I met David nearly 20 yrs ago when he was a budding philosophy grad student who had taken up animal rights. We used to show up at the same protests. My students adored him because of his witty straight-forwardness in dealing with hecklers who whined about our efforts to stop animal abuse.
Two decades later, David is a veteran philosopher with a long list of accomplishments. Not only has he made significant academic contributions (some of his peers think he has the best-going animal rights philosophy), he doesn't leave the lay people behind either! He provides topics suited to a more general audience as well as numerous teaching aids.
David is relatively unique in that not many philosophers build their credibility on the topic of animal rights. For most, animal rights is a side-dish. However, David takes it on as a main course and as such he is a pioneer in the most important area of social justice in history!
Animal rights is foundational to civilized behavior of humans for it challenges us to choose between cruelty and compassion. The ramifications of that choice will determine the destiny of this species.
We encourage you to frequent his comprehensive site:
Dr David Sztybel
You'll find not only much to learn, but also much to use!
in friendship,
prad
Replies
i have started reading his work. thanks so much for this link Prad. i am most grateful to learn of thinkers arguing for animal rights. it's where I'm coming from.
greetings rawcelt! and welcome to 30bad!
david's work is quite comprehensive and i'm glad you are finding benefit from his writings!
in friendship,
prad
you are most welcome rudy!
i agree with your assessment completely. until certain humans acquire sufficient self-discipline to not succumb to their baser components, others will have to keep them in line. doing so is understandably not a pleasant task for many who strive towards compassionate actions.
i often deal with activists who are enraged by what happens in the world, but are also ashamed of some of the violent thoughts that appear within their own minds. i try to explain to them that they should not be surprised to feel the way they do because they aren't violent, that they really are kind and this is why such thoughts are so discomforting to them. so they bear a double burden because they see the suffering, yet have to deal with their own frustration of thinking things that do not go with their inner nature.
however, at some point we must confront the reality that someone has to stop oppression. much of it can be done via education and example, but it seems, at present, that enforcement is also necessary, if for no other reason than to protect the victims, as you point out.
however, you don't have to do everything, as this post explains:
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:158714
with the key phrase being what leanne mallet says:
"we need everyone!"
and what i tell ema at the end of that post, i say to you too rudy:
"i am so glad you are part of that everyone!"
in friendship,
prad
no worries at all, rudy! your ideas above are completely legitimate.
your point about informed vs. the uninformed is quite valid and many who become informed, do change their ways refusing to support the imprisonment, exploitation, abuse and murder of animals for diet, clothing, entertainment, testing etc.
however, many don't and what's worse is that many won't.
i think education is one of the most important things we can do. you are an excellent example of someone engaged in this activity. you bring the uninformed to a state of being informed and certainly even though there is an "us-them" line in the classroom, it is a poor teacher who blames his students for coming to him in ignorance. so i am in full agreement with you on this point.
however, those who do know exactly what they are doing and why (sometimes even better than many ar activists) like:
sport hunters
agribusiness
vivisectors
blood sport (bulltorture, pigeonshoot etc) enthusiasts
wildlife terrorists
etc etc etc
don't need education so much as incarceration. they are not only the equivalent of 'nazis' towards animals, but are also a menace to society. they are oppressors and it is a good idea for the protectors to keep that in mind. those like paul watson, gary yourovsky, stephen best, peta, alf etc aren't there to 'convince' them into behaving themselves - they are there to stop them from oppressing the victims. they do the education too, but the primary focus is in 'us' stopping 'them'.
oppressors don't just stop. they need to be stopped.
in friendship,
prad
this is a particularly interesting article for 30baders:
Giving Credence to Philosophical Creeds
it deals with a common issue vegans often face regarding dietary discrimination (amongst other things).
if you say you don't eat corpse because of health or religious reasons, no problem!
however, if you say you don't do the corpse thing for ethical reasons (ie 'i am vegan'), then all sorts of issues arise.
the document presents a case against the ontario human rights commission's attitude of denying that vegans are entitled to the same benefits (as established religious factions) by virtue of their outlook and practises:
Justice and non-violence demand that we must consider equivalent, preventable harms,
such as degradations of moral welfare from Grace’s current lack of religious freedom
as compared to the case of Theo. The latter innocently enjoys the spoils of arbitrary
favoritism. If the results of this paper are taken seriously, it seems that objective grounds
empower us to suggest that secular veganism, just as Grace’s Buddhism, may be deemed
either a creed or a component of a creed, and this is wholly coherent with the cited 2004
Supreme Court of Canada ruling. The state cannot objectively deny that Grace or the
vegan is “religious,” although OHRC policy implies such a denial. Moreover, democracy
impels us to promote pluralism and diversity. The OHRC embraces these ideals, (OHRC,
1996, p. 16) but not yet fully in its rather twentieth-century sense of “creed.”
(from the conclusion)
the paper is worth reading to gain deeper insight into the 'rights' components which should be supported for 'unfavored' groups.
in friendship,
prad
@Prad,
This article although interesting from a philosophical point of view, could possibly be disturbing from the point of view of some vegans.
Some people in Western society already view veganism as a kind of religion, cult, or extreme point of view, and therefore reject it. This in turn can lead to rejection and persecution of some vegans who do take a verbal stand.
IMO, we should be very cautious about trying to associate veganism with religiousness and or religious rights.
This could be counter productive in further dividing society into smaller components and "us vs them" problems.
Now may be, other rights do play a role such as the right of freedom of speech.
***
Although in my head, I am an ethical AR person...
My current strategy for most people I deal with is to promote veganism with health benefits first.
