Skip to main content

Home/ Teleperra/ Group items tagged moral

Rss Feed Group items tagged

pepa garcía

News: Ask the Experts: Gary Steiner, John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy, discus... - 0 views

  • If we really understand what it means for a being to have moral status, it's something that animals have a right to; they have a right not to be killed and eaten for food and used in a variety of other ways to satisfy human desires.
  • I'm very extreme about this. Animals have just as much right not to be killed and eaten for food, or to be enslaved, as you or I have. That's what I mean when I say that humans and animals are morally equivalent.
  • Veganism is a moral imperative; in my book I call it the vegan imperative.
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • One has to think about is what's morally right, not what's economically advantageous. Are we going to let economics trump what's right?
  •  
    One has to think about is what's morally right, not what's economically advantageous. Are we going to let economics trump what's right?
pepa garcía

@garylfrancione - TwitLonger - When you talk too much for Twitter - 0 views

  •  
    "I received a question: isn't it better to be a non-vegan who rescues than one who does not? Yes. And it's better to be a serial murderer who does charity work on Thursdays than a serial murder who does no charity work at all. But that does not address the morality of murder or the inconsistency of murdering while doing charity work! My point is that those who rescue animals but who continue to eat them necessarily (even if not explicitly) regard the moral value of the animals they save as greater than the moral value of the ones they eat.  Please understand that I think that doing rescue work is fantastic and I have great respect for those who do it. (I have done TNR/fostering.) Many rescue folks work 24/7 helping unfortunate animals who will otherwise be killed in shelters or otherwise come to a horrible end. It is precisely because I do have a high regard for those who rescue/foster that I raise these issues. Rescue should not be just a matter of which animals are our "favorites." If someone were to rescue dogs but trapped and poisoned cats, we would surely find that odd. But the same analysis applies to those who do any sort of rescue work but then consume animal products.
pepa garcía

Ánima | Liberación - 0 views

  • En cualquier caso, en la medida en que este debate es visto como una contienda entre nuevos ateos o fundamentalistas religiosos que abogan por matar a médicos abortistas, participan en los atentados suicidas, rezan por el apocalipsis, vuelan aviones contra edificios, promueven todo tipo de discriminación y de odio y, en general, apoyan todo tipo imaginable de violencia en nombre de sus dioses, los nuevos ateos ganan con facilidad sin el tipo de escrutinio y el debate que este asunto requiere.
  • El realismo moral no es la opinión de que las verdades morales se construyen, o se hacen verdaderas, como resultado de lo que la gente valora moralmente; más bien, de que las verdades morales existen independientemente de cualquier perspectiva, incluyendo las perspectivas ideales.
  • "Aquellos que no ven como ellos ven, hablan como ellos hablan y actúan como ellos actúan sólo son dignos de la conversión o la erradicación".
pepa garcía

Twitlonger: For those who think that the Endangered Species Act has something to do wit... - 0 views

  •  
    "Finally, it should be understood that it is unlikely that any significant change in the status of animals as property will come about as the result of legislation or court cases until there is a significant social change in our attitude about animals. That is, it is not the law that will alter our moral thinking about animals; it must be the other way around. It was not the law that abolished slavery; indeed, the law protected slave ownership and the institution of slavery was not abolished by the law but by the Civil War. The present-day world economy is far more dependent on animal exploitation than were the southern United States on human slavery. Animal exploitation is not going to be ended by a pronouncement of the Supreme Court or an act of congress-at least not until a majority of us accept the position that the institution of animal property is morally unacceptable. "
pepa garcía

Twitlonger: Anyone who claims that ethical veganism, as it is represented in the abolit... - 0 views

  •  
    "No mainstream group has adopted ethical veganism as its exclusive, or even a, central focus. An ethical vegan would not support any animal exploitation. Therefore, to say that ethical veganism is a SIC is to fail to understand the nature of ethical veganism or the fact that SICs rest on distinguishing among various forms of animal exploitation and promoting the notion that some forms are worse than others and, by implication, that other forms of exploitation are morally desirable or morally acceptable. One can, of course, use the expression "veganism" to apply only to diet in the sense that one who does not eat any animal products may be considered to have a vegan diet. This use of "vegan" is more restricted than the notion as I have developed it in my abolitionist theory. Promoting a vegan diet is more like an SIC than is promoting ethical veganism and the abolition of all animal use. But the practical reality is that if people rejected eating any animal products, we would see a rejection in all sorts of other animal use. The most significant form of animal exploitation--the form that "legitimizes" all the others--involves using animals as food. If you dislodge that use, you dislodge all others."
pepa garcía

