Doddy 5636135

I voted for animal rights.

And yes, I do think that prey have a right not to be killed by predators, but predators also have a right to not starve to death.

If we one day have the technology to allow all animals to survive predator free, and for predators to eat without harming other animals, I believe we have a responsibility to implement such technology.

trendkill 5636598

And what is it exactly in the behavior of deer that makes you think being killed is not "interference" with their lives? Give me a break.

You, not someone else, played the "speciesism/prejudice" card. That has implications. You may choose to ignore them, but there's no law that says I have to.

I guess not. "Gays don't have fewer rights, just different ones". Well, the difference works out to be less. Less effort expended in protection, less interest in the individual.

You advocated using animal rights ideology as a practical tool to increase the humanity of peoples' treatment of animals. This can be addressed without making an underlying argument about animal rights. It's a slightly higher-level discussion, where I assume my position on the underlying discussion about animal rights.

I think that the right to life is extremely basic, and it's very hard to even have any other rights if you don't have that one. What good is, say, the right to vote if you can simply be killed at any time? And especially I think that if an individual doesn't even have that basic right to be alive, then it's going to be very difficult to argue with the statement that he has "less" rights than someone who does.

Animals are not different than humans in that humans want to live and animals don't. What you're advocating here, by saying that deer do not have the right to live when it is clearly in their interests to have their lives protected, is nothing less than speciesism.

trendkill 5636648

Good point. And very convenient, as it allows you to punish humans as if animals were humans, but then leave said animals out to be killed by other forces as if they were nothing more than worthless non-rights-holders whose individual lives are meaningless and whose fates can simply be chalked up to environmental necessity. I think this shows a conflict of values. Are animals like humans in that we value each and every one equally and respect their individual interests, or are animal populations like rainfall levels, meaningful as indicators of environmental health but individually disposable? What could the basis be for giving them proxy rights if they are viewed as the latter? I can only see two potential bases for assuming that a class of non-intelligent beings has rights--one, we simply value their individual interests that much, or, possibly as a distinct alternative, we expect them to be able to demand their individual rights at some point in the future. As far as I can tell, your argument precludes the former, and it seems unlikely that any reasonable person would expect the latter.

That's why the word "jurisdiction" featured in my original post. If there are people in our corner of the world whose rights we do not care at all to protect, people who do not share the same protections of others under the government we vote for and institute, for whom we wouldn't even call out animal control if predators were attacking their children, for instance, then it appears that we do not respect their rights.

arkirk 5636718

Rights are something a group of rational beings can NEGOTIATE. They can decide for instance that even if you are going to eventually eat an animal, that while it is alive, it will not be the recipient of cruel or inhumane treatment. Granting these animals the right to humane treatment has side benefits in that the animal is less likely to be diseased when it is eventually eaten.

We are creatures of habit. If we treat animals cruelly, then when somebody is declared "less than human" we already have a battery of cruel treatments at our disposal to practice on them. It makes sense to extend our ethics as far as we can in the world.

Now, what about the rights of fleas and mosquitoes? I doubt rational humans would be quick to grant them any rights whatever. They ARE ANIMALS. Rights seem to be based on the sentience of the being under consideration and the capacity of that being to deliver harm to the human community.

Lucis 5636745

animals have rights because they have feelings and consciousness. but because animals are less conscious and different than humans, they don't have the same rights.

the more conscious something is, the more rights it has. insects don't have as much rights as animals. plants don't have rights because they don't have feelings, but the life on earth is dependent on plants and everything is interconnected, so we also have to treat plants correctly, otherwise we may indirectly interfere on the rights of the other lifeforms that do have rights.

rights come from consciousness, because consciousness creates feelings, which create the duality of good and bad feelings, which create rights and wrongs.

we know what is right and wrong for animals and everything because we have eaten from the tree of knowledge. we feel what is right and wrong, we don't have to think.

vixstile 5636825

Peter Singers philosophy is one of Animal Welfare and is based based on Utilitarianism, not Rights.

I believe I heard him state in this interview that it could theoretically be OK to kill an animal, as long as there was no undue pain or suffering involved. Although he expresses skepticism about the idea of there being a meat industry that doesn't involve some level of undue suffering.

He doesn't believe that animals have a right to this that or the other thing, but rather that is is morally wrong for humans (as higher sentient beings) to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on them.

He does base this on a rejection of speciesism. He believes that if it is wrong to inflict pain and suffering on a human, it is wrong to inflict pain and suffering on an animal.

Now I've never read his book Animal Liberation, so I don't know if I'm 100% accurate here, but this is the impression I have gotten after reading a number of interviews of him.

Doddy 5637010

I think you're right. I think he considers rights to be "political shorthand", and not essential to his viewpoint. But he does occasionally use rights, but not as a central point.

To quote his work "All Animals are Equal"

Bullmoose Too 5637011

I voted no. Can the animals even comprehend their rights or realise they have rights?

Doddy 5637031

No, but neither can many humans who currently have full human rights (like neonates). Why should the ability to be aware of rights be required to have rights?

trendkill 5637033

Yes, "All Animals are Equal", the essay that argues at length that we cannot use any particular characteristic as a basis for equality among beings, and then proceeds to the conclusion that there is one particular characteristic (ability to suffer) that is the basis of equality among beings. :P I've reread it before replying. Maybe rights per se are not very important to Singer, but he clearly states the speciesism argument, complete with the conclusion that the most egregious fruits of speciesism are 1. causing animals to suffer and 2. depriving them of life. From the same essay:
Which I think is close enough for the purposes of this discussion, especially since he's not actually averse to the terminology of rights.

Doddy 5637039

Indeed?

