Animal Rights?

Do animals deserve the protection of moral rights? The question is highly contentious, but an examination of the issues will reveal a situation far simpler than it is usually presented.

The subject of animal rights is not a new one. As early as 6^th century B.C., the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras advocated respect for animals – he believed in the transmigration of souls, and therefore had objections of a similar kind to those that many Buddhists hold, and for similar reasons. However, in order to get to the root of the issue it is not necessary to review thousands of years of philosophy; it is sufficient to examine the modern case for animal rights.

Although by no means the start of modern animal rights, Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation (published in 1975) is widely considered to be the essential text of the animal rights movement. In this book, Singer puts forward arguments based on Utilitarian principles and centring upon a presumed duty to prevent suffering. Singer makes direct analogies with the women’s liberation movement, and extends these to their logical limit, suggesting that if the denial of rights to women was sexism, the denial of rights to animals was speciesism (a term coined by psychologist Richard Ryder a few years previous).

The contrary view, typified by the philosopher Roger Scruton, argues that since only humans have duties, only humans can have rights. That is, since animals cannot enter into a social contract or make moral choices, it is not possible for them to uphold an agreement of any kind, and thus any claim that animals can hold moral rights is inherently flawed. This leads to the animal welfare position, which holds that there is nothing inherently wrong with people using animals for food, entertainment or research, although there is an assumed obligation to minimise any suffering.

Given the situation we face in modern moral philosophy, exemplified by the problem of relative ethics whereby every individual may derive their ethics from entirely different principles, Singer’s position inevitably collapses. His attempt at arguing for animal rights makes a variety of assumptions (including depending upon Utilitarianism for his conclusion) that other individuals are under no obligation to accept. Since the foundations of his premise can be rejected, his entire argument fails.

However, Scruton’s opposing viewpoint is also flawed, albeit less seriously. Scruton assumes that because animals cannot enter into a social contract they cannot acquire rights. However, this forgets an important aspect of the process of determining rights: we acquire our rights from our agreements to provide such rights. Thus, while Scruton is correct to say that animals cannot acquire rights on their own, there is no reason at all that they cannot acquire rights the same way that humans do – by an agreement made by humans.

Human rights as we understand them today only exist because of promises made by humans to each other in legal documents such as the United Nations’ 1948 advisory declaration, commonly called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (although the claim to universality is far from valid), which became international law in 1976 after a sufficient number of nations had ratified it. It follows, therefore, that animals can acquire rights – if humans agree to grant them.

Thus it is not a question of whether animals have rights – that is something we as the language-empowered species on our planet must decide among ourselves – but which rights, if any, we are willing to ascribe to animals. The stepping point to this is the question of whether animals can be considered property, since clearly while this is the case any discussion of rights is beside the point. Challenges to the legal status quo on this subject are perhaps only a few years away, although the huge number of commercial interests which depend upon the property-status of animals will make this a very difficult river to ford.

What complicates this matter enormously is that much as with systems of ethics, each individual has their own personal attitude towards animals. Some people are animal lovers who want to extend rights to all species; some people feel sympathy for the more charismatic animals such as elephants, whales and pandas, but think nothing of eating meat; still others have a close relationship with just one other species (particularly dogs or cats) and feel powerfully about protecting that one species but are neutral in the case of other species.

An example of this latter case can be found by examining the question of onychectomy, a surgical operation which removes the claws of household cats, a practice only common in the United States, and considered both cruel and unnecessary by most animal welfare organisations. This issue is as inflammatory among cat lovers as abortion is among pro-life advocates; many such people outside the US believe that anyone who would perform this operation on their cat does not deserve to have a cat, and the internet contains evocative polemics against declawing eerily reminiscent of anti-abortion propaganda. Such is the strength of emotion that can be evoked in an individual when an animal rights issue touches a raw nerve.

The net result is a vast panoply of opinions and positions on animal rights, most of which are narrow in terms of the species about which concern is afforded, and many of which are callow in their assessment of the scope of the problems at hand or the substantive issues to be addressed. Some viewpoints even seem to margin on the insane, such as the views of a vegan I once met who advocated the total extinction of dairy cattle in preference to continued farming. The closest to a point of agreement is perhaps on the subject of spaying and neutering: more than 25 million cats and dogs are euthanized each year in the United States alone as a result of pet overpopulation.