On Human-Nonhuman Relations: On Rights and Animal Rights (Part One). - 0 views

  • Regan also articulates his firm belief that ‘moral philosophy is no substitute for political action’, but insists, ‘still, it can make a contribution. Its currency is ideas’. This assertion was made many years ago in 1983. However, it appears that large sections of the animal advocacy movement was not (and is not) listening to this important message. Many factions in the modern animal protection movement do not agree that a well worked out philosophical position assists in the furtherance of altering the moral standing of nonhuman animals. Moreover, many of those that do seem to agree with the general point that social movements require a solid basis for claims-making, appear not to accept the case for animal rights in the first place. Recent developments in the animal movement tends to confirm such a view. For example, Francione [4] states that ‘the modern animal “rights” movement has explicitly rejected the doctrine of animal rights’. In fact, it might be tempting to claim, analogous to Gilroy’s [5] declaration that ‘there ain’t no black in the Union Jack’, that there ain’t much rights in ‘animal rights’ either. This tends to beg the question, if not rights violations, what do modern animal advocates substantially rely upon in order to make claims on behalf of nonhuman animals? Francione argues that the contemporary animal movement appears content to rely on a new formulation of traditional ideas, which he labels ‘new welfarism’. He describes this conception of new welfarism as a ‘hybrid position’ which may be understood to be a more progressive, or in Francione’s terms, a ‘modified’ welfare position compared with traditional animal welfarism, especially in the sense that this ‘version of animal welfare…accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved only through continued adherence to animal welfare measures’.
  • However, for Francione, new welfarists – despite what sets them apart from traditionalists of the genre - should be regarded as committed to the endorsement of measures ‘indistinguishable’ from policies put forward by those ‘who accept the legitimacy of animal exploitation’.
  • Advocates who wish to pursue a position based on rights thinking are very few in number and, furthermore, do not often feature in ‘leadership’ positions within the current animal protection movement.
  • ...10 more annotations...
  • Francione’s work, especially because it includes a strong critique of new welfarism, has not so much been regarded as a source of philosophical clarity within a social movement, nor helpful in terms of strategic thinking, but rather labelled ‘disruptive’, ‘divisive’ and ‘elitist’.
  • For understandable psychological reasons, ‘victories’ on any scale tend to be loudly trumpeted within social movements.
  • Why, since the modern animal protection movement has rarely if ever pursued an abolitionist agenda for any prolonged period, are many advocates apparently and unequivocally so sure that it is doomed to failure? Why are they so convinced that it will take hundreds of years? Why, moreover, that a philosophical grounding in widely accepted ideas of rights undoubtedly represent demands that unrealistically call for ‘too much’?
  • Francione agrees with Regan that philosophy and political action go together.
  • Indeed, in contrast to many in the movement, he claims the latter requires the former to inform its direction:
  • it is my view that the explicit goal must be abolition and that abolition must shape incremental change.
  • basic rights
  • a paradoxical situation in which the so-called ‘animal rights movement’ virtually rejects genuine rights theories while embracing a non-rights animal liberation position as its main philosophical stance.
  • ‘as a practical matter, [animal welfarism] does not work. We have had animal welfare laws in most western countries for well over a hundred years now, and they have done little to reduce animal suffering and they have certainly not resulted in the gradual abolition of any practices… As to why welfarism fails…the reason has to do with the property status of animals. If animals are property, then they have no value beyond that which is accorded to them by their owners.
  • Benton and Redfearn write: ‘Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation is…within the utilitarian tradition, and it may be that the animal welfare movement’s concern with animal suffering is a measure of the pervasiveness of utilitarianism as the ‘common sense’ of secular morality’
  •  
    This tends to beg the question, if not rights violations, what do modern animal advocates substantially rely upon in order to make claims on behalf of nonhuman animals? Francione argues that the contemporary animal movement appears content to rely on a new formulation of traditional ideas, which he labels 'new welfarism'. He describes this conception of new welfarism as a 'hybrid position' which may be understood to be a more progressive, or in Francione's terms, a 'modified' welfare position compared with traditional animal welfarism, especially in the sense that this 'version of animal welfare…accepts animal rights as an ideal state of affairs that can be achieved only through continued adherence to animal welfare measures'.
pepa garcía

