Dickie

Actually I don’t support live animal exports, but I regard the torture of humans as greater evil than the suffering of animals. Mirko is a utilitarian, and many utilitarians see the suffering of humans and of animals to be ethically indistinguishable – hence, for example, leading utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer argues that it is more acceptable to kill a human infant than a creature such as a great ape.

Mirko’s qualified support for human torture is not irrelevant to this debate, it is part and parcel of the same philosophy that underpins this article. This sees human and animal pain and pleasure as not fundamentally distinct, but part of a continuum that is open to evaluation by a common calculus, with neither having a prior presumption of priority. It is an interesting and defensible view, but not one I share.

Oh dear, we have been through all these old chestnuts
time and time again on OLO. Sounds like we'll have to
go through it all yet again!

The live sheep trade is vital to West Australian farmers,
as was proven in the recent drought. It was the live
trade that came to the rescue, when local processors
were buying sheep for 10 $, whilst the live trade paid
60$. It was that money that let farmers feed the rest
of their flocks. There is simply no economic argument,
put up by any of the animal libber groups, which is
valid.

Banning the trade would be nothing but a feelgood
exercise, for what I am told are mainly veggies with
a bee in their bonnet. It would also send many farmers
broke.

A million Hajj lambs were supplied this year, mainly
for Saudi Arabia. Most are slaughtered in state run
meatworks, its part of their pilgramige. Yes a few
thousand were sent to Egypt, relatively tiny numbers.
Yes some had their legs tied, yes, some had their
throats cut. Sheep having their legs tied and their
throats cut happens throughout country Australia!
Now city slickers might not be aware of all this, but
they live in their little dreamland anyhow, out of
touch with country reality.

If there are all these meatworkers, as is claimed in
the article, why arn't they applying for jobs in WA
meatworks? Nearly all processors are screaming for staff.
Fact is, these days Aussies want cushy jobs, not messy
jobs like in the meat industry.

NOBODY has come up with a viable alternative to the live
trade. Until you do, don't try and send farmers broke,
following your feelings.

Rhian

Did you know that animal and human cruelty are linked?

http://www.vet.upenn.edu/schoolresources/communications/publications/bellwether/58/connection.html

All these clowns have done is make a few wild claims, repeat a few anecdotal stories and lace it all up with terms like "hear their screams". And for what?

These animal rights morons have this idealised view of nature where all animals live in harmony, watch foreign films and drink lattes.

The simple facts of the matter are that if you really want to hear an animal scream you should listen as a pack of Dingoes clean up a paddock full of lambs. And ironically, hunting animals will often nip the tendons of the animals they pursue but they will go on to rip bits off the animal while it is still alive.

And for the record, a few hours on the roof of a car or bus is a great way to travel. I did it quite a few times in Nepal in the '70s, and it sure beat being inside the bus with the coughs, farts, kids urine, smoke and spittle.

And frankly, the conditions on board the ships are not much different to the crowded trucks, buses and trains endured by the worlds poor every time they leave home.

You people have got your heads so far up your own backsides you have completely lost sight of daylight.

Well, if we can have less suffering to more suffering at no extra cost, why wouldn't we do it? Yes the reality is life on earth is a harsh place, & as humans, especially in the west, we have it pretty good all things considered. I think it speaks good about the human race that at least some try to alleviate un-necessary suffering of others, especially 'lesser' animals. Sure there are inconsistencies galore, but it's a worthy goal. Maybe humans aren't hopeless after all.

Rhian, I don't see an inconsistency in Mirko's earlier support of torture, although you raise an interesting point. If torture leads to the situation where there is less suffering (eg capture of a dirty-bomb terrorist cell member) by preventing the attack, then why wouldn't we do it? Who would argue for more suffering over less, simply to support a principle?

Fester - yes I'm sure that there's a link between abuse of humans and animals, and as indicated above, I don't support live exports. But I don't go as far as utilitarians like Peter Singer (and I'm assuming Mirko's brand of utilitarianism is similar to Singer's, though this may be unjustified) is asserting that welfare of the two are of similar and commensurable moral significance. I suppose I’m more inclined to accept utilitarianism with regard to animals (the suffering of cane toads is not sufficient to offset the benefits of eradicating them, so we should try) but tend to be a deontologist regarding humans (torturing people is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances).

TNT – I don’t think there is an inconsistency in Mirko’s argument, that why it makes me uncomfortable. My worry with the utilitarian approach is not so much that it elevates animals’ relative status – though I find that challenging is it more uncompromising forms - but that it can devalue and establish a hierarchy of the value of human life, with some people’s lives and rights (newborn babies, the disabled) deemed less important than others, and gross abuses of human rights endorsed if a greater good is expected to result. I can’t agree that the end almost always justifies the means.

My argument is with utilitarianism, not animal welfare.