"Animal Rights"

[Gymnotide]

ITT: What are your views on animal rights? Should animals have "rights"? On what grounds are these rights enforced? Ask and answer questions in this thread. Keep disputes to a minimum and do not flame, please.

Anyway, how I see it is that -- first, saying that I am not an animal-hater, and am a biologist and scholar of taxonomy, am rather knowledgeable about a lot of different species, and find every animal cute -- animals shouldn't have "rights" in strict terms. My basis for this statement are that "rights" are based solely on human morals and HUMAN MORALS ALONE. That being said, human morals have no standing in the animal world, as animals do plenty of "humanly immoral" things over the course of their existence (need examples? Ask and thou shalt receive). Of course, the condition of farms is perhaps not the optimal quality for living (and I certainly would not like to be placed in the animals' shoes; please don't ask this), and I would rather animals run free... However, seeing the situation from a solely evolutionary standpoint, it isn't exactly wrong for humans to have subjugated animals.

Yes, I am aware that animals have feelings. And yes, I do believe that animals belong in the wild... However, I feel that most of this "animal rights" mumbo-jumbo is coming only out of the fact that humans are lucky enough to have higher sentience. Perhaps it is out of pure unbridled emotion, or out of the human conscience telling us to be obligated to enforce certain morals, even if they don't directly apply

Maybe what I'm getting at is that maybe the argument for "animal rights" would be more compelling if it weren't based upon such a humanistic concept of right / wrong (or perhaps the exact reason why it is applicable is because it is something that we can deem right / wrong).

To finish, I'd like to request that some people list some relevant examples for us to discuss.

 

[PlatinumDude]

I do believe that animals should have rights. They're living things, just like humans, and it would be immoral to kill a living thing for your own benefit (other than for food).

 

[poopnoodle]

not all life forms are equal and i don't think all beings are entitled to the same measure of respect but rights is a rather iffy term since it implies moral entitlements and morals are subjective. the only principle i try my best to adhere to is to not cause pain to any individual (and i count animals as individuals), and i do believe all creatures are worthy of being treated according to that principle. what we respect and how we respect i think reflects who we are, and i'm an inordinately empathetic person- seeing the pain of others seems near to feeling it myself. of course...being humanly selfish if i were starving to death some creature on the lower end of the food chain is losing their right to live xD but i'd see to it that the death is executed quickly and painlessly and little goes to waste, and that's about the full extent of my caring (i might cry a little >_>). animals shouldn't be killed if they don't need to be, and there's no justification for animal abuse. there is a lot of moral grey area to consider about holding animals captive, but i'll only touch the surface and say i don't have a problem with it so long as the animals are taken care of and free to move about and socialize and whatever other emotional needs they have are tended to.

 

[SIN1488]

I think it's very hard to argue against the fact that all organisms want to live, and live comfortably.

So yes, I think animals, and even all organisms (Insects, etc.), should have the right to live comfortably, which also means not taking them into captivity unless it will truly benefit them and is the only way to keep them out of danger.

 

[o0PinkSquid0o]

Hmm I loove animals so much, I feel they should have rights but obviously not as humans do.

Like if you murder an animal then you should go to jail instead of just paying a fine. Its that animals right to live. But I don't really know what other kinds of rights an animal would need?

 

[Melody]

Animals do not have rights. To our current scientific knowledge, no animal has ever shown the signs of sentience at a level high enough to comprehend the fact that they have rights or defend those rights when they are violated. They are intelligent, but only just enough so to ensure their own survival. It is the logical conclusion that granting rights to anything incapable of understanding them is pointless.

With that being said, this does not mean they are not to be treated humanely! Anytime we can possibly deal with an animal in a humane, safe way without endangering ourselves and the animal itself overmuch is sufficient enough. This does not mean we are obligated to pull out all the stops however, and the definition of "humane" treatment of animals is constantly being pushed by bleeding-heart animal lovers who really ought to be focusing their energy elsewhere...like in politics of humans that deals nothing with the animals, where the issues really matter and can affect the "humane" treatment of fellow humans in the long run even!

The bible clearly states that Man was intended to have Dominion over Animals. If an animal is in captivity, is being fed, and cared for well in the required capacity, then it's not inhumane treatment...even if they are caged in small spaces to protect them.

 

[monkeyandhead]

In the world of Science and Psychology there ARE set animal rights during experiments, so you can sort of count those as rights. Things like no harm is to be done to an animal, if any harm is necessary it is to be minimal and with painkillers etc. Killing or torture of an animal can only be permitted if the benefits will most likely outweigh the loss, but this is judged upon by a group of other scientists. In social life, animals actually do not have rights, as said above they do what they feel is necessary to survive. Affection is only affection because they know they can get food or hydration from their owner. They don't have the thinking power nor the authority for rights.