Francione: On the relationship between atheism and veganism: I am absolutely perplexed ... - 0 views

  •  
    "Fourth, all of the philosophical/legal writing that I have done over the past 20+ years relies on an expansion of the liberal doctrine of equality. My work does not presuppose any religious or spiritual belief or require any such beliefs to come to the conclusion that we have no moral justification for exploiting nonhuman animals. My work relies on reason and rational argument. But there are many reasonable and intelligent people who do not agree with my view and yet have no substantive response to my arguments. I suppose that what separates us-and what caused me to become interested in animal ethics in the 1980s-is the sense of kinship that I feel with nonhuman animals. And I would suspect that this sense of kinship was and is related to my longstanding acceptance of Ahimsa, or the principle of nonviolence, as my foundational spiritual belief. "
pepa garcía

Carta pública a un arzobispo criminal - Tijuana - 0 views

  •  
    "Señor arzobispo de Tijuana (México) Rafael Romo Muñoz: ¿qué clase de moral tiene usted que en misa predica la palabra de Cristo y luego declara publicamente estar a favor de la masacre de miles de perros por el hecho de no tener hogar?".
pepa garcía

por qué se asombran de lo que dice singer - teleperra.com wiki / - 0 views

  •  
    Mientras que el así llamado "padre del moderno movimiento de los derechos animales" considere como "fanática" la promoción del veganismo como basamento moral, el movimiento continuará haciendo exactamente lo que ha estado haciendo -ir hacia atrás-. Está ya bien llegado el tiempo para que aquéllos que buscan la abolición de la explotación animal y no meramente su regulación, renieguen de Nuestro Padre y se embarquen en la tarea de crear un movimiento socio-político no violento que desafiará la explotación de los animales de un modo significativo.
pepa garcía

Entrevista a Gary francione - otromadrid.org - 0 views

  •  
    No todo el mundo va a responder a los argumentos morales, pero muchas personas lo harán. En este punto, tenemos que llegar a la gente que se puede llegar y hay muchas de esas personas. A medida que más y más gente acepte la posición vegana, tendrá el efecto de desplazamiento en la opinión social general. Tenemos que construir un movimiento vegano que comienza con la promoción de un mensaje claro en favor de la abolición de la explotación animal y la adopción del veganismo. Tenemos que alejar a la gente de la posición moralmente y objetivamente poco sólida que el empleo 'humano' de animales es una opción.
pepa garcía

Pet Overpopulation, Puppy Mills, and Lessons from Proposition B : Nathan J Winograd - 0 views

  • To claim to want to shut down puppy mills, but to ignore or fight reform efforts to stop shelter neglect, abuse, and killing (as groups like HSUS and PETA do) is not only ethically inconsistent, it is morally bankrupt.
  • Neglect is neglect, abuse is abuse, killing is killing regardless of by whose hand that neglect, abuse, and killing is done.
  • To look the other way at one because that neglect, abuse, and killing is done by “friends,” “colleagues,” or simply because the perpetrators call themselves a “humane society” is indefensible.
  • ...27 more annotations...
  • These organizations have built a dependency model where you give them money and they promise to take care of things, rather than empowering the grassroots to actually go out and solve the problem.
  • community education and protest
  • make it easy for people to do the right thing, and they will
  • we must expose these organizations for what they really are
    • pepa garcía
       
