What is Animal Rights - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 104
About This Presentation

What is Animal Rights


While it is wrong to purchase animal-based products, it may be good for animals ... buying a hamburger because it is already dead', since more meat will be murdered ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1066
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 105
Provided by: annbe
Tags: animal | for | good | hamburger | how | is | long | meat | rights


Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: What is Animal Rights

What is Animal Rights?
Its the philosophy of allowing nonhuman animals
to have the basic rights that all sentient beings
desire the freedom to live a natural life, free
from human exploitation, unnecessary pain and
suffering, and premature death.
is the withholding of these basic rights from
nonhuman animals.
Discriminating solely on the basis of species is
as illegitimate as discriminating on the basis of
sex, or race, or the ability to Cha Cha. There is
no reason to value some mentally challenged human
beings more than some nonhuman animals.
Animal Rights is NOT
about working for equality between human and
nonhuman animals.
Different creatures -- women, men, children,
animals desire different rights -- access to
abortion, voting, room to stretch wings
From where do AR supporters derive their moral
Logic. At the foundation of a system of ethics
are moral axioms, such as causing unnecessary
pain is wrong". Given the set of axioms, methods
of reasoning (such as deduction and induction),
and empirical facts, it is possible to derive
ethical hypotheses. It is in this sense that an
ethical statement can be said to be true.
Most fundamental ethical axioms
are nearly universally accepted However,
actions from these ethical axioms are not always
logically concluded. This can be demonstrated
by asking a person why he has compassion for
human beings. Typically hell agree that his
compassion does not stem from the fact that
humans do math or go bowling. Instead, hell say
that it stems from the fact that humans can
suffer, feel pain, have hopes and desires, etc.
It is then easy to show that nonhuman animals can
also suffer, etc. The person's inconsistency in
not according moral status to nonhumans then
stands out starkly.
AR logic didnt interest this guy
The Complete Logicof Animal Rights
Lets begin with a statement with which most of
us agree, and then see if that helps us
understand this issue by exploring all logical
paths. Something most of us believe It would be
morally wrong for anyone to treat us as animals
are treated. (Might we be wrong in that
Why do you believe
that it would be wrong for someone to perform
harmful (painful, fatal) experiments on you to
try to cure someone elses diseases or to
increase knowledge in general?
What is it about you that makes it wrong to
treat you those ways? What ethical hypothesis
best explains that fact (if it is a fact)?
An answer We have moral rights that make it
wrong to mistreat us
Moral Rights are like invisible No Trespassing
signs They protect our most fundamental
interests in life, avoiding suffering, not being
used as mere means, etc. Rights impose
respect if someone has rights, their interests
must be respected he or she is not a mere
thing to be used against her will.
Who has moral rights?
At least, beings like us, we tend to think.
Who is like us? Some answers 1. Rational
beings, so a being has rights if, and only if, it
is can engage in abstract reasoning. 2.
Intelligent beings, so a being has rights if,
and only if, it is smart enough. 3. Autonomous
beings, so a being has rights if, and only if,
it can reflect on its life and decide how to best
pursue it. 4. Beings who have the concept of
rights, so a being has rights if, and only if,
it recognizes that it has rights.
If any of these claims are true
(that rights require sophisticated mental
abilities), then none of the following beings are
owed respect they can all be used as mere
things 1. Human babies 2. Severely mentally
challenged individuals 3. Alzheimers
patients 4. Humans in comas 5. coughBushcough
If you think any of the above deserve rights,
then the previous rationale is refuted.
Another approach to assigning rights
We have rights and we are owed respect because
we are human. What do you mean by human? Do
you mean biologically human or having human
DNA, or being in the human species? If so, then
you are suggesting this A being has rights, if
and only if, it is biologically human.
Using biology to assign moral rights
gives rights to human organs in a vat
human cells in Petri dish dead human
corpses very early human fetuses Furthermore
, assigning rights based simply on a physical
characteristic is no more ethical than assigning
rights to men, white people, or clowns with big
ears. If you accept this, then someone else may
use similar logic to exclude you from having
rights (and historically someone has done so).
A rough hypothesis about moral rights
A being has moral rights is owed respect and is
not a thing to be used for pleasure or even
serious benefits for others if it is conscious,
can feel pain and pleasure, and its life can be
better and worse for it, from its own point of
A consequence of this theory
Some animals are conscious, can feel pain and
pleasure, and its life can be better and worse
for it, from its own point of view. Therefore,
they moral have rights on this view they are not
ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for
Logical Conclusion
If some humans have moral rights, then some
animals have moral rights also. The best reasons
to think that humans have rights justifies the
claim that animals have rights. Logical,
rational consistency requires this. Moral rights
really have nothing fundamentally to do with
biological species.
1. Accept the basic argument.
2. Argue that it is unsound. To do this, one
needs a better hypothesis that explains why
humans have the moral rights they do that
covers all the relevant humans. But, this
hypothesis cannot apply to any animals either.
All attempts to do this suffer from these flaws
1. They are wildly implausible and convoluted
explanations why we have rights, or 2. They
imply that its only a contingent fact, or an
accident, that babies and mentally challenged
humans have rights. 3. They imply theres no
reason why anyone should not be tortured for fun
and that only laws keep them from these actions
they remove morality entirely.
Moral sources beyond logic.Doesn't the Bible
give Humanity dominion over animals?
Dominion is not the same as tyranny. The Queen of
England has dominion over her subjects, but that
doesn't mean she can eat them, wear them, or
experiment on them. Seeking moral authority from
the Bible has two problems 1. the world has
many gods. 2. there are serious problems with
literal interpretation of Biblical passages. Here
is a list of biblical passages and quotes from
biblical scholars that support animal rights
Who developed the animal rights philosophy?
The theory of the 'universal kinship' of man
other beings was taught by Buddha, Pythagoras and
Plutarch. Subsequent contributors
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), artist and
scientist The time will come when men such as I
will look upon the murder of animals as they now
look on the murder of men.
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
1. The question is not Can they reason? nor
Can they talk? but Can they suffer?
2. The day may come when the rest of animal
creation may acquire those rights which never
could have been withholden from them except by
the hand of tyranny.
Ralph Waldo Emerson1803-1882, author
You have just dined, and however scrupulously
the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful
distance of miles, there is complicity.
Abraham Lincoln, 1809-186516th US President I
am in favor of animal rights as well as human
rights. That is the way of a whole human being.
Mark Twain, author, 1835-1910
I am not interested to know whether vivisection
produces results that are profitable to the human
race or doesn't. . . .The pain which it inflicts
upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my
enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient
justification of the enmity without looking
Leo Tolstoy, author, 1828-1910 "What I think
about vivisection is that if people admit that
they have the right to take or endanger the life
of living beings for the benefit of many, there
will be no limit to their cruelty.
Thomas Edisoninventor, 1847-1931
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which
is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop
harming all other living beings, we are still
Mahatma Gandhi, 1869-1948statesman and
philosopher To my mind, the life of a lamb is no
less precious than that of a human being.
George Bernard Shawauthor, 1856-1950
1. If a group of beings from another planet were
to land on Earth--beings who considered
themselves as superior to you as you feel
yourself to be to other animals--would you
concede them the rights over you that you assume
over other animals?
2. Atrocities are not less atrocities when they
occur in laboratories and are call medical
Albert Schweitzer(1875-1965)
  • By reason of the quite universal idea of
    participation in a common nature, it is compelled
    to declare the unity of mankind with all created