But this doesn't mean people go around hurting animals, amongst ourselves we all find something that is acceptable or not acceptable. The people that do pursue in unnecessary harm usually are put before a court and face jail sentences.

They don't have rights, but we treat them like they do, and that's what we should continue to do.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

Animals are living creatures like us and deserve some respect. However, there are some exceptions. Pets, let's see, parrots are a good example of being in the wild. Cage-grown parrots would have trouble surviving, because they're used to things being served for them.. They're also used to human touch (which is supposed to imitate a flock) and they learn things from people too, and as you mentioned feeling - they feel happy. My late parrot would jump in happiness whenever I came near the cage asking to go out. That's an example of pets, but it's kind of depending how they grew up, and the fact pets find it enjoyable to be alongside humans makes the whole wild animals argument go the hell.
As for meat, artificial ones are worked on, and as you know, the food chain says that "one thing comes at another's expense". I don't find it any different than a lion devouring an animal than me eating chicken.

Animals do not have rights. To our current scientific knowledge, no animal has ever shown the signs of sentience at a level high enough to comprehend the fact that they have rights or defend those rights when they are violated. They are intelligent, but only just enough so to ensure their own survival. It is the logical conclusion that granting rights to anything incapable of understanding them is pointless.

I'm pretty sure they have the right to live. And humans should respect that, but not go and act like the "food chain" doesn't exist.

I have no idea about the science part, but as I said. "One thing comes at another's expense"

 

[Gymnotide]

Animals are living creatures like us and deserve some respect. However, there are some exceptions. Pets, let's see, parrots are a good example of being in the wild. Cage-grown parrots would have trouble surviving, because they're used to things being served for them.. They're also used to human touch (which is supposed to imitate a flock) and they learn things from people too, and as you mentioned feeling - they feel happy. My late parrot would jump in happiness whenever I came near the cage asking to go out. That's an example of pets, but it's kind of depending how they grew up, and the fact pets find it enjoyable to be alongside humans makes the whole wild animals argument go the hell.
As for meat, artificial ones are worked on, and as you know, the food chain says that "one thing comes at another's expense". I don't find it any different than a lion devouring an animal than me eating chicken.


I'm pretty sure they have the right to live. And humans should respect that, but not go and act like the "food chain" doesn't exist.

I have no idea about the science part, but as I said. "One thing comes at another's expense"

Regarding domestication, it's a shame that humans have begun to artificially select species, especially that of cats and dogs. We have spurred the unnatural evolution of many species just because, apparently, some dogs are cuter than others. We have created the most useless chimaeras of dog breeds.

In addition, I'm not sure about domestication at all. On one hand, yes, I agree that animals can be happy within loving households, but on the other, it has also created so many problems, both moral and otherwise -- there's selectiveness of pet based on solely appearance, adoption for self-gain i.e. use of pets as property, non-committing adopters, ignorance about pet behavior, neglect, and overpopulation. You might argue that it's not humankind's fault, but rather that of the individual who does not understand. I am not saying that all pet owners carry these traits, however, animal shelters are an ill testament to say that many do.

Finally, I still do not believe that humans can truly gauge the emotions of their domesticated pets. For example, it's not uncommon to mistake Small Dog Syndrome with being "cute" or "happy" (that's when a small dog tends to jump on people, e.g. strangers, its owner, and bark; it's actually an act of aggression brought on by the fact that many small dog owners do not moderate such behavior because small dogs do not seem threatening or intimidating; the end result is that the dogs become more aggressive than need be). It's to no surprise then, that loneliness tends to be one of the most commonly exhibited emotions by pets.

Perhaps that does nothing for the "wild animal" argument, but what if we take wild animals and habituate them to human care without any sense of long-term obligation to them. I'm sure you're aware, but if you throw food at pigeons and they realize that picking up scraps is more effective than hunting, they will prefer to stay in their environment. They won't leave for the winter, and if they can't find a reliable source of food, they starve. You can extrapolate this to this one instance in ___ (Canada, I believe?) where a group of marijuana planters lured bears to their plantation as natural bodyguards. Over time, they became extremely tame and would not attack when approached. Their primal instinct was overridden by what humans have taught them. They were then released into the wild, but now having forgotten how to hunt or fend for themselves, these bears are most likely suffering from their acquired incompetence.

