Talk:Animal rights

Archives

1 2 3

Simple additionals to links

For example for the abolitionist view, Leadlerless resistance in animal rights would be a very relevant link. The similarities between abolitionists, direct actionists and animal liberationists are parallel.

Secondly, List of animal rights groups should be a link in there somewhere, even if it's just See also, as the groups listed are the main ones known without every single so called AR group!

Untileveryoneisfree (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Should not be linked to deep ecology

There is a link at the bottom of the page placing the animal rights page in the category “deep ecology”. I deleted that, because there is no clear relation between animal rights and deep ecology.

The link has been put back by Crum375, stating “AFAICT Deep ecology is a superset of Animal Rights, so the cat makes sense”.

I think that it is clear instead that deep ecology is not a superset of animal rights, nor a subset. One can be in favour of both, or of neither, or of deep ecology but not animal rights, or of animal rights but not deep ecology. The person often cited as the founder of deep ecology, Arne Næss, was (I have read) a hunter.

There are de facto links between deep ecology and animal rights, by the fact that there are people who believe in both. A discussion of those links can be appropriate for the article — actually, in its present state, the article doesn't even mention the expression “deep ecology” at all, except in that link! But I certainly don't think its appropriate to include the page itself in the deep ecology category, as if animal rights was a form of deep ecology.

David Olivier (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no objection, I will now delete the link to deep ecology. David Olivier (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added DE as a 'See also', as it is clearly relevant. I can accept the cat as being debatable, and believe cats should only be used when undisputed. Crum375 (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

'Clearly relevant'? Evidently it is not clearly relevant from the preceding paragraph from David Olivier. There is no more obviously a link here than there is in any other 'rights' article. Either justify relevance, or delete. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer info

Polentario - the info you added about Schopenhauer and anti-semitism seems out of place in this article. Many of the philosophers referenced in the article may have influenced other philosophers, world leaders or political movements, but this article doesn't seem to be the place to go into all of those.Bob98133 (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not: Schopenhauers quote is a very early one about animal rights in itself and it is directlty connected with his antisemitism and the later by the animal protection movement and the Nazis. I brought some additional sources.--Polentario (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC).

Hi again Polentario, I've removed the material for now because it would need to be written and sourced differently, and we'd have to see what the secondary sources say before adding it. Lots of the people mentioned on this page, both pro and anti-animal advocacy, have expressed antisemitic views; Kant, for example, was antisemitic and racist. It would only be appropriate to mention Schopenhauer's antisemitism if secondary sources argue that it segued into the Nazi position. If sources do say that, I think we should include it.

For example, can you find a secondary source that discusses this passage:

"The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity and the very basic source of this lays in jewdom.

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Compare with the quote as given by English-language secondary sources:

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, can you give us the original German to compare? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... I've just found this quote in a secondary source and it doesn't say the above. Can you say where you found it? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I took the original and as well a secondary German source. Google is obviously full of shortened versions of the quote by animal rights activists - thats the reason why I included the quote. In fat, what is left out in most animal right websites quotations - aAND PROBABLY AS WELL IN SOME OF YOUR SECONDARY SOURCES (we have been arguing about losses in translation) is to be found in the ORIGINAL (Schopenhauers, Preissschrift über die Grundlage der Moral, nicht gekörnt von der Königlich Dänischen Sozietät der Wissenschaften, Werke IV, S. 238, 1839):

Die vermeintliche Rechtlosigkeit der Tiere, der Wahn , daß unser Handeln gegen sie ohne moralische Bedeutung sei, daß es wie es in der Sprache dieser Moral heißt, daß es gegen die Tiere keine Pflichten gäbe, ist geradezu eine empörende Roheit und Barbarei des Occidents, deren Quelle im Judentum liegt. (...)

Erst wenn jene einfache und über alle Zweifel erhabene Wahrheit, daß die Tiere in der Hauptsache und im wesentlichen ganz dasselbe sind wie wir, ins Volk gedrungen sein wird, werden die Tiere nicht mehr als rechtlose Wesen dastehen. Es ist an der Zeit, daß das ewige Wesen, welches in uns, auch in allen Tieren lebt, als solches erkannt, geschont und geachtet wird.

(Only when this simple truth will have penetrated the people, that animals basically and in a very substantial point are similar to us, the animals will not longer be rightless beings. Its high time to protects and accept this eternal being that lives in us and as well an all animals.) (...) So einem occidentalischen, judisierten Thierverächter und vernunftideolater, muß man in Erinnerung bringen, daß wie er von seiner Mutter, so auch der Hund von der seinigen gesäugt wurde. ... The latter sentence is as well let out by non nazi animal right activists. "It has to be brouzght to memory, to any of those occidential, jewryished animal hater and reason ideologist that not only he but as well the dog was fed brest by his mother."

English sources about Schopenhauers antisemism as an important influence ion the ones of Wagner. Paul Lawrence Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 372-373).

Its not the question wether Kant had some antisemitic aspects. The one of Schopenhauer is important for the animal welfare / rights movement since it clearly connects antijewish / anti christianity (and pro eastern / aryan / indian) views with the relationship to animals. Source e.g. Hanna Rheinz, „Kabbala der Tiere, Tierrechte im Judentum, And Eugen Drewermann Rechtlosigkeit der Kreatur im christlichen Abendland in "Tierrechte, eine interdiszinplinäre Herausforderung“, Hrsg. IATE, Heidelberg 2007, S. 234-252</ref> --Polentario (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario, please do not keep adding that. This article is in the process of being improved, and I have asked a number of scholars to look at it and tell me whether anything is wrong or missing. I don't want them to think that this latest addition is part of it. It is written in a way that would need to be cleaned up; it's not clear that that quote even exists; and we need secondary sources to explain the relevance even if it does, and how influential that position ended up being. We can't write these articles just by sticking in a few quotes that we've found somewhere and edit warring to keep them in, especially where there's doubt about the accuracy.