Albert Einstein1879-1955, physicist
1. Our task must be to free ourselves... by
widening our circle of compassion to embrace all
living creatures and the whole of nature and its
2. It is my view that the vegetarian manner of
living by its purely physical effect on the human
temperament would most beneficially influence the
lot of mankind.
William O. Douglas, 1898-1980, U.S. Supreme Court
The day should come when all of the forms of
life...will stand before the court--the pileated
woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the
lemmings as well as the trout in the streams.
Isaac Bashevis Singer, 1904-1991, author, Nobel
Prize 1978
1. People often say that humans have always
eaten animals, as if this is a justification for
continuing the practice. According to this logic,
we should not try to prevent people from
murdering other people, since this has also been
done since the earliest of times.
Isaac Bashevis Singer
2. In their behavior toward creatures, all men
are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly
when they're the victims. Otherwise they
victimize blindly and without a thought.
Peter Singer (1946- )Princeton Professor
  • If a being suffers, there can be no moral
    justification for refusing to take that suffering
    into consideration. No matter what the nature of
    the being, the principle of equality requires
    that its suffering be counted equally with the
    like suffering of any other being.

Tom ReganN.C. St. Professor
  • Animals, it is true, lack many of the abilities
    humans possess. They can't read, do higher maths,
    build a bookcase or make baba ghanoush. Neither
    can many humans, and yet we don't (and shouldn't)
    say that they therefore have less inherent value,
    less of a right to be treated with respect, than
    do others.