Yes, I am aware that this is a very, very grey area. There's no real right / wrong. However, perhaps it would be better if domestication never happened at all. Still, we can't turn back, so the best thing to do is becoming better pet owners, I guess, and respecting wild animals as wild animals (AND NOT FEEDING THEM).

Also, as for the point about lions and chickens; I believe that most of the dispute about that topic lies mainly on the conditions in which farm-raised animals are held, rather than the fact that they are eaten.

 

[KanadeTenshi]

Regarding domestication, it's a shame that humans have begun to artificially select species, especially that of cats and dogs. We have spurred the unnatural evolution of many species just because, apparently, some dogs are cuter than others. We have created the most useless chimaeras of dog breeds.

In addition, I'm not sure about domestication at all. On one hand, yes, I agree that animals can be happy within loving households, but on the other, it has also created so many problems, both moral and otherwise -- there's selectiveness of pet based on solely appearance, adoption for self-gain i.e. use of pets as property, non-committing adopters, ignorance about pet behavior, neglect, and overpopulation. You might argue that it's not humankind's fault, but rather that of the individual who does not understand. I am not saying that all pet owners carry these traits, however, animal shelters are an ill testament to say that many do.

Finally, I still do not believe that humans can truly gauge the emotions of their domesticated pets. For example, it's not uncommon to mistake Small Dog Syndrome with being "cute" or "happy" (that's when a small dog tends to jump on people, e.g. strangers, its owner, and bark; it's actually an act of aggression brought on by the fact that many small dog owners do not moderate such behavior because small dogs do not seem threatening or intimidating; the end result is that the dogs become more aggressive than need be). It's to no surprise then, that loneliness tends to be one of the most commonly exhibited emotions by pets.

I never said you can gauge the emotions of pets. It's the same with another person, unless you share an extremely good connection with each other, opinions, etc, you can't really gauge their emotions easily, if at all. However, I believe properly raised pets can and will show those "truly ungaugable" emotions you speak of.

Was my parrot biting everyone he could was me being a bad owner? Might be, but some sources say that it's how much of "education" they got during their chickhood. Also, I can't say I could know what my parrot feels all the time, but I know for certain that he felt safe on my shoulder, considering the moment he got on my finger he rushed to my shoulder, and climbed even if I put something in his way. When his wings fully grew, he tended to fly for my shoulder often too.

Perhaps that does nothing for the "wild animal" argument, but what if we take wild animals and habituate them to human care without any sense of long-term obligation to them. I'm sure you're aware, but if you throw food at pigeons and they realize that picking up scraps is more effective than hunting, they will prefer to stay in their environment. They won't leave for the winter, and if they can't find a reliable source of food, they starve. You can extrapolate this to this one instance in ___ (Canada, I believe?) where a group of marijuana planters lured bears to their plantation as natural bodyguards. Over time, they became extremely tame and would not attack when approached. Their primal instinct was overridden by what humans have taught them. They were then released into the wild, but now having forgotten how to hunt or fend for themselves, these bears are most likely suffering from their acquired incompetence.

That could be said exactly for humans. Wouldn't you prefer living in one place where everything's served to you? You get everything you need easily. Wouldn't you prefer to stay there than a place you have to, say, struggle / fight for your food?

Those bears were example of animal abuse. You know what drug dealers are made off; fortune looking *******s, and no regard to others as long as their butt is okay.

Yes, I am aware that this is a very, very grey area. There's no real right / wrong. However, perhaps it would be better if domestication never happened at all. Still, we can't turn back, so the best thing to do is becoming better pet owners, I guess, and respecting wild animals as wild animals (AND NOT FEEDING THEM).

Wild animals are wild animals, they do not equal animals that was taken care of by humans from a little amount of time after birth. Take a wild animals and put it in a cage, it might get used to it, but will suffer endlessly. It will not be friendly to humans at all. Take a human raised one, easier to contact with, and they even consider the cage to be their home.

Not feeding them.. is.. I don't know, really. Some people just throw them out of generousity, and I've yet to hear someone say it's a bad thing to feed wild animals. Maybe if school kicked out some history lessons (too bad for you history lovers, I don't care what happened in the past, not in the long run at least, and most things I learned was past things that have little affect currently and nobody really gives a sheep about them.) and use that time to teach us about the current, and treating wild animals as wild animals might have helped. Or cut literary classes. I'm getting a bit offtopic though, but it would be great if we'd have some animals / other subjects education even if it was minimal instead of our teacher saying how bad we act etc etc etc.

Also, as for the point about lions and chickens; I believe that most of the dispute about that topic lies mainly on the conditions in which farm-raised animals are held, rather than the fact that they are eaten.

