Hello,
Waarmee is Pieter besig en vra Chris of Pieter dalk nie besig is om die lesers se been hier te trek nie, veral met Pieter se Hannibal Lector oomblik wanneer daar verwys word na die velle van die sogenaamde "prototipe mense" wat kleding vir die skeppings Adam en Eva word. 'n Vyeblaar is nie meer 'n vyeblaar nie. Vreemder en vreemder kan dit nie. Daarom is Chris se terugroep na die werklikheid 'n verligting en is die advies aan Pieter, gaan nou en lees Peter Singer van "animal liberation" faam.
Veertig jaar gelede op grond van 'n bespreking van 'n nuwe boek, Animals, Men and Morals geredigeer deur Stanley Godlovitch & Roslind Godlovitch & John Harris, toe pas gepubliseer, skets Peter Singer die nuwe veld van "animal liberation".
Peter Singer begin sy bespreking soos volg:
"We are familiar with Black Liberation, Gay Liberation, and a variety of other movements. With Women’s Liberation some thought we had come to the end of the road. Discrimination on the basis of sex, it has been said, is the last form of discrimination that is universally accepted and practiced without pretense, even in those liberal circles which have long prided themselves on their freedom from racial discrimination."
Die lesse geleer uit hierdie bevrydingsbewegings is hoe moeilik dit is vir die mensdom om bewus te wees van die maniere waarop daar gediskrimineer word tot dat daar 'n beweging ontstaan wat aktief argumente teen diskriminering formuleer en met fors die wat diskrimineer daarop gewys hoe onaanvaarbaar hierdie diskriminasie is. 'n Bevrydingsbeweging het as oogmerk die uitbreiding van ons morele horisonne, sodat praktyke wat voorheen beskou was as natuurlik en onvermydelik getoets kan word en die sirkel van regte en aanvaarbare moraliteit verbreed kan word.
Die wat bereid is om hulle weg oop te sien vir die uitbreiding van regte kan soos volg argumenteer:
Ons ondersteun die eise van swart persone en vroue vir gelykheid aangesien swartes en vroue werklik gelyk aan wittes en mans betreffende intelligensie, vermoëns, leierskap, rasionaliteit, en so aan.
Hierdie argument word nie deur Peter Singer aanvaar nie aangesien daar 'n inherente ongelykheid in mense is en is die gronde vir regte nie gebaseer op die beginsel dat alle mense op alle vlakke gelyk is nie. Daar moet daarom juis voorsiening gemaak word vir die verskille wat inherent in die diversiteit van menswees is.
This is a tempting reply, but a dangerous one. It commits the nonracist and non-sexist to a dogmatic belief that blacks and women really are just as intelligent, able as whites and males—and no more. Moral equality is distinct from factual equality. Otherwise it would be nonsense to talk of the equality of human beings, since humans, as individuals, obviously differ in intelligence and almost any ability one cares to name.
Daar word verwys na Jeremy Bentham se basis vir gelykheid wat soos volg formuleer word:
“Each to count for one and none for more than one.”
Met ander woorde die belange van elke mens wat belang het in die samelewing moet in ag geneem word en gelyk behandel word in die manier hoe die samelewing omgaan en moet nie bepaal word of daar oor sekere eienskappe beskik word nie. Menslik, manlik, heteroseksueel, wit en Christelik in die Weste en aangepas volgens streek in ander gebiede.
Singer verwys weer na Jeremy Bentham soos volg:
The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
Hierdie is dan die inleiding tot die veld van "Animal liberation".
Tien jaar gelede, dertig jaar na Peter Singer sy eerste opstel oor hierdie onderwerp geskryf het, herbesoek Singer dit en word van die temas uitgelig en dui die vordering aan wat gemaak is in 30 jaar:
Vandag is die situasie is baie anders. Vraagstukke oor die behandeling van diere is dikwels in die nuus. Diereregte-organisasies is aktief in al die geïndustrialiseerde nasies. Die Amerikaanse diereregte-groep, PETA, het meer as 750,000 lede en ondersteuners en is daar 'n lewendige intellektuele debat oor die beskerming van diere wat nou heers.
