Using PETA as an example of rationality might not be such a good idea.

"PETA's statement is based on two primary assumptions, the first of which is that there is no difference between human beings and animals."
Technically there is no difference since we are animals, but using the intended definition it is not evident from PETA's statement that they see no distinction. Complete equality would obviously be irrational, but it is not necesssary for the existence of animal rights. Singer's comments do not support those assumptions either, he does speak of some animals having a number of similar capabilities that might give rise to issues/preferences/rights but that is not a claim to equality.

"However, while rationality is essential in the formation of an ethical view, it requires certain fundamental assumptions that cannot be conjured out of logic."
I do not think this is true for all ethical systems, ie. if there is no external consequence to being ethical.

"Ethical views require that we understand the nature of the beings involved... Similarly, when they are to do with our treatment of animals we must have more than a superficial or ideological understanding of their nature."
And yet the author doesn't see why Judeo-Christian tradition is rarely considered. If relying on Genesis for knowledge of animal nature isn't superficial & ideological then what is?

"The aims of PETA and the concerns of Peter Singer do not confirm our experience of the world but lead us into a world deprived of the distinctions we need to have in order to act morally."
"What I really mean is that we inherit a tradition of thought that is superior to the rationality of modernism and that this is obvious from the absurdity of such a notion as animal rights derived from the latter."

Something to explain and justify these statements would have been nice. Experience? Need for those distinctions? Absurdity? Ruins of modernism? How can tradition be superior where it is irrational?

The article must be preaching to the choir, who else would be convinced by its flawed, misdirected and theological attacks?

The objectives of PETA have nothing to do for any concern for animals. Such people as PETA and Singer are driven by a profound hatred of the human race and in particular Western Civilisation. Such people feel bad about themselves because they have nothing to be proud of, no real useful talents and make no useful contribution, but rather than try and improve themselves they attack their betters by any low means they can think of. The more they are pandered to the more destructive they will become - like naughty children. They should be treated like the animals they pretend to love so much. Keith

I’d like some clarifications of the assumptions Peter Sellick makes. What does he see as the difference(s) between human and the other animals? How do you rationally make this distinction?

Peter writes that if we do not have an understanding of (animal) nature and rely on the fashion of equalitarianism and the idea of rights, then we will arrive at absurd conclusions. Well yeah maybe, but not all people who believe in animal rights rely on the ‘fashion’ of equalitarianism.

Also, does Peter have an understanding of animal nature that I don't have?

If this argument is only appropriate to the PETA group then fine – big deal – why bother? But it seems to me that the whole animal rights idea is being critiqued.

Perhaps a quick read of “Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals the Call to Mercy,” by Matthew Scully, a special assistant and senior speech writer for George W. Bush (not that this gives him any credibility with me) would help put the issue into perspective.

I think Sellick opening gambit here ("In other words, we are all to be extreme vegans") is unfair. What is extreme about veganism per se?

This is a pretty cheap shot, attempting to paint a broad group of people (but a very small social minority who are easily ridiculed) as "extreme", and not simply extremists because of their worldview, but extremists because of their personal choice to shun food and products produced though cruel practices.

Vegans can fall into a number of camps including those who (yes) equate veganism with direct action (e.g. those beyond PETA who are quite radical and take illegal actions like destroying property) and those who see veganism as a personal choice, but do not project this on others (e.g. ethical vegans who are not politically radicalised).

Sellick is correct, however, when he states that "The individual who is dominated by ego, follows his instincts and lives out his socialisation is the one who is least personable. On the other hand, the one who ... knows himself to the extent that he may live in a way that is not determined by his proclivities, is the most personable." I would argue that people who, upon considered reflection give up meat, reflect a greater awareness of themselves, and their place in the world.

First, I find perplexing Sellick's claim that the way of thinking that leads to veganism is prevalent over Judeo-Christian thought in our culture. I hope he is correct in this.

