2 definitions by Fingerlickin'good
Animal Liberation Front.
Facts: Members have claimed that they would just as soon save a dog rather than a human baby if they were more "emotionally" attached to it and that no ethical or moral principles would have any validity in the situation or its outcome.
Would rather see every single human being die form disease than so much as a single dog killed for biomedical research.
Claim that computer science alone can lead to human development of vaccination technologies, while no existing evidence supports this claim.
Claim that no testing on animals could ever yield useful results to humans, and in doing so ignore the past one hundred years of medicinal development.
Claim that humans are inherently "moral" animals and have an "ethical" duty to consider the "rights" of animals. Naive at best, they ignore that the concepts of "morality," "ethics," and "rights" are merely inventions of the human mind and do not exist beyond the man-made implications of actions of human beings that only other humans "perceive."
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
Facts: Members have claimed that they would just as soon save a dog rather than a human baby if they were more "emotionally" attached to it and that no ethical or moral principles would have any validity in the situation or its outcome.
Would rather see every single human being die form disease than so much as a single dog killed for biomedical research.
Claim that computer science alone can lead to human development of vaccination technologies, while no existing evidence supports this claim.
Claim that no testing on animals could ever yield useful results to humans, and in doing so ignore the past one hundred years of medicinal development.
Claim that humans are inherently "moral" animals and have an "ethical" duty to consider the "rights" of animals. Naive at best, they ignore that the concepts of "morality," "ethics," and "rights" are merely inventions of the human mind and do not exist beyond the man-made implications of actions of human beings that only other humans "perceive."
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
Medical testing on animals has given us approximately 90% of current vaccinations used today.
Any of ALF's ideological subscribers that believe in animal "rights" should by their own definition never, ever seek out influenza or pneumonia vaccines or ever use diabetes medicines - which, curiously, the vice president of PETA does.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs.
Any of ALF's ideological subscribers that believe in animal "rights" should by their own definition never, ever seek out influenza or pneumonia vaccines or ever use diabetes medicines - which, curiously, the vice president of PETA does.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs.
by Fingerlickin'good March 22, 2007
A philosophy that claims that humans are inherently "moral" animals and have an "ethical" duty to consider the "rights" of animals. Naive at best, they ignore that the concepts of "morality," "ethics," and "rights" are merely inventions of the human mind and do not exist beyond the man-made implications of actions of human beings that only other humans "perceive."
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs and nobody would complain.
"Right" and "wrong" are psychological fabrications of the human brain and are in no way bound in the world of natural law. "Morality" only exists as far as there is a will of human beings to act upon it. The idea that humans "must" abide by a moral principle that ensures the "rights" of animals is as much a falsehood as the idea that whites are superior to blacks.
A "morality" that says that animal experimentation and consumption is "justifiable" is no more or less a creation of the human mind than any "morality" that says that such activities and "wrong." As sure as the concept of "language" itself, these are ideas that we create in our animal brains whose only "inherent" properties are that fact that they are absolutely meaningless outside of human perception.
"Ethics" and "morality" only exist because the past ten thousand years of evolution have given humanity the ability to invent psychological concepts and apply them to the world around them. If the human physiology lead to a brain that was less "intelligent" than it currently is, then no such arguments of "right" or "wrong" would even exist.
Just so as "morality" and "ethics" and mere human inventions, so are the notions of "freedom," "prejudice," "bias," "racism," "sexism," and "equality."
Animals do not have inherent natural "rights" because nothing does - the idea of "rights" is a human psychological device that exists solely inside of the realm of human perception and action, nothing else.
Again, take a few thousand years of evolution away from the human anatomy, and none of these notions would ever have come to exist - and yes, we'd still be eating animals and wearing their furs and nobody would complain.
Animal rights..."Rights" and "justice" are human creations that are absolutely meaningless beyond the human mind's ability to perceive and analyze action.
The same is true about the notion of "worth" - "worth" is a human fabricated psychological device used to describe in our minds alone what we measure and evaluate the things we perceive.
Animals do not have inherent or natural "worth" or "rights to considerations" because nothing does - even humans - because they are not real. These ideas are not real things beyond the human mind's ability to create words and definitions for their use of measurement.
The notion that animals having measurable "rights" is a natural and inherently occurring state of being is as false as the notion of humans having "rights" is a natural and inherent occurrence and state of being. "Righteousness" and "justice" are human modes of psychological perception, nothing else.
The same is true about the notion of "worth" - "worth" is a human fabricated psychological device used to describe in our minds alone what we measure and evaluate the things we perceive.
Animals do not have inherent or natural "worth" or "rights to considerations" because nothing does - even humans - because they are not real. These ideas are not real things beyond the human mind's ability to create words and definitions for their use of measurement.
The notion that animals having measurable "rights" is a natural and inherently occurring state of being is as false as the notion of humans having "rights" is a natural and inherent occurrence and state of being. "Righteousness" and "justice" are human modes of psychological perception, nothing else.
by Fingerlickin'good March 22, 2007