Ethical dilemma

[cajar]

I've read all that before. You posted that your philosophy on animal rights was the abolitionist approach, that animals have to the right not to be our property. Then you admitted to using animal products. Don't you want to answer the accusation of hypocrisy? or is that laboriously boring link an attempt as diffusing it?

 

[pred]

I think i need a bit more time to think this through, do i save the dog or do i save the mother-in-law

On a more serious note, how many people would risk their arse to save anothers?

 

[Alarm]

I think i need a bit more time to think this through, do i save the dog or do i save the mother-in-law

On a more serious note, how many people would risk their a**e to save anothers?

3 times now personally.
Twice a child drowning and stupidly once to save my best mates dogs when it fell into (read was a knobler and chased a duck) a river.
The first two I would do again with no hesitation, the dog, sod it.
As for the mother in law, no way. I am not that strong................the fat cow would sink like a stone anyway

 

[peaps]

I've read all that before.

How do you explain your idea PETA are an animal rights based group and not an animal welfare group, considering they euthanasia animals..? Just because a group or person claims the label it's not always the case.

You posted that your philosophy on animal rights was the abolitionist approach, that animals have to the right not to be our property.

Yes that is correct.

Then you admitted to using animal products. Don't you want to answer the accusation of hypocrisy?

I'm yet to read a convincing argument, you fudge over by not engaging fully in this discussion. I don't use animal products and have not made such an admission.

or is that laboriously boring link an attempt as diffusing it?

I linked the page in order for you get the idea that there are a few mainstream philosophical sides to animal rights, PETA don't fit into any.
It's a strange logic that shoots down a particular philosophy because people fall short of the concept....

Like I've said, I favour the abolitionist approach but I still have questions about certain aspects.

 

[emilybronte]

There is no question to answer, partly because it is a dishonest question in the first place.

The question is built on the (false) premise that you know that you can save one or the other (the human or the dog). However, if you are in a burning building, you cannot KNOW whether you can save either, both, or neither of the occupants of adjoining rooms.

It could be the case that the human is unreachable without putting your own life in danger (which would probably be knowable as soon as you opened the door to that room), in which case it would be morally justifiable not to try to save the human, but to save the dog instead (or try to, at least). It may be the case that the human is a murderer who has set the house on fire in an attempt to kill YOU - in which case it would be morally justifiable to get as far away from him as possible, taking the dog with you if possible.

All other things being equal, the moral priority in my book must be to try to save the human being first but I seem to recall that the legal answer is that you are not obliged to save any one's life. There are exceptions, e.g the Armed Forces, who when they are not shooting at people, are not supposed to leave comrades to die on the battlefields, but to take them back to base whatever the risks.

The question seems to be saying : which is more important,dogs or humans, to which the answer is clearly humans. Anyone who says otherwise is probably a hypocrite, since most people eat meat and use animal-derived/tested products such as medicines and keep pets for their own amusement. They are animals, when all's said and done. They will die sooner than us anyway. They are economically unproductive. Above all, they are a different species. Animals (inc humans) are hardwired to put their own kind first in a crisis.

A more interesting question would be, should you try to save a human being or the only copy of a lost work by Beethoven or Van Gogh or Shakespeare, which if saved could enrich the lives of millions,now and in future centuries?

 

[Space cat]

should you try to save a human being or the only copy of a lost work by Beethoven or Van Gogh or Shakespeare

How would you know it was the only copy? Since the human is most certainly a one-off, the logic is inescapable.

PS: A robot would always save the human - second law.

Edit: Schoolboy error; it's the second part of the first law.

 

[trollmaster2000]

PETA are horrible tree-hugging, self-loathing communists. They belive that animals should be able to vote in elections, and receive NHS healthcare at the expense of the tax-payer. They believe this becasue they have been brainwashed by satanic marxist agenda, and have such a low self-esteem that they believe that humans are just as scummy as animals. PETA and their liberalist freedom-hating ilk of terrorists clearly are as bad as any disgusting animal, but that doesn't mean the rest of us are!

 

[cajar]

Peaps you said you feed your dogs and cats meat that comes from a farm. It is difficult to imagine a more overt example of a cow being someone else's property than being bred for meat, slaughtered and fed to pets.

Animal rights people do not tend to quietly adjust their own lifestyles according to their views, they want to change the world and what everyone else does. It is indeed right to look at the activists and see if they are able to practice what they preach and decide from there if what they're saying is possible. Nine times out of ten, the people who want to ban medical research on animals have made use of medicine derived from it at sometime in their lives. The ones campaigning against fur are doing it standing in leather shoes. That makes them living proof of the failing of that philosophy, and them hypocrites.

 

[joinerjohn]

cajar, your on a lost cause arguing with peaps. Here he is at his best

I don't use animal products and have not made such an admission.

And yet,,,,

Yes we have many rescue animals that include cat's and dogs. The dogs are on a raw meat diet and the cat's eat meat also.

And in an earlier post

We don't pay for their food or medical bills, we just offer a home until they are found a full time home.