Second, there is no basis for reading into PETA's statement the premise that humans and animals are 'the same'. Simply, we share certain relevant similarities that should preclude our assertion of the right to subject animals to suffering. I would fall short of asserting that animals have a right to a seat in parliament or welfare benefits. Nor would I insist that Sellick's wife choose his dog over him if it came to that. However, I don't think people should be labelled 'extremist' on the basis that they feel empathy for animals (pets or otherwise), and choose to limit their diet and other consuming habits accordingly.

I can't help but feel that there is a deep connection between how we treat animals and how we rationalise killing each other.

I don't think Sellick comes close to answering this fundamental question.

This article, trying to get to the bottom of sheep cruelty, and respect for animals in general, pleas for retreat from extremities in agrument. But eventually it clambers out onto a shrubby extremity itself by saying "the scandal of our time is that this " - (inherited tradition of thought) - "has been deemed inadmissible even though the foundations of our society rest on it."

Of the many scandals of our time, questioning inherited traditions of thought should not rate too highly. rather, these traditions should be viewed as no more than valuable building blocks towards improvement.

If only humanity in general could divorce itself from the, almost universal, traditional belief that we are separate from the environment we depend upon for fundamental support - and accept that we are part of it.

That traditional belief has, over the course of the last ten thousand years, given us malaria, smallpox, influenza, and salinised landscapes. In the course of the last two centuries it has provided us with global warming escalation, a permanent war footing, and AIDS.

We have gone, and are still going, forth to multiply. Six billion in the world, increasing at 1.3%pa; 20 million in Australia, increasing at 0.7%pa.. In the world, in Australia, we are knowingly destroying our life-support systems in order to do it. A rabbit may be excused this procreative habit. But we are without excuse for not modifying our traditional beliefs to adjust the benefits and problems of human numbers so that they are campatible with their environments.

Yes, PETA does need to adjust the rock of its belief to the real world. So do we. May ethical priorities turn to focus on more fundamental realities.

All interesting posts, and like the first poster, don't believe that PETA is necessarily calling all like minds. Forget about the religion which justifies sacrificing this or that to the gods. It's about how we treat animals. I take my hat off to people that through their beliefs, eschew eating meat because of the despicable way we treat animals a'la factory farming. However I am inclined to the carnivore (I like to eat meat) and we raise chickens and various fowl for table. Which we do, but whilst they are alive, they free range and do all the things that they should do. I have no problem eating them, it all comes down to the way they are treated prior to death. Animals are not human, otherwise we'd all be looking over our shoulder for Animal Farm, but we seem to be the ones in control. Therefore we should treat all creatures great and small (except cockroaches) with the utmost respect. The worst cruelty mankind inflicts on animals is factory farming and neglect in my book, and I feel guilty every time i buy into it at a supermarket. Caretaking of our fauna is more than being a vegan, it is about some of the things that PETA does do well, such as bringing witness to ban bear bile in China, which is horrific, but doesn't necessarily touch us unless it's shoved in our face. I'm not an advocate for PETA, but am grateful for any organisation that bring us awareness about these things. It's not only about eating them and the market, it's about how we treat them whilst they are alive. I have no compunction about shooting a fox who's in the penthouse, but a bear being held in a shed for it's life just to get the bile out of it's body so some guy can have an erection, makes me want to cringe and apologise for being part of the human race.

There's a lot more to it than just wanting to eat meat.

Although I disagree with what PETA says, my target was not specifically this organization but the rationality that leads it to such irrational conclusions. I was using PETA as an example of a rationality that could lead in any direction because it is not grounded in the experience of human beings, as I think the biblical texts are. Instrumental reason can lead to the death camps as well as to a well run medical service because it is value free. Similarly, the logic of PETA can lead in bizarre directions, veganism not being the worst. I thought Peter Chen, in his last paragraph had a point. Do not get me wrong, I am not for irrationality. What I am against is the hegemony of the rationality that is a product of modernism. As a working scientist I use this rationality all the time, but I do not use it when I relate to the people I love as in fact none of us do. We need to acknowledge that there are different kinds of rationality (Alistair MacIntyre: Whose justice, which rationality?). Scripture is rational in its own way, if it were not, it could not have formed the robust Western culture that we see around us.

