Animal Rights
I was going to start a thread on morals in general but I realised as I was typing that I was starting to ramble and was about to begin generalising to the point of absurdity. So, I've decided to skip all of that and dive straight into the ses-pit that is animal rights.
Firstly, I do not believe in a God or any form of higher power. As a result I believe morals have no greater value than what we place in them. If we do adopt morals as a society then what should these entail? Basically I believe in a 'treat others how you would like to be treated' morality. Seeing as how different people want to be treated in different ways the logical move would be to present the maximum level of freedom and only prohibit actions that would have a negative effect on others i.e. I have the right not to be attacked randomly in the street. Moving on from this I do not believe in a soul. People are just animals with a more developed brain. this allows us to think but we share a lot of characteristics with animals. the characteristic I am interested in right now is the ability of animals to feel pain. I believe animals feel pain. As a result I believe that they have the right not to be tortured. Seeing as human beings are not a higher form of life when compared to animals it therefore follows that animals shoud shre some of the same basic rights. For if it is right to kill and eat a pig then surely it is the same to kill and eat a human being. I can see no reason why (apart from potential health risks) why it would be acceptable to eat all other animals except for human beings. the same goes for animal testing. If it is ok to test on a mouse then why not on a human being? Once the illusionary distinction between humans and animals is removed (which is only there for conveinance) things become far more complex. I believe in the future that vegetarianism will become the norm (unless scientists can grow meat in a lab, the result of which would be meat with no suffering from an animal) and the only reason I am not one now is because I do not care enough to change my lifestyle. I am under no illusions and am fully aware that I am being hypocritical but it does not bother me enough for me to change my ways, much in the same way I suppose as con-men and people responsible for dumping shed loads of chemical waste into seas and rivers etc don't stop doing what they do even though they are aware others are negatively affected. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
ok what i think about this. Is that we are the supereor life form on this planet. Uther wize we would not have come out on top of all uthers and echeved what we have. I also think that in respect to the eating animas point. Is that if you have a problem with that then do not eat animals and let uther humans do it. Because we evolved around eatin animas like the pig cow sheap dear and all uthers. It was the way we evolved. It is the same with all uther carniverus mamals and animals thay have evolved to eat uther animals the only resen we are on top is probaly by chance in the evolushonary scale. For all we now it could have endid up that say sheep or pigs or the clasic monkey came out on top. And could be eating us but it would still be the same problem. Is it right to eat uther mamals or animals.
I think yes as it is the way i have been brought up. I was brought up a meat eater and will alway be one and in respect to the pain thing yes animals almost certenly feal pain thay do every day and when thay hurt or get hurt. pain is when you scratch your self you are basicly releving paine will even more pain. as pain is just an acrivation of your nerve endings this is all i am going to say if you read this then thanks for reading it neptis arcos |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
You could argue that animals do not feel pain and their actions are just an automated response but I have seen no evidence for that and I'm not sure you could prove that anyway. Would that be the same for a mouse as it is for an ape? If you agree that humans should be spared physical pain when possible and that humans are not intrinsically different from other animals then I do not see why the same rule should not be applied to animals. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have evolved. We are capable of free thought and we can change the way we treat the world. Black people used to be sold in the slave trade but you couldn't justify it now by saying it's what we've done in the past. Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
If lions are not really different from people, and lions kill antelopes, why can't we kill cows?
|
Re: Animal Rights
i agree not to torture, eat, mutilate, assault, or otherwise painfully violate other human beings partly on the principle that they have made a similar agreement with respect to me.
not to say that i'm down with torturing animals, but just to say that 'humans are just like any other animals' isn't fair, humans are animals that can be on the record as not planning to chew on my still-living body. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Humans are used in testing - clinical trials. If you want to abolish animal testing and throw new drugs at humans you would kill people by the billion (assuming an unlimited supply of people who were not scared off by the death of others). The other option would be to stop the progression of drug discovery. Interestingly about 8 times more rats/mice are killed each year by pest control than by medical research. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
If people were in a position where the only way vo survive was to kill and eat animals then fair enough, survival of the fittest and all that. But we as a species have evolved past that and the killing of animals and the eating of their flesh is just for pleasure. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Edit: Looks like I'm going to have to start answering more than one person in each post. |
Re: Animal Rights
How do you know that lions couldn't have allotments if they wanted them?
