Animals have all the rights without thinking of it. The only problem I see is with those who hunt animals, like that case of Cecil the lion.
To what extent should animals have rights?
- Thread starter La Femme Fatale
- Start date
Is human rights perhaps interesting enough to have its own question of the week?
Humans may not be much more than the animals, but for my own comfort I like to think we are above animals. So we shouldn't start along a pathway that equalize animals and us. Yes to laws protecting them, but no rights.
Humans may not be much more than the animals, but for my own comfort I like to think we are above animals. So we shouldn't start along a pathway that equalize animals and us. Yes to laws protecting them, but no rights.
I mean animals should have all the rights like humans and be treated like humans. Some humans hunt animals for sport or to decorate their houses.
But let's think what it would mean if animals were given the same rights as humans. Animals don't have the ability to consent to anything and you couldn't obtain consent from their parents either, therefore you could no longer use them for anything. Anything.
In some cases, that sounds great. It would mean no more zoos, circuses, places like Marineland, etc etc. But it would also mean no more eating meat, no more eggs or dairy, no more using dogs as service animals, etc. No use of animals would be legal. That's why, unless you're totally okay with completely adopting a vegan lifestyle, giving animals nonhuman person status would be a little problematic.
In some cases, that sounds great. It would mean no more zoos, circuses, places like Marineland, etc etc. But it would also mean no more eating meat, no more eggs or dairy, no more using dogs as service animals, etc. No use of animals would be legal. That's why, unless you're totally okay with completely adopting a vegan lifestyle, giving animals nonhuman person status would be a little problematic.
That's kind of invalid. You can't prove that animals have souls. Hell, you can't even prove that humans have souls, let alone animals. And humans ARE that different. Your cat didn't sit at this keyboard with the intellect to type "Humans and animals aren't that different." But you did. That's what makes humans different. Saying we aren't different is a little foolish...
Then by all means, tell me how your house cat, or even how a wild boar is so similar to us...
They're living things. They eat, sleep, drink... they have personalities and minds of their own... they're more like us than anything else.
That doesn't mean they are like us enough to be considered our equal. Those are such simplistic characteristics that are so broad that it covers nearly ALL living things. In fact, Plants meet more than half of the requirements you posted, but we aren't talking about "Plant Rights." In fact, I'm more than willing to bet you've squashed bugs in your life, but THEY meet every bit of the requirements you've posted. What makes their lives so beneath yours that you saw fit to squash them? And you can't deny that you've done that. Every human has...Or what about picked flowers to give to someone, which would in turn, kill them, how is that any different. Are all of those things "Just Like Us?"
That has nothing to do with the topic. I admit I don't know much about plants, but I've never seen a plant walk around and chew its own food.
But it has plenty to do with the topic. You posted your own personal requirements for how animals are "Just like us," but when I show you that your logic/requirements are far to general to be taken seriously, you claim that it's off topic. And I noticed how you completely avoided the bug part of my argument.
The bug part is what I meant about not having to do with it.
Look, I'm not gonna fight anymore. No matter what I do you're gonna keep saying I'm stupid or whatever. I'm not taking back anything I said, I'm just tired of people basically saying I'm an idiot.
Consider this. Humans have lived in the wild, same as animals. They have been submitted to natural selection, same as animals. Yes we are smarter. Yes we have a capacity to be self-aware. But not all humans are.
Children are a great example of what a wild human would be like. Without learning language and using it to absorb vast amounts of knowledge amassed by previous generations, they rely on instinct: the most basic human nature unique to us.
A human baby is not aware of its self. It can see out into the world and interact, but ultimately does not know its place among other life forms. It has no empathy (until it learns it). The difference between a human baby and a puppy is that a puppy ultimately only grows by following instinct: the behavior that is hard-wired into its DNA with some help from its mother. On that level, we are not so different.
Continuing this thought process with the same Darwinian applications, a human baby grows to be incomprehensibly more intelligent. A dog can feel the same emotions as a human: there we don't deviate much but the left-brain-difference is what places us on a higher order in nature. You can't blame a cheetah for eating a gazelle, so why can you blame a human for slaughtering a cow? It's because we're smart and through impossible amounts of knowledge, we've realized not only are we omnivorous and have a choice but we've decided to give a **** whether or not that cow feels pain. Mind you, this thinking could only develop outside of the wild. Mercy and empathy are human inventions as far as planet Earth is concerned.
Now with that giant load of text, why in the **** do we still eat hamburgers?