The issue of whether we kill animals for meat is an open question. Indeed, the visions of Isaiah frame the fulfilled creation as a place in which the animals are at peace with each other and with us. Whether we treat animals with complete disregard is not an open question.

I know that I am always harping on about human rights, but they are just as much mythical as the creation stories but with less warrant since they are not based on a careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world but rather are a stop gap forced on us by the abandonment of theology. By the way, “theology” is not in my use a pejorative.

Deuc
The ruins of modernity, see: http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9310/articles/jenson.html

Peter uses fatuous academe-speak to denigrate the genuinely held beliefs of others and justifies it by using a classic "begging the question" logic.
1. Animals are not people.
2. The bible says this.
3. The bible is true.
4. Hence my arument is true.
5. Hence (by inference) cutting the bums off living sheep is OK.

Peter, I agree, as most people would, that animals are not people but to use the argument "Although it is obvious that they can suffer, it is not so obvious that they understand what death is or what their life is for." causes me to almost retch with laughter. Now, I appreciate that you have convinced yourself that you know what your life is for and what death is but meanwhile there are many of us that are still working on this one and some of us love our animal brothers who share this earth with us. Yes, I eat meat. Yes, I am a hypocrite but I am wondering,
Would you eat your dog? if not then why not?
Do you support the slaughter of whales? how about orang-utans?
Would you serve up pig to a Jew or Muslim? Why not?

Peter finishes up with an inevitiable snipe at modernism and our so-called secular society (e.g. "... especially now since the ruins of modernism lay all around us")
Where exactly are these ruins Peter and what have you to say about the crumbling edifice of your superstition and theology?

Priscillian – we as humans understand the concept of life and death. It is doubtful if animals do. I think this is the point that Peter was making. The “meaning of life” is a different concept altogether.

Your first sentence deplores the denunciation of the personal views of others – your last sentence does that exact thing. Very poor show. I can also assure you that if hungry enough, you would eat your dog, cat, horse, guinea-pig, whale or orang-utan with gusto.

Extending the same rights to animals that we expect as humans is ridiculous. Animals only have what rights humans choose to give them. Obviously the needless suffering of animals and the pointless destruction of same are terrible activities that diminish us as humans as much as they harm animals. Animals however have no twangs of conscience when they inflict pain and suffering on each other. We are either the same as, or different from, animals. If we’re the same than our obligation to them is much less than if we are different.

How do you know what any animal has a concept of? Does Peter or your God talk to them? Peter relies on the bible for his guidance and evidence. What is the teaching here?

As for animals inflicting pain without conscience....where have you been lately..do you have a TV?... Do you watch the news? Humans do this every day, in the theatre of war, as well as the home and the workplace. (even on this forum)

I never deplored the personal views of anyone. My last sentence, that you refer to, says- "Where exactly are these ruins Peter and what have you to say about the crumbling edifice of your superstition and theology?" The first part is a straight forward question about his claims about modernism the second part refers to his superstition and theology - I guess you take objection to the word "superstition" when refering to your religion.
Please explain why religious beliefs cannot be described this way in the context of magical spirits, miracles, resurrection, virgin birth etc..

Would the phrase "unsubstantiated, archaic, literalist beliefs" be less offensive?

I also use "crumbling edifice". This is not a denunciation of his personal views, just a plain fact about which I am happy to debate. Peter would not be posting articles if he did not feel that his theology was being challenged. "Crumbling" is most certainly taking place here and Peter is shoring up the cracks and doing a little underpinning. (although I wish he could use plain english so us uneducated peasants could understand a little easier).

Yes, I would eat my dog if I was starving but that was not my point. You would only do this in desperation but we happily munch into a chicken, cow, sheep etc., why hesitate about the pooch? Is it possible that a unique bond between humans and animals may sometimes exist? love even?