I suppose this is partly based on my personal experience. In my past, I would promote the ethical treatment of animals, but at the same time, I had a law of the jungle point of view plus the support of my then religious point of view, that it was ok to eat animals at meal time.
Once I went veg and fruitarian, my mind got cleared an detoxed, and my interest in ethics increased, as did my AR interests and seeking out like minded people.
I rarely get into AR debates with SAD people as this seems to bring out more antagonism than the health side of veg. Actually, there are two extremes, the argumentative antagonistic side, but also a side where the person just pulls a blank and looks at me with no interest in their face and or nothing to say. The topic literally goes over their head, perhaps in part because of their own religious conditioning such as kosher and halal.
So, I promote health first hoping their minds get cleaned, and then the AR stuff come easily. And most people consider themselves health gurus:D
One person who I have apprenticed into vegetarianism, and has been so for about 9 months now, I am starting to plant seeds and say random AR statements here and there and they seem interested. They also hate the sight and smell of meat now, and or being in places and stores that sell them.
Another person eats meat, but I know they studied veterinarian medicine (although not practicing.) This person I did discuss more of the AR side of it and they seemed to appreciate it.
***
The above is how I deal with individuals. I am still contemplating the larger political strategies. If I observe what happened in the US during prohibition of alcohol, those who wanted to drink, still found a way. We could pass strict AR laws, but until unless people want to change, animal abuse is still going to happen. I suppose the modern example is the exotic animal trade whether it is for food, fur, pets, or medicinal purposes. Many countries have made laws against exotic and or endangered animal trade, but people will get what people want until unless at the grass roots level, they are convinced not to do that.
I do believe it is possible though. To change society from the grassroots up. An example is our modern school system in the USA. May be 200 years ago, it did not exists, and some communities did teach basic skills, but it was not obligatory. Now it is obligatory and or every child has an obligation and or right to a basic education.
We can change things for animals too, but people have to want the change themselves.
These are just my thoughts, and may be with the passage of time, I will get more "bull" headed myself. I am not sure.
Peace, PK
pk, i've been thinking about your statement here:
IMO, we should be very cautious about trying to associate veganism with religiousness and or religious rights.
i remember telling david after reading his article that i found it amusing so many animal abusers are more than willing to see veganism as a religion while the OHRC seemed unable to do so. :D
i think your concern is a legitimate one since ar people sometimes get lumped into the same category as cultists ... just as 30baders do. :D
however, it seems to me that david's arguments show how vegan beliefs and practices parallel those of other religions and hence provide a substantial foundation being accepted as a religion ... and certainly for pragmatic purposes.
should we refrain from acceptance of veganism as a religion because we fear some of the fallout?
in friendship,
prad
@Prad,
I am still thinking about this concept...accepting veganism as a religion.
I did like David's article from a philosophical point of view, and as you said, for pragmatic purposes. Most of his comparisons to religion are correct.
I fear the label though and or getting into the legal arena.
Well, may be I am going through a label paranoia due to some rejection I have experienced in my life do to choices and labels I carried on my person before, and even because of my gender.
So this in turn, has caused me to view the concept of labels and defining each other via legal standards with great skepticism.
If veganism is suddenly accepted as a religion, then those religions, and I know that Judeo Christianity, and Islam, which teach "have no other gods before me," will suddenly put up walls and not allow the teachings.
Right now, we still have a fighting chance at convincing people because it is more of a generic message and or way of life based in science, ethics, and good results.
Anyways, I have no answers, only more thoughts and questions.
Peace, PK
If veganism is suddenly accepted as a religion, then those religions, and I know that Judeo Christianity, and Islam, which teach "have no other gods before me," will suddenly put up walls and not allow the teachings.
no that won't happen because veganism is already incorporated into all three. it'll be more like an affirmation.
besides, there is no god to worry about in veganism.
see veganism more as a chosen way of life and therefore certain accommodations are required from society legally and pragmatically. it's more like bilingualism than greatturtleintheskyism.
Right now, we still have a fighting chance at convincing people because it is more of a generic message and or way of life based in science, ethics, and good results.
that won't change. even standard religions can be validated by good results, ethics and even science (believe it or not - mathematician blaise pascal does this to some extent with in his pensees).
if veganism is officially declared by some societies as a religion, the other stuff won't just go away. we'll just be adding another weapon to the arsenal.
in friendship,
prad
@Prad,
Thanks for your insights.
see veganism more as a chosen way of life and therefore certain accommodations are required from society legally and pragmatically. it's more like bilingualism than greatturtleintheskyism.
I think I agree with this "chosen way of life" and veganism should be accepted and respected as a way of life just like any other way of life, creed, or political party and or notion.
***
You are right in religions validating themselves with science. Actually, we cannot deny they contain some elements of science because the holy books may have been written by the intellectuals of the day.
Never the less, it is ironic though that the basis of many religions starts with faith, meaning faith in the evidence of things not seen. If people question the status quo and or those in power, they are told just have faith.
I suppose in the old days, modern medicine and doctors abilities to assist people in healing from emergency situations would have been seen as a kind of magic and or witchcraft. People did not understand it, so they attributed it to magic, spirits, and or things unseen.
Along came the microscope and changed some of that.
Right now, some religions hold on to their power because they have aligned themselves with science. One is the darwinian theory of evolution and the age of the earth. If people used to be taught the earth was created in 7 days, and is only 5 thousand years old, they have changed that to "periods" of time to assist their holy book in agreeing with science.
The next problem is the so called Big Bang Theory and that everything started with a pin drop. So now, since people do not understand yet the origin of the pindrop, they fall back on evidence of things not seen, ie a creatorgod to fill in the blanks.
***
Peace, PK
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next