Explain me what domestication is. And what do you mean by chimereas breeds? Also, I cannot participate in a cat/dog argument since I never liked them. I prefer birds.

And as for the chickens, we all know how they feed them. Make them big and fatty, if I remember correctly.

Also, if you're another of those animals free in nature crap people bought up, I hate this. I don't see any bad living alongside animals in harmony. Not harmony, but a certain connection, I find it lovely.

 

[Zebeedoo]

I think animals should have specific rights. It's not fair to an animal to just kill it for the sake of it, other than for food, which we obviously need to survive. I really don't like it when people kill animals such as tigers just to make a coat out of their fur. :/ I also believe all animals should roam free in peace, where they can't be harmed in their natural habitat. That way, animals like tigers etc etc wouldn't be nearing extinction. Though unfortunelty, some people are just too selfish to understand that.

 

[-Scourge-]

I think animals should have specific rights. It's not fair to an animal to just kill it for the sake of it, other than for food, which we obviously need to survive. I really don't like it when people kill animals such as tigers just to make a coat out of their fur. :/ I also believe all animals should roam free in peace, where they can't be harmed in their natural habitat. That way, animals like tigers etc etc wouldn't be nearing extinction. Though unfortunelty, some people are just too selfish to understand that.

This.

I think its stupid that people kill animals just for fashion materials.
I also agree with Zebeedoo on the fact of animals roaming free and going where they want (but not into peoples houses, because then they could kill us) I don't see why people are selfish enough to kill Tigers and make them go nearly go to extinction.

 

[tigerfangred91]

Everything has its pros and cons. For example, if we didn't kill animals to eat them a lot more people than already are would be out of food. But then again, if we didn't kill animals then there would be a necessity to engineer some other non-meat solution(humans are so innovative, we'd figure something out). I'm a vegetarian lol

Also, killing animals for sport. I don't like it and think that it is sad to see animals die for no reason other than sport, but talk to someone who is really into hunting and ask them how it feels. They'll tell you how waking up at 3 am and going out there and matching up against a beast is one of the most intense and rewarding experiences a human can have. It's all based on your perspective.

 

[Gymnotide]

I'll address you another time, KanadeTenshi. I don't have time at the moment.

Everything has its pros and cons. For example, if we didn't kill animals to eat them a lot more people than already are would be out of food. But then again, if we didn't kill animals then there would be a necessity to engineer some other non-meat solution(humans are so innovative, we'd figure something out). I'm a vegetarian lol

Also, killing animals for sport. I don't like it and think that it is sad to see animals die for no reason other than sport, but talk to someone who is really into hunting and ask them how it feels. They'll tell you how waking up at 3 am and going out there and matching up against a beast is one of the most intense and rewarding experiences a human can have. It's all based on your perspective.

Fun fact: Hunters are the ones who keep animals alive. The money they pay to go out on a reservation goes toward keeping it running.

 

[SIN1488]

Fun fact: Hunters are the ones who keep animals alive. The money they pay to go out on a reservation goes toward keeping it running.

Yeah, but they keep them alive to kill them..... :S

And I think what the person above you said some hunters say was funny.... "matching up against a beast"

Matching.... lol

The hunter has a freakin gun, the "beast" can't really do anything but run. >_<

I would call it a match if the "beast" had freakin' lasers attached to it or something, but damn...... >_<

And an animals life is just about food, water, and reproduction, it's about living comfortably. And this is just an extreme case, but imagine a bird, cat, or dog that was captured or taken from early in it's life and strapped down so it could move. It gets food, water, and gets washed every once in a while. But is it really comfortable? Can you really deny the fact that something like that feels restricted and uncomfortable? I think it's the same for a lot of animals whose lives we invade, hardships are good for all life if they don't happen all the time, but there's a point where it's to much..... >_<

And I think it's funny how by comparing our brains to animals, we think they don't have any more complex thought than "Get food/get water/reproduce". We are using something that we barely have an understanding of how it works, and we are using it to compare it with the brain of another animal? Just because it's on a smaller, less complex scale does not mean it doesn't work in the same basic way.

I'm going to stop now before I start rambling on and on. >_<

 

[donavannj]

Yeah, but they keep them alive to kill them..... :S

Not quite. They keep them alive so they and others can enjoy them, be it hunting them or just watching them.