We have already seen how Kant’s categorical imperative presents a yardstick for judging ethics, and how in Kant’s view we have a duty of mutual respect which in turn leads to the possibility of communal autonomy – a world in which we work to accommodate each other’s needs in a “merely possible realm of ends”. I believe the Kantian yardstick can be extended to cover the animal rights issue. Just as we may work together to accommodate each other’s ends (goals) in general, so we can work together to accommodate each other’s ends in the specific, such as in the context of animal rights. Animal rights in this view are thus incorporated into the general ethical framework, since an individual’s position with regards to animals (whether to specific species, or to all animals) forms part of the end they wish to be represented in communal autonomy.

(Kant’s view on animal welfare, incidentally, followed that of Thomas Aquinas in believing that we should not be cruel to animals simply as insurance that cruel habits do not carry over into our treatment of other human beings).

I suspect there will eventually be an international treaty of some kind that will provide some basic animal rights, but it’s time is not now, nor is likely to be found in the near future. Before we can adequately address animal rights it is necessary to finish the process of securing human rights. According to a 2004 Amnesty International report, only five countries did not commit significant human rights offences in 2003 - the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland and Costa Rica. Improving this abysmal situation means ensuring that countries which have already agreed to international human rights statutes (such as the United States and China) cease their violations of these agreements, while simultaneously negotiating with countries that have objections to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (including some 57 Islamic states) for new statutes that provide at least some degree of rights-protection for individuals everywhere in the world. We will probably not achieve a genuinely universal declaration of human rights any time soon, but a collection of separate agreements tailored to reflect cultural variation would suffice for the time being.

In the meantime, animal rights activists are free to use campaigns of persuasion or civil disobedience to advance their cause, but should be cautious that they do not hinder their goals by overstepping the mark. All attempts to force one’s values upon others, whatever values they might be, are detrimental to the process of gaining acceptance for those values – when animal liberation activists seem to value animals above people, they immeasurably damage their cause. A case for the respect of animals cannot be built upon the disrespect of people. Any animal rights that might be asserted originate in the protections that individual humans collectively agree to apply; in this struggle, the necessary first step is mutual respect between people. Only from such a position might some kind of animal liberation have any hope of success. 

The opening image is Calligram by Philip Taaffe, which I found here. As ever, no copyright infringement is intended and I will take the image down if asked.

Comments

[Theo]

I don't think Roger Scruton's view, as you summarize it, holds up either. If we apply his thinking thoroughly, then we must deny rights to children under 4 or 5, as they cannot make moral choices or enter into a social contract. We would also have to deny rights to anyone who is seriously brain damaged for the same reasons. I think most of us would feel uncomfortable with this. Oddly enough, this sounds like the objections I have heard to Peter Singer's views.

As a vegetarian I have some sympathy with the animal rights position, although I don't know that pursuing legal rights is the right way to go. I used to be something of an activist, but these days I see it as a personal choice. I cannot justify to myself depriving an animal of its life to provide me food when I have plenty of other things to eat. But this is something everyone must decide for themselves. And I am aware that my own position is not entirely coherent - if so, I would give up dairy products too. I think everyone needs a little wiggle room, though. (And there is a case for supporting more humane forms of agriculture, such as organic and biodynamic farming.)

One other observation. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend disliked the concept of human rights, because it presupposes a sort of essential human being without colour, gender, age, race or class. In his view, if we remove all these particularities from a person, we no longer have a human being but a monster. Real concern for another human being is based, he thinks, on a love of the particular - a tone of voice, a look, a way of speaking. I think he has a point, but I don't know in practice what alternative there is to legally enforceable rights.

[Chris]

Theo: I suppose one might make the claim that a 3-4 year old will eventually acquire the ability to enter into a social contract, whereas an animal will not, but as I say in the piece above, I think Scruton's position is weak because it overlooks what those people capable of making promises may agree to deliver for those who cannot - including both children and animals. However, I haven't studied his work closely so we may be being unfair to him. ;)

Like you, I am a vegetarian, but I would never consider enforcing this view on other people. However, I would advise anyone who cares about environmental issues to at least minimise the amount of red meat they eat: the food and water used in raising beef cattle (plus the associated carbon emissions) make this very bad for the planet. In fact, it was this motive which made me give up meat in the first place.

