challenging the idea that humans come first

[Guest guest]

Diana:

 

I didn't attribute the pro-human view to you, don't worry.

But so many animal advocates feel they mustn't challenge the belief

that human interests must be placed above animal interests (even if

the human interests are trivial, and the animal's interest is a

matter of life and death).

 

I want to encourage animal advocates to be bolder in standing

up for animals, even if it is not politically correct. Let's say

that cruelty to animals is absolutely wrong no matter how much the

suffering of animals serves the best interests of humans. Let's

disregard political correctness and say that " culture " and

" tradition " do not provide excuses for cruelty to animals or to other

people, and that if a cultural practice causes someone to suffer

than it is a bad cultural practice and it should be ended, period.

Let's reject the idea of moral relativity absolutely.

 

I was talking about this with my 13-year-old son last night,

and I told him that we must all figure out what we believe in our

hearts to be true and thennever be afraid to say it...regardless of

what other people may think. It is only through challenging the

false assumptions of this world that we will create a new paradigm.

 

--Kim

 

 

 

 

>Dear Kim,

>

>lest you misunderstood me: what you write here is also my stance on

>the issue. I simply meant that the 'Humans come first' is the

>generally held opinion by the vast majority of people.

>I am with you on this - 100%.

>

>Regards,

>Diana

>

>

>-

><ANPEOPLEKim Bartlett

><diana_hDiana Hartig

>Cc: <aapn >aapn

>Thursday, January 08, 2004 8:24 PM

>humans come first?

>

> The general public looks to the animal welfare groups to tell

>them what is right and wrong to do to animals. If animal welfarists

>limit their arguments to human health and conservation so as not to

>be seen as provocative, or if we appear to agree that human

>interests come before the interests of non-humans, then why should

>we imagine that the average person would care about cruelty to

>animals?

>

> This is my policy:

>

> 'We believe that the Golden Rule applies to animals, too.

>We don't accept the prevailing notion that " people come first' " or

>that " people are more important than animals. " Animals feel pain

>and suffer just as we do, and it is almost always humans making

>animals suffer and not the other way around. Yet in spite of how

>cruelly people behave towards animals -- not to mention human

>cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed to believe that humans

>are superior to other animals. If people want to fancy themselves

>as being of greater moral worth than the other creatures on this

>earth, we should begin behaving better than they do, and not

>worse. Let's start treating everyone as we would like to be treated

>ourselves.'

>

> --Kim Bartlett

>

>

>

>

>>Dear Patricia,

>>

>>I guess when it concerns the issue of (supposed) Human health risks

>>Animal Welfare Organisations tend to step carefully and are wary of

>>aiming overt critisism at the perpetrators of animal abuse and

>>cruelty in the name of protecting Human interests. For the simple

>>fact that they may themselves become a target and be accused of

>>putting Human and Animal interests on the same level - which is a

>>no-go territory for most. It is generally accepted that man comes

>>first, always. And, sad as it may be, the animals are the ones who

>>pay the bill.

>>

>>Regards,

>>

>Diana

>

>

 

--

Kim Bartlett, Publisher of ANIMAL PEOPLE Newspaper

Postal mailing address: P.O. Box 960, Clinton WA 98236 U.S.A.

CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS IS: <ANPEOPLE

Website: http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/