      cómo es en chile? hay informes sobre las condiciones etc. de los criaderos de perros?
  • legislation that prohibits puppy mill dogs from being sold either at pet stores or online,
  • , when we work to reform local shelters, we are also working to impact the puppy mill trade.
  • When shelters turn away good homes because of poor customer service or arbitrary rules, we fuel the pet shop trade
  • when shelters go head to head with the competition, they win.
  • uring the 1990s, at the height of its adoption success and popularity, the San Francisco SPCA had seven offsite adoption locations throughout the city seven days a week. Consequently, the number of pet stores which sold puppies was reduced to zero.
  • T]he more animals dying in a given community (which traditionalists claim means lack of homes), the greater number of pet stores that sell dogs and cats (which shows homes readily available). Generally, pet stores succeed when a shelter is not meeting market demand or competing effectively, and because animal lovers do not want to go into a shelter that kills the vast majority of the animals…
  • we can file civil lawsuits and push for criminal prosecution.
  • we can attempt to regulate and/or eliminate puppy mills directly through legislation, as several states have done
  • severe lack of state inspectors
  • Protest, educate, litigate, legislate, push for enforcement, and reform the shelter. And oh yeah, don’t buy from a pet store, sign my pledge, and send me money. (Just kidding.)
  • the bill will require commercial breeders to provide each dog with sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, housing, sufficient space, regular exercise, and limits on how many times per year a dog can be bred.
  • It continues the breeding, buying, and selling of dogs.
  • It specifically excludes dogs in animal research labs. It excludes breeding operations who sell “hunting dogs.” And it excludes animal shelters
  • the opposition is using the support of groups like the Humane Society of the United States to claim this is part of a radical animal rights agenda.
  • Compromises must often be made to achieve piecemeal success which can be built on over time.
  • For example, I would support laws banning the killing of animals in shelters altogether. But given tremendous opposition from the shelter killing industry, and the support of that industry by powerful groups like (ironically) the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA, and Best Friends, local and state governments are not willing to do that at this time in history, so I work on legislation like the Hayden Law and Assembly Member Micah Kellner’s rescue access bill in New York State to reduce the number killed. T
  • Historically, HSUS has a disturbing pattern of raising money on an issue, and immediately moving on, just as they did when they raised $30 million on Hurricane Katrina rescue, spent $4 million, shipped the animals off to kill shelters, announced “Mission: Accomplished,” and went  home $26 million richer with two criminal investigations on their fundraising practices in their wake.
  • we need local and other national groups to act less like simpleton cheerleaders of HSUS and more like what they should be—groups whose mission is to advocate for dogs.
  • HSUS taking some of its $110 million annual budget (of which only ½ of one percent goes to shelters)
  • ASPCA taking some of its $120 million in annual revenues,
  • Best Friends taking some of its $40 million per year it takes in to rescue only 600 animals per year (at a whopping $70,000 each
  • If HSUS and others fully commit resources and energy into creating a safety net for dogs currently in puppy mills who will be discarded when Proposition B passes, any potential downsides resulting from this legislation would be eliminated.
  • In truth, I believe people are ready for laws banning puppy mills altogether and that would make sense, so long as we do not inadvertently open up markets to puppy mills from places like China, where medieval levels of barbarity would likely be the norm and they would remain out of regulatory reach.
pepa garcía