So, the final question is whether it is morally
ok to harm animals by way of causing pain and
Common view yes.Great thinkers argue no.
Evolution of Rights
How do AR supporters give rights to other
Many have concluded that they can no longer
support activities that take away rights factory
farming, vivisection, animal testing, and the
exploitation of animals for clothing and
Since everyone causes some animal suffering
without knowing it, whats the point?
Although we cant stop all suffering, that
doesnt mean we shouldnt stop any. The goal is
to minimize the harm one causes. In todays world
of many choices, there are usually "kinder,
gentler" ways for most of us to feed, clothe,
entertain, and educate ourselves than by killing
animals. A great deal of suffering can be
prevented with a little effort. Since each
and every life is important, helping just one
sentient being should be all the reason that a
compassionate person needs to make an effort.
Here is an example of living that philosophy The
Difference He Made
Is every life-form equally worthy of having
No. The criteria is the ability to feel pain and
pleasurephysical or mental (e.g. happiness,
loneliness,) and be subject to a life. We rely on
science to provide data for this. To start with,
sentient beings with a central nervous system are
deemed more worthy than beings with a ganglionic
nervous system.
Often misquoted
Ingrid Newkirk said When it comes to having a
central nervous system, and the ability to feel
pain, hunger, and thirst a rat is a pig is a dog
is a boy.
"Life is life--whether in a cat, or dog or man.
There is no difference there between a cat or
man. The idea of difference is a human conception
for man's own advantage..." Sri Aurobindo,
1872-1950 , poet philosopher
Where should one draw the line animals, insects,
AR philosophy asserts that rights are to be
accorded to creatures that have the capacity to
experience pain, to suffer, and to be a "subject
of a life". Such a capacity is definitely not
found in bacteria. It is definitely found in
mammals. There is debate about such animals as
mollusks and arthropods (including insects). One
should decide, based upon available evidence and
consistent logic, where the line should be drawn.
I cant draw a line, nature is a continuum
The difficulty of drawing a line means that from
an ethical point of view, the line should be
drawn (a) carefully, and (b) conservatively. If
there were no automobile speed limit, and people
were arguing about a proposed limit while other
people were dieing, compassionate folks would
draw a line immediately. Because the speciesist
line violates moral precepts held as critical for
the viability of any ethical system, and because
some mature nonhumans possess morally relevant
characteristics comparable to some human
rights-bearers, one must come to the conclusion
that the status quo fails on both counts, and
that the arrow of progress points toward a moral
outlook that encompasses nonhuman as well as
human creatures.
Drawing a line at insects
Some people suggest the following criteria for
deciding if an organism has the capacity to
suffer 1) there are behavioral indications, 2)
there is an appropriate nervous system, and 3)
there is an evolutionary usefulness for the
experience of pain. These criteria seem to be
satisfied for insects in primitive way. Some
would draw a line at some level of complexity of
the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of
operant conditioning need be enfranchised. Others
place the line above insects and the lower
invertebrates. Some postulate a scale of life
with an ascending capacity to suffer. People who
strive to live without cruelty will attempt to
push the line back as far as possible, giving the
benefit of the doubt where there is doubt.
Albert Schweitzers line
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who
accomplished so much for both humans and animals
in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and
move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth.
Aware of the problems and responsibilities an
expanded ethic brings with it, he said we each
must "live daily from judgment to judgment,
deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and
mercifully as we can."
Are there topics of debate among AR supporters?
Yes (e.g. if any research that harms animals is
justified, and on what occasions civil
disobedience may be appropriate, etc.).
However, these areas of debate do not negate the
principles that join us compassion and concern
for the pain and suffering of nonhumans.
Corollaries and actions
From the basic tenets of the AR philosophy there
are an unlimited number of corollaries.
Situations will occur that make it difficult to
predict all the effects, short term and long
term, of an action. For any planned action, all
the AR philosophy asks is that, in your analysis,
you consider the suffering of animals as having
weight consistent with a sound moral code.
AR critics
Some AR critics would like you to believe that,
since its impossible to eliminate all pain and
suffering, this fact should somehow curtail your
support of AR. This is absurd, just as it would
be absurd to suggest that someone should not
support human rights because they cant stop to
help every human they encounter. The AR
philosophy strives to eliminate unnecessary pain
and suffering. It doesnt fold its tent when
suffering is unavoidable. And it doesnt look
away from it, either.
AR critics
AR critics dream up hundreds of hypothetical
questions such as Would you oppose killing 1
animal to save 1000 humans?
Somehow they feel they have made a salient
point, regardless of your answer.
Its easy to deflate their puffed chests by
substituting the word animals with humans,
e.g. Would you oppose killing 1 human to save
1000 humans?
Frequently Asked Questions
Some of the following FAQs are topics of
continued debate among AR supporters. Some FAQs
are merely attempts by AR critics to justify
their desire to applaud themselves for never
helping anyone. The logic of AR critics is
frequently a variation of Man is superior,
nah-nah-nah, I can be a selfish pig if I want.
Arent there more pressing problems than AR, such
as homelessness?
The animal rights movement is a part of, not
