PETA vs Seaworld

[aborgman]

Yes, we do.

No.

Morality is merely a human construct evolved to improve inter-human relations in tribal situations. It has no objective underpinning.

 

[Gaius46]

Through their guardians? Sorry, I am not buying.

In the meantime, animals such as seeing eye dogs, guard dogs, police & military dogs, dogs that detect explosives or drugs on a criminal investigation, are still just animals and cannot participate in society. The list does not end with dogs, but anyone with an open mind can get the idea.

My point is that your comments are emotional rationalizations, not logical. They boil down to, "we will do what we want because we can." May I suggest that the possible consequences of bassybill's scenario make more logical sense to someone who buys into the mentality of superior evolution?

First my comments are not "emotional rationalizations." There's a long standing and well established view that legal rights do not exist without corrosponding duties or obligations. For example if I have a right to a piece of property you have an obligation to not destroy my property.
A dog cannot recognize my right to a slipper and if he destroys it I cannot sue him because he is incapable of consenting to undertake the obligation to recognize my rights.

And as far as guardianship what exactly is it that you think a guardian does? Within the bounds set up whomever established the guardianship a guardian exercises their ward's legal rights in order to further the ward's interests.

 

[Tituscrow]

No.

Morality is merely a human construct evolved to improve inter-human relations in tribal situations. It has no objective underpinning.

Doesn't matter how fancy you dress it up. Bottom line is, we should take better care of the animals that share our planet with us. And for me, that extends to not keeping cetaceans in tanks or primates in cages.

 

[boynamedsuse]

First my comments are not "emotional rationalizations." There's a long standing and well established view that legal rights do not exist without corrosponding duties or obligations. For example if I have a right to a piece of property you have an obligation to not destroy my property.
A dog cannot recognize my right to a slipper and if he destroys it I cannot sue him because he is incapable of consenting to undertake the obligation to recognize my rights.

And as far as guardianship what exactly is it that you think a guardian does? Within the bounds set up whomever established the guardianship a guardian exercises their ward's legal rights in order to further the ward's interests.

I get what you are saying. Still, the point is that people have what they legally have in the USA (and most of the Western world) because it's their god-given right. It is not something they earned or merit.

 

[aborgman]

Doesn't matter how fancy you dress it up. Bottom line is, we should take better care of the animals that share our planet with us.

I agree we should.

...but that is just because that is what MY morality is, not because there is some inherent objective "rightness" to it.

And for me, that extends to not keeping cetaceans in tanks or primates in cages.

For me that extends to not unnecessarily keeping cetaceans in tanks or primates in cages. It also extends to treating animals as well as possible given their use.

...but the idea that all use of animals (either as food, labor, or experimental subjects) is inherently wrong because there is some moral imperative to minimize suffering (while ignoring all other metrics) is just plain silly.

 

[HunterBrodt]

I don't think this is that off topic, but recently a animals right group burned down a fur shop 30 min away from my house. Also it was a fireworks stand.... Yeah you get the picture. I also don't know if the animal rights people get this, but if there is a demand, supply will be met. Which means since they destroyed lets say 100 furs.., about another 100 animals will be killed to replace that demand. So it really seems counter productive to destroy people's lively hoods.

 

[12bass]

Oh how funny it will be when the aliens come with their crock pots and favorite spices, laughing about the "superior" taste of Homo sapiens....

 

[Tituscrow]

I agree we should.

...but that is just because that is what MY morality is, not because there is some inherent objective "rightness" to it.

For me that extends to not unnecessarily keeping cetaceans in tanks or primates in cages. It also extends to treating animals as well as possible given their use.

...but the idea that all use of animals (either as food, labor, or experimental subjects) is inherently wrong because there is some moral imperative to minimize suffering (while ignoring all other metrics) is just plain silly.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I just didn't fancy straying into the realms of philosophical definitions of morality.

I know that over the years I have taken medicines, eaten meat and worn clothes that at some point in their research/production have involved the suffering and death of an animal. Not particularly proud of that fact (unlike the 'orca burger' crowd), but I understand and accept that it happens. The treatment my daughter received when she nearly died of ecoli poisoning was no doubt successful because of the endless studies on the effects of medicines etc on mammalian renal systems.

