AR and Animal Use FAQ—Pro and Con
Here are the top few reasons that each side of this issue uses to support their views. You might not find a better shorthand version of the most fundamental views of both positions, right or wrong. You decide which you think seems the most valid. We created this list on talk.politics.animals. Both sides cooperated in building the list.
**ARA FAQ**
0.1 It is possible to think about the goodness of actions
(that is, ethics can exist) including the actions of
humans toward non-human animals (that is, an ethics
of human-animal relationships can exist).
0.2 We define as _harm_ those things which we would generally
reject for ourselves, for example, pain, fear,
confinement, and death. We assume that doing harm to
another is ethically questionable.
Definitions:
“Conscious” means they experience things.
“Willful” means they can and do make value judgments
and choices.
“Sentient” means they can suffer and enjoy.
“Intelligent” means that, to some extent, they can
make mental models of the world around them.
1. Some animals, among them the mammals and the birds, are
conscious, willful, sentient, and intelligent.
2. Because these animals are conscious, willful, sentient,
and intelligent, they are proper objects of human ethical
concern.
3. We recognize that any being that is conscious, willful,
sentient and intelligent has value to itself, not simply
an arbitrary value assigned by humans.
4. [How to make a basic guideline for the types of treatment which
qualify as ethical for various species in various situations?]
[more items, not yet integrated…]
1. Some animals have independent moral status.
2. Some animals have experiential welfare that fares better
or worse (ie. they can be harmed) depending on our dealings
with them.
**Animal Welfare FAQ??**
1. ?
**ANIMAL USE FAQ**
1. Man is predator to animal, but their fates both are connected in both
known and unknown ways so this role is more properly that of steward.
2. There is a scale of being with each lifeform occuring at a different
level. Consistent ethics will result in different treatment of each level of
lifeform.
3. Stewardly use of animals does not diminish them in an unethical way.
4. Given the animalism of humans, the choice to not kill is a religious
act—a separation from nature to remind one of a bigger picture of some type.
5. All life dies. If humans are to live, we must face death and our constant
connection to it. Hunting is used as a reminder. It also often has religious aspects,
since participation in killing is also used to remind people of the bigger picture.
It’s sometimes called sport, because sport involves the training and reminding
of the connection b/w mind and body.
6. Abuse of the proper role of animals, either pro or con, results in
unexpected side effects and imbalance which usually results in more death of
all kinds, including human.