Read the part just after he first quotes Bentham, in which Singer argues

I do think that he does not defend this very well, and I think he defends it better in his work "Is Racial Discrimination Arbitrary", where he says:

Therefore, when Singer argues for justice concerning treatments affecting a being's interests, the morally relevant characteristic is the ability to have interests (i.e. to suffer or not suffer).

trendkill 5637160

I don't think he defends it at all. He defends his selection of that characteristic, is all. And of course he's right that it's distinctive in that it's the characteristic that allows beings to have interests. But all that is is an argument that it's the right characteristic to use. It's still "just" another characteristic. Presumably many people who believe other characteristics are the most important ones have arguments as to why those other characteristics are the right ones to use. For instance, since I (evidently, I'm not too familiar with Singer outside of an essay or two on the Internet) have a more developed concept of what rights mean than Singer does, I consider rights as being at least somewhat distinct from interests, and thus I consider the ability to understand and enter into a social contract to be more relevant to a discussion of animal rights than the bare ability to have interests.

premjan 5637454

The only way to make animal rights practical (in other words more or less like human rights) is to "uplift" then with some sort of gene transplant that makes them the intellectual equal of humans.

exmormon 5638015

What more needs to be said?

exmormon 5638051

Rights are a social construct. They can be claimed, and they can be granted. They can be claimed without being granted (e.g. gay rights in Utah, and maybe California starting tomorrow), and granted without being claimed (e.g. fetus' or children's rights). They're just a social agreement regarding a set of values: a stable, popular willingness to adhere to some set of limits. If enough people decide to behave as if nonhuman animals have rights, then nonhuman animals will have those rights. There's nothing illogical about that. Initial willingness to extend rights where they previously didn't exist, often results from following the logical implications of existing rights, or from an intuitive sense of justice or compassion (and this is the basis for my desire for animals to have more rights), but ultimately rights don't come from logic or sentiment, they come from political power.

trendkill 5638251

No, they come from reason and sentiment, as I've argued, but reason doesn't prevent us from granting what I've called "proxy rights", the only limits on that are our abilities (not just political power, but power, period). Which is why my argument is essentially a practical one--it's virtually impossible to take a consistent ideological stance in dealing with animals that treats them as if they had even the barest set of rights (such as the right to live). We can't even consistently protect the rights of every human, and we expend vast resources in the attempt to do so. And even if we did make the great effort to give animals rights, it would be counterproductive in the end, because protecting individual animals as if each and every life was precious (e.g. a large animal control force to prevent as much predation as possible) would backfire very quickly in terms of upsetting the balance of nature.

arkirk 5638801

I am not so sure about eating of the "tree of knowledge." I am also not so sure that what is right and wrong for animals and everything is so pat that we know it. We have feelings that are not even good for us or our fellow men. How can we be so confident of our ethics regarding animals?

To me, ethics is striving to live in harmony with my environment and as much of its co-inhabitants as I can. That means a lot of observation, a lot of careful consideration, and, among humans, a lot of discussion and debate. Our feelings must be held suspect at all times. We have to think.

exmormon 5639647

All legitimate points. I said "political power" to emphasize the social aspect, but agree that it's "power, period." I also agree that it's "virtually impossible to take a consistent ideological stance..." but that same fact with respect to human rights hasn't, nor should it have, stopped us from extending human rights where possible in the past. We couldn't consistently protect the rights of every white human before we started trying to extend rights to black people. Indeed, as a pragmatist myself, I value the practical benefits of rights over ideological consistency, and view such abstractions as merely a tool of persuasion for extending and enforcing rights - if that tool is necessary, then use it, but if it can be done without the tool, or with that tool working less effectively, still, let's do it. Putting myself in the shoes of someone being denied rights, I'd probably not take kindly to being told that my exclusion is for the sake of ideological consistency.

On the other hand, I contest that given that you're correct that "we expend vast resources in the attempt to" protect the rights of every human, and so few resources protecting animals, the status quo is not more ideologically consistent than if we extended some reasonable (e.g. I think it's absurd to try to put an end to predation in the wild) notion of rights to nonhuman animals. Obviously, consistency is a function of one's own ethical philosophy, but if yours is much like mine, you might find it maddeningly inconsistent to, for example, protect human embryos more than endangered species or even farm animals. I can't fathom (in a secular context, at least) what kind of moral criterion can form the basis of such an inversion of values, and since any such criterion clearly can have nothing to do with whether an organism can think, feel, suffer, or desire (which farm animals can do to some extent, but embryos cannot to any extent), I'm disturbed at the prospects of this for ethics even with respect to humans only: I feel my own rights are more precarious if they are considered to be based on something other than the fact that I value my own welfare and happiness and that others can relate to me about that; it's not merely, or even at all, because my DNA is human that I don't want to be killed, hurt, or deprived of my dignity.

emphryio 5639676

I'm an ethical vegan of 5 years now but I've never thought much of the term 'animal rights'.

Deleet 5639979

It does not have anything to do with being 'logical', so I refuse to vote.

Peter Singer wrote a book called 'Practical Ethics' in which he defends the idea that animals have rights. He argues that any being that have interests have rights, so that includes many animals.

trendkill 5641409

But we could at least support them in principle. With animals, we can't even do that. We have no real choice but to write them off as individuals, in terms of rights. They simply have no place of membership in our society. And you have to be part of society in order to have rights. Their very existence is based on their membership in a non-intelligent 'society', a loose association which thrives on moral inconsistency and would die without it. Trying to impose rights on them individually would destroy them as a group.
I don't. Human embryos have some position in a society of intelligent beings, however tenuous, even though they can't demand rights or even have interests of their own. They are individual human organisms, and thus are members of a species that has the concept of rights.

I feel my rights are much more tenuous if I can in principle be denied even the barest rights simply because I (currently) lack some capacity or other, even if I am a member of a rights-based society.

Doddy 5641534

Cows are individual mammalian organism, and thus are members of a class that has the concept of rights.

I don't get what species has to do with anything.

I feel my rights are tenuous if my rights are given simply because I'm a member of some group (like species), because that group may become less inclusive (or a less inclusive group may be given different rights, such as gender or race). Rights should be based on what capacities I have or don't have, not what other members of my group typically have or don't have.

Apostate1970 5641538

 

Animal rights is not a position, it is a plural thing. That animals have rights is a position and a truth.

Deleet 5641549

Zzz

figuer 5641590

Non-human animals have the right to be transmuted by human stomachs into human parts...

Demon 5641652

You seem to have a limited understanding the term 'rights'. There are certain things like protection from unnecessarily cruel and unusual treatment that any sentient being deserves. A predator has the right to kill its prey because that is the only way the predator can survive. If killing other sentient beings is not essential to one's survival, then one might argue that such actions are immoral, but I'm not going that far.
Again, see above. What makes you think "rights" are limited to the right not to be killed?
Your problem with the term 'animal rights' seems to be a semantic one. When someone speaks of 'animal rights' they don't mean in any way that animals should be offered the same rights as creatures of human-level consciousness. I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue that subsapient creatures could possibly be given rights like freedom of movement, freedom of speech (they don't have it), or the right to vote (LOL).

Antiplastic 5641751

Sorry. I've learned from this thread that it is apparently conceptually impossible for animals to have some rights but not all rights. Just as it is conceptually impossible for a cat to be smaller than an elephant, but larger than a mouse.

trendkill 5642302

If biological relationships mean nothing, then it doesn't make a difference to you whether your brother or a stranger was killed in a car crash yesterday. I somehow doubt you're willing to make that distinction.

