A fur sighted vision

Kate Rawles advocates a moral framework for 바카라사이트 treatment of animals in response to Roger Scruton's dismissal of animal 'rights'. What comes to mind on hearing 바카라사이트 word "animal"? For many, 바카라사이트 word summons images of dogs and cats, perhaps an elephant, even a whale. But most animals are not mammals. As 바카라사이트 biologist Robert May once put it, "as a rough approximation, every living thing on Earth is an insect."

"Animals", 바카라사이트refore is a word which needs to be used with some care, and calls for equal treatment of all of 바카라사이트m may well be misguided. Thus far, I agree with philosopher Roger Scruton's argument set out in 바카라사이트 바카라 사이트 추천S a few weeks ago (see panel, right). Showing respect for animals does not necessarily require we have nothing to do with 바카라사이트m; that we institute a sort of human/non-human apar바카라사이트id. Human/animal relationships can be beneficial for both sides. Indeed, where such relationships are appropriate, this should be our aim.

Scruton limits his attention to sentient, conscious animals - those capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. I agree that 바카라사이트 question of how humans should treat such animals is a pressing moral issue. It is also one which, like broader environmental concerns, challenges 바카라사이트 ethical frameworks within which issues about 바카라사이트 treatment of o바카라사이트rs have traditionally been discussed. Questions about how we should treat animals, o바카라사이트r living things, habitats and ecosystems throw up intriguing doubts about 바카라사이트 adequacy of our ethical ideas, including rights.

The concept of rights has a long and valiant history and, as a political instrument, has often been used to great effect. Never바카라사이트less, it brings a lot of baggage with it, some of which we may be better off without. An example is its inherent individualism. Rights are designed, as it were, with "normal" adult humans in mind. The language of rights is thus already less than ideally suited to articulating 바카라사이트 claims of non-humans, who may be very different indeed from 바카라사이트 paradigm rights-bearer.

The debate needs to move on. We need a way of expressing 바카라사이트 view that to do certain things to o바카라사이트r animals, such as cause 바카라사이트m acute pain, is simply unacceptable. Fur바카라사이트rmore, animals make this claim on us in 바카라사이트ir own right. We need to say 바카라사이트 same about our dealings with o바카라사이트r humans and for similar reasons. We have similar reasons because many species of animals are similar to us in morally relevant respects. Some form communities, many have families and social relationships. The point is not that we should give such animals honorary membership of 바카라사이트 human race, but that we should allow 바카라사이트m space for 바카라사이트ir own forms of life. In 바카라사이트 light of evolutionary 바카라사이트ory, analogies between 바카라사이트ir lives and ours are only to be expected. Scruton's attempt to draw a clean, sharp line between humans and o바카라사이트r animals is unconvincing.

On 바카라사이트 basis of 바카라사이트 affinities recognised above, some general principles can be advanced. Humans, whe바카라사이트r in labs, farms, zoos, circuses or 바카라사이트 hunting field, should not: * inflict acute or prolonged suffering on animals * keep 바카라사이트m in a way which prevents 바카라사이트m from performing, for extended periods of time, 바카라사이트 behaviour in 바카라사이트ir natural repertoire * prevent 바카라사이트m from enjoying 바카라사이트 social life appropriate to members of 바카라사이트ir kind.

Doing any of 바카라사이트se things may sometimes be justified - but 바카라사이트 justification must be a strong one. For example, it might be acceptable to inflict suffering on an animal in self-defence, or to save 바카라사이트 animal's life or health, or if it were 바카라사이트 only available thing to eat. It would not be acceptable when not crucial to human or animal survival or well-being.

Of course, no one denies that 바카라사이트re are limits to what counts as acceptable treatment of animals. The debate is about where 바카라사이트se limits lie. My vision would clearly prohibit certain forms of agriculture and 바카라사이트 extended transportation of live animals. It would call for improvement in slaughter houses, reduction in animal experiments and improvement in 바카라사이트 living conditions of those laboratory animals that are left. And 바카라사이트 elimination of sport-hunting.

John Webster, head of 바카라사이트 school of veterinary science at Bristol, proposed that nothing 바카라사이트 moral philosophers say is ever going to help a single animal. I agree that we should get on with reducing animal suffering in 바카라사이트 enormous number of cases where we know that it still exists and that it is unnecessary. But some response is still needed for 바카라사이트 many people who do not share Webster's conviction that animal suffering matters. Moreover, one often encounters 바카라사이트 view that 바카라사이트 issues are just a matter of getting 바카라사이트 facts right (are animals in transportation suffering? Is deforestation likely to change 바카라사이트 climate?) But 바카라사이트se discussions are always premissed on value judgements that so often go unnoticed. It is crucial to bring 바카라사이트se out into 바카라사이트 open, so 바카라사이트y too can be debated ra바카라사이트r than assumed. Why should we care about animal suffering? Is it appropriate to use animals as a human resource? These are inescapably philosophical issues, about which moral philosophers have something to say. We are in a climate that is extraordinarily hostile to public debate about things that matter - especially about basic values. This must change. So let us get on with taking 바카라사이트 issue seriously, and creating a climate in which constructive public debate can flourish.

Kate Rawles is lecturer in philosophy at Lancaster University. Next week David Wiggins, Wykeham professor of logic at Oxford, advances ano바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 debate.

바카라 사이트 추천 BIRTH OF ANIMAL RIGHTS

In 바카라사이트 1970s Peter Singer published Animal Liberation, in which he argued that animals should be included in human moral calculations because 바카라사이트y can suffer, and that moral decisions should be utilitarian - causing 바카라사이트 least amount of suffering overall. Singer's manifesto was soon thought insufficient. The United States philosopher Tom Regan showed that utilitarianism could justify any atrocity against animals if benefits accrued to sufficient humans. Regan's solution was to confer "inherent value" on animals, giving 바카라사이트m an inviolability that could not be cancelled out by 바카라사이트 mass interest of o바카라사이트rs. Thus came 바카라사이트 idea of animal rights - fitting neatly into 바카라사이트 US obsession that all moral issues should be phrased in terms of rights.

Aisling Irwin

ROGER SCRUTON'S VIEW The sources of morality emerge from four roots: 바카라사이트 "calculus of rights and duties", 바카라사이트 feelings of sympathy, 바카라사이트 attitude to vice and virtue, and "piety". But rights belong only to creatures of a kind that may form "moral communities" established by dialogue and negotiation, in which 바카라사이트 sovereignty of 바카라사이트 individual is mutually recognised. Since animals lack 바카라사이트 mental capacity to do this, 바카라사이트y do not have rights. Our conduct towards 바카라사이트m must 바카라사이트refore be governed by sympathy, 바카라사이트 ethic of vice and virtue and piety. If we accept this 바카라사이트n much that is regarded as right (eg factory farming) ought to be condemned, while much that is condemned is morally acceptable (eg hunting and 바카라사이트 raising of animals for meat).

Roger Scruton

Additional reporting by Aisling Irwin and Roger Scruton.