I think you missed my point. I certainly have never said that we ought to do anything just because it is natural. Man is the one animal capable of rising above his nature.

You are still speaking of what is “morally right” and I tried to show that “morally right” is a relative, not an absolute concept. There were things that were considered morally right in the past, like slavery, that society has come to abhor.

Even PETA puts animals to death. We don’t do that to humans. No matter what arguments you come up with, most of us really do give humans more rights than we give to animals.

The idea of “rights” can be carried to extremes. There are organizations that support the rights of plants, and people who refuse to eat anything but fruits or clippings that do not destroy the plant.

I eat meat and support the use of animals in research, but I also support humane treatment of those animals. I can’t prove that my stance is “morally right” and you can’t prove that it is “morally wrong.” We can argue in support of our opinions, but that can never settle anything objectively.

Humans may have evolved to have some specific behavior, but that doesn’t mean that such behavior is morally right. Just because something is ‘natural’ doesn’t mean we ought to do it. This is a logical fallacy that is often employed by religious fundamentalists as they denounce gay rights.

You are confusing what *is* with what *ought to be*. It does not logically follow from the fact that something _is_ some way in nature that it _ought_ to be that way.

You are correct that there is no objective way to determine if an argument is ‘correct’, but there are numerous simple ways to determine if one is not sound and should be discarded. I would argue that this could be done with any line of reasoning defending discrimination based on species.

The reasons often used for supporting our treatment of animals quickly collapse upon close rational inspection. My point was that many of the readers who call animal rights concerns an emotional argument have not seemed to explore the rational treatment of their arguments, and therefore it is their stance that may be based on emotion and stubborness instead of reason. To address your main point, I don’t think that humans are good at coming up with good rationalizations for this issue, as I have heard no sound argument in support of our treatment of animals.

I really respect the writers on this blog and most members who contribute to the discussion of an article, but I have been disappointed with the comments I read in this discussion. It seems that many people are readily able to use reason and logic to dissect other people’s faulty arguments, but in this case they are too stubborn or oblivious to give one of their own beliefs the same treatment.

I have always had a very deep love of animals which is one of the main reasons I never applied to a med. or vet school or tried to get an advanced degree in any of the medical sciences. When I was young, I believe they all involved lots of animal experimentation which I knew I couldn’t do.

I don’t eat meat because I love animals not because I believe it offers health benefits. I do not object to others eating it as long as animals are humanely raised and slaughtered. These are my feelings, my emotions. I recognize that.

I have tried to work with “humane” societies and activists but stopped long ago in utter disgust. In my experience the vast majority are not animal lovers at all but disturbed people who cannot deal with death. Have you heard of “collectors”? They are the people you see busted on the 6 o’clock news surrounded by sick, malnourished and dead animals. They think of themselves as “rescuers” and often set up their own personal “humane societies” to get donations and get around laws limiting the number of animals one can keep. The fact that they do not have the resources to adequately care for 20 or 30 cats or dogs just never gets through to them.

The national “activists” are very well organized and have gotten a lot of help from marketing professionals who convinced them that their goal of getting every man, woman, child, cat and dog to be a vegan is a tad unrealistic. What they can do, however, is get people to reduce consumption of animals by convincing them that it is bad for their health and that “natural” “whole” “organic” fruits, veggies as well as “dietary supplements” offer tremendous health benefits. They use “lifestyle” magazines to promote this. They have calculations for the # of animal lives saved for each person who decides to reduce his animal consumption by a specific amount.

IMO, their activities are not simply based on emotion or irrational thought. Although there are some exceptions, the majority have serious mental problems and most certainly are not animal lovers.

I think all the arguments pro and con are ultimately based on emotion and instinct. We have a feeling that something is right or wrong, and we find arguments to support our feelings. We have evolved to have certain moral feelings, and those feelings are influenced by cultural experience. There are no moral absolutes.

Michael Shermer does a bang-up job of explaining this in “The Science of Good and Evil.”

