Tuesday, 1st April 2008
Hunting dogs are no dummies but neither are we
I refer to Fabian Borg's letter of March 27. I will immediately concede that a dummy is no exact replica of a live bird, just as a vegan burger is no exact replica of a "beef" burger. However, someone who follows an ethic of respect for the rights of all sentient animals would choose a dummy for one's dog as much as he or she would choose a vegan burger for lunch.
What I particularly find extremely strange is when someone claims that dogs have rights (for instance, to hunt) while claiming that birds do not.
Suddenly, hunters are bandying about the word "rights" in an attempt to rally sympathy for their dogs, when their real not-so-hidden agenda is that of pursuing their own interest, which is the satisfaction they get from killing birds. Until recently, they would have sought to ridicule anyone who suggested that non-human animals have rights. Maybe we have influenced them to become "sentimentalists", "extremists", and "fundamentalists".
However, if they really understood the concept of a right, and are not saying that the dog has "rights" in an anthropomorphic way, then how can they say that a dog has rights while a bird does not?
Since rights are means of protecting interests, isn't life itself a more significant interest than just the enjoyment of a practice?
And if dogs have rights despite not being human, how can one justify the claim that birds (also non-human animals) do not have rights? Rights are not a matter of personal taste - either one has rights or one does not.
The person who claims that some non-human animals have rights (for instance dogs) necessarily believes that being human is not a prerequisite for having rights. This puts dogs and birds on an equal footing. Therefore, like interests should be treated alike. However, more fundamental interests (like life itself) should be given more weight to lesser interests (such as pleasure).
Hunters are thus left with two choices, if they are to be at least seen as consistent, and thus be taken seriously. They should either reconsider their claim that dogs have a "right" to hunt, or else consider that the simple fact that a dog has rights means that a bird does too. And since the bird's right to life is more fundamental, it trumps the dog's "right" to hunt.
That said, since dogs are conditioned to assist hunters, they, like human children, cannot be held as morally culpable. However, adult hunters are moral persons who should be accountable for their actions. This is what makes all the difference.
Hunting dogs are no dummies, but neither are we.
RSS
Comments
Of course, it fits your deceptive agenda to give the impression that I am somehow changing my claim to make it look more acceptable.
That you really believe that I am the only one putting forward such sensible ideas proves that you have a closed "island" mentality. I would suggest a little reading.
For a list of books, visit http://www.animalrightsmalta.com/blogbooks.html
The whole issue is whether birds’ right to live, is any lesser than hunters’ self proclaimed ‘right’ to kill them.
Vegetarianism apart, one can argue that, there is no difference between killing, a so called ‘game’ bird or a hen, for food.
On one hand that the slaughter of hens is supposedly done in a controlled process and standards, to again supposedly mitigate the inherent suffering, whereas there is subjective control on how lead pellets are going to hit a bird.
On the other hand, a bird feeding independently on nature should ‘taste’ better than a hen raised in questionable factory farms.
There is finally one less egoistic right, that of the general public who are deprived from peacefully enjoying the countryside, let alone of admiring the flight of birds.
Lastly, shame on the ensuring subject matter, is definitely not on Mr. Cassar, as his actions and contributions are not detrimental to anyone, except to the pretensions of egocentric hunters.
In other words when all dogs in existince die, there will be no more dogs left. Is he serious?
he also states "Breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves."
is he suggesting all dogs and other pets are slaves. What utter rubbish!
I am not surprised Mr. Cassar is the only one to write similar nonsense. Since having been bred as a human animal he can consider himself as being a rather rare breed on the verge of extinction.
1. I am not "the whole anti-hunting lobby". Just as not all hunters violently attack people, not all anti-hunting people lie (though some might). I neither lie, nor say half truths. Again, if you find no problem with accusing me of saying lies or half-truths, you should be man enough to substantiate your claim with direct quotations.
2. I don't blame you for finding my views extreme. The views of anti-human slavery abolitionists were likewise considered extreme in their own time. Time has proven them right.
3. I never claimed that birds have all the same right as humans. I only say that birds have the rights that apply. Since it is in every animal's interest to stay alive (unless suffering an incurable illness), each has the right to live. To claim that only humans have the right to life just because they are humans is no different from saying that only whites have the right to life just because they are white. You will also find that denying rights to non-humans just because of some irrelevant attribute (like sufficient intelligence) would deny rights to the most vulnerable humans. This leaves one with the prejudiced assertion that humans have rights just because they are humans.
4. I'm glad I made you laugh. It is April 1 after all. Of course, I'll leave it to readers to decide who is the April fool. I'm sure you'll say that it is me. Well...if that makes you happy...
with regards to your views they are extremist and weird to say the least.
You confuse hunting with slavery, how these two issues even come close to each other is clearly a sign of confusion on your part.
I think that animals are animals and should be treated with respect, in fact i own three dogs and take care of them extremely well. However to state that a game bird has equal rights to a human being has got to be the most outragous statement ever made by any anti-whatever.
thanks for the amusement you have provided over the past two days and although i do enjoy a good laugh i will not be replying to your statements. It is only a pity that some gullible person would think you know something about animals!
