this as a perfect example of sportsmen/women and landowners here on the island making efforts, in this particular case to restore Grey partridge numbers. You wont see animal rights activists or organizations behind any of these REAL efforts.

 

http://www.gwct.org....s/news/1215.asp

[ballaughbiker]

However, this is somewhat different from justifying drug testing, etc. on animals because it might in future lead to a cure for a disease I might well contract in future. Also,of course,such treatments would already have been trialed on human subjects.

And those human subjects to whom you refer would likely have any risk of their 'trial' minimised by testing on animals first. You seem to be suggesting that you don't agree with present or future drug testing because you are well yet would accept previously tested drugs if you were ill. If that is what you meant it appears illogical.

[Chinahand]

I am unsure what to make of this debate - hee hee I've not read John Gray in detail, but I suspect there are some areas of his views I am close to - we are animals who, as we have evolved, have been able gain a wider and wider understanding of ourselves and our environment. I think very simple principles such as reciprocity and ideas of equality underpin most of our attempts to create a morality and we have also attempted to apply those ideas to animals too. As we have done this the exercise has become ever more baroque to the point it is often contradictory, and the world's best minds have had to apply themselves to try to find some consistent moral system, often unsuccessfully.

 

We do use people and nature as a means to an end - we do it every single day in so many instances that if we were to make this a moral failing and hence prohibit it it would invalidate such a large swaive of human life as to make it impossible to know how to better behave as would have to reject so much of our current life.

 

I find it deeply ironic both LDV and EG shrug their shoulders about past wrongs, wringing their hands, but taking the benefits - that is why I directly challenged LDV to go all the way back to the begining of human attempts to overcome nature. If he'd had his way we'd still be sitting in the cold worrying about the consequences. Both he and EG seem not to be rejecting leather shoes, soaps and the thousand and one products which are a result of our present (not past) exploitation - if some chimp dies to provide in the future they'll accept that sacrifice.

 

Are animal experiements a grave injustice - more so than the slaughter of animals for food, or the extermination of their habitats for our benefit? Maybe, and I hope that in future millenia we will better learn to manage ourselves and our environment and so be able use in vitro experiments, sustainable husbandry and ecological awareness to minimize our impact on others.

 

I agree being able to appreciate not only animals, but all parts of nature for what they intrinsically are is a worthy ideal. But our current state means we also use them for what they are.

 

We wage war on others, conscript people to fight for us, allow poverty and inequality to be rampant in the world, kill animals in the billions to feed ourselves, drive multitude others from their ecological nieches as we spread accross the world, experiment on animals in the 10s of thousands to try to improve our health etc etc etc. All of these trouble moralists.

 

At present it is simply beyond our ability to reduce these impacts without consequences which would also bring multiple harms - if you tried to ban the meat trade, or animal experimentation the unintended consequences would be massive and of a similar order to the dilemmas these things currently cause. Little would be gained, just one set of problems replaced with others.

 

In prioritizing our moral objectives I regard animal testing and fox hunting (the two main subjects which have spurred this discussion) as very lowly - animal testing brings many benefits and no method of maintaining sustainable fox populations seems obviously superior to any other.

 

The last thing I'd like to say is over eating meat - if we could farm sustainably - say by terraforming a separate planet to allow cattle to roam and live as the bison did, would it be an immoral thing to appreciate these animals - and there is a magnificence in a prize bull - for their flavour.

 

There is a great Isaac Asimov short story about a time when all foods are artificially synthesized and a cook wins a competition by using "real" ingredients with the judge reacting terribly when he discovers what he has eaten.

 

Factory farming takes much from animals, but I am not convinced being carnivorous is, in all circumstances, wrong.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Evilgoblin is stating that HAS been done has been done, whether we like it or not we have already accumulated knowledge that has come from animal use.

The issue is not about the morality of USING knowledge and items that have come from animal testing but the practice of doing the testing itself.

[Chinahand]

Sure - but I imagine both he and you continue to wear leather shoes etc. When you buy them sure its too late - but in these cases to claim this is just a past action you have no responsibility for is really weak. You are not using knowledge, but continuing to gain from the ONGOING use of animals.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I find it deeply ironic both LDV and EG shrug their shoulders about past wrongs, wringing their hands, but taking the benefits - that is why I directly challenged LDV to go all the way back to the begining of human attempts to overcome nature. If he'd had his way we'd still be sitting in the cold worrying about the consequences. Both he and EG seem not to be rejecting leather shoes, soaps and the thousand and one products which are a result of our present (not past) exploitation - if some chimp dies to provide in the future they'll accept that sacrifice.

