where should one draw the line: animals, insects, bacteria?

Rights are to be accorded to creatures that have the capacity to experience pain, to suffer, and to be a "subject of a life".  such a capacity is definitely not found in bacteria.  it is definitely found in mammals.  one should decide, based upon available evidence and one's own conscience, where the line should be drawn to adhere to the principle of animal right described in the capacity of experiencing pain.

do i have to be careful not to walk on ants?

regardless of how careful we are, we will cause some suffering as a side-effect of living.  the goal is to avoid unnecessary suffering and to minimize the suffering we cause. 
this question is an issue for the individual conscience to decide.  as long as, you are not torching a congregation of ants for pleasure.

is it okay to study about animals in zoos?

to gain true and complete knowledge of wild animals, one must observe them in their natural habitats.
the conditions under which animals are kept in zoos typically distorts their behavior.

zoos often mistreat animals, keeping them in small pens or cages.  this is unfair and cruel.
the natural instincts and behavior of these animals are suppressed by force.

Interesting Arguments for Laboratory Animals

What is wrong with experimentation on animals?

Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research.
George Bernard Shaw (Playwright, Nobel 1925)

Vivisection is the blackest of all the black crimes that a man is at present committing against God and his fair creation.
Mahatma Gandhi (statesman and philosopher)

What I think about vivisection is that if people admit that they have the right to take or endanger the life of living beings for the benefit of many, there will be no limit for their cruelty.
Leo Tolstoy (author)

what's wrong with killing a few more rats for medical research?

Farmers have to kill pests to protect our food supply.
Given that, what is wrong with killing a few more rats for medical research?

Humans are killed legitimately every day.  Given that, what is wrong with killing a few more humans for medical research?

How do you know if a product has been tested on animals?

There are 2 ways to determine if a product uses animal products or is tested on animals.
First, most companies provide a toll-free telephone number for inquiring about their product. 

Second, several excellent guides are available that provide listings of companies and products.

But are they reliable?

Animals kill and eat each other; should it be right for humans?

Even thought animals kill and eat each other, humans have a choice: they need not eat meat to survive.

Humans is different from nonhuman animals because humans are capable of conceiving of a system of morals.  Also humans act in accordance with a system of morals.

Don't animals live longer in zoos than they would in the wild?

It sounds like irrelevant.  Suppose a zoo decides to exhibit human beings.  They snatch a peasant from a less-developed country and put her on display.  Due to the regular feedings and health care that the zoo provides, the peasant will live longer in captivity. 
A tradeoff of quantity of life versus quality of life is not always decided in favor of quantity.

長沙灣的鴿子

間中乘巴士經過長沙灣, 在那個東京街的地鐡出口總會有一大堆鴿子. 不用猜,必然是有人在那裡餵鴿子.

天有好生之德, 令沒東西吃的動物有東西吃本來是好事. 反過來說, 不餵牠們, 令牠們沒東西吃而餓死豈不是很殘忍? (又回到那個不捐款給非洲饑民問題

事實上, 越餵鴿子就越多, 衛生就會惡化. 最後大概是衛生部門出手, 結果鴿子星散, 在我們看不到的地方慢慢餓死.

對流浪於人類生活圈的動物,  見即殺有人認為殘忍, 視而不見有人認為冷漠, 餵飼看來只是自我感覺良好. 你認為那種手法比較合理?

街頭餵雀 增擴散疫情危機

食蟲?

在課堂上, 一直在討論為什麼人類可以吃動物而沒有道德問題.

因為比較高等的動物能夠suffer, 所以傷害動物和人都一樣是不好的事.
而比較低等的生物因為它們的知性層面低, 道德上的沖擊相對比較小

所以吃昆蟲在道德的意義上比較合理, 可是一般人都很不喜歡吃昆蟲, 甚至是昆蟲的食品原料

上星期有新聞報導星巴克飲品用蟲屍調色 (http://news.sina.com.hk/news/14/1/1/2622130/1.html)

在修詞上,蟲屍是正確的, 但用同樣手法, 炸雞肶其實也不過是"熱的鳥類屍體".
當你知道那杯東西的原料的時候, 跟你的想法會跟以前一樣嗎?

animal farming

上堂雖然曾經大言不慚可以用那video來送飯, 可是我的真的慶幸在那video 之前就把晚餐吃完了
好奇心的關係, 再找了些video 來看

Dr Sin 說的長太大腿根本支持不了身體的重量這video就有, 那些乳牛根本連步行都有困難... (血腥注意...

