Animal rights?

"But then where do you derive the belief that HUMAN life is some how more important/valuable than ANIMAL life? On what do you base your argument?"

My argument doesn't depend on any reliance on the intrinsic value of human life. Human society, in the context of the individual person, is an effort to balance the needs and desires of the individual against the needs of the community. It's not a question of intrinsic value. It's a question of the biological and communicative imperatives of human survival in coming together in groups.

The "needs and desires" of animal life are completely alien to human understanding, except where human and animal life intersect. We know what a cow needs and what it seems to want. We know that cows have bred humans to feed and shelter and help them procreate in exchange for milk and allowing us to eat them.

We know that dogs and cats have bred humans to the point that humans feed and shelter them, help them procreate, and often don't eat them, and otherwise expect very little in return other than the animals exhibit certain behavioral traits that humans are cued to interpret as "companionship."

Cows, pigs and chickens have benefited hugely by breeding humans to eat them. Some species of fish are starting to find survival value in being eaten by humans, although certainly it's likely that many species will be driven to extinction.

Humans still have a poor understanding of what happens when they kill off an entire species by eating them or crowding them out, or poisoning them into extinction - but these concerns have nothing to do with the intrinsic value of life, either animal or human.

 

womberty: You make good points. I agree that -- in terms of human society -- we protect infants & young children with certain "rights," with the knowledge that they will eventually grow-up and not only come to comprehend those rights (and, in turn, accept any associated "responsibilities" with them), but likewise become contributors to the society that protected them when they were young. In other words, it is in society's best interests to give its young "rights," in order to keep them safe until they can become responsible members of the society.

But this is why I tried to get a discussion going on what type of rights we humans might give to animals. Do they necessarily have to be the same type of rights a human would get? Similarly, how do we want to define "society?" Does it consist of just us humans? If it does, then animals are going to have a much different place in the scheme of things than if we say that "society" is more of a global, living organism kind of concept.

Jabbadabbado:
It's a question of the biological and communicative imperatives of human survival in coming together in groups.

Can you say more about the "imperatives of human survival?"

And, regarding the rest of your post: Very funny! I often feel that my house technically belongs to the cat & dog, and they just let the rest of the family live there in order to feed and entertain them!

 

I tried to get a discussion going on what type of rights we humans might give to animals.

Well, the most basic right we give humans is life. (Among life, liberty, and property, life is the most basic of those rights.) It would be impossible to grant this same right to animals, because we would then need to defend every animal against those that prey upon it - and the result would be the loss of the predators' lives.

Granting rights to other humans - infants and adults alike - makes sense because it is an investment to ensure one's own quality of life. So granting rights to animals makes sense only insofar as it pays off in some benefit to the humans who are granting those rights.

 

Granting rights to animals makes sense only insofar as it pays off in some benefit to the humans who are granting those rights.

Wow, that's a profound statement. So if I say to you that I want to grant a specific group of animals some rights (whatever those might be) solely so that the animals in question can have some type of protection, benefit, whatever -- and I can provide no evidence/argument for how those rights might ultimately "pay off some benefit to humans," you will deem my proposal senseless?

 

I say "makes sense" based on the basic philosophy that is the foundation of our government. We have government by consent of the people (animals can give no consent), and for the benefit of those people who have given up their ability to do some things in order to receive the protection that government provides. Lincoln didn't call this a government "of the people, by the people, and for every living creature" - and with good reason.

And for the record, some of the rights and privileges granted to people by the government these days are rather senseless.

 

Thank you for clarifying that you are primarily relying on a governmental context when you discuss "rights." I think I'm coming at it from more of a spiritual, holistic, conservationist, philosophical kind of definition, and I bet you'll agree: they are two different things.

I will not be so naive to think (or say) that I expect all of humanity to stop killing animals for food, but it just seems that animals deserve more than to be products for our use.

And for the record, some of the rights and privileges granted to people by the government these days are rather senseless.

Agreed!

 

And for the record, some of the rights and privileges granted to people by the government these days are rather senseless.