I am not sure if you are being disingenuous or not. You seem to assuming stances that I do not take on these matters. But firstly, no, we wouldn't be sitting in the cold worry about the consequences were we to have taken a different position in the use of animals. I admit though, we would have found it harder to reach the position we are in now in respect of technology and knowledge (amongst other things).

 

I have not explicitly rejected leather shoes, soap and thousands of other products. What you seem to think is mistaken. Our continued use of animals for these things isn't right. We shouldn't be using soaps anymore and we shouldn't be wearing leather. In answer to your later post, yes, I think my work shoes are made of proper leather. There are lots of things I do which I consider immoral and need changing. It is precisely the right thing to do that I explore those areas where I am not doing the right thing and change that. And it is often very easy to overlook exactly what is involved and often we are ignorant of such things. For example, I would purchase leather again since coming to my new stance of these matters. And I continually learning and trying to put things into practice.

You also seem to have the impression that I am making my argument from a 'holier than thou' stand. As if my conscience and position is already moral and always has been in this respect. Of course it isn't and hasn't been.

 

 

Are animal experiements a grave injustice - more so than the slaughter of animals for food, or the extermination of their habitats for our benefit? Maybe, and I hope that in future millenia we will better learn to manage ourselves and our environment and so be able use in vitro experiments, sustainable husbandry and ecological awareness to minimize our impact on others.

Yes, they are an injustice for their use as a resource and the more so dependent on the separate matter of how much suffering they can cause and the types of beings we make use of.

 

I agree being able to appreciate not only animals, but all parts of nature for what they intrinsically are is a worthy ideal. But our current state means we also use them for what they are.

That's right.

 

At present it is simply beyond our ability to reduce these impacts without consequences which would also bring multiple harms - if you tried to ban the meat trade, or animal experimentation the unintended consequences would be massive and of a similar order to the dilemmas these things currently cause. Little would be gained, just one set of problems replaced with others.

If, in the Isle of Man, you tried to ban the meat in one fell swoop then that surely would have a detrimental impact on farming and ecosystems. But that's not going to happen and isn't worth considering here. On a gradual shift, we would gain far more available land for food production. But more importantly, we would put an end to the unnecessarily slaughter of other beings simply because they are tasty. What problems would ensure from this?

 

The last thing I'd like to say is over eating meat - if we could farm sustainably - say by terraforming a separate planet to allow cattle to roam and live as the bison did, would it be an immoral thing to appreciate these animals - and there is a magnificence in a prize bull - for their flavour.

You seem to be focusing solely on the issue of suffering and control of the animals here.

Here is how I see it, you have a bull. It feels happiness and sadness. It takes enjoyment in its life, even over something like eating or having sex. What right do you have to deprive it of its continued enjoyment of that life just because you like the taste of its flesh? Is your short-lived pleasure more important than its continued happiness?

 

Factory farming takes much from animals, but I am not convinced being carnivorous is, in all circumstances, wrong.

You are right. It isn't always wrong. It wasn't wrong for our ancestors to hunt when plant food was very scarce. It isn't wrong for people for eat animals if there are no other food sources available. But for us, in the West, it is a different matter.

[Evil Goblin]

Sure - but I imagine both he and you continue to wear leather shoes etc. When you buy them sure its too late - but in these cases to claim this is just a past action you have no responsibility for is really weak. You are not using knowledge, but continuing to gain from the ONGOING use of animals.

I disagree - it is not weak at all, just realistic. We cannot unlearn what has been learned, irrespective of the methods used to obtain some particular knowledge. Things done in the past were done and nothing you, LDV, I or anyone else does can change them. It would not be sensible to not use that knowledge if we have it. As LDV says, the question is really about how we should behave in the future, where we can influence events, rather than agonising over the unchangeable past.

 

The restricted area I dealt with in my last post seems to have lead you to assume that, like LDV, I think we should not use animals. This is not so - I eat meat, wear leather shoes, etc. My concern is not over whether we should use animals in our lives and to meet our needs but the particular uses to which we put them and the way we treat them as living creatures. As someone has said, most cows, sheep, etc. would not exist anyway if we did not breed them for our purposes. Humans are omnivores by nature and we need such high grade proteins as come from meats. My concerns are with how such animals are treated whilst alive - here the question is one you have already posed - how do we eliminate suffering by them. If we treat them kindly and finally despatch them painlessly then we have met our moral duty.

