From: ra-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr (Ronald Creagh, Moderator, Research on Anarchism List)
Date: 31 Jan 1997 15:04:14 UTC   (11:04:14 AM in author's locale)
To: ra-l-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:35:45 0100
>From: David.Olivier-AT-iol.it (David Olivier)
** In this message, I use gender-free pronouns. He/she -> ey,
** her/his -> eir, etc. It's the plural form (they, their, etc.) without
** the 'th'. See www.eecis.udel.edu/~chao/gfp/
In political debate, when your opponent says something that is true,
however nasty ey may seem, acknowledge it.
Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-sn.no> is an opponent of animal
liberation; ey wrote:
>In fact human beings is the only species on this earth that given the
>opportunity would NOT exterminate all other species, or ever consider
>that other species have "rights".
Though this contains a contrafactual 'if' type statement ('*If* other
species were given the opportunity...') I think it contains a real truth.
When for instance the north and south American continents joined together
some tens of million years ago, the north-american predators invaded South
America, and wiped out many navive species. They had no qualms about this.
The same goes for many instances of fish species invading new lakes. The
only species on earth that has any scruples about its ecological impact is
the human species.
Or rather: The only *individuals* on earth who have scruples about their
ecological impact are humans. The whole debate on ra-l is pervaded by a
confusion between individuals and species. What animal liberation is about
is the rights of *individuals*; we are *antispeciesists*, and our aims have
nothing to do with the 'rights of species', whatever that may mean. Species
as such have no interests, no intentions, no consciousness, no sentience,
and no rights.
Concerning individuals: Harald is wrong about humans being the only
animals who, as individuals, acknowledge rights of others (of other
individuals). To acknowledge rights, you don't have to be Kant or a
professor of philosophy; we 'instinctively' (whatever that may mean - a
whole debate here) acknowledge rights in our everyday interactions,
abstaining from taking other's property, from rape, respecting social
positions, and so on. Many other animals do the same. Many non human
animals exhibit compassion and other forms of ethical behaviour. They don't
base their ethics on complex philosophical reasoning, but how many of us
base our own everyday ethical behaviour on complex philosophical reasoning?
I wish to add two things. First of all, the contractarian attitude I have
found in some messages appalls me; especially coming from people who
consider themselves anarchists. Are we to respect the rights and interests
of others only if they can reciprocate? What if blacks, retarded children,
women and poor people couldn't reciprocate? Could white rich 'normal' men
then exploit them? Is the world you anarchists are struggling for one where
you behave ethically only when it suits you? This is a conception of
anarchy that disgusts me. Non-human animals cannot force us to respect
their interests. Does this suffice for you to go on eating them and
generally exploiting them?
Secondly, I believe animal liberation has nothing to do with 'respect for
life'. I advocate respect for *sentient* life. Plants, species as a whole,
and so on, are not sentient. Animal liberation has nothing to do with
ecology, respect for the earth and for ecosystems and so on. I would not be
opposed to finding a way for rattle-snakes to become vegetarians, if it was
possible; though this is not of course a priority, first lets have humans
become vegetarians.
Someone said that since meat-eaters don't try to oblige us to eat meat
(how nice they are!) (actually, meat-eaters *have* tried to oblige me to
eat meat; they did it for years, for instance, when I was a child), we
shouldn't try to oblige them to become vegetarians. To me this sounds like
someone saying to me that since slave-holders don't oblige me to have
slaves, I shouldn't oblige them to renounce to having slaves. I see no
justification for killing and eating others, especially when it is in no
way necessary for survival; this holds whether these others are humans or
not. Vegetarianism is for me no private, personal matter; it's a struggle
against an oppression.
French-speaking readers with access to the Web can find our journal, 'Les
Cahiers antispecistes', at www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3347.
David Olivier
David.Olivier-AT-iol.it
20 rue d'Aguesseau, 69007 Lyon, France
Tel. 04 78 69 90 71
C.so XXII marzo, 42 / 20135 Milano / Italia
Tel. (02) 73 86 531
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3347/index.html

TO SEND A MESSAGE TO EVERYONE write to RA-L-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE, WRITE TO : listserv-AT-bred.univ-montp3.fr
with the text SIGnoff RA-L (no subject nor signature).

Moderator/Moderador/Moderateur : Ronald Creagh
Co-Moderator : John P. Clark
e-mail : rcreagh-AT-alor.univ-montp3.fr
snail mail/correo ordinario/courrier ordinaire : Ronald Creagh, Universite
Paul Valery, B.P. 5043, 34032, Montpellier-Cedex, France.
fax : (33) 67 64 77 23