Does the end justify the means?

[Sarapva]

There have been discussions on the forum lately about "extremist" groups like the Sea Shepherd Society, which uses its ships to follow Japanese whale hunters, hoping to stop any hunting, and sometimes ramming other ships. The latest news of course was about the two activists who jumped aboard the Japanese whaling ship and stayed for 2 days, in violation of international rules. The end result was that they stopped all whale hunting for the time they were aboard.

Another group that sometimes uses violence (though I've never heard of any people getting hurt) is the Animal Liberation Front, which raids labs where animals are being tested on, rescues the animals, and sometimes destroys the lab. The end result is that these animals are found homes and are not tested on again.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) uses attention-getting tactics to bring attention to the fact that a certain company is selling real fur or tests its products on animals. They have invaded a store and put red paint (fake blood) on the fur coats, done demonstrations in the nude, etc. The result of all this is that more people are aware of the cruelty in making fur garments and thousands of animals' lives are spared this horror.

The end goal of these organizations is to stop the suffering of animals and/or stop the destruction of the environment. I can't help but feel some admiration for people who would go to such lengths to do this, even if there is some destruction of property. I've seen videos of animals being skinned alive for their fur, living in tiny cages, being abused by people because the animals aren't "valuable" and no one (except animal rights groups) is going to tell anyone about it.

PETA has gotten countless companies to stop selling fur and to stop testing on animals, and has brought to light some of the horrors animals live with on factory farms, slaugherhouses and in experimental labs by using undercover investigators with hidden cameras. Laws are being changed to make it a crime to do some of these abuses, and in a lot of cases this can be traced directly back to PETA and other groups.

What do you think? Do these ends justify the means? What if these groups didn't do what they do and no one knew about what was happening to animals behind the scenes?

 

[MadamePapillon]

It's all a matter of perception really. I'm sure people who do evil things have justification in their own mind of why they are doing it.

It depends on the situation. If you knew somebody was going to die and the only way to save them was to drive your car through a wall to get to them...would that be justified?
One one hand you saved a life, on the other hand you destroyed public property. Did the end justify the means? The owner of the property might not think so. The person save probably would.

It depends on what you consider more important and where your moral compass lies. Is it worth it to suicide bomb a military base? The person doing so probably thinks they are going to go to paradise and helping rid the world of blasphemers and evil-doers...so, to him, the end justifies the means.

In some cases, yes, it does, but this method can be applied to any situation so it's impossible to have a debate on it because it can be used for both good and bad purposes so no opinion on the issue can be one sided.

 

[Mars Man]

Please note that upon request by Sarapva san, the poll's question has been updated.

I may respond after I have taken a good look at it, but am a bit tied up with other things at the moment.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

When it comes to animal testing, if the testing is for the development of important medical research and cures for horrible diseases and conditions and stuff etc, i'm generally in favor of it.
IMHO, we kill millions of animals every year in this country for food, it would be better if we did something more meaningful with animals at the expense of their quality of life like animal testing than simply just raising and killing them for food all the time.

Also, i don't get what is the big deal with wearing fur? Its no different than wearing leather- i remember this group of guys and girls were going onto me one day about the evils of wearing fur (it was a friendly discussion of the matter), and i remember looking down at this one guys shoes as he ranted on about his anti-fur wearing views, and i noticed this guy was wearing leather shoes! How contradictory is that?!

We kill millions of animals like cows, sheep, rabbits etc every year- the way i see it, if you're going to kill an animal, the most respectful way to make use of its dead body is to use as much of it as you can. If this means taking its skin and fur, then great, its better than wasting it. I don't see what is so wrong about this?



But with the actual topic of whether its right for animal rights activists to use illegal methods like vandalising(sp?) property to achieve their aims or points or whatever, i strongly disagree with it. Reasons why i disagree with it;

a. Its terrorizing people and destroying their livelihoods. What have they done to deserve this? IMHO, if anything, its the government the activists should be targeting, who make these laws legal that the activists are so upset about, rather than the general public who are just trying to get on with their lives by legal means and support their families etc.
When animal rights activists destroy people's possessions or properties, they are often very narrow minded in doing so by often not thinking about the far reaching consequences of their actions.

b. A lot of these animal rights activists sympathize for animals, but they often don't actually really know that much about them. I have seen and read so many a time incidents where animal rights activists releasing laboratory or farm animals into the wild, not thinking about what life is going to be like for these domesticated animals in the wild. Many of these animals end up starving or freezing to death or dying of dehydration, or if they survive they become pests or unbalance the local ecosystems of native animals etc.
The inability to foresee the longer term consequences of their actions is a problem with many animal rights activists i have known or heard about and it really annoys me to no end.

c. Vandilizing or destroying people's properties or possessions etc often just makes the animal rights activists appear as an unruly and arrogant lot, who are selfish to their own desires/views and don't actually care about other people, particularly if those other peoples opinions don't conform to the animal rights activists ideals. Often these animal rights activists achieve their goals by illegal and heavy handed means and its worse when you have extremist animal rights activists in the lot who believe things like killing an animal is just as bad as killing a human being etc.



Personally, i do stand up for the many rights of animals, however i refuse to want to be lumped into the group of animal rights people since i disagree with many of their methods and even some of their views on the whole.

The fact of the matter is that its almost always the peaceful, intelligent and considerate animal rights activists that voice their opinions in a civilized manner and in large numbers that get their voices heard, rather than the small unruly bands of activists that do stupid things like destroying farms and farm property or stealing and releasing lab animals into the wild or holding whalers captive etc.

