Re: [Marxism] Delicatessan

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think there is a genuine debate to be had, and I do think that
cruelty to and needless destruction of animals is, as Aristotle believed,
barbaric.

I don't need to talk about 'rights' when I talk about human liberation, and
I don't tend to talk about rights when I talk about animal liberation.
Generally, we tend only to accord something 'rights' when it is regularly
under attack. I think is is glaringly obvious that the higher animals
(mammals) suffer extreme pain when being killed for humans to eat. This is
justification enough to repect their life if one has no need to eat meat. As
for a foetus having the same 'rights' as, say, a pig or a gorilla, I'm not
sure. A foetus does not have the capacity to flee, whilst the animals do.
Animals live independent non-symbiotic existences, foetuses do not. An
animal knows it is going to die and fears it, a foetus, I would venture,
generally does not. There is a variety of differences. Nonetheless,
obviously abortion is not the ideal event for either mother or foetus. In my
view, this does not invalidate the right of the mother to abort the baby; it
is women's decision alone.

Obviously, it is a far worse thing for me to kill a gorilla, a beautiful,
intelligent, and caring animal, than to kill a fly, although if I don't need
to kill a fly to perpetuate my own survival, or that of some other species,
then I will take care not to do so.

Since humans have the capacity to not eat animals, and to rationally plan
agricultural production so as not to have to eat animals (at least up to a
point), I think the human race should aim towards a vegetarian diet.

For me, an 'ethical' argument does precisely take into account the objective
limits and conditions of not having to eat meat. A religious nut, or
metaphysical vegetarian regards someone who is starving eating meat as being
as culpable as someone who is not starving doing so. I don't.

Animals rights is not at all purely an 'ethical' ( I take it you mean
'moral) stance. The preservation and sustenance of animal life is bound up
with the fate of the 'environment' or nature. The depletion of fish stocks
has quite deleterious effects on the whole oceanic ecosystem. The pollution
of the oceans, in turn, is having horrible effects on animal life, and
should partly (largely?) be opposed from that perspective. If we keep on
industrially murdering animals for profit (as that is *precisely* what is
going on globally) then we will see the whole of the environment and the
human race itself suffer.

Since I am not an expert on these matters, in particulat the overlap between
the environmental science movemtns and the animal liberation movement, I
would be happy to read others input.

I'll leave the topic for now though.

Stop eating meat if you can help it.


DARIAN LINEHAN WROTE:

I don't think this is as clear-cut as you make out. There is a genuine
debate to be had to what level "animal liberation" is a coherent
stance to take, or whether it makes sense to talk of animal rights at
all. If these rights stem from some biological characteristic (e.g.
some level of development in an organism's nervous system) then do we
apply this to related arguments (e.g. abortion)? Is it a binary
distinction (fly = no rights, gorilla = full rights?) or there some
kind of spectrum?

There are numerous issues relating to food production, but on this
issue I think it is unhelpful to mix the arguments. For you the
primary focus seems to be an ethical stance so the health / economic
arguments seem slightly irrelevent (would you start eating meat if it
was 'proved' that steaks were good for the heart and the soil
somehow?)

Either way, the distinction between the environmental issue and
"animal liberation" is clear : the latter is largely an ethical
concern, the former is primary to human survival.

Thanks,
Darian Linehan

_________________________________________________________________
Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism