Sorry for not replying sooner. I have only just noticed this post.

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

I understand where you are coming from but I am a firm believer that
it is the consequences that matter. If you knowingly endanger life's than
I consider that you are morally responsible for the number of life's
you endanger*the probability of that life being lost. Thus the morality
of spraying a crop with pesticides and slaughtering a farm animal
is quantitatively different but not qualitatively different.

> 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.

I believe there is enough evidence of sentience among insects that they
shouldn't be totally disregarded from any moral decision.

> 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.

I agree wholeheartedly.

> Humans becomes CDs too, either directly, or through
> environmental pollution. That is why I buy locally-grown organic
> produce whenever possible.

Good for you!

> <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.

I see this difference too but I prefer some sort of middle way whereby
animals have a much higher status than machines but can still be bought
sold and used responsibly.

> 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.

This is where we disagree. I say slavery is OK so long as the slave is
happy to be a slave. A human is likely to feel the emotional need to
own themselves and design their own life but if an animal is given the
freedom to express their natural behaviours, friends to socialise with,
is well fed, has good veterinary care and a comfortable place to rest
they won't care that they are enslaved so why should we?

> 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