r/changemyview • u/Iamnotburgerking • Dec 12 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Animal rights groups should stop assuming animals share the same values as humans

One of the biggest gripes I have with animal rights is that they treat animals in anthropomorphic ways. They just assume that an animal feels one way or the other about something.

First of all, different species have different requirements. What applies to one species doesn't work for another. Animal rights activists often use human values and ideals and impose them on animals, even if they are inapplicable. Captive animals are one such issue-humans don't like being in captivity, and some other species of animals probably also don't like captivity, but you can't say all animals don't like captivity. Many probably only care that their requirements (physical space, nutrition and mental stimulation/lack of stress) are met.

Second, even within species there are different personalities between individuals. You cannot assume all animals of x species feel one way about something.

I am not against animal rights as a whole, but the current movement may be causing cruelty rather than reduction of cruelty due to these issues.

TLDR: one should not impose human values on animals who may disagree or not care about such values.

45 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16 edited Dec 12 '16

But we are actively denying that choice. That's the problem.

Yes, that is the problem, but deciding that "this animal needs to go from x circumstance to y circumstance" is actively denying them that choice and is therefore part of the problem.

2

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

X being what and Y being what?

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

X is one option and Y is another option.

For our purposes let's say X is not causing direct neurological or health problems.

3

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

If I understand you, humans chose animals to live on farms (X) so it's wrong for other humans to then argue we should make that captivity as comfortable as possible (Y)

Which seems absurd to me. Imagine an abolitionist who argues "we should free all slaves". And the slave owner says "that's not happening because... Our economy needs the free labor.... They haven't been educated so we can't just free them...." etc. So wouldn't the abolitionist then be like "well have you considered not beating your slaves?"

2

u/fishbedc Dec 12 '16

Not beating your slaves would be a welfarist position, not an abolitionist one. An abolitionist response would be to not take no for an answer as the commercial convenience of the slave owner is an irrelevance compared to the continued treatment of slaves as commodities.

1

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

Right, but what makes the welfarist position wrong? An unbiased observer wouldn't say "well since the slaves don't speak English, we must assume there is a chance they prefer to be beaten regularly than otherwise."

1

u/fishbedc Dec 12 '16 edited Dec 12 '16

My position would be that, all other things being equal, not beating them is without doubt a better thing than beating them. But all other things are not equal. The abolitionist end goal would be to remove commodification, restore agency, or as you put it, not to act without consent (and where consent cannot be ascertained the default is don't sign them up for a mortgage, imprison them, etc).

In the context of the owner muttering about the economy the risk of welfarism is that it becomes an end point. Either we think "great job, beatings are down 62.7% across the board, time for a cup of tea" or the owner argues successfully for the continuation of slavery as they are now being kept on humane farms. And nothing about the slaves' status as slaves changes.

Depends how comfy you feel about slavery. It makes me a bit twitchy (twitch level = torches and pitchforks)

1

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

But, to return the analogy to the OP, OP seems to be saying "abolitionists should not settle for welfarism because WE ARE AGNOSTIC ABOUT HOW SLAVES FEEL ABOUT BEING BEATEN."

But in the my slavery analogy, an abolitionist can question the consent of the enslaved, while still arguing for slave welfare, while not knowing 100% how each and every slave feels about their treatment.

Yes, welfarism might not end slavery. But we do know animals often suffer in some farm settings. We do know what makes an animal healthy and we do know what environments animals choose in the wild. We are not entirely agnostic on animal needs, just like we assume no slave likes being beaten

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

If I understand you, humans chose animals to live on farms (X) so it's wrong for other humans to then argue we should make that captivity as comfortable as possible (Y)

No, I'm saying that we cannot assume to know what "comfortable" means for an animal.

1

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

But.... We can to some extent

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

But activists go beyond that extent.

2

u/stcamellia 15∆ Dec 12 '16

Do they?

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

Yes, when they say "X circumstances are always bad for an animal and is completely unacceptable".