This is the quote as I'm finding it on the books I have on my shelves:

The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality."

So, clearly we have some research to do before deciding which version is accurate. We then need to find secondary sources who discuss the relevance of it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you please say where you got the quote in English, because this is not your English. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thnx mighty teacher. I have the original german before me. I googled a first version and found an endless amount of the english quote, however with out the original ending. Any problems? Why do you keep edit warring? I have provided other edits , which are based on different sources, you just keep being destructive.

To make it very clear, the English quote is sort of nowadays rationale of Schopenhauers philosphophy in general - pity (respectively compassion) as being the central motivation put against the categorial imperative of Kant. (Personal POV.: But it leaves out the clear antijudaistic stance and as well the dangers of compassion - to take over and end the life of others out of pity has happened and is one of the central motives of the likes of Ingrid Newkirk.)--Polentario (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) --Polentario (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I looked in part IV of On the Basis of Morality (on wikisource), where Polentario says the passage is, and I can't find anything. In Part III, chap 8, there is a passage that looks like it. It says:

It is asserted that beasts have no rights; the illusion is harboured that our conduct, so far as they are concerned, has no moral significance, or, as it is put in the language of these codes, that "there are no duties to be fulfilled towards animals." Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism. In philosophy, however, it rests on the assumption, despite all evidence to the contrary, of the radical difference between man and beast, a doctrine which, as is well known, was proclaimed with more trenchant emphasis by Descartes than by any one else : it was indeed the necessary consequence of his mistakes.

That isn't much to hang the Nazi attitude on, unless there are other passages that I'm missing. We would definitely need a secondary source who discusses this. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Such a view is one of revolting coarseness, a barbarism of the West, whose source is Judaism". I have volume IV of the original works. This is as said, a clear connection between animal love and hatred of Jews, left out by the veggie/animal movement. There is a clear connection between western animal love and the embrace of Tibetian, Indian Buddhism provided by Schopenhauer. It has been a similar story in 19th century Germany, but quite on the right. Secondary source in german was provided. OK, if its about animal welfare, you dont accept a smoking gun, do you? At least the quote is confirmed.

Polentario (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

But we have clear connections between the opposite view of animals and antisemitism; in Kant, for example. This is why we require secondary sources for material like this. We need to see what scholarly and other reliable sources have said about this connection, if anything, rather than doing our own research with primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me sound bloody arrogant, but you seem not to undrestand the basic differences between Schopenhauer and Kants position towards jews and jewdom. For Dummies: Kant sees jewish law as being outdated. Schopenhauer, jewish law was vivid, aggressive and encoind modern life and with regards to animals being so cruel (Scvhechita and so on ), while those loveable peaceful (aryan) animal lovers in India were so much nicer. Schopenhauer and his specific antisemitism has been more important for Wagner and Hitler and the animal rights movement than Kants. --Polentario (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're an academic philosopher, please let us know, so that we can look to see what your speciality is. If you're not, please supply published secondary sources for what you're saying, even here on talk. Where does Kant say that Jewish law was "outdated," and what does it even mean to say that, and what's the relevance?

We want to know iwhat reliable sources say about Kant and Schopenhauer, and about the context within which they were writing, and about the influence of their views. We don't want to know what SlimVirgin or Polentario say about those things. That is why we always need secondary sources for any analysis that is complex or contentious. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep cool, I just had the impression that youre completely ignorant about the two and that I could be of help with a short explanaition. --Polentario (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly object to the current wording. The fact that Schopenhauer was an antisemite, and linked cruelty against animals with the Jews — antisemites often link everything bad in the world to the Jews — doesn't justify trying to tie together animal rights and Hitler. It seems to be no more than the usual anti-animal slandering. David Olivier (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is appropriate if it can be shown that Schopenhauer's influence on the development of animal rights was affected by his views on Semites. Polentario appears to be trying to make that case, and SlimVirgin is trying to ensure that it is a well accepted position and that it is expressed well. JD Lambert^(T|C) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version can't stay as it is, and I have asked Polentario to revert himself (partly because it's inaccurate as it stands, and partly because he's violated 3RR). He has restored the quote without a secondary source showing the relevance, and in addition has mixed up two passages from different parts of Schopenhauer's work, using only an ellipsis to separate them, and giving a citation only for the last part.