I feel my rights are tenuous if my rights are given simply because I'm a member of some group (like species), because that group may become less inclusive (or a less inclusive group may be given different rights, such as gender or race).[/quote]This is a fallacious slippery slope argument. Race and gender can't possibly be barriers to biological relationships in the way species are.

Rights should be granted based on either or both, when applicable, as my argument has implied all along.

However, in the strictest sense, you're right, rights are only possible by your criteria, which means that certain segments of our society whose interests are vital to its continued existence and our lives can't have rights. This is the only reason why there is any question of animal rights in the first place--because we "grant" rights to beings that can't possibly have them (like you, when you were a young child). If we take you as a being existing over time and not just right now when it's convenient, we find that you do not have rights by your own criteria. I find that unacceptable.

LoungeHead 5642389

The granting of rights to animals is for the purpose of regulating human behaviour, not animal behaviour. Thus, the argument Animal Rights are illogical because they cannot regulate animal behaviour is a misunderstanding of what rights are and how they are applied. Animal Rights exist to help us treat animals in an ethical way.

So the question the OP should really be asking, is this:

If morality came about as part of human evolution, in terms of a survival mechanism for social behaviour in human relations, does *human morality only apply to human relations?

Depending on your answer for the above, you can then ask:

Should *human morality be extended to animals?

*I say human morality because some people argue Chimpanzees have morality that governs their social behaviour.

dirkduck 5646900

Does this outlook not lump all forms of negative rights as illogical?

LukeS 5647179

They should have rights viv a vis humans. Whethe these rights are described as such (ie are called "rights") or simply take the form of anti-cruelty laws doesn't really matter to me. Legal protection is the main concern.

If you want to go into the meaning of "right" as something due by nature rather than accident of law, then I would contest that human rights are not discovered but invented too.

misterdobbins 5647800

What do you mean? As I understand it, a negative right is one that compels inaction on one's part. So a negative "animal right" might compel you to refrain from setting dogs on fire. I mean, it doesn't sound any more or less illogical than any other right, human or animal.

It all comes down to what the majority agrees is good and what can be enforced by some governing body. If people are indifferent to the suffering of animals, then animals rights won't exist. If the majority does care, then animals will be granted rights that translate into negative obligations for humans to not do certain things to animals.

I might have just missed your point. Didn't know what a negative right was until you mentioned it.

trendkill 5647930

Nobody has argued with this that I've seen.

Since no one has made that argument, this is pointless.
Animal rights don't exist, and the use of the word "rights" as a tool to "help" ethical behavior and nothing more is an extreme devaluation of actual rights in my opinion.

I fail to see what evolution has to do with anything. You may as well ask "if morality came about as a result of the Big Bang..."

Lots of animals have morality that governs their social behavior. Only humans understand morality, however, and only humans can recognize inconsistencies in a moral system. This is a major difference, and is the basis of rights.

misterdobbins 5650449

What are the arguments that you have heard? I thought LougeHead nailed the principle of the matter, because animal "rights" are more about the treatment of animals by human beings.

Even if no one has made that argument, I don't think it's pointless. In fact, I think a lot of people would endorse that perspective on animal "rights", including myself. What kind of rights do you have in mind when you hear talk of animal rights? I'm sure most of the people who support animal rights are more concerned about mistreatment of animals, not so much giving them freedom of speech or something.

Yes, the term is misleading, but you can think of it as a right that, once granted, requires behavioral change on the part of another party. If I have the right to free speech, someone else is not allowed to gag me. If we give an animal the right to be treated humanely, people are not allowed to treat them inhumanely.

That's taking it to the extreme. Morality is an aspect of humanity, not natural events (unless you think God is the cause). And morality does have adaptive value, because it promotes a stable community. Without thick hides, claws, or sharp teeth, I think it would have been in man's best interest to band together and cooperate, and cooperating effectively requires working under certain rules, such as fair labor contribution and fair distribution of resources. If you didn't abide by what the majority of the group thought was "right" and "good", then you would be exiled and would have less of a chance at survival and/or procuring a mate.

Yes, only humans can grant rights because, as you said, we are the only ones who can truly conceive and understand them. Animals can't grant themselves rights, but humans can certainly grant them rights if they choose to do so, and abide by and/or enforce the parameters of those rights.

Autonemesis 5650502

Yes, they do.

Emerald cockroach wasp

It is common for wasps to paralyze prey to feed to their larvae. The paralyzed prey is eaten while still living, sometimes after a period of storage in the paralyzed state.

Autonemesis 5650510

What if instead, we acquired the technology to eliminate suffering, perhaps by removing the ability of the prey animal to feel pain or fear?

misterdobbins 5650537

Interesting point. I dunno about Doddy, but I'd tentatively say that it sounds sufficient. I doubt that animals can understand or fear death the way human beings can, so for them, death in itself is no big deal.

The dying/death of a dog greatly affects its owner; not so much the dog (provided that it's painless). The experience of pain and suffering, on the other hand, are common to both man and dog.

Doddy 5650597

Yes, I think I agree.

abaddon 5650849

And your point about humans penning animals in cruel conditions for months and years is what?

abaddon 5652390

So, remove what�s common to them and that solves the problem?

I want to make clear that I�m seeing the �animal rights� issue from a more holistic view than just individual animals. I have more interest in environmental issues than animal rights. I�m concerned both animal and plant species can continue their evolutionary courses without being unnecessarily interfered with or even demolished by any one or few species run amok.

If it were elephants pouring over the borders of their ranges and causing widespread damage, leading to widespread ecological damage and so eventually causing much death among themselves as well, then I�d want them managed. But the problematic species that actually fits that description is homo sapiens. This is a species that needs management, but must manage itself (assuming it has the intelligence to do it which might not be the case).

What got me somewhat interested in animals rights (when my main concern is actually environments) is 1) though it�s not the same as working for recognition of an ecosystem�s right to persist with minimal disruption by any one species, there may be some overlap at some level; 2) I�ve read some findings by cognitive ethologists and it�s looking more like the difference between human animals and nonhuman animals is more slender than modernity's Enlightenment mythology had accounted for. And in any case, choosing how to value one species over another is pretty arbitrary. �We�re the smartest�, �we suffer pain more intensely�, et al, are all increasingly doubtful sentiments. And how value is determined from them isn�t clear.

First Copernicus, then Darwin, and now cognitive ethology, have helped to knock humans off their pedestal: we�re not the center of the universe, we�re not the reason for earth�s life, we�re not an endpoint or even necessarily a �successful� experiment in evolution. Many species have "unique" qualities. But the lesson�s a hard one to learn among both religionists and secularists.