You know I love Feyerabend's philosophy; he provided an invaluable counterpoint to conventional thinking. In the case of human rights, the argument you outline above seems to me to be an argument against enforcing *universal* human rights - I don't favour enforcing a single human rights agenda so much as I prefer to aim for every culture to develop their own concept of human rights such that some protection can be given to people wherever they are in the world.

Great to hear from you!

[Neil]

In answer to the question, Animal Rights? I say, Yes!

All the diatribe on this subject presupposes humans have some extant right to decide on everything that occurs on the planet. This is even central to the piece you write, as in the final paragraph you basically say "C'mon now, let's sort out the important people before we worry about the lesser stuff..."

Speciesist! :-) I disagree with this standpoint. I appreciate we are the ones whom defacto rule in that we run about agriculturing, landscaping and terraforming the planet to our (well to the ruling 2%'s) whim.

But just because something is so does not make it right.

I think as a minimum we should make sure that no animals (and - you know, this *include* humans - maybe we don't need human rights after all - maybe we need to sort out basic animal rights!!!) are unnecessarily harmed or disfigured.

Eventually, this should probably include meat-eating being banned (I am so far from being vegan it is untrue, but I still feel this is something we should strive for) as well as disfiguring cats because people prefer nice seats to understanding and loving their pets.

Maybe we shouldn't have pets? Who knows, and we are so far removed from people being able to rationally respond that I hesitate to mention it.

But basically, Animal Rights? Damn straight - why are we so different? We are, after all, animals.

[Chris]

Neil: why are we different? Because we can have a discussion about animal rights. :) Language, and all its consequences, including law, distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

It is not that we have the right to impose our wills on the planet, but that we have the responsibility of dealing with the fact that we can.

Also, it is wholly unfair to say "disfiguring cats because people prefer nice seats to understanding and loving their pets". The vast majority of the owners of declawed cats love their pets, and their pets love them - to claim otherwise is to presuppose your own bias. Many of these cats have been declawed because vets push the operation upon owners (often offering discounted rates for spaying plus declawing).

As with pro-life activists, if you want to eliminate that which you oppose you can't come at the problem by demonising those on the opposite side of the divide: when you do, you radically reduce any sympathy they might have for your position, and thus radically undercut your own goals.

Best wishes!

[Neil]

You might be right about "demonising those on the opposite side of the divide". And yes, they might have less sympathy for me. Watch as I could care less.

But you know my feelings here. I couldn't let you mention in passing something I will happily take on board and rant about. I care much more about the helpless cats than I do the irritating humans who wander about being great enough to impact the planet, but too unwilling to look at the effects.

You love your cat enough to allow a vet to remove its claws? I bet if we could give the gift of language to cats (some animals most likely *do* have communication/language and to say we are the only ones is again speciesist) they would have loved their owners more if they had not had their claws removed.

Let's have a vote of how many cat owners with declawed cats want their fingers removed at the first joint? I will offer a substantial discount. I am sure their cats will love them just as much afterwards - unless they are no longer able to open the cat food...

[Chris]

"Watch as I could[n't] care less."

So you don't care enough about this issue to want to effect change? Why get so emotional about it if you don't want to reduce or eliminate that which you oppose? Why torture yourself while taking a public position that will likely push anyone on the fence away from sympathising with your cause? Net result: more declawed cats, precisely what you don't want.

I'm sure it's true that you don't care what your opponents think, feel or believe on this issue - but if you want the situation to change, you and others like you are going to have to get to a place where you do.

Essentially, you predicate your own values on this subject, and it hurts your cause. It's almost entirely analogous to the pro-life position in the abortion debate.

And yes, animals can communicate in a great many different ways. But no animal species we know of has external language capacity (i.e. writing), which is a prerequisite for law and anything like it, nor anything close to abstract language capacity - although the jury is still out on the whales and dolphins. ;)

Like it or not, we are the custodians of the planet - I'd like to see us do a good job, but I don't believe we can skip the process of securing human rights as a waypoint on the path to securing some animal rights.