[Evil Goblin]

However, this is somewhat different from justifying drug testing, etc. on animals because it might in future lead to a cure for a disease I might well contract in future. Also,of course,such treatments would already have been trialed on human subjects.

And those human subjects to whom you refer would likely have any risk of their 'trial' minimised by testing on animals first. You seem to be suggesting that you don't agree with present or future drug testing because you are well yet would accept previously tested drugs if you were ill. If that is what you meant it appears illogical.

I don't think you are understanding my point, BB. If previously tested drugs are available what would be the point of refusing to use them? Such refusal would not alter the past in any way. What would be illogical would be to not use existing knowledge. I didn't say I didn't agree with all future drug testing - I do say that we should carefully consider the degree of suffering to which animals may be exposed in some particular processes of testing and set limits to the suffering which they, as living creatures,go through.

[Evil Goblin]

China - your last but one post covered a great deal of ground and I would like to respond in chunks, as time permits.

 

As you may have gathered from my previous responses, I am not opposed to all animal testing, just that we should minimise the suffering we put them through (although I accept that this may well put certain testing out of bounds).

 

As to fox hunting, the fact is that the fox is being put through suffering and eventual horrible death by being torn apart alive purely for the pleasure of humans. There are other ways of controlling fox populations which do not involve humans displaying themselves as blood-thirsty savages. Such people cannot lay claim to being advanced civilised beings. Put bluntly,I regard it as immoral to cause suffering to other animals purely for human "pleasure". If we wish to lay claim to civilised status, it is important to put an end to the practise. Which is why I believe that the prohibition of fox hunting is a good and worthy thing.

 

If some people have to assuage some inner compulsion to ride around chasing something then drag hunts offer them a harmless means of doing so.

[guzzi]

It seems to me from all the above posts, that one of the important decisions we have to make is whether we draw a line between the human and animal realm in terms of our moral framework.

 

I certainly respect the views that LDV & China have put forward. Animals clearly do have varying degrees of sentience, and you may regard all sentient beings as equals in the human moral framework. I think it would be very difficult to live one's life entirely consistently with that framework, although if you can do so, you have my admiration.

 

Personally, I feel that to draw such a line is to divorce oneself from nature. Predation, death and all the attendant cruelty is universal throughout the living world. In fact, those things are completely necessary in that they drive evolution. I can't accept that we should in any way reject these things in our moral framework.

 

Lastly, surely Chinahand outlines one of Debbie Aldridge's forthcoming outrageous schemes in Borsetshire:

 

The last thing I'd like to say is over eating meat - if we could farm sustainably - say by terraforming a separate planet to allow cattle to roam and live as the bison did, would it be an immoral thing to appreciate these animals - and there is a magnificence in a prize bull - for their flavour.

 

 

 

[Evil Goblin]

It seems to me from all the above posts, that one of the important decisions we have to make is whether we draw a line between the human and animal realm in terms of our moral framework.

I don't think that there should be any question about the need to draw a line between humans and other animals - the problem is "where do we draw the line?"

 

I certainly respect the views that LDV & China have put forward. Animals clearly do have varying degrees of sentience, and you may regard all sentient beings as equals in the human moral framework. I think it would be very difficult to live one's life entirely consistently with that framework, although if you can do so, you have my admiration.

Yes, it is very difficult but that should not prevent us from the effort.

 

Personally, I feel that to draw such a line is to divorce oneself from nature. Predation, death and all the attendant cruelty is universal throughout the living world. In fact, those things are completely necessary in that they drive evolution. I can't accept that we should in any way reject these things in our moral framework.

The difficulty is that the idea of "cruelty" is an attribute of human animals (and probably of the other apes as well). Most animals have no sense of cruelty (as far as we can tell) and just behave as their natures dictate. Humans, though, are cursed with consciences and hence moral views - we rise above just obeying our animal natures to ask if we should do things of which we are capable and if there are things which,although we are capableof them, we should not do..

[ballaughbiker]

I don't think you are understanding my point, BB

Correct, I didn't but now you have clarified it , it makes more sense. And I agree with what you say.

 

No reasonable person would wish to torment animals for a pastime and that is where I find fox hunting disagreeable. I realise that there are cases of medical experimentation that are downright cruel and some that aren't but either way they are not doing it for a pastime and that is the difference.