The argument from an above poster about dogs is null, because dogs, like cats, have been bred as domestic human companions for millennia. Yes, they still have a wild instinct, but they are not wolves.

As for unnecessary captivity, I'd count zoos and mammal aquariums as examples of such. Why do we need orcas performing tricks, or chimps throwing each others poop at each other?

 

[gnjpowell]

Save the whales? I've barely got room for a few basses, where'm I gonna keep a collection of whales???

 

[boynamedsuse]

. . . .
The argument from an above poster about dogs is null, because dogs, like cats, have been bred as domestic human companions for millennia. Yes, they still have a wild instinct, but they are not wolves.
. . . .

As a clarification, my comment about dogs was related to the remark that the way people and animals are treated is based on their ability to "participate in society." Since some people are unable to "participate in society" and some animals do "participate in society" I suggested that such an argument is illogical (as well as not being in line with actual facts).

 

[boynamedsuse]

Save the whales? I've barely got room for a few basses, where'm I gonna keep a collection of whales???

Good point. This is the reason my wife gave me (which I had to accept) when I proposed getting a DB. We really don't have anywhere to put it.

 

[Tituscrow]

As a clarification, my comment about dogs was related to the remark that the way people and animals are treated is based on their ability to "participate in society." Since some people are unable to "participate in society" and some animals do "participate in society" I suggested that such an argument is illogical (as well as not being in line with actual facts).

No probs. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[aborgman]

I know that over the years I have taken medicines, eaten meat and worn clothes that at some point in their research/production have involved the suffering and death of an animal. Not particularly proud of that fact (unlike the 'orca burger' crowd), but I understand and accept that it happens.

One should be neither proud, nor ashamed, by it.

The argument from an above poster about dogs is null, because dogs, like cats, have been bred as domestic human companions for millennia. Yes, they still have a wild instinct, but they are not wolves.

Dogs are much closer to wolves than most domesticated livestock are to there wild predecessors. Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. have ALL been bred as domestic human companions for millennia.

As for unnecessary captivity, I'd count zoos and mammal aquariums as examples of such. Why do we need orcas performing tricks, or chimps throwing each others poop at each other?

See: Species Survival Plans, the European Endangered Species Programme, etc.

If it weren't for such programs the Golden Lion Tamarin, Red Wolf and Przewalski's horse would already be extinct.

It also ignores that the great majority of zoo animals in the USA were NEVER wild and were born in captivity.

 

[BassyBill]

Earlier I posted about people about people who seem unable to see their own opinions as anything other than objective fact - there's some truly classic examples in this thread of what I was talking about.

Well, at least it's giving me a bit of a chuckle.

 

[Tituscrow]

One should be neither proud, nor ashamed, by it.

Dogs are much closer to wolves than most domesticated livestock are to there wild predecessors. Cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. have ALL been bred as domestic human companions for millennia.

See: Species Survival Plans, the European Endangered Species Programme, etc.

If it weren't for such programs the Golden Lion Tamarin, Red Wolf and Przewalski's horse would already be extinct.

It also ignores that the great majority of zoo animals in the USA were NEVER wild and were born in captivity.

Just because they were born in captivity, doesn't make it right.

And yes, I know all about the many conservation projects you mention, and more. But animals come in and out of existence all the time. If a species is doomed (Spix's Macaw and the Lythracine are good examples), then it's because its niche has gone. Whether that's through natural or manmade means is another debate. If we are to invest time, expertise and money in playing the saviour, I think we should be doing it in the environment and habitat that the animal belongs. Yes, many regions of the world are deeply unstable and this inhibits any genuine attempt to do so, but where's the joy in saying 'we've got the last tiger alive' if it's in a cage?

Maybe when we do finally lose the last tiger, or gorilla, or rhino, or panda, or any of the multitude of other animals on their last legs, then we may wake up and finally realise what a mess we've made.

Or not.

 

[BassyBill]

Maybe when we do finally lose the last tiger, or gorilla, or rhino, or panda, or any of the multitude of other animals on their last legs, then we may wake up and finally realise what a mess we've made.