Best wishes!

[Sankofa]

Animal Rights? Hell no, i think this would be a big mistake from the side of the nature-loving bunch. Animals shouldnt need rights in the first place. Giving them rights would only reinforce our supposed custodian of the planet ego-trip that i "just have to accept like it or not" Rights are more cage then freedom or better put a false freedom. Rights are given, and if accepted as legitimate, reinforces the idea of authority of the "rights-giver" way more then any other means. By giving rights, we either subject the poor animals to our authority or charity and both strenghten the idea of superiority and inferiority. You can not define the boundaries of someone else's freedom (nice little paradox in there eh?) let alone that of an animal. What animals need is not Rights,turning them into producers for human society, because they have done fine without those rights. What animals need is people getting angry at other people for treating them like shit.

[Sankofa]

The written word seems to be the only argument left in the man seperate from animal view. Yet written word is but a means communication, which all the animals do all the time. There's even interspecies communication. Some animals communicate differently then others but that doesnt put them outside of the natural world. The only thing that seperates man from animals is man itself.

[Sankofa]

And by the way, i daresay that animals do "write" a lot of animals leave marks and signs for other animals, they might not write as elaborate as we do, hell maybe that makes them even smarter.

[Chris]

Sankofa: The argument that writing is just another form of communication and that since other animal species communicate in many different ways there is no difference between humanity and animals is deeply flawed. The living conditions humanity has been able to secure for itself on the back of its abstract language abilities (possible because of a far larger neocortex than other species) are vastly more comfortable than anything you would find in the state of nature, and while I am impressed at the communication abilities of many animal species there's nothing close to abstract language use anywhere to be found outside of our own species (with the possible exception of whales and dolphins, but without a common language it's hard to check).

(That this abstract language capacity has its own share of problems is a tangent for another time).

I do not by invoking this language point wish to demonstrate the "superiority" of humanity, merely observe that we as animals with abstract language capacity are capable of philosophy, art, science, ethics, law and so forth, which gives us the capacity (if we choose to use it) to protect the diminishing natural world. I suggest we use it.

"By giving rights, we either subject the poor animals to our authority or charity and both strenghten the idea of superiority and inferiority."

Better to offer our charity than the alternative. You say the animals have done fine without rights - what planet are you living on, precisely? ;)

At the moment, the legal status of animals is as *property*. Now that *does* enforce the idea of human superiority! Against this, claims that extending rights to animals will demean them are rather absurd.

I am comparatively certain that the whales, if we had a common language with them, would be thankful for the efforts we have made to protect them from whaling, and I am quite shocked that you feel that attempts to provide legal protection for animals render them worse off in some way. You must be especially dedicated to your anarchist worldview to believe this.

"What animals need is people getting angry at other people for treating them like shit."

So you don't want us to extend legal rights to animals because this reinforces the idea of human superiority, but you think something is gained by humans shouting at each other? What are these angry humans to do, exactly? Not offer rights, because you oppose this, so what? What is your goal here?

You call the "custodian of the the planet" metaphor an "ego trip", but you seem to offer nothing as a viable alternative. I will happily shoulder the trivial cost of a few smug humans as a price for saving the great wealth of endangered animal life on our planet.

Many thanks for sharing your views on this issue!

[Neil]

Well if I shout it vociferously enough, maybe people will realise the actions they are taking are not acceptable in other parts of the world. (We wrote some laws and we decided against mutilation of cats.)

Maybe they will look at the actions they are taking and wonder if that is the right course...

Maybe not. But if not then they were likely not going to listen to reasoned arguments either.

Anyway - all this supposition is a way around and about of saying that I have my ways of protest, and you have yours. I like mine as I get to be angry at fatuous stupid people who disfigure their cats.

As for Human Rights, I am serious when I say we should sort out the animals first. For all the reasons you mention about them needing us to look after them and be custodians etc - let's sort that out, and then see what remains for us and how we should fit around our charges.

Plus, behind it all, personally I disagree with home sapiens as a genetic proposal and think it should be cleansed from the planet.

