| Tuesday, September 09, 2008 |
 |
Derbyshire on the Morality of Animal Research
By Paul Hsieh @ 7:03 AM   
British scientist Stuart Derbyshire recently wrote the following essay defending the right of humans to use animals in scientific/medical research, and attacking the current UK scientific mainstream position against such research.
I thought it was especially noteworthy that he attempted to make his case on moral grounds. For instance, his article is entitled:"Humans are more important than animals" Also, the subheading is:"When it comes to using animals in research, the only moral judgement should be: does it benefit humankind?" In a related earlier essay from 2006 entitled, "The hard arguments about vivisection", Derbyshire also arguee:There is very good reason for believing that human beings are special. The sheer staggering scale and richness of human culture are unlike anything in any other species. The development of medicine, industry, transportation, communication, clean water, a stable food supply, and so on, are the discernible signs of culture and progress that are evidently absent from the non-human world. The absence of such cultural development in the animal world means that their experiences are also likely to be wholly dissimilar from ours, both as a cause and consequence of their limited progress.
Arguments in favour of animal research must include an acknowledgement that human beings are special... Derbyshire is definitely moving in the right direction, although he does not quite make the full moral case. What he lacks is the explicit identification of reason as the source of human "specialness" (although it is implicit in his argument). It is man's capacity for reason that gives rise to and explains the various unique features of human culture and behaviour Derbyshire describes. "Reason" is thus a fundamental characteristic of "man", and is why one properly defines "man" as "a rational animal".
Derbyshire also doesn't quite make the argument that reason is the source of rights and that it is precisely man's capacity for reason (and the volitional exercise thereof) that makes man's special moral status both possible and necessary:The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A -- and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. This is yet another example of where Objectivist philosophy can help place others' good ideas on a more solid philosophical footing.
Nonetheless, it is encouraging to see a scientist taking a man-centered view of his work, and using benefit to man as his standard of value. I hope we will see more discussion by scientists along these lines. And I also hope that Objectivists will be contributing to this debate.
* * *
I did submit a supportive letter to Spiked, but I'm not completely satisfied with the argument I used. If anyone has ideas for better formulations aimed at an active-minded member of the general public, please offer your suggestions in the comments section. In particular, I am interested in formulations that would fit within the usual LTE word limit of 150-250 words. I also welcome any criticism of what I actually did submit. If I botched my argument or should have taken a different tack, please don't be shy in telling me!
Here is what I submitted:Thank you for publishing Dr. Stuart Derbyshire's essay, as well as linking to his 2006 piece, "The Hard Arguments About Vivisection".
As a practicing physician, I am blessed to see daily the tremendous benefits that patients reap from scientific breakthroughs resulting from animal research -- such as new "clot buster" drugs to stop brain strokes.
I wish more scientists defended the morality of animal research on precisely the same grounds that Dr. Derbyshire does -- that it is good for people.
Dr. Derbyshire is quite right -- humans are special relative to animals, because they possess the unique faculty of reason. It is this faculty that gives rise to and explains all the manifestations of human culture that he rightly praises in his 2006 essay, such as "medicine, industry, transportation, communication". Animals exhibit none of this complex behaviour precisely because they lack the faculty of reason.
Furthermore it is man's faculty of reason, not his capacity for suffering, that makes the concept of "rights" both possible and necessary. Rights are moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context -- principles which presuppose both volition and reason. Animals have survival needs, but not rights -- we don't say that a lion violates an antelope's "rights" when it stalks and kills the antelope. Nor does a human violate a cow's "rights" when he eats a hamburger.
If humans can morally eat animals for food, we can also properly use them for other purposes that serve human interests, such as medical research.
Thank you,
Paul Hsieh, MD
Sedalia, CO
USA
Co-founder, Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM) Update: My letter (along with a few others) appears here.Labels: Animals, Ethics, Science
|
| |
 E-mail Paul Hsieh
 PermaLink ( )
 Comments [6] (New Page)
|
|
| Friday, August 29, 2008 |
|
Protect People and Livestock, Not Feral Dogs
By Diana Hsieh @ 12:01 AM
On Wednesday, I received the following e-mail from Mary Fries, the owner of Isle Farms with her husband Rod. I own a cowshare and a half with them, so that I can drink a gallon and a half of their clean, safe, and delicious raw milk each week.
I decided to post it here, with permission, because it highlights the very real evil of blind sympathy for wild animals fostered by animal rights activists. Plus, given how much I love my raw milk, I'd be delighted if others would write a supportive e-mail to the County Commissioner.
Here's the letter from Mary:
Dear Shareholders,
I realized last night that this issue pertains as much to you as it does me, so I wanted to include you and ask for your help.