Descartes thought people should just ignore an animal�s screams when it�s vivisected. It�s a �soulless machine�; only humans have souls. The later humanists replaced the word �soul� with �sentience� to mean essentially the same thing; "man" has at least more of it. They were just continuing an old, worn-out mythology; only some superficial changes were needed to make it seem less superstitious.

And, now, to really plum the depths of human ugliness, we have persons wondering if we can�t just make Descartes right after all, by modifying out the features of animals that discomfort us. Let�s remove their ability to fear and to sense pain, they suggest. (Yeah, yeah, you think it�s for their benefit, but it�s not; the weak-minded sentimentality about a poor deer getting eaten by wolves is a human foible; really it is the humans� discomfort that you guys want to assuage).

�Man� that is �the measure of all things� can go ahead and, like a virus, eat the world (or, as many might prefer, "develop" it), now aided by a technology for desensitizing wherever desensitization is needed. Instead of just emotionally and ideologically, we might complete the process biologically someday... If animals have interests and possibly rights as well, we can remove the basis of that surgically, with the marvel of "life-enhancing" technology.

If we can do this with other animals, then eventually can�t we do it with humans too? Just take away the feeling (the "sentience") and it�s all OK?

misterdobbins 5652453

I brought up an animal's pain and suffering as an example of something that would motivate someone to endorse animal rights. It is clear to me that animals can experience pain and suffering, so I would endorse measures to prevent it. It is not clear to me that animals experience distress over the concept of their mortality and the loss of it. I think it's a case of blissful ignorance.

I did not mean to come across as saying that I would be fine killing off all animals so long as it is done painlessly; I was only replying to Autonemesis' theoretical scenario. In it, I assumed that the slaughter of animals for human food was a given (as opposed to Doddy's scenario where slaughter is no longer necessary for human food), and said that I would be in favor of a measure to remove pain and suffering from the slaughter.

There is no predetermined evolutionary course, and we humans are not outside the evolutionary process with the decision to interfere or not interfere. Whatever decisions we make will factor into the survival of other species. If a species runs amok, is that not also natural, and something that other species will have to cope with and adapt to? Just another evolutionary pressure, IMO.

So I take it that you would settle for nothing less than the complete abolition of human consumption of meat? All I'm saying is, if there's a measure to reduce animals' pain and suffering, I'm all for it. What discomforts me is not that they have sensory neurons; it is that they suffer. Would you say that it is reprehensible of me to want to reduce animals' suffering? If some kid had set a dog on fire and I had a choice to prevent the dog's sensation of pain, should I refrain from making that choice because pain is a natural sensation? Yes, the animal's suffering causes me discomfort, but only because I believe that it causes the animal discomfort as well.

I'm sure that when we invented anesthetics, we tested them on animals first. When we found that it alleviated their pain, we tried it on human beings, and now anesthesia is used in situations where a human being might experience horribly unbearable pain. It's certainly not unnatural in the sense that we aren't using some fairy powder. Would you object to our ancestors applying a fast-acting poison to their spearheads to quickly put down their prey, or would you prefer it the way that it actually happened, wounding the animal and then tracking it over the course of several hours/days until it died from exhaustion?

abaddon 5652677

I didn�t think anyone was saying killing off all animals would be ok. Though I find Doddy�s scenario of taking the carnivore out of carnivores pretty damn absurd. And I make a point of it because that position goes right to the heart of what bugs me most about people�s attitudes to animals: that we can manipulate their lives (and nature generally) at will to suit us, and do it without a great loss in the quality of life (for everyone, human and otherwise).

I�ve been emphasizing �unnecessary interference� all through my posts because I don�t see humans ever retreating �back into the tree-tops�. Still, as beings that have conceived of alternative life-ways to merely following instincts, they need to accept responsibility for what they do. And other animals don�t. (And yes I consider that fair and equitable). We can�t help but have an impact, but it doesn�t have to be so aggressively manipulative as it is.

If the word �slaughter� in your post means 1) hoarding domestic animals so an excess population of humans can continue growing; and 2) keeping the animals in overly restrictive quarters (in �meat factories�); and 3) pumping them with hormones and antibiotics -- and maybe in the future a load of anesthetics? -- in order to make them last under those conditions... then let's remove that kind of slaughter rather than the pain from it.

I understand that everything is "of nature", and I anticipated this kind of response (which is why I gave the example of elephants first; to show I'm not separating humans out from nature). And I�ve seen this odd contradiction before where a person talks about humans' abilities (usually in the context of a discussion about ethics), mixed with appeals to the naturalness of our most destructive behaviors.

It might be natural for humans to overpopulate the planet and put "evolutionary pressure" on other species (and extinguish 27,000 species each year, which rather indicates our pace is a bit faster than they can adapt...). But if we're such a smart animal then must we do it?

If we want civilization to persist for much longer, or want even to just have a decent reason to hope it does, we might choose to become more responsible for our behaviors and stop excusing them as �natural� or necessary.

No, then I might be stuck with something "unnatural" (or as I prefer, "unnecessary") like Doddy�s position. Omnivores are omnivores, and carnivores are carnivores. I want balance, and since it�s not elephants that ran amok across the world but humans, and they're presumably capable of choices and re-cognizing the value of life, then it�s the humans that must decide on better balances. Recognizing that animals have a right to a life more like they evolved to live (more suited to their own interests, which as you noted probably don't include thoughts about a nice and quiet death eaten by tiny animals instead of big ones), and not live in meat factories before their deaths, is a step in that direction.

Doddy 5652944

The difference is that a sentient (or, rather, sapient) being is capable of choosing whether it wants the feeling of pain or not. Animals cannot consent, so we have to act on their behalf and give them the solution we think is in their interests.

The only alternative I see is to "uplift" the animal kingdom to the requisite intelligence for making these decisions without our assistance.

On the contrary, such an adjustment to nature would surely result in an increased quality of life for the average animal, as such animals would no longer suffer at the hands of predators, disease or other ailments.

It is odd that you are against humans using their human nature as an excuse for causing suffering to other animals, but are in fact arguing quite strongly for allowing carnivores to be excused simply for being carnivores.

Casper 5653439

Spiders do a pretty good job of this if we acknowledge the timeframe of their lives to be relavent.

Lucis 5653672

"i hear environmentalists say 'animals have rights and trees have rights'... yeah right. air molecules have rights too, and we should stop breathing" ----kent hovind

misterdobbins 5653846

I see your point. I have plenty of love for nature and appreciate efforts to preserve it. I do wonder what you feel the proper balance is, and what it is relative to (e.g., relative to our ancestral environment?). What do you think of the current state of the world? California is supposed to be a desert, yet we have trees and lawns and aqueducts and have introduced a bunch of domesticated animals that probably wouldn't have survived in Cali's "default" state. Do you disapprove of the urbanization and suburbanization of California?

