what is

1. What is �Animal Rights�?

2. Speciesism

3. Animal Rights is NOT

4. From where do AR supporters derive their moral criteria?

5. Most fundamental ethical axioms

6. AR logic didn�t interest this guy

7. The Complete Logicof Animal Rights

8. Why do you believe�

9. An answer: We have moral rights that make it wrong to mistreat us

10. Who has moral rights?

11. If any of these claims are true

12. Another approach to assigning rights

13. Using biology to assign moral rights

14. A rough hypothesis about moral rights

15. A consequence of this theory

16. Logical Conclusion

17. Responses

18. All attempts to do this suffer from these flaws

19. Moral sources beyond logic.�Doesn't the Bible give Humanity dominion over animals?�

20. Who developed the �animal rights� philosophy?

21. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)

22. Ralph Waldo Emerson1803-1882, author

23. Mark Twain, author, 1835-1910

24. Thomas Edisoninventor, 1847-1931

25. George Bernard Shawauthor, 1856-1950

26. Albert Schweitzer(1875-1965) �By reason of the quite universal idea of participation in a common nature, it is compelled to declare the unity of mankind with all created beings.�

27. Albert Einstein1879-1955, physicist

28. William O. Douglas, 1898-1980, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

29. Isaac Bashevis Singer, 1904-1991, author, Nobel Prize 1978

30. Isaac Bashevis Singer

31. Peter Singer (1946- )Princeton Professor �If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering of any other being.�

32. Tom ReganN.C. St. Professor �Animals, it is true, lack many of the abilities humans possess. They can't read, do higher maths, build a bookcase or make baba ghanoush. Neither can many humans, and yet we don't (and shouldn't) say that they therefore have less inherent value, less of a right to be treated with respect, than do others.�

33. So, the final question is whether it is morally ok to harm animals � by way of causing pain and suffering.

34. Evolution of �Rights�

35. How do AR supporters give �rights� to other species?

36. Since everyone causes some animal suffering without knowing it, what�s the point?

37. Is every life-form equally worthy of having �rights�?

38. Often misquoted:

39. Where should one draw the line: animals, insects, bacteria?

40. I can�t draw a line, nature is a continuum

41. Drawing a line at insects

42. Albert Schweitzer�s line

43. Are there topics of debate among AR supporters?

44. Corollaries and actions

45. AR critics

46. AR critics

47. Frequently Asked Questions

48. Aren�t there more pressing problems than AR, such as homelessness?

49. Is the AR movement against abortion?If not, isn't that hypocritical?

50. Is the use of service animals considered exploitative?

51. What�s wrong with having pets?

52. Spay and Neuter

53. Doesn't hunting control wildlife populations that would otherwise get out of hand?

54. Isn't hunting OK as long as we eat what we kill?

55. Animals kill and eat each other; so why should it be wrong for humans?

56. Shouldn�t you stop predators from killing other animals?

57. Trapping is inhumane, but what about fur ranches?

58. Conditions on factory farms or fur farms are no worse than in the wild. At least the animals on factory farms are fed and protected. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered one of society's harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn�t "wild" to the animals who live there; it�s their home. There they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.

59. Is �factory farming� the moral equivalent to Auschwitz? No. Humans have more ability to feel mental and physical pain than most animals. However, while they are not morally equivalent, they are both wrong. That's the important concept.

60. While the Nazi holocaust "In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author"In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author

61. From people who knew�. "In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author"In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author

62. Nazi holocaust survivor "In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author"In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis. Human beings see oppression vividly when they're the victims. Otherwise they victimize blindly and without a thought." Isaac Bashevis Singer, author

63. Animals in factory farms

64. Hogs & Cows

65. Kosher Slaughter

66. What is wrong with leather if it�s just a by-product of slaughter?

67. Current reality of meat Meat producers want the least costly means of producing meat for human consumption. If that means that animals are made to suffer by that process, then, because they are not deserving of moral respect, producers do not worry unduly about it. It might be morally justified to eat meat if that is all we had to eat, or if meat were the only thing which would properly nourish us, but neither of these things is the case.

68. Don't crop harvest techniques lead to the death of animals?

69. What if I made use of an animal that was already dead?

70. Hypothetical: Is eating meat intrinsically wrong? Saying that the mistreatment of animals in the meat production process is immoral is one thing, saying that eating meat itself is immoral is another. If we can raise animals for slaughter that do not suffer, and which are quickly and painlessly killed, then would eating meat morally acceptable?

71. The morality of painless killing If it is wrong to kill a person painlessly why it is not also wrong to kill an animal painlessly? Animals are not as complex as human beings, but they �live in communities, communicate with one another, have ongoing social relationships, suffer, and are capable of happiness, as well as fear and distress, as we are.�

73. The right to life and painless killing If we assume that humans have a right to life - it would be wrong to murder a normal, healthy human even if it were done painlessly - and it is hard to think of any plausible rationale for granting this right to humans that does not also apply to other animals. So what could be the rational basis for saying that we have a right to life, but that they don�t? What could be the rational basis for saying that a severely retarded person, who is inferior in every important respect to an intelligent animal, has a right to life but the animal doesn�t?

74. The amelioration argument The hypothetical amelioration argument: If animals can be made not to suffer, then they can be killed (quickly and painlessly) and eaten. �The more animals that can be brought to lead pleasant lives, the more animals that escape the argument from pain and suffering and so may be eaten.� All a concerned individual need do then is to look for improvements in factory farming so that animals no longer suffer.