This is the kind of material that requires a lot of research before it's added, to make sure we've got the historical context right. It's a good example of why relying on primary sources for interpretations is not allowed. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's totally irrelevant for this article that Schopenhauer was antisemitic. The quote is clearly just put in to try to promote someone's agenda by pushing the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" smear. Most antisemites were meat-eaters - does that mean that meat-eating is linked to fascism and racism? Should I add a big quote on the "Meat" article about how much Stalin loved eating meat? It's a ludicrous point. Lurch23 (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an example of the Bias of SlimVirgin. Secondary sources are in german, primary sources have not been accepted by her and then she tries to construct a 3RR or inaccurate quotes. PLain POV by a veggie admin. --Polentario (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You've been adding this kind of material to multiple articles, and almost all your edits have been reverted — by veggie admins and by non-veggie non-admins — because you're either using no sources, or relying on primary ones, or poor secondary ones, then in addition you're adding your own twist, or using it out of context, and then writing it in a way that's often hard to understand. That is why you're being reverted by multiple editors; it has nothing to do with POV. (Note, please, that I was the one who added the Tierschutzgesetz section to this page; my concern is not that it be omitted, but that it be written carefully and very accurately because it is so contenious.) SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What you mean with conteniuos? You had been in state of complete state of denial accepting the Schopenhauer quote, you reverted till you found it confirmed. --Polentario (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on the content, not on the contributor. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Both sides tend to make Reductio ad Hitlerum errors - i would like to find a suitable wording. The Kaplan / Singer KZ comparisions DO annoy the jewish community in Germany (at least thats the one I know) extremely. But animal rights and Hitler can be connected - at least by similar legal projects and even a common philospophy (based on Schopenhauer).My personal source for that is the legal commentary of Albert Lortz to the German Animnal protection law. Its about pity and compassion (for animals), and it was like that 1933 already. This doesnt mean animal rights do not have a certain point. hitlers animal rights and regulations are basically still in use in germany, and with satisfactory results:) --Polentario (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources

There is something here that we can use. [1] SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, at least you keep on looking. I assume that the usability of Schopenhauer for Hitler AND the animal welfare movement lays in antijudaistic aspect, his love of asia and his compassion concept. My secondary sources tell this very clearly - Hanna Rheinz is a jewish german animal welfare contender and Eugen Drewermann an allegedely leftist church critic, pro animal cleric, friend of the Dalai Lhama (and critized by Klaus Berger to be a state of 1941 theologician with a heavy antisemitic approach). --Polentario (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario - I notice you have added the same or similar material to the Animal Rights, Animal welfare‎, Henryk Broder, Richard Wagner‎,Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ and possbily other articles. Can you explain your reasoning for this? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats first a plain lie - my edits in Broder do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the artcles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here. --Polentario (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I've been asking polite questions and trying to sort through your edits and reverts despite objections. I do not appreciate being called a liar or you refering to this as "bullshit and the controversial attacks". Please see WP:CIV Sorry about Broder, but you don't answer about your other edits. Perhaps you should stick to editing the German Wiki - maybe your attitude is better appreciated there. Bob98133 (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont accept your apology. The question was biased and tendecial. - my edits in Broder / or animal welfare / or e.g. sternenfels do not have anything to do with the one sentence introduced in Wagner. Animal welfare in Nazi Germany‎ is a rather new here, the topic is if relevance as well for other lemmas. I have updated some the articles so in the german wikipedia as well, without the bullshit and the controversial attacks which happened to me here.

--Polentario (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Polentario, your attitude is very confrontational and as such this will weaken any argument you have. Please refrain from incivility, and assume good faith. By calling the questioning and requests for reliable secondary sources 'bullshit and controver[sy]' you are in fact attacking the editors above. This is not an acceptable attitude on wikipedia and can and does lead to editors being blocked.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LocalZuk about your attitude, Polentario. It distracts us all from the goal of improving this article. This is not a stub article where changes will be accepted without careful consideration. It is a well-developed article on a controversial subject, and it has many editors trying to ensure that changes are worthwhile, accurate, well-documented, and well-expressed. I think you'll find that any edits you make that meet those criteria will be welcomed here. Hostile rants won't compensate for failing to meet those criteria. JD Lambert^(T|C) 16:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As said, I was starting with good faith and a willingnness to contribute with original sources in germany. I am just pissed off by the povian attitude a deeply biased administrator as Slimvirgin has shown. --Polentario (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits from 82.18.30.66

I note that the entirety of my edits have been removed because 'some are not accurate, and others do not accurately reflect Scruton's position'. I request an explanation from 'SlimVirgin': the deleter, of where my edits were not accurate, and how adding 'according to Scruton' to otherwise POV heavy sentences renders them no longer reflective of Scruton's position.

The original quoted texts, followed by my edits:
(1) Original:

Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism, though by most accounts not strictly...

My edit:

Several senior Nazis, including Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Joseph Goebbels, and Heinrich Himmler, adopted some form of vegetarianism (although not necessarily for ethical reasons), though by most accounts not strictly...

PS. This is sourced to QI: The book of general ignorance from Faber and Faber. Available here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/QI-General-Ignorance-Stephen-Fry/dp/0571233686/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1207789835&sr=8-3

• The Book of General Ignorance doesn't sound like much of a source for Nazi ideology, and Stephen Fry is a comedian.
• What does "not necessarily for ethical reasons" refer to? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"Not necessarily for ethical reasons" refers to the fact that Hitler was not occasionally vegetarian because he thought eating animals was wrong, but because he thought it would be healthier for him to be so. And the QI book was compiled by the shows researchers, not by Stephen Fry himself (I'm unaware of whether or not you're aware what QI is, but just in case: it's a light hearted television quiz show in which common-misconceptions are exposed by asking the contestents questions that have a commonly accepted answer, which is actually mistaken. Have a look at the Wikipedia page for it: QI )82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You'll need a better source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? 82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

2 Original:

A consequentialist might argue, for example, that lying is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that lying is simply wrong.

My edit:

A consequentialist might argue, for example, that telling a lie is wrong if the lie will make someone unhappy. A deontologist would argue that telling a lie betrays one's duty to be truthful, and therefore is simply wrong in principle.