Again, I know it's not an easy answer, but where would you draw the line? What is your stance on contemporary agricultural practice? A proposition passed in Cali mandating that farm animals have enough room to move their limbs and lie down - if you could have drafted this prop, how would it read? I know - it's hard to find a balance between animal wellbeing and practical implementation. I'd personally love it if all farm animals had lush open fields to wander around in. Is your vision of the ideal society physically possible? For instance, what if we just let all the animals out of their pens and let them do as they would have naturally done were they not penned up. Sorry for picking extremes; you're free to go wherever in between.[/quote]

I see your point here too. I have no problem eating meat, but the abhorrent living conditions of the animals that I eat is cause for concern. For me, it boils down to their wellbeing. What if animals were raised as human beings were raised in The Matrix? Living perfectly blissfully, but asleep the entire time. Human beings hate the idea because we strive for a meaningful life, which cannot happen if we know it's all a dream. Do animals demonstrate this same drive or overarching awareness of their existence? I don't think they do, but I know they feel pain and can suffer, and struggle to alleviate it. Yes, a Matrix environment would be extremely far-removed from their ancestral habitat. Why is it so bad as long as they're happy? What is it about the "old ways" that is inherently good?

Agreed, nature is not inherently "good", and yes, we would have to adapt to being overrun by elephants.

Right, it's not smart. We probably won't survive if we overrun the planet. On the other hand, technology might save us by providing resources that could no longer be naturally farmed. We know that medical science is already saving people who would have perished in the ancestral environment. Technology is our evolutionary adaptation, and I can see someone arguing that we have cultivated it to combat the pressure of a world that cannot sustain our population. One might even say it is MORE difficult to cull our population, what with all the moral and legal issues. Limit to one child per family? No children per family? State-mandated euthanasia?

In my opinion, rights are cultural constructs, and the degree to which an animal has a right to life depends on the sentiment and enforcement of society. I guess I have no argument with you here (to the extent that I would have no problem eating synthesized meat), but such a view would probably not find much support, given the preponderance of carnivorous human beings.

abaddon 5654036

I agree rights are cultural constructs. I'm having a hard time establishing a basis for "natural rights". Selecting our "constructs" skillfully is necessary to relating with actuality skillfully, so our lives and other lives can flourish. That�s why I pick on the constructs I find most detrimental to earth (where my allegiance lies first, before humans). To me, how we treat animals is just one symptom of our whole mentality about nonhuman nature; it's all "dumb resources".

I don�t think we need to get �ancestral�. There are proposed solutions: permaculture, bioregionalism, et al. Though overpopulation is really a tough nut to crack. But as you correctly noted, the difficulty for them all is working out what people are willing or not willing to do, communally. The changes won't just be political or technological, they must start with our attitudes. I hope we can be increasingly "biocentric", and very soon.

I�ve derailed the thread enough toward my own main interests, and am retreating to think about your kinds of questions more thoroughly after I�ve researched solutions more (where I�ve dwelt on some problems first). Thanks for the thought-provoking exchange.

trendkill 5654088

But no one suggests doing so consistently, is my point. Rights are about the rights-holder, they are not about the person who grants them. If the way the term "rights" is used in this thread by animal "rights" advocates is the way most people see the term "rights", then this explains at least some of the inequality in the human world, I think. "Rights" have much more in common with "whims" under your usage than they do under mine.

misterdobbins 5654146

I agree that the characteristics of a so-called animal right is different from the right of a human being, if only because animals are oblivious to the "rights" we grant them and because they cannot explicitly express a desire to have them (although they can express their likes and dislikes in a way that we can comprehend).

But what do you mean by, "Rights are about the rights-holder..."? Do you mean that in the case of human beings, the rights-holder can assert his entitlement to rights, demand that his rights be protected, etc.? That does make them different from animals, but in both cases, I think rights are also about the rights-giver as well as anyone who interacts with the rights-holder. In democracies, I suppose you could say that the rights-holder is also the rights-giver. But some form of authority has to grant the right, whether it is a monarch by divine decree or a simple majority vote. In addition, your rights have to do with the behavior of other people and how they regulate themselves to honor your rights.

I see why you would describe it as a whim, because people are basically deciding for themselves that organisms - which have not and cannot formally demand rights - get rights. But the term "whim" is extreme IMO, because people aren't arbitrarily or even lightly coming to the decision to give animals "rights". At least with higher order animals, especially mammals, it is very clear that they have emotions (albeit not as complex as ours) and experience pain and suffering. Our own emotional intuition and painful experiences - in combination with our ability to empathize - tell proponents of animal "rights" that it is important and good to do away with cruelty and to alleviate suffering, and we shouldn't ignore animals just because they cannot voice formal complaints. I guess a robot could simulate contorted expressions and cries of anguish, but I think there's enough biological similarity between humans and animals that we can safely assume that unlike Descartes, these biological organisms really ARE experiencing pain. We know how much pain sucks for ourselves; why not take measures to minimize it in animals?

trendkill 5654364

It means that "animal rights" is not properly a subject about humans, human industry, and human behavior. It's a subject about what should happen to animals. And that's not how I see it being treated by animal rights advocates, at all. Nobody is looking at the rights of a deer, they're just looking at how humans typically behave towards deer and saying "that's bad, stop hunting" or whatever. That's not a rights position about the deer, it's a moral judgment about a narrow range of human behavior.* If someone is so deeply concerned about the life of an individual deer that they want to behave as if it has rights, they're going to do a hell of a lot more than just stop people from blowing away some deer. My point is that many people who talk about "animal rights" aren't that concerned. And that's not surprising, since they're actually not coming from what I would consider a "rights" perspective.

Prevention of cruelty is a laudable goal, and one that I can get behind. I voted for Prop 2 and all. But it's a long way from there to treating animals as if they had even the most minimal set of rights. At least for me it is.


*Rights and morality are not just differences in terminology. A right is a claim that can't be properly denied, even if morality conflicts with its exercise. For example, say you own $100, and it is your right to do with that money as you see fit. Not every option available for the use of that money is morally equivalent--putting it into a slot machine is not morally equal to donating it to a good political cause, say. However, because the choice of where the $100 goes is yours by right, the slot machine and the good cause are exactly equal in terms of your right to put that money into them.