Animals eat other animals and sometimes even members of their own species. We evolved as omnivores. We are less likely to eat our own species because we can think and have empathy. But because we can think and imagine, some societies have actually endorsed eating the flesh of dead relatives or enemies. Some of us try not to eat other animals, some of us follow our natural instincts to eat meat. Whatever we decide we want to do, we are very good at coming up with supporting rationalizations.

If indeed these arguments are correct, then violence in the name of animal rights would not be any different than violence directed at ending a slave trade. In a hundred years, modern human society may look at how we use animals as being just as horrible as the practice of denying rights to women or people of a different race.

I ask of the readers here: can you agree for certain with previous comments that claim that the animal rights movement is based on emotion? Have you explored the ethical theories upon which these people operate? Have you developed a sound theory that allows you to morally kill, eat and otherwise use animals – one that doesn’t lead to moral issues with mentally retarded humans (ie, one that is not based on intelligence)? If not, then are you so sure that it is not your position that is based on emotion?

But seriously I am so glad you guys write on this site. I have long been skeptical of just what animal activists are trying to accomplish and what their ideal world looks like. I just can’t get there. I learned a lot about their arguments from reading your article!

It makes me scared that people like Dr. Jerry Vlasak exist.

As a society, we have no problem eating meat, wearing leather, etc. I love a good filet, and comfy shoes.

Even more important than their use as food is the use of animals in biomedical research. Of course you can argue that there is a moral trade-off, but the scales weight pretty heavily on the side of needing animals for research.

It also doesn’t help that animal rights terrorists resort to violence and intimidation, and have no rational alternative to propose.

As stated above, they could put their money where their Molotovs are—volunteer for some nasty medical experiments.

I’m a big fan of The Skeptic’s Guide to the Universe, and that’s how i got here. I have never felt the need to write to either this or other blogs/sites/podcasts related to skepticism and the reality-based community i proudly see myself as part of, but your post made me get off my butt and say something.

A bit of background first, if I may: On one hand, i am a skeptic and a firm fan of Science, Reason, Critical Thinking and the Scientific Method. These are, imho, the best tools we have to know reality. On the other, i’m also interested in ethics and morals, and that includes our relationship with other sentient beings, aka animals.

I am aware of the need for animal experimentation in medicine (not for cosmetics or tobacco, alcohol or drug related diseases, though) and i agree that it should be done for that purpose until a better solution emerges .

I am *totally* against the threats and worse attacks by those extremists that call themselves Animal Rights Defenders. They are anti-human bullies and fascists, that’s what they are (although most define themselves as anarchists, which they clearly aren’t).
There was once, long ago, an ALF that rescued animals from labs and farms, and destroyed cages and gear, but that went a long way in planning actions so that NO ONE was harmed, no one at all. Those days are long gone, unfortunately.
Today, there are only irrational folks, spreading lies as the ones you mentioned (animal research as bad science and so on) and willing to hurt other people in order to force their worldview. Dreadfull.

Still, i must express my pity regarding the fact that you did not went into the ethical realm on this post, although it is highly understandable why:

a) it was not really the topic and
b) animal usage is really hard to defend, on ethical grounds.

Ethically, a person and say, a fish, both share the ability to suffer*, and therefore both should share, imho, the right not to be used, tortured, killed, etc., by a member of a rational species such as us humans. Why? Because of the fact that we are free from pure instinct, and therefore resposible for our actions. Therefore, if we shouldn’t use/torture/kill a deeply mentally-disabled human being, then surely we should’t do that to another being that too was irrational.

(* – in different scales, granted, but a basic common ground exists – pain and fear and so on).

This would be the core argument, and we must of course go beyond it, and recognise the necessity to use/kill animals when it’s *really* necessary – such as the case for medicine-based animal research, seals and bears killed to eat by eskimos (where there’s nothing else to eat except those animals and seaweeds), etc. But the argument is sound, and quite defensable, unless we allow ourselves to be speciecists.

