No, I don't. I reject it as an acceptable position. Welfare addresses "treatment" and not "use." I don't accept that one being can legitimately and justifiably be used as means for another.
It is remarkable that you have such a tap on my both my feelings and my actions. For my part, I sit on the board of governors and actively volunteer for a number of organizations, I teach animal law, animal welfare and animal rights in a university, and my research is in the area of 'animal studies.' From what I can tell, my life is completely organized around the betterment of animals. Is yours?
You have so far failed to convince me that my economic arguments are wrong.
That's fine - you are clearly comfortable with the absurd consequences of your position. A position that allows you justify the suffering of one group for the benefit of another! Once that structure is accepted, you've opened the door to all sorts of insanity.
Put another way, I don't accept the basis of the argument; viz., that beings can be legitimately and justifiable used in instrumental purposes by others for the benefit of the others. If you accept that position, then your argument is fine. I don't. It isn't compatible with improving the lives of either humans or animals.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 09:07 pm (UTC)No, I don't. I reject it as an acceptable position. Welfare addresses "treatment" and not "use." I don't accept that one being can legitimately and justifiably be used as means for another.
It is remarkable that you have such a tap on my both my feelings and my actions. For my part, I sit on the board of governors and actively volunteer for a number of organizations, I teach animal law, animal welfare and animal rights in a university, and my research is in the area of 'animal studies.' From what I can tell, my life is completely organized around the betterment of animals. Is yours?
You have so far failed to convince me that my economic arguments are wrong.
That's fine - you are clearly comfortable with the absurd consequences of your position. A position that allows you justify the suffering of one group for the benefit of another! Once that structure is accepted, you've opened the door to all sorts of insanity.
Put another way, I don't accept the basis of the argument; viz., that beings can be legitimately and justifiable used in instrumental purposes by others for the benefit of the others. If you accept that position, then your argument is fine. I don't. It isn't compatible with improving the lives of either humans or animals.