To what extent should animals have rights?

[La Femme Fatale]

Question posed by the wonderful @Meg

Should animals be considered non-human people with all the protections that would come with it? All animals? Certain animals?

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

Pedophiles and murderers get to be treated with "humanity" and animals are a step above them as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Cheer]

They should have rights. Yes They aren't human, but they are life-forms, have souls.

 

[Springhosen]

To the exact same extent as people. You don't have to have an animal, you choose to. You don't slip up and not take birth control and WHAM! you have a dog. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Suzie had to be abused to the extent that she was before a law was put in place that said you can't treat animals like that.

Edit: I also think this isn't exclusive to pets; zoo animals should also have our protection and there should also be specific rules in place for hunting. (Like I know that spotlighting is illegal as it's unsportsmanlike, but I'm not sure what other guidelines hunters have to abide by.)

That tiger the other year that got put down for attacking people is a specific case that I can think of. She didn't go on a rampage killing everyone in sight; the zoo was full and she got out, attacked the three people that had attacked her, throwing things at her while she was in confinement, and didn't mess with anyone else. I don't feel like she should have been put down. No one would have expected a human being to put up with that kind of **** so why would we expect any less from animals?

 

[Romero]

The very fact that humans grants "rights" to animal just proves that animals don't have rights. They just have what humans give them.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

The very fact that humans grants "rights" to animal just proves that animals don't have rights. They just have what humans give them.

Well, in truth the exact same can be said of humans. Humans (typically those who sit in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government) grant rights to other humans. People have rights by virtue of their citizenship to a country, not their humanity. A person from North Korea doesn't have the same rights as a person from Canada. It's one of the reasons the human rights abuses at Guantamino Bay were as prevalent as they were - that piece is land is funny in that, while it is located in Cuba, a treaty signed in the early 1900s gave the US complete control and jurisdiction over the land in which the detention centre is located on through a rental lease. So you have a land without laws and thus a land without rights. And I'm not disagreeing with you - I just find the topic exceptionally fascinating. I'm only saying that rights are granted to both humans and animals, alike.

But this question asks whether or not animals should have rights - not whether they do. There is actual an important distinction to be made between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights activists attempt to elevate the species of animals to equality with humans - a core tenet of animal rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.

This, I can't say is true. I don't believe in any god or religion, but it is clear that it's up to mankind to be stewards of the Earth. Animals have very obvious restrictions that make them incapable of being so - although, on second thought I imagine animals could do a better job than we are.

I tend to lean towards animal welfare than rights. Animals are sentient life forms - they feel pain, many can recognize their own reflection, and they have a consciousness that enables them to make decisions and reason. Sure, it's not to the extent that humans can reason - but not all humans are able to reason to the same degree either. However, because all animals suffer when they are tortured and slaughtered, I do believe they deserve as much consideration as a human who suffers and all measures to ease an animal's pain and suffering should be considered. I think there are some unacceptable uses of animals including fur, cosmetic testing, dog-fighting, and to be honest, I would even go as far as to say factory farming.

I don't object to the consumption of animals, or the humane use of them for medical research. However, I would like to see cruel practises eliminated - thus I'm entirely in favour of stricter animal welfare laws and harsher punishments for those that violate them.

 

[KennedyKiller]

Survival of the Fittest. Don't get me wrong. I'm not siding with the dude that breeds pit bulls to fight. I personally think that is, and any other type of animal abuse is wrong. But the problem is, that's me PERSONALLY. My morals and someone else's morals could be very different. And they may be able to "justify" their moral reasoning with points as valid or logical as I would be able to "Justify" mine. There are your obvious wrongs, such as taking your anger out on your cat because you had a sh*tty day at work. But then there are your areas that activists spend stupid amounts of time fighting. Like the vegan family that had there cat sent to an ER because it was so sick. It was so sick because they were feeding it a freakin' vegan diet! A Cat, just like ALL creatures, is a product of science and evolution. It has EVOLVED to be a Carnivore. You don't put a house pet, who would have no since of morals, on a diet that is harmful to its body because of YOUR life choices. Animals should have rights, sure, but should they really be called "Rights." To me it's common damn sense In most of these "Animal Rights" cases.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

They should have the same rights as humans. They're just as important as us. Like us, they have souls and unique personalities. Just because we have different abilities doesn't mean we should have completely different rights. Humans and animals aren't that different, really.