[Sankofa]

Humans do have an exceptionally large neo-cortex as do dolphins, animals can and do share the things you seem think are exculsively human. Of course we are different from other animals, as other animals are different from one another.

++The living conditions humanity has been able to secure for itself on the back of its abstract language abilities (possible because of a far larger neocortex than other species) are vastly more comfortable than anything you would find in the state of nature++
this statement is entirely false. Human conditions in modern civilzation are only better for the richest of the richest of nations, and then only if we compare things on a materialists notions of what it means to be better-off. Actually "modern-enlightened" humans overall live in WORSE conditions then "people in the state of nature".

++I do not by invoking this language point wish to demonstrate the "superiority" of humanity, merely observe that we as animals with abstract language capacity are capable of philosophy, art, science, ethics, law and so forth, which gives us the capacity (if we choose to use it) to protect the diminishing natural world. I suggest we use it.++

What makes you think (hope? perhaps) that these things like philosophy and art and science and ethics will suddenly make things better instead of worse? The earth has been raped and plundered more heavily the more "enlightened" we've become. Lets destroy the ring of power I say, instead of using it to corrupt.

++Better to offer our charity than the alternative. You say the animals have done fine without rights - what planet are you living on, precisely? ;)

At the moment, the legal status of animals is as *property*. Now that *does* enforce the idea of human superiority! Against this, claims that extending rights to animals will demean them are rather absurd.++

Animals DO live fine without rights, just take a trip to the forest and look around. It is us who should learn something here, not them. Property is a weaker form control then veiled control methods, such as rights. When something is property people see that there are two different interests at work. They can see the domination at work. When even you start talking about is giving right, you dive straight past the idea that there is no legitimate force that should be able to give them rights in the first place.
You've already accepted the whole domination part.

The only problem i see really, is that you want to create rights and carve things in stone. I am indeed not offering a solution I am critiqueing yours. If your only notion of people being angry is shouting at each other you have a sadder view of the world then i have. There are many ways to help animals giving them rights is only reinforcing the idea that we are somehow allowed to give them rights and thus strenghten the notion of human-species control over non-human-species.

In the end im afraid we dont differ very much though. I also want to stop people from hurting animals on a large scale but i dont need a law for that. I need to break some.

[Chris]

Sankova: "animals can and do share the things you seem think are exclusively human"

There's no evidence yet that non-humans have abstract language use, nor any of the faculties this entail such as projection into future state (although I am open to the possibility). Nor, for that matter, that laughing - the physiological response to absurdity that we humans possess - exists in other species (this may be a consequence of the abstract language use). We are unique in many ways. But of course, many species are unique in many ways. It just happens than proven abstract language use is one of the ways we are unique from other species (dolphins and whales not withstanding).

"Actually 'modern-enlightened' humans overall live in WORSE conditions then 'people in the state of nature'."

This is a strange claim; would you care to back this up with something? Most species don't enjoy being eaten by predators in my experience. :)

"The earth has been raped and plundered more heavily the more 'enlightened' we've become. Lets destroy the ring of power I say, instead of using it to corrupt."

Correlation does not imply causation. The growth of economies under the oil power paradigm is the root of the problem you cite here.

"Animals DO live fine without rights, just take a trip to the forest and look around."

I do. Often. And the animals aren't doing very well at all, thanks in part to under-protection from our species. Have you seen the endangered species list recently?

"Property is a weaker form control then veiled control methods, such as rights."

Another strange claim - I'm not sure black citizens of the US would agree with this, and I'm sure I don't. Care to back this one up with something?

"When even you start talking about is giving right, you dive straight past the idea that there is no legitimate force that should be able to give them rights in the first place."

The legitimate force is international law; I thought this had been made clear. Promises between people can be binding - another of the benefits of abstract language use. This does not provide a basis for universality, but I make no claim that such a thing (universal ethics) is either possible or desirable, only that law is a tool we can and should use to protect non-human species and human species alike.

We've covered all the issues with respect to relative ethics and the lack of universality in great depth earlier in the ethics campaign and these are no longer in significant dispute.

"The only problem i see really, is that you want to create rights and carve things in stone."

I never want to carve things in stone. Like Hannah Arendt, I believe that promises (law) can and must be reviewed as times change. But right now, I want to take action with the systems we have as the most pragmatic means of achieving our common goals by the fastest possible route.