There are no 'alien' species on planet Earth - | Examiner.com - 0 views

  • They were cut down by so-called “environmentalists.” They were killed by those whose mission was supposed to be their protection. According to the local chapter of the Audubon Society, the trees were not “native” and had to be destroyed.
  • Invasion Biologists
  • believe that certain plants or animals should be valued more than others if they were at a particular location “first.”
  • ...23 more annotations...
  • When the species that were there “first” are competing for habitat with a species that came later, they assert that the latter should be eradicated
  • In championing such views, the movement paradoxically has embraced the use of traps, poisons, fire, and hunting, even when these cause harm, suffering, and environmental degradation
  • In San Francisco, on the Channel Islands, all across the United States, plants and animals are being trapped, poisoned, hunted, burned, and destroyed by people who claim the mantel of environmentalism
  • And it is getting worse and increasingly violent, both in rhetoric (fish they don’t value are called “missiles with fins”) and in deeds.
  • Even the science writer for the New York Times has weighed in, suggesting mass killing and the eating of animals that do not pass the arbitrary litmus test of worthiness by environmentalists.
  • In a losing battle to return North America to a mythical state that existed before European colonization, they are proposing a slaughter with no end.
  • Is this really what environmentalism should be?
  • To assert that the world must remain as it is today and to act on that assertion by condemning to death those species who threaten that prevailing order, does not reject human interference in the natural world, it reaffirms it. 
  • An authentic environmentalism would not advocate that humans seek out and destroy living things for simply obeying the dictates of the natural world, such as migration and natural selection. 
  • It would not condone the killing of those plants and animals who find themselves in parts of the world where, for whatever arbitrary reason—be they economic, commercial, or aesthetic—some humans do not want them to be. An authentic environmentalism would recognize that such determinations are not for us to make, because in seeking to undo what nature inevitably does, we merely exacerbate suffering, killing and the destruction of natural places we claim to oppose, with no hope of ever gaining the ends we seek. It is to declare an unending war on nature and our home.
  • we put all living creatures, including ourselves, in danger as well
  • And just as disturbing, we open the floodgates of expression to our darker natures, by teaching others disdain and suspicion of the “foreign” and reverence for the familiar and the “native.”
  • The same forces of nature which created the world we live in today are shaping it even now.
  • Our actions, and our presence, being as much a part of that system as any other living thing that ever was, will shape and mold how that future will look
  • Yet there is no compelling reason to assert that any one outcome would be more preferable than any other.
  • Why is the starling less worthy of life and compassion than the spotted owl?
  • Why does the carp swimming gracefully in a Japanese Zen garden inspire peace and serenity, but when swimming with the same grace and beauty in Lake Michigan, such horror, disdain, and scorn?  Because some humans among us say it is so? Because they impact narrow aesthetic or commercial interests?
  • As perhaps the most intelligent and without a doubt the most resourceful species yet to evolve on our planet, humans have a moral obligation to ensure that we use our unique abilities for good, and not harm.
  • We are obligated to consider how our actions impact the other earthlings who share our home. And to determine, with all of our gifts of intellect and compassion, how we can meet our needs in the most generous and considerate means possible.
  • Sadly, as a species, we have yet to comprehensively and collectively determine how we might do this.
  • But that, in truth, is our most solemn duty, and the end every environmentalist should be seeking.
  • On a tiny planet surrounded by the infinite emptiness of space, in a universe in which life is so exceedingly rare as to render every blade of grass, every insect that crawls, and every animal that walks the Earth an exquisite, wondrous rarity, it is breathtakingly myopic, arrogant, and quite simply inaccurate to label any living thing found anywhere on the planet which gave it life as “alien” or “non-native.”  There is simply no such thing as an “invasive” species.
  • We must turn our attention away from the futile effort to hold or return our environment to some mythic state of perfection that never existed toward the meaningful goal of ensuring that every life that appears on this Earth is welcomed and respected as the glorious, cosmic miracle it actually is.
pepa garcía

Understanding the Culture of Cruelty : Nathan J Winograd - 0 views

  • I recently went to hear an author talk about his book on the neuroscience behind morality. He described how normally circumspect people turn off their natural compassion when placed in unnatural contexts. People we might consider “kind” or “decent” could be cruel when placed in a context in which cruelty is the norm. And what could be more unnatural than a typical U.S. animal control shelter which is little more than an assembly line of killing?
  • working at a shelter is a paycheck and nothing more to employees
  • The answer to that question can be found in the very nature of shelters themselves and the kind of people who apply to work in them.
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • slaughterhouse workers had to make the animals unworthy of any consideration on their behalf. And the two most common methods of achieving this are indifference and showing sadistic behavior toward the animals.
  • to get there, many of them had to fire most of the existing staff; because the tragic fact is that animal shelters in the U.S. are designed for violence and the people in them are largely hired specifically to commit it.
  • The good news, of course, is that an increasing number of these shelters do align the ideal and the reality.
  • Killing is the ultimate form of violence.
  • But it is taking far too long, and too many animals are being subjected to systematic and unrelenting violence
pepa garcía

Mother Nature's Melting Pot - NYTimes.com - 1 views

  • Designating some as native and others as alien denies this ecological and genetic dynamism. It draws an arbitrary historical line based as much on aesthetics, morality and politics as on science, a line that creates a mythic time of purity before places were polluted by interlopers.
  • Today, a species’s immigration status often makes it a target for eradication, no matter its effect on the environment.
1 - 16 of 16
Showing 20 items per page