 

[Romero]

But this question asks whether or not animals should have rights - not whether they do. There is actual an important distinction to be made between animal rights and animal welfare. Animal rights activists attempt to elevate the species of animals to equality with humans - a core tenet of animal rights philosophy is that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat nonhuman species.

I'm philosophical here, and when I'm philosophical I may think very unconventional. Animals should perhaps have rights, but any rights granted by humans are invalid, that is my point. Who are humans to grant rights? Only a supreme entity can do that, and whatever that is, I don't think it's human. Is it certain that the humans deserve the rights they gave themselves? The humans are dominating this globe for the time being, but they should perhaps be a bit more humble.


Now I'm changing point of view. We should have laws to protect animals from ourselves, but I don't think "rights" is the right word. Most life forms needs some protection, but don't call it rights. It sounds nice to give rights to dogs, cows and cats, but where do you draw the line? It shouldn't be allowed to torture a frog or to kill a rare species of plant, but should they too have rights? I think that someone who can't speak for themselves cannot possibly have rights. It makes no sense. Laws that specifies animal welfare makes a lot more sense.

I think there are some unacceptable uses of animals including fur, cosmetic testing, dog-fighting, and to be honest, I would even go as far as to say factory farming.

I really don't like dog-fighting and factory farming either, I avoid chicken as much as possible. I'm very skeptical to genetic engineering too.
What's the issue with cosmetic testing? How are they using animals for that?

They should have the same rights as humans. They're just as important as us. Like us, they have souls and unique personalities. Just because we have different abilities doesn't mean we should have completely different rights. Humans and animals aren't that different, really.

How would you want to achieve that equality? By reducing human rights or increasing animal rights? Humans have a number of rights that animals can't have. Sometimes I think the human rights have gone too far, but I don't know if you think the same.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

How would you want to achieve that equality? By reducing human rights or increasing animal rights? Humans have a number of rights that animals can't have. Sometimes I think the human rights have gone too far, but I don't know if you think the same.

I was going to talk about that before but I decided to leave it out because I was about to eat. xD I think some human rights are just stupid, so definitely get rid of some of those, and have rights for animals that parallel some human ones, if that makes sense.

 

[Romero]

Remove the right to vote, and let the cats do that for us. xD
But I don't want to remove our right to education. Invite animals to the schools?
And what about the rights regarding wages for our labor? Give money to the dogs for fertilizing the lawn? No, this is too crazy. Don't you think?

 

[La Femme Fatale]

I'm philosophical here, and when I'm philosophical I may think very unconventional. Animals should perhaps have rights, but any rights granted by humans are invalid, that is my point. Who are humans to grant rights? Only a supreme entity can do that, and whatever that is, I don't think it's human. Is it certain that the humans deserve the rights they gave themselves? The humans are dominating this globe for the time being, but they should perhaps be a bit more humble.

If rights granted to humans by humans are invalid, and the only rights that are valid are those granted by supreme entities that may or may not exist, then why would we need laws to protect ourselves and our property? Wouldn't this be up to the supreme entity? And if so, why does the supreme entity only give rights to those living under a democratically elected regime?

No, rights granted to humans by humans are the only rights that exist and can be enforced. Everything else is merely theoretical. You only have rights if you live in a country with a constitution, a Bill of Rights, a Charter, etc etc that is enforced by a democratically elected government. We all had very little rights until the forefathers of our respective nations decided we should live freely from harm and be masters of our own private property. Of course, these individuals had likely been influenced by their religious texts and in come cases noted their belief in a God when drafting their constitutions, but at the end of the day the signature on those documents belonged to men.