Perception of Danger

Should we kill the wolf?

This illustration is about the witch trials of the middle ages.
These innocent people have been blamed for illness, dead crops, poor weather.
These innocent people could be witches or normal women.

Should we kill them, if we don't know they were witches or not?
If we know they are witches, should we kill them?
We kill the wolf or witches because they are dangerous or we perceive they are dangerous?

活取熊膽汁：李天命反駁歸真堂「人不知熊痛」一說

李天命的書看就看過, 他的錄音我倒是第一次聽...6分鐘就講的很清楚了

20120303一虎一席谈 "活熊取胆"该不该被叫停. 正如特首辯論,結果還是誰都說服不了誰就是

Rights v.s. Duties

Rights come from the ability to think – not the ability to suffer?

The ability to think like a human is an arbitrary criterion for rights.

Rights come from the ability to think, then some humans – babies and the mentally incapacitated – are not deserving of rights, while some non-human animals with the ability to think like a human do deserve rights.

The ability to suffer makes sense as a criterion for rights holding, because the purpose of rights is to ensure that those who might suffer if their rights are not recognized are not allowed to suffer unduly.

Animals cannot have rights because they do not have duties?

Like the ability to think, having duties is an inappropriate criterion for rights holding because some classes of humans - babies, the mentally ill, the mentally incapacitated or the mentally retarded – do not have duties. 

If only those with duties deserve rights, then the mentally ill would have no rights and people would be free to kill and eat them. 

Rights: Does it really exist?

In contemporary moral system, human rights is usually painted as an irrefutable fact. But does it really true or even exist? Is there really any "rights" being inherent, at the day you come to exist? Say:

1. If you are not a believer (of any religion) , who authorizes you to have rights?
2. Who will refuse a jetso at no cost? Human rights is such a jetso. That's why human rights are always welcomed by the majority. Put it this way, everybody wants human rights but it does not entail its existence.
3. Human rights is sometimes a good political weapon. See how U.S. interfere other counties at the name of human rights.
4. "No pain no gain" and "no free lunch": Why should we think there is something we can take it for granted?

I think we can use "human rights" as a means to yield a better world. But "human rights" itself cannot be treated as a reason of act, because its existence is doubtful. So as "animal rights".

In a nutshell, I refuse to accept that "animal rights" can be a justification for human to treat animal better.

卓韻芝 - 續

早朝天下 3 月7日 就這事件作出討論
http://www.hkreporter.com/channel_list.php?channelid=351

她重申自己重時動物權益, 而從來亦沒有買過fur.
外間反應是認為她是沒有認錯的道歉 (實際情況的話, 裡面有她的道歉錄音, 自己聽一下她的語氣吧

因為她是資深電台DJ, 根本上不能以口才不好為藉口胡混過去.
要是支持動物權益的話, 她就只能無條件的道歉了,像這樣再說三道四, 只顯得她心不甘情不願而已

不過她既然嘗試以此片段道歉, 那她本來就認為這樣的道歉就夠了, 情況跟曾蔭權上立法會"解畫"一樣. 結果越描越黑.

有了名利權力, 人就非常容易驕縱. 對錯判斷脫軌.
對事情的對錯推理, 唸應用哲學就是很好的訓練

Peter Singer: Reciprocity is not ethics

Peter Singer said, in his "Equality for Animals?", that if we concur that reciprocity is the origin of ethics then posterity becomes meaningless to us, because human beings of hundreds years later cannot benefit to human beings as of now. He said so in an attempt to conclude ethics should be something beyond mutual benefits among beings (human and even non-human)

I think this argument has problem in both the premise and conclusion; Firstly, no one can deny that breeding has its intrinsic value, which reflects the very primitive need of a group being (such as human) in maintaining the continuity of a group/community such as human species, country, community, villege, family and etc. It implies even if reciprocity is proven the origin of ethics, posterity caring is still a reasonable action. Secondly, for the conclusion, I think before we can find a more convincing reason other than reciprocity being the origin of ethics, we should treat it as. For example, before we find a faster one, light is always the fastest.