antagonistic to, the human rights movement. Many
of the consequences of carrying out the AR agenda
are highly beneficial to humans. Read excerpts
from Tom Robbins Diet For A New America.
Stopping the production and consumption of animal
products would result in improvement of the
general health of the human population, and
greatly reduce destruction of the
environment. Furthermore, many AR activities,
such as NOT buying fur, NOT eating meat, etc.
dont take away time from human rights activities.
Is the AR movement against abortion?If not,
isn't that hypocritical?
The two arguments have similarities AR Supports
grant rights to animals (and humans) based on
their capacity to suffer and to be a
subject-of-a-life. And late-term fetuses can
suffer from the abortion procedure. However,
two factors make the abortion argument different
(but not necessarily invalid). 1. A fetus
has only potential to become a
subject-of-a-life, and exactly where this
potential is realized is debatable. Most agree
it doesnt include fertilized eggs. 2. The
rights of the fetus are in conflict with the
rights of the woman, and AR philosophy allows for
the rights of the more sentient being to have
greater consideration. So, while the
arguments adduced show abortion is not irrelevant
to AR, they do not show that abortion is
necessarily wrong. Therefore, supporting abortion
is not in conflict with AR philosophy.
Is the use of service animals considered
Is it okay if we choose for them a role that
allows them to contribute in return, we do not
abuse them by eating them, etc? Yes. If this is
done with true concern that their work conditions
are appropriate and not of a sweat-shop nature,
that they get enough rest and leisure time, etc.,
this would constitute a form of stewardship that
is acceptable and beneficial to both sides, and
one that is not at odds with AR philosophy.
Whats wrong with having pets?
AR supporters see nothing wrong with having pets
as companion animals. As a matter of fact, the AR
supporter may well provide homes for more
unwanted companion animals than does the average
person. Our objection is with folks who buy pets
from pet stores or breeders--when so many worthy
animals are being put to sleep. This is
powerful Fate Of A Shelter Dog
Spay and Neuter
Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that
would otherwise get out of hand?
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but they
are nature's way of ensuring that the strong
survive. Natural predators help keep prey species
strong by killing primarily the sick and weak.
Hunters, however, kill any animal they come
across or any animal they think would look good
mounted above the fireplace--often the large,
healthy animals needed to keep the population
strong. For every animal killed by a hunter, two
are seriously injured and left to die a slow
death. Finally, there is an ethical argument to
consider. Thousands of human beings die from
starvation every day. So is it ethical to thin
the human herd?
Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we kill?
Did the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims
justify his crimes? Furthermore, it is estimated
that for every animal a hunter kills and
recovers, at least two wounded but unrecovered
animals die slowly and painfully of blood loss,
infection, or starvation. Those who don't die
outright often suffer disabling injuries. The
stress that hunting inflicts on animals--the
noise, the fear, and the constant chase--severely
restricts their ability to eat adequately and
store the fat and energy they need to survive the
winter. Hunting also disrupts migration and
hibernation. For animals like wolves who mate for
life and have close-knit family units, hunting
can severely harm entire communities.
Animals kill and eat each other so why should it
be wrong for humans?
Mother Nature is not the ideal place from which
to draft our moral codes. Doing so could lead to
the following logic   Animals steal food
from each other so why should it be wrong for
humans to steal?    Animals eat humans so why
should it be wrong for humans to eat
humans? Human Nature is equally flawed. Thats
why we pass lawsso that men dont follow their
human instincts and drag women off into caves.
Shouldnt you stop predators from killing other
Not typically. Since predators must kill to
survive, to stop them from killing is, in effect,
to kill them. Rarely can one predict all the
consequences of an intervention on the local
ecosystem. A common exception discouraging a
neighbors fat cat from killing a bird for sport.
Trapping is inhumane, but what about fur ranches?
On fur "ranches" animals suffer a life of misery,
frustration, and severe stress, deprived of their
most basic needs. They are kept in wire-mesh
cages that are tiny, overcrowded, and filthy.   
The animals are forced to forfeit their natural
instincts. Beavers, who live in water in the
wild, must exist on cement floors. Minks, by
nature solitary animals, are forced to live in
close contact with other animals.    The methods
used on these farms reflect not the interests and
welfare of the animals but the furriers' profit.
The end of the suffering comes only with death,
which, in order to preserve the quality of the
fur, is inflicted with extreme cruelty and
brutality. The animals sometimes writhe in pain
as they are skinned alive. Another common
execution practice is anal electrocution. The
farmers attach clamps to an animal's lips and
insert metal rods into its anus. The animal is
then electrocuted. Decompression chambers and
neck snapping are also used.
Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no
worse than in the wild. At least the animals on
factory farms are fed and protected.
  • The same could also be said of people in prison,
    yet prison is considered one of society's
    harshest punishments.
  • Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it
    is inconceivable that they could be worse off in
    the wild. The wild isnt "wild" to the animals
    who live there its their home. There they have
    their freedom and can engage in their natural
    activities. The fact that they might suffer in
    the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer
    in captivity.

