Does the end justify the means?

External Since: Feb 16, 2006 Posts: 13

I would like to pose a question to all of you out there in the internet

world. Does the end result justify means?

Allow me to clarify. While in college I majored in Animal Science. As

part of my studies I learned the history behind the current federal
regulations regarding the care and use of animals. In the process, I
discovered that it is near impossible to learn about the Animal Welfare

Act (AWA), the Public Health Service (PHS) Policy, and the Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (the Guide) without discussing
the measures taken by organizations such as PeTA in spurring the
creation of such guidelines and rules. I have to admit that the animal

industry is better off because these laws and guideless exist.

Does the fact that PeTA has enabled the creation and enforcement of the

AWA, the PHS Policy, and the Guide justify their supporting terroristic

activities by financing members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?
Does it justify them targeting elementary school children by forcing
them to listen to a one-side argument? Does it make it right that they

support people who break into research facilities and destroy years of
medical research that could save human lives?

I understand that in war there are usually casualties, and animal
rights organizations appear to fight for their cause as though it is a
war. So, does the good that has come out of the animal rights movement

justify the tactics used by Animal Rights organizations?

External Since: Nov 20, 2005 Posts: 102

Vonne wrote:

....

> Does the fact that PeTA has enabled the creation and enforcement of the
> AWA, the PHS Policy, and the Guide justify their supporting terroristic
> activities by financing members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?
> Does it justify them targeting elementary school children by forcing
> them to listen to a one-side argument? Does it make it right that they
> support people who break into research facilities and destroy years of
> medical research that could save human lives?

> I understand that in war there are usually casualties, and animal
> rights organizations appear to fight for their cause as though it is a
> war. So, does the good that has come out of the animal rights movement
> justify the tactics used by Animal Rights organizations?

You are getting close to the idea by saying that animal rights
organizations regard their efforts as "war," but actually it
would be closer to say they regard it as a movement equivalent
to liberating prisoners held in concentration camps or slaves.
In war, it is generally held that, even if one side violated
the requirements of Just War in starting the war, enemy
combatants themselves are not responsible for the policy of their
government and should be treated according to codes of war, the Geneva
Convention, and so on. Prisoners of war are to be treated
humanely and not punished for participating in a legitimate declared
war as members of their armies.

However, the victims held in research labs are not combatants, and
those who experiment on them are not combatants, so the rules of
war do not apply. If ALF carries out a raid and liberates animals
from a lab, it is not an act of war, but seen as liberating prisoners
unjustly held and unjustly used in medical experiments. The
vivisectionists are seen as morally no different from Dr. Mengele
in his experiments on prisoners in concentration camps, or
slaveowners who killed their slaves when the slave had committed
no crime. Talking to children, or anyone, is seen as equivalent
to promoting abolition of slavery. I can see no reason to destroy
records on research, but destroying equipment and plant could
be seen as destroying equipment necessary to carry out such
unjust experiments, and replacing equipment and beefing up security
at labs at least reduces the amount of funds available for actually
carrying out experiments. If one does believe in animal rights,
then using animals in experiments cannot be justified by any
potential benefit to humans, any more than using one unwilling
human in medical experiments can be justified by potential
benefit to other humans.