I'd like to draw your attention to my absolute favorite philosophical concept: The Is-Ought problem. Now, this might sound obvious at first but its not that simple AT ALL in application. You may need to think like an atheist to get this, because it assumes that we did not get our morals from a supreme being.
Stated simply: There is no logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is."
The "is" are bold-faced facts. The premise. The "ought" is what a human being decides to do when faced with the "is." The ought is our conclusion based on what we saw, and what we decide to do in response.
The IS: Say a baby is crawling towards the edge of a 5th story balcony.
The OUGHT: 99.99% of everyone would run over and pick the dumb little tyke up before he kills himself.
Of course they would! It makes total sense to all of us!
But no. Stop thinking like a human being and ask yourself "why."
"Because the baby is going to die!"
So what? It's not your kid. And even if it was, why bother? You can make another kid.
"That's horrible!"
Why is it so horrible?
"Because it's a human life"
"because I could go to prison"
"because they just swept that sidewalk and it would be rude to splatter baby brains on it"
So?
etc.
As you keep asking why, you may begin to realize that all of the dos and don'ts are based on a value system we've created for ourselves and it only carries as much value as we assign to it. If the baby fell off the balcony, the world would keep spinning. If you got sent to prison, the world would keep spinning.
The only reason we ever think or do anything is because we personally find it important.
Nothing will ever change your personal value system apart from experience: witnessing something that changes your viewpoints.
But from a zoomed-out perspective, there really is no reason to do anything at all. It's quite literally all. in. your. head.
So, I ask again, with all that logic in mind, why in the frick do we still eat hamburgers?
Because they are god damn delicious and we don't have to look at what the cow went through when they made them.
Children are a great example of what a wild human would be like. Without learning language and using it to absorb vast amounts of knowledge amassed by previous generations, they rely on instinct: the most basic human nature unique to us.
A human baby is not aware of its self. It can see out into the world and interact, but ultimately does not know its place among other life forms. It has no empathy (until it learns it). The difference between a human baby and a puppy is that a puppy ultimately only grows by following instinct: the behavior that is hard-wired into its DNA with some help from its mother. On that level, we are not so different.
Continuing this thought process with the same Darwinian applications, a human baby grows to be incomprehensibly more intelligent. A dog can feel the same emotions as a human: there we don't deviate much but the left-brain-difference is what places us on a higher order in nature. You can't blame a cheetah for eating a gazelle, so why can you blame a human for slaughtering a cow? It's because we're smart and through impossible amounts of knowledge, we've realized not only are we omnivorous and have a choice but we've decided to give a **** whether or not that cow feels pain. Mind you, this thinking could only develop outside of the wild. Mercy and empathy are human inventions as far as planet Earth is concerned.
Now with that giant load of text, why in the **** do we still eat hamburgers?
I'd like to draw your attention to my absolute favorite philosophical concept: The Is-Ought problem. Now, this might sound obvious at first but its not that simple AT ALL in application. You may need to think like an atheist to get this, because it assumes that we did not get our morals from a supreme being.
Stated simply: There is no logical way to derive an "ought" from an "is."
The "is" are bold-faced facts. The premise. The "ought" is what a human being decides to do when faced with the "is." The ought is our conclusion based on what we saw, and what we decide to do in response.
The IS: Say a baby is crawling towards the edge of a 5th story balcony.
The OUGHT: 99.99% of everyone would run over and pick the dumb little tyke up before he kills himself.
Of course they would! It makes total sense to all of us!
But no. Stop thinking like a human being and ask yourself "why."
"Because the baby is going to die!"
So what? It's not your kid. And even if it was, why bother? You can make another kid.
"That's horrible!"
Why is it so horrible?
"Because it's a human life"
"because I could go to prison"
"because they just swept that sidewalk and it would be rude to splatter baby brains on it"
So?
etc.
As you keep asking why, you may begin to realize that all of the dos and don'ts are based on a value system we've created for ourselves and it only carries as much value as we assign to it. If the baby fell off the balcony, the world would keep spinning. If you got sent to prison, the world would keep spinning.
The only reason we ever think or do anything is because we personally find it important.
Nothing will ever change your personal value system apart from experience: witnessing something that changes your viewpoints.
But from a zoomed-out perspective, there really is no reason to do anything at all. It's quite literally all. in. your. head.
So, I ask again, with all that logic in mind, why in the frick do we still eat hamburgers?
Because they are god damn delicious and we don't have to look at what the cow went through when they made them.
Last edited:
Animal welfare is important as I firmly believe we have a duty of care - whether that be humanely killing our intended food or ensuring the continuance of a rare breed and everything in between.
