Letters to the Editors
Animal wrongs
Sir and Madam, I refer to the commentary by Neil Richards headlined ‘Activism, or fanaticism?’, published in The Oxford Student on 2 February 2006. Mr. Richards was correct in saying that the use of violence by animal rights supporters is a clear sign that, “Something’s gone drastically wrong.” What is wrong (an error that Mr Richards himself made) is the very concept of ‘animal rights’. Animals do not have rights.
Rights are a moral concept linking the principles that guide an individual’s life to the principles that govern his interaction with society. In a society where humans live together, there is only one fundamental right: one’s right to one’s life. This means that every individual must be free to live his own life by exercising the use of his rational faculty.
The only way that this freedom can be infringed upon is through the use of force • and that is what rights are for • to protect individuals from the use of violence or coercion by other people. Animals do not, as we do, function conceptually. They have no sense of a past or the future in the same way that we do, and therefore live only on the range of the moment. Their instincts and senses are their means of survival, but they are incapable of reason.
By nature, a wolf will eat a deer • and that’s just the way it is. The wolf is neither moral nor immoral for doing so • animals are amoral creatures to which the concept of rights is entirely irrelevant. Let us not be fooled. The violence perpetrated by animal rights advocates is a major indication of their true aims. But these aims have also been explicitly expressed in words. Consider the things said by some of the most consistent supporters of the animal rights movement.
Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), declared that, “I do not believe that a human being has a right to life.” Chris de Rose, founder of Last Chance for Animals, proclaimed, “If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn’t make any difference to me.” ‘Animal rights’ advocates are twisting the concept of rights from the shield that safeguards our lives into a weapon that can destroy us.
We should make a principled stand against this wicked inversion, and proudly assert our right to life.
Kon-Yao Kwek
St. Hugh’s
Fun with wordgames
Sir and Madam, I will understand if this does not appear online under your banner, but the students so diverted by the amusing jibes and witty firebombs of our friends on South Parks Road might be interested to learn that Animal Liberation Front is an anagram of: ‘infantile abnormal riot’, ‘an imoral intolerant fib’, and ‘fill brain-rot into a name’.
Name and address witheld
The necessity of OUSU
Sir and Madam, I feel compelled to comment on the recent wave of anti- OUSU sentiment sweeping Oxford. 64 per cent of those who voted last week in Oriel voted in favour of rejoining OUSU, and general feeling is that we will go back soon.
If the majority of Oriel no longer feels that OUSU and what it provides for us all then the question from Cherwell’s recent headline ‘OUSU: worth fighting for?’ must have the unequivocal answer of: YES! If we give up on our Student Union, give up on its traditions of student protest, then why should we bother to complain? Why bother raise an objection when the university blocks exam celebrations or imposes a ‘Student Contract’ for instance? It will be a very sad day indeed when Oxford turns its back on OUSU.
Daryl Leeworthy
Oriel Vivisection and vegans
Sir and Madam, I read with interest the comments of Neil Richards, in which he argues that vivisectors do not inflict pain on animals unnecessarily.
Surely if this were the case then all vivisectors would be dietary vegans, as there is no reason to inflict suffering on other animals because we like the taste of their flesh, milk or menses? There is an increasing body of scientific opinion that supports veganism as the most sure way to promote human health. Even Colin Campbell, an American vivisector, has become a dietary vegan (his book, The China Study, details the scientific reasons why.
I personally am an ethical vegan, and am against vivisection on moral grounds. But at least I am more consistent than meat eating vivisectors who claim to cause no “unnecessary suffering” to animals.
Mary Brady
St. Edmund Hall
The editors reserve the right to cut letters for length and clarity. The views expressed in the letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Oxford Student. Email letters@oxfordstudent.com
9th Feb 2006