Like...?

 

Animals do not need rights, they are animals. they donot control the world

 

Animals do not need rights, they are animals.

True. We already have laws against animal cruelty, so what exactly are we going to accomplish by giving them "rights"?

 

True. We already have laws against animal cruelty, so what exactly are we going to accomplish by giving them "rights"?

More votes for politicians? A new minority group?


Animals do not need rights, they are animals. they donot control the world

I do not support animal rights per se, but we are animals and we have "rights".

 

I got no problem with eating meat. But I do think that they should be killed as quickly and painlessly as possible. There needs to be more regulation of how livestock is treated and how farms and slaughterhouses are operated.

 

We already have laws against animal cruelty, so what exactly are we going to accomplish by giving them "rights"?

Animal cruelty laws are not nearly strict enough. In some cases people who abuse animals are let off with merely a fine. You would never see that happening with someone who abused another person. Someone who abuses an animal should receive a very lengthy jail sentence.

Animals need rights to protect them from humans who think they are superior to animals.

 

Does that include hunters and fishermen? Or exterminators? What about people who make mousetraps?

Would we still be allowed to keep pets? After all, many people in PETA and other organizations see that as "slavery"...

 

Are humans not animals? All I'm sayin' is, the "almighty-whatever" watches how we treat the creatures in our charge.

 

We already have laws against animal cruelty, so what exactly are we going to accomplish by giving them "rights"?

I have a question. Can someone imagine being crammed into a ten by ten feet box with five other people, have your hands cut off so that you can't beat or scratch other people, never see daylight in your life, get killed, and then be shipped off to aliens who are going to cut you up into pieces and enjoy the tender, juicy meat?

I don't know where I stand on animal rights' issue. I'm a vegetarian. I have no problem with people having animals as pets. Most owners are responsible, and it isn't likely (I hope) that people who don't like animals will have them as pets. But I do have a problem against hunting and putting animals through this horrific lives just so people can eat their meat.

Nadia

 

Animal rights is shear stupidity IMHO.

Rights means responsibility. Animals have no concept of what rights are, let alone what responsibility is.

If animals are considered equal to people, then killing a dog, cat or chimp by myself would constitute murder right? What about the bobcat that kills a rabbit, are we going to bring the bobcat to court? Would the bobcat even understand what would be going on? NO! Are we going to bring the eagle to court, or the wolf, bear, heck...what about mosquitos? They're living beings, but what if they are sucking out my blood. THAT is malicious assault, that mosquito isn't respecting my rights. What are pro-animal rights groups going to do about that? It's ludicrous.

Pro-Animal rights groups pick and chose their animals, which is wrong. Either they say all have rights, or none do. But even then, animals don't have the concept of rights or the responsibilites that accompany rights, let alone the ability to speak as we do.

There are many animals that kill other animals for survival, for food. So what?! What about predator animals who kill other animals to survive? Are we going to condemn those animals too??? And if it is oky for wolves to eat animal flesh...why can't I? Animal rights groups only seem to think about prey animals, and not predator animals.

Why argue with millions of years of nature? What 'right' do we have to deny that natural process? Why can't I do the same? I consider animals, 'animals', because they have a lesser consciousness as compared to humans, if indeed you need that question answered. I can eat animals as food, I have no guilt. I need food and I choose to eat animals as well as plant-life.

But then that brings up plants rights. I don't care if they don't have a brain. They're alive, plants react to things such as reaching for sunlight, they evolve. Do plants have the right to life too?

Or is it just a matter of giving rights to cutsy-poo animals because you can't stand to have a doey-eyed soft-furred creature be killed by a snarling jagged-tooth wolf?

Please.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

Moriarte: This story appeared today on the "local6.com" web site, and originated from the "WKMG Television News Station" in Central Florida:

"A LaGrange man accused of hacking his estranged wife's puppy to death with an ax as three children begged him to stop faces animal and child cruelty charges, police said...[the subject] told investigators he was upset because the dog had bitten him two weeks ago...."