• The additional of those words is pointless — tautological. A lie betrays your duty to be truthful = lying is wrong. We can say "wrong in principle" instead of "simply wrong," if you prefer, but it really makes no difference. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  
  

"A lie betrays your duty to be truthful" and "lying is wrong" are not tautological. In the former case, the lie is wrong because it betrays your duty to be truthful, in the latter it could be wrong for a number of reasons (for example, if lying always correlated with someone being hit on the head, then it could be wrong because doing so always causes pain). Deontology is defined by the fact that it is an ethical system based on principles to be followed out of duty, which is to say that one must follow a principle ONLY out of a duty to do so (and not for some other hypothetical reason: hence categorical imperative). A rule consequentialist could hold "lying is wrong" and therefore the point must be clarified to make it exclusive to deontology.82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, by all means find a source. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A source for what? That this is the position of Deontology? Take a look at the Wikipedia page for Deontology - quote from the summary there: "It is sometimes described as "duty" or "obligation" based ethics, because deontologists believe that ethical rules "bind you to your duty"." 82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

3 Original:

Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."

My edit:

Although only humans act as moral agents, both marginal case humans (such as infants and the severely mentally ill) and at least some non-humans must have the status of "moral patients."

• Why do you need two examples rather than one? And I'm not sure he uses the mentally ill as an example anyway. Do you have a source? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  
  

The mentally ill is the more commonly used examples due to the fact that 'infants' can be included by the 'social contract' move (when adequately adjusted), whereas 'the severely mentally ill' cannot. If you insist on only using a single example, it would be preferable to replace the 'infants' one with the 'severely mentally ill' one - however I fail to see the problem with using two very brief examples. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does Singer use the mentally ill as an example? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

'Animal Liberation', as I recall.82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

4 Original:

It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape.

My edit:

According to Scruton, the appeal of the animal rights movement rests in fantasy. He holds that the world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. Scruton claims that animal rights supporters revel in a romanticised and anthropomorphised world of the animals, which, he suggests, is a fantasy, a world of escape.

• The writing in the first version is better than the writing in the second, and the second slightly distorts what Scruton said, as I recall. The world of animals painted by AR is the world of escape, not the AR movement. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  
  

While the writing in the first version is more captivating and poetic, that is not the intention of a supposedly objective encyclopaedia entry. I have modified my edit (above) to better encompass what you say Scruton's position is. If this is acceptable, please reapply my initial modifications in the article.82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"It is via these means that the appeal of the animal rights movement originates" is odd writing, and there is no need to replace a the sentence. In addition, your highlighting confirms that Scruton says it's the movement's romanticized world of animals that is the fantasy, not the AR movement, obviously. So it's accurate as it stands. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason why my highlighting emphasises that Scruton says it's the romanticised view, rather than the AR movement, that is the fantasy is because I wrote it (note the highlighting is in my edit, not the original quote). The reason I highlighted it was to draw your attention to the area I had edited, to comply with your request. You'll note that the original text makes no reference to the position being Scrutons (as opposed to unquestioned fact). You're right that my rewording sounds a little awkward, so I have edited it again (and again highlighted my changes). However, surely you can admit that the original wording: "It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies" is entirely POV. All I wish to do in this particular edit is alter the wording to make it as objective as the pro-animal rights sections of the article.82.18.30.66 (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep on restoring your version without sources, as requested above. Also, I don't know what you mean by saying "It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies" is POV. It is Scruton's view, so yes, it is POV, but so are all the other views we report. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've asked you to clarify why you need further sources: in the first case because you simply announce the first isn't enough, without justification, and in the second case because your request for a source leaves it highly ambiguous what you apparently need sourcing - I assumed it was the Deontological position and as such I provided you a source for this (namely, the Wikipedia article for 'Deontology'). In the case of the POV Roger Scruton section, it is written without enough clarity about what is fact and what is Roger Scruton's position surrounding the facts. To clarify, consider the following sentences:

"John believes that reports of a hundred year rainstorm outside are mistaken. This falsehood has led many people to needlessly stay indoors. The weather is sunny, and rain has not occurred for more than a week. The rainstorm, John argues, is a fantasy: an excuse not to venture out"

Does this sentence really make clear that the rainstorm could be genuine, and that the falsehood of the rainstorm is merely claimed by John, and not an undisputed fact that John is just commenting on? Consider the 'Scruton' statements you've re-edited into the article (I've coloured the corresponding parts of both sentences):

"[Scruton] accuses animal rights advocates of "pre-scientific," anthropomorphism, attributing traits to animals that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only man is vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of animal rights lies. The world of animals is non-judgmental, filled with dogs who return our affection almost no matter what we do to them, and cats who pretend to be affectionate when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"

To clarify further, I assume that you're quite devoted to the Scruton position yourself, so perhaps it will be better to put the same words in another context - in reference to someone that you probably oppose:

I'm not even slightly devoted to the Scruton position; if you think I am, it's a measure of how neutrally I described it, because I positively dislike it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"[Hitler] accuses Jewish rights advocates of "pre-scientific," germanomorphism, attributing traits to Jews that are, he says, Beatrix Potter-like, where "only Germans are vile." It is in this fiction that the appeal of Jewish rights lies. The world of the Jews is money-hungry, filled with bankers who act sycophantically almost no matter what we do; in order to gain our money , and Jews who pretend to be patriotic when in fact they care only about themselves. It is, he argues, a fantasy, a world of escape"
(NB. I don't claim this to be Hitler's actual position: just replacing Nazi stereotypes where appropriate)


