Fw: Discussion on animal welfare on Chinese web portal: sina.com

[Guest guest]

-

" Annie Mather " <amather

<Animal Friends:>

Saturday, May 22, 2004 12:43 PM

Discussion on animal welfare on Chinese web portal: sina.com

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

On sina.com (a major Mainland web portal) there

has been a very interesting discussion on animal

welfare by 4 scholars. We have had it translated

into English and include it below.

 

Best wishes,

Annie

 

SINA.COM: Discussion on Animal Welfare between 4 scholars, 9 May 2004

http://cul.sina.com.cn/s/2004-05-09/55722.html

http://cul.sina.com.cn/s/2004-05-09/55719.html

 

Interview with four scholars: Do you agree or disagree with animal welfare?

 

Editor's note: The debate on animal welfare has

been heating up in recent years, the " live bear

bile extraction " fight has been going on for

years and animal welfare advocates condemned the

massacre of civet cats. Whether what could or

could not be eaten has become " a fight over the

dinner table " Sare animals friends, or resources

to be utilized?

Is animal welfare a sign of a civilized country

or is it just phony propaganda? Do you agree or

disagree with animal welfare? Let's hear what the

experts have to say.

 

Yang Tongjin (Associate researcher of the China

Social Science and Philosophy Centre):

 

Human and animals are interdependent

The evolution of animal welfare

 

Q: Where does the animal welfare concept come from?

 

Yang: French philosopher Descartes's view on

relationship between human and animals had an

effect on a couple of generations. He thought

humans were higher-level living creatures than

animals and plants. Animals are just machines,

the way we treat them does not involve any

ethical issues. This had been the dominant

concept in the science world and society until

ethics expert Bentham challenged Descartes's

idea. He thinks " the problem is not whether

animals can think, but whether they can feel

happiness and sadness " . We should judge the

nature of humans' activities with the feelings of

animals involved. Berg, an American, soon raised

the point that killing live animals cruelly will

make humans barbaric. The anti animal cruelty

concept was widely accepted in the 19th century.

Another innovative point of view is animal

liberation/rights. In the 18th century, some

thinkers tried to grant animals their rights from

nature, they think life, wisdom and feeling are

the reasons why animals should have the rights.

Peter Singer is the representative of animal

liberation theory, he thinks that by being able

to feel pain animals should be cared for in an

ethical way. Tom Regan is the contemporary

representative of animal rights theory, he

advocates granting moral rights to live animals,

at least mammals.

 

Concerning animal welfare is to protect human welfare

 

Q: How do you see the legislation for animal welfare?

 

Yang: I think we should look at this from the

benefit humans enjoy in return. Animal welfare

and people welfare cannot be separated, if

animals' living condition is poor, it will hurt

people. SARS and the recent avian flu both prove

that animal and human welfare is inseparable and

will affect each other.

 

Q: Poultry was killed in a mass scale during the

avian flu and the same happened to civet cats

during SARS outbreak. With the " rather killing a

thousand for the wrong reason than to leave one

alive " concept, don't you think people have

admitted that human welfare is more than anything?

 

Yang: The incident protected both human and

animal welfare. If we did not kill the animals in

those infected area, other animals will also be

threatened. Human welfare (food safety) is hence

linked with animal welfare on this matter. It is

of course a hard decision to make to kill the

animals, and it is also a decision made due to

ineffective precautions. Right now we should

rethink and adjust the relationship between

animal and human to avoid the same thing from

happening again. Especially when the adverse

effect of industrialization and massive farming

is starting to surface, animal welfare is an

important way to lower the risk of massive

farming.

 

There is no clash of interest between human rights and animal rights

 

Q: There is a dilemma in protecting animal

rights, for example " farmed animals will be eaten

anyway, why give them rights? " or " We cannot even

protect human rights, not to mention animal

rights " etc. so what do you think about these

arguments?

 

Yang: Humans are omnivores and it's natural for

us to eat meat, which is not morally challenged.

