ANIMAL RIGHTS FAQS

	ANIMAL RIGHTS AND ANIMAL WELFARE
	Five Frequently asked Questions
	The distinction between animal rights and animal welfare is central to the debate about the nature and direction of social efforts to eradicate animal exploitation. We, too, must be prepared to confront this distinction as well and to recognize that animal rights and animal welfare represent very different-and inconsistent-approaches. There is a great deal of confusion about the rights/welfare debate, and these questions are an attempt to present one perspective on trying to resolve this confusion.
	1.	Can the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare be explained simply?
		All Animal welfare theories accept that animals have interests. However it is generally felt that these interests may be sacrificed or traded as long as there are some expected results that are thought to justify that sacrifice. The primary difference among welfare theories is what actually constitutes a justification. Some welfarists will ignore animal interests for the sake of human amusement and financial gain; others require more "serious" benefits..2 One aspect which is common is that all welfare theories insists that any animal exploitation should be done "humanely" and that animals are not be subjected to "unnecessary" pain. The central and distinguishing principle shared by rights theorists is that animals (Like humans) have interests that cannot be sacrificed or traded away simply because good consequences will result. The rights position does not hold that rights are absolute. Indeed, rights must be limited, and they often conflict. For example, I have an interest in my liberty which is protected by a constitutional right, but the right is not absoluteg. can forfeit my right to liberty for examine, I commit a crime. We do not, however, allow liberty rights to be abrogated simply because depriving one person of liberty might increase overall social welfare.
	2.	What difference does the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare make in the real world?
		It makes all the difference in the world. Our legal system currently reflects a welfarist approach, and it clearly does not work. The law recognizes that animals have interests in being treated "humanly" or in being kept free from "unnecessary" suffering .The laws require that we "balance" human interests against these animal interests; despite such laws, we still have bullock cart racing, administration of Oxytocin, circuses, etc. These uses of.3 animals are completely "unnecessary" and "inhuman" as these terms are used in ordinary language. The reason for the failure to protect animals is found in the legal statues of animals as the property of human beings. Animals may have interests, but these interests may be trated away or sacrificed even when the primary reasons for the sacrificing the interest is completely trivial "benefit" in the form of human amusement and entertainment'. As animals are regarded as property, it is almost always in some human's interest to exploit those animals.
	3.	What difference does the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare make in the real world?
		In our socity, property rights are among the most highly valued of all human rights. Most human/ animal conflicts occur precisely because a human property owner seeks to exploit his or her animal property. Even if we increase the weight attached to the animal interests, the human property rights cannot be abrogated without a compelling justification. No animal interest is likely to be regarded as supplying that compelling as interest as long as animals are regarded as the property of.4 their owners. No from of animal welfare is likely to be successful as long as all animal interests may be sacrificed for consequential reasons alone and there are no absolute prohibitions on at least some forms of animal exploitation. Attaching more weight to animal interests in "humane" treatment may sound good in principle, but is wholly meaningless in the context of the current system.
	4.	Doesn't animal rights require an "all or nothing "attitude in that right theory can offer no practical strategy short of complete and immediate abolition of animal exploitation?
		No. Ironically, there are important opportunities for us to move in a right direction even within our present legal system. Currently, regulations of animal exploitation recognize animal interests only in so far as they facilitate the efficient use of animals as determined by human owners of nonhumans. For example, the protection offered by "humane" slaughter regulations for the most part do not go beyond providing regulation that will make it ultimately cheaper to produce neat by reducing costly injuries to animals (whose meat will then fail to conform to and standards regulations and to workers, who are more likely to be hurt by animals in panic or pain. Such regulations, which require nothing more than the "humane" treatment of animals recognize no interests that are not subject to.5 being sacrificed or traded away in favour of human property interests. There are, however, other types of regulations that are much closer to rights, and that can have a real effect on animal suffering and animal death. In order to be effective, such regulations must have three features:
		1. The regulation must prohibit and not merely attempt to regulate exploitation through the use of the "humane" treatment/"unnecessary" suffering standard; 2. The regulation must clearly reflect the recognition of on animal interest that is not subject to being sacrificed or traded away for consequential reasons alone; and  3. The interest recognized and prohibited should be consistent with the status of the animal as a sentient being with inherent value and not as human property; that is, the prohibition ends a particular form of exploitation, and does not merely substitute a different, and supposedly more "humane" form of exploitation. For example, if Government were to stop funding, thereby effectively stopping, the use of all animals in burn experiments, that would effectively constitute a prohibition. Just as a important, however, is the recognition that the prohibition is not imposed in order to.6 facilitate more efficient animal use; it is imposed out of respect for an animal interest that can not be sacrificed even if it were in the interest of humans to do so. Finally, the interest that is recognized is consistent with the status of the animal as other than human property. The prohibition does not "substitute" a supposedly more "humane" form of exploitation instead of the burn experiment. Although animals will continue to be used for other types of experiments, this is neither required nor prescribed by the prohibition of burn experiments.
		This third feature distinguishes the prohibition on burn experiments from a "prohibition" of, say, more than two hens in a battery cage .The letter may demonstrate features (1) and (2) in that although certain overcrowding is "prohibited "in order to recognize and respect an animal interest, the regulation fails condition (3) because it is consistent with the continued status of the hens as human property that may properly be exploited in a supposedly more "humane" manner. This "prohibition" merely substitutes one form of exploitation for another, which makes it different from the above example concerning burn experiments. Respect-based prohibitions that satisfy these three criteria move away from the paradigm of animals as property and offer an arguably sensible half-measure between continuing the approach of animal welfare, or beginning to chip away -peacefully and through legal means -at the morally, politically, and economically corrupt edifice that supports animal exploitation. When.7 accompanied by clear and unequivocal calls for ultimate abolition, respect-based prohibitions may be effective in reducing animal suffering and in dismantling the primary mechanism of animal oppression
	5.	Isn't animal right a "terrorist" doctrine?
		Of all of the very unfair distortions of truth that pervade the endless media outlets, this characterization is the most unfair. Animal rights originated with the same ancient people for whom Ahimsa, or what has been called "dynamic harmlessness," was a central organizing principal for social, political, and religious relations. Animal rights is not a movement of violence or terrorism. It is a movement of peace. One of the central tenets linking most animal rights people (i.e., people who reject speciesism and the property status of animals on principled grounds) is their rejection of violence on all forms of life. Working to achieve respect-based prohibitions in the law is consistent with this rejection of violence. The attempt to pin the "terrorist "label on the animal rights movement is part of the organized backlash against a more progressive vision of animal liberation, and to intimidate people into accepting animal welfarism - a position much more acceptablet the people who profit from animal exploitation and who label those who reject welfarism as "terrorists"..8
		GENERAL QUESTIONS
	6.	What is all this Animal Rights (AR) stuff and why should it concern me?
		The fundamental principle of the AR movement is that nonhuman animals deserve to live according to their own natures, free from harm, abuse, and exploitation. This goes further than just saying that we should treat animals well while we exploit them, or before we kill and eat them. It says animals have the RIGHT to be free from human cruelty and exploitation, just as humans possess this right. The withholding of this right from the nonhuman animals based on their species membership is referred to as "speciesism". Animal rights activists try to extend the human circle of respect and compassion beyond our species to include other animals who are also capable of feeling pain fear, hunger thirst, loneliness and kinship. When we try to do this, many of us come to the conclusion that we can no longer support factory farming, vivisection and the exploitation of animals for entertainment. One main goal of this FAQ is to address the common justifications that arise when we become aware of how systematically our society abuses and exploits animals. The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could.9 have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. - Jeremy Bentham (philosopher) Life is life -weather in cat, or dog or man. There is no difference there between a cat or a man. The idea of difference is a human conception for man's own advantage… Sri Aurobindo (poet and philosopher) 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 savages. Thomas Edison (inventor) 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. - Leonardo Da Vinci (artist and scientist)
	7.	Is the Animal Rights movements different from the Animal Welfare movement?
		The Animal Welfare movement acknowledges the suffering of nonhumans and attempts to reduce that suffering through "humane" treatment, but it does not have as a goal elimination of the use and exploitation of animals. The Animal Rights movement goes significantly further by rejecting the exploitation of animals and according them rights in that regard. A person committed to animal.10 welfare might be concerned that cows get enough space, proper food, etc., but would not necessarily have any qualms about killing and eating cows, so long as the rearing and slaughter are "humane". It should however, be realized that some hold a broader interpretation of the AR movement. They would argue that the AW groups do, in fact, support rights for animals (e.g., a dog has the right not to be kicked). Under this interpretation, AR is viewed as a board umbrella covering the AW and strict AR groups. This interpretation has the advantage of moving AR closer to the mainstream. Nevertheless, there is a valid distinction between the AW and AR groups, as described above. Animal Liberation (AL) is, for many people, a synonym for Animal Rights (but see below). Some people prefer the term "liberation "because it brings to mind images of other successful liberation movements, such as the movement for liberation of slaves and liberation of women, whereas the term "rights" often encounters resistance when an attempt is made to apply it to nonhumans. The phrase "Animal Liberation" became popular with the publication of Peter Singer's classic book of the same name. This use of the term liberation should be distinguished from the literal meaning discussed in question 85, i.e., an Animal liberationist is necessarily one who engages in forceful civil disobedience or unlawful action. Some might suggest that a subtle distinction can be made between the Animal Liberation and Animal Rights movements. The Animal Rights movement, at least as.11 propounded by Regan and his adherents, is said to require total abolition of such practices as experimentation on animals. The Animal Liberation movement, as propounded by Singer and his adherents, is said to reject the absolutist view and assert that in some cases, such experimentation can be morally defensible. Because such cases could also justify some experiments on humans, however, it is not clear that the distinction described reflects a difference between the liberation and rights views, so much as it does a broader difference of ethical theory, i.e., absolutism versus utilitarianism. Historiclly, animal welfare groups have attempted to improve the lot of animals in society. They worked against the popular Western concept of animals as lacking souls and not being at all worthy of any ethical consideration. The animal rights movement set itself up as an abolitionist alternative to the reform-minded animal welfarists. As the animal rights movement has become larger and more influential, the animal exploiters have finally been forced to respond to it. Perhaps inspired by the efforts of Tom Regan to distinguished AR from AW, industry groups intent on maintaining the status quo have embraced the term "animal welfare". Provivisection, hunting, trapping, agribusiness, and animal entertainment groups now refer to themselves as "animal welfare" supporters. Several umbrella groups whose goal is to defend these practices have also arisen. This classic case of public -relations doublespeak acknowledges the issue of cruelty to animals in name only, while allowing for the continued use and abuse of animals. The propaganda effect.12 is to stigmatize animal rights supporters as being extreme while attempting to portray themselves as the reasonable moderates. Nowadays, the cause of "animals welfare" is invoked by the animal industry at least as often as it is used by animal protection groups.
	8.	What exactly are rights and what right can we give animals?
		The concept of "rights has been a source of controversy and confusion in the debate over AR.A common objection to the notion that animals have rights involves questioning the origin of those rights. One such argument might proceed as follows: Where do these rights come from? Are you in special communication with God, and he has told you that animals have rights? Have the rights been granted by law? Aren't rights something that humans must grant? It is true that the concept of "rights" needs to be carefully explained. It is also true that the concept of "natural rights" is fraught with philosophical difficulties. The confusion between legal rights and moral rights further complicates the issues. One attempt to avoid this objection is to accept it, but to argue that if it is not an obstacle for thinking of humans as having rights, then is should not be an obstacle for thinking of animals as having rights Henry Salt wrote: Have the lower animals" rights?" Undoubtedly yes - if men have..13 That is the point being made in this chapter. The fitness of this nomenclature is disputed, but the existence of some real principle of the kind can hardly be called in question; so that the controversy concerning "rights" is little else than an academic battle over words, which leads to no practical conclusion .I shall assume, therefore, that men are possessed of "rights," in the sense of Herbert Spencer's definition; and if any of my readers object to this qualified use of the term, I can only say that I shall be perfectly willing to change the word as soon as a more appropriate one is forthcoming .The immediate question that claims our attention is this- if men have rights, have animals their rights also? Satisfying though this argument may be, it still leaves us unable to respond to the sceptic who disavows the notion of rights even for humans. Fortunately, however, there is a straightforward interpretation of "rights" that is plausible and allows us to avoid the controversial rights rhetoric and underpinnings. It is the notion that a "right" is the flip side of a moral imperative. If ethically, we must refrain from an act performed on a being, then that being can be said to have a "right "that the act not be performed .For example, if our ethics tells us that we must not kill another, then the other has a right not to be killed by us. This interpretation of rights is in fact, an intuitive one that people both understand and readily endorse. (Of course, rights so interpreted can be codified as legal rights through appropriate legislation.).14 It is important to realize that, although there is a basis for speaking of animals as having rights, that does not imply or require that they possess all the rights that humans possess, or even that humans possess all the rights that animals possess. Consider the human right to vote. (On the view taken here, this would derive from an ethical imperative to give humans influence over actions that influence their lives.) Animals lack the capacity to vote. There is, therefore, no ethical imperative to allow them to do so, and thus they do not possess the right to vote. Similarly, some fowls have a strong biological need to extend and flap their wings; right-thinking people feel an ethical imperative to make it possible for them to do so. Thus, it can be said that fowls have the right to flap their wings. Obviously, such a right need not be extended to humans. The rights that animals and humans possess, then, are determined by their interests and capacities. Animals have an interest in living, avoiding pain , even in pursuing happiness(as do humans ).As a result of the ethical imperatives, they have rights to these things(as do humans). They can exercise these rights by living their lives free of exploitation and abuse at the hands of humans.
	9.	Isn't AR hypocritical, e.g., because you don't give rights to insects or plants?
		The general hypocrisy argument appears in many forms. A typical form is a follows: "It is hypocritical to.15 assert rights for a cow but not for a plant; therefore, cows cannot have rights." Arguments of this type are frequently used against AR. Not much analysis is required to see that they carry little weight. First, one can assert a hypothesis A that would carry as a corollary hypothesis B. If one then fails to assert B, one is hypocritical, but this does not necessary make A false. Certainly, to assert A and not B would call into question one's credibility, but it entails nothing about the validity of A. Second, the factual assertion of hypocrisy is often unwarranted. In the above example, there are grounds for distinguishing between cows and plants (plants do not have a central nervous system), so the charge of hypocrisy is in justified .One may disagree with the criteria, but assertion of such criteria nullifies the charge of hypocrisy. Finally, the charge of hypocrisy can be reduced in most cases to simple speciesism. For example, the quote above can be recast as: "It is hypocritical to assert rights for a human but not for a plant; therefore, humans cannot have rights." To escape from this reductio ad absurdum of the first quite, one must produce a crucial relevant difference between cows and humans, in other words, one must justify the speciesist assignment of rights to humans but not to cows. For questions dealing specifically with insects and plants, refer to question #38 through # 45. Finally, we must ask ourselves who the real hypocrites are .the following quotation from Michael W. Fox describes the grossly.16 hypocritical treatment of exploited versus companion animals. "Farm animals can be kept five to a cage two feet square, tied up constantly by a two-foot-long tether, castrated without anesthesia, or branded with a hot iron .A pet owner would be no less than prosecuted for treating a companion animal in such a manner; an American president was, in fact morally censure a merely for pulling the ears of his two beagles."
	10.	What right do AR people have to impose their beliefs in others?
		There is a not-so-subtle distinction between imposition of one's views and advertising them .AR supporters are certainly not imposing their views in the sense that, say, the Spanish Inquisition imposed its views, or the Church imposed its views on Galileo. We do, however, feel a moral duty to present our case. There is ample precedent for this: protests against slavery, protests against the Vietnam War, condemnation of racism, etc. One might point out that the gravest imposition is that of the exploiter of animals upon his innocent and defenseless victims. If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell (author).17
	11.	Isn't AR just another religion?
		NO .The dictionary defines s "religion" as the appeal to a supernatural power. (An alternate definition refers to devotion to a cause; that is virtue that the AR movement would be happy to avow.) People who support Animal Rights come from many different religions and many different philosophies. What they share is a belief in the importance of showing compassion for other individuals, whether human or nonhuman.
