[lbo-talk] Become a vegetarian or rot in hell!!! ;-)

[John Thornton]

Bill Bartlett wrote:
> Well, there is the fact that we can express ourselves to other humans 
> with language (the pen is mightier than the boot, so to speak) while 
> we can't really do that with animals.
>
> The trouble with Singer is this assumption of his that animals share 
> "similar conditions" with humans. Which is a bit vague, probably 
> deliberately so, certainly conveniently so. In my view, projecting 
> such human ethical values onto dogs and other animals is something 
> usually done by people who have very little direct experience with 
> real animals. Rather, such people are programmed by a Walt Disney 
> cartoon view of animals, that is animals which are just like people, 
> except they have fur and feather, like Donald Duck and the Beagle 
> Boys. Creatures which feel the same pain as humans and have the same 
> hopes and aspirations.
>
> Its arrant nonsense. Not only is your dog simply a dog, not only does 
> it not share any of your "similar conditions", it isn't even capable 
> of sharing your fantasy. It thinks you are a dog and would not 
> hesitate to tear you to pieces if you were not a member of its own 
> pack and you strayed onto its territory. It would never think this is 
> "wrong" and such notions are quite alien to it.
>
> That, quite simply, is the ethical basis for not extending to animals 
> the same rights as we demand for other humans. That is to say, they 
> have no possible way of understanding, let alone reciprocating. And of 
> course the fundamental reason we want such rights extended to all 
> humans, is that we reason that it is the best way of ensuring that we 
> personally will enjoy such rights. Humans are capable of grasping the 
> concept of reciprocal rights.
>
> Animals can't and won't reciprocate. The whole notion of extending 
> universal human rights to animals is preposterous.
>
> Bill Bartlett

As a trainer of therapy animals I can tell you that animals can 
reciprocate. I'm not talking about conditioned response, I mean animals 
form a bond with humans and willingly engage in reciprocal behavior for 
people with whom they form attachments. The certainly have no concept of 
rights as humans have but we do not know what concepts they may or may 
not form with regards to such things.

Last time I checked humans had no problem tearing other humans to shreds 
when they strayed onto their territory so I'm not certain how this 
demonstrates some fundamental difference between human and canine. Most 
humans don't seem to object to this and those that do are in the minority.

I'm not a vegetarian and I do not think there are any ethical 
considerations to be made to become one. I also think animals have 
emotional responses and understand a great deal more than many people 
believe. I don't anthropomorphize their behavior but I understand cats, 
dogs, apes, etc. have behaviors that humans do not fully understand 
simply because we do not share the same ways of knowing that these 
animals do.

John Thornton