"Animal Rights"

[Skylands]

It is hard to regulate animal rights. For the reason that animals cannot understand the concept of rights as they have no morality, hence they cannot defend their right if granted by humans nor follow the rights themselves.

 

[twocows]

What if it's a baby that's been put in an orphanage, or what if it was unwanted? I'm sure there are plenty of babies that aren't loved, as well as people that love animals very much, and plenty that love animals more than babies as well.

Then it still fulfills one of the qualifications I said earlier. It still has the potential for sentience, rational understanding, moral capacity, etc.

 

[doesn't matter]

What if it's a baby that's been put in an orphanage, or what if it was unwanted? I'm sure there are plenty of babies that aren't loved, as well as people that love animals very much, and plenty that love animals more than babies as well.

Potentially, our slaughtering of animals has prevented them from evolving naturally which could have interuppted their development of higher level thinking.
One cow somewhere could have been carrying the genetic code which would later develop and allow cows to talk! Then it was killed, a shame.
Of course, this is a silly situation, but I don't see how the point of "they're less intelligent so deserve to die!" is a stronger argument.

I'm neutral on this subject really. We slaugher so many animals, just because we can. Nobody's going to stop us, who cares? I don't think animals are any more or less deserving of rights than humans, we get rights for the same reason, nobody's going to stop us making rules so we just go ahead and make them.

There are many humans that are less deserving of rights than animals. If people were threatening to kill a dog that had previously saved a baby's life, I'm sure there would be opposition to it. Just because the dog did something that's seen as heroic, it apparently has now earnt respect and the right to live. There are some humans that murder other people, or scam other people, or are generally just nasty people that don't do anything good in their entire life, yet they get more rights than thousands of animals that are just minding their own business.

I don't think there's any real justification for the slaughter of animals. I don't really oppose it very much because I'm just apathetic to the whole situation. Humans can do whatever the hell they want, guess it's just bad luck if an animal happens to be tasty.

Because we're better than them. We are the dominant species. Simple as that. The only reason why we should have any concern for their survival as a species is if it would affect the survival of humanity, but since much of our livestock is bred exclusively for the purpose of killing and consuming, that isn't much of a problem. In addition, this concern is only possible due to our level of intelligence - animals wouldn't be able to recognise this. Instead, they'd just allow natural fluctuations in population to take place and allow things to be restored to equilibrium in that way.

Also, we are part of the natural selection process as well, and so if possibly beneficial changes are lost to death, then that's how it was supposed to be. Don't forget that we're the ones breeding these cows anyway, and any changes would come about as a direct result of our efforts. I guess in that sense it isn't really natural then huh? :P

In any case, animals can't have responsibilities, and therefore cannot have rights. Even so, they are not the same as us, so how could we expect them to be equal to us? Seems a bit foolish really.

Then it still fulfills one of the qualifications I said earlier. It still has the potential for sentience, rational understanding, moral capacity, etc.

Why do any of those qualifications matter if the life in question is human? Any other qualification is quite arbitrary, and using such qualifications when concerning a human life seems to be quite irresponsible to me when evidence as solid as human DNA would be enough.

 

[twocows]

Why do any of those qualifications matter if the life in question is human? Any other qualification is quite arbitrary, and using such qualifications when concerning a human life seems to be quite irresponsible to me when evidence as solid as human DNA would be enough.

Then there's the question of "what if there was some species that was also capable of moral thinking?" By the qualifications I gave, they'd still be within the scope of morality.

I guess you could argue that any species that has proved moral thinking should be under the scope, though.

 

[doesn't matter]

Then there's the question of "what if there was some species that was also capable of moral thinking?" By the qualifications I gave, they'd still be within the scope of morality.

I guess you could argue that any species that has proved moral thinking should be under the scope, though.

I dunno. Even if they have morals, they wouldn't necessarily be of benefit to humanity, or even compatible with our own morals. If such a situation were to occur, I think the only meaningful reason for why we'd protect such creatures would be to study them.

 

[Tyrantrum]

We've already had a kitten burned alive in an oven last year (I think...), puppies thrown into a river, a kitten crushed to death by some hussy with heals, etc. If that doesn't tell us that animals need rights, too, then I don't know what does.

 

[doesn't matter]

We've already had a kitten burned alive in an oven last year (I think...), puppies thrown into a river, a kitten crushed to death by some hussy with heals, etc. If that doesn't tell us that animals need rights, too, then I don't know what does.

So? Just because suffering may occur doesn't mean that they should have rights. You're trying to convince us using emotion, rather than logic.

 

[Livewire]

We've already had a kitten burned alive in an oven last year (I think...), puppies thrown into a river, a kitten crushed to death by some hussy with heals, etc. If that doesn't tell us that animals need rights, too, then I don't know what does.

But would people care as much if that happened to quote "less cuddly" animals? Reptiles, arachnids, birds, etc. Half those people wouldn't care, which is a shame.

 

[Gymnotide]

Also, we are part of the natural selection process as well, and so if possibly beneficial changes are lost to death, then that's how it was supposed to be. Don't forget that we're the ones breeding these cows anyway, and any changes would come about as a direct result of our efforts. I guess in that sense it isn't really natural then huh? :P

Small pedantic tangent alert --

Humans are very much completely uninvolved in Natural Selection, but they are very much the main proprietor in Artificial Selection; anything involving breeding is already outside of the realm of Natural Selection. The point about "how it was supposed to be" is subjective to whether or not the actions of humans are deemed absolute or are to be analyzed in a consequential manner (but either way, it's not strictly Natural Selection).

That being said, humans are one of the least evolving species in terms of Natural Selection to date, rather, relying on Sexual Selection. Artificial Selection of humans is theoretically possible as well, though, few truly practice / enforce it.