Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Animal rights, Human wrongs.

Animal rights activists, of most kinds, earn the distain of Nutter Watch. Granted, in a humane society we don’t cause unnecessary cruelty or harm to animals, but to suggest that animal life is not far less valuable than human life is quite frankly barking, not to say an insult to human kind. It is worth the suffering of many animals to spare the suffering or death of one human- end of story.

However the activities of the extreme animal rights loons are no laughing matter. They make the lives of many people a misery. Many of these people are doing worthwhile work developing treatments and techniques that will benefit humankind. Many others have only tenuous connections to this work, such as admin staff, people who play golf with investors, or even the wife of the man who sells fuel to the farm which provides the animals to a medical research company.

A case in point is the recent desecration of the grave of Gladys Hammond, which yesterday was claimed as a victory for animal rights. Gladys was not involved in the business of animal experimentation, but the mother-in-law of a farmer who provides guinea-pigs for research. The act was as tenuous as it was sick, plumbing new depths for a group whose values aren't even worthy of the label "Nutter".

2 Comments:

Blogger Stephen Newton said...

I'll beg to differ with you on this one, but Nutter Watch is shaping up nicely. This won't get you too excited, but I've been reviewing my blogroll and, hey, I've stuck you on.

Here you take a very simplistic view and that simplicity of argument is the route to becoming a nutter yourself. Firstly, there’s the implication that all animal rights supporters agree with digging up granny’s grave. That’s the same school that likes to remind vegetarians that Hitler was one of them. All a bit silly.

On the wider points I offer a reply(-ish) I prepared some time ago.
www.stephennewton.com/2004/08/on-animal-fashion-morality-and.html

5:46 pm  
Blogger Mark said...

I'd like to echo the above comments.

Animal rights activists are not all extremists, and to suggest otherwise is to stifle legitimate and reasoned debate.

This much is clear from your suggestion that anyone who believes 'animal life is not far less valuable than human life' is insane.

Barking? Really? Setting aside the awkward fact that humans themselves are animals, your implication does not stand up to scrutiny. Does my belief that the life a fully-functioning adult chimpanzee might possibly be worth more than that of terminally-ill premature baby in terrible pain mark me out as a lunatic? I hope not. I can certainly take issue, in this particular case, with the claim that the chimpanzee's life must be 'far less valuable' than that of the baby's without proving myself to be clinically mad.

Your other claim - 'It is worth the suffering of many animals to spare the suffering or death of one human' - is just as dubious. How many animals? Any human? And how much suffering?

I might ask you a question in return - is it worth inflicting some pain on a human (perhaps a slap across the face) if in so doing we might save the suffering of many 100 cows?

If you think the answer to my question might be 'yes', then you have granted that animal suffering counts for at least something, and that answers to questions about acceptable trade-offs between human and other animal suffering cannot be derived from the unfounded claim that our lives are more valuable simply in virtue of our being genetically 'human'. This issue is not as simple as you present it to be.

1:45 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home