Animal rights, to me, is some messed up ideology created by people who haven't fully thought it through and would possibly be a bit antsy if mummy tiger and daddy tiger bought the house next door. Or if a load of bull sharks took up residence in the shared pool outside.
Yes, some animals are super duper clever. But we are judging their capabilities as compared to our own - "gee, look at the chimp holding a teapot just like us!" sort of crap. Yes, I have no doubt that animals have feelings but they are simply not on a scale comparable with humans.
When I see people put animals above humans, it worries me. If you see a dog trapped in a hot car, you are allowed to break in and rescue the animal. Not so if the adorable dachshund was a human baby - then it's kidnapping. Absolutely bonkers.
For me, if a human being was hungry I would damn well feed him or her a burger if that was what they wanted. I wouldn't lecture them on how animals should have rights and that people should all be vegans.
Medical testing is done on animals for good reason; the animals used have a similar physiology to humans and are a way of checking how a human will react to the drug or treatment. Yes we may blanch at the idea of poor little Fluffykins the bunny wabbit being injected with a drug that could help treat infant diseases but I would wager it's a lot more palatable than advertising for anyone under the age of one year old to be put forward for trials.
Being deliberwtely facetious there but you see my point, hopefully.
Cosmetics and the fur fashion trade, however, are plain wrong. Fur for necessity? Fair enough, been there and done that. It was fur or frostbite. But fur for that party? Forget it.
Animal rights, to me, is some messed up ideology created by people who haven't fully thought it through and would possibly be a bit antsy if mummy tiger and daddy tiger bought the house next door. Or if a load of bull sharks took up residence in the shared pool outside.
Yes, some animals are super duper clever. But we are judging their capabilities as compared to our own - "gee, look at the chimp holding a teapot just like us!" sort of crap. Yes, I have no doubt that animals have feelings but they are simply not on a scale comparable with humans.
When I see people put animals above humans, it worries me. If you see a dog trapped in a hot car, you are allowed to break in and rescue the animal. Not so if the adorable dachshund was a human baby - then it's kidnapping. Absolutely bonkers.
For me, if a human being was hungry I would damn well feed him or her a burger if that was what they wanted. I wouldn't lecture them on how animals should have rights and that people should all be vegans.
Medical testing is done on animals for good reason; the animals used have a similar physiology to humans and are a way of checking how a human will react to the drug or treatment. Yes we may blanch at the idea of poor little Fluffykins the bunny wabbit being injected with a drug that could help treat infant diseases but I would wager it's a lot more palatable than advertising for anyone under the age of one year old to be put forward for trials.
Being deliberwtely facetious there but you see my point, hopefully.
Cosmetics and the fur fashion trade, however, are plain wrong. Fur for necessity? Fair enough, been there and done that. It was fur or frostbite. But fur for that party? Forget it.
I was thinking of the perfect clever comment to make and you sir beat everyone to the question.
It depends on how you define "rights". If you define that as basic rights to life without being tortured and to be able to eat, drink , sleep and live life then yes... However then again I guess that means it is certainly possible that animals already have that. Although having said that there are animals that get tortured and abused by humans for their mere enjoyment. I personally think that is wrong and that us humans should refrain from such acts.... Then things can get morally messy once someone brings up the fact that animals murder and eat other animals for survival... It all depends on what a particular person's morals are when it comes to such things. Is it cruel for humans to kill animals when animals due the same to each other?. ..... Or is it okay because animals are below us and we have the right to due these things .... but to what extent? But then if it is right for us to kill and eat animals does that indeed mean we are infact animals ourselves? Various questions to consider when such a topic is brought to light. To add to this my view is that Pedophiles are barely subhuman so instead of using animals to test everything on why not use pedophiles instead? I mean a least they would have a use and they wouldn't be going out molesting children since they would be locked up......
Last edited:
I think chimps and other such primates should run the US government. Probably be a lot better at it.
I always enjoy asking conspiracy theorists if they genuinely think politicians are intelligent enough to pull off half the stunts they're accused of.
Our right-wing government have decided to start up a "animal police", I guess it will be a unit within the regular police that deals only with animal abuse. The same government also decided that every dog owner must walk the dog twice a day.
It's not animal rights, rather obligations to the owners. Animals will never know if they have rights or not, they will just know how they are treated. And that is what matters.
It's not animal rights, rather obligations to the owners. Animals will never know if they have rights or not, they will just know how they are treated. And that is what matters.