And, just for your information, this is the first time I have reinstated the edits; and I did so because you had not responded to what I had written here for an extended period (and you still haven't to some of them), so I assumed that you no longer had a problem with them. Evidently you own this article, and due to your superior status here, you've afforded yourself the right to decide what goes in it without the need to justify yourself. I will not reedit the article again, you've made quite clear that Wikipedia is dictated by its moderators.82.18.30.66 (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of your points here. You need to supply citations to reliable sources: for example, for the claim that the Nazis were veggies for non-ethical reasons, and the claim that Singer included the mentally ill in his marginal cases. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 09:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided sources for both (you still haven't replied to either) - and I never said the Nazis were vegetarian for non-ethical reasons; just Hitler. Presumably you've given up your case regarding the other edits since you've given no response to my comments there. But don't worry about it - its your article and you can claim what you (and thereby: Scruton) want in it.82.18.30.66 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If no response is delivered, I would request that my edits be reinstated. I hope that this reversal was in good faith, and not simply due to being partisan. If the pro-animal rights sections of the article must comply with non-POV, then so must the anti-animal rights sections.82.18.30.66 (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I see, those were in effect good edits. I don't know about Scruton, but if that does not reflect his positions, perhaps it is the wording of the positions, rather than the attribution, that should be changed? David Olivier (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, David Olivier. If no response is issued from the editor by the 15th, I will re-edit the article as above.82.18.30.66 (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses above. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Responses above. 82.18.30.66 (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Schopenhauer again

I've extended this section a little to include Schopenhauer's antisemitism and to mention his possible influence over the Nazis. [2] I hope to write more in future, but having read around the subject a little, it's not clear-cut, and I'm going to have to do more reading of the philosophical positions at the time to make sure we're not misrepresenting him. For example, some non-philosophical sources now say he blamed Judaism entirely for the German attitude toward animals, but in fact he seems to have blamed Christianity at least as much. It's also not clear how much he influenced the Nazis, if at all. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

This section seems short. Are there really only three notable critics of Animal Rights? Bugguyak (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree: there is much criticism of animal rights; it is actually what I was looking for when I came across the article. This section should definitely be expanded.130.209.6.41 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, most of the criticisms are refuted by saying that special cases of humans, such as children or the handicapped, are not capable of reciprocating rights but still have them. Who is going around saying that children have rights? In practice, these individuals are essentially the property of their parents/guardians. They don't really get prosecuted if they violate another's rights. As they become older and can reciprocate, they gain more rights, exactly how the social contract model is supposed to work. I guess my point is that the criticism section is lacking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.153.223.52 (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So now I see that the section on Animal Rights Criticism has completely been eliminated? Lets just be completely biased while we are at it why don't we? - Bugguyak

I have added a proper critism section to the bottom of the article, and put the information that was removed back into it. This text should never have been removed, as it was relevant and cited sources. If anything, as stated here, the criticism section should be expanded. Reidlophile (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if those are the best arguments against animal rights out there, I don't really feel they are worth citing! Or perhaps they are, just to show how poor those arguments are. In any case, no, I don't think the section should be expanded, unless someone finds something a bit better. David Olivier (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me that Roger Scruton is mentioned in the lead, in the overview section and has his own section in the criticism section - most of which all say kind of the same thing. This is a long article already - repeating this seems like overkill. Bob98133 (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image caption of lead photograph

"The (animal welfare advocate) would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty"

What kind of unnecessary cruelty does the picture illustrate? Did the man cut off the limb to solicit sympathy. Is the restraint too tight, causing the animal duress? Is it because it is a primate? But that would fall under animal rights. Doesn't really make sense to me. --Dodo bird (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumably it is 'unnecessary cruelty' in that it is forcing the monkey to perform in such a way that differs from his natural behaviour, and thereby causes stress. But I agree - like a fair amount in this article, this is somewhat ambiguous.

Additionally, it is not an accurate representation of the animal welfare position, which is not to end unnecessary cruelty, but only to lower the level of suffering to some degree in all current human/non-human practices. If animal welfare was the position that all unnecessary cruelty caused to animals must end, then they would insist on an end to farming animals for food, which causes unnecessary suffering in that producing animal meat is not a necessity (due to vegetarianism being a possibility). The call to end unnecessary cruelty is in fact the animal rights position.82.18.30.66 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

82, could you please supply a reference for your last statement. It does not agree at all with my understanding of animal rights. The lead paragraph of this article also seems at odds with what you say. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

82, when they say "unnecessary" suffering, the word is used deliberately to convey the idea that the suffering must be no more than is needed to do the job. This allows the support of practices that animal rights theorists find unacceptable. That is one of the gulfs between the animal welfare and animal rights positions.

Dodobird, what I suggest is that you ask a friend to tie you to the end of a rope, and take you out on the streets, where he will use you to beg for money whenever it suits him. Ask him not to let you go no matter how you kick and scream. Ask your local police station to ignore that you're being dragged around as though you were a thing, rather than a living being — tell them it's research for Wikipedia. Ask your friend to be sure not to feed you well, to stick you in a small cage when he's not using you, and not to let you have contact with the outside world except via him. Try to imagine that the situation will last until you die. Then pop back here and let us know whether it makes sense to cite that image as unnecessary cruelty. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you forgot to tell me to ask my friend to cut off my arm. Does the image show the animal kicking and screaming? Dragged around like a thing? Starving? In a cage? Think not! --Dodo bird (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Dodobird - you're just wrong on this. After all this is an article about Animal Rights, a philosophy which claims that animals "should be afforded the same consideration as the basic interests of human beings." Slimvirgin has pointed out that almost no consideration is being paid to the interests of the monkey in the picture, therefore, it is a reasonable depiction for this article. Just because some animal abuse is less egregious or visible than others, doesn't make it any less abusive. If the only abuse you acknowledge is abuse for which you have visible signs (kicking, screaming, starving), then you are simply denying other possible abuses of the animal's interests such as social isolation, lack of space, lack of stimulation, etc. Bob98133 (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A man(off screen) holds a dog by a rope around her neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership. Animal welfare and animal rights advocates would both oppose this, but for different reasons. The former would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty, the latter because the man is exercising property rights over another living being.