	12.	Doesn't it demean humans to give rights to animals?
		A tongue-in -cheek, though valid, answer to this question is given by David Cowles-Hamar: " Humans are animals, so animal right are human rights!" In a more serious vein, we can observe that giving rights to women and back people does not demean white males. By analogy, then giving right to nonhumans does not demean humans. If anything, by being morally consistent, and widening the circle of compassion to deserving nonhumans, we ennoble humans. The greatness of a nation and its and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher) It is man's sympathy with all creatures that first makes him truly a man..18 Albert Schweitzer (statesman, Nobel 1952) For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love. Pythagoras (mathematician).19
		ANIMALS AND MORALITY
	13.	There is no correct or incorrect in morals; you have yours and I have mine, right?
		This position, known as moral relativism, is quite ancient but became fashionable at the turn of century, as reports on the customs of societies alien to those found in Europe became available. It fell out of fashion, after the Second World War, although it is occasionally revived. Ethical propositions, we are asked to believe, are no more than statements of personal opinion and, therefore, cannot carry absolute weight. The main problem with this position is that ethical relativists are unable to denounce execrable ethical practices, such as racism. On what grounds can they condemn (if at all) Hitler's idea on racical purity? Are we to believe that he was uttering an ethical truth when advocating the Final Solution? In addition to the inability to denounce practices of other societies, the relativists are unable to counter the arguments of even those whose society they share. They cannot berate someone who proposes to raise and kill infants for industrial pet food consumption, for example, if that person sees it as morally sound. Indeed, they cannot articulate the concept of societal moral progress, since they lack a basis for judging progress. There is no point in turning to the relativists for advice on ethical issues such as euthanasia, infanticide, or the use of fetuses in research..20 Faced with such arguments, ethical relativists sometimes argue that ethical, truth is based on the beliefs of a society; ethical truth is seen as nothing more than a reflection of societal customs and habits. Butchering animals is acceptable in the West, they would say, because the majority of people think it so. They are on no firmer ground here. Are we to accept that chattel slavery was right before the US Civil war and wrong thereafter? Can all ethical decisions be decided by conducting opinion polls? It is true that different societies have different practices that might be seen as ethical by one and unethical by the other. However, these differences result from differing circumstances .For example, in a society where more survival is key, the diversion of limited food to an infant could detract significantly from the well being of the existing family members that contribute to food gathering. Given that, infanticide may be the ethically correct course. The conclusion is that there is such a thing as ethical truth (otherwise, ethics becomes vacuous and devoid of proscriptive force). If there were such a thing as "ethical truth", then there must be a way of determining it. An example of the method of leveraging a person's morality is to ask the person why he has compassion for human beings. Almost always he will agree that his compassion does not stem from the fact that: 1) humans use language, 2) humans compose symponies, 3) humans can plan in the far future, 4) humans have a written,.21 technological culture, etc. Instead, he will agree that it stems from that fact that humans can suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. It is then quite easy to show that nonhuman animals can also suffer, feel pain, be harmed, etc. The person's arbitrary inconsistency in not according moral status to nonhumans then stands out starkly. To a man whose mind is free there is something even more intolerable in the sufferings of animals than in the sufferings of man. For with the latter it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the man who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any man were to refer to it, he would be through ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. Romain Rolland (author, Nobel 1915) .
	14.	The animals are raised to be eaten; so what is wrong with that?
		This question has always seemed to me to be a fancy version of "But we want to do these things, so what is wrong with that?" The idea that an act, by virtue of an intention of ours, can be exonerated morally is totally illogical. But worse than that, however, is the fact that such a belief is a dangerous position to take because it can enable one to justify some practices that are universally condemned. To see how this is so, consider the following restatement of the basis of the question: "Suffering can be.22 excused so long as we bred them for the purpose." Now, cannot an analogous argument be used to defend a group of slave holders who breed and enslave humans and justify it by saying "but they 're bred to be our workers "? Could not the Nazis defend their murder of the Jews by saying "but we rounded them up to be killed"? Shame on such a morality that is worthy of pariahs, and that fails to recognize the internal essence that exists in every living thing, and shines forth with inscrutable significance from all eyes that see the sun! Arthur Schopenhauer (philosopher)
	15.	But isn't it true that animals wouldn't exit it we didn't raise them for slaughter?
		There are two ways to interpret this question. First, the questioner may be referring to "the animals" as a species, in which case the argument might be more accurately phrased as follows: "The ecological niche of cows is to be farmed; they get continued survival in this niche in return for our using them." Second, the questioner may be referring to "animals" as individuals, in which case the phrasing might be: "The individual cows that we raise to eat would not have had a life had we not done so." We deal first with the species interpretation and then with the individuals interpretation .The questioner's argument applies presumably to all species of animals; to make things more concrete..23 We will take cows as an example. It is incorrect to assert that cows could continue to exist only if we farm them for human consumption. First, today in many parts of India and elsewhere, humans and cows are engaged in a reciprocal and reverential relationship .It is only in recent human history that this relationship has been corrupted into the one-sided exploitation that we see today. There IS a niche for cows between slaughter / consumption and extinction. (The interested reader may find the book Beyond Beef by Jeremy Refkin quite enlightening on this subject.) Second, Several organizations have program for saving animals from extinction. There is no reason to suppose that cows would not qualify. The species arguments is also flawed because, in fact our intensive farming of cattle results in habitat destruction and the loss of other species .For example, clearing of rain forests for pasture has led to the extinction of countless species. Cattle farming is destroying habitats on six continents. Why is the questioner so concerned about the cow species while being unconcerned about these others species? Could it have anything to do with the fact that he wants to continue to eat the cows? Finally, a strong case can be made against the species argument from ethical theory. Arguments similar to the questioner's could be developed that would ask us to accept practices that are universally condemned .For example, consider a society that breeds a special race of humans.24 for use as slaves. They argue that the race would not exist if they did not breed them for use as slaves. Does the reader accept this justification? Now we move on to the individuals interpretation of the question .One attempt to refute the argument is to answer as follows:"It is better not to be born than to be born into a life of misery and early death." To many, this is sufficient. However, one could argue that the life is miserable before death is not necessary. Suppose that the cows are treated well before being killed painlessly and eaten .Is it not true that the individual cows would not have enjoyed their short life had we not raised them for consumption? Furthermore, what if we compensate the taking of the life by bringing a new life into being? The key is that the AR movement asserts that humans and nonhumans have a right to not be killed by humans .The ethical problem can be seen clearly by applying the argument to humans. Consider the case of a couple that gives birth to an infant and eats it at the age of nine months, just when their next infant is born. A 9 month old baby has no more rational knowledge of its situation or future plans than does a cow, so there is no reason to distinguish the two cases .Yet, certainly, we would condemn the couple. We condemn them because the infant is an individual to whom we confer the right not be killed. Why is this right not to accorded to the cow? I think the answer is that the questioner wants to eat it..25 It were much better that a sentient being should never have existed, than that it should have existed only to endure unmitigated misery. Percy Bysshe Shelley (poet)
	16.	Don't the animals we use have a happier life since they are fed and protected?.
		The questioner makes two assumptions here. First, that happiness or contentment accrues from being fed and protected. and second, that the animals are ,in fact ,fed and protected .Both of these premises can be questioned. Certainly the animals are fed; after all, they must be fattened for consumption. It is very difficult to see any way that, say, factory farmed chickens are "protected ". They are not protected from multilation, because they are painfully debeaked. They are not protected from psychological distress, because they are crowded together in unnatural conditions. And finally, they are not protected from predation, because they are slaughtered and eaten by humans. We can also question the notion that happiness accrues from feeding and protection alone .The Roman galley slaves were fed and protected from the elements; nevertheless, they would presumably trade their condition for one of greater uncertainly to obtain happiness .The same can be said of the slaves of earlier America..26 Final ly, an ethical argument is relevant here. Consider again the couple of question # 15. They will feed and protect their infant up to the point at which they consume it.We would not accept this as a justification. Why should we accept it for the chicken?
	17.	Is the use of service animal and beasts of burden considered exploitative?
		A simple approach to this question might be to suggest that we all must work for a living and it should be no different for animals .The problem is that we want to look at the animals as like children, i.e., worthy of the same protections and rights, and like them, incapable of being morally responsible. But we don't force children into labor! One can make a distinction, however, that goes something like this: The animals are permanently in their diminished state (i.e., incapable of voluntary assenting to work); children are not .We do not impose a choice of work for children because they need the time to develop into their full adult and moral selves. With the animals, we choose for them a role that allows them to contribute; in return, we do not abuse them by eating them, etc If this is done with true concern that their work conditions are appropriate and not of a sweatshop 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..27.
	18.	Moral are a purely a human construction (animals don't understand morals); doesn't that mean it is not rational to apply our morality to animals?
		The fallaciousness of this argument can be easily demonstrated by making a simple substitution :Infants and young children don't understand morals, doesn't that mean that it is not rational to apply our morality to them? Of course not. We refrain from harming infants and children for the same reasons that we do so for adults. That they are incapable if conceptualizing a system of morals and its benefits is irrelevant. The relevant distinction is formalized in the concept of "moral agents" versus "moral patients " A moral agent is an individual processing the sophisticated conceptual ability to bring to moral principles to bear in deciding what to do, and having made such a decision, having the free will to choose to act that way .By virtue of these abilities, it is fair to hold moral agents accountable for their acts .The paradigmatic moral agents is the normal adult human being. Moral patients, in contrast, lack the capacities of moral agents and thus cannot fairly be held accountable for their acts. They do, however, possess the capacity to suffer harm and therefore are proper objects of consideration for moral agents. Human infants, young children, the mentally deficient or deranged, and nonhuman animals are instance of moral patienthood. Given that.28 nonhuman animals are moral patients, they fall within the purview of moral consideration and therefore it is quite rational to accord them the same moral consideration that we accord to ourselves.
	19.	Animals don't care about us; why should we care about them?
		The questioner's position - that, in essence we should give rights only to those able to respect ours- is known as the reciprocity argument. It is unconvincing both as an account of the way our society works and as prescription for the way it should work. Its descriptive power is undermined by the simple observation that we give rights to a large number of individuals who cannot respect ours. These include some elderly people, some people suffering from degenerative disease, some people suffering from irreversible brain damage, the severely retarded, infants, and young children. An institution that, for example, routinely sacrificed such individuals to test a new fertilizer would certainly be considered to be grievously violating their rights. The original statement fares no better as an ethical prescription. Future generations are unable to reciprocate our concern, for example, so there would be no ethical harm done, under such a view, in dismissing concerns for environmental damage that adversely impacts future generations. The key failing of the questioner's position lies in the failure to properly distinguish between the following.29 capacities: the capacity to under stand and respect others right (moral agency) and the capacity to benefit from rights (moral patienthood). An individual can be a beneficiary of rights without being a moral agent, under this view, one justifies a difference of treatments of two individuals (human or nonhumans) with an objective difference that is RELAVANT to the difference of treatment. For example, if we wished to exclude a person from an academic course of study, we could not cite the fact that they have freckles. We could cite the fact that they lack certain academic prerequisite. The former is relevant; the latter is relevant. Similarly, when considering the right to be free of pain and suffering, moral agency is irrelevant; moral patient hood IS relevant. The assumption that animals do not care about us can also be questioned. Companion animals have been known to summon aid when their owners are in trouble. They have been known to offer comfort when their owners are distressed. They show grief when their human companions die.
	20.	A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you save first?
		The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical decisions we face .I might decide to save my child before I saved yours, but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on your child, or exploit.30 your child in some other way. We are not in an emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies. Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child. Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby of a stranger. However, this tells us nothing about any ethical principles.
	21.	What if I made use of an animal that was already dead?
		There are two ways to interpret this question. First, the questioner might really be making the excuse "but I didn't kill the animal ", or second, he could be asking about the morality of using an animal that has died naturally (or due to a cause unassociated with the demand for animal products, such as a road kill). For the first interpretation, we must reject the excuse .The killing of animals for meat for example, is done at the request (through market demand), and with the financial support (through payment), of the end consumers. Their complicity is inescapable. Society does not excuse the receiver of stolen goods because he "did not do the burglary". Other people may avoid use of naturally killed animal products because they feel that it might encourage a demand in others for animal products, a demand that might not be innocently satisfied. You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity - Ralph Waldo Emerson (author)
	22.	Where should one draw the line: animals, insects, bacteria?
		AR philosophy asserts that 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, fish, birds and insects. There is debate about such animals as mollusks and arthropods (including insects). One should decide, based upon available evidence and one's own conscience where the line should be drawn to adhere to the principle of AR described in the first sentence..32
	23.	If the killing is wrong, shouldn't you stop predators from killing other animals?
		This is one of the more interesting arguments against animal rights. We prevent human moral patients from harming others, e.g., we prevent children from hitting each other, so why should not we do the same for nonhuman moral patients (refer to question # 18 for a definition of moral patienthood)? If anything, the duty to do so might be considered more serious because predation results in serious harm- death. A first answer entails pointing out that predators must kill to survive; to stop them from killing is, in effect, to kill them. Of course, we could argue that intervening on a massive scale to prevent predation is totally impractical or impossible, but that is not morally persuasive. Suppose we accept that we should stop a cat from killing a bird. Then we realize that the bird is the killer of many snakes, Should we now reason that, in fact, we should not stop the cat? The point is that humans lack the board vision to make all these calculations and determinations. The real answer is that intervenining to stop predation would destroy the ecosystems upon which the biosphere depends, harming all of life on earth. Over millions of years, the biosphere has evolved complex ecosystems that depend upon predation for their continued functioning and stability. Massive intervention by humans to stop predation.33 would inflict serious and incalculable harm on these ecosystems, with devastating results for all life. Even if we accept that we should prevent predation (and we don't accept that), it does not follow that, because we do not, we are therefore justified in exploiting moral patients ourselves. When we fail to stop widespread slaughter of human beings in foreign countries, it does not follow that we, ourselves, believe it appropriate to participate in such slaughter. Similarly, our failure to prevent predation cannot be taken as justification of our exploitation of animals.
	24.	Doesn't the ethical theory of contractarianism show that animals have no rights?
		Contractarianism is an ethical theory that attempts to account for our morality by appealing to implicit mutually beneficial agreements, or contracts. For example, it would explain our refusal to strike other by asserting that we have an implied contract: " you don't hit me and I won't hit you." The relevance of contractarianism to AR stems from the supposition that nonhuman animals are incapable of entering into such contracts, coupled with the assertion that rights can be attributed only to those individuals that can enter into such contracts. Roughly, animals' can't have rights because they lack the rational capacity to assent to a contract requiring them to respect our rights. Contractarianism is perhaps the most impressive attempt to refute the AR position; therefore, it is important.34 to consider it in some detail. It is easily possible to write a large volume on the subject. We must limit ourselves to considering the basic arguments and problems with them. Those readers finding this incomplete or nonrigorous are advised to consult the primary literature. We begin by observing that contractarianism fails to offer a compelling account of our moral behavior and motives .If the average person is asked why they think it wrong to steal from their neighbour, they do not answer that by refraining from it they ensure that their neighbour will not steal from them. Nor do they answer that they have an implicit mutual contract with their neighbour. Instead of invoking contracts, people typically assert some variant of the harm principle; e.g., they don't steal because it would harm the neighbor. Similarly, we do not teach children that the reason why they should not steal is because then people will not steal from them. Another way to point out mismatch the theory of contractarianism and our actual moral behavior is to ask if, upon risking your own life to save my child from drawning, you have done this as a result of a contractual obligation. Certainly, one performs such acts as a response to the distress of another being, not as a result of contractual obligations. Contractarianism can be thus seen as a theory that fails to account for our moral behavior. At best, it is a theory that its proponents would recommend to us a preferable. (Is it seen as preferable because it denies rights.35 to animals, and because it seems to justify continued exploitation of animals?) Arguably the most serious objection to contractarianism is that it can be used to sanction arrangements that would be almost universally condemned. Consider a groups of very rich people that assemble and create a contract among themselves the effect of which is to ensure that wealth remains in their control. They agree by contract that even repressive tactics can be used to ensure that the masses remain in poverty. They argue that by virtue of the existence of their contract, that they do no wrong. Similar contracts could be drawn up to exclude other races, sexes, etc. John Rawls attempts to overcome this problem by supposing that the constractors must begin from an "initial position "in which they are not yet incarnated as beings and must form the contract in ignorance of their final incarnation. Thus, it is argued, since a given individual in the starting positions does not know whether, for example .she will be incarnated as a rich woman or a poor woman, that individual will not form contracts that are based on such criteria .In response, one can begin to wonder at the lengths to which some will go in creating ad hoc adjustments to a deficient theory. But more to the point, one can turn around this ad hoc defense to support the AR position. For surely, if individuals in the initial position are to be truly ignorant of their destiny, they must assume that may be incarnated as animals. Given that, the contract that is reached is likely to include strong protections for animals!.36 Another problem with Rawls' device is that probabilities can be such that, even given ignorance, contracts can result that most people would see as unjust .If the chance of being incarnated as a slave holder is 90 percent, a contract allowing slavery could well result because most individuals would feel they had a better chance of being incarnated as a slave holder. Thus, Rawls' device fails even to achieve its purpose. It is hard to see how contractarianism can permit movement from the status quo. How did alleged contracts that denied liberty to slaves and excluded women from voting come to be renegotiated? Contractarianism also is unable to adequately account for the rights we give to those unable to form contracts, e.g., infants, children, senile people, metal deficient, and even animals to some extent. Various means have been advanced to try to account for the attribution of rights to such individuals' .We have no space to deal with all of them. Instead, we briefly address a few. One attempt involves appealing to the interests of true rights holders. For example .I don't eat your baby because you have an interest in it and I would not want you violating such an interest of mine. But what if no-one cared about a given infant? Would that make it fair game for any use or abuse? Certainly not. Another problem here is that many people express an interest in the protection of all animals. That would seem to require others to refrain from using or abusing animals. While this result is attractive to.37 the AR community, it certainly weakens the argument that contractarianism justifies our use of animals. Others want to let individuals "ride" until they are capable of respecting the contract. But what of those that will never be capable of doing so, e.g., senile people? And why can we not let animals ride? Some argue a" reduced -right "case. Children get a reduced rights set designed to protect them from themselves, etc. The problem here is that with animals the rights reduction is way out of proportion. We accept that we cannot experiment on infants or kill and eat them due to their reduced rights set, Why then are such extreme uses acceptable for nonhumans? Some argue that is irrelevant whether a given individual can enter into a contract; what is important is their theoretical capacity to do so. But, future generations have the capacity but clearly cannot interact reciprocally with us, so the basis of contractarianism is gutted (unless we assert that we have no moral obligations to leave a habitable world for future generations). Peter Singer asks "Why limit morality to those who have the capacity to enter agreements, if in fact there is no possibility of their ever doing so? There are practical problems with contractarianism as well .For example, what can be our response if an individual renounces participation in any implied moral contracts, and states that he is therefore justified in engaging in what others would call immoral acts? Is there any way for us to reproach him? And what are we to do.38 about violations of the contract? If an individual steals from us , he has broken the contract and we should therefore be released from it .Are we then morally justified in stealing from him ? Or worse? In summary, contractarianism fails because a) it fails to accurately account for our actual, real-world moral acts and motives, b) it sanctions contractual arrangements that most people would see as unjust, C) it fails to account for the considerations we accord to individuals unable to enter into contracts, and d) it has some impractical consequences. Finally, there is a better foundation for ethics-the harm principle. It is simple, universalizeable, devoid of ad hoc devices, and matches our real moral thinking..39
		PRACTICAL ISSUES
	25.	Surely there are more pressing practical problems than AR, such as homelessness; have not you got better things to do?