"If your only notion of people being angry is shouting at each other you have a sadder view of the world then i have."

Sorry, I must not have made my point clear here: if you are advocating a solution that begins with people being angry then the onus is on you to explain what your method is, because it is far from clear what it might be or how it would be effective.

"I also want to stop people from hurting animals on a large scale but i dont need a law for that. I need to break some."

Well I defend to the death your right to believe that this is the way forward on this issue, even though I think you're patently mistaken.

Since there are a sufficient large number of people now who care about environmental issues that the law can be changed to provide protections, this seems to me to be the most effective way of proceeding. There are just not enough eco-protesters to hold back the tide - not by a long shot - and while I believe there is a certain nobility to this sort of thing (at least when it does not entail violence) I want to see results before it is too late, not fresh-faced idealists squandering their power to exert pressure on sundry piecemeal causes.

Nothing you have said thus far sways me towards believing that international law isn't the best forum to advance these causes.

You appear to be from the "tear the system down" camp. That's what Marx tried - see where it got him. :) There aren't enough people interested in this approach to make it happen and, frankly, on the basis of history so far violent revolution does not and has not lead to palpable improvement of conditions. I reject this method entirely now.

I advocate change through co-operation when possible, and through resistance when not. You seem to be advocating change through resistance even if co-operation is on the table. Why?

I agree with you that our goals don't differ - you just don't want to consent to my methods, whereas I don't have a clue what methods you might be advocating! :)

Best wishes!

[Sankofa]

Hey Chris I especially liked the last part of your post it made me smile. Thanks for your fast reply too. While i understand most of your points and think that could work for you fine, id like to take a different approach.

First of all, you propably got the point that im not a native english speaker, id like to thank you in advance for the patience you have to read my rambling posts. I wish i could articulate myself better in my mothertongue but well, thats the way it is.

I will get back to you on the point of civilization WORSENING the overall state of mankind, because id need to elaborate a little on that. For now ill just say that you've read (or are influenced by) too much Hobbes. NASTY BRUTISH AND SHORT EH?

What i meant with the whole PROPERTY vs RIGHTS bit, was not to excuse property and forceful authority, far from it. It was meant to show that both are authorative and that the first is much easier to combat then the second. I did not want to reason at all that we should stick with property rights over animals.

You know how to kick anarchy balls! but it makes me smile a little when you do it so well, because I have nothing in common with ideas from Marx. We werent having a discussion about me however so i continue on.

Again i say animals DO live fine without rights, when animals die because of encroaching civilization it is not because they didnt have any rights but it is because of encroaching civilzation. Therefore it is us that LIVE wrongly with them.

If you are going to assume that civilizations will stop growing when animals have rights, then i must blame you for being an extremely positive fellow.

Authoritive vs Social Democrat ways (property and rights)
Slavery has been destroyed because the honest hostility of slavery makes it a weak authority with many enemies. The rights movement ensures a strong enemy because they create a "nice" authority. Which effectively hides the damn thing.

I find it strange you say you want results now, that makes me think you're more of the animal liberation type.

Well ill be off now i forget what i was talking about. :)

thanks !

[Sankofa]

+++This is a strange claim; would you care to back this up with something? Most species don't enjoy being eaten by predators in my experience. :)+++

I was writing a really long piece but my mastery of the neglish language was not really helping, so instead i will give you a link. I hope you dont mind.

http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-25-civilization-reduces-quality-of-life/

[Sankofa]

http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-25-civilization-reduces-quality-of-life/

[Sankofa]

I didnt get the link right last time so sorry for the extra post
http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-25-civilization-reduces-quality-of-life/

[Sankofa]

oh boy, the end of the link should read: quality-of-life/

[Sankofa]

Also your notion of humans being eaten by predators all the time is really a hobessian cliche. Human beings have lived in balance with their landbase for like thousands of years.