This of course is the ethical basis: I, for instance, gave up on veganism, about 2 years ago, to go back to vegetarianism – i simply craved for eggs and dairy too much; wool pullovers too! Does that make me an hypocrite? I dunno, maybe just weak

I guess i’ve wandered off a little, and probably wrote too much – sorry for that! – but i would just like to point out that there are reality-based folks – brights, new atheists, whatever you want to call us – that oppose animal-rights-terrorism but also unnecessary animal suffering, and that is because we use rationality and critical thinking (not ideology) to oppose BOTH kinds of un-ethical behaviours.

cheers,
wm

Nevertheless, I think you let yourself off too easily in your comments on the animal rights issue. You feel comfortable condemning the immorality of the extremists’ unconscionable acts of terrorism, but then you do not feel obliged to include any discussion of the moral issues involved in animal research. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is a purely scientific issue. While I agree that animal research is currently indispensible in developing better health care for humans, and the 3-R approach is probably the best we can do for now, I don’t think this obviates dealing with the fundamental question of why the issue exists at all.

You border on a strawman argument by referring almost exclusively to the most extreme and irrational forms of animal rights thinking and action, while downplaying the fact that there are many reasonable, rational, and dedicated scientists who feel there are reasons to be uncomfortable with animal experimentation. While I understand you did not set out to address the philosophical or moral dimensions of the question (except for condemning the acts of terrorism you began with describing), I think this weakens your argument. You managed to express quite clearly and forcefully how you feel about the moral issues while claiming to only be dealing with science and facts.

The privileging of human welfare over that of research animals is a natural and probably evolved prejudice. It is understandable that people feel that our welfare is more important than that of other species. But this is not a rational or scientific conclusion, merely a natural prejudice. As we have the capacity to reason and dispense with all kinds of sloppy thinking and innate prejudices, there is no reason we should not examine this one dispassionately as well. Many philosophers and scientists have done so, and there is a great deal of literature of substance, not just extremist manifestos, on the subject. I do not think you are taking the more rational or scientific path by ignoring this and taking as an assumption that animal research is automatically justifiable in terms of the benfits it produces for our species.

So while I agree that the arguments against the utility of animal research are weak, I think you departed from your usual standards or reason and objectivity in this piece in favor of expressing your own heartfelt but undemonstrated feelings and prejudices. As a standard bearer for reason and science, you have a great responsibility to eschew presenting your own biases on a complex question as the obvious scientific and rational conclusion. I have been involved in primate research myself, so I have been on the receiving end of extremist threats and propoganda. I currently am listed on the “Declaw Hall of Shame” website for performing this surgical procedure in my veterinary practice. So I understand where your strong feelings may come from. But I believe you short-changed the arguments and the real issues in favor of these feelings, and I would caution you to be as wary of that as you rightly caution others to be when evaluating complex questions using reason and evidence.

My wife works as a researcher in immunology. She doesn’t do many animal experiments, but she has to do some and they are necessary. This article also hits close to home … my wife was sent home from work early because of a bomb threat in the building next door recently (the bomb threat was from an animal rights’ group).

Can we all agree that terrorism, whether it be bombing/shooting up abortion clinics, flying planes into buildings, suicide bombings, and threatening animal researchers and/or their facilities/homes is WRONG and stop doing it?

Of course, the above is a rhetorical question and will be argued to death by the animal rights’ activists who accept, condone, or even perform such heinous acts (even as they disapprove of one or more of the other types of terrorism I mentioned). The stupid, it burns, as Atrios would say.

Yeah, just like the Intelligent Design proponents and Global Warming deniers.

As for as the moral issues go, I never understood the anti-testing crowd. As a “preference” utilitarian, the fact that testing helps significantly in treating diseases that affect large numbers of people means that such research can be well defended. Without some of the advancement obtained from such testing, more animals (counting people) could be worse off. I also don’t see how they are on the “same level” as people by any sort of neurological standards. I’m pretty sure they can feel pain, like us, so I do avoid unnecessary harm to animals and am also a vegetarian. I don’t *like* testing, and probably nor does anyone else. But at the moment it is justifiable. If computer models and such get so good we can replace them, then great, we should do that. Until then…

@PalMD: I glanced at your blog and noticed the McCain statement. Wow! I was floored by that . . . though maybe I shouldn’t have even been surprised.