	4:	Inherent in this question is an assumption that it is more important to help humans than to help nonhumans. Some would dismiss this as a speciesistalist position (see question # 6). It is possible, however, to invoke the scale -of life notion and argue that there is greater suffering and loss associated with cruelty and neglect of humans than with animals. This might appear to constitute a prima-facie case for expending one 's energies for humans rather than nonhumans. However, even if we accept the scale -of -life notion, there are sound reasons for expending time and energy on the issue of rights for nonhuman animals. Many of the consequence of carrying out the AR agenda are highly beneficial to humans. For example, stopping the production and consumption of animal products would result in a significant improvement of the general health of the human population, and destruction of the environment would be greatly reduced. Fostering compassion for animals is likely to pay dividends in terms of a general increase of compassion in human affairs .Tom Regan puts it this way:" the animal rights movement is a part of, not antagonistic to, the human rights movement. The theory that rationally grounds the.40 rights of animals also grounds the rights of humans. Thus those involved in the animal rights movement are partners in the struggle to secure respect for human rights-the rights of women, for example, or minorities, or workers. The animal rights movement is cut from the same moral cloth as these. "Finally, the behavior asked for by the AR agenda involves little expenditure of energy .We are asking people to NOT do things: don't eat meat, don't exploit animals for entertainment, don't wear furs. These negative actions don't interfere with our ability to care for humans. In some cases, they may actually make, more time available for doing so (e.g., time spent hunting or visiting zoos an circuses). Living cruelty -free is not a full -time job; rather, it's a way of life When I shop, I check ingredients and I consider if the product is tested on animals. These things only consume in few minutes of the day. These is ample time left for helping both humans and nonhumans. I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being. Abraham Lincoln (16th U.S. President) To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than of a human being Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher) Our task must be to free ourselves …by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creature and the whole of nature and its beauty. Albert Einstein (physicist, Novel 1921).41
	26.	if every one become vegetarian and gave up keeping pets, what would happen to all animals?
		The animals you eat do not come from the roads or forests. They are forcibly multiplied in factory farms for slaughter. Except for man, left alone, animal populations do not grow uncontrollably. They grow only to that size that can be supported by their natural environment. Nature has herself created a system of checks and balances and it is by killing animals that we are upsetting this balance. For instance in countries where the goat is not eaten you will not find large herds of them. Similarly we do not kill cats to eat; yet they have not taken over the earth. To be a vegetarian is extremely important for the environment and health of not only the individual but of the country, apart from the cruelty it will prevent to thousands of helpless animals. Each meat- eater causes the death of 300 animals a year in the most appalling conditions. Questions by meat-eaters regarding plants also having feelings are raised by a guilty conscience .if he can convince himself that a beetroot suffers as much as a goat, then he might as well carry on eating meat. Plants have life but that is all the more reason to turn vegetarian. It takes 10 Kilos of plants to make one kilo of meat. So that many more plants are hurt as well. Pet dogs and cats are bred by fanciers. Thousnds of dogs and cats are killed by this breeding industry because they do not fit the specifications and thousands are thrown.42 out because their owners are tired of them .If people stop regarding animals as pets and give them a status as companions, the pedigree industry will stop, animals will become more valuable in themselves and will be kept for different reasons.
	27.	Grazing animals on land not suited for agriculture increases the food supply: how can that be considered wrong?
		There are areas in the world where grazing of live stock is possible but agriculture is not .If conditions were such that people living in these areas cannot trade for crops and must raise livestock to survive, few would question the practice. However, such areas are very small in omparison to the fertile and semi-arid regions currently utilized for intensive grazing and they do not appreciably contribute to the world food supply. The real issue is the intensive grazing in the fertile and semiarid regions. The use of such are for livestock raising reduces the world food supply Keith Acker writes as follows in his A Vegetarian Sourcebook: "Land energy and water resources for livestock agriculture range anywhere from 10 th 1000 times greater than those necessary to produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock agriculture does not merely use these resources. It depletes them. This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world 's soil, erosion, groundwater depletion and deforestation-factors now.43 threatening the very basis of our food system are the result of this particularly destructive form of food production." Livestock agriculture is the singal greatest cause of worldwide deforestation both historically and currently. Between 1967 and 1975, two thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest in the United States went to grazing. Between 1950 and 1975 the area of human- created pasture land in Central America more than doubled, almost all of it at the expense of rain forests. It is ironical that far from helping to alleviate the food shortage, meat eating is actually the cause of it. Much of the world 's massive hunger problem could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat consumption of. 38% India's arable land is diverted for fodder for meat animals. If we did not grow the animals this land could be used for cultivation. One acre of land can produce 12,000 kg.of rice or just 120 kg. of meat .It takes 10 kg.of grain to produces 1 kg. of meat. Each animal raised for slaughter eats 10 times as many plants as any human. Meat eating is the single greatest cause of deforestation worldwide. Forests are increasingly being cleared for cropland to feed herds raised for slaughter .As the forest disappears so too does our wildlife .So meat eaters destroy both plant and animal life. People complain about the destruction of forests, the denudation of hillsides, the drying up natural springs and water sources. How ever none of these people link their own meat eating to the 180 million hectares of.44 denuded wasteland in India. Herds that are raised for slaughter are grazed in forests, on roadsides, on village panchyat and government land that becomes totally ravaged by the animal and has to be replanted by the government. Most of our sanctuaries are severely threatened because of the huge inflow of cattle and goats that consume all the young shoots and whose owners murder the wild animals to protect their own flock .70% of all planting efforts by forest departments are doomed to failure because the grazing animals eat the young plant .A single sheep or goat eats the equivalent of 4 hectares year. Multiply that with 450 million goats and that is the amount of land we are losing per year. 180 million hectares have become barren due to forcibly raised goats. As the hillsides becomes bare due to goat grazing, the water dries up and whole hill systems like the Aravallis become deserts creating nomads out of well settled farmers .It takes 3 acres to feed a chicken. 37% of our land is now growing fodder for meat animals .In India if 10% of people gave up eating meat, there would be enough grain freed to feed 4 crore people. In India the milk and meat industries are responsible for huge amounts of deforestation. Each goat eats an average of 10 acres before it is killed .The government spends Rs .6000 on regreening one acre which means each goat is costing this country Rs.60, 000-far more than its meat will ever fetch .Not only that but we pay in terms of water shortage and pollution as well. Animal waste and excreta are poured unfiltered into our lakes and streams..45 The production of one pound of meat requires 2500 gallons of water. More water is spent to feed one meat eater in one month than to feed a vegetarian in one year. It is a misconception that meat export earns the country money. It actually causes both economic and ecological damage. When we export cattle, we lose fertilizer, fuel, draught power, milk, natural pesticide, leather (because of cattle depletion). Slaughter causes water pollution. Everyday the Idgah slaughterhouse in Delhi alone produces 15 thousands liters of blood that goes into Yamuna river. Effluent plants costs money .The land used for growing fodder is diverted from agriculture. Jungle are denuded by herds raised for slaughter. Regreeing areas again costs money. Cruelty is as much an economic issue as it is a moral one. When you strike nature, nature strikes back. Animals are necessary for our own survival. When you protect them, you yourself. Millions of people are losing their jobs and because of meat eaters. Famine is a direct consequence of meat eating. Meat eaters eat 10 times as many plants as vegetarians. After all hoe does a goat /pig/chicken put on its flesh? By eating plants. 10 kilos of plants / grains make one kilo of meat .10 tonnes of plants. 10 kilos of plant/grains provide one tonne of meat. So if you eat meat you ingest a far greater amount of plants than if you just ate plants. Meat eating is the single greatest cause of deforestation as herds raised for slaughter are fattened on our forests laying waste to millions of acres. As the forests disappear so too does.46 our wild life -so meat eaters destroy both plant and animal life .The tiger in fact is being killed not by poachers but by goatherds and by goats as they denude his habitat and poison his waterholes so that they can have the forest to themselves without fear. The leather trade has destroyed the Ganges by throwing effluents into it and India has taken a loan of 500 million pounds to help clean it -a loan that you and I have to pay back with increasing prices of all services. There is an argument that meat provides jobs and foreign exchange. This is utter rubbish. People who sell meat can just as easily sell vegetables and grains. Meat selling is not a skilled job that requires training or talent. When you use a car do you worry that it will throw the tangawallah out of business? Each person must do what is good for his body and soul. Scientists all over the world have come to the conclusion that meat eating is the single greatest destructive economic activity. If you want to save this country's green cover, increase the oxygen in the air, and restore the fresh water in the ground, start with giving up meat. Everything else comes later.
	28.	If we try to eliminate all animals' products, we will be moving back to the Stone Age; who wants that?
		On the contrary! It is a dependency upon animal products that could be seen as returning us to the.47 technologies and mind set of the Stone Age .For example, Stone Age people had to wear furs in Northern climates to avoid freezing. That is no longer the case, thanks to central heating and the ready availability of plenty of good plant and human - made fabrics. If we are to characterize the modern age, it could be in terms of the greater freedoms and options made possible by technological advance and social progress. The Stone Age people had few options and so were forced to rely upon animals for food clothing, and material for their implements. Today, we have an abundance of choices for their implements. Today we have abundances of choices for better foods, warmer clothing, and more efficient materials, none of which need depend upon the killing of animals. The only Stone Age we are in any danger of entering is that constituted by the continuous destruction of animals' habitats in favor of the cement concrete jungle!
	29.	It's virtually impossible to eliminate all animal products from one's consumption; what is the point if you still cause animal death without knowing it?
		Yes, it is very difficult to eliminate all animal products from one's consumption, just as it is impossible to eliminate all accidental killing and infliction of harm that results from our activities. But this cannot justify making it "open season " for any kind of abuse of animals..48 The reasonable goal, given the realities, is to minimize the harms one causes. The point, then is that a great deal of suffering is prevented.
	30.	Wouldn't many customs and traditions, as well as jobs, be lost if we stopped using animals?
		Consider first the issue of customs and traditions. The truth is that some customs and traditions deserve to die out. Examples such as untouchability, suttee thugee, smuggling and piracy abound throughout history: To these the AR supporters add animal exploitation and enslavement. The human animal is an almost infinitely adaptable organism .The loss of the customs listed above has not resulted in any lasting harm to humankind. The same can be confidently predicted for the elimination of animal exploitation. In fact, humankind would likely benefit from a quantum leap of compassion in human affairs. As far as jobs are concerned, the economic aspects are discussed in question #31. It remains to point out that for a human, what is at stake is a job, which can be replaced with one less morally dubious. What is at stake for an animal is the elimination of torture and exploitation, and the possibility for a life of happiness, free from human oppression and brutality. 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.49 prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times. Isaac Bashevis Singer (author, Nobel 1978)
	31.	The animal product industries are big business; wouldn't the economy be crippled if they all stopped?
		One cannot justify an action based on its profitability. Many crimes and practices that we view repugnant have been or continue to be profitable: the slave trade, sale of child brides, drug dealing, scams of all sorts, prostitution, child pornography. A good example of this, and one that points up another key consideration is the tobacco industry. It is a multibillion- dollar industry, yet vigorous efforts are proceeding on many fronts to put it out of business. The main problem with it lies in its side-effects, i.e., the massive health consequences and death that it produces, which easily outweigh the immediate profitability. There are side effects to animal exploitation also. Among the most significant are the pollution and deforestation associated with large- scale animal farming. As we see in question #27, these current practices constitute a nonsustainable use of the planet's resources. It is more likely true that the economy will be crippled if the practices continue! The Indian forests continue to be depleted due to over grazing and felling. Water depletion and water pollution is also increasing on account of the polluting industries such as leather..50 Finally, the profits associated with the animal industries stem from market demand and affluence. There is no reason to suppose that this demand cannot be gradually redirected into other industries. Instead of prime beef we can prime artichokes, or prime pasta, etc. Humanity's demand for gourmet food will not vanish with the meat. Similarly, the jobs associated with the animal industries can be gradually redirected into the industries that would spring up to replace the animal industries. (Vice president Gore made a similar point in reference to complaints concerning loss of jobs if logging was halted. He commented that the environmental movement would open up a huge area for jobs that had hereto/ fore been unavailable.) 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 Albert Einstein (physicist, Nobel 1921).51
		ARGUMENTS FROM BIOLOGY
	32.	Humans are at the pinnacle of evolution; doesn't that give them the right to use animals as they wish?
		This is one of many arguments that attempt to draw ethical conclusions from scientific observations. In this case, the science is shaky, and the ethical conclusion is dubious. Let us first examine the science. The questioner's view is that evolution has created a linear ranking of general fitness, a ladder if you will, with insects and other " lower" species at the bottom, and humans (of course!) at the top. This idea originated as part of a wider, now discredited evolutionary system called Lamarckism. Charles Darwin's discovery of natural selection overturned this system. Darwin's picture, instead, is of a "radiating bush" of species, with each evolving to adapt more closely to its environment, along its own radius. Under this view, the idea of a pinnacle becomes unclear: yes, humans have adapted well to their niche (though many would dispute this, asserting the nonsustainable nature of our use of the planet's resources), but so have bacteria adapted well to their niche. Can we really say that humans are better adapted to their niche than bacteria, and would it mean anything when the niches are so different? Probably, what the questioner has in mind in using the word " pinnacle" is that humans excel in some particular.52 trait, and that a scale can be created relative to this trait. For example, on a scale of mental capability, humans stand well above bacteria. But a different choice of traits can lead to very different results. Bacteria stand "at pinnacle" when one looks at reproductive fecundity. Birds stand "at the pinnacle" when one looks at flight. Now let us examine the ethics. Leaving aside the dubious ideas of pinnacle of evolution, let us accept that humans are ranked at the top on scale intelligence. Does this give us the right to do as we please with animals, simply on account of their being less brainy? If we say yes, we open a Pandora's box of problems for our/ selves. Does this mean that more intelligent humans can also exploit less intelligent humans as they wish (shall we be slaves to the Einsteins of the world)? Considering a different trait, can the physically superior abuse the weak? Only amorally callous person would agree with this general principle.
	33.	Humans are at the top of the food chain; aren't they therefore justified in killing and eating anything?
		No; otherwise, potential cannibals in our society could claim the same defense for their practice. That we can do something doesn't mean that it is right to do so. We have a lot of power over other creatures, but with great powers come even greater responsibilities, as any parent will testify..53 Humans are at the top of the food chain because they CHOOSE to eat nonhuman animals. There is thus a suggestion of tautology in the questioner 's positions. If we chose not to eat animals, we would not be at the top of the food chain. The idea that superiority in a trait confers rights over the inferior is disposed of in question #32.
	34.	Animals are just machines; why worry about them?
		Centuries ago the philosopher Rene Descartes developed the idea that all nonhuman animals are automatons that cannot feel pain. Followers of Descartes believed that if an animal cried out this was just a reflex, the sort of reaction one might get from a mechanical doll. Consequently, they saw no reason not to experiment on animals without anesthetics. Horrified observers were admonished to pay no attention to the screams of the animal subjects. This idea is now refuted by modern science. Animals are no more "mere machines" than are human beings. Everything science has learned about other spices points out the biological similarities between humans and nonhumans. As Charles Darwin wrote, the differences between humans and other animals are differences of degree, not differences of kind. Since both humans and nonhumans evolved over millions of years and share similar nervous systems and other organs, there is no reason to think we do not share a similar mental and.54 emotional life with other animal spices (especially mammals). Even the European parliament has recognized animals as sentient beings.
	35.	In Nature, animals kills and eats each other; so why should it be wrong for humans?
		Predatory animals must kill to eat. Humans, in contrast, have a choice; they need not eat meat to survive. Humans differ from nonhuman animals in being capable of conceiving of, and acting in accordance with, a system of morals; therefore, we cannot seek moral guidance or precedent from nonhuman animals. The AR philosophy asserts that it is just as wrong for a human to kill and eat a sentient nonhuman, as it is to kill and eat sentient human. To demonstrate the absurdity of seeking moral precedents from nonhuman animals, consider the following variants of the question: "In Nature, animals steal food from each other; so why should it be wrong for humans [to steal]?" "In Nature, animals kill and eat humans; so why should it be wrong for humans [to kill and eat humans]?"
	36.	Natural selection and Darwinism are at work in the world; doesn't that mean it's unrealistic to try to overcome such forces?
