Animal Rights Community Online Forum Index Animal Rights Community Online
 Our mission is to Preserve, Promote and Advance respect for animals by discussing animal rights strategy and philosophy as well as encouraging the removal of animal usage from our diets and consumption. This by encouraging a strict vegetarian diet and a vegan lifestyle. 
 Users GalleryGallery CalendarCalendar  Live chatroomVegan Chat ARCO's Blogs summary pageBlogs FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 RegisterRegister   Log inLog in 
The time now is Thu Sep 02, 2010 7:53 pm
All times are UTC + 1		 View posts since last visit
View unanswered posts
Calendar
 Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk
Peter Singer clarifies his (non-rights) remarks
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicMark the topic unreadView next topic
Page 1 of 2 [29 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Author Message
sunkanrags
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1301
Location: North Wales
  Peter Singer clarifies his (non-rights) remarks
I have permission to forward this message; please feel free to do
>likewise. I do not know whether it has been published online.
>
>Dear All,
>I was most concerned about the reports regarding Peter Singer and decided to
>contact him directly, this morning, to find out his views 'from the horses
>mouth'.
>His response was swift and included an attached letter to the editor of the
>Observer which is as follows:
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>The Editor
>
>Your story "Animal Guru Gives Tests His Blessing" (Observer, 26/11/06)
>suggests that my remarks in the BBC2 documentary "Monkeys, Rats and Me:
>Animal Testing" represent a change in my position on animal testing. That
>impression needs to be corrected.
>
>Neither in my 1975 book Animal Liberation, nor anywhere else, have I ever
>said that no experiments on animals could ever be justifiable. My position
>has always been that whether an act is right or wrong depends on its
>consequences. I do insist, however, that the interests of animals count
>among those consequences, and that we cannot justify speciesism, which I
>define as giving less weight to the interests of nonhuman animals than we
>give to the similar interests of human beings.
>
>In our on-camera discussion, Professor Aziz claimed that experiments he had
>performed on a small number of monkeys had yielded major benefits for tens
>of thousands of people suffering from Parkinson's Disease. I replied that
>if the facts were indeed as he asserted, and there was no other way in which
>the benefits could have been achieved, such research could be justifiable.
>Whether the facts are as Professor Aziz claims I shall leave for others to
>debate.
>
>Professor Aziz is quoted as saying that my remarks are "an encouraging
>sign." Before he gets too encouraged, he might consider that in Animal
>Liberation I suggested that a test for whether a proposed experiment on
>animals is justifiable is whether the experimenter would be prepared to
>carry out the experiment on human beings at a similar mental level - say,
>those born with irreversible brain damage. If Professor Aziz is not
>prepared to say that he would think such experiments justifiable, his
>willingness to use animals is based on a prejudice against giving their
>interests the same weight as he gives to the interests of members of our own
>species.
>
>Whether or not the occasional experiment on animals is defensible, I remain
>opposed to the institutional practice of using animals in research, because,
>despite some improvements over the past thirty years, that practice still
>fails to give equal consideration to the interests of animals. For that
>reason I oppose putting more resources into building new facilities for
>animal experimentation. Instead, these funds should go into clinical
>research involving consenting patients, and into developing other methods of
>research that do not involve the harmful use of animals.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Peter Singer
_________________
http://onhumannonhumanrelations.tumblr.com/
http://roger.rbgi.net/
http://sites.google.com/site/animalrightsviolations/
http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Roger-Yates/1625034522
http://twitter.com/RogerYates
http://www.myspace.com/yatesroger

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:01 am
  View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Pilgrim
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru


Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1237
Location: from England, Live in Spain
 weak anyway in my opinion, mainly coz i dont agree with whatever his approach is, whether it be classable as welfarist or just plain weird.
but why didnt he make the point about testing on humans to the doctor? you'd think after 30 years he would have brought his debating skills up to the standard of thinking about what he was actually saying, and failing that would have learnt not to do live debates, particularly high profile ones.
_________________
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who commit evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:40 am
  View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Dave_81
Senior Animal Rights Activist
Senior Animal Rights Activist

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 827
Location: London, UK
 The AR movement needs to ditch Singer ASAP. He is not and never was an AR philosopher, so it's completely absurd that he presumes to speak on behalf of the "AR" movement.

The way in which he tries to wriggle out of what he said about the acceptability of vivisecting animals under certain circumstances -- i.e. that he also thinks that it would be acceptable to vivisect certain (intellectually impaired) humans under those same circumstances -- merely compounds the horror of what he thinks and does a further disservice to the AR movement.