Is factory farming the moral equivalent to
  • No. Humans have more ability to feel mental and
    physical pain than most animals. However, while
    they are not morally equivalent, they are both
    wrong. That's the important concept.

While the Nazi holocaust
and todays abuse of animals are not morally
equivalent, there are useful analogies. In both
cases the number of individuals tortured is
enormous, the treatment of the oppressed is
indescribable, and the possibility of freedom
fully resides in the hands of some
benefactors. In the United States, billions of
animals die each year in structures like death
camps that are hidden from public view. Like the
manufacturers of the Holocaust, animal killers
need a justification to abandon caring for
animals, and they need an industry that
efficiently kills and keeps the blood from
seeping into public consciousness.
From people who knew.
Isaac Bashevis Singer "There is only one little
step from killing animals to creating gas
chambers a la Hitler and concentration camps a la
Stalin... There will be no justice as long as man
will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy
those who are weaker than he is." Edgar Kupfer
was imprisoned in Dachau concentration camp in
1940. To read his opinion, click http//www.anim
Nazi holocaust survivor
Georges Metanomski, who fought in the Warsaw
Ghetto uprising When I see cages crammed with
chickens from battery farms thrown on trucks like
bundles of trash, I see, with the eyes of my
soul, the Umschlagplatz the spot in the Warsaw
Ghetto where Jews were forced onto trains leaving
for the death camps. When I go to a restaurant
and see people devouring meat, I feel sick. I see
a holocaust on their plates. 
Animals in factory farms
"Veal" calves spend their entire life
individually confined to narrow stalls too narrow
for them to turn around in. cartoon video
http//www.noveal.org/forgetaboutit Laying hens
live a year or more in cages the size of a filing
drawer, seven or more per cage, after which they
routinely are starved for two weeks to encourage
another laying cycle. See http//www.MeatYourMeat.
com, http//www.VeganOutreach.org,
Hogs Cows
Female hogs are housed for four or five years in
individual barred enclosures ("gestation stalls")
barely wider than their bodies, where they are
forced to birth litter after litter. Until the
recent "Mad Cow" scare, beef and dairy cattle too
weak to stand ("downers") were dragged or pushed
to their slaughter. industry is trying to block
no downer legislation http//www.FarmSanctuary.
Kosher Slaughter
Kosher slaughter is where an animal is hoisted
and bled to death without prior stunning. Often
joints are ruptured during the hoisting, and the
death is a slow, conscious one.
What is wrong with leather if its just a
by-product of slaughter?
Some cows are grown and slaughtered purely for
their skins. Regardless, buying leather products
contributes to the profits of slaughtering cows,
which makes cow products more economically
competitive with vegan products. Which means that
more cow products are sold. Creating more profit.
Which lowers the price again. And on and on
Current reality of meat
  • Meat producers want the least costly means of
    producing meat for human consumption. If that
    means that animals are made to suffer by that
    process, then, because they are not deserving of
    moral respect, producers do not worry unduly
    about it.
  • It might be morally justified to eat meat if that
    is all we had to eat, or if meat were the only
    thing which would properly nourish us, but
    neither of these things is the case.

