Purple wrote:

> Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...

<snip>

>> Thou shalt not eat vegetables which have been sprayed with
>>>>pesticides doesn't.

>>Not in and of itself. I prefer organic, non-agribusiness veggies
>>for other reasons of health and social justice for humans, but,
>>again, that is another issue from AR.

> Why is spraying a crop field with pesticides, knowing that it will
> lead to animal deaths, not in and of itself an immoral act?

Because spraying with pesticides may not result in animal deaths --
the application of pesticides is not inherently wrong, because it
does not _in itself_ cause any harm to a being with rights. When
you add "crop field" to the question, you add another aspect: the
side effect of the action. If I were to grow a vegetable or other
plant in a greenhouse or in my home, and spray it with pesticide to
kill a fungus or an insect infestation (I don't believe insects
have rights), that would not, IMO, be wrong. If there is another
option, such as the use of ladybugs to eat harmful insect pests,
that would, of course, be preferable to using chemical poisons.
Enclosing the vegetables to keep out animals would be another
possible option. IMO, the farmer has an obligation to use the least
destructive methods to protect his crop that he can, whether against
humans, non-human animals, or "weeds" -- not only so as
to avoid poisoning humans or animals, but to avoid polluting the
environment. Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
produce whenever possible.

<snip>

>>>>Personally
>>>>I don't see what difference it makes whether or not the action which
>>>>causes death and suffering is targetted at a specific victim or not,

>> Probably because you don't view animals and agriculture the way I
>> do.

> I view animals as sentient beings with the capacity to experience
> a range of emotions, whose lives are important to them, any in many
> cases to their friends as well. I see agriculture as a way of growing
> food to keep us alive with. How do you view animals and agriculture?

Much the same. But I see a difference between a system which defines
animals as things, as objects, as property, and which controls their
entire lives from conception to death, often in ways which frustrate
most of their natural behaviors and cause them great suffering, and
accidental death. The analogy I often use is between slavery and
bad labor conditions. That workers died in the Triangle Waist fire,
or in mines and mills was indeed tragic. That they still die in
sweatshops and chicken processing plants and pesticide-poisoned fields
is still tragic. We need to change the methods in those sweatshops,
mines, mills, and chicken-processing plants. But, except for the
chicken-processing plants, there's no reason to stop producing the
product. Slavery, no matter how pleasant, remains inherently immoral.
Obviously, it is better for the slave to be well-treated, just as it
is better for the chicken to scratch around in a comfortable barnyard
than to spend her life in a battery cage. But treating slaves well
does not make slavery just.

> [snip]
> I strongly believe that animals have the right to be treated compassionately.
> Would you disagree with this?

Not I.

Rat