It is grossly irrespnsible for Singer to go on TV and say such things when he knows that people who don't know any better (e.g. ordinary members of the public) will probably take what he says to be representative of the AR movement. He should have prefaced what he said with the caveat that he is not an animal rights philosopher.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:58 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Catawba
Rookie Animal Activist
Rookie Animal Activist

Joined: 18 Oct 2006
Posts: 267
 I agree 100% with you Dave
_________________
Humans do not GRANT Rights to humans or animals - Rights are only denied by humans.

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 2:06 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
animalrightsmalta
Animal Guardian Angel


Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 3521
Location: Malta
 All Singer is saying, in essence, is that it is ok to vivisect the mentally disabled, if there is a chance of reaping great benefits.

Honestly I think this response by Singer makes him look worse to people who did not know this already.
_________________
www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/animalrightsmalta

PostPosted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 6:47 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
tony
Animal Friend
Animal Friend

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 17
 peter singer
i have never liked him and his views,he seems inconsistent and wishy washy,i think hes more of a welfarist,he shld go

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 2:24 am
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
animalrightsmalta
Animal Guardian Angel


Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 3521
Location: Malta
 An article on Singer's support for vivisection may be found here: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/12/04/singer

Below is the reply I sent them. Hope they publish it.

Mr Scott Jaschik’s article on Peter Singer is factually incorrect for several reasons.

First of all, while Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” is called by a majority of welfarists as “the bible of the animal rights movement”, it is foolhardy to believe that a “bible of the animal rights movement" would be written by a utilitarian who doesn’t believe in rights. For a read of what constitutes real animal rights philosophy, one should read the works of Gary Francione, Tom Regan and Joan Dunayer, to name just three.

The article is thus completely mistaken when saying things such as “Singer argued for the basic rights of all animals to be respected”.

As for many being shocked by his support for some animal research, I personally would be shocked if he wasn’t. A careful read of Animal Liberation will not only show that Singer would support some animal experimentation if sufficient benefits would result from the research, but would also support meat eating, if it were possible to kill animals painlessly.

So while his statement regarding animal experiments is consistent with his Animal Liberation, it is not consistent with animal rights philosophy, particularly so since utilitarianism is opposed to rights.

So if people are thinking about whether Singer has changed his views on animal experiments, the short answer is “no”. Singer was never an animal rights theorist or philosopher for the simple reason that a utilitarian can never be one.

Kenneth Cassar
_________________
www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/animalrightsmalta

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:22 pm
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
sarah123
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru

Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 1106
Location: South London
 Also they say he supports the concept of animal rights when no philosopher of his beliefs does. They dont believe in the concept of rights, so that is a major failing for many people who look at Singer's work, and that article has fallen into the same trap.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 1:44 pm
  View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Pilgrim
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru


Joined: 09 Apr 2005
Posts: 1237
Location: from England, Live in Spain
 looks like they published Maltas letter Smile
_________________
The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who commit evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:32 pm
  View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
animalrightsmalta
Animal Guardian Angel


Joined: 07 Oct 2004
Posts: 3521
Location: Malta
 Yes...and there was one reply, to which I sent another reply, which was also published. I'm glad I cleared that up.
_________________
www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com
www.myspace.com/animalrightsmalta

PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2006 8:05 pm
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Orion1488
Guest

 Singer Shows His True Colors
It really makes no difference what Peter Singer says now in an attempt to justify his remarks as it is clearly just spin and damage control. There is no way that his comments can be taken as anything but a complete abandonment of the principles that he supposedly believed in so strongly.

Peter Singer may believe in animal welfare (although even that is debatable) but he certainly does not believe in animal rights. There is no place for Peter Singer in the animal rights movement any longer.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:25 am
    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Dave_81
Senior Animal Rights Activist
Senior Animal Rights Activist

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 827
Location: London, UK
 Re: Singer Shows His True Colors
Quote:
It really makes no difference what Peter Singer says now in an attempt to justify his remarks as it is clearly just spin and damage control. There is no way that his comments can be taken as anything but a complete abandonment of the principles that he supposedly believed in so strongly.


Singer has never hidden the fact that he believes that neither humans nor animals have rights. For Singer, rights are actually immoral since they act as breaks to utilitarian aggregation. He's also never hidden the fact that he believes it's acceptable to painlessly kill and eat nonself aware animals. Furthermore, he's never hidden the fact the he thinks it would acceptable to vivisect animals and humans (obviously the intellectually impaired ones would be first in line, because, according to Singer, they are less valuable) if the consequences militate in favour of doing so. Singer says all of this in Animal Liberation.