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
I know you're being stupid but I thought I'd try and answer in a serious way regardless. |
Re: Animal Rights
David Attenborough is probably in cahoots with the lions to keep their agricultural tendencies secret from us.
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
We as people (theoretically at least) assume the responsibility of protecting those who cannnot defend themslves. We look after the mentally ill who may not be able to understand their rights and responsibilities in society. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Non-human animals do not have the required level of mental powers to make talk of 'rights' coherent. Lions dont refrain from biting you due to their thinking that you have the right to life. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Besides that we clearly have to draw the line somewhere. I'd rather not live in a society which goes around imprisoning people for squashing irritating insects to be honest. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
All this aside you're going to run into vast practical problems concerning where the hell all the animals are going to go. Presuming we're not going completely barmy and saying animals can own property where are we going to put them all? I rather doubt that many people are going to find 50 million cows that amusing to have around when you're not allowed to kill them and sell them. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
but boy doesn't it taste good. |
Re: Animal Rights
Nature is something that for me is sacred. Not in a spiritual way, althought you can find many strange and wonderfull things, I do not belive its a entity that is alive on its own but more a system that has evolved and involves everything in it, and should not be tampered or destroyed nedlessy (for me, that is profit).
I'm against fur, beacause the idea of torturing these animals just for fashion is sick. I also belive that industrial farming on animals for profit is wrong, as its tampering and destroying nature too much. However, in nature, animals eat other animals. It's the cycle of life, and we (as a race) is part of it. So, ecological farming (and husbandry, hunting) is in my eyes okay. Holding tens of thousands of chikens in a small, closed enviroment, cut out from their natural habitation and lifecycle is wrong. But killing a chiken and eating it? No. Imprisoning mink/fox for fur is wrong, but if you kill a lion in selfdefense or kill a bison for food, is using everypart of it wrong? No. I was a vegetarian when I was younger and thought punk music was the coolest thing in the world (as was throwing rocks and eating from dumpsters) I've reconsidered my stance on veganism/vegetarism, and have adopted a more pro-eco stance. Id rather try to convince people to by ecological food, or drive 5 in a car instead of 1, then run around moralizing about them eating meat, as that would have a much greater effect on nature. |
Re: Animal Rights
I have always personally thought that vegatarianism was foolish, simply because it deprives the human body of a source sustenance which it was designed to take in. It is true that we have evolved into a state where we can make moral decisions about the process of killing other animals for food, but presently I see no justification against it.