Thus, to talk about your right to spend the money is different from talking about the "right way" (i.e. the most morally-proper way) for you to spend the money. The political cause may be the most moral use of your money, but from this, it doesn't follow that the cause now has a right to your donation. The terms aren't interchangeable. Similarly, "the right way to treat animals" is a different subject from "animal rights", and it's an important difference that should not be glossed over.

Well, no, that's not why I used the word "whim", it's because the more straightforward moral judgments are more subjective and require more personal judgment on the part of the person upholding them than a rights judgment would. If animals have the right to live, it's much less of a judgment call as to whether they should be killed than if they don't have a right to live; if they have no right to live, then killing them would still cause them to suffer, so we weigh the pros and cons, etc. If the terminology of the first kind of judgment is used in talking about the second, I'm afraid we're that's a sign we're totally forgetting about the first, and when that happens, then we get popular votes invalidating thousands of gay marriages because of personal judgments that homosexuality is icky or against God, and if it's wrong in the voter's personal judgment, then gays can't really have a right to equal treatment or marriage to their partner of choice, because rights are just simple subjective judgments as to what's good. That extra layer of meaning, the one that says people have certain rights even if the specific way in which they exercise those rights might be immoral, is gone.

misterdobbins 5655476

I think it IS properly a subject about humans, although it is not exclusive to humans. It IS a subject about what should happen to animals, but human actions are integral to the subject. I think most people support "animal rights" because they disapprove of agricultural practices, bloodsport, poaching, etc., which undeniably implicate humans, human industry, and human behavior. Maybe animal rights activists DO look at a deer and saying, "Hunting is bad, because I believe deer have a right to life which overrides human recreational activity." But aside from the deer not being able to assert this position for itself, how is the human stance on this "animal right" different from a human stance on a "human right"? In both cases, someone thinks something is wrong, and popular opinion can flesh out a "right" that prevents such a wrong.

You mentioned that someone who cares about deers' rights need to do a hell of a lot more than prevent it from being blown away. What more should they do? If they believe an animal has a right to life that overrides our outdoor recreational fun, why does the right need to involve more than simply protecting a deer's life?

If people aren't that concerned, it begs the question of why there is even a movement in the first place, or why something like the give-cows-legroom Cali prop passed. Animal rights does not have to be equivalent to human rights for it to be important to humans. At the very least, we can say that enough people care just enough to make change happen.

How would you describe a "most minimal set of rights"? I now know your stance on animal cruelty and your being in favor of establishing formal measures to prevent it. What would be a concrete example, IYO, of a right that an animal might be given? Just trying to see how your stance on cruelty differs from your stance on a possible right.

To be honest though, I'm sure animal rights activists could care less about the semantics, so long as the main intention of their movement is achieved, i.e., no more cruelty.

I agree, I think. IMO, rights derive from morality. They're like a formal manifestation of a despot's morality, the popular morality in a democracy, etc.

I'm not quite sure how to draw the parallel using your analogy. So say the popular vote said, "It is your right to spend your money as you like, which by extension prohibits other people from spending your money or using threats to make you spend it against your wishes." How is that different from saying, "It is an animal's right to not be tormented, which by extensions prohibits other people from tormenting them."

In the same case as your slot machine vs. donation (one being a relatively more ethical exercise of the right than the other), you can fulfill a animal's right to not be tormented by either walking it regularly or leaving it at home all day. In both cases, you aren't tormenting the dog, but surely it is better to walk your dog around than leave it at home all day, which would be incredibly boring and monotonous.

Hm, I don't know about that. Since I try not to let ickiness or notions of symbolic purity/cleanliness factor into my moral judgments, I base a lot of my evaluations on harm. I do not see homosexuality as causing harm, so I support gays getting "gay rights" (not to say they should get special privileges, ofc). I do see animal cruelty as causing harm, so I support animals getting "animal rights". I don't think one of my decisions is more subjective or requires more personal judgment than the other. Personal experience with gays and knowledge of HIV transmission tell me that their sexual preferences do not cause harm. Personal experience with dogs and the knowledge that their sensory neurological structures work in similar fashion to ours tells me that cruel treatment does cause harm in the form of pain, and that animals attempt to escape from painful situations.

(A) If we grant an animal the right to live, then we cannot kill them.

(B) If we don't grant an animal the right to live, then we can kill them.

(C) If we grant an animal the right to not be subjected to needless suffering, then we cannot subject them to needless suffering.

If (B) and also (C), then we can kill them as long as it does not subject them to needless suffering.

All of them are judgment calls. Whether it is a right depends on the majority decision. A combination of (B) and (C) seems to be the current state of affairs in the United States, but I don't see how (A) could be more of a right than (C) could be.

Autonemesis 5655484

A rebuttal to your point that non-humans don't do that, and so your argument that rested on that point is weak.

Autonemesis 5655500

No it isn't. Giving more room to domesticated animals necessarily means taking away habitat from non-domesticated animals, or from humans. Raising domesticated food animals has an impact on the ecology to be sure, but raising them outside a modern farm setting - meat factories if you insist - will have an even greater impact.

trendkill 5656163

I believe I mentioned the massive animal control force that would be needed to stop predation as an example. The world is outraged that the US government didn't do more to stop hurricane Katrina from hurting people, but when it comes to animals being slaughtered year in and year out, US animal rights activists are nowhere to be found. They're only concerned about harm to animals when it's humans doing the harming. This is not a position that shows values consistent with animal rights, not even the most basic right to life.


No it doesn't. People don't believe animals should be mistreated. That doesn't mean they believe in animal rights.

And if animal rights advocates advocated even the barest, most basic set of sub-human rights for animals, this might be on-point. But, as I've argued, they generally don't.

Bare minimum is the right to live. As I've pointed out, other rights don't mean much if you're dead (or can be killed at any time). It seems like it would be extremely hard to argue that a being which lacks the right to live can be meaningfully said to have any rights at all. Going above the bare minimum we might next encounter the right not to be assaulted physically or tortured. But really, only the right to life is necessary to make practical hash of the concept of animal rights.

I'm sure they don't care, however, it's not just semantics at stake. It's philosophy. Animal rights activists can do whatever they want, and I can point out that they promote inconsistent and potentially dangerous ideas about what constitutes a right.

Right, that's how it would work. The problem is that there's no basis for it in the case of the animal. The animal rights activist does not have the necessary value for the animal life to make sense of the claim that it has rights.