Likewise, to provide another example, the rights of women to have an abortion in Canada was attained through the Supreme Court in R vs. Morgantaler. Justices are men and women, not supreme entities.

Now I'm changing point of view. We should have laws to protect animals from ourselves, but I don't think "rights" is the right word. Most life forms needs some protection, but don't call it rights.

My post was about the distinction of animal rights and animal welfare, and why I believe the latter is more reasonable.

The problem with actual animal rights is that if you believe animals are equal to humans, you probably should start living a vegan lifestyle. Animal rights' folks don't believe in any use of animals at all - so we'd have to start eating plants, not wearing clothing that consists of animal byproducts, etc etc.

But that's why I think that most people perhaps mistake animal rights for welfare anyway.

What's the issue with cosmetic testing? How are they using animals for that?

They've been using animals to test make-up products for years. Medical research is one thing, but the fashion industry? They should be figuring their own **** out without having to harm animals. Luckily, a lot of brands are already cruelty free and those are the ones I tend to buy. They're not even more expensive so it's 100% possible to test make-up without using animals.

I was going to talk about that before but I decided to leave it out because I was about to eat. xD I think some human rights are just stupid, so definitely get rid of some of those, and have rights for animals that parallel some human ones, if that makes sense.

Just out of curiosity, which human rights do you think are stupid?

 

[Venomous Oddball]

If rights granted to humans by humans are invalid, and the only rights that are valid are those granted by supreme entities that may or may not exist, then why would we need laws to protect ourselves and our property? Wouldn't this be up to the supreme entity? And if so, why does the supreme entity only give rights to those living under a democratically elected regime?

No, rights granted to humans by humans are the only rights that exist and can be enforced. Everything else is merely theoretical. You only have rights if you live in a country with a constitution, a Bill of Rights, a Charter, etc etc that is enforced by a democratically elected government. We all had very little rights until the forefathers of our respective nations decided we should live freely from harm and be masters of our own private property. Of course, these individuals had likely been influenced by their religious texts and in come cases noted their belief in a God when drafting their constitutions, but at the end of the day the signature on those documents belonged to men.

Likewise, to provide another example, the rights of women to have an abortion in Canada was attained through the Supreme Court in R vs. Morgantaler. Justices are men and women, not supreme entities.


My post was about the distinction of animal rights and animal welfare, and why I believe the latter is more reasonable.

The problem with actual animal rights is that if you believe animals are equal to humans, you probably should start living a vegan lifestyle. Animal rights' folks don't believe in any use of animals at all - so we'd have to start eating plants, not wearing clothing that consists of animal byproducts, etc etc.

But that's why I think that most people perhaps mistake animal rights for welfare anyway.


They've been using animals to test make-up products for years. Medical research is one thing, but the fashion industry? They should be figuring their own **** out without having to harm animals. Luckily, a lot of brands are already cruelty free and those are the ones I tend to buy. They're not even more expensive so it's 100% possible to test make-up without using animals.


Just out of curiosity, which human rights do you think are stupid?

Innocent until proven guilty is really stupid to me. Just because you can't prove it but you know they're guilty doesn't mean they're innocent.

 

[Romero]

In the big picture, mankind is insignificant. Do humans anywhere have rights? In many places (democracies) they think they have rights, but no one gave them rights. They just claimed and took rights. They made laws that regulate the individual rights, but who gave rights to mankind? Nobody.

Humans are not important, they are only important to themselves, and to the beings who happens to be in their care. More advanced species out there may look at humans as mere insects. Humans doesn't matter, and to the extent they do matter they are a pest.
If they can't give rights to themselves, how can they give rights to animals.

This is Romero the philosopher speaking, and he don't agree much with Romero the human.


Edit,
Can we have a list, or a link to human rights? I believe I disagree with many of them.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Why is mankind insignificant? Mankind is the most dominant life form we know beyond any reasonable doubt exists.