Don't crop harvest techniques lead to the death
of animals?
Accidental deaths cant be compared, morally, to
intentional deaths. Thats like saying, Since
some people die in car accidents, it must be okay
to run over people in my car. In neither case,
that of animals on crop farms or that of people
on the road, should we deliberately take lives.
In both cases we should work to minimize the
number of accidental deaths.
What if I made use of an animal that was already
While it is wrong to purchase animal-based
products, it may be good for animals to use them
if they are already dead. Obviously, this
doesnt justify buying a hamburger because it is
already dead, since more meat will be murdered
to replace it. More practically, this means
that if you are given a leather wallet, you
should use it before you go buy a vegan wallet,
because the vegan wallet would cost money that
could be sent to a no-kill shelter.
Ramifications of actions are usually complex, and
each specific situation requires analysis (please
don't over-analyze if it takes time away from
helping animals or earning money that could help
Hypothetical Is eating meat intrinsically wrong?
  • Saying that the mistreatment of animals in the
    meat production process is immoral is one thing,
    saying that eating meat itself is immoral is
  • If we can raise animals for slaughter that do not
    suffer, and which are quickly and painlessly
    killed, then would eating meat morally acceptable?

The morality of painless killing
  • If it is wrong to kill a person painlessly why it
    is not also wrong to kill an animal painlessly?
  • Animals are not as complex as human beings, but
    they live in communities, communicate with one
    another, have ongoing social relationships,
    suffer, and are capable of happiness, as well as
    fear and distress, as we are.

(No Transcript)
The right to life and painless killing
  • If we assume that humans have a right to life -
    it would be wrong to murder a normal, healthy
    human even if it were done painlessly - and it is
    hard to think of any plausible rationale for
    granting this right to humans that does not also
    apply to other animals.
  • So what could be the rational basis for saying
    that we have a right to life, but that they
    dont? What could be the rational basis for
    saying that a severely retarded person, who is
    inferior in every important respect to an
    intelligent animal, has a right to life but the
    animal doesnt?

The amelioration argument
  • The hypothetical amelioration argument If
    animals can be made not to suffer, then they can
    be killed (quickly and painlessly) and eaten.
  • The more animals that can be brought to lead
    pleasant lives, the more animals that escape the
    argument from pain and suffering and so may be
  • All a concerned individual need do then is to
    look for improvements in factory farming so that
    animals no longer suffer.

(No Transcript)
Animal Testing Why does it raise ethical issues?
Cats, dogs, nonhuman primates and other animals
are drowned, suffocated, and starved to
death. They are burned and subjected to
radiation. Their eyes are removed, their hearing
is destroyed. They have limbs severed and organs
crushed. Invasive means are used to give them
heart attacks, cancers, and seizures. They are
deprived of sleep, subjected to electric shock,
and exposed to extremes of heat and cold
and thats on a good day, when the testing labs
are following the guidelines. All the procedures
on the previous slide comply fully with the
Animal Welfare Act. Each procedure conforms with
what Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
inspectors count as humane care and treatment.
And testing labs have done much crueler things,
unnecessarily. The following slides show
examples (no graphic photos) of fully approved
Fully approved E. Sander Connollys(Columbia
Univ.) experiments
  • Strokes were (are?) induced in baboons by
    removing their left eyeballs to reach and clamp a
    critical blood vessel to their brains.
  • Metal pipes were (are?) surgically implanted
    in monkeys skulls for the purpose of inducing
    stress in order to study the connection between
    stress and menstrual cycles.
  • Nicotine was (is?) pumped into pregnant
    baboons who are strapped into backpacks full of
    instrumentation and tethered inside cages.
  • More info at http//www.columbiacruelty.com

Experiments Funded by March of Dimes
  • The March of Dimes has funded experimenters who
    have sewn cats eyes shut, implanted wires into
    the uteruses of pregnant monkeys, cut open the
    skulls of ferrets and injected chemicals directly
    into their brains, and administered cocaine,
    nicotine, and alcohol to pregnant rats even
    though the harmful effects of these substances on
    developing fetuses is well known.
  • Info Humane Charity Seal of Approval
  • http//www.MarchofCrimes.org

Harry Harlow, Primate Research
  • Experiments on a monkeys instinct to cling to
    its mother even when the mother subjects it to
    rejection and pain. (Research conducted by Harry
    Harlow at the Primate Research Centre at Madison,
    Wisconsin, see Singer 1995, 33-35)

More examples
  • Removing monkeys eyes to discover whether their
    facial expressions resembled that of sighted
    monkeys when deprived of their mothers. They did.
    (See Gendin 1986, 200)
  • Testing the pressure on a hose when monkeys bit
    it in response to electric shocks on their tails
    compared to the biting pressure resulting from
    amphetamines, etc. (See Gendin 1986, 2001)

Dont we need to experiment on animals because of
the benefit?
  • So therefore it is morally justified.
  • This response assumes that animals dont have
    moral rights.
  • Also, it makes the scientific assumption that
    there are great medical benefits from animal
  • AND, it assumes theres NOTHING BETTER than can
    be done for humans than animal research.