Quote:
Peter Singer may believe in animal welfare (although even that is debatable) but he certainly does not believe in animal rights. There is no place for Peter Singer in the animal rights movement any longer.


Exactly. Singer never was, is not, and never will be anyting to do with the animal rights movement. From a rights perspective, he is an animal exploiter since he thinks it's accepable to eat and vivisect animals. From a nonspeciesist perspective, he is an animal abuser since he sexually abused turkeys and then wrote about it in a book call The Way We Eat. Accordingly, it not even clear that he believes in animal welfare. How do you reconcile sexually abusing animals with being concerned about their welfare? And of course it follows from this that PETA is not an animal rights organisation, since they advertise Singer (whom they absurdly call an animal rightist) to the exclusion of all rights theorists. The likes of Singer and PETA are excrescences on the animal rights movement.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:41 pm
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
sunkanrags
Animal Rights Guru
Animal Rights Guru

Joined: 31 Jul 2004
Posts: 1301
Location: North Wales
 Re: Singer Shows His True Colors
Dave_81 wrote:
Quote:
Peter Singer may believe in animal welfare (although even that is debatable) but he certainly does not believe in animal rights. There is no place for Peter Singer in the animal rights movement any longer.


Exactly. Singer never was, is not, and never will be anyting to do with the animal rights movement. From a rights perspective, he is an animal exploiter since he thinks it's accepable to eat and vivisect animals. From a nonspeciesist perspective, he is an animal abuser since he sexually abused turkeys and then wrote about it in a book call The Way We Eat. Accordingly, it not even clear that he believes in animal welfare. How do you reconcile sexually abusing animals with being concerned about their welfare? And of course it follows from this that PETA is not an animal rights organisation, since they advertise Singer (whom they absurdly call an animal rightist) to the exclusion of all rights theorists. The likes of Singer and PETA are excrescences on the animal rights movement.


Obviously I agree with the thrust of this exchange - but I would appeal for some perspective. I do not think there is any doubt that Peter Singer is a welfarist and, of course, welfarists do take part in the exploitation of nonhumans on some level (arguably everyone does just by living). The ALF probably has its fair share of welfarists too - their 'rules' allow for vegetarian activists. Similarly, there have been a number of welfarists who have taken part in exposes on various businesses that exploit nonhuman animals.

We have all likely seen the HLS footage of beagles being abused. Just like Singer and Mason's case, it is sometimes necessary to take part in exploitation to expose it. The issue of the turkeys in Eating: What We Eat and Why It Matters opens up the entire problematic methodology of the expose. For a social movement, this issue is complex, often due to their need to have 'evidence' of what they oppose. Often countermovements will claim that social movements do not really know what they are talking about (or that their evidence is dated), while at the same time the latter are denied access to locations in order to witness and document what they oppose.

In the Singer and Mason case, we see the most famous living philosopher getting his hands dirty as it were by checking out the realities of this particular abusive system of animal exploitation. Whether it was absolutely necessary is questionable, as it probably is about all the cases we know about. I suppose Singer - who does recommend a vegan lifestyle in the book - would acknowledge the problems here.

My position on Singer is not to attack him as not being an animal welfarist - he clearly is, but instead to clarify that his position is not an animal rights stance (just like most of those in the current 'animal rights movement'). I would certainly recommend Eating, especially for European activists who are interested to learn about the campaigning situation in the USA. Although this is very depressing, the book suggests that the Europeans are doing fantastically well (in terms of welfare reforms of course) compared to the States.

Let's keep our position on Singer sensible. Francione is currently in danger of going over the top at the moment. It is perfectly true that, from a rights perspective, Singer exploits nonhuman animals. But, hey, he is not Bernard Matthews and he wouldn't be buying a Big Mac on a daily basis.

Rags.
_________________
http://onhumannonhumanrelations.tumblr.com/
http://roger.rbgi.net/
http://sites.google.com/site/animalrightsviolations/
http://en-gb.facebook.com/people/Roger-Yates/1625034522
http://twitter.com/RogerYates
http://www.myspace.com/yatesroger

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:09 pm
  View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Orion1488
Guest

 Re: Singer Shows His True Colors
Dave_81 wrote:
Quote:
It really makes no difference what Peter Singer says now in an attempt to justify his remarks as it is clearly just spin and damage control. There is no way that his comments can be taken as anything but a complete abandonment of the principles that he supposedly believed in so strongly.


Singer has never hidden the fact that he believes that neither humans nor animals have rights. For Singer, rights are actually immoral since they act as breaks to utilitarian aggregation. He's also never hidden the fact that he believes it's acceptable to painlessly kill and eat nonself aware animals. Furthermore, he's never hidden the fact the he thinks it would acceptable to vivisect animals and humans (obviously the intellectually impaired ones would be first in line, because, according to Singer, they are less valuable) if the consequences militate in favour of doing so. Singer says all of this in Animal Liberation.