Or not.

We won't. Not a chance. Man has sent many species into extinction with no regrets at all and will continue to do so right up until it's our own turn. The Yang-tse river dolphin is one of the saddest and most recent examples. It will happen again and again, largely because many people have the sort of opinions that have been expressed elsewhere in this thread.

 

[aborgman]

Just because they were born in captivity, doesn't make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

Depends on the entirety of the circumstances.

And yes, I know all about the many conservation projects you mention, and more. But animals come in and out of existence all the time. If a species is doomed (Spix's Macaw and the Lythracine are good examples), then it's because its niche has gone. Whether that's through natural or manmade means is another debate. If we are to invest time, expertise and money in playing the saviour, I think we should be doing it in the environment and habitat that the animal belongs.

Why shouldn't we be doing BOTH?

Lets not get hung up on a false dichotomy.

Most zoos (and related organizations) are doing both.

Yes, many regions of the world are deeply unstable and this inhibits any genuine attempt to do so, but where's the joy in saying 'we've got the last tiger alive' if it's in a cage?

Where is the joy in saying "a murderer killed half of my children"? There isn't any. It's still a preferable outcome to a "a murderer killed all my children".

As Voltaire said "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"... otherwise known as (coined by Harold Demsetz) the "Nirvana Fallacy"

 

[Tituscrow]

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

Depends on the entirety of the circumstances.

Why shouldn't we be doing BOTH?

Lets not get hung up on a false dichotomy.

Most zoos (and related organizations) are doing both.

Where is the joy in saying "a murderer killed half of my children"? There isn't any. It's still a preferable outcome to a "a murderer killed all my children".

As Voltaire said "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien"... otherwise known as (coined by Harold Demsetz) the "Nirvana Fallacy"

I don't know whether you are playing devils advocate or not, but the child murder analogy isn't a good one.

I understand that many zoos do sell themselves on their conservation work, but most 'exhibits' are there purely for us to press our noses against the glass. And that's the bit I don't dig.

What possible benefit to humankind is there in keeping an orca in a glass tank?

By the way, you don't need to 'itemise' your responses...I am quite capable of working out which response goes with which question.

 

[aborgman]

I don't know whether you are playing devils advocate or not, but the child murder analogy isn't a good one.

Sure it is... specifically because of that Voltaire quote.

The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

I understand that many zoos do sell themselves on their conservation work, but most 'exhibits' are there purely for us to press our noses against the glass. And that's the bit I don't dig.

I disagree.

When we're talking zoos (and Seaworld isn't a zoo, a circus isn't a zoo, etc.) - I think you'll find quite an emphasis on conservation.

Now if you want to talk about "theme parks" and circuses - it becomes quite a different conversation.

What possible benefit to humankind is there in keeping an orca in a glass tank?

Possible benefit? Higher fat whale meat to eat? Cheap entertainment? The removal of moron Orca "trainers" from the gene pool?

Outside of some interesting research on self awareness and some basic breeding information - we haven't learned much from captive orca.

Other captive animals on the other hand, humankind has benefited greatly from.

By the way, you don't need to 'itemise' your responses...I am quite capable of working out which response goes with which question.

Sorry, but I prefer in-line quoting for clarity.

YOU may be able to work out which response goes with which question - but it should be clear for all readers.

 

[Tituscrow]

Sure it is... specifically because of that Voltaire quote.

The perfect is the enemy of the possible.

I disagree.

When we're talking zoos (and Seaworld isn't a zoo, a circus isn't a zoo, etc.) - I think you'll find quite an emphasis on conservation.

Now if you want to talk about "theme parks" and circuses - it becomes quite a different conversation.

Possible benefit? Higher fat whale meat to eat? Cheap entertainment? The removal of moron Orca "trainers" from the gene pool?

Outside of some interesting research on self awareness and some basic breeding information - we haven't learned much from captive orca.

Other captive animals on the other hand, humankind has benefited greatly from.

Sorry, but I prefer in-line quoting for clarity.

YOU may be able to work out which response goes with which question - but it should be clear for all readers.

Are you available for children's parties?