So either he's in league with a farmer who doesn't farm for profit ( surely a mythical beast)
Or someone else buys the meat his dogs and cats eat ( Surely this makes peaps a scrounger then???)
He also must know a vet who's prepared to work for nothing, or uses the PDSA for all it's worth.
If he doesn't know such a farmer or vet, then all I can say is, the poor animals must be bloody starving and neglected.

 

[peaps]

Peaps you said you feed your dogs and cats meat that comes from a farm. It is difficult to imagine a more overt example of a cow being someone else's property than being bred for meat, slaughtered and fed to pets.

Please do point out where I said I feed the animals meat, in fact point out where I've even stated I feed them..

I'll address the rest of you diatribe when I have a little more time.

 

[joinerjohn]

Now he's splitting hairs. He doesn't actually feed the animals so he's, not the one using the meat.
Why peaps, I bet you don't lift a finger to help these animals, and yet claim to be the most compassionate animal lover in the universe (ok I know you didn't actually say that, but it's called sarcasm, get used to it)

 

[cajar]

You're right John.

 

[gremlin16]

+1

 

[gremlin16]

Whose side are you on in this dialogue? And can you justify your allegiance?

OP: There’s no point in arguing with you, I’ll never win.

PEAPS: No, because I’m right!

OP: Not because of that, because you’re better at arguing than me.

PEAPS: Eh? You’re not stupid. If I’m wrong, you should be able to show that I’m wrong. If you can’t, then saying I’m better at arguing than you is just another of saying I’m right and you’re wrong!

OP: Not at all. Just because you can construct better arguments than me, that doesn’t mean you’re right. People can construct very good arguments for false positions.

PEAPS: Sure they do, but if we’re committed to rational debate, then you surely have to accept whatever the best argument leads you to. You wouldn’t say “There’s no point arguing with you, your evidence is better than mine”. If I have better evidence, you should agree with me; likewise if I have better arguments.

OP: It’s not quite the same. If the evidence supports one theory better than another, then we both have good reasons for accepting that. But the strength of arguments depends much more on the strength of the arguer. For example, I bet if you wanted to, you could beat me in almost any argument, even if you chose to defend a position you thought was false.

PEAPS: I’m not sure about that! But even if it’s true, you’ve got a problem. I assume you think that as a rational person, you should accept whatever position has the best arguments in favour of it?

OP: I guess so.

PEAPS: Well better arguments are bound to come from people who are better arguers! So you can’t just refuse to accept what I say on the basis that I’m better at arguing than you.

OP: I still think I’m on to something here, but, as usual, right now, you have the better argument.

PEAPS: Because I’m right!

OP: Because you’re the better arguer – it’s not the same.

 

[peaps]

You're right John.

Is that so..?

"Isn’t taking advantage of medications or procedures developed through the use of animals inconsistent with taking an animal rights position?

Answer: No, it is not. Those who support animal exploitation often argue that accepting the “benefits” of animal use is inconsistent with criticizing the use of animals.

This position, of course, makes no sense. Most of us are opposed to racial discrimination, and yet we live in a society in which white middle-class people enjoy the benefits of past racial discrimination; that is, the majority enjoys a standard of living that it would not have had there been a nondiscriminatory, equitable distribution of resources, including educational and job opportunities. Many of us support measures, such as affirmative action, that are intended to correct past discrimination. But those who oppose racial discrimination are not obligated to leave the United States or to commit suicide because we cannot avoid the fact that white people are beneficiaries of past discrimination against people of color.

Consider another example: assume that we find that the local water company employs child labor and we object to child labor. Are we obligated to die of dehydration because the water company has chosen to violate the rights of children? No, of course not. We would be obligated to support the abolition of this use of children, but we would not be obligated to die. Similarly, we should join together collectively and demand an end to animal exploitation, but we are not obligated to accept animal exploitation or forego any benefits that it may provide.

We certainly could develop drugs and surgical procedures without the use of animals, and many would prefer we do so. Those who object to animal use for these purposes, however, have no control as individuals over government regulations or corporate policies concerning animals. To say that they cannot consistently criticize the actions of government or industry while they derive benefits from these actions, over which they have no control, is absurd as a matter of logic. And as a matter of political ideology, it is a most disturbing endorsement of unquestioned obeisance to the policies of the corporate state. Indeed, the notion that we must either embrace animal exploitation or reject anything that involves animal use is eerily like the reactionary slogan “love it or leave it,” uttered by the pseudo-patriots who criticized opponents of American involvement in the Vietnam War.

Moreover, humans have so commodified animals that it is virtually impossible to avoid animal exploitation completely. Animal by-products are used in a wide variety of things, including the asphalt on roads and synthetic fabrics. But the impossibility of avoiding all contact with animal exploitation does not mean that we cannot avoid the most obvious and serious forms of exploitation. The individual who is not stranded in a lifeboat or on a mountaintop always has it within her power to avoid eating meat and dairy products, products that could not be produced without the use of animals, unlike drugs and medical procedures, which could be developed without animal testing."

I cheated and did a copy and paste, shoot me.
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/