He would probably not serve up pig to a Jew or Muslim because of respect for their personal beliefs. A respect that seems to be missing in the attitude of many literalist believers to us secular/atheist/rationalist/unforgiven/sinning/bound-for-hell-Heathens.

So I guess there is no rational way to distinguish between human and animal since Peter Sellick did not respond to this (possibly) irrational and 'silly' question. Should it be obvious?

Bozzie says that animals have no conscience when they inflict pain and suffering on each other, but neither do some humans, so that isn't a adequate method.

Bozzie also says that humans understand life and death. But I certainly don't understand these things at all and I have seen dogs clearly indicate that they recognise death and mourn for the dead person.

The only things that I come up with that clearly differentiate humans from animals are opposable thumbs and face to face sex.

Peter Sellick says he is against the hegemony of the rationality that is a product of modernism. I agree. But I am also against the hegemony of the religious that he seems to want instead.

Also, as I understand it, Peter Singer does not advocate hegemony of the rational. He suggests that a rational approach is the most rational starting point when considering moral and ethical issues.

He freely admits that he cannot apply his rationality to his mother who suffers from Alzheimers

"Instrumental reason can lead to the death camps as well as to a well run medical service because it is value free. Similarly, the logic of PETA can lead in bizarre directions, veganism not being the worst"

I do not see the connection to instrumentalism, is it claimed that PETA is using "animal rights" as a facade? Or that the entire concept of human/other rights is instrumentalist?

PETA is a diverse group, and we do not know its reasoning. Certainly the concept of human rights does not stand on its own, and is arguably a linguistic construct or aggregation, but that does not mean that such rights are severed from proper moral precepts.

"Scripture is rational in its own way, if it were not, it could not have formed the robust Western culture that we see around us."
It is quite the overstatement to say that scripture formed western culture, and that would not logically imply the complete rationality of scripture. I can accept that rationality under different assumptions will provide varying results, but I do not know any reason to consider them seperate or equally valid.

"I know that I am always harping on about human rights, but they are just as much mythical as the creation stories but with less warrant since they are not based on a careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world but rather are a stop gap forced on us by the abandonment of theology."
I think many theists would have a problem with that last bit. And you would be unable to show that the stories in Genesis were based on "careful analysis of the metaphysical structure of the world".

"'theology' is not in my use a pejorative."
I do not use it that way either.

" http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9310/articles/jenson.html "
A bit confusing that, especially with the references to artistic modernism, instrumentalism and the "narratable world." Perhaps you should define your view of moderni and demonstrate the ruins yourself.

Mollydukes. There are lots of ways that we can distinguish animals from humans, absence of language, complexity of behavior, size of cortex, etc. I hope I did not give the impression that it is all in the bible! Natural science has become incredibly accurate in its descriptions. The place of theology is to provide, as Jenson says, a realistic narrative. That narrative must gel with our scientific knowledge of the world and there is the rub because it contains unscientific aspects. That is one of the reasons the Judeo/Christian story has been rejected because it is deemed supernatural. The trick is to read the story from the writers point of view, that is, a pre-scientific view. When read on its own terms it is a realistic narrative in that we can see ourselves in it.

Deuc. Human rights are not severed from moral concerns, that is their point. My problem with them is that they are severed from the “realistic narrative”, indeed they seem to stem from any good intention present in the councils of the United Nations. As such they are simply imposed and are not part of our self understanding. I get a little nervous when I see a fertilized human ovum in a dish and am told that its rights are being abused. That seems to me an abstraction, even if logical in a way that PETA is logical.

I think there is no doubt that scripture has been a major force in the formation of Western culture. Our reaction against it is recent and disastrous.

The modern experiment started with Descartes when he posited the thinking subject as the basis of epistemology, thus replacing God. As Jenson says, we arrived at a story without a story teller and this has meant the unraveling of the story and some forms of postmodernism. Rowan Williams “Lost Icons” is good on this.