What animal welfare cares about is how and in

what ways we eat them. In my opinion, the solid

ground of animal welfare is to let them live they

way they should, not to harm and hurt them

deliberately. To advocate human welfare does not

lessen human welfare. If we want to decrease the

difference between human we should adjust among

human.

 

Q: So how much right should animals have?

 

Yang: That's an arguable question. The boundary

between human and animal welfare changes from

time to time and they could be equally important.

For example, some animal welfare advocates think

that both human and animal could be classified

into basic rights and non basic rights that they

should enjoy. When the basic rights of both

clashes, the human should come first but if the

non basic rights of the human clashes with basic

rights of animals, then animals should come

first. In some situations, animal rights could be

exploited because animal welfare is just a

request and we have to give a good reason for

exploiting their basic rights.

 

Q: What do you think about animal welfare in China?

 

Yang: There is still no legislation regarding

animal welfare in China, for one, people hasve a

different degree of acceptance on this matter and

it's also bounded by economic development. The

science sector is already feeling the pressure.

For example, research papers that involve animal

testing need to be approved by the " Animal ethics

committee " that the research has abided by the

animal ethics standard before they can release

the paper in international journals. Farm

products exported to western countries also need

to supply material to prove that they are up to

the animal welfare standard. Hence if we don't

pick up our pace in setting laws that are both

recognized internationally and are acceptable by

the Chinese government, we are going to face a

huge loss in terms of scientific research and

international trade.

 

Zhao Nanyuan (Professor of Qing Hua University)

 

The way we treat animals has nothing to do with ethics

 

Q: You have written articles which criticize

animal welfare in a very harsh way and named it

as an " anti-human " activity. Why such an extreme

attitude?

 

Zhao: The ultimate goal of animal welfare/rights

is the banning of all animal farming and testing,

which deprive humans' nature to eat meat. Animal

welfare and vegetarianism cannot be classified as

moral issue; it could at most be a religion.

Modern countries separate politics and religion,

so there is no reason to pass laws that forbid

people from eating meat.

 

Besides, terrorist intentions have grown in

animal welfare. Those " Animal rights activists "

have burned down animal testing labs in western

countries, which is a burden to science research.

Think about this, if animal welfare gets stronger

and stronger, labs will be banned to test on

animals and the only choice is to test on humans.

Humans are then exposed to danger and what would

it be like? Animal welfare is an anti science and

anti human concept, the media should not help

promoting it. If mock test could give the same

results as animal testing and at a lower cost,

then of course we don't need to use animals, but

that is not the case now.

 

Q: In fact, developed countries like Europe and

the US firmly believe in the separation of

politics and religion, yet they are the first to

pass laws on animal welfare, don't you think this

is a dilemma?

 

Zhao: Countries which pass laws for animal

welfare are mostly where religion is very strong.

Since most of the people have a religion, public

policy shows the influence of religion and this

has in fact violated the separation of politics

and religion. I call that the " the loophole of

democracy " . For example, abortion is banned in

some European countries because most people there

are catholic and catholics forbid abortion. We do

not have that kind of moral standard so we don't

think abortion is immoral.

 

Q: So you think there is dilemma between science, ethics and morals?

 

Zhao: It's not a dilemma between science ethics

and morals, its ethics itself that is a dilemma.

Science is the same in different countries but

ethics is not. In the ethics world there are so

many different schools of thought and there are

dilemmas among them. Different countries have

different moral standards and they too have

dilemma.

 

Food is a cultural heritage.

 

Q: From what we've seen animal welfare is not

going to such extremes as you just mentioned, its

just a hope to create a better living standard

for animals. Just like the saying " live

peacefully and die peacefully " . Do you think that

is necessary?

 

Zhao: It is not only unnecessary but also

harmful. First of all, how do we measure what is

the right to treat animals and whose rule should

we abide by? Secondly, if you're not farming pigs

then you should not be the person to speak of

anything about it. Even in a trial the pig farmer

will speak for the pig. To raise the living

standard of pigs you'll have to raise the cost,

it is reasonable only if the extra cost is not

shared by consumers. A lot of false ideas start

off looking harmless or even beneficial to win

public support, but when it is fully grown it

marches towards the extreme and there are lots of

similar examples throughout the history.