Yesterday, I was out on the land, checking in on a new calf that was born this weekend. As I was standing in front of the herd, they all started running-straight towards me!-and it was all I could do to spin around one, step, spin again, and end up leaning up again the barb-wired fence. Right behind the cows, at full run, were a pack of wild dogs. One was a pit bull-who headed straight for me. I grabbed an old fence post that was by my feet, and that detoured him from coming closer. He and the other dogs left without further prodding.
This is a good summary of what the news was talking about a few weeks ago, about the dogs here in Ellicott. We personally have been fighting this problem from the get-go. The law regarding wild dogs is this -- you can only shoot them if they are in the midst of attacking your livestock. Many times Rod has gone out there with the shotgun, while the dogs were in the midst of chasing the cows, but by the time he gets in range, the dogs see him coming, and run off.
I phoned Amy Lathen (County Commissioner) almost immediately yesterday. She headed up the plan to finally get these dogs under control, after years of complaints from residents. When I explained what happened, she said she had a contract ready to go with the USDA for the trapping, but they were dragging their feet. Apparently, after the news ran the segment, they got so many emails from not just Colorado Springs residents, but throughout the country, and all the way from INDIA!!, with people berating their efforts as inhumane.
I'm all for animals, but the people emailing do not have any idea of what the farmers and ranchers face when these things happen. For our farm, and many others in the area, this is part of our livelihood. These dogs are WILD, and the situations that are arising, are downright dangerous for both livestock and humans. And humane -- what about the cows? They stress from being chased, and having to fight them off!
I'm asking that all of you take a second and email Amy, let her know that you are behind her effort to help our community keep ourselves and our livestock safe. You can say anything -- a short "we are behind you in your efforts" to "I have ownership in livestock in Ellicott, and support you in helping keep them safe". Whatever you can do, I think she was pretty beat up over this whole thing.
Although -- her final words to me were "That's it. We are going to do this." Here is her email -- AmyLathen@elpasoco.com
Huge thanks to you all, from me AND the cows :o)
One more thing -- after the cows stampeded past me yesterday, they ran in a U shape, and I was trying to figure out why they didn't run VERY far away. Then I happened to notice, surrounded by 18 pairs of hooves, a little head popping up out of the grass -- Baby Dolla :o) They weren't going anywhere with that baby unprotected... what good cows :o)
Mary Here's the letter that I wrote to the County Commissioner:
Dear Ms Lathen,
I'm a resident of Douglas County, but I have livestock in Ellicott. (I have shares in Mary and Rod Fries' herd.)
I'm very concerned to hear of the wild dogs that have been periodically terrorizing their farm, putting people and livestock at risk. So I wish to express my wholehearted support for the county doing whatever is necessary to neutralize the threat posed by these wild dogs.
Human lives and property should not be at the mercy of dangerous feral dogs due to misplaced public sympathy for them. Human beings and human concerns should come first!
Thank you for your efforts to take care of the problem.
(Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you please, if that would be helpful to you.)
-- DMH Please feel free to write your own brief letter of support to the County Commissioner (AmyLathen@elpasoco.com). She needs some moral support for her totally just decision to prioritize humans and livestock over dangerous feral dogs. Basically, it's a good opportunity for a wee bit of activism against the animal rights crusaders. And it could make a great deal of difference to the safety and welfare of the people and livestock terrorized by these dogs.Labels: Animals, Environmentalism, Law
|
| |
E-mail Diana Hsieh
PermaLink ()
Comments [14] (New Page)
|
|
| Monday, August 11, 2008 |
|
Happiness is a Warm Puppy
By Paula Hall @ 2:06 AM
I couldn't have said it better myself:
Pet rentals
Now banned in Boston, perhaps because of the risk that they might bring too much happiness to the humans involved. The Massachusetts House has passed a bill that would outlaw pet rental in Massachusetts:
The bill, filed by Representative Paul K. Frost, Republican of Auburn, outlaws pet-rental companies because of what he called "public health, public safety, consumer concerns, and ethical issues."
"I'm very pleased we were able to get it passed today and engrossed in the House," Frost said. "It's a kind of business model that fosters disposable pets." Let's unpack that one, shall we?
People presumably rent pets because they enjoy them but have decided they're really unfit to own one. Or perhaps they are unsure whether they want a pet so they want to try it out first. Isn't it better that these people don't proceed directly to pet ownership? And doesn't this create a larger pool of potential owners, as potentially responsible pet owners, originally unsure of their fitness and so abstaining from ownership, learn first-hand that they really would be a great pet owner?
Now, consider the following facts about the pet rental business in question:
- All of the pets are rescued animals who have been socialized and trained.
- The pet rental company lets you adopt a pet you like.
- The pets aren't kenneled, but live in homes when they're not being rented.
- After they've passed rental age, they're placed into permanent homes and provided for by the pet rental business -- for life.
- Any pet rental company with crazed animals is going to go out of business, after which its owners will be sued into oblivion.
- The only way to sell a desirable product -- an enjoyable animal companion, in this case -- is by treating it very, very well.