Several writers have asked for evidence that the modern world is in ruins. I have avoided answering this because it requires the sort of doom and gloom argument that makes me look like a fundamentalist preacher and the evidence should be based on sociological research which I am too lazy to pursue. But consider the following:

1. The loss of a transcendent narrative has collapsed personal narratives into immediate goals like materialism, power, prestige and lifestyle. This even threatens the desire and ability to raise families.
2. The drug culture, surely not an insignificant aspect of our society, is a sign that there are many who just want out.
3. The suicide rate especially among the young.
4. The divorce rate that verges on 50% indicating that we do not know what a promises are and how to keep them.
5. The failure of the West to help third world countries because we can only give them money.

In the West there is just enough of the old morality left to hold us in and we are not in as bad a shape as the remnants of European communism who have born the full brunt of modernism carried to its logical conclusion. The question for us is how long can we hold out on the thin diet of liberal democracy and capitalism. Civilizations run on their core ideas and ours have evaporated.

I know that we could list ills in all ages, there are none that have none. I am not harking back to a golden age when all was right but I am looking for the restoration of our civilization’s seminal story.

PETA are very concerned for the welfare of animals and demand that we respect animal rights - so long as someone else bears the costs. But they see no problem executing animals when they, PETA, have to bear the costs since their priorities are activism not animal protection. Over the past few years one animal shelter run by PETA has 'put down' over 10000 creatures. I wonder if they respected their rights as they did so?
Read about it here..http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm

Sells, an alternative view regarding the state of the world is that the type of issues refered to is that we are in a state of transition (in a whole lot of ways).

- Society is less insular. Most have a much better knowledge of other cultures than has been the case in the past. Some of us are discovering that just because our culture does something a certain way does not mean that it is the only way it can be.

- Technological. We are seeing massive technology changes which are impacting on most aspects of our lives.

- Changing place of organised religion in our lives. We are still exploring what a world without a creator god means and how we should live in that world.

- Changes to gender roles. We are still working through the changes resulting from shifting the balance of visible power in gender issues.

All of these things and more will bring upheaval during the transition. Unheaval can by messy, ever moved house and dealt with the disorder before you have unpacked and found the right place for everything?

It does not mean that the move is a bad thing, it does mean that we can expect some difficult times until we get settled in.

So, after all of the above philosophical wanking - do any of you really care about the mulesing of sheep? Do any of you care that they in pain without humans attending to their arses?

I do care about the sheep klw!

I believe that if farmers fed their sheep more in keeping with the natural way that a sheep would eat, then they would not need to have their arses scalped. As I understand it, if their poop was more solid rather than being similar to diarrohea, it would not adhere to the wool and the flies would not lay eggs in it. Do you know about this?

Peter Selleck, I am not attempting to argue that there are no differences between humans and the other animals. However, I do not believe that there are any simple and definitive criteria.

There are humans without speech and animals that can produce speech (parrots). Some animals can produce behavior that is more complex than certain humans.

Perhaps relative size of cortex would be a more accurate, but to use this criterion would mean that you are denying humanity to some people with brain damage.

My point about the difficulty in determinging human from other animal is in accord with your view that rationality and objective criteria are not an adequate way to determine some things.

However, I think that Christianity (our seminal story) has had a long time now to prove itself adequate (2000 years?) and it has not been able to do so. Let’s try something else. I think Peter Singer offers some very moral and ethical views on ways of thinking about how we should determine our behaviour.

Our civilization does not and did not, have all the answers to the problem of human existence. There are other civilizations or societies who took a different approach. We need to consider the possibilities that the 'other' offer.

I think it is quite interesting that some human societies did not believe that humans do have the right to use the other animals any way we choose.

RObert
I agree that change is not always a bad thing and that it is inevitable. However I think that our present situation cannot be explained in terms of change alone. We have reached a point where nihilism reigns, a “historical reality defined purely by negations”. You can see this in the comments on my articles, there are some who are outraged at the thought of any affirmation of truth because they fear that it will infringe their freedom. Ours is a time, the first time ever, when we avidly claim that our lives are formed by no story but only by our self will. We like to think we can invent ourselves out of whatever society leave lying around. This can be the only explanation of the culture trash we produce, the awfulness of commercial television, the myriad unfurnished selves whose focus is entirely on the pleasurable moment. This is more than the result of technological and social change it is quite literally the death of the soul.

