Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
Speciesism Immoral – Akin to Racism and Sexism
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Confinement of Animals in Zoos/Circuses Immoral
Speciesism Immoral – Akin to Racism and SexismTHE ELIMINATION OF SPECIESISM LIKE RACISM AND SEXISM IS ESSENTIAL IN THE MORAL PROGRESS OF HUMANITY AND ASSURES THE PROTECTIONS OF ANIMAL RIGHTS Bernard Chevassus-au-Louis, geneticist, PhD, is currently president of the National Natural History Museum in Paris, Robert Barbault, director of the French Institute of Basic and Applied Ecology, and Patrick Blandin, President of the IUCN French National Committee, “Towards a national biodiversity research strategy for sustainable development” Biodiversity and Global Change, 17 january 2005, VIII http://www.adpf.asso.fr/adpf-publi/ folio/biodiversite/pdf/en/chap8.pdf There is also the thesis of the intrinsic value of all living creatures and their right to live, which forms the basis of the “biocentric” point of view. This vision attempts to position our species as one among many, and to relativise – even radically call into question – is defended by such philosophers as Élisabeth de Fontenay (1998). Domestication, by modifying animals for the needs of humans, creates a common destiny and also a chap. viii 201 responsibility towards these species in the future. The concept of “animal rights” vis-à- vis SPECIESISM IS RACIST Roger Fouts, President of non-profit organization, Friends of Washoe; Co-Director of Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute; Professor of Psychology; and Distinguished Professor of Research at Central Washington University. “APES, DARWINIAN CONTINUITY, AND THE LAW”. Animal Law. 10 Animal L. 99 2004 Our conception of nonhuman animals derives from our assumptions about humans and then presumes that these unique abilities are [*105] absent in our fellow animals, without finding out. Under this system, nonhuman animals are conceptualized as either defective humans or worse, mere unthinking, unfeeling objects to be exploited. It also deems defective any humans who are not ideal in the Platonic sense.n40 This approach is "implicitly, and perhaps necessarily, racist." n41 It forces us "to convince ourselves how a few of the have-nots could have come upon what we consider to be language." n42 Of course, many academics have used the absence of evidence or studied intentional ignorance to come up with explanations to do just that. Two such academics, Steven Pinker and Konrad Lorenz, are discussed in the section that follows. n43 Confinement of Animals in Zoos/Circuses ImmoralCONFINING ANIMALS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES IMMORAL Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 92 In terms of captive wild animals, we can make a distinction between zoos on the one hand—which usually claim to fulfill functions other than merely entertaining the public with displays of wild animals – and circuses and dolphinaria on the other which, although they have increasingly sought to justify their use of animals in other ways, remain primarily concerned with entertainment. Given that the moral orthodoxy demands that we balance the suffering of animals with the benefits that accrue to humans as a result, the predominance of the trivial benefit in the latter category would make the infliction of suffering morally illegitimate. The case of zoos, where it is claimed in particular that captive wild animals provide important conservation functions which will benefit wild animals in general, is more complex.
Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 92 There is little doubt that many circus animals do suffer as a result of their captivity. There is evidence of deliberately inflicted cruelty particularly as a result of the training methods which often depend upon engendering fear in animals to make them perform. More important, though, is that even if circus employees did not inflict pain on their animals (and many no doubt do not) it is doubtful if circuses could ever provide a reasonable environment to prevent suffering. For obvious reasons, animals have to remain shackled or caged for most of the time between performances and are transported between venues in so-called “beast wagons” which, by definition, have to be small and often basic. So even, without considering the morally dubious nature of the “tricks” that circus animals are expected to perform (the roller-skating elephant, for instance, or the ice-skating polar bear) the level of suffering inflicted on circus animal is high.
Robert Garner, Professor of Politics, University of Leicester, 2004, Animals, politics and morality, p. 93 Since circuses have no significant human purpose, the moral orthodoxy demands that these strict regulations be enforced elsewhere. The moral orthodoxy does compel us to consider the livelihoods of circus employees, but it should be remembered that circuses can and do exist without using wild animals as part of the performance. In addition, as William Johnson (1990:318) has suggested, it is possible for governments to provide tax concessions and grants to enable circuses to develop non-animal shows and to retrain the animal handlers.
Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|