		Assuming that Animal Rights concepts somehow clash with Darwinion forces, the questioner must stand.55 accused of selective moral fatalism: our sense of morality is clearly not modeled on the laws of natural selection. Why, then, feel helpless before some of its effects and not before others? Male-dominance, xenophobia, and war -mongering are present in many human societies. Should we venture that some mysterious, universal forces must be at work behind them, and that all attempts at quelling such tendencies should be abandoned? Or, more directly, when people become sick do we abandon them because "survival of the fittest " demands it? We do not abandon them; and we do not agonize about trying to overcome natural selection. There is no reason to believe that the practical implications of the Animal Rights philosophy are maladaptive for humans. On the contrary, and for reasons explained elsewhere in this FAQ, respecting the rights of animals would yield beneficial side- effects for human, such as more- sustainable agricultural practices, and better environmental and health-care polices. The advent of Darwinism led to a substitution of the idea of individual organisms for the old idea of immutable species. The moral individualism implied by AR philosophy substitutes the idea that organisms should be treated according to their individuals capacities for the (old) idea that it is the species of the animal that counts. Thus, moral individualism actually fits well with evolutionary theory..56 Also Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest only means the fittest within a species i.e., a strong pup has better chances of survival than a runt. It, at no point, talks about the deliberate elimination of a "weaker" species by a" stronger "one.
	37.	Isn't AR opposed to environmental philosophy (as describe, for example, in Deep Ecology")?
		No. It should be declared be clear from many of the answers include in this FAQ, and from perusal of the literature that the philosophy and goals of AR are complimentary to the goals of the mainstream environmental movement. Michael W. Fox sees AR and environmentalism as two aspects of a dialectic that reconciles concerns for the rights of individuals (human and nonhuman) with concerns for the integrity of the biosphere. Some argue that a morality based o individual rights is necessarily opposed to one based on holistic environmental views, e.g., the sanctity of the biosphere. However, an environmental ethic that attributes some form of rights to all individuals, including inanimate ones, can be developed. Such an ethic, by showing respect for the individuals that make up the biosphere, would also show respect for the biosphere as a whole, thus achieving the aims of holistic environmentalism. It is clear that a rights view is not necessarily in conflict with a holistic view..57 In reference to the concept of deep ecology and the claim that it bears negatively on AR, Fox believes such claims to be unfounded. The following text is excerpted from "Inhumane Society ", by Micheal W.Fox: "Deep ecologists support the philosophy of preserving the natural abundance and diversity of plants and animals in natural ecosystems …The deep ecologists should oppose the industrialized, nonsubsistence exploitation of wildlife because...it is fundamentally unsound ecologically, because by favoring some species over others, population imbalances and extinctions of undesired species would be inevitable." "Arne Naess (… arguably the founder of the deep eclogy movement)…. states: The intuition of biocentric equality is that all things in the biosphere have an equal right to live and blossom and to reach their own forms of unfolding and self realization…" Michael W. Fox (Vice President of HSUS).58
		INSECTS AND PLANTS
	38.	What about insects? Do they rights too?
		Before considering the issue of rights, let us firstaddress the question "What about insects?". Strictly speaking, insects are small invertebrate animals of the class. Insect a, having an adult stage characterized by three pairs of legs, a segmented body with three major divisions, and usually two pairs of wings. We'll adopt the looser definition, which includes like similar invertebrate animals such as spiders centipedes, and ticks Insects have a ganglionic nervous system, in contrast to the central nervous system of vertebrates. Such a system is characterized by local aggregates of neurons, called ganglia, that are associated with, and specialized for, the body segment with which they are co-located. There are interconnections between ganglia but these connections function not so much as global integrating pathway, but rather for local segmental coordination. For example, the waves of leg motion that propagate along the body of a centipede are mediated by the intersegmental connections. In some species the cephalic ganglia are large and complex enough to support very complex behavior (e.g., the lobster and octopus) .The cuttlefish (not an insect but another invertebrate with a ganglion nervous system) is claimed by some to be about as intelligent as dog. Insects are capable of primitive learning and do exhibit what many would characterize as intelligence. Spiders are known for their skills and craftiness; whether this can be dismissed,.59 as instinct is arguable. Certainly, bees can learn. When offered a reward from a perch of a certain color, they return first to perches of that color. They also learn the location of food and transmit that information to their colleagues. In addition to a primitive mental life as described above, there is some evidence that insects can experience pain and suffering .The earthworm nervous system, for example, secretes an opiate substance when the earthworm is injured. Similar responses are seen in vertebrates and are generally accepted to be a mechanism for the attenuation of pain. On the other hand, the opiates are also implicated in functions not associated with analgesia, such as thermoregulation and appetite control. Nevertheless, the association of secretion with tissue injury is highly Suggestive. Earthworms also wriggle quite vigorously when impaled on a hook. In possible opposition to this are other observations .For example, the abdomen of a feeding wasp can be clipped off and the head may go on sucking (presumably in no distress?). Singer quotes three criteria for deciding if an organism has the capacity to suffer from pain: 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, if only in primitive way. Now we are equipped to tackle the issue of insect right. First, one might argue that the issue is not so.60 compelling as for other animals because industries are not built around the exploitation of insects. But this is untrue; large industries are built around honey production, silk production, and cochineal/carmine production, and, of course, mass insect death results from our use of insecticides. Even if the argument were true, it should not prevent us from attempting to be consistent in the application of our principles to all animals. Insects are a part of the Animal Kingdom and some special arguments would be the Animal Kingdom and special arguments would be required to exclude them from the general AR argument. Some would draw a line at some level of complexity of the nervous system, e.g., only animals capable of operant conditioning needs be enfranchised, Others may quarrel with this line and place it elsewhere. Some may postulate a scale of life with an ascending capacity to feel pain and suffer. They might also mark a cut- off on the scale, below which rights are not actively asserted. Is the cut-off above insects and the lower invertebrates? Or should there be no cut-off? This is one of the issues still being actively debated in the AR community. People who strive to live without cruelty will attempt to push the line back as far a possible, giving the benefit of the doubt where there is doubt. Certainly, one can avoid unnecessary cruelty to insects' .the practical issue involved in enfranchising insects are dealt with the following two questions..61 I want to realize brotherhood or identity not merely with the beings called human, but I want to realize identity with all life, even with such things as crawl upon earth. Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher) What is that should trace the insuperable line? …The question is not, Can they reason? Nor; can they talk? but, can they suffer? Jeremy Bentham (philosopher)
	39.	Do I have to be careful not to walk on ants?
		The Jains of India would say yes! Some of their more devout members wear gauze to masks to avoid inhaling and killing small insects and microbes. Regardless of how careful we are, we will cause some suffering as a side effect of living .The goal is to avoid unnecessary suffering and to minimize the suffering we cause. This is a far cry from wanton, intentional infliction of cruelty. I refer here to the habit of some of pulling off insects' wings for fun, or of torching a congregation of ants for pleasure. This question is an issue for the individual conscience to decide. Perhaps one need not walk around looking out for ants on the ground, but should one be seen and it is easy to alter one's stride to avoid it, where is the harm in doing so?.62
	40.	There is some evidence of consciousness in insects; aren't you descending to absurdity to tell people not to kill insects?
		Enfranchising insects does not mean it is never justifiable to kill them. As with all treats to a being, the rule of self- defense applies .If insects are threatening one's well- being in a nontrivial way, AR philosophy would not assert that it is wrong to eliminate them. Pesticides and herbicides are often used for mass often used for mass destruction of all insect populations. While this might be defended on the self defense principle, one should be aware of the significant adverse impact on the environment, on other non-threatening animals, and indeed on our own health. It is not absurd to attempt to minimize the amount of suffering that we inflict or cause. We should begin to feel for the flies and other insects struggling to be free from sticky flyaper. There are humane alternatives. Michael W. Fox (Vice-President of HSUS)
	41.	But how can you prove that plants don't feel pain?
		The central thesis of AR is that to the extent other nimals share with us certain morally relevant attributes, then to that extent we confer upon them due regard and concern. The two attributes that are relevant are: a) our capacity for pain and suffering, b) the capacity for being the "subject-of-a-life", i.e., being such that it matters to one whether one's life fares well or ill. Both these qualities implies the existence of a state consciousness. But, how do we attribute the existence of a state consciousness to other animals, or even to ourselves for.64 that matter? We cannot infer the presence of felt pain simply by the presence of a class of behaviors that are functional for an organism's amelioration or avoidance of noxious stimuli. Thermostats obviously react to thermal changes in the environment and respond in a functionally appropriate manner to restore an initial "preferred " state. We would be foolish, however, to attribute to thermostat a capability to " sense" or "feel" some kind of thermal "pain". Clearly, the behavioural criterion of even functional avoidance/defense reactions is simply not sufficient nor even necessary for the proper attribution of pain as a felt mental state. Science, including the biological sciences, are committed to the working assumption of scientific materialism or physicalism. We must then start with generally accepted scientific assumption that matter is the only existent or real primordial constituent of the universe. The existence of emergent or functional qualities like that of mind, consciousness, and feeling but all such qualities are dependent upon the existence of organized matter. If there is no hardware, there is nothing for the software to run on. If there is no intact, living brain, there is no mind. Thus cognitive functions like consciousness and mind are seen as emergent properties of sufficiently.65 organized matter. Just as breathing is a function of a complex system of organs referred to as the respiratory system, so too is consciousness a function of the immensely complex in/ formation-processing capabilities of a central nervous system. It is possible, in theory, that future computers, given a sufficiently complex and orderly organization of hardware and clever software, could exhibit the requisite emergent qualities. While such computers do not exist, we DO know that certain living organisms on this planet possess the requisites complexity of specialized and highly organized structure for the emergence mantal states. In theory, plants could possess a mental state like pain, but if, and only if, there were a requisite complexity of organized plant tissue that could serve to instantiate the higher order mental states of consciousness and felt pain. There is no morphological evidence that such complexity of tissue exists in plants. Plants lack the specialized structures required for emergence of mental states. This is not to say that they cannot exhibit complex reactions, but we are simply over-interpreting such reactions if we designate them as "felt pain". With respect to all mammals, birds and reptiles, we know that they posses a sufficiently complex neural structure to enable felt pain an evolutionary need for such consciously felt states. They possess complex and specialized sense organs, they possess complex and specialized structure for processing information and for.66 centrally orchestrating appropriate behavior in accordance with mental representations, integrations, and reorganizations of that information. The proper attribution of felt pain in these animals is well justified. It is not for plants, by any stretch of the imagination. The absurdity (and often disingenuity) of the plant-pain promoters can be easily exposed by asking them the following two questions:
		1. Do you agree that animals like dog and cats should receive pain-killing drugs prior to surgery? 2. Do you believe that plants should receive pain-killing drugs prior to pruning?
	43.	Aren't there studies that show that plants can scream, etc.?
		How can something without a vocal apparatus scream? Perhaps the questioner intends to suggest that plant somehow express feeling or emotions. But what about plant responses to insect invasion? The responses consist of changes in the electrical conductivity of their leaves. Does this suggest that plants "feel" pain? No published book or paper in a scientific journal has been cited as indeed making this claim that " plants feel pain". There is interesting data suggesting that plant react to local tissue damage and even emit signaling molecules serving to stimulate chemical defenses of nearby plants. But how is this relevant to the claim that.67 plants feel and suffer from pain? Where are the replicated experiments and peer-reviewed citations for this putative fact? There are none. Let us for the sake of argument; consider the form of logic employed by the plant-pain promoters: Premise 1: Plants are responsive to "sense" impression. Premise 2: As defined in the dictionary, anything responsive to sense impressions is sentiment. Conclusion1: Plants are sentiment. Premise 3: Sentient beings are conscious of sense impressions. Conclusion 2: Plants are conscious of sense impressions. Premise 4: To be conscious of noxious stimuli is unpleasant. Conclusion 3: Noxious stimuli to plants are unpleasant, i.e., painful. There is a major logical sleight-of-hand here. The meaning of the term "sentient" changes between premise 2 ("responsive to sense impressions") and premise 3 ("conscious of sense impressions"). Thus, equivocation on the usage of "sentient" is used to bootleg the false.68 conclusion 3.There is also an equivocation on the meaning of "painful" ("unpleasant" versus the commonly understood meaning). If we can bring ourselves to momentarily assume that plants feel pain, then we can easily argue that by eliminating animal farming, we reduce the total pain inflicted on plants, leading to the ironic conclusion that plant pain supports the AR position. This is discussed in more detail in question # 45.
	44.	But even if plants don't feel pain aren't you depriving them of their life? Why isn't that enough to accord moral status to plants?
		The philosophy of Animal Rights is generally regarded as encompassing only sentient creatures. Plants are just one of many non-sentient, living creatures. To remain consistent, granting moral status to plants would lead one to grant it to all life. It may be thought that philosophy encompassing all life would be best, but granting moral status to all living creatures leads to rather implausible views. For example, concern for life would lead one to oppose the distribution of spermicides, even to overpopulated Third world countries. The morality of any sexual intercourse could be questioned as well, since thousands of sperm cells die in each act. Also, the sheer variety of life forms creates difficulties; for example, arguments have been made to show that some computer.69 programs- such as computer viruses- may well be called alive. Should one grant them moral status? There are questions even in the case of plants. If killing plants is wrong, why isn't merely damaging them in some other way also wrong? Is trimming hedges wrong? The problems raised above are not attempts to discourage efforts to develop an ethics of the environment. They simply point out that according moral status to all living creatures is fraught with difficulties. Nevertheless, some people do, indeed, argue that the taking of life should be minimized where possible; this constitutes a kind of moral status for life. Interestingly, such a view, far from undermining the AR view, actually supports it. To see why, refer to question #45.
	45.	Isn't better to eat animals, because that way you kill the least number of living beings.
		There are at least two problems with this question. First, there is the assumption that killing is the factor sought to be minimized, but as explained in question #23, killing is not the central concern of AR; rather, it is pain and suffering, neither of which a can be attributed to plants. Second, the questioner overlooks that livestock must be raised on a diet of plant foods, so consumption of animals is actually a once-removed consumption of plants .The twist, of course, is that passing plants through animals is a very inefficient process; losses of up to 80-90 percent.70 are typical. Thus, it could be argued that, if one's concern is for killing, per se, then the vegetarian diet is preferable (at least for today's predominant feedlot paradigm).
	46.	Nature is continuum; doesn't that mean you cannot draw a line, and where you draw yours is no better than where I draw mine?
		Most people will accept that the diversity of Nature is such that one is effectively faced with a continuum. Charles Darwin was right to state that differences are of degree, not kind. One should take, however. With the belief that this means that line cannot be drawn for the purpose of granting rights. For example, while there is continuum in the use of force, from the gentle nudge of the adoring mother to the hellish treatment visited upon concentration camp prisoners, clearly human rights are violated in one case and not the other. People accept that the ethical buck stops somewhere between the two extremes. Similarly, while it is true that the qualities relevant to the attribution of rights are found to varying extents in members of the animal kingdom, one is entitled to draw the line somewhere. After all society does it as well; today, it draws the line just below humans. Now, such line (below humans) cannot be logically defensible, since some creatures are excluded that possess the relevant qualities to a greater degree than current right-holders.71 (for example, a normal adult chimpanzee has a "higher" mental life than a human in a coma, yet we still protect only the human from medical experimentation). Therefore, any line that is drawn must allow some nonhuman animals to quality as rights-holders. Moreover, the difficulty of drawing a line does not by itself justify drawing one the at the wrong place. On the contrary this difficulty means that from an ethical point of view, the line should be drawn a) carefully, and b) conservatively. Because the speciesist line held by AR opponents 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 most 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. In addition, it should be noted that when a new line is drawn that is more in step with ethical truth (something quite easy to do), in no way should one feel that the wanton destruction of non rights holders is thereby encouraged. It is desirable that moral climate be created that gives due consideration to the interests and welfare of all creatures, whether they are rights-holders or not. The idea that a continuum makes drawing a line impossible or that one line is therefore no better than.72 another is easily refuted. For example, the alcohol concentration in the blood is a continuum, but society draws a line at 0.10 percent for drunk driving and clearly that is a better line than one drawn at, say, 0.00000001 percent..73
		FARMING
	47.	The animal are killed so fast that they don't feel any pain or even know they're being killed; what's wrong with that.
		This view can only maintained by those unfamiliar with modern meat production methods. Great stress occurs during transport in which millions die miserably each year. And the conveyor-belt approach to the slaughtering process causes the animals to struggle for their lives as they experience the agony of the fear of death. Only people who have never watched the process can be believe that don't feel any pain or aren't aware that they're being killed. One point that many people are unaware of is that poultry is exempted from the requirements of the Human Slaughter Act. Egg-laying hens are typically not stunned before slaughter. Also exempt from the act are animals killed under kosher conditions (see question #48). But even if no suffering were involved, the killing of sensitive, intelligent animal on a vast scale (over six billion each year in the U.S alone) cannot be regarded as morally correct, especially since today it is demonstrably clear that eating animal flesh is not only unnecessary but even harmful for people. Fellow- mammals are not like corn or carrots. To treat them as if they were is to perpetuate an impoverished morality, which is based not on rationality but merely tradition..74 Even the climatic killing process itself is not so clean as one is led to believe. Every method carries strong doubts about its "humaneness". For example, consider electrocution. We routinely give anesthetics to people receiving electro-shock therapy due to its painful effects. Consider the pole-axe. It requires great skill to deliver a perfect, instantly fatal blow. Few possess the skill, and many animals suffer from the ineptness with which the process is administered. Consider kosher slaughter, where an animal is hoisted and bled to death without prior stunning. Often joints are ruptured during the travel and hoisting, and the death is slow, conscious one. The idea of a clean, painless kill is a fantasy promulgated by those with a vested interest in the continuance of the practices. In Indian slaughterhouses animals merely have their throats slit and writhe to death in 2 hours.
	48.	5: What is factory farming, and what is wrong with it?.