There you go again Peter..... begging the question.
In the words of that sensitive Roman fellow Pilate "What is truth".
(Before you guffaw remember he washed his hands of it all and is not a guilty party....apparently)

You seem to assume that we know that you know what the "truth" is. Can you tell us please?
a. If you know
b. What it is.
You complain about the modern society as if you have a solutlion to its ills. Can you please inform us of this solution. Is it something new or are you suggesting that if we all become believers like you then the state of the world will improve dramatically.
I'm not being a smart a#$% I really want to know what you suggest will work instead of dancing around the topic. If you can demonstrate your truth and its resulting benefits then I will consider conversion from my heathen state. (Plain English please Peter...you know I have a limited education)

Sells, please clarify the meaning of "the modern world" or "modernism" that you are using, since it clearly isn't the present.

"Realistic narrative" appears to be used in two continually conflated senses, as a proper noun it is the story of all things & purposes and more generally it is any plausible story. The benefit of the latter being the ability to demonstrate & thereby teach moral principles. Correct?

"My problem with them is that they are severed from the 'realistic narrative',"
If it isn't enough that the rights are supported by underlying moral rules (which I assume would fit many realistic narratives), then what is it that you want? Someone to write a good story about them? It seems like you want to avoid using logic to distill, evaluate or build on existing moral knowledge; that every moral concept needs to be readily available in the form of story so it can be understood easily. Or alternatively that every moral idea must be consistent with a person's preconceived understanding of the world, which would create a wellspring of cognitive dissonance.

Your reply to Mollydukes gives the impression that you think the factual truth of the Bible, and by implication Christianity, is of little importance compared to the moral rules and personal meaning that can be obtained from accepting its stories. Your ruins of modernity are not related to the validity of modern thought, but what you believe to be its negative effects -- your focus on the results of modern ideas is itself instrumentalist. But you claim both as truth and decry instrumental reasoning.

"[I]ndeed they seem to stem from any good intention present in the councils of the United Nations."
That's a rather limited & peripheral view of human rights.

"The modern experiment started with Descartes when he posited the thinking subject as the basis of epistemology, thus replacing God."
Are you saying he was wrong?

"As Jenson says, we arrived at a story without a story teller and this has meant the unraveling of the story and some forms of postmodernism."
What story is/was that?

Deuc.
The present is most strongly influenced by the modern. As I remarked, it all started with Descartes and the turn to the self as the beginning of philosophical thought. “I think, therefore I am”. This displaced the medieval construct that began with God as the starting point of all thought. The result of Descartes’ move broke the relationship between man and God and man and his neighbour and left him a solitary person robbed of what is essential to be a person. Add to this mix the rise of natural science, the consciousness of other cultures, historical/critical analysis of biblical texts, (all good things) and you get the modern world which surrounds us today. The replacement of God with man in the radical Enlightenment,resulted in the revolutionary age etc. The transition from premodern and modern is really a transition between a widely recognised story of the universe in the Judeo/Christian tradition, and this story subverted by secularism (progress).
The relationship between the Christian story and morality is not a simple as it seems, it is not just a reading off of a code as in Islam. Rather, because the story is a human story it relates what it means to be human (especially the one true human, Jesus) we become situated in this story so that our behaviour naturally flows from it. As I have said before, Christianity is not primarily an ethics, it points to who we are and what we may hope to be. I am very wary of moral principles.

We do not write our own story, we receive it, it is a given. It is interesting that this is so offensive to the modern mind which insists on making everything up de novo. Reason and logic are always used in any respectable intellectual pursuit. We are not talking about story in general but the story, the unified theme of biblical writing. Of course we write our own stories, we are addicted to them, that is because this is the way we naturally understand anything at all.

