From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 18 2001 - 10:53:01 MST
On Saturday, February 17, 2001 11:49 PM zeb haradon zebharadon@hotmail.com
wrote:
> >>The "inner core" of PETA is also again't pet ownership (or was)
> >>which is something their glassy-eyed subscribers are probably
> >>unaware of.
> >
> >Why do you say that? I would think that most PETA members would also
> >be against pet ownership. The concept of owning an animal seems to
> >conflict with the concept of animal rights or returning animals to
> >their natural state. I am not aware of any animal-rights activists
> >who would support pet ownership. The two concepts appear to be
> >incompatible to me.
>
> I think you're assuming that these people think about their beliefs in a
> logical way and try to resolve the inconsitencies they find. That would be
> an incorrect assumption. A lot of animal rights people speak favorably of
> having "animal companions".
Having dated an ex-PETA member, I think a lot of the talk on this thread has
been bullshit. In general, PETA wants to phase out pet ownership. My ex
believed pets to be an intrusion of humanity into other species. He did not
want to see pets go unowned, but just to have all of them desexed.
His reasoning was based on his repugnance with animal suffering. How does
one leap from having pets to animal suffering? His argument went like this.
Many pets will be breed in excess of what people actually will keep as pets.
Many pets will be abandoned. These will breed even more and become a public
nuisance.
I don't agree with this reasoning, but it is not exactly totally illogical.
(At the same time, I don't have any pets, but that's because a) I find most
animals (including humans) disgusting and filthy and b) I don't have the
time or space to care them.)
BTW, has anyone here read any of Peter Singer's works? He's the big animal
rights philosopher. I read his _How Are We To Live?_ several years ago and
found it wanting. He assumes a cleavage between being moral and being
happy -- doing what you ought to do as opposed to doing what you want to do.
His basic view of morality is as a collection of duties, however
systematically grouped together they might be. (I wrote to him on the
subject before he came to Princeton, but got a form letter reply.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:05:55 MST