What about pain and suffering-free research?
  • If an animal is killed, thats still a harm--
    something bad has happened to the animal. They
    miss out on all they would have experienced
    their lives are cut short.
  • We dont think that if someone killed us
    painlessly, that would make it morally ok.
  • The response, Well, treating these animals in
    these ways would be OK if done humanely and
    with every effort to minimize pain needs
    serious defense.

Whats wrong with testing cosmetics on animals?
  • Companies dont put lipstick and rouge on a pig,
    take it to a bar, and see if anybody picks it up.

A "researcher" pries open the eye of a young
rabbit (as it squirms to break free) and pours in
a vial of drain cleaner.
Is it okay to use a medicine that has been tested
on animals?
  • Take the generic version of the drug--this won't
    put money into the pockets of the company that
    tested it on animals. Just as driving on roads
    that were built by slaves doesn't mean that one
    supports slavery, using medicines that were
    tested on animals doesn't mean one supports
    animal testing. If there is no generic version
    of a drug that was tested on animals, but taking
    the drug makes a person better able to help
    animals today, that person should do so for the
    sake of animals. There is no one-to-one
    correlation between consumer drug purchases and
    animal misery (as there is with the correlation
    of food consumption, leather, etc.). Ironically,
    in some cases it helps animals to support the
    companies testing on them (but we dont recommend
    this). One company, when doing financially well,
    invested money in alternative testing and cut the
    number of animal tests. Protesting, and law
    changes, will make companies change their
    policies. Boycotting products may be only

If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be
Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who gets
legal rights is determined by the opinion of
todays legislators. The law changes as public
opinion or political motivations change, but
ethics are not so arbitrary. Look at some of the
other things that have at one time been legal in
the U.S.child labor, human slavery, the
oppression of women.
In the US, it used to be
  • Illegal to possess a bathtub in Massachusetts.
  • Legal for parents to have their children hung for
  • Legal to kill someone if others thought them to
    be a witch.
  • If youd guess that laws are more logical now,
    then please smile at the following 2 slides (a
    small sampling of the dumb laws still on the
    books) and take laws with several grains of salt.

Laws which still exist in the US
  • In Arkansas, a man is permitted to beat his wife,
    but no more than once a month.
  • In Montana, seven or more native Americans
    together are considered a raiding or war party,
    and it is legal to shoot them.
  • In Vermont, it is illegal to deny the existence
    of God.
  • In Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake
    moustache that causes laughter in church.
    You may not have an ice cream cone in your back
    pocket at any time. Children of incestuous
    couples are deemed legitimate.
  • In Arizona, when being attacked by a criminal or
    burglar, you may only protect yourself with the
    same weapon that the other person possesses.
    Any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red
    mask is considered a felony. In Tombstone
    It is illegal for men and women over the age of
    18 to have less than one missing tooth visible
    when smiling.

Laws which still exist in the US
  • California. In Chico Detonating a nuclear device
    within the city limits results in a 500 fine.
    In San Francisco Persons classified as
    "ugly" may not walk down any street. In Indian
    Wells It is illegal for a trumpet player to play
    his instrument with the intention of luring
    someone to a store.
  • Colorado. In Denver It is unlawful to lend your
    vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor
  • Florida A law prohibits unmarried women from
    parachuting on Sunday. Men may not be seen
    publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
  • Illinois In Normal, it is against the law to
    make faces at dogs.
  • Iowa One-armed piano players must perform for
  • In Fort Madison The fire department is
    required to practice fire fighting for fifteen
    minutes before attending a fire.

