Australian Wool Boycott

Originally posted by bbarr
Since you seem to recognize that you have obligations towards the cat, it would certainly seem strange to claim that you *really* own it. Does it make sense to claim that you can have an obligation towards something that you own?

I have an obligation to my car to change its oil, but that's really self-interest. The car has no awareness, self or otherwise.

Originally posted by no1marauder
(not that I concede this technique is cruel);

here, since you really haven't understood what actually happens:

Mulesing is the cruel procedure whereby Australian farmers mutilate lambs - without any painkillers - by carving chunks of flesh from the animals' backsides in a crude effort to reduce flystrike, even though more sophisticated and humane control methods exist.

try to catch the video too at your nearest www.savethesheep.com

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by orfeo
Equating ownership with a lack of obligation may have worked rather well a few generations ago. I suspect that in this day and age the law would place at least some form of obligation on owners of a whole range of things.

I'm currently looking at buying a house. I'm quite sure there will be plenty of laws regulating what I can and cannot do with it. I ...[text shortened]... w this is different to the cat. I recognise I've operated at a high level of abstraction here.

I responded to this point above. Your neighbors have a vested interest in the condition of your house, as their property values are impacted by it. In general, the constraints placed on our use of our property are in place so as to protect the rights of other humans. Imagine if your future house existed on some isolated plot of land. Would you still have an obligation to maintain it? Perhaps for the sake of your family, to protect their interests, but this is consistent with the analysis of property I'm offering. So, the point remains: if you recognize constraints on how it is permissible to treat animals, then you are committed to the claim that they are not proper objects of ownership.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I have an obligation to my car to change its oil, but that's really self-interest. The car has no awareness, self or otherwise.

So, again, the obligation here is one you owe to yourself, and not to the thing you own. Do you have an obligation to yourself not to torture your cat, or do you think that this obligation is one you owe to your cat itself? If the latter, then it seems you don't think of your cat as something you *really* own.

Originally posted by bbarr
These restrictions are, by and large, in place so as to protect the rights of other humans. You cannot drive any speed you please because if you did you would pose a risk to other humans. In the absence of competing rights claims by humans, owning a thing is sufficient license to do with it what you please. If you recognize any restrictions on how animals ou ...[text shortened]... hink, strangely, that your use of animals is somehow constrained by the rights of other humans).

I don't see why it would be strange to think someone's ownership of an animal might be constrained by the rights of other humans. If I buy a dog (you buy property) and fail to leash it properly and it attacks another person, than my "use of the animal has constrained the rights of others" hasn't it? Therefore, why should rules regulating the use of this particular type of property be inconsistent with the animals status as property? I presume you do know that animals are considered property legally and are arguing on philosophic grounds. Restrictions on how property can be used and/or treated makes up about half of all laws; so if recognizing restrictions on how property can be treated divests the particular property of its property status then virtually nothing in 21st century America is "property". You will have to come up with a further rationale as to why animals can't be property as the last post is incomplete and contrary to the legal status of animals throughout the world.

In Ityoucanownafishship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by bbarr
So, again, the obligation here is one you owe to yourself, and not to the thing you own. Do you have an obligation to yourself not to torture your cat, or do you think that this obligation is one you owe to your cat itself? If the latter, then it seems you don't think of your cat as something you *really* own.

I wouldn't want to hurt my little buddy anyways, but that still doesn't prove I "own" him. For sheep, cows etc. the case isn't so clear, because people do invest money into them for the express purpose of making a livelihood. Sounds a bit "slavish" put like that. This debate will continue, here or elsewhere, until it becomes accepted that all higher mammals have self-awareness enough to be regarded as "beings" Pass the tofu please ...

Originally posted by pradtf
here, since you really haven't understood what actually happens:

Mulesing is the cruel procedure whereby Australian farmers mutilate lambs - without any painkillers - by carving chunks of flesh from the animals' backsides in a crude effort to reduce flystrike, even though more sophisticated and humane control methods exist.

try to catch the video too at your nearest www.savethesheep.com

in friendship,
prad

"Cruel", at least in legal terms, means the pointless infliction of unnecessary pain and/or suffering. The technique is to prevent the spread of disease; a vaccination with a hypodermic needle causes pain but is not cruel. The farmers apparently don't have the financial resources to use painkillers or they do not think the sheep suffer greatly. Therefore, they are not wantonly inflicting pain and/or suffering and are not "cruel" within my definition.

In It'sacruelcreuelworldship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't see why it would be strange to think someone's ownership of an animal might be constrained by the rights of other humans. If I buy a dog (you buy property) and fail to leash it properly and it attacks another person, than my "use of the animal has constrained the rights of others" hasn't it? Therefore, why should rules regulating th ...[text shortened]... of animals throughout the world.