Please note that my objection is to the portion of the caption I quoted, not the image itself. You cannot reasonable interpret a picture of a man with a monkey on a leash to mean that the man is being cruel to the animal. Look at the caption of the pic on the right. Now tell me what is the difference between this pic and the one in the article. --Dodo bird (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show me a reference that states that animal welfare philosophy is opposed to keeping a dog on a leash?Bob98133 (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making my point for me. They are not, and the caption doesn't claim that. But apparently animal welfare advocates would oppose the "unnecessary cruelty" reflected in the pic. "What cruelty?" you ask? Can't you see from the pic that the poor monkeydog is starving? Can't you see that the monkeydog is being dragged around? Can't you see that when not on a leash, the poor monkeydog gets cooped in a cage all day long. No? I ask again, what is the difference between this pic and the one in the article? Claiming "unnecessary cruelty" is taking or has taken place is WP:OR not backed by WP:RS and probably violate WP:BLP.--Dodo bird (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

References, please. Where are you getting your information about what animal welfare advocates think?Bob98133 (talk) 02:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

A man holds a monkey with a limb missing by a rope around her neck, a scene epitomizing the idea of animal ownership. Animal welfare and animal rights advocates would both oppose this, but for different reasons. The former would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty, the latter because the man is exercising property rights over another living being.

Please reread the discussion. What animal welfare proponents believe has nothing to do with the issue here, which is that it is OR to claim the image shows "unnecessary cruelty". What is the difference between the dog image and monkey image? Would you object if I replace the lead image with the dog image?--Dodo bird (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the dog image doesn't appear to show anything to do with unnecessary cruelty - only ownership. The monkey pic could be argued to show unnecessary cruelty, as a monkey is not a typical 'pet type animal'. However, I would suggest that the information regarding animal welfare be removed from the summary, as it just seems to be a little too much like OR for my liking. The information about it epitomizing the idea of animal ownership should stay though.-Localzuk^(talk) 11:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Bob asked a legitimate question. Where are you getting your information about what animal advocates think? Do they think simple animal ownership to be unnecessary cruelty? Why do some consider it OK to own a dog, but not an monkey? The fundamental question here in my opinion is that the seemingly uncomfortable and unhappy monkey is an iconic species that animal advocates believe are equal to humans, where as other animals such as the seemingly comfortable and happy dog is not as iconic.Bugguyak (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, I have not made any claims regarding what animal welfare advocates believe so I can't see how the question is relevant. If you ask me, a leashed dog would be a more suitable example of animal ownership which the animal rights position reject. Using the picture of a monkey muddles the line as it introduces the issues of domestic vs non-domestic animal ownership(not really a rights vs welfare issue) and that of primates deserving some rights. It may be useful for pointing out that even people who don't hold the animal rights position may accept that some animals due to some reasons deserve some rights, but for an example of animal ownership that the majority of people can identify with, is there a better example than that of a dog? --Dodo bird (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something? Did you not write: "The (animal welfare advocate) would argue that it is wrong because it appears to involve unnecessary cruelty" at the beginning of this discussion? This article is Animal rights. While there is some overlap, and a lot contention, between the two POV's, it does not make any sense to bring that disucssion into a photo caption. It is and can be discussed in the article if it lends a better understanding of the topic- which is animal rights. If you are unclear about the differences between animal rights and animal welfare, read up on the two. It's like your'e discussing Oranges in the Apples article. To say an apple is not an orange, while true, tells you very little about apples.Bob98133 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Dodo bird is correct. Though the monkey in the picture very likely is suffering (both at the point of being photographed, and at other times), this is not clear in the image. This image could just as easily be an animal rights liberator looking after the monkey (aside from the painful lead). A better image would be of an animal in a slaughter house, which better defines the divergence between animal welfare and rights: welfare calling only for kinder treatment within economic boundaries; rights calling for an end to the practice on the principle that it defies certain ethical laws (note, not the animal's rights necessarily - see Peter Singer).82.18.30.66 (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob, that was me quoting the original caption as written by Slimvirgin. Please direct your objections to her if you like. --Dodo bird (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It disgusts me that teh ALF "activists" are not described as the violent terrorists that they are. No-one would call Bin Larden an "activist" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.236.211 (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Further reading

Does anyone know why some authors names in this list are missing? Kevin (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What? You want ALL authors listed, you should know what Wikipedia is not: WP:IINFO Bugguyak (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the ones with underlines in place of their name. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now that the underlines are for subsequent entries for the same author. It's not especially clear though. Did you note that I was just asking a question, not asking for something to be changed. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Licensing the trademarks of which the goods & services are derived from animal material....