Read more of the FAQ at FlexPetz and you'll realize just how well those pets are treated. I don't think that the people who are against pet rental have actually read the FAQ and understood how ethically that business operates. It's clear that pet rental is a perfect option for animals in shelters and pounds that no-one is adopting, but who are otherwise adoptable. Would the animal activists prefer that these animals languish in shelters with no human attention for the last miserable days of their lives?
Frankly, I think pet rental will promote pet adoption. And for those pets no-one wants to adopt, at least they'll be treated very well simply because of the profit motive, and because they will never have to spend time with a human who isn't 100% excited to have them around.
None of this is to say that animals, even those humans adopt as pets, have any legal rights. They don't. But it is possible to pass judgment on whether a person's behavior towards an animal is moral or immoral. FlexPetz looks decidedly moral.
For the people opposed to this business, I think happiness is a miserable puppy. Lonely animals on death row in shelters give them something to vent their nihilistic rage about.
(Cross-posted at ms. think.)Labels: Animals, Law
|
| |
E-mail Paula Hall
PermaLink ()
Comments [13] (New Page)
|
|
|
| | |
Diana Hsieh
Paul Hsieh
Greg Perkins
Paula Hall
Guest NoodleFoodlers
Gina Liggett
Roderick Fitts
Brandon Byrd
Recent Comments
RSS Feed
Posts by E-Mail
NoodleFoodlers
Archives
Ask a Question
Blogger Trackbacks
Technorati Trackbacks
Reader Map
OActivists E-mail List
OBloggers E-mail List
OAcademics E-mail List
Ayn Rand Lexicon
False Objectivism Collection
The Objective Standard
The Undercurrent
Ayn Rand Institute
Ayn Rand Society
DC Objectivist Salon
Front Range Objectivism
Coalition for Secular Government
Vote No on 48
Vote No on 59
Repeal the Bailout
EPA Ruination
FIRM (Freedom and
Individual Rights in Medicine)
Diana's NetFlix Friends
Paul Hsieh's GeekPress
Meredith Brickell Ceramics
The Balboa Experiment
GeekPress
Politics without God
We Stand FIRM
Principles in Practice
The Undercurrent
Daily Improvisation
Flibbertigibbet
Gus Van Horn
Rule of Reason
Ari Armstrong
Free Colorado
Rational Jenn
Myrhaf
Ms. Think
Spark A Synapse
TUAW
Mac Gems
Mac OS X Tips
O'Reilly Mac Blog
Go Fug Yourself
waiterrant.net
Overheard at College
Overheard in New York
Whedonesque
Volokh Conspiracy
TheAgitator.com
Marginal Revolution
Little Green Footballs
Instapundit.com
Michael Eades
Free the Animal
Whole Health Source
Modern Forager
Art De Vany
Mark's Daily Apple
Heart Scan
IF Life
Go Frolic
My Paleo Kitchen
Artsy-Foodie
Fitness Fixation
Fitness Spotlight
CrossFit
Valhalla CrossFit
Travels with Daisy
Jamie's Travel Log
Lifehacker
43 Folders
Daytipper
3 Things Today
LifeHack
GTD in Academia
DIY Life
Steve Pavlina
Thrutch
The Hoondat Report
Software Nerd
The Edge of Reason
Patient Power
One Reality
Valzhalla
Galileo Blogs
3 Ring Binder
The Little Things
Optional Values
Aesthetic Capitalist
Wayne's Dirty Lab
Lyle's Blog
Robbservations
Making Progress
Applying Philosophy
The Eleutherian Laureate
Individualist Outlook
Kindredist
Born to Identify
Try Reason!
Erosophia
Pedagogically Correct
History At Our House
Non-Trivial Pursuit
Haight Speech
TalkObjectivism
Leitmotif
Shaving Leviathan
Personal Development
Philosopher Stone
Rhyme of the Day
Mudita Journal
Shawn Klein
Wall of Separation
The Torch
Capitalism Magazine
Dynamist Blog
Deep Glamour
Fly Bottle
Joanne Jacobs
Tim Sandefur
Tom G Palmer
Liberty and Power
Positive Liberty
Daily Dish
EconLog
Randex
Talking To Myself
Secular Foxhole
Acid Free Paper
Mike's Eyes
Capitalist Lion
The American Individualist
Armchair Intellectual
Literatrix
Witch Doctor Repellent
Benevolent Misanthropy
Truth, Justice...
Philosophical Detective
Classical Values
One Minute Case
Francisco Gutierrez
PhilosopherEagle
noumenalself
Ad Hoc
Alexander Marriott
KatieAllisonGranju.com
Tightly Wound
Cranky Professor
Discriminations
Leiter Reports
Wickens.ca
Stark Relief
Passing Thoughts
USS Clueless
Anger Management
Cox & Forkum
Semper Vigilo
Abandon Caution
Purr Se
Tom Rowland
American Individualist
peltz at hand
March 2002
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
|