Isn't breaking the law (e.g., destruction of
property) wrong?
Those who object to law-breaking under all
circumstances would have to condemn The
Tiananmen Square demonstrators. The Boston Tea
Party participants. Mahatma Gandhi and his
followers. World War II resistance fighters.
The Polish Solidarity Movement. Vietnam War
draft card burners.The list could be continued
almost indefinitely. "Certainly one of the
highest duties of the citizen is a scrupulous
obedience to the laws of the nation. But it is
not the highest duty." --Thomas Jefferson (3rd
U.S. President)
Isn't breaking the law wrong?
From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Opponents of direct action often argue that
illegal actions undermine the rule of law, and
they view civil disobedience as a threat to
political order. Among other things, this
perspective presupposes that the system in
question is legitimate or cannot be improved. It
misrepresents direct activists as people who lack
respect for the principles of law, when arguably
they have a higher regard for the spirit of law
and its relation to ethics and justice than
whose who fetishize political order for its own
sake. Moreover, this argument fails to grasp that
many direct action advocates are anarchists who
seek to replace the states and legal systems
they hold in contempt with the ethical substance
of self-regulating decentralized communities.
Isn't ALF supposed to be non-violent?
From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Broadening the term "violence" to include store
windows, buildings, laboratory equipment, and
assorted physical objects can easily trivialize
the violence done to human and nonhuman animals
and may blur the critical distinction between
living beings and nonliving things. There is a
huge difference between breaking the neck of a
mink and smashing a fur store window, but the
values of society are revealed all too clearly
when only the latter action is condemned as a
crime worthy of intense opprobrium and legal
Isn't sabotage violence?
From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters? If
sabotage is violence, it pales in comparison to
what industries inflict on animals in the
speciesist Gulags, factories, and killing
fields/seas of industrial capitalism. Animal
liberationists rightly underscore the ironic
disparity between the outcry over home
demonstrations, liberations, and property damage
and the silence over the obscene violence
inherent in the torture and killing of billions
of animals every year for food, fashion, sport,
entertainment, and science. Let moral outrage be
put in proper perspective.
Whos violent?
From Terrorists or Freedom Fighters?
Proponents of the "sabotage is violence"
argument seem to assert that there is violence
(1) in the action itself and (2) in its effect on
human targets. In the act of property
destruction, objects are defaced, smashed,
burned, and demolished. If this is violence, then
one certainly ought to open up the definition of
violence and terrorism to include corporate
destruction of oceans, rivers, marshes,
mountains, forests, and ecosystems of all
kinds. Those who cry "eco-terrorist" the
loudest are typically those who profit the most
from violence and killing, and those who seek to
disguise their own crimes against life by
vilifying others.
Tom Regan on Violence
Here are the main outlines of a possible
justification of violence (against property) 1.
Animals are innocent. 2. Violence is used only
when it is necessary to rescue them so that they
are spared terrible harms. 3. Excessive violence
is never used. 4. Violence is used only after
nonviolent alternatives have been exhausted, as
time and circumstances permit. 5. Therefore, in
these cases, the use of violence is justified.
Doesn't extreme activism give the AR movement a
bad name?
Extreme action is a political tactic that
dramatizes issues and places them before the
public when they otherwise would be ignored in
the media, applies pressure to corporations and
government agencies that otherwise are able to
resist "legitimate" pressure from law-abiding
organizations, and broadens the spectrum of
activism so that lobbying by mainstream groups is
not considered "extremist". Furthermore, in the
long run, people may agree with the message even
while hating the messenger. Example The
demonstrators who threw bricks at building in
protest of the Vietnam War were hated. But they
made news, and their message hit home.
Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name?
ALF "raids" have given us proof of horrific
cruelty that would not have been discovered or
believed otherwise. They have resulted in
official filing of criminal charges against
laboratories, citing of experimenters for
violations of the Animal Welfare Act, and, in
some cases, shutting down of abusive labs for
good. Often ALF raids have been followed by
widespread scientific condemnation of the
practices occurring in the targeted labs.
Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name?
ALF raids may give the ALF a bad name, but the
movement is not ALF, or vice versa. Some believe
that ALF acts as the "bad cop" to the "good cop'
of other AR advocates. Dr. Martin Luther King and
Malcolm X created the same dynamic in the civil
rights movement. Malcolm X preached change
powered by violent confrontation. Malcolm X
adamantly spoke out against the white people,
calling them white devils. Did this hinder the
movement or strengthen it? On one hand, the
appeal of Malcolm X and King to separate groups
made for a larger following in shear numbers
increasing awareness more effectively than just
one group could. Those two, using their
unintended good cop-bad cop strategy ended up
appealing to more people.
Welcome to the Automatic ALF Pledge Donation
PagePlease answer the following question.Your
pledge amount will depend on your answer!!!
Will you pledge your entire years salary to
support the ALF?
Click on your response.
Will you pledge your entire years salary to
support the ALF?
Click on your response.
Will you pledge your entire years salary to
support the ALF?
Click on your response.
Thank You!We knew we could count on you!
Click the button below to mail your response to us
Send to ALF
Thanks for your pledge.The ALF will be
expecting your donation soon.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com