If the animal materials for human use are unable to be forbidden, then licensing it in the same way as government licensing the alcohol consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.191.80.9 (talk) 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Problematic paragraph

The following paragraph is of concern:

"The tactics of some of the more determined ALF activists are anathema to many animal rights advocates, such as Singer, who regard the animal rights movement as something that should occupy the moral high ground, an impossible claim to sustain when others are bombing buildings and risking lives in the name of the same idea."[3]

Should an encyclopedia make the assertion that an argument is "an impossible claim to sustain"? Gary P88 (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If we can source this then yes, if not then no. See WP:OR for our policies re original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If necessary, we could find thousands of sources who criticize the AR movement for trying to claim the moral high ground while reportedly risking life during attacks (though the other side of the argument is that they say they do everything possible not to risk it, and that they have never killed anyone). We don't need to find sources for every obviously true bit of writing. Note that the sentence is it's an impossible claim to sustain, not to make. They make it, and they may make it correctly, but they can't sustain it because too many people won't swallow it. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Secularize the Lemma

I strongly recommend to extract the content concerning animal rights in modern philosophy (i.e. "17th century: Animals as automata" up to and including "Late 1890s: Opposition to anthropomorphism") into a seperate article to make this one more comprehensible. At least this is how we solved it in es:WP--85.180.178.106 (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this article is too long and the content suffers for it Reidlophile (talk) 16:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article size

As per guidelines at WP:Article size, this article is quite large. It has at least 44kb of readable prose, whereas the recommended is about 32kb. In addition, there seems to be disproportionate coverage of the historical issues relating to Animal rights. I would suggest creating an article History of animal rights and moving most of the historical content to this article per WP:Summary style. In that way could apply due emphasis to the contemporary debates on Animal rights. Eazyskankin (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi EZ, 44 kb of readable prose is quite normal for articles nowadays; if anything, it's on the short side for a subject like this. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The main problem I have with the article is that only from this section onwards Animal_rights#Main_philosophical_approaches, is the article concerned with the contemporary issues in Animal rights. I think the article is heavily weighted to the history and development of animal rights. For example, the total article size is 91kb. Of this amount, 63kb is dedicated to the period from ancient world up to 1976, the formation of the animal liberation front. More than two thirds of the article is history. The result is that the most important issues in animal rights today, have been de-emphasized or omitted from the article. There is scant mention of animals as food, factory farming, veganism, hunting, animal testing, zoos and pets. In my opinion, these are the issues that confront ordinary people, because they have to make food choices, use pharmaceuticals, own a pet or go to the zoo. The ordinary person going to McDonald's, would not be to be too concerned about the the philosophies of Kant and Descartes, though they have had a tremendous influence on western society. I still recommend having a separate article that deals with the historical development. This article should focus on the contemporary issues. Eazyskankin (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eazyskankin. Just read the article for the first time. I get the impression that it simply attempts to academically legitimatize the AR movement. I might even argue that that the material borders on original research. Is there a secondary source that considers this particular series of historical and people the canonical philosophical lineage of the establishment of the AR movement? 68.46.99.241 (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The development of the ideas isn't quite the same thing as the history of animal rights, so it would be problematic to split the article up with "History of animal rights" as a title. The article shows how the idea of animal developed out of the concept of animal welfare and philosophical ideas about cognition and consciousness. It shows how various thinkers tried to steer the debate to rights, not welfare, and were largely beaten back. It will soon include a section on how, after the rights/welfare split was solidified in the 20th century, it began to break down again in the 21st.

With a topic like this, you can't easily separate the history from the philosophy, or past philosophical positions from current ones. There's also no need to, because the length is well within what's regarded as acceptable; the 32 kb thing harks back to the days when Internet Explorer had trouble with anything over that length, but it's no longer applicable. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't address your point about contemporary issues. I think we could quite easily introduce a section explaining what the main issues are for animal rights activists, though bear in mind that this is about the concept, not about activism. We have an article on Animal liberation movement where we could talk about activist issues. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 03:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that all the information currently contained is important, however I think that two thirds of the article dedicated to history is undue weight WP:UNDUE. The guidelines on article size are not strict rules, however they are recommendations.WP:SIZE says "One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." Currently the article stands at 27 pages. Should we further introduce a section on issues facing the activists, which I think should form the core of the article, then the page size will increase significantly, making its management more complicated.Eazyskankin (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What kind of material did you have in mind for a section about activists? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 08:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Since this is an article about animals, I think it would be a good idea to have more pictures of animals than humans. Currently, there are more pictures of humans than animals. Eazyskankin (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

too philosophical

The content seems to focus on the philosophical debates of a limited number of scholars. We know that in the US, humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But what rights do animals have. Unfortunately, I don't see any details. I would therefore suggest some breakdown of animal rights per region or country. Also religious views on animal rights. Another important issue missing is the justification of humans to eat other animals.Eazyskankin (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

maple leaf

im just 11 so grammar ect. not the best

    i am a vegetarian and i just hate  that they kill all animals!!!but with the maple lef meats kiling all the animal and then just throwing it way....there isnt much tothis litt"article" but i just needed to type it!!

70.70.19.187 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)kailie

References to encyclopedia articles.

I see this article has several references that link to articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. As britannica is a 'tertiary source' (just like Wikipedia) - we should really try to avoid doing that. SteveBaker (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Animal rights and politics

Is there any chance someone could start a knowledgeable section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights? For example, Sarah Palin, Mc Cain's running mate, is an avid hunter and there are photos of her with a huge bear skin and giant crab in her office. I shudder to think of the fate of animal rights if McCain is elected and she is but a heartbeat away from the presidency. Would it not be good to draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not? (Truthbody (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

I think Wiki is meant to be an encyclopedia, rather than a soapbox for your activism.68.46.99.241 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult, given how many politicians either don't care or don't know about AR, or actively oppose it. We could perhaps start a section about notable supporters, but I'm not sure it would have much encyclopedic value. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It might make more sense to add relevant, referenced material to each politician's wiki page if he/she is known to have expressed a POV about animal rights issues. Their HSUS rating on animal issues could be included. It might also make sense in this article to have a section about animal rights and politics. I know that at one time the Labor Party in England had a campaign to "put animals in politics" and Humane USA and League of Humane Voters in the US have a similar agenda; without mentioning specific politicians or their POV. Bob98133 (talk) 13:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

In fact, it would be to actively abuse this site to use it to"draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not". Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy; go use your own blog for that. GRBerry 14:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits can abuse this site, but intentions cannot. If the edits that "draw people's attention on here to the politicians who are helping with animal rights and those who are not" are in keeping with the WP guidelines, I don't see what objections there can be to them.

