I think if you apply that line of reasoning to any "rights" at all, you end up with the same conclusion. If rights only make sense when one can guarantee them for oneself, I'd say thety are pretty pointless.
Well, "rights" as a concept are faulty if one is not able to exercise them oneself. The traditional definition of rights is freedom from interference by third parties in one's activities. This means that one must be able to exercise freedom and despite fluffy notions of free animals, freedom does not equal Watership Down. It's an Enlightenment concept. (Say what you like, at least my position is consistent – see the two Marxism threads in Head Shop.)
But, largely, I don't think one should get too hung up on a semantic argument. Some people feel that we should not simply use animals for our own purposes. Most people agree with with to a certain extent. We've talked abot this recently (IIRC), and I think I can say that most people accept that torturing animals for little benefit is not acceptable. People opposed to animal testing take that a step further, arguing that the benefit of research cannot or does not outweigh the ethical duty to refrain from harm.
OK, in short my problem is that I feel that "animal rights" as a concept is a perversion of language – it has in-built into it the concept of moral rectitude. This doesn't help dialogue.
Anyway, if we skip past that to this: "most people accept that torturing animals for little benefit is not acceptable".
Yes, I can't imagine any right thinking (in the loosest possible sense) person disagreeing with that statement. The problem is how does one define benefit? Or torture?
Your use of the term torture is a bit suspect. Torture of animals suggests, to me at least, random acts of violence perpetrated to no end, tautologically speaking. Sticking on "of little benefit" to the end twists the meaning to include testing on animals and then people who support animal testing (such as myself) are left attempting to defend "torture" in circumstances when the benefits outweigh the negatives.
This is a piece of reworking language on the scale of the "pro-life" lobby – it forces people to defend a position that is indefensible and not actually the one that they hold.
Also, this is a bit of a stretch: "People opposed to animal testing take that a step further, arguing that the benefit of research cannot or does not outweigh the ethical duty to refrain from harm."
People opposed to animal testing have gone several steps farther.
Not all animal rights activists have even performed the task of weighing up the pros and cons. Some would argue that such people are anti-science. This is clearly true of some animal rights activists, but arguably not of all.
Moreover, is there not a position thus: no to testing for cosmetics, yes for testing for cancer drugs?
And, ultimately, is medical and scientific progress not more important than guinea pigs?
J... |