Hierdie bewustheid word in kontras geplaas tot die volgende aspekte wat Singer bespreek en in detail die toestande waarin diere in fabrieksplase hulle bevind. Sommige van hierdie is diere is so styf teen mekaar gepak dat hulle nie in staat is om hulle ledemate te rek of te loop nie vir 'n tree of twee nie. Hierdie is by verre die grootste bron van die menslike toedoen wat lyding aan diere bring.
Die oorgrote meerderheid van diere wat in hierdie "fabrieke" is geheel en al binne geboue om nooit vars lug, sonskyn, of gras te ervaar nie tot die oomblik aanbreek waar hulle aangery word om geslag te word. Net soos diere soms nog lewendig is wanneer hulle geslag word.
Kalwers word ontneem van strooi om op te slaap en is ingehok in individuele kratte so smal dat hulle nie eers kan draai nie net soos dragtige diere in individuele kratte vir die hele swangerskap gehou word.
Bogenoemde is 'n beperkte blik maar begin om die ongemak wat Pieter dalk ervaar te verwoord maar vereis dit nie dat die Bybel herontleed moet word soos gedoen deur van sy briewe hier.
Bogenoemde praktyke is onwettig in Brittanje vir baie jare al asook onwettig in die Europese Unie.
Gebaseer op Singer se argument is dit duidelik dat waar daar 'n wil is daar 'n weg aangesien die omstandighede volgens Singer Europa as 'n voorbeeld anders daarna uitsien as wat die omstandighede in die VSA is.
Die situasie is baie anders as in Europa. In Spanje, met sy kultuur van bul-gevegte is diere beter versorg as in die VSA net soos daar van die Europese eier produsente verwag word om hulle henne toegang te gee tot 'n sitplek en genoegsame spasie om hulle eiers te lê, ten minste 750 vierkante sentimeter.
Daar word soos volg afgesluit en vat Singer dit saam soos volg:
Hierdie is die slotsom van 40 jaar gelede:
Can a purely moral demand succeed? The odds are certainly against it. The book [Animals, Men and Morals] holds out no inducements. It does not tell us that we will become healthier, or enjoy life more, if we cease exploiting animals. Animal Liberation will require greater altruism on the part of mankind than any other liberation movement, since animals are incapable of demanding it for themselves, or of protesting against their exploitation by votes, demonstrations, or bombs. Is man capable of such genuine altruism? Who knows? If this book does have a significant effect, however, it will be a vindication of all those who have believed that man has within himself the potential for more than cruelty and selfishness.
Hierdie is die opdatering van 10 Jaar gelede:
So how have we done? Both the optimists and the cynics about human nature could see the results as confirming their views. Significant changes have occurred, in animal testing and other forms of animal abuse. In Europe, entire industries are being transformed because of the concern of the public for the welfare of farm animals. Perhaps most encouraging for the optimists is the fact that millions of activists have freely given up their time and money to support the animal movement, many of them changing their diet and lifestyle to avoid supporting the abuse of animals. Vegetarianism and even veganism (avoiding all animal products) are far more widespread in North America and Europe than they were thirty years ago, and although it is difficult to know how much of this relates to concern for animals, undoubtedly some of it does.
On the other hand, despite the generally favorable course of the philosophical debate about the moral status of animals, popular views on that topic are still very far from adopting the basic idea that the interests of all beings should be given equal consideration irrespective of their species. Most people still eat meat, and buy what is cheapest, oblivious to the suffering of the animal from which the meat comes. The number of animals being consumed is much greater today than it was thirty years ago, and increasing prosperity in East Asia is creating a demand for meat that threatens to boost that number far higher still. Meanwhile the rules of the World Trade Organization threaten advances in animal welfare by making it doubtful that Europe will be able to keep out imports from countries with lower standards. In short, the outcome so far indicates that as a species we are capable of altruistic concern for other beings; but imperfect information, powerful interests, and a desire not to know disturbing facts have limited the gains made by the animal movement.
Dit word aan die leser gelaat om te oordeel en het ek nie 'n duidelike antwoord nie. Persoonlik sou ek graag vleis wil geniet by geleenthede, aangesien ek toevalling nie 'n groot vleiseter is nie, maar kan nie aanvaar dat diere in werklike haglike omstandighede voorberei word en 'n wreedheid wat 'n mens stom slaan.
Baie dankie
Wouter