 

[Chi65]

Dear Sarapva, I would like to say here, that a pretty similar thread with several answers has been deleted by the moderators, without informing me, not even about the reasons.
(Same with some explanations about Korean-German relationships)
You may remember, it was about who is called a terrorist in relation to Hitler. . .
This says a lot about this forum. . .my suspicion grows once more.

I would love to say something to your theme in that relation to the former "terrorist" thread here once more, but. . .just to let you know.

And that I once more wonder, where I am.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Well then what are your opinions on the animal rights and anti-whaling stuff then Chi?

 

[Chi65]

You know that already.

 

[Sarapva]

Thanks everyone for the replies, and thanks Mars Man for changing the poll question. Lots of good points here that I'll have to think about.

Posted by MadamePapillon:

In some cases, yes, it does, but this method can be applied to any situation so it's impossible to have a debate on it because it can be used for both good and bad purposes so no opinion on the issue can be one sided.

This has been the point brought up on other threads - that it's comparable to other extremist groups like the suicide bombers. It is taking the law into your own hands, deciding for yourself what's right and what's not right.

But surely destroying property and killing people can be classified separately. No matter what the beliefs are, the behaviors are what counts. In your example of saving a person by destroying someone's property - yes, I think that's very justified. In fact, if I had the chance to save someone by destroying property and didn't do it, I'd have a big problem with my conscience afterwards, having put the property ahead of the person. I see this the same way as saving animals - the life is more important than the property.

Posted by Tokis-Phoenix:

Also, i don't get what is the big deal with wearing fur? Its no different than wearing leather- i remember this group of guys and girls were going onto me one day about the evils of wearing fur (it was a friendly discussion of the matter), and i remember looking down at this one guys shoes as he ranted on about his anti-fur wearing views, and i noticed this guy was wearing leather shoes! How contradictory is that?!

The argument about fur is that animals are kept specifically for their fur in cages, never able to run outside, then killed in horrible ways - electrocution, strangling, blunt trauma (if they're lucky they'll be killed immediately this way), but in some cases they're not dead before being skinned. Leather is a by-product of the meat industry, so the animals have already been killed for food. They're not kept specifically for leather, but leather is also shunned by animal rights groups like fur. It just doesn't bring out the intensity of protests like fur does. Although the meat industry is also protested against, the fur industry is seen as notoriously cruel - if anything needs to be stopped, that should at least go first.

Posted by Tokis-Phoenix:

We kill millions of animals like cows, sheep, rabbits etc every year- the way i see it, if you're going to kill an animal, the most respectful way to make use of its dead body is to use as much of it as you can. If this means taking its skin and fur, then great, its better than wasting it. I don't see what is so wrong about this?

But usually animals are kept just for one or the other parts of their bodies, not for the whole thing, and confined and unable to move much of their lives, not given medical treatment if they get sick because they're going to be killed anyway. If a person is hunting an animal in the wild, I don't have a problem with their using as much of the animal as possible, and I agree that that's the most respectful way to use it. It's when people start doing these things for financial profit and create industries that animals suffer.

 

[DoctorP]

IMO it is not justified. I really like Tokis-Phoenix' reply, I have a lot of the same feelings. Two wrongs just do not make a right. If you don't like the fact that I like to eat steak, it doesn't make it ok for you to physically or mentally assault me for my choices (unless I killed your cow to make that steak).

If you want to spread your word, or try to educate or convince people to make a lifestyle change, then I have no problems with that, but if you resort to violence to do so, then you are just as bad as the people you are trying to change.

 

[Haruspex]

If someone will be saved by it, If someone will survive through it, its fine. However, I think pointless animal cruelty should be banned. (circuses; zoo's; rare, endangered pets should not be kept)
And yes, they should be strict about pointless animal cruelty. (Obviously doesn't apply to eating animals)

 

[MadamePapillon]

In certain situations of extreme cruelty, waste and general stupidity it is sometimes necessary to use physical protest to get yourselves heard. Remember, it's never a first resort, I shudder to think how much letter writing and polite asking it took before they finally got physical.

Cutting off a sharks fins and releasing it to slowly die should be considered a crime. It is unnecessary and wasteful. Killing tigers for their fur and so rich Chinese business men can order tiger penis off a menu to show off to their colleagues...also wasteful.
Torturing animals to test lipstick and mascara. Skinning animals alive. Vivisecting animals without anesthesia. Keeping chickens in tiny cages and cutting off their beaks so they can't peck other chickens to death because they've gone crazy from being unable to move...this list just keeps going on and becomes ever more inhumane and unnecessary.

We call ourselves intelligent and civilized but when we do things like this..sometimes it's hard to believe. I can see where people could get to the point where they want to lash back at this stupidity.

 

[Sarapva]

We call ourselves intelligent and civilized but when we do things like this..sometimes it's hard to believe. I can see where people could get to the point where they want to lash back at this stupidity.

Yes, exactly - and it's not only stupidity, but greediness and an appalling lack of compassion. You've outlined some of the things, MP, that happen all the time but most of us don't know about. I think there is anger in physical protests against these atrocities, but also a terrible grief for the animals that are undergoing these cruelties every day. When a person looks at an animal in a cage, knowing it has been there for months and will be there a few more months before being taken out and strangled or electrocuted for its fur - what human being wouldn't feel compassion for this animal and want to "right" this wrong, even if it means destroying some property to give this animal the freedom it has a right to?

Maybe this is what it somes down to: do animals have rights? When an animal is born, does it have a fundamental right to live it's life to the end, to roam free (or at least not be confined all its life in cramped quarters), to enjoy its life? Or are animals the property of people, ours to do what we want to do with them, even if we cause them pain and suffering their whole lives?