On abolition of the meat industry, there would also be many economic ramifications. I'm sure you are aware of this and won't bother to go into, as it's not all that revlevent to you're argument in the way you have presented it. An interesting note; since you do not consider us to be 'special' or a 'higher life form' as it were, does this mean that you would not consider human life to be worth more than that of an animal? Personally I would. ( I am not insinuating that you do not value human life, but this would have to be a consideration surely in not classifying humans as higher life forms). |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
it was only my opinion. ----------------------------- aculy we are a race of super iteligen chimpanze thair is only a 0.09 % diference in our dna. And in respect to the the Quote about the black slave trade. That has nuthing what so ever to do with animals so why bring it up?. And of corce it dus not make it right just because we have dun it in the past. I was saying i have eatin meat and always will i did not say it was ok to do it i just do because it was the way i was brought up. but that is irelivent to the point. What i am besicly saying is that we evolved to be the hier for of life on the planet problay by chance. Thairfor our ansesters desided to start hunting the animals around them for survivel and for the food and pelt to make the clothing. And that is a tradishon that has continude up untill our lifetimes and will continu after ours. We also have farms with the cattel because it makes it esyer for us to get our food. i am not saying it is right but it is not wrong ether this agen is just my opinion respectfuly neptis arcos |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not really sure how you would define 'higher form of life' as there are so many ways to do it. the most conveniant for people would be to assume our main attribute (i.e. intelligence) is the marker on which animals should be graded. It could also imply the length of time an animal has survived without major evolutionary changes, like a shark (am I right about this point? How much have they changed?). then again, you could go with a species ability to survive in which case it would be bugs (such as the cockroach) which would be consdiered the highest forms of life. It all really depends what the phrase to represent. Quote:
Quote:
this does not justify hunting lions for fun. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Would I save the life of an animal over that of a human? Probably not, but then we can go into specifics circumstances. For example, you might be inclined to save a cow rather than a human being if you were stuck on a desert island as the cow has a greater use value (had to get Marx in here somewhere :) ) although conversation would be more tedious, but at least you would survive longer. Even considering this most people (I imagine) would be inclined to save the human even though this may diminish the chances of survival. Quote:
Don't take it personally it is just a debate. Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
We've had this discussion many times before (if you have a look through the archives this could be in the top ten most discussed topics). But anyway, a few issues which I normally mention :
1. I would distinguish between 'pain' and 'suffering'. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting an animal can't feel pain, because usually that's defined to mean "sense damage / harm" or something like that. And as I usually point out, that doesn't mean an awful lot. An NPC in a computer game can sense when it is being "damaged" and can even cry out, if so programmed. Yet no-one (yet) calls for rights for NPCs. I suspect some idiot will though, and will use the same dismal line of argument as most animal rights advocates ("OMFG, it purred when I stroked it!!!") But suffering is not sensing pain. Humans can suffer, animals & NPCs (I would suggest) cannot. They cannot think (in any meaningful sense) about pain, they cannot reflect on damage to them, there is no emotional response. And that is where I draw the line. I concede that in the future some scientific research could show some that (say) some primates do have the ability to "think" in the sense I am talking, but I won't hold my breath. 2. I would avoid terms like "higher" or "lower" in this sort of context. They're needlessly loaded terms. I have no idea what "higher life form" means but it doesn't sound like a very scientific term. 3. Saying things like "We're just animals" is pretty meaningless. You might as well say "We're just collections of atoms". It's true, in a sense, but it doesn't help us really answer the question of whether we should treat a lump of coal any different from a human being. Otherwise, see my previous posts on this topic. In general I care a lot less about animal rights than I used to, although I do tend towards the belief that anyone who supports the prospect of rights for insects (or whatever) is probably borderline mentally ill. I concede this is grossly unfair however. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
I can hold non-human animals accountable, I hold my dog accountable for peeing on the floor, he will hide after he does it because he know's it was wrong. Dogs and other animals even lions have been shown they have the ability to be trained, remember, and even be remorseful for actions, and don't tell me a dog won't try to reason you by giving you a cute look and doing tricks and other things to get you to overlook them doing something they weren't supposed to. |
Re: Animal Rights
Would you still oppose animal testing if you knew it could bring about a cure for a disease that affected you, or a family member?