		Factory farming is an industrial process that applies the philosophy and practices of mass production to animal farming. Animals are considered not as individual sentient beings, but rather as a means to an end-eggs, meat, leather, etc. The objective is to maximize output and profit. The animals are manipulated through breeding, feeding, confinement and chemicals to lay eggs faster, fatten more quickly, or make leaner meat. Costs are minimized by recycling carcasses through feed, minimizing unit space, not providing bedding (which gets soiled and need cleaning), and other practices..75 Battery-hen egg production is perhaps the most publicized form. Hens are "maintained" in cages of minimal size, allowing for little or no movement and no expression of natural behavior patterns. Hens are painfully debeaked and sometimes declawed to protect others in the cramped cage. There are no floors to the cages, so that excrement can fall through onto a tray - the hens therefore are standing on wire. Cages are stacked on top of each other in long rows, are kept inside climate-controlled barn. The hens are then used as a mechanism for turning feed into eggs. After a short, miserable life they are processed as boiler chickens or recycled. Other typical factory framing techniques are used in pig production, where animals are kept in concrete pens with no straw or earth, unable to move than a few inches, to ensure the "best" pork. When sows litter, piglets are kept so the only contact between the sow and piglets is access to the teats. The production of veal calves is a similar restraining process. The calves are kept in narrow crates 5' x 2' which prevent them from turning; they can only stand or lie down. They are kept in darkness much of the time with no contact with other animals. They are given no bedding (in case they try to eat it) and are fed only a liquid diet devoid of iron and fiber to keep their flesh anemic and pale. After 3-5 month they are slaughtered. Factory framing distresses people because of the treatment of the animals; they are kept in unnatural conditions in terms of space, possible behaviors, and.76 interactions with other animals. Keeping animals in these circumstances is not only cruel to animals, but diminishes the humanity of those involved, from production to consumption. In addition, the use of chemicals and hormones to maximize yields, reduce health problems in the animals, and speed production may also be harmful to human consumers. Dairy farming also qualifies as factory farming. Here are some salient facts * Over 170,000 calves die each year due to poor husbandry and appalling treatment at markets. * Cows are milked for 10 months and produce 10 times the milk a calf would take naturally. Mastitis (udder inflammation) frequently results. * Cows are fed a high-protein diet to increase yield; often even this is not enough and the cow is forced to break down body tissues, leading to acidosis and consequent lameness. About 25 percent of cows are afflicted. * At about 5 years of age, the cow is spent and exhausted and is slaughtered. The normal life span is about 20 years..77 Finally, we cannot accept that even if it were not possible to factory farm cattle, that therefore it is morally acceptable to kill and eat them. David Cowles-Hamar puts in this way: "The suggestion that animals should pay for their freedom with their lives is moral nonsense."
	49.	But isn't it true that cows won't produce milk (or chickens lay eggs) if they are not content?
		This is simply untrue. Lactation is a physiological response that follows giving birth. The cow cannot avoid giving milk any more than she can avoid producing urine. The same is true of chickens and egg -laying; the egg output is manipulated to a high level by selective breeding, carefully regulated conditions that simulate a continuous summer season, hormones, and controlled diet. To drive this point home further, consider that over the last five decades, the conditions for egg-laying chickens have become increasingly unnatural and confining (see question#48), yet the egg output has increased many times over. Chickens will even continue to lay when severely injured; they simply cannot help it.
	50.	Don't hens lays unfertilized eggs that would otherwise be wasted?
		Yes, but that is no justification for imposing barbaric and cruel regimes on them designed to artificially boost their egg production Nor is free-range egg production as idyllic as one might like to think (see question # 53)..78 Also, such a source of eggs can satisfy only a tiny fraction of the demand.
	51.	But isn't it true that the animals have never known anything better?
		If someone bred a race of humans for slavery, would you accept their excuse that the slaves have never known anything better? The point is that there IS something better, and they are being deprived of it. Beagles who have grown in sterile conditions and then let free from their laboratory cages immediately, know what freedom is. Not having anything better does not alleviate the suffering of the animal. Its fundamental desire remain and it is the frustration of those desires that is a great part of its suffering. There are so many examples: the diary cow who is never allowed to raise her young, the battery hen who can never walk or stretch her wings, the sow who can never build a nest or root for food in the forest litter, etc. Eventually we frustrate the animal's most fundamental desire of all - to live.
	52.	Don't farmers know better than city-dwelling people about how to treat animals?
		This view is often out forward by farmers (and their family members). Typically they claim that, by virtue of proximity to their farmed animals, they possess some special knowledge. When pressed to present this.79 knowledge, and to show how it can justify their exploitation of animals or discount the animals' pain and suffering, only the tired arguments addressed in this FAQ come forth. In short, there is no "special knowledge ". One should also remember that those farmers who exploit animals have a strong vested interest in the continuance of their practices. Would one assert that a logger knows best about how the forests should be treated? Technically, this argument is an instance of the "genetic fallacy". Ideas should be evaluated on their own terms, not by reference to the originators.
	53.	Can't we just eat free-range products?
		The term "free-range " is used to indicate a production method in when the animals are (allegedly) not factory-farmed but, instead, are provided with conditions that allow them to fully express their natural behavior. Some people feel that free-range products are thus ethically acceptable. There are two cases to be considered: first, the case where free-range animal itself is slaughtered for use, and second, the case where the free-range animal provides a product (typically, hens providing eggs, or cows providing milk). Common to both cases is a problem with misrepresentation of conditions as "free-range ". Much of what passes for free -range is hardly any better than standard factory farming; a visit to a large "free-range egg farm" makes that obvious..80 Nutritionally, free-range products are no better than their factory-farmed equivalents, which are wholly or partly responsible for a list of diseases as long as your arm. For the case of free-range animals slaughtered for use, we must ask why should a free-range animal be any more deserving of an unnecessary death than any other animal? Throughout this FAQ, we have argued that animals have a right to live free from human brutality. Our brutality cannot be excused by our provision of a short happy life. David Cowles-Hamar puts it this way: "The suggestion that animals should pay for their freedom with their lives is moral nonsense. "Another thing to think about is the couple described at the end of question#15. Their babies are free-range, so it's OK to eat them, right? For the case of products from free-range animals, we can identify at least four problems: 1) it remains an inefficient use of food resources, 2) it is still environmentally damaging, 3) animals are killed off as soon as they become "unproductive", and 4) the animals must be replaced; the nonproductive males are killed or go to factory farms (the worst instance of this is the fate of male calves born to dairy cows; many go for veal production). What's wrong with free-range eggs? To get laying hens you must have fertile eggs and half of the eggs will hatch into male chicks. These are killed at once (by gassing.81 crushing, suffocation, decompression, or drowning), or raised as "table birds " (usually in broiler houses) and slaughtered as soon as they reach an economic weight. So, for every free-range hen scratching around the garden or farm (who, if she were able to bargain, might pay rent with her daily infertile egg), a corresponding male from her batch is enduring life in a broiler house or has already been subjected to slaughter or thrown away to die. Every year in Britain alone, more than 35 million day-old male chicks are killed. They are mainly used for fertilizer or dumped in landfill sites. The hens are slaughtered as soon as their production drops (usually after two years; their natural life span is 5- 7 years). Also, be aware that many sites classified as free-range aren't really free-range; they are just massive barns with access to the outside. Since the food and light are inside, the hens rarely venture outside.
	54.	Anything wrong with honey?
		Bees are often killed in the production of honey, in the worst case the whole hive may be destroyed if the keeper doesn't wish to protect them over the winter. Not all beekeepers do this, but the general practice is one that embodies the attitude that living things are mere material and have no intrinsic value of their 1own other than what commercial value we can wrench from them. Artificial insemination involving death of the male is now also the norm for generation of new queen bees. The favored method of obtaining bee sperm is by puling off the insect's.82 head (decapitation sends an electrical impulse to the nervous system which causes sexual arousal). The lower half of the headless bee is then squeezed to make it ejaculate .The resulting liquid is collected in a hypodermic syringe.
	55.	Don't crop harvest techniques and transportation, etc, lead to the death of animals?
		The questioner's probable follow-up is to assert that since we perform actions that result in the death of animals for producing crops, a form of food, we should therefore not condemn actions (i.e., raising and slaughter) that result in the death of animals for producing meat, another form of food. How do we confront this argument? It is clear that incidental (or accidental, unintended) deaths of animals result from crop agriculture. It is equally clear that intentional deaths of animals result from animal agriculture. Our acceptance of acts that lead to incidental deaths does not require the acceptance of acts that lead to intentional deaths. (A possible measure of intentionally is to ask if the success of the enterprise is measured by the extent of the result .In our case, the success of crop agriculture is not measured by the number of accidental deaths; in animal agriculture, conversely, the success of the enterprise is directly measured by the number of animals produced for slaughter and consumption.) Having shown that the movement from incidental to intentional is not justified, we can still ask what justifies.83 even incidental deaths. We must realize that the question does not bear on Animal Rights specifically, but applies to morality generally. The answer, stripped to its essentials, is that the rights of innocents can be overridden in certain circumstances. If rights are genuinely in conflict, a reasonable principle is to violate the rights of the fewest. Nevertheless, when such an overriding of the right of innocents is done, there is a responsibility to ensure that the harm is minimized. Certainly, crop agriculture is preferable to animal agriculture in this regard. In the latter case, we have the added incidental harm due to the much greater amount of crops needed to produce animals (versus feeding the crops directly to people), AND the intentional deaths of the produced animals themselves. Finally, many argue for organic and more labor-intensive methods of crop agriculture that reduce incidental deaths. As one wag puts it, we have a responsibility to survive, but we can also survive responsibly!
	56.	Modern agriculture requires us to push animals off land to convert it to crops; isn't this a violation of the animals' rights?
		Pushing animals off their habitats to pursue agriculture is a less serious instance of the actions.84 discussed in question #55, which deals with animal death as a result of agriculture. Refer to that question for relevant discussion. An abiding theme is that vegetarianism versus meat eating, and crop agriculture versus animal agriculture, tend to minimize the amount of suffering. For example, more acreage is required to support animal production than to support crop production (for the same nutritional capability). Thus, animal production encroaches more on wildlife than does crop agriculture. We cannot eliminate our adverse effects, but we can try to minimize them.
	57.	Don't farmers have to kill pests?
		We could simply say that less pests are killed on a vegetarian diet and that killing is not even necessary for pest management, but because the issue is interesting, we answer in detail. This question is similar to question # 55 in that the questioner's likely follow -up is to ask why it is acceptable to kill pest for food but not kill animals for food. It differs from question #55 in that the defense that the killing is incidental is not available because pests are killed intentionally .We can respond to this argument in two ways. First, we can argue that the killing is justifiable, and second, we can argue that it is not necessary and should be avoided. Let's look at these in turn. Our moral system typically allow for exception to the requirement that we not harm others. One major exceptions is for self -defense .If we are.85 threatened, we have the right to use force to resist the threat. To the extent that pest are a threat to our food supplies, our habitats, or our health, we are justified in defending ourselves .We have the responsibility to use appropriate force, but some times this require action fatal to the threatening creatures. Even if the killing of pests is seen as wrong despite the self-defense argument, we can argue that crop agriculture should be preferred over animal agriculture because it involves the minimization of the required killing of pests (for reasons described in question #55). Possibly overshadowing these moral arguments, however, is the argument that the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and herbicides is not only not necessary but extremely damaging to the planet, and should therefore be avoided .Let us first look at issue of necessity, followed by the issue of environmental damage. David Cowels-Hamar writes: " For thousands of years, people all over the world have used farming methods based on natural ecosystems where potential pest populations are self-regulating. These ideas are now being explored in organic farming and permaculture." Michael W. fox writes: "Integrated pest management and better conservation of wilderness areas around crop lands in order to provide natural predators for crop pests are more ecologically sensible alternatives to the continuous use of pesticides.".86 The point is that there are effective alternatives to the agrichemical treadmill. In addition to the agricultural methods described above, many pest problems can be prevented, certainly the most effective approach. For example, some major pest threats are the result of accidental or intentional human introduction of animals into a habitat. We need to be more careful in this regard. Another example is the use of rodenticides. More effective and less harmful to the environment would be an approach that relies on maintenance of clean conditions, plugging of entry holes, and non-lethal trapping followed by release into the wild. The effects of the intensive use of agrichemical on the environment are very serious. It results in nation-wide ground water pollution. It results in the deaths of beneficial non-target species. The development of resistant strains requires the use of stronger chemicals with resulting more serious effects on the environment. Agrichemicals are generally more highly concentrated in animal products than in vegetables. It is thus enlightened self-interest to eschew animal consumption! Organic farming and related methods eschew agrichemicals in favor of natural, sustainable methods..87
		LEATHER, FUR AND FASHION
	58.	What is wrong with leather and how can we do without it?
		In India's leather industry, the animal is grown and slaughtered purely for its skin. So, by buying leather products, you will be contributing to the profits of these establishments and augmenting the economic demand for slaughter. The Nov/Dec 1991 issue of the Vegetarian Journal has this to stay about leather: "Environmentally turning animal hides into leather is an energy intensive and polluting practice. Production of leather basically involves soaking (beam house), tanning, dyeing, drying and finishing. Over 95 percent of all leather produced is chrome-tanned. The effluent that must be treated is primarily related to the beamhouse and tanning operations. The most difficult to treat is effluent from the tanning process. All wastes containing chromium are considered hazardous by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many other pollutants involved in the processing of leather are associated with environmental and health risks. In terms of disposal, one would think that leather products would be biodegradable, but the primary function for a tanning agent is to stabilize the collagen or protein fibers so that they are no longer biodegradable"..88 For alternatives to leather, consult the excellent leather Alternatives FAQ maintained by Tom Swiss (tms@tis.com).
	59.	I can accept that trapping is inhumane, but what about fur ranches?
		ILeaving aside the raw fact that the animals must sacrifice their lives for human vanity, we are left with many objections to fur ranching. A common misconception about fur "ranches" is that the animals do not suffer. This is entirely untrue. These animals suffer a life of misery and frustration, deprived of their most basic needs. They are kept in wire-mesh cages that are tiny, over crowded, and filthy. Here they are malnourished, suffer contagious diseases, and endure server stress. On these farms, the animals are forced to forfeit their natural instincts. Beavers, who live in water in the wild, must exist on cement floors. Minks in the wild, too, spend much of their time in water, which keeps their salivation, respiration, and body temperature stable. They are also, by nature, solitary animals. However, on these farms, they are forced to live in close contact with other animals. This often leads to self - destructive behavior, such as pelt and tail biting. They often resort to cannibalism. The methods used on these farms reflect not the interests and welfare of the animals but the furriers' primary interest-profit .The end of the suffering of these animals comes only with death, which, in order to preserve the quality of the fur, is inflicted with extreme cruelty and.89 brutality. Engine exhaust is often pumped into a box of animals. This exhaust is not always lethal, and the animals sometimes writhe in pain as they are skinned alive. Another common execution practice, often used on larger animals, is anal electrocution .The farmers attach clamps to an animal's, lip and insert metal rods into its anus .The animal is then electrocuted, Decompression chambers, neck snapping and poison are also used. The raising of animals by humans to serve a specific purpose cannot discount or excuse the lifetime of pain and suffering that these animals endure. "Cruelty is one fashion statement we can all do without" - Rue McClanahan (actress) "The recklessness with which we sacrifice our sense decency to maximize profit in the factory farming process sets a pattern for cruelty to our own kind" - Jonathan Kozol (author)
	60.	Anything wrong with wool, silk, down?
		What's wrong with wool? Scientist over the years have bred a Merino sheep which is exaggeratedly wrinkle. The more wrinkles, the more wool. Unfortunately, greater profits are rarely in the sheep's best interests. In Australia, more wrinkles mean more preparation and greater susceptibility to fly-strike, a ghastly condition resulting from maggot infestation in the sweaty folds of the sheep's over-wrinkled skin .To counteract this, farmers perform.90 an operation without anesthetic called "mulesing ", in which sections of flesh around the anus are sliced away, leaving a painful, bloody wound. Without human interference, sheep would grow just enough wool to protect them from the weather, but scientific breeding techniques have ensured that these animals have become wool-producing monstrosities Their unnatural overload of wool (often half their body weight) brings added misery during summer months when they often die from heat exhaustion. Also, one million sheep die in Australia alone each year from exposure to cold after shearing. Every year, in Australia alone, about ten million lambs die before they more than a few days old. This is due largely to unmanageable numbers of sheep and inadequate stockpersons. Of UK wool, 27 percent is " skin wool ", pulled from the skin of slaughtered and lambs. What's wrong with silk? It is the practice to boil the cocoons that still contain the living moth larvae in order to obtain the skill. This produces longer silk threads than if the moth was allowed to emerge. The silkworm can certainly feel pain and will recoil and writhe when injured. What's wrong with down? The process of live plucking is widespread. The terrified birds are lifted by their necks, with their legs tied, and then have all their body feather s ripped out. The struggling geese sustain.91 injuries and after their ordeal are thrown back to join their fellow victims until their turn comes round again. This torture, which has been described as "extremely cruel " by veterinary surgeons, and even geese breeders, begins when the geese are only eight weeks old. It is then repeated at eight-week intervals for two or three more sessions. The birds are then slaughtered. The "lucky" birds are plucked dead, i.e., they are killed first and then plucked..92
		HUNTING AND FISHING
	61.	Humans are natural hunter /gatherers; aren't you trying to repress natural human behavior?
		Yes. Failing to repress certain "natural behaviors" would create an uncivilized society. Consider this: It would be an expression of natural behavior to hunt anything that moves (e.g., my neighbor's dogs or horses) and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my employer's money of furniture). It would even be natural behavior to indulge in unrestrained sexual appetites or to injure a person in a fit of rage or jealousy: In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by two codes: the written law of the land, and the unwritten law of morality. And this also applies to hunting. It is unlawful in many places and at many times, and most people regard sport hunting as immoral. Many would question the supposition that humans are natural hunters. In many societies, the people live quite happy without hunting. In our own society, the majority do not hunt, not because they are repressing their nature -they simply have no desire to do so. Those that do hunt often show internal conflicts about it, as evidenced by the myths and rituals that serve to legitimatize hunting, cleanse the hunter, etc. This suggests that hunting is not natural, but actually goes against a deeper part of our nature, a desire not to do harm.  "The squirrel that you kill in jest dies in earnest". - Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet).93
	62.	The world is made up of predators and prey; aren't we just another predator?
		No. Our behavior is far worse than that of "just another predator". We kill others not just for nourishment but also for sport (recreation!), for the satisfaction of our curiosity, for fashion, for entertainment, for comfort, and for convenience .We also kill each other by the millions for, territory wealth, and power. We often torture and torment others before killing them. We conduct wholesale slaughter of vast proportions, on land and in the oceans. No other species behaves in a comparable manner, and only humans are destroying the balance of nature. At the same time, our killing of nonhuman animals is unnecessary, whereas nonhuman predators kill and consume only what is necessary for their survival, they have no choice: kill of starve. The one thing that really separates us from the other animals is our moral capacity, and that has the potential to elevate us above the status of " just another predator ". Nonhumans lack this capacity, so we shouldn't look to them for moral inspiration and guidance.