Anyway, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. I've already explained twice how it is we have human rights that are tangible. I can't speak to abstract concepts.

Innocent until proven guilty is really stupid to me. Just because you can't prove it but you know they're guilty doesn't mean they're innocent.

Perhaps you just don't understand it well. The fundamental element to a fair trial is the presumption of innocence. It's why we have a justice system in the first place, Maddy. How is it right that you can accuse me of a crime with no evidence, and I have to go to prison with no questions asked? In a perfect world where no one lies, ever, you wouldn't need the presumption of innocence. But we don't live in that world, do we? People lie all the time. People falsely accuse others all the time. We have for ages. The presumption of innocence is in place to protect people who have been falsely accused.

When you accuse someone of a crime, you are taking the first step towards stripping away their freedom and liberty. That's why the onus is on you to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, and thus a chance that the defendant might actually be innocent, you have to let them go. Of course there are cases where there just isn't enough proof for a guilty verdict, and that's unfortunate, but sometimes life just isn't fair. Maybe you just can't prove it happened, but maybe you've got the wrong guy. You can't throw people in prison without proving they are guilty. Too many innocent people have been imprisoned for decades on false or no evidence and its unacceptable in a civilized society.

But anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic as this question is about animal rights.

 

[cheezMcNASTY]

@Romero

Can we have a list, or a link to human rights? I believe I disagree with many of them.

In my country the list is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All fine print that follows is supposed to apply one or more of the three.
Your rights are only forfeit should you threaten to tread over the rights of others (or get caught doing so, as reality would have it).

Femme pretty much summed my thoughts on all this. Ill make a longer post when I'm on a keyboard at home.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

Why is mankind insignificant? Mankind is the most dominant life form we know beyond any reasonable doubt exists.

Anyway, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. I made as sound as argument as I can, but I can't speak to an idea that's more abstract.


Perhaps you just don't understand it well. The fundamental element to a fair trial is the presumption of innocence. It's why we have a justice system in the first place, Maddy. How is it right that you can accuse me of a crime with no evidence, and I have to go to prison with no questions asked? In a perfect world where no one lies, ever, you wouldn't need the presumption of innocence. But we don't live in that world, do we? People lie all the time. People falsely accuse others all the time. We have for ages. The presumption of innocence is in place to protect people who have been falsely accused.

When you accuse someone of a crime, you are taking the first step towards stripping away their freedom and liberty. That's why the onus is on you to prove it happened beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is reasonable doubt, and thus a chance that the defendant might actually be innocent, you have to let them go. Of course there are cases where there just isn't enough proof for a guilty verdict, and that's unfortunate, but sometimes life just isn't fair. Maybe you just can't prove it happened, but maybe you've got the wrong guy. You can't throw people in prison without proving they are guilty. Too many innocent people have been imprisoned for decades on false or no evidence and its unacceptable in a civilized society.

But anyway, we're getting a bit off-topic as this question is about animal rights.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It just really bothers me when I know something and everybody else says the person is innocent.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

I would imagine that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the most universal document. I believe most of our (REN members') countries have signed it.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. It just really bothers me when I know something and everybody else says the person is innocent.

But what are you talking about? Are you actually talking about something that is related to a criminal trial? Because the presumption of innocence is a tenant of due process. It doesn't have any ground in day to day life.

 

[Venomous Oddball]

I would imagine that the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the most universal document. I believe most of our (REN members') countries have signed it.


But what are you talking about? Are you actually talking about something that is related to a criminal trial? Because the presumption of innocence is a tenant of due process. It doesn't have any ground in day to day life.

No, in anything really. I know it isn't really for everyday life, but a lot of people still say things like that even if it isn't for a trial.

 

[La Femme Fatale]

Well, the presumption of innocence is not a human right outside of a criminal trial. Outside of the courts it's little more than a courtesy. It's just polite not to accuse someone of stealing your pen unless you know they did.