Here in Colorado, "animal cruelty" will only get an offender a class 1 misdemeanor; not as light as say, a petty offense, but -- when we have humans who maliciously kill defenseless puppies with an ax -- I wish such crimes would get someone at least a low-level felony.... In other words, these are the kinds of issues that I have in mind when I think of "animal rights."

 

Me too. That is absolutely sickening.

I think they should be charged with some sort of murder myself.

 

Whee!

Uh..IPA:

I love how we have the two signs:

A) "SAVE THE DOLPHINS! CUT UP YOUR PEPSI TAB THINGIES!"

B) "LET'S CLONE COWS TO KILL 'EM AND EAT 'EM!!!"

I don't like QR. Don't kill 'em for fun. Kill 'em for necessities (like wild animals) or give 'em some rights (like a creature who can reason).

 

anakin_girl, what if the guy in that article had slowly chopped a caterpillar into tiny pieces with his pocketknife? Should he get a prison sentence for that?

 

I have a question. Can someone imagine being crammed into a ten by ten feet box with five other people, have your hands cut off so that you can't beat or scratch other people, never see daylight in your life, get killed, and then be shipped off to aliens who are going to cut you up into pieces and enjoy the tender, juicy meat?

If we encountered sentient aliens, I wouldn't expect them to recognize our rights because we believe they were given to us by our God. Rather, we would have to bargain with them to establish a truce - men and aliens give each other the same rights - or, if they were not interested in bargaining, we would have to fight for our survival and our rights. I wouldn't enjoy being treated as a source of food, but I wouldn't be surprised if another race didn't recognize our "inalienable human rights".

We create government based on the consent of the people. The government is essentially an agreement among all of the people to give up certain freedoms for the protection of certain rights. Animals do not consent to be governed by our laws, so they cannot bargain for rights, either.

 

Special_Fred: Yes, that's still sickening.

 

So how many new jails are we going to build, you know, to hold all those little kids that pull wings off of flies?

 

If we encountered sentient aliens, I wouldn't expect them to recognize our rights because we believe they were given to us by our God.

You believe that we get our rights by our God, but many people don't. Besides, if God was the perfect being, like classical Christianity preaches, and God created us in our images, we should have rights superior to the aliens', methinks.

Rather, we would have to bargain with them to establish a truce - men and aliens give each other the same rights - or, if they were not interested in bargaining, we would have to fight for our survival and our rights.

Uh, what if they're telepathic (within their species) and cannot listen (or hear our thoughts)? What if they don't know English (which is a pretty good bet)? What if they can't understand sign language?

I wouldn't enjoy being treated as a source of food, but I wouldn't be surprised if another race didn't recognize our "inalienable human rights".

Yeah, but you admit that you don't enjoy being treated as a source of food. Once one acknowledges that he himself wouldn't like to be in a position, he should also question why he should put others in such a position.

We create government based on the consent of the people. The government is essentially an agreement among all of the people to give up certain freedoms for the protection of certain rights.

Uh, no. Never heard of dictatorships? Or monarchies? Even democracies rarely ever have laws that all people agree to, but we do have certain inalienable rights in a democracy, I'll give you that.

Animals do not consent to be governed by our laws, so they cannot bargain for rights, either.

The same could be said of the aliens. If we aren't telepathic, we can't participate in their law system. Just imagine the aliens cramming thirty thousand people into a small arboretum, putting us through excruciating pain, forcing men to ejaculate, artificially impregnating the women, and then ship us off in little alien ships to be cut into a hundred pieces and sold in their supermarkets.

Nadia

 

So how many new jails are we going to build, you know, to hold all those little kids that pull wings off of flies?

Another reason why death penalty should be legal.

Just kidding.

But you're right, which is why I don't know where I stand on the issue. But cruelty to animals, especially cows and pigs, just sickens me to no end. In that case, the cows and pigs aren't even annoying you like a fly does. What you're doing is putting them through a horrible life of utter torture so you can profit off them.

Edit: stupid markup codes

Nadia