	63.	Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would otherwise get out of hand?
		Hunters often assert that their practices benefit their victims A variation on the them is their common assertion that their actions keep populations in check so that animals.94 do not die of starvation ("a clean bullet in the brain is preferable to a slow death by starvation") Following are some facts and questions about hunting and "wildlife management" that reveal what is really happening. Game animals, such as deer, are physiologically adapted to cope with seasonal food shortages. It is the young that bear the brunt of starvation. Among adults, elderly and sick animals also starve. But the hunters do not seek out and kill only these animals at risk of starvation; rather, they seek the strongest and most beautiful animals (for maximum meat or trophy potential). The hunters thus recruit the forces of natural selection against the species that they claim to be defending. The hunters restrict their activities to only those species that are attractive for their meat or trophy potential. If the hunters were truly concerned with protecting species from starvation, why do they not perform their "service " for the skunk, or the field mouse? And why is hunting not limited to times when starvation occurs, if hunting has as a goal the prevention of starvation? (The reason that deer are not hunted in early spring or late winter in the US - when starvation occurs-is that the carcasses would contain less fat, and hence, be far less desirable to meat consumers. Also hunting then would be unpopular to hunters due to the snow, mud, and insects.) So-called "game management" policies are actually programs designed to eliminate predators of the game species and to artificially provide additional habitat and.95 resources for the game species. Why are these predator species and eliminated when they would provide a natural ecologically sound mechanism for controlling the population of game species? Why are such activities as burning, clear- cutting, chemical defoliation, flooding, and bulldozing employed to increases the populations of game animals, if hunting has as its goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation? The truth is that the managements agencies actually try to attain a maximum sustainable yield, or harvest, of game animals. The wildlife managers and hunters preferentially kill male animals, a policy designed to keep populations high. If overpopulation were really a concern, they would preferentially kill females. Another common practices that belies the claim that wildlife management has as a goal the reduction of populations to prevent starvation is the practice of game stocking .For example, in the state of New York the Department of Environmental Conservation obtain pheasants raised in captivity and the releases them in areas frequented by hunters. For every animal killed by a hunter, two are seriously injured and left to die a slow death. Given these statistics, it is clear that hunting fails even in its proclaimed goal -the reduction of suffering. The species targeted by hunters, both the game animals and their predators, have survived in balance for millions of years, yet now wildlife mangers and hunters insist they need to be "managed " The legitimate task of wildlife management should be to preserve viable,.96 nature wild life populations and ecosystems .In addition to the animal toll, hunters kill hundreds of human beings every year. Finally, there's an ethical argument to consider. Thousands of human beings die from starvation each and every day. Should we assume that the reader will one day one of them, and dispatch him straight away? Definitely not. AR ethics asserts that this same consideration should be according to the deer. Unless hunting is part of a controlled culling process it is unlikely to be of benefit in any population maintenance. The number and distribution of animals slaughtered is unrelated to any perceived maldistribution of species, but is more closely related to the predilection of the hunters Indeed, hunting, whether for "pleasure " or profit, has a history more closely associated with bringing animals close to, or into extinction, rather than protecting them from overpopulation. Examples include the buffalo and the passenger pigeon. With the advent of modern" wildlife management", we see a transition to systems designed to artificially increase the populations of certain species to sustain a yield or harvest for hunters. The need for population control of animals generally arises either from the introduction of species that have become pests or from indigenous animals that are competing for resource (such as the kangaroo, which competes with sheep and cattle). These imbalances usually have a human base. It is more appropriate to examine our resources uses and requirements, and to act more responsibly in our.97 relationship with the environment, than to seek a "solution" to self-created problems through the morally dubious practice of hunting. "…the American public is footing the bill for predator-control programs that cause the systematic slaughter of refuge animals. Raccoons and red fox, squirrel and skunks are but a few of the many egg- eating predators trapped and destroyed in the name of "wildlife management programs" Sea gulls are shot, fox pups poisoned, and coyotes killed by aerial gunner in low -flying aircraft. This wholesale destruction is taking place on the only Federal lands set aside to protect America's wildlife" - Humans Society of the United States "The creed of maximum sustainable yield unmasks the rhetoric about " human service" to animals. It must be a perverse distortion of the ideal of human service to accept or engage in practices the explicit goal of which is to onsure that there will be a larger, rather than a smaller, number, of animals to kill! With "humane friends "like that, wild animals certainly do not need any enemies" - Tom Regan (Philosopher land AR activist)  "The real cure for our environmental problems is to understand that our job is to salvage Mother Nature… We are facing a formidable enemy in this field. It is the hunters… and to convince them to leave their.98 guns on the wall is going to be very difficult" - Jacques Cousteau (oceanographer)
	64.	Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we kill?
		Some vegetarians accept that where farmers or small landholders breed, maintain and then kill their own livestock there is an argument for their eating that meat. There would need, at all stage, to be a humane life and death involved. Hunting seems not to fit within this argument because the kill is often not "clean", and the hunter has not had any involvement in the birth and growth of the animal. As the arguments in the FAQ demonstrate, however, there is wider context in which these actions have to be considered. Animals are sentiment creatures who share many of our characteristics. The question is not only weather it is acceptable to eat an animal (which we perhaps hunted and killed), but if it is an appropriate action to take stalking and murdering another animal, or eating the product of someone else's killing. Is it a proper action for a supposedly rational and ethical man or women? This question reminds one of question #14, where it is suggested that killing and eating an animal is justified because the animal is raised for that purpose .The process leading up to the eating is used to justify the eating .In this question, the eating is used to justify the process leading.99 up to it. Both attempts are totally illogical. Imagine telling the police not to worry that you have just stalked and killed a person because you ate the person!
	65.	Fish are dumb like insects; what 's wrong with fishing?
		Fish are not "dumb" except in the sense that they are unable to speak. They a complex nervous system based around a brain and spinal cord similar to other vertebrates. They are very successful and effective in their own environment. Behavioral studies indicate that they exhibit complex forms of learning, such as operant conditioning, serial reversal learning, probability learning, and a voidance learning. Many authorities doubt that there is a significant qualitative difference between learning in fishes and that in rats. Many people who fish talk about the challenge of fishing, and the contest between themselves and the fish (on a one-to one basis, not in relation to trawling or other net fishing). This implies an awareness and intelligence in the hunted of a level at least sufficient to challenge the hunter. The death inflicted by fishing- a slow asphyxiation either in a net or after extended period fighting against a bared hook wedged somewhere in their head- is painful and distressing to a sentient animal. Those that doubt that fish feel pain must explain why it is that their brains contain.100 endogenous opiates and receptors for them; these are accepted as mechanism for the attenuation of pain in other vertebrates. Some people believe that it is OK to catch fish as long as they are returned to the water. But, when you think about it, it's as if one is playing with the fish. Also, handling the fish wipes off an important disease- fighting coating on their scales. The hook can be swallowed, leading to serious complications, and even if it isn't, pulling it out of their mouth leaves a lesion that is open to infection..101
		ANIMALS FOR ENTERTAINMENT
	66.	Don't zoos contribute to the saving species from extinction?
		Zoos often claim that they are "arks" which can preserve species whose habitat has been destroyed, or which were wiped out in the wild for other reasons (such as shunting). They suggest that they can maintain the species in captivity until the cause of the creature's extirpation is remedied, and then successfully reintroduce the animals to the wild, resulting in a healthy, self-sustaining population. Zoos often defend their existence against challenges from the AR movements on these grounds. There are several problems with this argument, however. First, the number of animals required to maintain a viable gene pool can be quite high, and is never known for certain .If the captive gene pool is too small, then inbreeding can result in increased susceptibility to disease, birth defects, and mutations; the species can be so weakened that it would never be viable in the wild. Some species are extremely difficult to breed in captivity: marine mammals, many bird species, and so on. Pandas, which have been the sustained focus of captive breeding efforts for several decades in zoos around the world, are notoriously difficult to breed in captivity. With such species, the zoos, by talking animals from the wild to supply their breeding programs, constitute a net drain on wild populations..102 The whole concept of habitat restoration is mired in serious difficulties. Animals threatened by poaching (elephants, rhinos, pandas, bears and more) will never be safe in the wild as long as firearms, material needs, and a willingness to consume animal parts coincide. Species threatened by chemical contamination (such as bird species vulnerable to pesticides and lead shot) will not be candidates for release until we stop using the offending substances, and enough time has passed for the toxins to be processed out of the environment. Since heavy metal and some pesticides are both persistent and bioaccumulative, this could mean decades or centuries before it is safe to reintroduce the animals. Even if these problems can be overcome, there are still difficulties with the process of reintroduction. Problems such as humans' imprinting, the need to teach animals to fly, hunt, build dens, and raise their young are serious obstacles, and must be solved individually for each species. There is a small limit to the number of species the global network of zoos can preserve under even the most optimistic assumptions. Profound constraints are imposed by the lack of space in zoos, their limited financial resources, and the requirement that viable gene pools of each species be preserved Few zoos, for instance, ever keep more than two individuals of large mammal species .The need to preserve scores or hundreds of a particular species would be beyond the resources of even the largest zoos, and even the whole zoo community would be hard-pressed to preserve even a few dozen species in this manner..103 Contrast this with the efficiency of large habitat preserves, which can maintain viable populations of whole complexes of species with minimal human intervention. Large preserves maintain every species in the ecosystems in a predominantly self-sufficient manner, while keeping the creatures in the natural habitat unmolested. If the financial resources (both government and charitable), and the biological expertise currently consumed by zoos, were redirected to habitat preservation and management, we would have far fewer worries about restoration or preserving species whose habitat is gone. Choosing zoos as a means for species preservation, in addition to being expensive and of dubious effectiveness, has serious ethical problems. Keeping animals in zoos harms them, by denying them freedom of movement and association, which is important to social animals, and frustrates many of their natural behavioral patterns, leaving them at least bored, and at worst seriously neurotic. While humans may feel there is some justifying benefit to their captivity (that the species is being preserved, and may someday be reintroduced into the wild), this is no compensating benefit to the individual animals. Attempts to preserve species by means of captivity have been described as described as sacrificing the individual gorilla to the abstract Gorilla (to the abstract conception of the gorilla).104
	67.	Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the wild?
		In some cases, this is true. But it is irrelevant. Suppose a zoo decide to exhibit human beings. They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country and put her on display. Due to the regular feedings and health care that the zoo provides, the peasants will live longer in captivity. Is this practice acceptable? A trade off quantity of life versus quality of life is not always decided in favor of quantity.
	68.	how will people see wild animals and learn about them without zoos?
		To gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe them in their natural habitats. The conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior significantly. There are several practical alternatives to zoos for educational purposes. There are many nature documentaries shown regularly on television as well as available on video cassettes. Specials on public television networks, as well as several cable channels, such as The Discovery Channel, provide accurate information on animals in their natural habitats. Magazines such as National Geographic provide superb illustrated articles, as well. And, of course, public; libraries are a gold -mine of information..105 "Zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages. This is unfair and cruel. The natural instincts and behavior of these animals are suppressed by force. How can anyone observe wild animals under such circumstances and believe that one has been educated? All god things are wild, and free".- Henry David Thoreau (essayist and poet)
	69.	what is wrong with circus and rodeos?
		To treat animals as objects for our amusement is to treat them without the respect they deserve. When we degrade the most intelligent fellow mammals in this way, we act as our ancestors acted in former centuries. They knew nothing ablaut the animals' intelligence, sensitivities, emotions, and social needs; they saw only brute beasts. To continue such ancient traditions, even if no cruelty were involved, means that we insist on remaining ignorant and insensitive. But the cruelty does exist and is inherent in these spectacles. In rodeos, there is no show unless the animal is frightened or in pain. In circuses animals suffer most before and after the show. They endure punishment during training and are subjected to physical and emotional hardships during transportation. They are forced to travel tens of thousands of miles each year, often in extreme heat or cold with tigers living in cramped cages and elephants changed in filthy railroad cars. To the.106 entrepreneurs, animals are merely stock in trade to be replaced when they are used up. David Cowles-Hamar writes about circuses as follows in his "The Manual of Animal Rights ", Not surprisingly, a considerable amount of "persuasion" is required to achieve these performances, and to this end, circuses employ various techniques. These include deprivation of food, deprivation of company intimidation, muzzling, drugs, punishment and reward systems, shackling, whips, electronic goods, sticks, and the noise of guns … Circus animals suffer similar mental and physical problems to zoo animals, displaying stereotypical behavior. Physically symptoms include shackle sores, herpes, liver failure, kidney disease, and sometimes death … Many of the animals become both physically and mentally ill. The American rodeo consists of roping, bucking, and steer wrestling events. While the public witnesses only the 8 seconds or so that the animals perform, there are hundreds of hours of unsupervised practice sessions. Also, the stress of constant travel, often in improperly ventilated vehicle, and poor enforcement of proper unloading, feeding, and watering of animals during travel contribute to a life misery for these animals. As half a rider's score is based on the performance of the bucking horse or bull, riders encourage a wild ride by tugging on a bucking strap that is squeezed tightly around the animal's loins. Electric prods and raking spurs are also.107 used to stimulate wild behavior. Injuries range from bruises and broken bones to paralysis, severed tracheas, and death. Spinal cords of calves can be severed when forced to an abrupt stop while traveling at 30 mph .The practice of slamming these animals to the ground during these events has caused the rupture of internal organs, leading to a slow, agonizing death Dr.C.G.Haber, a veterinarian with thirty years experience as a meat inspector in the US says: " The rodeo folks send their animals to the packing house where … I have seen cattle so extensively bruised that the only areas in which the skin was attached was the head, neck, legs, and belly. I have seen animals with six to eight ribs broken from the spine and at times puncturing the lungs. I have seen as much as two and three gallons of free blood accumulated under the detached skin."
	70.	But isn't it true that animals are well cared for and wouldn't perform if they weren't happy?
		Refer to questions #69 and 71 to see that entertainment animals are generally not well cared for. For centuries people have known that punishment can induce animals to perform .The criminal justice system is based on the human rationality in connecting the act of a crime or wrongdoing with a punishment. Many religions are also based, among other aspects, on a fear of punishment. Fear leads most of us to act correctly, on the whole..108 The same is true for other animals. Many years of unnecessary and repetitive psychology experiments with Skinner boxes (among other gadgets) have demonstrated that animals will learn to do things, or act in certain ways (that is, be conditioned) to avoid electric shocks or other punishment. Animals do need to have their basic food requirements met, otherwise they sicken and die, but they don't need to be "happy " to perform certain acts; fear or desire for a reward (such as food) will make them do it.