It seems to me that listing the politicians' positions on AR both on the AR page and on their own pages would be quite appropriate. If an issue exists and concerns a lot of people — which is the case of AR — it is relevant to the issue to know which politicians support it. The positions of the politicians on the issue is also relevant to the articles about the politicians themselves. I don't see how someone might want to deny that.

David Olivier (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think the point would be to draw negative or positive attention to the politician, but as part of their known platform. It might just be in a table or lumped in a Platforms section, so it would also include referenced positions on other controversial issues besides AR. It's nothing I want to do - it was just a suggestion to the editor who asked the original question. Bob98133 (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Count me in! Obama and McCain both have pages on Facebook. So it is not inconceivable that they, or their handlers might be eyeballing wiki too. And i think if we can start a ground swell like Truthbody suggests, "section on the role of politics in spreading or curtailing animal rights?" raina_noor (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)raina_noorraina_noor (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We should bear two things in mind; first, Wikipedia is not to be used as a political platform for individual politicians (or for anybody else), and secondly, it's a global project, so there shouldn't be an undue focus on American politicians. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.87.65 (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about removal of Schopenhauer material

Could the anon (71.197.xxx) say why he removed these passages? [4] Are they inaccurate quotations? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. I presume that the anonymous deleter saw some expressions of antisemitism while failing to recognize that they were in a quote. Steinberger (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Steinberger. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Section: German position, I can't rewrite it as I don't know enough but definitely reads a little strange and short

Please, is this statement: "The Nazis' position was the first attempt by a government to reject the concept of speciesism, at that point still unnamed, but it produced the worst of all possible outcomes. Rather than elevating the status of non-humans, the Nazis traduced the status of human beings they regarded as enemies."... is it just bland and blunt or is it sort of nonsensical? In our society, where words do not blur but rather they change meaning, rejecting the "concept" of speciesism is difficult because the person would argue that it is the "concept" of speciesism they wish people to grasp. Traduced? Isn't that Abracadabra or Doo Wah Diddy?... Concept? Is that a bit light on description? "at that point still unnamed" aren't these sentences a minor heading in the chapter entitled under the Nazi name for the whole thing? Seems that the "unnamed" part could be replaced by "The Germans didn't speak English" without loss of meaning. Not giving out stink but rather hoping for more information if anyone knowledgeable sees it. It's a lesser known aspect of the Nazi regime making it all the more interesting. ~ R.T.G 13:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed it and restored some material from an earlier version that said more or less the same thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I also meant to say thanks for pointing out that the sentence was a bit weird, which it was, especially the part about rejecting the concept of speciesism. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a concept but rather it is a natural phenomenon born out of instinct. Rejecting it is the concept. Small wording. We are not led to beleive that the Third Reich was a champion of kindness but it is interesting that even Hitlers mind may have been aimed at preventing cruelty and ignorance or at least insisted on appearing that way. It is difficult to fit such beautiful ideals to their actions. I myself think that a world growing in peace would eventually go against killing animals and other cruel treatments because it seems to fit the psychology but who knows. ~ R.T.G 06:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Material from sentience

It seems to me that this material belongs here, rather than in sentience. Look it over and see if you can use it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 17th century Thomas Tryon, a self-proclaimed Pythagorean, raised the issue of non-human suffering. Soon thereafter, many philosophers used the anatomical discoveries of the Enlightenment as a reason to include animals in what philosophers call "sympatheia," the principle of who or what deserves sympathy. Benjamin Franklin's autobiography identifies Tryon's writings as an influence in his decision to try vegetarianism; later in the book, he reverts to eating meat while still following Tryon's basic philosophy. Joseph Ritson coupled Tryon's work with Rousseau's for "Essay on Abstinence from Animal Food" as many Rousseauists became vegetarian. Voltaire compared the Hindu treatment of animals to how Europe's emperors & Popes treated even their fellow men, praising the former and heaping shame upon the latter; in the 17th century, Descartes, Pierre Gassendi, and Francis Bacon also advocated vegetarianism.

Some of this probably belongs here as well ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In the 20th century, Princeton University professor Peter Singer argued that Bentham's conclusion is often dismissed by an appeal to a distinction that condemns human suffering but allows non-human suffering, typically "appeals" that are logical fallacies. Because many of the suggested distinguishing features of humanity—extreme intelligence; highly complex language; etc.—are not present in marginal cases such as young or mentally disabled humans, it appears that the only distinction is a prejudice based on species alone, which non-human animal rights supporters call speciesism—that is, differentiating humans from other animals purely on the grounds that they are human.

Gary Francione also bases his abolitionist theory of animal rights, which differs significantly from Singer's, on sentience. He asserts that "all sentient beings, humans or nonhuman, have one right: the basic right not to be treated as the property of others."

Andrew Linzey, founder of the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics in England, is known as a foremost international advocate for recognizing animals as sentient beings in Biblically-based faith traditions. The Interfaith Association of Animal Chaplains encourages animal ministry groups to adopt a policy of recognizing and valuing sentient beings.