Peter Singer and protecting animals from animals

So, Peter Singer seems not to draw a moral distinction between act and omission. If you allow someone to die, you're a murderer. (This is how I understand Practical Ethics, and particularly the section on foreign aid -- but I might be wrong.)

Also, Singer doesn't necessarily draw a distinction between the suffering of non-human animals, and the suffering of humans. Humans usually have more "interests" -- they have the concept of an enduring self, and can be future-directed. And humans are arguably less "replaceable" than fish. But, all else being equal, the same pain is the same pain: it doesn't matter where it's located.

So one might draw the obvious implication, and ask this question: Is it necessary to intervene to prevent non-human animals from murdering non-human animals?

In the middle ages, they sometimes put pigs on trial.

People have taken this implication to be so counterintuitive as to be unstomachable. How ridiculous to try to protect the antelope from the lion.

Well, I'm not sure what Singer himself has said about this (though I imagine he's been asked). But perhaps the implication is not so wild and unstomachable.

After all, in some circumstances, we already do it.

For instance, consider the following extract from a New Zealand newspaper (have tried to locate the source; apologies that I couldn't):

"A 1080 poison drop in North Canterbury and Arthurs Pass will target rats that are threatening the endangered kakariki, the orange-fronted parakeet. The drop in the south branch of the Hurunui Valley and the Poulter Valley and the Hawdon Valley, codenamed Operation Ark, will target prime habitats of the rare birds in a bid to make their environment safe from predators before breeding nesting next month."

***

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

It incorporates material from the Wikipedia article Peter Singer, and from Amazon.com.

118

Vote

Add To:

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Nonymous - Category: Ethics

Related Posts:

Review of Practical Ethics by Peter Singer

Peter Singer on freedom of speech

Dumpster dining

Relate This Post

[ Previous - Review of Practical Ethics by Peter Singer ]

[ Next - Thoughts on the Giacometti exhibition ]

Comments

5 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Cibbuano

September 20th 2006 22:46

Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak

I love the idea of pigs on trial. Do they dress them up and give them lawyers? Do they let them roll around in their own filth?

Comment by Adrian

September 20th 2006 22:52

Philosophy Blog

I find the following description (don't know how reliable it is) on a website unpromisingly named assfullofcum:

"An interesting aspect of the culture of torture during the Middle Ages was the judicial torture and execution of animals. The most common victim was probably the pig.

Generally, trials against animals took two forms. In civilian courts, large animals like pigs and donkeys were tried individually or in groups for specific instances of criminal behavior. In ecclesiastical tribunals, whole communities of smaller animals, for example rodents and insects, were tried symbolically to call down divine retribution on them.

In order to emphasisize the anthropomorphic nature of their crime, animals would sometimes be dressed in clothes and tied down in a sitting position during their trial."

Comment by Adrian

September 20th 2006 22:53

Philosophy Blog

Here's another extract, from this website, from a book called "Animal Attraction" (and it seems to imply that the animals had lawyers):

"Mind you, although the trials rarely went the way of the animals, there was one donkey that got off. In Toulouse, in medieval France, a man was charged with having sex with his donkey. The man was hanged. But the donkey was spared, after impassioned pleas convinced the court that she was not a willing or compliant victim."