	71.	What is an about horse or greyhound racing?
		Racing is an example of human abuse of animals merely for entertainment and pleasure, regardless of the needs or condition of the animals. The pleasure derives primarily from gambling on the outcome of the race. While some punters express an interest in the animal side of the equation, most people interested in racing are not interested in the animals but in betting; attendance at race meetings has fallen dramatically as off-course betting options became available. While some of the top dogs and horses may be kept in good conditions, for the majority of animals, this is not the case. While minimum living standards have to be met, other factors are introduced to gain the best performances (or in some cases to fix a race by ensuring a loss): drugs, electrical stimuli, whips, etc. While many of these practices are outlawed (including dog blooding), there are regular reports of various illegal techniques being used..109 Logic would suggest that where the volume of money being moved around is as large as it is in racing, there are huge temptations to manage the outcomes. For horses, especially, the track itself poses dangers; falls and fractures are common in both flat and jump races. Often, lame horses are doped to allow them to continue to race, with the risk of serious injury. And at the end of it all, if the animal is not a success, or does not perform as brilliantly as hoped, it is disposed of. Horses are sent to be used as experiments in vaccine centers. The knackery is a common option (a knackery is a purveyor of products derived from worn-out and old livestock). Recently, a new practice has come to light: owners of race horses sometimes murder horses that do not reach their "potential", or which are past their "prime", and then file fraudulent insurance claims. Race horses are prone to a disease called exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). It is characterized by the presence of blood in the lungs and windpipe of the horse following intense exercise. An Australian study found 42 percent of 1,180 horses to be suffering from EIPH.A large percentage of race horses suffer from lameness. Fracture of the knee are common, as are ligament sprain, joint sprain and shin soreness. Steeple chasing is designed to make the horses fall, which sometimes results in the death of the horse either though a broken neck or an "incurable" injury for which the horse is killed by a veterinarian...110
		COMPANION ANIMALS
	72.	What about keeping pets?
		In a perfect world, all of our efforts would go toward protecting the habitats of other species on the planet and we would be able to maintain a "hands off" approach in which we did not take other species into our family units, but allowed them to develop on their own in the wild. However, we are far from such a Utopia and as responsible humans must deal with the results of the domestication of animals. Since many animals domesticated to be pets have been bred but have no homes, most AR supporters see nothing wrong with having them 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! Similarly, animals domesticated for agricultural purpose should be cared for. However, animals in the wild should be left there and not brought into homes as companions. A cage in someone's house is unnatural environment for an exotic bird, fish, or mammal. When the novelty wears off, wild pets usually end up at shelters, zoos, or research labs. Wild animals have the right to be treated with respect, and that includes leaving them in their natural surroundings. A loving relationship with a proper companion animal, a relationship that adequately provides for the animal's physical and psychological needs, is not at all in consistent with the principles and advocacy of animal.111 rights. Indeed, animal rights advocates have been leaders in drawing attention to some of the abuses and neglects of our "beloved" pets. Many of the taken for granted practices do need to be reexamined and changed. The questions that animal rights raises about companion animals are important questions: * Can we maintain animals as companions and still properly address their needs? Obviously, we can't do this for all animals. For example, keeping birds in cages denies those creatures their capacity and inherent need to fly. * Is manipulating companion animals for our needs in the best interests of the nonhuman animal as well? Tail docking would thus be a practice to condemn in this regard. * Might some of our taken-for-granted practices of pet keeping be really a form of exploitation? Animals in circuses or panhandlers using animals on the street to get money from passersby would arguably be cases of exploitation. * Which attitudes of human caretakers are truly expressions of our respect and love towards these animals, and which might not be? Exotic breeding is one example of this kind of abuse, especially when the breeding results in animals that are a greater risk for certain diseases or biological defects..112 All that animal rights is really asking is that we consider more deeply and authentically the practice at hand and whether or not it truly meets the benchmark that BOTH the needs of human AND nonhuman animals be considered. The following points should be considered when selecting a companion animal. Get a companion animal appropriate to your situation-don't keep a big dog in a flat or small garden. Don't get an animal that will be kept unnecessarily confined-birds, fish, etc. However, it is a good policy to try to keep cats inside as much as possible, especially at night, to protect both the cat and local wildlife. Get your dog or cat from a local pound or animal group; thousands of animals are destroyed each year by groups such as the RSPCA. The majority are animals who are lost or dumped. Vicious animals are not adopted out. By getting an animal from such a source you will be saving its life and reducing the reliance on breeders. Finally, get your companion neutered. There is no behavioral or biological benefit from being fertile or from having a litter. And every pup or kitten that that is produced will need to find a home.
	73.	What about spaying and neutering?
		Ingrid Newkirk writes: "What's happening to our best friends should never happen even to our worst enemies. With a/ n.113 estimated 80 to 100 million cats and dogs in this country already, 3,000 to 5,000 more puppies and kittens are born every hour in the United States for more than can ever find good homes. Unwanted animals are dumped at the local pound or abandoned in woods and on city streets, where they suffer from starvation, lack of shelter and veterinary care, and abuse. Most die from disease, starvation, and mistreatment, or, if they are lucky are put to sleep forever at an animal shelter." o The point is that the practice of neutering and spaying prevents far more suffering and harm than it imposes on the neutered or spayed animals. The net harm is minimized..114
		LABORATORY ANIMALS
	74.	What is wrong with experimentation on animals?
		The claimed large gains from using animals in research makes the practices the most significant challenge to AR philosophy. While it is easy to dismiss meat production as a trivial indulgence of the taste buds, such a dismissal is not so easily accomplished for animal research. First, a definition. We refer to as "vivisection " any use of animals in science or research that exploits and harms them. This definition acknowledges that there is some research using animals that is morally acceptable under AR philosophy (see question # 77). The case against vivisection is built upon three planks. They are: PLANK A: Vivisection is immoral and should be abolished. PLANK B: Abolition of vivisection is not antiscience or antiresearch. PLANK C: They consequences of abolition are acceptable. It is easy to misunderstand the AR philosophy regarding vivisection. Often, scientists will debate endlessly about the scientific validity of research, and.115 sometimes AR people engage in those debates. Such issues are part of PLANK C, which asserts that much research is misleading, wrong, or misguided. However, the key to the AR position is PLANK A, which asserts an objection to vivisection on ethical grounds. We seek to reassure people about the efforts abolition will have on future medical progress via B and C. In the material that follows, each piece of text is identified with a preceding tag such as [PLANK A] .The idea is to show how the text fragments fit into the overall case. There is some overlap between PLANKs B and C, so the assignments may look arbitrary in a few cases. [PLANK A]  Over 100 million animals are used in experiments worldwide ever year. A few of the more egregious examples of vivisection may be enlightening for the uniformed (taken from R. Ryder 's victims of science"): * Psychologists gave electric shocks to the feet of 1042 mice. They then caused convulsions by giving more intense shocks through cup-shaped electrodes applied to the animals, eyed or through spring clips attached to their ears. * In Japan, starved rats with electrodes in their necks and electrodes in their eyeballs were forced to run in treadmills for four hour at a time..116 * A group of 64 monkeys was addicted to drugs by automatic injection in their jugular vein. When the supply of drugs was abruptly withdrawn, some of the monkeys were observed to die in convulsions. Before dying, some monkeys plucked out all their or bit off their own fingers and toes Basic ethical objection to this type of "science" are present here and in question # 76 and # 82. Some technical objections are found in question # 75 and #77. VIVSECTION TREATS ANIMALS AS TOOLS: Vivisection effectively reduces sentient beings to the status of disposable tools, to be used and discarded for the benefit of others. This forgets that each animal has an inherent value, a value that does not rise and fall depending on the interests of others. Those doubting this should ponder the implications of their views for humans would they support the breeding of human salves for the exclusive use of experiments? VIVSECTION IS SPECIESIST: Most animal experimenters would not use nonconsenting humans in invasive research. In making this concession, they reveal the importance they attach to species membership, a biological line that is as morally relevant as that of race or gender, that is, not relevant at all. VIVSECTION DEMEANS SCIENCE: Its barbaric practices are an insult to those who feel that science should provide humans with the opportunity to rise above the.117 harsher laws of nature. The words of Tom Regan summarize the feeling of many AR activists: "The laudatory achievements of science, including the many genuine benefits obtained for both humans and animals do not justify the unjust means used to secure them. As in other cases, so in the present one, the rights view does not call for the cessation of scientific research. Such research should go on - but not at the expense of laboratory animals Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.- George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Noble 1925)  "Vivisection is the blackest of all black crime that a man is at present committing against God and his creation" - Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)  "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 for their cruelty" - Leo Tolstoy (author)  "I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces result 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 further" - Mark twain (author).118
	75.	Do AR people accept that vivisection has led to valuable medical advance?
		PLANK A  AR advocates generally believe that vivisection has played a contributing, if not necessary essential, role in some valuable medical advances. However, AR philosophy asserts that the end does not justify the means, and that therefore the answer cannot decide the legitimacy of the stance against vivisection. PLANK C  That said, many people, including former vivsectors and medical historians. Will readily state there is ample scientific and historical evidence showing that most vivisection is futile, and often harmful to those it pretends to serve. On statistical ground, vivisection does not deliver: despite the use of 144,000,000 animals in Britain since 1950, life -expectancy in Britain for the middle- aged has not changed since this date. Some 85 percent of the lab animals killed between the 1890s and the 1990 s died after 1950, but the fall in death rate during these 100 years was 92 percent complete by 1950. Consider, for a specific example, these figures for cancer:.119 CANCER DEATH RATE PER MILLION MEN IN BRITAIN [FOR THOSE > 100 PER MILLION] *data for women excised for space reasons Gains in the war against cancer are sadly lacking, despite the vast numbers of animals sacrificed for cancer research. When such analyses are performed across the spectrum of health issues, it becomes clear that, at best the contribution of vivisection to our health must be considered quite modest .The dramatic declines in death rates for old killer diseases, such as, tuberculosis, pneumonia, typhoid, whooping cough, and cholera, came from improvements in housing, in working conditions, in the quantity and quality of food and water supplies, and in hygiene. Chemotherapy and immunization cannot logically be given much credit here, since they only became available, chronologically, after most of the declines were achieved. Cancer type 1971-1975 1976-1980 % Change Bladder 118 123 +4.2 Pancreas 118 125 +5.9 Prostate 177 199 +12.4 Stomach 298 278 -6.7 Colorectal 311 320 +2.9 Lung, Trachea 1091 1125 +3.1.120 Consider the particular example of penicillin: it was discovered accidentally by Fleming in 1928 .He tested on rabbits and when they failed to react (we now know that they excrete penicillin rapidly), he lost interest in his substance, Still, two scientists followed up on his work, successfully tried on mice and stated … mice were tried in the initial toxicity tests because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea pig .If we had used guinea pigs exclusively we should have said that the penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to try to overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man." Vivisection generally fails because: * Human medicine cannot be based on veterinary medicine. This is because animals are different histologically, anatomically, genetically, immunologically, and physiologically. * Animals and humans react differently to substances. For example. Some drugs are carcinogenic in humans but not in animals, or vice-versa. * Naturally occurring diseases (e.g., in patients) and artificially induced diseases (e.g., lab animals) often differ substantially. All this manifests itself in example such as the one below:.121 SPECIES DIFFERENCE IN TESTS FOR BIRTH DEFECTS There are countless examples, old and recent, of the misleading effects of vivisection, and there are countless statements from reputable scientist who see vivisection for what it is: bad science. Following are just a few of them. The uselessness of most of the animals' models is less well known. For example, the discovery of the chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animals research, There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Indeed while conflicting Chemical Teratogen Yes No (i.e., causes birth defects) aspirin rats, mice, monkeys, humans guinea pigs, cats, dogs aminopterin humans Monkeys azathioprine rabbits Rats caffeine rats, mice rabbits cortisone mice, rabbits Rats thalidomide humans rats,mice, hamasters triamcilanone mice humans.122 animal results have often delayed and hampered advances in the war on cancer, they have never produced a single substantial advance in the prevention or treatment of human cancer. For instance, practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies - Dr. Irwin Bross 1981 Congressional testimony Indeed even while these [clinical] studies were starting, warning; voices were suggesting that data from research on animals could not be used to develop a treatment for human tumours. British Medical journal, 1982 Vivisection is barbaric, useless, and hindrance to scientific progress. Dr. Werner Hartinger, Chief Surgeon, West Germany, 1988 …many vivsectors still claim that what they do helps save human lives. They are lying. The truth is that animal experiments kill people, and animal researchers are responsible for the death of thousands of men, women and children every year. Dr. Vernon Coleman, Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, UK.123
	76.	How can you justify losing medical advances that would save human lives by stopping vivisection?
		PLANK A  The same way we justify not performing forcible research on unwilling humans! A lot of even more relevant information is currently foregone owing to our strictures against human experimentation. If life -saving medical advances are to be sought at all cost, why should nonhuman animals be singled out for ill treatment? We must accept that there is such a things as "ill -gotten gains", and that the potential fruits of vivisection qualify as such. This question might be regarded as veiled insult to the creativity and resourcefulness of scientists. Although humans have never set foot on Pluto, scientists have still garnered a lot of valuable scientific information concerning it. Why could not such feats of ingenuity be repeated in other fields? PLANK B Forcible experimentation on humans is not the only alternative. Many humans would be glad to participate in experiments that offer the hope of a cure for their afflictions, or for the afflictions of others. If individual choice were allowed, there might be no need for animal experimentation. The stumbling block is government.124 regulations that forbid these choices. Similarly, government regulations are the reasons many animals are sacrificed for product testing, often unnecessarily. Question 77: Aren't there instances where there are no alternatives to the use of animals?
	77.	Aren't there instances where there are no alternatives to the use of animals?
		PLANK A The reply to the question here is succinct: " If so, what?" Let us recall that we are happy enough (today) to forego knowledge that would be acquired at the expense of commandeering humans in/ to service, and that we include children, the mentally diminished and even people suffering from types of disease for which animal models are unsatisfactory (such as AIDS). That is, a prior ethical decision was made that rules them out from experimentation, and that foregoes any potential knowledge so derived. Now the Animal Rights argument is consistent: since no morally relevant difference can be produced that separates humans spared experimentation fro test animals (those that are subject -of a- life), vivisection is exposed as immoral, and the practice must be abandoned. Just as the insights offered by the Nazis" experiments on concentration camps prisoners were morally illicit, so are any and all benefits traceable to vivisection .As Tom Regan put it..125 PLANK B The argument above makes the search for alternatives morally imperative, and if it is objected that this "just isn't possible" one should reply that belittling the ingenuity of scientists will not do. There have been cases where alternatives to vivisection had to be sought, and - of course- they were found. For example, Sharpe writes in The Human Cost of Animal Experimentation: "Historically, a classic examples is the conquest of yellow fever. In 1900, no animal was known to be susceptible, promoting studies with human volunteers which proved that mosquitoes did indeed transmit the disease. These observations led to improved sanitation and quarantine measures in Havana where yellow fever, once rife, was eradicated". PLANK C We now cite a few alternatives to animal models of human diseases. Two traditional types are: a) Clinical studies: these are essential for a thorough understanding of any disease. Anesthetics, artificial respiration, the stethoscope, electrocardiographs, blood pressure measurements, etc., resulted from careful clinical studies..126 b) Epidemiology studies: i.e., the study of diseases of whole populations. They, and not animal tests, have identified most of the substances known to cause cancer in humans. Typical example: Why is cancer of the cooln so frequent in Europe and North America, infrequent in Japan, but common in Japanese immigrants to North America? More recent technological advances now allow a host of other investigative methods to be applied, including: * Tissue cultures: Human cells and tissues can be kept alive in cultures and used for biomedical research. Since human material is used extrapolation problems are short -circuited. Such cultures have been used in cancer research by FDA scientists, for example, and according to them: " [they] offer the possibility of studying not only the biology of cancer cell growth and invasion into normal human tissue, but also provide a method for evaluating the effects of a variety of potentially important antitumour agents." * Physico-chemical methods: For example, liquid chromato and mass spectro-photometers allow researchers to identify substances in biological substances. For example, a bioassay for vitamin D used to involve inducing rickets in rats and feeding them vitamin -D-rich substances .Now, liquid.127 chromatography allow such bioassays to be conducted quicker and at reduced cost. * Computer simulations: According to Dr. Walker at the University of Texas:"computer simulations offer a wide range of advantages over live animals experiments in the physiology and pharmacology laboratory These include: saving in animal procurement and housing costs; nearly unlimited availability to meet student schedules; the opportunity to correct errors and repeat parts of the experiment performed incorrectly misinterpreted; speed of operation and efficient use of students ' time and consistency with knowledge learned elsewhere." * Computer -aided drug design: Such methods have been used in cancer and sickle -cell anemia drug research, for example. Here 3D computer graphics and the theoretical field of quantum pharmacology are combined to help in designing drugs according to required specifications. * Mechanical models: For example, an artificial neck has been developed by General Motors for use in car-crash simulations. Indeed, the well known "crash dummies " are much more accurate and effective than the primates previously employed..128 " Since, whether our gains, they are ill-gotten, we must bring an end to [such] research, whatever our losses." This list is by no means exhaustive PLANK B There are instances where the benefits of experimentation accrue directly to the individual concerned; for example, the trial of a new plastic heart may be proposed to someone suffering from heart disease, or a new surgical technique may be attempted to save a nonhuman animals. This may qualify, in the mind of the questioner, as an instance of use of animals .The position here is simple: The Animal Rights position does not condemn experimentation where it is conducted for the benefit of the individual patient, Clinical trials of new drugs, for example, often fall in this category, and so does some veterinary research, such as the clinical study of already sick animals. Another example of acceptable animal research is ethology, i.e. the study of animals in their natural habitat. PLANK B Following is a list alternative to much, if not all, vivisection: * Cell, tissue and organ cultures * Clinical observation * Human volunteers (sick and well) * Autopsies.129 * Material from natural deaths * Noninvasive imaging in clinical settings * Post -market surveillance * Statistical inference * Computer models * Substitution with plants  These alternatives, and others not yet conceived; will ensure that scientific research will not come to a halt upon abolition of vivisection
	78.	But what if animals also benefit, e.g., through advance of veterinary science?
		PLANK A  The Animals Rights philosophy is species - neutral, so the arguments developed else where in this section apply with equal force .The immorality of rights-violative practice is not attenuated by claiming that the victims and beneficiaries are of the same species.