Philosophy has totally overtaken PETA's arguments here. PETA (and other animal advocacy groups) campaign against CRUELTY to animals. Mulesing, and the live animal export trade are undoubtedly cruel. Both are allowed to happen for purely economic reasons, and totally fail to consider the suffering of the animals involved. There are alternatives to mulesing practiced already by many farmers. The government for reasons best known to itself (but no doubt at least in part cultural cringe) subsidizes, with huge amounts of taxpayers' largesse, the sending of millions of sheep, cattle, deer, camels and horses on horror journeys on third world wrecks of ships to countries with NO animal welfare standards every year. They are handled and slaughtered in a manner that is illegal in this country. So PETA - go for it! Australila really needs its collective conscience raised. Most of the animal cruelty in this country is to be found amongst farm animals in the form of intensive farming; pigs are kept for most of their lives in stalls in which they may be able to move one step, and never get to touch their young. Battery hens live in cages the size of a A4 sheep of paper. We have an animal welfare body called the RSPCA which does not even bother to investigate breaches of "Codes of Practice", which are effectively the means by which Animal Welfare Laws in States and Territories are routinely broken. And that is just how governments like it. I am ashamed to be a member of a species that is capable of such CONSIDERED, HARDENED and CONSISTENT cruelty. And I would rather starve than eat my dogs, or my chickens, who are refugees from a battery farm, and when they came, did not even know that they could walk, or spread their wings, and who had no feathers, and beaks cut so badly that they will will never be able them to eat as they were meant to. PETA has succeeded where other animal advocacy groups have failed by hitting producers where it hurts, in their wallets, and more pwer to them.

Over lunch, at a recent international conference on values at Louisiana State Univerity, Angelette put forward a bold and controversial position which ought to put PETA on it's back foot. If, as PETA contends,"animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans", it follows that they also have responsibilities for the harms that they do. On that basis, Angelette contends that because animals do harms to other animal and plant life - they eat and kill plants, plants that do no harm to animals - we are less culpable for eating meat than we are for eating plants. The 'Angelette argument' will break down if one plumbs the depths. Supose for example I'm intersted in the welfare of the planet itself and willing to extend rights and duties there as well. The plants will need a defense to keep us from eating them, since we might make out that some plants are harming mother earth.

People Against Live Exports do not agree with animal cruelty.
There is no question that this man is a better human being than many of us.
He has given much of his time to improve animal welfare.
We would like to say to people like Deuc that you have clearly given a perfect description of yourself.
We suspect that you are possibly involved in the evil trade .
Nobody has the right to enforce their views on others.
The reason most of the animal groups fall short of actually helping animals is because they are forever telling people they should not eat meat.

Sure that’s their belief and others don’t agree.
What we all should be working for is to improve animal welfare standards to stamp out cruelty.
While we continue to have media giants involved in live exports the Australian public will never know the truth.
I asked Peter to help me form free range farms co-jointly owned here in Australia.
Animal lib the vegetarians Animal Activism Animals Australia PETA. AACT are extreme because they don’t want live exports BUT they don’t want to help ensure that these poor animals are slaughtered here either.
I think they need to grow up for the animal’s sake.
We don’t want to kill animals but we love them enough to work to make it as quick as possible.
Animals are very sensitive and knowing.
They have their personalities and there preferences like we do.
Personally I prefer animals as they are more honest.
Getting back to Peter I believe he is anti abortion as well.
Fine there is nothing wrong with him having his own thoughts.
Just so long as he does not try to enforce them on others.
I applaud Peter BUT he should be careful NOT to tell people not to eat meat and not to TELL people not to have an abortion. These people ARE extreme and damage the work that main stream fair minded people do to improve animal welfare every day like People Against Live Exports and many others.
Wendy

If you do not wish people in the know to comment do not ask.

To delete the comments left on this page earlier today regarding peta RSPCA is nothing short of criminal

Who better to know whats really going on than those who work in the industry.

Open post?
We dont think so!
People Against Live Export