And I think what the person above you said some hunters say was funny.... "matching up against a beast"

Matching.... lol

The hunter has a freakin gun, the "beast" can't really do anything but run. >_<

I would call it a match if the "beast" had freakin' lasers attached to it or something, but damn...... >_<[

Tell me this, then: What size animals do most people hunt? Mega-fauna such as deer, moose, wolves, elk, caribou, and bears. Would an unarmed human stand a chance against any these creatures? Only a deer. The gun is an equalizer for the human participant.

Also, I know a fair few people who bow-hunt instead of using rifles, because it's far quieter and far more challenging, as well as less destructive and less expensive. So not every hunter uses a rifle. And every hunter I know actually either uses the meat from their hunt themselves, or gives it to a food shelf.

Like if you murder an animal then you should go to jail instead of just paying a fine. Its that animals right to live. But I don't really know what other kinds of rights an animal would need?

Define that better. Otherwise that puts millions farmers and ranchers in jail, and instantly removes a huge chunk of our global food supply. And many motorists who unintentionally killed an animal while driving because they couldn't avoid it.

 

[o0PinkSquid0o]

Define that better. Otherwise that puts millions farmers and ranchers in jail, and instantly removes a huge chunk of our global food supply. And many motorists who unintentionally killed an animal while driving because they couldn't avoid it.

Sorry, I meant murder an animal out of animal cruelty, not if you're killing for food, and obv you can't help if an animal jumps in front of your car.

I mean like the douche bags who scalped a horse for fun, or the guys who bashed one of our escaped monkey's from the zoo.
Cruel acts towards animals should put humans in jail.

Hope that sounds better? :)

 

[Tony Stark]

Animals have rights, as in we shouldn't butcher them simply for kicks and gigs. But, No animal will ever be equal to a human being. That's why I hate PETA. I wish there was an active group that cared about humans and human rights as fervently as PETA cares about its animals.

And lets not forget, It's natural to hunt other animals. We've been doing it as long as we've around.

I also think people are trying to apply human characteristics here. Treating an animal humanely would imply treating it as a human, which is going a bit far. Animal rights can be respected without elevating them to our level.

 

[Captain Fabio]

I have no problem with animals having their own 'rights'.
The thing that annoys me is the animal rights activists. Those people are some of THE most annoying people in the world.

In a lot of cases, they will cause havoc and campaign for it without taking other peoples 'rights' into consideration. They are just idiots IMO.

 

[Richard Lynch]

Animals do not have rights. To our current scientific knowledge, no animal has ever shown the signs of sentience at a level high enough to comprehend the fact that they have rights or defend those rights when they are violated. They are intelligent, but only just enough so to ensure their own survival. It is the logical conclusion that granting rights to anything incapable of understanding them is pointless.

I think this is perfect reason to give them rights. As a higher order species, it's our responsibility to protect lower order species, no? If someone has a mental disorder that clouds their perception (thus making them unaware of rights), would you say it's pointless to give them rights? I sure hope not.

And it's not logical... but I'll get to that in due time.

With that being said, this does not mean they are not to be treated humanely! Anytime we can possibly deal with an animal in a humane, safe way without endangering ourselves and the animal itself overmuch is sufficient enough. This does not mean we are obligated to pull out all the stops however, and the definition of "humane" treatment of animals is constantly being pushed by bleeding-heart animal lovers who really ought to be focusing their energy elsewhere...like in politics of humans that deals nothing with the animals, where the issues really matter and can affect the "humane" treatment of fellow humans in the long run even!

Politics requires more energy? Perhaps... it stems a lot of wars, and a lot of killing, and in general is there to cover truth. During Bush's reign, our rights (that is, human rights, that which you hold so near and dear) were greatly altered, and some were abolished completely. So, you're saying, it's more important to focus on a subject that can diminish our own rights instead of trying to help the rights of a lower species? Again, I sure hope not. That's just stupid. Politics is topical and won't be pertinent ten years from now. Helping life, however, no matter how small, is remembered for a lifetime.

The bible clearly states that Man was intended to have Dominion over Animals. If an animal is in captivity, is being fed, and cared for well in the required capacity, then it's not inhumane treatment...even if they are caged in small spaces to protect them.

Ah, but you kind of contradict yourself here. The Bible (along with many believers) clearly states that God's ways are higher than ours, and it's futile to try to understand them (in my opinion, this is just a self-sustaining ruse in order to justify merciless death, cruelty and murder, but that's a different story). Anyway, if God's ways are higher than ours, and we can never hope to understand them, then why are we so hell-bent on instilling so-called "God-given rights"? This is in direct opposition to the first paragraph you wrote. If we are incapable of understanding God's ways, why are we deserving of his rights?

Wouldn't it be... pointless, in God's eyes?