Rights aren't real, you know. Society invented them. As such, it is up to society whether or not we extend them to non-human animals. I would rather see a cure for a human disease than see a rat happily frolicking in the undergrowth, regardless of 'what nature intended'. My own personal take on this rights thing: Rights don't exist. If anyone had the intrinsic right to life, they would never die. What we DO have is an agreement among members of our society to not kill each other. If you don't believe in an objective moral construct, then we have no intrinsic responsibilities - all we have are the ones we agreed to when we accepted our place in this society, and the ones we impose an ourselves, eg not drinking, not shagging before marriage, vegetarianism. So all we end up with, apart from a small set of rules that we each apply to ourselves individually, is a set of rules that we all have to follow, and that set of rules is decided by society. You say that you believe in a 'treat others how you would like to be treated' morality. That's really cute, but I think life isn't so black and white. I see people suffering with diseases that could be cured if we searched for a cure using animals. On one hand, there are suffering humans. On the other, some suffering animals. Unless we can objectively decide who would be suffering more, the only difference between testing and not testing is that one is an action and the other an inaction, which makes no differnce, morally speaking. Then what? The 'right' thing to do is a matter of opinion, and you are not involved (you're not doing the testing, being tested on, or in need of the cure), so what business is it of yours anyway? Undoubtably, you'll say you're a 'voice for the animals'. But you aren't really all that well qualified to speak on the matter, unless you, say, do research studying pain. Chances are you've never seen the inside of a lab. You just don't like the thought of cute likkle bunnies being cut open. And, tbh, the distress that thought causes you is nothing to the suffering of the humans who need treatments. There are people in our society willing to work on these treatments, so I say good luck to them. Obviously I am skimming somewhat over the issue of the animals' pain. I don't like them suffering either. But I like the thought of suffering humans even less. And at the end of the day, people and animals all over the world suffer all the time. All you're doing by stopping/allowing testing is redistributing that pain to ease suffering for part of the group. Mine's a vote for the humans. Yours is a vote for the animals. We'll have to beg to differ. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Anyways, I assume you have no opinion whatsoever on a certain famous genocide commited during WWII? Or more relavant, the various medical trials the germans commited on gypsies, jews and other deviants? No qualms about them doing it again? It won't affect you directly, you know... None of us live in a vacuum. People having opinions on issues that doesn't affect them directly is what's keeping democrazy here "working" (as opposed to the shambles that is democrazy in Russia or what's happended in Africa f.x.). |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quite frankly I find your entire response to be emotional drivel, completely condescending and patronising and I I shall no longer be conversing with you on this (or any other) matter because this is not a one-off this is acommon theme in your posting. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Quote:
. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
neptis arcos |
Re: Animal Rights
I really don't want to go through this whole thread and pick out everything that's madness, so I'll just choose a random quote.
Quote:
neptis arcos |
Re: Animal Rights
well aculy do you onisly think that eny one just because thay want to can live for ever. No thay canot
as in this universce/planet every thing dies eventuly. wich is the basis of the only thing certen in life is death (we all have to die some time )itis a mater of time and thats it neptis |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Right. Quote:
|
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Very similarly to this, I'd say that doctors in the United States who carry out abortions are certainly being brave (given the political climate over there). You might respond "What, slaughtering the unborn - yeah what heroes!" but then that would reveal a philosophical difference. Either way, I think we should agree that people who do a job in very difficult circumstances are probably not just being pointless sadists or murderers for the sake of it. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
there were so many of these contained in that one post that it really started to get on my nerves andmade a sarcastic comment. It really reads like it was written about a completely different topic and accidently pasted here due to an administrative error. |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
(I'm not even doing a devil's advocate thing here, I'm serious) |
Re: Animal Rights
Quote:
Dogs >>> Babies |
Re: Animal Rights
What about insect rights?
What about microbe rights? You are right, we do have the ability to chose. I chose to eat animals, wear animals, test on animals. It is in my nature. |
Re: Animal Rights
somewhere the logic of
'do as you would like to be done to' 'we are animals' 'treat animals like humans' fails at the point that because we are animals, we can simply use and abuse other animals to our liking as they would do to us if they were in that position. |
Re: Animal Rights
Why are you not more concerned with the rate of abortions?
|
Re: Animal Rights
I don't like the idea of testing on human babies, but thinking about it in a detached and objective point of view, no, I don't see the problem. I reserve the right to feel horrible about the thought of doing something, even if I can find nothing objectively wrong with it.
As far as the question of whether or not we should allow it goes, I think the consensus among people in society is that too many people would feel uncomfortable with it for us to allow it. I derive that in the same way we arrive at 'thou shalt not commit murder'. I don't believe it is objectively wrong, because I don't believe in objective morals, but it's 'wrong' in society because one hell of a lot of people don't like it. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:10. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018