 

Q: I remember you once suggest a person to cook

his dog so that his workers could eat it; maybe

this is why people say that you're merciless.

 

Zhao: I don't think that is cruel, why can we eat

beef but not dogs' meat? It is the western god

who said dogs are made to be the human's

companion and cows are made for food. Our god has

never said such a thing. What we're eating now is

a cultural heritage; it is the results of our

ancestors' trial and error. Koreans also eats

dogs, so are they cruel as well? Cow is divine in

the Indian culture but they never stop other

countries from eating steaks. We can't just spoon

feed the western culture to China because we have

our own. People who fire their workers because

they stole the dog's food, shows how fake these

" kind " people are, it also refutes the concept

that only by loving animals can you love other

people as well. If animal welfare laws are

passed, then there will be no ceilings for

raising animals' living standard, at the end we

will be forbidden to kill animals and eat meat.

Those who don't eat dogs might because dogs share

their feeling and pigs don't. That is

discrimination and I am not biased. After all,

some people out there keep pigs as their pets,

and they too, have no right to stop people from

eating pork.

 

People can choose whether or not to be moral

 

Q: Is there no need to condemn people who abuse animals?

 

Zhao: We see these (animals being abused) because

the media is collecting and exaggerating these

incidents, in hope of promoting animal welfare

and to mislead the public. There aren't many

people around us who like to abuse animals; those

who do abuse animals have mental illness, which

should be treated but not condemned and punished.

 

Q: But to encourage kindness to animals should be positive.

 

Zhao: This theory is distorted: If I am kind to

animals, then I will be nice to people as well. A

lot of top rank Nazi generals were animal lovers;

and those who pick up abandoned animals but then

don't care when the smell becames a nuisance to

their neighbour. I think to love cats and dogs is

a personal choice. It is none of others' business

how a person treats his pet and it is not a moral

issue. So how can there be laws make is

mandatory? Not to mention taking this as a moral

issue; it is " moral fascism " . Besides,

legislation can only benefit animal clinics,

because vets are against abandoning animals, so

that people needs to pay to euthanise their pets

at the clinic.

 

Song Wei (Business School research associate of

the Chinese university of Science and Technology)

 

Gradually make laws for animal welfare.

Should not be limited to " prestigious animals "

 

Q: You were the first to create courses on animal

welfare and have been calling for animal welfare

legislation, what are your motives? Is it for the

country or because of foreign pressure?

 

Song: Neither, it's because of an academic

interest. The design and basis of animal welfare

legislation is highly valuable for academic

purposes, this is the reason why I got involved.

Besides there are more and more disputes between

humans and animals, but our legal system has

nothing to solve these, that is also why I am

calling for the legislation.

 

Q: We already have animal protection laws. What

is the difference between this and animal welfare

legislation?

 

Song: Animal protection laws concern only the

" prestigious animals " , meaning the endangered or

rare species. Animal welfare, however, applies to

" civilians " and it cares for a greater variety of

animals.

 

Q: What do you think is the biggest hurdle of animal welfare legislation?

 

Song: According to my knowledge, the <<Animal

testing regulations>> has been on the debate for

nearly three years, and people's perception has

been the biggest hurdle. Although similar

legislation is very common in western countries,

but animal welfare has been introduced to China

for five to six years only and Chinese are highly

affected by our culture and tradition, so not all

of them can accept the concept overnight.

 

There are two possible ways in legislation

 

Q: What kind of legislation do you think suits

the situation in China at this moment?

 

Song: There is a wider scope and a narrower scope

of animal welfare legislation. The wider scope

involves a lot of laws and it's placed under

different regulations, but not just animal

welfare. The narrower concept is that an

independent legislation for animal welfare.

Countries in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia

has all passed law for animal welfare.

 

In my opinion, according to the situation in

China at the moment, animal welfare could go two

ways, first of all, we can add new rules on top

of the animal protection laws we already have to

make it more complete, then step by step, we can

establish independent animal welfare law.