1. Whether you become a vegan or not is your choice. I'm not going to go door-to-door beating up people who are not vegan!
2. I never claimed that all hunting is illegal. I only claim that all hunting SHOULD be illegal. Of course I live in a democracy run by majority rule. This leaves some hunting legal as long as the majority see nothing wrong with hunting per-se. I accept that reality, but this will not stop me from arguing that all hunting is wrong.
3. My views are as extremist as those views held by abolitionists of human slavery. Racism is slowly becoming history. Speciesism, hopefully, is next. I have nothing to be ashamed of. I never intentionally harm anyone, which is not what can be said of hunters.
4. Regarding recipes, I can send you several delicious vegan ones if you like.
5. Regarding "sabotaging through lies", instead of making unfounded allegations, I would invite you to mention one lie I have said (note that a difference of opinion is not necessarily a lie).
I will never become anything other than what i have always been, a normal person on a normal diet.
Your view that all hunting is illegal can only exist in your head since there are national and intenational laws that allow hunting.
Your views are extremist and you should be ashamed of yourself.
And just for the record i have never carried a shotgun and have never shot game. But rest assured that at the end of the hunting season i am one of those who enjoy a well cooked lunch based on the game that has been caught legally.
Should you require any recipies please contact me i will gladly send you a few written by some of the world's top chefs.
Unless you intend sabotaging this too through lies and brainwashing as you and your likes have done over the years.
The original issue was about the claim that hunting ought to be allowed in the interest of hunters’ dogs…..notwithstanding that dogs can enjoy the countryside without hunters’ shotguns. But alas the hunters’ self declared rights rule….don’t they?!
I'm not inciting anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. The readers will judge for themselves.
As for the rest, I will comment on my blog.
You ask me what would be the consequence of dogs not being owned (who would pay the vet bills, who would feed them etc).
If you pay more attention to what I write, you would find that what I am suggesting is that people should not breed, sell and buy any more dogs, while they should care for the dogs already in existence. I think this answers your question.
You claim that population control (in the case of dogs) means domination. I wonder what you think of humans breeding dogs, selling them or buying them, using them for their purpose etc. If this is not domination, I wonder what is.
The fundamental difference is that controlling stray populations is done for altruistic reasons (for the sake of preventing offspring who would suffer). I am being as realistic as I can. Basically, when the "rights" of stray animals to breed means that this will result in the creation of offspring who will suffer, rights not being absolute, we have a duty to prevent that suffering. It is exactly for this reason that human rights are limited by considerations on whether the "rights" of one would breach more fundamental rights of another.
As for pets having a right to do as they please, please be informed that I never made such a claim.
As to birds, they have no rights either. It’s the hunters who have rights over, and responsibilities for, both dogs and birds. If they abuse of these rights and responsibilities they should be penalized. This is why there are laws on animal welfare (not rights) and bird protection.
I suppose that someone who sees non-human animals as property (just as slave owners used to see human slaves) will never understand that it goes contrary to common sense to say that slaves have a right to exist as slaves.
Breeding, selling and buying non-humans for human purposes is treating them as property, and therefore as slaves.
And has it occurred to Mr Mifsud Bonnici that a non-existant entity (if I even can call it an "entity") has no "right" to exist or not exist?
I am not saying we should kill any dogs here. I'm just saying that we should breed no more. If this means that we are breaching some "potential" beings' "right" to come into existance (and thus meaning that non-existent beings have a right to exist), this would bring us to the absurd conclusion that humans have an active DUTY to have as much offspring as possible (since doing otherwise would deny potential humans their "right" to exist!).
Such is the absurdity that follows from the reasoning of someone who claims that non-existant (potential) beings have rights while those who exist don't.
And dear Steve Busuttil,
Yes, we should all become vegans.
As for the cars, corrupt judges and athletes example, most drivers do not intentionally run over cats (or humans) so they are not morally culpable - accidents happen. As for athletes who use drugs and corrupt judges, it is these who should be brought to justice, since it is these who act immorally.
People who see all hunting as unnecessary killing would make no distinction between legal and illegal hunting, since both needlessly kill non-human animals.
Of course, people like Mr Busuttil would think otherwise. But when he asks me to "target" only "bad people", I reply that I only "target" bad practices. And since I see all hunting as wrong, that is precisely what I am doing.
I, once again, urge Mr. Cassar to stop being so patronising! Another thing, ignorance is no excuse to allow you to keep on writing rubbish.
If Mr. Cassar knows the real meaning of love towards animals (in this case dogs), he would refrain from continuing with his heartless campaign against hunting dogs and their masters.
Please God, the end of this week could make him realise that this heartless campaign has failed him miserably!!
Should we stop eating rabbits, chickens, pork and beef too now?
These too have rights no?
I suppose we should all end up becoming vegans if we are to listen to Mr Cassar.
While we are at it let us also remove cars from the roads since yesterday i saw 3 dead cats on the roads. Remove the judiciary because there have been corrupt judges, and stop all sports since a few athletes have been caught using illegal performance enhancing drugs.
Bad people are involved in all aspects of our life, it is these that should be targeted.
The same applies to hunting.