This illustrates the gap between your thinking and mine. You conclude that homosexuality is not harmful to society and thus gays should not be denied their legal rights. The religious conservative uses a similar process, comes to the opposite conclusion, and thus takes away their legal rights. I, on the other hand, am not particularly concerned with whether homosexuality might cause a net harm or whether it's an immoral behavior when I decide what legal rights homosexuals should have. What I look at is, what are the rights of humans in relation to marriage? I conclude that it is the right of all humans to marry the person of their choice, and that means that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex or the opposite sex regardless of whether it is "harmful" or even immoral for them to do so. It's not just a question of right, it's a question of rights.

misterdobbins 5657452

Maybe we've just been using different definitions. What part of your definition of a "right" prevents it from being applicable to animals? I mean, I think of rights as legal and/or moral entitlements, so I see no problem applying them to animals.

So do you believe that animals CAN potentially have rights, but that animal rights activists are confusing something else for them? If they argued that animals should have the right to life (in a way that precludes predation), would you then agree that they would be genuinely fighting for animal rights in a way that is consistent and does not promote dangerous ideas? Would I be correct in saying that you believe that animals CAN have rights, but that for their rights to truly BE rights, a right to life must first be granted?

Would your definition of a right read something like, "A moral and/or legal entitlement for things that have a right to life."?

I guess it depends on how you think of death. If death were the most horrible thing ever, then I guess animal rights advocates' sympathies would be misplaced. I think that the death state is a lot like sleep (except no dreams), and since I argue that animals don't suffer over the thought of their own deaths because they lack the cognitive capacity to consider mortality in the same terms as humans, it's not so bad for them. Humans freak out over the thought of death; animals probably don't give death much thought at all. But I'm certain that they hate suffering.

I see your point very clearly, and I agree with it, and I'm understanding your take on rights. When I talk about harm, I'm thinking more in terms of practicality. What if gay marriage did cause harm? Gays might still have a moral right to marry (based on a principle of equality, say), but if the harm were substantial enough, wouldn't the government have a responsibility to step in and prevent it? Wouldn't gays also then have a moral obligation to not get married?

For instance, we have a right to free speech, but the government prevents us from exercising that right in a way that would incite violence or cause moviegoers to trample one another to death. So certain people wouldn't get to say the things they want to say.

If the majority of people decided that gay marriage causes too much harm and voted that gays should not have a right to be married, would it, IYO, still be a right? If I think that I should have a right to kill the people that I hate, but no one else agrees with me, does it still count as a right?

I guess I'm asking, do you believe that rights exist irrespective of popular opinion or authoritative decree? See, I think rights are subjective. We have the rights we have today because most people agreed that certain things are good, and we asked our government to protect them. If people didn't think that, then the rights wouldn't exist, even if a small minority thought otherwise.

Therefore, if people think the government should protect the wellbeing of animals and the government henceforth makes a law to enforce it, how is that not the same as saying, "Animals now have a right not to be subjected to unnecessary suffering."?

If you believe that gays have the right to marry even though the majority of the United States does not think so, doesn't an animal then have a right to life even if the majority of animal rights advocates does not think so? So even IF animal rights activists missed the point, wouldn't animal rights still exist? (Not saying that I personally think animals should have a right to life.)

Plutopowered 5659093

I'm late to the thread (and have read most of it but not all).

I believe your post is completely missing the point of "animal rights".

There's no reason to try to stop a predator / prey relationship because it is needed for survival by the predator.

The difference with human animals is that we have a choice. There is no need to hunt, to eat meat, to harm non human animals in any way since we don't depend on them for survival. The only reason humans do it is for pleasure.

Can anyone argue that human animals are "better" in any way, than non human animals?

The point of animal rights would be to eliminate unecessary killing and suffering of sentient animals (human or not).


Sorry if this has been said already. If it was, I missed it.

trendkill 5659182

I'm not sure it makes sense to say "animals have entitlements". They can't be entitled to something because they aren't able to claim it in the first place. We could act as if they did, which would be what I would call giving them "proxy rights", that is, we think about how they might prefer to exercise their rights if they had any and treat them accordingly. This is what we do in the case of very young or severely-disabled humans. But, again, as I've argued, it makes sense to do this in the case of humans, as a matter of social convention, while it doesn't really work with members of species which are generally not intelligent and don't have actual rights.

I think of death, whatever else it is, as a state of not having any rights. Without the right to live, you don't really have any rights, because if someone doesn't want you to have rights, e.g. the right to vote or whatever, they are not violating your rights by taking them away (by killing you). See how weird it gets? Taking away the right to life makes the whole concept of rights seem inconsistent and meaningless. This is before we even get to whether death per se counts as harm and those types of tough philosophical questions. However, I would note that it is extremely common for killing to be seen as harm by animal rights advocates and, indeed, just about everyone.

I think animals have strong survival instincts and definitely fear death, but I'm not sure they can suffer in the way we mean when we say humans suffer, since I think they live moment-to-moment and can't really see the big picture; they don't hope or despair since they don't have plans or ideas of how life "should" be like humans do. I suspect people often anthropomophize animals excessively when forming their ideas of how animals suffer. Yes, they aren't totally devoid of memory or psychology, so it should be possible for them to suffer in some way, but I doubt it's quite the same thing.


Yes, practical concerns do bear on rights. But even when practicality precludes treating people as their rights demand, if we really are interested in their rights, then we do what we can. Even though it's not practical to give people an absolute right to free speech, we don't use that as an excuse to say "screw it, we're just not going to protect your speech except under extremely narrow instances because it's too much trouble otherwise", we give them the most leeway we can practically give them. And we could give animals a lot more leeway to, say, live, than animal rights advocates ever even think to suggest. Yeah, it's a judgment call exactly what level of protection is practically justified, but in the case of animal rights it's not that they don't suggest doing enough--it's that they don't even think in those terms at all. They just turn a blind eye when the animal's death or suffering isn't caused by a narrow range of human behavior.

Which is what I do, too, so I'm not condemning that view per se. I don't have a problem when wildlife photographers watch and document the suffering or death of prey. But then I'm not embracing the idea that the prey has rights, or else I'd think that the cameraman was doing something horrible by just standing by and watching the kill when he could easily drive up in his Range Rover, scare the predator away and save a life.

I have thought about it, and I think I already explained how it's different. It's different in the same way that "the right thing to do is donate your money to charity" and "the charity has a right to your money" are different. In one case, morality directs you to do something for someone, but the someone in question has no claim on your behavior. In the other case, someone has a claim that you can't morally deny. In the first case, it's general moral principles that dictate the morality of your behavior, regardless of what the person in question says. In the second case, it's the person's demand, actual or presumed, that makes the difference in terms of what the right thing for you to do is.

vixstile 5659306

Thought I would give a heads up.

