Animal Rights?

[Saucie]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

[ThisYouWillDo]

The right not to suffer at mankind's whim.

Can't think of anything else offhand.

[Saucie]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

[ThisYouWillDo]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

No man needs to torment any animal. Ever. He might need to eradicate dangerous, disease carrying vermin, but he can do it humanely, as befits the conduct of a human being. He might need to kill animals for food or clothing, but he can do that swiftly and painlessly. He can tame an animal and treat it as a pet, but he must not then abandon it if it is unable to fend for itself in the wild.

An animal's right not to suffer is the corrollary of mankind's duty to treat all living things considerately and with human compassion. It is not the same thing as falling victim to a cat which will torment its prey; cats know no better. We do. And we feel ill-at-ease when we learn of mistreatment, which is why we punish people who do neglect or abuse other creatures.

TYWD

[Moonraker]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

[Saucie]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility. I support animal testing (fuck yeah, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, and guess how commercial insulin got developed), and as long as an animal isn't endangered and there's no cruelty involved (cruelty defined as unnecessary infliction of pain), then I'm fine with hunting, food production, and fur production.

My big trouble is when a person's property rights conflict with an animal's interest. As a Social Contractarian with very strong Libertarian leanings, I take property rights very, very, very seriously. But I hate animal cruelty... I don't want to be inconsistent in my ethics, but on the other hand, I'm not heartless. And so I think about it, and think about it...

[Moonraker]

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility.

There are no inate rights. Historically almost all rights have been granted after a struggle of some form and rights can just as easily be taken away. Yes, it's impossible for animals to have rights since they cannot come to the bargaining table and consent to the "contract". It's possible I guess to appoint a body as their spokesperson with "power of attorney" as another poster implied. But we are going into murky legal waters and begging the question by what right does this group speak for animals. What next, the right of trees not to be cut?

This is why I prefer to approach the problem from the other side of the coin and agree with Ozme, that we should have the right to have a clean conscience and to pass onto our children a world with animals . We pay taxes for governments to pass the laws we want and create the society we want to live in.

It seems to me that there is a tendency to take a word, make it fashionable and then misuse the word in another context. Animal "rights" being the case in point. Democracy is another word that seems to be a recent fashion word. Maybe a simple thing like using different terminology could clear up much confusion regarding many issues.

Personally I can see no need for any cruelty to animals. I once read that the total cost of the space program over the first decade was less than what american women spent on cosmetics in any single year. If we can develop technology to put a man on the moon I can't see it as beyond our ability to make animal testing a thing of the past.

And while we're at it, let's broaden the topic of animal cruelty. If somebody burned your home and crops you'd find that pretty cruel. So what about man encroaching on animal habitat and food supplies. And the converse of course, what about your right to defend yourslef from animals eating your crops and living in your home. I mention this one because it is often used by fox hunters in my country, ah the foxes eat the chickens so we have to chase after them in our finery on horses to kill them and smear their blood over out childrens faces.

[Moonraker]

oops posted same post twice. Trigger happy. How to delete a post I wonder?

[Ozme52]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

[Saucie]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?

[Ozme52]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?

Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

[Saucie]

Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

Ah, the state of nature. I'm such a Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau groupie. Anyway, I agree with this post completely. For some reason, in your other post, I thought you were saying something else entirely. My mistake.

[_ID_]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

[Ozme52]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

[_ID_]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

[Ozme52]

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

[_ID_]

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

[Thorne]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

[Ozme52]

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

[Thorne]

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

[Saucie]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

[Ozme52]

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

[Saucie]

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

[fantassy]

We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

[Saucie]

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

Perhaps. If testing on animals means that a certain medication is less expensive, and the woman with no insurance can afford to buy it, then wouldn't that outweigh an animal's suffering? I say let the testers do as they will, and those labs that use animals less, or more humanely, or whatnot, will make certain that consumers know about it. (Case in point: organic groceries.) Then, consumers can choose products based on their own personal ethics and incomes.

[Saucie]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

[Ozme52]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

[Saucie]

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

[Ozme52]

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or politically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

[In2kink]

An interesting topic Saucie. Clearly animals do in fact enjoy limited rights as every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty but just as clearly they don’t enjoy personal rights to the degree that we as human beings do. The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

Clearly I do think some people overly personify animals (attribute to them human qualities). I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. But just as clearly to me at least, there is much more to an animal that meets the eye. Consider this excerpt from the writings of Voltaire;

“Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”