76. Animal Testing: Why does it raise ethical issues?

78. Fully approved: E. Sander Connolly�s(Columbia Univ.) experiments Strokes were (are?) induced in baboons by removing their left eyeballs to reach and clamp a critical blood vessel to their brains. Metal pipes were (are?) surgically implanted in monkeys� skulls for the purpose of inducing stress in order to study the connection between stress and menstrual cycles. Nicotine was (is?) pumped into pregnant baboons who are strapped into backpacks full of instrumentation and tethered inside cages. More info at http://www.columbiacruelty.com

79. Experiments Funded by March of Dimes The March of Dimes has funded experimenters who have sewn cats� eyes shut, implanted wires into the uteruses of pregnant monkeys, cut open the skulls of ferrets and injected chemicals directly into their brains, and administered cocaine, nicotine, and alcohol to pregnant rats even though the harmful effects of these substances on developing fetuses is well known. Info: Humane Charity Seal of Approval � http://www.MarchofCrimes.org

80. Harry Harlow, Primate Research Experiments on a monkey�s instinct to cling to its mother even when the mother subjects it to rejection and pain. (Research conducted by Harry Harlow at the Primate Research Centre at Madison, Wisconsin, see Singer 1995, 33-35)

81. More examples Removing monkey�s eyes to discover whether their facial expressions resembled that of sighted monkeys when deprived of their mothers. They did. (See Gendin 1986, 200) Testing the pressure on a hose when monkeys bit it in response to electric shocks on their tails compared to the biting pressure resulting from amphetamines, etc. (See Gendin 1986, 2001)

82. Don�t we need to experiment on animals because of the benefit? �So therefore it is morally justified.� This response assumes that animals don�t have moral rights. Also, it makes the scientific assumption that there are great medical benefits from animal research. AND, it assumes there�s NOTHING BETTER than can be done for humans than animal research.

83. What about �pain and suffering-free� research? If an animal is killed, that�s still a harm-- something bad has happened to the animal. They miss out on all they would have experienced; their lives are cut short. We don�t think that if someone killed us painlessly, that would make it morally ok. The response, �Well, treating these animals in these ways would be OK if done �humanely� and with every effort to �minimize pain�� needs serious defense.

84. What�s wrong with testing cosmetics on animals? Companies don�t put lipstick and rouge on a pig, take it to a bar, and see if anybody picks it up.

85. Is it okay to use a medicine that has been tested on animals? Take the generic version of the drug--this won't put money into the pockets of the company that tested it on animals. Just as driving on roads that were built by slaves doesn't mean that one supports slavery, using medicines that were tested on animals doesn't mean one supports animal testing. If there is no generic version of a drug that was tested on animals, but taking the drug makes a person better able to help animals today, that person should do so for the sake of animals. There is no one-to-one correlation between consumer drug purchases and animal misery (as there is with the correlation of food consumption, leather, etc.). Ironically, in some cases it helps animals to support the companies testing on them (but we don�t recommend this). One company, when doing financially well, invested money in alternative testing and cut the number of animal tests. Protesting, and law changes, will make companies change their policies. Boycotting products may be only symbolic.

86. If animal exploitation were wrong, it would be illegal

87. In the US, it used to be� Illegal to possess a bathtub in Massachusetts. Legal for parents to have their children hung for disobedience. Legal to kill someone if others thought them to be a witch. If you�d guess that laws are more logical now, then please smile at the following 2 slides (a small sampling of the dumb laws still on the books) and take laws with several grains of salt.

88. Laws which still exist in the US In Arkansas, a man is permitted to beat his wife, but no more than once a month. In Montana, seven or more native Americans together are considered a raiding or war party, and it is legal to shoot them. In Vermont, it is illegal to deny the existence of God. In Alabama, it is illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church. You may not have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time. Children of incestuous couples are deemed legitimate. In Arizona, when being attacked by a criminal or burglar, you may only protect yourself with the same weapon that the other person possesses. Any misdemeanor committed while wearing a red mask is considered a felony. In Tombstone: It is illegal for men and women over the age of 18 to have less than one missing tooth visible when smiling.

89. Laws which still exist in the US California. In Chico: Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine. In San Francisco: Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street. In Indian Wells: It is illegal for a trumpet player to play his instrument with the intention of luring someone to a store. Colorado. In Denver: It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor Florida: A law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday. Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown. Illinois: In Normal, it is against the law to make faces at dogs. Iowa: One-armed piano players must perform for free. In Fort Madison: The fire department is required to practice fire fighting for fifteen minutes before attending a fire.

90. Isn't breaking the law (e.g., destruction of property) wrong?

91. Isn't breaking the law wrong?

92. Isn't ALF supposed to be �non-violent�?

93. Isn't sabotage violence?

94. Who�s violent?

95. Tom Regan on Violence

96. Doesn't extreme activism give the AR movement a bad name?

97. Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name?

98. Do ALF raids give the AR movement a bad name?

99. Welcome to the Automatic ALF Pledge Donation PagePlease answer the following question.

100. Will you pledge your entire year�s salary to support the ALF?

101. Will you pledge your entire year�s salary to support the ALF?

102. Will you pledge your entire year�s salary to support the ALF?

103. Thank You!We knew we could count on you!

104. Thanks for your pledge.