[Chris]

Hi! I'm not really influenced by Hobbes, believe it or not. I've not yet found anything Hobbes said that I significantly agree with. I do agree with you that humans have lived in balance with the land for thousands of years - but to get to the state of nature with humans would be to go back *hundreds of thousands* of years at least. But this is *so* tangential to our topic, I almost wish I hadn't mentioned it. It was largely brought up as a cheap joke. ;)

The whole quality of life issue of making comparisons between different centuries is rather absurd, so I suggest we brush this under the carpet for now. I've chosen to believe that things are better for the majority now than before, but of course a case can be made either way, and to make one exception to this, I would say we had better working hours before the industrial revolution. :)

The bottom line here is there is no absolute measure of quality of life, and people with the right belief system can be happy in any conditions while those without such a belief system struggle to be happy at all. I don't really believe in a direction of progress here (improving or worsening) and this argument rapidly becomes pure metaphysics - not that I'm against talking about metaphysics - it's just not in our purview here. ;)

"The rights movement ensures a strong enemy because they create a "nice" authority. Which effectively hides the damn thing."

I'm open to this criticism - certainly, the rights movement can go too far. But I still see the rights route as the best option on the table right now.

"I find it strange you say you want results now, that makes me think you're more of the animal liberation type."

Oh I am, believe me, I would love to achieve animal liberation, but I'm not into enforcing my agenda so much as I am interested in finding the common ground to advance the common agendas, if you see what I mean.

I look at the problem globally, in many different ways, and the conclusion I come to is that we won't stop (for instance) poaching of the snow leopard without first improving the quality of life of the people who are driven to poach in the first place. I see human rights agreements as a way towards this place, although there is much, much more to be done than this, of course.

My basic position here is that we can't get to animal rights without solving human rights. If your counter to this is that the rights movement is more dangerous than the problem it seeks to cure, I'm open to this criticism but remain unconvinced at this time.

The one place I would agree with this is that attempts to enforce the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on all nations and all cultures is not a sound plan of action: different cultures need to develop their own concepts of rights.

Thank you for the discussion on this - it's a controversial subject, and it can be healthy to throw ideas around with people who have different perspectives.

I haven't found your lack of English as a first language a problem at all; you seem quite eloquent in English - better than many of the voices in the internet for whom English *is* a first language. ;)

Best wishes!

[Sankofa]

I wish to make one last statement on the CIV vs PRE-CIV notion of yours that this would imply going thousands of years back. I dont believe in going back or forward for that matter. Progress is a ghost. A very limited linear ghost. I think there is just change.We could go thousands of year into the future and end up living like pre-civ in balance. or sideways if you try hard.

I believe you and i are more or less on the same page, having similar destinations but taking different roads to get there. I do not think violent upheaval is the only way to make change. Most changes that have been made have been made by people working within and without the system towards the same goal.

Most importantly one should have a little fun and games while travelling towards their destination.

thanks for your input!

[Chris]

"Progress is a ghost... I think there is just change"

I tend to agree. But I also believe that whatever conditions you find yourself in, you can still work towards what you would see as a better world. That's enough for me. :)

"Most importantly one should have a little fun and games while travelling towards their destination."

But of course! :D

A pleasure talking with you!

[Sammas]

"Given the situation we face in modern moral philosophy, exemplified by the problem of relative ethics whereby every individual may derive their ethics from entirely different principles, Singer’s position inevitably collapses."

There are claims here which really need to be better supported. I would deny that there is any significant "situation exemplified by the problem of relative ethics". Utilitarianism is immeasureably better supported than any form of ethics which is ultimately subjective, so how could the (imo nonsensical) idea of moral relativism possibly cause Singer's position to collapse?

[Chris]

Sorry, Sammas, there is some confusion here: we've been pursuing this "Ethics Campaign" for almost a year, and many of the questions you ask here have already been dealt with.

Utilitarianism is a popular ethical system among non-religious athiests, but it is far from a magic bullet to do an end run around existentialism. Every ethical belief system rests on beliefs or choices at its heart, and Utilitarianism is no exception.

The foundation of the relative ethics position can be found here, while my partial critique of Consequentialism (of which Utilitarianism forms a part) can be found here.

I'm not sure why you think Utilitarianism is so well founded, but hopefully the posts I've linked to above will provide some of the answers you seek.

Oh, and one last thing: relative ethics isn't moral relativism. See the first link in this comment for the explanation in this regard.

Best wishes!