In Ityoucanownafishship,

2BitLawyer

Or, what if your child breaks your neighbour's window? You are responsible, but do you own your child?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't see why it would be strange to think someone's ownership of an animal might be constrained by the rights of other humans. If I buy a dog (you buy property) and fail to leash it properly and it attacks another person, than my "use of the animal has constrained the rights of others" hasn't it? Therefore, why should rules regulating th ...[text shortened]... of animals throughout the world.

In Ityoucanownafishship,

2BitLawyer

I'm not saying that it is strange that there are constraints on property justified by virtue of the necessity of protecting the rights of others. I'm saying that if you think there are constraints on how you can justifiably treat an animal, then you are committed to the claim that it isn't a proper object of ownership. Suppose that no human's rights would be at stake if you were to take a dog from the local pound and skin it alive with a potato-peeler. Now, if you think that this would be morally impermissible nonetheless, then you are committed to the claim that this dog is not a proper object of ownership.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
I wouldn't want to hurt my little buddy anyways, but that still doesn't prove I "own" him. For sheep, cows etc. the case isn't so clear, because people do invest money into them for the express purpose of making a livelihood. Sounds a bit "slavish" put like that. This debate will continue, here or elsewhere, until it becomes accepted that all higher mammals have self-awareness enough to be regarded as "beings" Pass the tofu please ...

I'm not trying to show that you own your cat. I'm trying to show that you do not own your cat, even though you may be responsible for your cat's behavior. In general, I'm trying to show that mammals should not be considered property, and that recognizing obligations to animals is inconsistent with viewing them as property.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not trying to show that you own your cat. I'm trying to show that you do not own your cat, even though you may be responsible for your cat's behavior. In general, I'm trying to show that mammals should not be considered property, and that recognizing obligations to animals is inconsistent with viewing them as property.

I tend to agree with that.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm not saying that it is strange that there are constraints on property justified by virtue of the necessity of protecting the rights of others. I'm saying that if you think there are constraints on how you can justifiably treat an animal, then you are committed to the claim that it isn't a proper object of ownership. Suppose that no human's rights woul ...[text shortened]... theless, then you are committed to the claim that this dog is not a proper object of ownership.

I think the usual rationale for laws against animal cruelty are that the people who engage in animal cruelty are very likely to "graduate" to human cruelty if the initial behavior isn't punished. We would consider a man who skinned a dog alive a serious threat to human beings, not just other dogs because of the manner he acted. By contrast, people kill deers and other animals during hunting seasons and are not considered threats to human society. So, I don't think saying that we want to constrain violent behavior against domestic animals is saying that the animals can't be owned; I think it's saying that unchecked behavior of this sort presents an eventual danger to humans.


In Ikickedthedogoverthispostship,

2BitLawyer

Originally posted by no1marauder
"Cruel", at least in legal terms, means the pointless infliction of unnecessary pain and/or suffering. The technique is to prevent the spread of disease; a vaccination with a hypodermic needle causes pain but is not cruel. The farmers apparently don't have the financial resources to use painkillers or they do not think the sheep suffer greatly ...[text shortened]... "cruel" within my definition.

In It'sacruelcreuelworldship,

2BitLawyer

ok let's try it again this way:

Mulesing is the procedure whereby Australian farmers mutilate lambs - without any painkillers - by carving chunks of flesh from the animals' backsides in a crude effort to reduce flystrike, even though more sophisticated and humane control methods exist.

now you don't have to worry about definitions of cruel and just deal with carving chunks of flesh from the animals backsides without painkillers even though alternatives exist.

so here's what's going to happen sooner or later: due to internal as well as worldwide pressure the australian government is going to enact laws stating that this sort of thing is no longer ok and they will legislate one or more of the more humane methods to prevent flystrike.

and people in the future wearing synthetics or organic cotton will think "thank goodness we don't allow that kind of barbarity anymore"

they may even get to see this thread on RHP 😀

in friendship,
prad

Originally posted by no1marauder
I think the usual rationale for laws against animal cruelty are that the people who engage in animal cruelty are very likely to "graduate" to human cruelty if the initial behavior isn't punished. We would consider a man who skinned a dog alive a serious threat to human beings, not just other dogs because of the manner he acted. By contrast, pe ...[text shortened]... ual danger to humans.


In Ikickedthedogoverthispostship,

2BitLawyer

Good point: I've known hunters who wouldn't hurt a fly so to speak. Maybe this thread has gone too far afield though, animals do get slaughtered every day for consumption, at least lets agree to insist that they go with the least pain and suffering possible.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
animals do get slaughtered every day for consumption, at least lets agree to insist that they go with the least pain and suffering possible.

that is certainly a good start and precisely what this international boycott is attempting to do:

Abercrombie & Fitch is the first company to pledge not to use Australian wool in any of its garments until both mulesing and live exports are stopped.

principles and actions of consumers go a long way to altering production methods.

in friendship,
prad