Quote:
Peter Singer may believe in animal welfare (although even that is debatable) but he certainly does not believe in animal rights. There is no place for Peter Singer in the animal rights movement any longer.


Exactly. Singer never was, is not, and never will be anyting to do with the animal rights movement. From a rights perspective, he is an animal exploiter since he thinks it's accepable to eat and vivisect animals. From a nonspeciesist perspective, he is an animal abuser since he sexually abused turkeys and then wrote about it in a book call The Way We Eat. Accordingly, it not even clear that he believes in animal welfare. How do you reconcile sexually abusing animals with being concerned about their welfare? And of course it follows from this that PETA is not an animal rights organisation, since they advertise Singer (whom they absurdly call an animal rightist) to the exclusion of all rights theorists. The likes of Singer and PETA are excrescences on the animal rights movement.


I too have problems with PETA, however I think they do provide one positive thing to the animal rights movement. PETA has managed to become known to just about everybody and they are effective at getting attention from the media which in turn allows them to bring certain issues and abuses to the public's attention. They are definately an animal welfare group as opposed to an animal rights group, however, any success that they have are a step in the right direction.

Likewise with Peter Singer, there is no doubt that his book is effective at making people aware of animal rights but his attitudes are disturbing. If his books help make people aware of the animal rights movement and get them to research it more deeply then something positive can come out of it. Peter Singer himself, however, has no place within the animal rights movement.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:12 pm
    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Dave_81
Senior Animal Rights Activist
Senior Animal Rights Activist

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Posts: 827
Location: London, UK
 Re: Singer Shows His True Colors
Quote:
I too have problems with PETA, however I think they do provide one positive thing to the animal rights movement. PETA has managed to become known to just about everybody


Ironically, this is the problem. Everyone knows PETA as an "animal rights" group. They have packaged their garish welfarist ineffectuality as animal rights, thereby horribly distorting the rights message and doing the true animal rights movement a great disservice. PETA's reactionary sexist antics have alienated other progressives; their hodge-podge of measures--their advocay of (for example) veganism on the one hand and gassing chickens on the other-- sends out an incoherent and dysfunctional message that precludes any type of unity; their crudity and garishness has trivialised the injustice of animal slavery and is an affront to what nonhumans go through; and so ad infinitum. They have reduced a serious social justice movement that is protesting institutionalised injustice and violence to garishness, jokes and nudity. PETA effectively destroyed the animal rights movement.

Quote:
and they are effective at getting attention from the media which in turn allows them to bring certain issues and abuses to the public's attention.


PETA presents the issues through the prism of it's obnoxious welfarism packaged as rights. Animal rights is about the moral imperative of respecting conscious beings. It is a radical reconceptualisation of human-nonhuman relations, and as such requires a qualitative change in the manner and mode whereby people think about animals. PETA's reactionary welfarism has nothing to do with this and does not advance the goals of the animal rights movement in any way.

Quote:
They are definately an animal welfare group as opposed to an animal rights group, however, any success that they have are a step in the right direction.


Animal welfare is structurally defective and so cannot lead to rights; therefore, PETA's welfarist antics are not a step towards animal rights. Their crude welfarism reinforces animals' property status is myriad ways, and therefore actually hinders progress towards animal rights.

Quote:
Likewise with Peter Singer, there is no doubt that his book is effective at making people aware of animal rights but his attitudes are disturbing.


Singer is a progressive welfarist. His book may make people aware of the likes of PETA--but it does nothing for animal rights.

Quote:
If his books help make people aware of the animal rights movement and get them to research it more deeply then something positive can come out of it.


The only way Singer could help animal rights is if people read his stuff and are horrified by it, and so seek an out alternative--like animal rights. In and of themselves, however, Singer and PETA do nothing for genuine animal rights.

Quote:
Peter Singer himself, however, has no place within the animal rights movement.


Agreed.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:54 pm
  View user's profile Send private message    Mark this post and the followings unread Back to top 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 1 of 2 [29 Posts]   Goto page: 1, 2 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topicMark the topic unreadView next topic
 Forum index » Activists » Animal Rights Talk
:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
You cannot post calendar events in this forum

Copyright 2005, 2009 ARCO
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
A community of Animal Rights Activists. Offering support for a strict vegetarian or other plant based diet and a vegan lifestyle.

[ Time: 0.5370s ][ Queries: 10 (0.0148s) ][ Debug on ]