	79.	Should people refuse medical treatments obtained through vivisection?
		PLANK A This is favorite question for the defenders of vivisection. The implication is that the AR position is.130 inconsistent or irrational because AR people partake of some fruits of vivisection. As a first answer, we can point out that for existing treatments derived from vivisection, the damage has already been done. Nothing is gained by refusing the treatment. Vivsectors counter that the situation is analogus to our refusal to eat meat sold at the grocery; the damage has been done, so why not eat the meat? But there is a crucial difference. Knowledge is a permanent commodity; unlike meat, it is abstract, it doesn't rot. Consider a piece of knowledge obtained through vivisection. If vivisection were abolished, the knowledge could be used repeatedly without endorsing or further supporting vivisection. With meat consumption, the practice of slaughter must continue if the fruits are to continue to be enjoyed. Another point is that, had the vivisection not occurred, the knowledge might well have been obtained through alternative, moral methods. Are we to permanently foreclose the use of an abstract piece of knowledge due to the past folly of a vivsector? The same cannot be said of meat; it cannot obtained without slaughter. If the reader finds this unpersuasive, she should consider that the AR movement sincerely wants to abolish vivisection, eliminating ill -gotten fruits .If this is achieved, the original question becomes moot, because there will be no such fruits..131 PLANK A This is another " where should I draw the line " question with the added twist that one's personal; health may be on the line .As such, the right answer is likely to depend a good deal on personal circumstances and judgment .It is certainly beyond the call of duty to make an absolute pledge, since the principle of self -defense may ultimately apply (particularly in life-or death cases). Still, many people will be prepared to make statements against animal oppression, even at considerable cost to their well-being. For these, the following issues might be worth considering. PLANK C WHAT IS THE TRUE CONTRIBUTION OF ANIMAL EXPERIMENTATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TREATMENT? Most treatments owe nothing to animal experimentation at all, or were developed in spite of animal experimentation rather than thanks to it. Insulin is one good example. The really important discoveries did not proceed from the celebrated experiments of Banting and Best on dogs but from clinical discoveries. According to Dr. Sharpe: "The link between diabetes and the pancreas was first demonstrated by Thomas Cawley in 1788.132 when he examined a patient who had died from the disease. Further autopsies confirmed that diabetes is indeed linked with degeneration of the pancreas but, partly because physiologist, including the notorious Claude Bernard, had failed to produce a diabetic state in animals… the idea was not accepted for many year." One had to wait until 1889 for the link to be accepted, the date at which two researchers, Mering and Minkowski, managed to induce form of diabetes in dogs by removing their entire pancreas. Autopsies further revealed that some parts of the pancreas of diabetics were damaged, giving birth to the idea that administering pancreatic extracts to patients might help. Other examples of treatments owing nothing to vivisection include the heart drug digitalis, quinine (used against malaria), morphine (a pain killer), ether (an anesthetic), sulfanilamide (a diuretic), cortisone (used to relive arthritic pains, for example), aspirin, fluoride (in toothpastes), etc. Incidentally, some of these indisputably useful drugs would find it hard to pass these so-called animal safety tests. Insulin causes birth defects in chickens, rabbits, and mice but not in man; morphine sedates man but stimulates cats; doses of aspirin used in human therapeutics poison cats (and do nothing for fever in horses); the widespread use of digitals was slowed down by confounding results from animal studies (and legitimized by clinical studies, as ever), and so on..133 IS THE TREATMENT REALY SAFF? The nefarious effects of many newly -developed," safe" compounds often take some time to be acknowledged. For example, even serious side- effects can sometimes go under-reported .In the UK, only a dozen of the 3500 deaths eventually linked to the use of isoprenaline aerosol inhalers were reported by doctors. Similarly, it took 4 year for the side -effects of the heart drugs Eraldine (which included eye damage) to be acknowledged. The use of these drugs were, evidently, approved following extensive animal testing. WILL THE TREATMENT REALY HELP? This question is not as incongruous as it may appear .A 1967 official enquiry suggested that one third of the most prescribed drugs in the UK were "undesirable preparations ". Many new drugs provide no advantage over existing compounds: in 1977, the US FDA released a study of 1,935 drugs introduced up to April 1977 which suggested that 79.4 percent of them provided "little or no [therapeutic] gain ". About 80 percent of new introductions in the UK are reformulations, or duplication of existing drugs .A 1980 survey by the medicines Divisions of UK Department for Health and Social Security states: " [new drugs] have largely been introduced into therapeutic areas already heavily oversubscribed and …for conditions which are common, largely chronic and occur principally in the affluent Western society..134 Innovation is there/ fore largely directed toward commercial returns rather than therapeutic needs." PLANK B ARE THERE ALTERNATIVES TO THE TREATMENT? A better appreciation of the benefits of "alternative" practices has developed in recent years. Often, dietary of lifestyle changes can be effective treatments on their own. Adult -onset diabetes has been linked to obesity, for instance and can often be cured simply by weight-loss and sensible dieting. Other types of alternative medicine, such as acupuncture, have proven useful in stress relief, and against insomnia and back pains. PLANK A In modern society, I think it would be almost impossible NOT to use medical information gained through animal research at some stage-drug-testing being the most obvious consideration-without opting out of health care altogether. It is important, therefore, that we emphasize the need to stop now. The past is irretrievable.
	80.	Farmers have to kill pests to protect our food supply. Given that, what 's wrong with killing a few more rats for medical research?.135
		PLANK A  First, we object to the casual attitude of the questioner to the killing of rights holders. A nonspeciesist philosophy, such as that of Animal Rights, sees that as no different from suggesting: Humans are killed legitimately every day. Given that, what's wrong with killing a few more humans for medical research? Hopefully, the reply is now obvious: in the original question, the fate of pests is an irrelevant consideration (here), and the case for the liberation of laboratory animals must be evaluated on its own. Seeking to dilute a number of immoral killings into a greater number of arguably defensible ones is a creative but illogical attempt at ethical reasoning.
	81.	What about dissection; isn't it necessary for a complete education?
		PLANK A  Dissection refers to the practice of performing exploratory surgery on animals (both killed and live) in an educational context. The average person's experience of this practice consists of dissecting a frog in a high-school biology class, but fetal chipmunks, mice, rabbits, dogs, cats, pigs, and other animals are also used..136 Dissection accounts for the death of about 7 million animals per year. Many of these animals are bred in factory-farm conditions. Other are taken from their natural habitats. Often, strayed companion animals end up in the hands of dissectors. These animals suffer from inhumane confinement and transport, and are finally killed by means of gassing, neck-snapping, and other "inexpensive" methods. The practice of dissection is repulsive to many students and high-schoolers speak out against it. Some have even engaged in litigation (and won!) to assert a right to not participate in such unnecessary cruelty. California has a law giving students (through high school) the right to refuse dissection. The law requires an alternative to be offered and that the student suffers no sanctions for exercising this right. In India dissection in schools has been made optional. Having dealt with the sub-question "What is dissection?", let's consider whether it is necessary for a complete education. PLANK B There are several very effective alternatives to dissection. In some cases, these alternatives are more effective than dissection itself. Larger-than-life models, films and videos, and computer simulations are all viable methods of teaching biological principles. The latter.137 option, computer simulation, has the advantage of offering an additional interactive facility that has shown great value in other educational contexts. These alternatives methods are often cheaper than the traditional practice of dissection. A computer program can be used indefinitely for a one -time purchase cost; the practice of dissection presents on ongoing expense. In view of these effective alternatives, and the economic gains associated there with, the practice of dissection begins to look more and more like a rite of passage into the world of animal abuse, almost a fraternity initiation for future vivsectors. This practice desensitizes students to animal suffering and teaches them that animals can be used and discarded without respect for their lives. Is this the kind of lesson we want to teach our children? PLANK C Disssecting animals is often described as necessary for the complete education of surgeons. This is nonsense. Numerous surgeons have stated that practicing on animals dogs not provide adequate skills for human surgery .For example, dogs are the favorite test animal of surgery students, yet their body shape is different, the internal arrangement of their organs is different, the elasticity of their tissue under the scalpel is different, and postoperative effects are different (they are less prone to infection, for one thing). Also, many surgeons have suggested that practicing on animal may induce in the mind of the student.138 a casual attitude to suffering. Following are the thought of several prestigious surgeons on this issue. "…wounds of animals are so different from those of [humans] that the conclusions of vivisection are absolutely worthless. They have done far more harm than good in surgery".- Lawson Tait "Any person who had to endure certain experiments carried out on animals which perish slowly in the laboratories would regard death by burning at the stake as a happy deliverance. Like every one else in my profession, I used to be of the opinion that we owe nearly all our knowledge of medical and surgical science to animal experiments. Today I know that precisely the opposite is the case. In surgery especially, they are of no help to the practitioner, indeed he is often led astray by them".- Professor Bigelow "…the aim should be to train the surgeon using human patients by moving gradually from stage to stage of difficulty and explicitly rejecting the acquisition of skills by practicing on animals… which is useless and dangerous in the training of a thoracic surgeon".- Professor R.J. Belcher "Practice on dogs probably makes a good veterinarian; if that is the kind of practitioner you want for your family".- William Held.139 "Animal life, somber mystery. All nature protests against the barbarity of man, who misapprehends, who humiliates, who tortures his inferior brethren".- Jules Michelet (historian)  "Mutilating animals and calling it 'science' condemns the human species to moral and intellectual hell… this hideous Dark Age of the mindless torture of animals must be overcome".- Grace Slick (musician)
	82.	What is wrong with product testing on animals?
		PLANK A  The practice of product testing on animals treats animals as discardable and renewable resources, as replaceable clones with no individual lives, no interests and no aspirations of their own. It callously enlists hapless creatures into the service of humans .It assumes that the risk incurred by one class of individuals can be forcibly transferred onto another. Product testing is also unbelievably cruel. One notorious method of testing is the Draize irritancy test, in which potentially harmful products are dripped into the eyes of test animals (usually rabbits). The harmfulness of the product is then (subjectively) assessed depending on the size of the area injured, the opacity of the cornea, and the degree of the redness, swelling and discharge of the.140 conjunctivae, and in more severe cases, on the blistering or gross destruction of the cornea. PLANK C The use of animals in medicine is often challenged on scientific grounds, and product tests are no exception. For example, one widely used test is the so-called LD50 (Lethal Dose 50 percent) test. The toxicity level of a product is assessed by force-feeding it to a number of animals until 50 percent of them die. Death may come after a few days or weeks, and is often preceded by convulsions, vomiting breathing difficulties, and more. Often, this test reveals nothing at all; animals die simple because of the volume of product administered, through the rupture of internal organs. How such savage practices could provide any useful data is a mystery, and not just to AR activists, it is seen as dubious by many toxicologists, and even by some Government advisers. Animal models often produce misleading results, or produce no useful results at all, and product testing is no exception .One toxicologist writes: "It is surely time, therefore, that we ceased to use as an index of the toxic action of food additives the LD50 value, which is imprecise (varying considerably with different species, with different strains of the same species, with sex, with nutritional status, environmental status, and even with the concentration at which the substance is administered) and which is valueless in the planning of further studies.".141 PLANK B The truth is that animal lives could be spared in many ways. For example, duplication of experiments could be avoided by setting up databases of results. Also, a host of humane alternatives to such tests are already available, and the considerable sums spent on breeding or keeping test animals could be useful redirected into researching new ones. "The animal rights view calls for the abolition of all animal toxicity tests. Animals are not our tasters. We are not their kings". -Tom Regan (philosopher and AR activist)
	83.	How do I know if a product has been a tested on animals?
		There are two easy ways to determine whether a product uses animal products or is tested on animals. First, most companies provide a telephone number and address for inquiring about their products. This is the most reliable method for obtaining up-to-date information..142
		ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISM
	84.	What are the forms of animal rights activism?
		Let us first adopt a broad definition of activism as the process of acting in support of a cause, as opposed to privately lamenting and bemoaning the current state of affairs. Given that, AR activism spans broad spectrum, with relatively simple and innocuous actions at one end, and difficult and politico-legally charged actions at the other. Each individual must make a personal decision about where to reside on the spectrum. For some, forceful or unlawful action is a moral imperative; others may condemn it, or it may be impractical (For example, a lawyer may serve animals better through the legislative process than by going on raids and possibly getting disbarred). The following is a brief sampling of AR activism, beginning at the low end of the spectrum. The spectrum of action can be divided conveniently into four zones: personal actions, proselytizing, organizing, and civil disobedience. Consider first personal actions. Here are some of the personal actions you can take in support of AR. Learning - Educate yourself about the issues involved. Vegetarianism and Veganism-Become one. Cruelty-Free Shopping - Avoid products involve testing on animals.143 Cruelty-Free Fashion- Avoid leather and fur. Investing with Conscience -Avoid companies that exploit animals-Animal Friendly Habits- Avoid pesticides, detergents, etc. The Golden Rule- Apply it to all creatures and live by it. Proselytizing is the process of "spreading the word". Here are some of the ways that it can be done: - Tell your family and friends about your beliefs. - Write letters to lawmakers, newspapers, magazines, etc. - Write books and articles. - Create documentary films and videos. - Perform leafletting and "tabling". - Give lectures at schools and other organizations. Speak at stockholders' meetings. - Join Animal Review Committees that oversee research on animals. - Picket, boycott, demonstrate, and protest. Organizing is a form of meta-proselytizing-helping others to spread the word. Here are some of the ways to do it:.144 - Join an AR-related organization. - Contribute time and money to an AR-related organization. - Found an AR organization. - Get involved in politics or law and act directly for AR. The last category of action, civil disobedience, is the most contentious and the remaining questions in this section deal further with it. Some draw the line here; others do not .It is a personal decision. Here are some of the methods used to more forcefully assert the right of animals: - Sit-ins and occupations. - Obstruction and harassment of people in their animal-exploitation activities (e.g., foxhunt sabotage). The idea is to make it more difficult and/ or embarrassing for people to continue these activities. - Spying and infiltration of animal-exploitation industries and organizations. The information and evidence gathered can be a powerful weapon for AR activists. - Destruction of property related to exploitation and abuse of animals (laboratory equipment, meat and clothes in stores, etc). The idea is to make it more.145 costly and less profitable for these animal industries. - Sabotage of the animal-exploitation industries (e.g., destruction of vehicles and buildings) .The idea is to make the activities impossible. - Raids on premises associated with animal exploitation (to gather evidence, to sabotage, to liberate animals) It can be seen from the forgoing material that AR activism spans a wide range of activities that includes both actions that would be conventionally regarded as law-abiding and non- threatening, and actions that are unlawful and threatening to the animal-exploitation industries. Most AR activism falls into the former category and, indeed, one can support these actions while condemning the latter category of actions. People who are thinking, with some trepidation, of going for the first time to a meeting of an AR group need have no fear of finding themselves invoered with extremists, or of being coerced into extreme activism. They would find a group of exceedingly law- abiding computer programmers, teachers, artists, etc. (The extreme activists are essentially unorganized and cannot afford to meet in public groups due to the unwelcome attention of law-enforcement agencies.).146 "One person can make all the difference in the world… For the first time in recorded human history, we have the fate of the whole plant in our hands".- Chrissie Hynde (musician) "This is the true joy in life; being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, and being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clod" - George Bernard Shaw (playwright, Nobel 1925)  "Nothing is more powerful than an individual acting out of his conscience, thus helping to bring the collective conscience to life". - Norman Cousins (author)
	85.	Isn't liberation just a token action because there is no way to give homes to all the animals?
		If one thinks of a liberation action solely in terms of liberation goals, there is some validity in viewing it as token, or symbolic, action. It is true that liberation actions could not succeed applied en masse, because there aren't enough homes for all the animals, and even if there were, distribution channels do not exist for relocating them. Having said this, however, one needs to remember that for the few animals that are liberated, the action is far from a token one. There is a world of difference between spending one's life in a loving home or a sanctuary and spending it imprisoned in a cage waiting for a brutal end..147 Liberation actions need to be viewed with a less literal mindset. As Peter Singer points out, raids are effective in obtaining evidence of animal abuse that could not otherwise have come to light. For example, a raid on Thomas Gennarelli's laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania obtained videotapes that convinced the Secretary for Health and Human Services to stop his experiments. One might also bear in mind that symbolic actions have been some of the most powerful ones seen throughout history. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". - Edmund Burke (statesman and author)
	86.	Isn't AR activism terrorism because it harasses people, destroys property, and threatens humans with injury or death?
		The answer to question #84 should make it clear that most AR activism cannot be described as extreme and, furthermore, that not even all acts described as extreme could be thought of as "terrorism". For example, a peaceful sit-in is highly unlikely to putothers in a state of intense fear. Thus, it is not correct to characterize AR activism generally as terrorism. One of the fundamental guidelines of the extreme activists is that great care must be taken not to inflict harm in carrying out the acts. This has been borne out in practice..148 On the very rare occasions when harm as occurred, the mainstream AR groups have condemned the acts. In some cases, the authors of the acts have been suspected to be those allied against the AR movement; their motives would not require deep thought to decipher. The dictionary defines "terrorism " as the systematic use of violence or acts that instill intense fear to achieve an end. Certainly, harassment of fur wearers, or shouting, "meat is murder " outside a butcher shop, could not be considered to be terrorism. Even destruction of property would not qualify under the definition if it is done without harming others. Certainly, the Boston Tea Party raiders did not consider themselves terrorists. The real terrorists are the people and industries that inflict pain and suffering on millions of innocent animals for trivial purposes each and every day. I am in earnest -I will not equivocate - I will not excuse -I will not retreat a single inch and I will be heard. William Lloyd Garrison (author)
	87.	Isn't extreme activism involving breaking the law (e.g., destruction of property) wrong
		Great men and women have demonstrated throughout history that laws can be immoral, and that we can be justified in breaking them. Those who object to law-breaking under all circumstances would have to condemn:.149 * The Tiananmen Square demonstrators. * The Boston Tea Party participants. * Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. * World war II resistan