卓韻芝披皮草遭聲討

卓韻芝解釋：「我要解釋狐皮係我巴黎朋友搬屋前，我喺佢哋垃圾筒搵到嘅，我好鍾意時裝，我有諗過到底要定唔要，我好想強調我係支持動物權益，支持環保，希望大家明白。如果令人不安，我要講句對唔住。」

source: http://www1.hk.apple.nextmedia.com/template/apple/art_main.php?iss_id=20120303&sec_id=462&art_id=16121149

其實到今時今日, 光要禦寒不用穿皮草, 就價格而言, 亦有更好更便宜的衣服. 唯一動機就是因為皮草的"美".

皮草的製作過程血腥, 買皮草的行為就助長就種行為. 已然, 皮草商總是對外宣稱, 自己使用的皮草都來自受到「人道對待」的動物,所有養殖農場都對其養殖環境,飼料和動物健康作了最好的控制. 但事實是，大多數被養殖的皮草動物，如狐狸、貂、海狸等，終其一身都被關在狹小的籠舍內，忍受便溺的惡臭和失去自由的痛苦。這些皮毛動物原本天性好動、敏感，且行蹤隱匿，卻因為長期的禁閉而反覆在籠子內不斷繞圈打轉、搖頭晃腦，或因無聊而一動也不動，呈現出不符其自然天性的病態行為。因缺乏動物福利法律而躍升為世界最大皮草生產及貿易國的中國，則是將動物活生生重摔、斷尾、剝皮，製作行徑更令人心寒。

source: http://forum.yam.org.tw/bongchhi/old/microphone/microphone69.htm

至於卓韻芝認為既然皮草都做了, 不穿白不穿的"環保精神" 實為不智. 我想要是她面前有一鍋貓肉, 她大概不會為了丟掉浪費而吃了吧? 

歸真堂活熊取膽 IPO上市

以活熊取膽的公司,歸真堂, 計劃IPO上市.

熊膽汁能作成熊膽粉,據中醫記載,熊膽粉具有清心,平肝,明目,殺蟲,解毒,止痛等功效.

其實歸真堂只是提供熊膽汁原料, 實際上有好些中國的制藥上市公如上海凱寶才是制藥的. 

上海凱寶主打產品痰熱清注射液的主原料就是熊膽粉。去年上半年，痰熱清注射液占營業收入

比例高達99.1%，光是該項產品就實現人民幣3.91億元（約新台幣18.4 億元）的營收。

http://udn.com/NEWS/MAINLAND/MAIN3/6918367.shtml

相信大家都會同意活熊取膽是非人道的行為, 人工合成的成本高, 沒競爭力. 反對活熊取膽的話,

可能做成以百計的家庭家計問題. 以 utilitarianism 的角度, 人類的利益對熊沒意義,而熊的利益對人沒意義. 

 

反對活熊取膽是因為我們相信動物擁有某程度上的權利. 這無關於熊認不認得字,會不會數學,會不會做衣櫃,正如很多人類也沒有這些能力. 只要同樣擁有生命的動物, 就有一個與生俱來同等的價值而人類不能視若無睹.

vegetarianism

In western world, human is the ruler of the world. Human is given the right to dominate animals by God. Man show their kindness to animal are not based on we care their suffering but to avoid the cruel habits carried out into human.

Singer argued that the value between human being without mental life is just the same, if not less, important than a sentiment animal. If we won't eat than human, by the same token, we should not kill animal, especially factory farming and animal experimentation.

I think Singer's argument make sense but I am not into becoming a vegetarian. Any counter argument to support me to have my usual diet?

Foie gras

The production of foie gras involves force feeding of a duck or goose with more food than would eat in the wild and more than they would voluntarily eat domestically.

This is not related to how the gooses are actually feed.
Sure it is more bad if the gooses are feed and reared in small space (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtN5LoM-ZNQ) or reared in better farm (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABeWlY0KFv8)

According to Peter Singer, pain and suffering are bad and should be prevented or minimized, irrespective of the race, sex, or species of the being that suffers.

Since gooses are sentient beings which suffer from pain and distress just as humans do. There is a limit to the amount of suffering one can inflict upon an animal for the pleasure of eating his or her organs. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtN5LoM-ZNQ)




Reference
Wikipedia Foie gras controversy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras_controversy

Animal as food

According to Singer "‘Equality for Animals’ from Practical Ethics", we should consider when eating animal flesh is a luxury rather than necessary. So Eskimos must kill animals for food but eating sharp fin soup is a luxury.

In factory farms, animal may lead to miserable lives so that the cost of production can be made as low as possible. Human should balance the cost of production and welfare of animals.


-Anthony Lam Wai Man