Ignoring Rudy

External Since: Jul 02, 2003 Posts: 1110

"Meadowlark" <YoMama.TakeThisOut@nowhere.com> wrote [..]

> I am very interested by Sapontzis because he is one of the new
> "second generation" animal rights theorists who works with the
> pioneering philosophical ideas of people like Regan and Singer
> but without a dogmatic commitment to any rigid system. He's a
> professor of philosophy at CalState University, and reminds me of
> Rollin in his common-sense approach. He's familiar with the standard
> arguments against animal rights and refutes them in a refreshingly
> pragmatic way; he's principled, but not an absolutist.

From a pragmatist's point of view how does one justify viewing
raising animals to kill humanely for food as immoral while living
a comfortable life based on large scale industrial agriculture, where
millions of animals such as rodents, birds, lizards and others are
routinely and systematically brutally killed?

In my experience debating with ARAs, a "common-sense approach"
is shorthand for 'I judge the lifestyles of others harshly but cut myself
all sorts of slack.'

External Since: Jul 02, 2003 Posts: 1110

"Meadowlark" <YoMama.RemoveThis@nowhere.com> wrote
(snip)
>
>>>Would you care to give some background on your own approach to
>>>animal rights? You sound educated and intelligent, and capable of
>>>real discussion.
>
>> I don't wish to mislead anyone. The fact that I believe that animals have
>> emotions and some degree of cognitive ability doesn't mean that I have
>> any approach to animal rights. I have very mixed ideas about that subject
>> that I don't really care to discuss in this, or any online, forum. I am
>> not a vegetarian or vegan. I came into this discussion because of
>> cross-posting to another group and felt that I had an obligation to try
>> to offset at least some of the nonsense being posted by Rudy.
>
>> Thank you. Please forgive me if I have unwittingly mislead you.
>
> Oh, no problem. I can understand your unwillingness to discuss
> *anything* in a forum where Rudy (Jon) and Usual also post -- I
> am in the same situation myself. It's hard to imagine that
> anyone can still deny animals emotions and cognitive ability,
> after all the scientific and empirical material which has
> been published in the last twenty years or so. The argument that
> some animals have what might be regarded as rudimentary ethical/
> moral capacity is newer, but is moving into the mainstream with
> recent articles in the popular press (_Newsweek_, IIRC). This
> undercuts one of the foundations of Regan's theories, which makes
> for an interesting controversy.
>
> Quite outside animals rights _per se_, what is your opinion on
> animals as (possible) moral agents in a limited sense? What
> about the newer evidence that some parrots probably have the
> cognitive ability of a four or five year old human child? That
> chimpanzees may have some kind of an aesthetic sense? So much
> new information is showing up that the old categories into which
> this group has degenerated in recent years have become more and
> more irrelevant. I'd like to see some more useful discussion.
> However, if you are uncomfortable posting publicly on this
> newsgroup, I can certainly understand. If so, I'll return to
> Lurk mode. :)

I don't find that debate particularly compelling. I happen to
believe that (non-human) animals possess many advanced
cognitive abilities, nonetheless the fact remains that we are
predators towards or deadly competitors with most of them,
whether or not we "consume animal products".