 

Q: Which animal welfare laws have already been

passed or are under consultation?

 

Song: The <<Beijing city park law>> is effective

starting from 1st January, 2003. Any person, who

tries to scare, beat or hurt animals in the park

would be fined over 50 rmb and below 100 rmb and

it could be a criminal offense. The <<Wild animal

protection law>> passed in 1988 is also being

revised; some new chapters will be more

compatible to the modern animal welfare concept.

Besides, the <<Animal testing regulation >> is

also being revised to include more clauses about

animal welfare.

 

Qiao Xinsheng (Professor, faculty of law, South

China University of economics and legislation)

 

Human welfare should always be in front of animal welfare

 

Animal welfare should be made for human's sake

 

Q: Do you think animal welfare legislation is suitable in China?

 

Qiao: Animal welfare legislation is an innovative

ethics legislation, that is, we are concerning

not just humans when making laws, but the

relationship between humans and nature. Since

humans are the law makers, the goal to make these

laws is also to benefit human lives. Of course we

should pass laws for animal legislation, but if

it exceeds the average productivity of China,

placing animal welfare over human welfare or

requests impractically to raise animal welfare

but harming human welfare in return, then it is

not suitable.

 

Q: Some people think that animal welfare has

already been related to international trade and

we're forced to do it.

 

Song: We can't deny that some countries hurt

other developing countries by raising the

standard of animal welfare. Some developed

countries are using animal welfare to stop other

developing countries from exporting their

products, which contribute directly to the loss

of resources for children in these countries. In

developed countries, animals can ride on air

conditioned transport, but people who long to go

home in our country have no choice but to take a

crowded train with poor ventilation. We treat

animals in a humane way but we can't treat all

people humanely, this is the phony side of animal

welfare.

 

Q: Then what kind of animal welfare is suitable for China?

 

Qiao: It has been a controversy regarding

suitable animal welfare legislation. I think we

should discuss based on different issues. For

example, we can go further with the protection of

endangered species, so <<wild animal protection

law>> should have greater legal power and be more

precise; there should be a balance between

peoples' livelihood and animal welfare. For

instance, the protection of lab test animals

should balance with the need of science and

technology development, it is unrealistic to

completely give up animal testingS

 

Human and animals cannot be equal

 

Q: What do you think about the effects with the

animal welfare legislation? Animal welfare had

been put into the German constitution, but it's

not welcomed by farmers because they don't know

what to do, how do you see this?

 

Qiao: I have always supported the separation of

human welfare and animal welfare; because I worry

that animal right activists would simply apply

the human rules onto other animals, making

animals equal to human, which is a distorted

value. For example, the German government makes

it compulsory for pig farmers to provide toys to

their pigs, but how would we know if pigs think

of toys as entertainment? In China people are

even more confused with the concept. For example,

when a tiger killed a member of staff in a zoo in

northeast China, some people proposed a death

penalty to the tiger. These are extreme cases of

people applying the rules in the human world for

human and animal interaction. Humans have the

ruling power; if people don't have this concept

or if human welfare can simply be combined with

animal welfare, then we do not know what kind of

distorted value would prevail in the future.

 

Q: Some people think that animals too, have

emotions and can feel pain and happiness, so

animals' right should be protected.

 

Qiao: It is just a fantasy that animals think

like we do. Scholars who suggest this are not

only pushing their own values on other people,

but also to other species, which is simply a

despotic act. " You are not the fish, how would

you know if the fish is happy or sad " (an old

Chinese saying). We are protecting the fish not

because we know they are suffering, but we are

sure if their habitat is devastated, humans will

suffer as well. Our care and love for nature is

all based on improving human welfare, from this

point of view, human is nothing noble.

--

Annie Mather

Executive Director, Head of Media

Animals Asia Foundation

Hong Kong

 

Find out more about the historic China Bear Rescue by visiting the

Animals Asia Foundation website at:

http://www.animalsasia.org