There is a new interview of Peter Singer over at Point of Inquiry

I haven't had the chance to listen to it yet, but I thought I would bring it to everybodys attention since it was topical.

Freedomseer 5659393

I voted NO because I completely agree with you. I think this fuzzy talk about animal rights is just a new age trend, not a serious philosophical stand. Animal lovers can't relate that well to human beings, therefore they look for the animals as creatures which are not supposed to betray and/or abuse them.

BTW, read this absurdity:

The difference with human animals is that we have a choice. There is no need to hunt, to eat meat, to harm non human animals in any way since we don't depend on them for survival. The only reason humans do it is for pleasure.


You're surely able to show us why we don't need animals for survival, aren't you? Playing the sentimental guy isn't enough. As far as I can see, we need animals for our survival now as we have always needed. We need their flesh and we need their work. What should we do with them if they weren't useful to us?

Plutopowered 5659454

[quote=Freedomseer;5659393] You really might want to re-think what you're saying. Seriously.


Sure. We don't need to eat them, science has progressed far enough as to not need to test on them, and we don't need to kill them for clothing. Cheeseburgers, milk, shoes, fur coats = pleasure.

Why is that hard to understand? What would we need to kill animals for but pleasure? Maybe you have some examples?

Maybe YOU can back up your assertion? We need their flesh? WTF?

You come from the point of view of ownership when you say "what should we do with them if they weren't useful to us?". If it weren't for "them" you and I wouldn't be here right now. Human animals wouldn't exist without non human animals or insects, etc. Human animals don't own non human animals! LOL!

misterdobbins 5659891

Does an entitlement have to be claimed? The vice president is entitled to the presidency if the president dies, but what if he doesn't want to be president? The entitlement to the position still exists (within a reasonable amount of time) even if the position is not claimed. It exists as long as an authority is willing to confer it.

It's social convention to give proxy rights to humans, but why is it social convention in the first place? Isn't it just the principle of helping those that can't help themselves? In this sense, it is applicable to members of nonhuman species who, while less intelligent, can still express their desires in an understandable way but don't have the sociopolitical power to improve their situation on their own. And we can't yet say, "...don't have actual rights" because we're still trying to determine whether they should have actual rights.

Well, being dead prevents you from voting, speaking, pursuing happiness, etc. But I don't think being dead prevents you from not suffering. On the contrary, death is sometimes the solution to suffering. In this sense, I don't think giving an animal the "right" to not suffer needlessly requires a right to life. The only way it would is if you argued that being dead is an extremely horrible experience (like going to Hell). If an animal dies a painless death, then a right to not be subjected to needless suffering has been satisfied. A right to life doesn't need to exist for it to be meaningful and consistent.

Totally agree.

In light of my explanation above about how having a right to not suffer needlessly does not also require a right to life (unless one believes that death causes suffering), do you think that animal rights advocates who advocate only a right to not suffer needlessly are still missing the point by not also advocating a right to life?

I've been using the term "needless suffering" because life always has some measure of suffering, although figuring out what constitutes needless suffering is up for debate. In your example, I wouldn't call it needless suffering, because the predator kills because it needs to eat, and since most animals only have claws and teeth to work with, some suffering is unavoidable.

I think when it comes to animal rights, people are thinking about suffering incurred for the purposes of entertainment and profit. I mean, obviously some people have fun and make money watching bloodsport, but is it necessary to their emotional and financial wellbeing? And of course people gotta make a buck, but is the agricultural industry in such bad shape that you can't even afford to let your animals lie down or move their limbs?

So let's say that a governing body decides to give charities a right to your money. How would that happen? In the case of the United States, a majority of the population would have to think that giving money to charities was such a good thing that the government should enforce it by making it so that charities have a right to your money. Would you call this a right? If not, what quality about this "right" makes it not a right? Isn't a charity's "having a right to your money" just a way to enforce a popularly held moral belief that the right thing to do is give money to charities? I hope I'm not still missing the distinction you were making, but yes, as with all rights, an element of choice is lost in the formalization of popular morality.

Freedomseer 5660792

Plutopowered, my dear, you're the one asserting that animals have rights. You're the one that must show me your evidence.

I know what goes through your mind when you 'defend' animals. We're a product of evolution like them, we are not superior to them, they are entitled to live here 'in peace', like all of us. But this hardly makes any sense. Human beings are not free or rational creatures who can do whatever they want as soon as they 'decide' what's proper for them to do. We live in a capitalist world, where the killing of animals is the butter and bread of millions of people. They aren't supposed to give up their jobs because what they do is not 'moral'...they are surviving, survival is not 'moral'. And they are doing exactly what all the other animals in the world do: they are fighting for life with the weapons that they have at hand.

Just my humble opinion: animal lovers make a pseudo-religion out of their concern for the (other) animals. There are a lot of beasts that are well-treated by human beings, and there are a lot that need to be killed in order to be useful. That's just how nature works. But by defending animals against the 'cruelty' of human evildoers, what are you really fighting for? What do you want us to do with all the animals in the world? Should we 'live' with them in peace and harmony? How? Do they want peace and harmony? Do they want to be our 'friends'? If a cow does not serve as food (maybe that's not the case in India, but for obvious reasons) what will be the use of it? Surely we'll have to let all of them 'live their lives in peace', but where? And how? Or are you really convinced that they should be kept in an ecologically correct zoo, so that we, their 'natural brothers' should call on them? Can't this type of belief lead us to a new sort of cruelty?

Animals have lived on other animals for millions and millions of years. Surely many of us can dispense with animal flesh and fur coats right now, but that's a luxury for few...like most religions, and pseudo-religions, of course. But the question remains the same: if we should not kill or use them for our benefit, what should we do with all of them? What?

trendkill 5661107

What I meant was that if he is entitled to it, that implies that he has the ability to understand that he has a moral claim to it. What would it mean to say that a dog is entitled to the Presidency? We could name the dog President if we wanted, but could we possibly be according the dog his rights when we do so? I don't think we could. And it's not just because the Presidency is a complicated concept. Even if we replace the Presidency with a dog biscuit, and state that the dog has an absolute right to the biscuit to do with as he sees fit, the dog's still won't be able to make the distinction between "I want the biscuit" and "I have a right to the biscuit". To have moral rights, you have to have some understanding of morality. And as I understand the thinking of animals, while some of them may have morality, they lack any real understanding of it.

No, I wouldn't say it's "just" that principle, althought there is definitely that aspect. I think it's also because we recognize that our moral community becomes fragmented if we all just happen not to have any rights at certain times. That hasn't been seen as a problem in some societies, but I think our morality is more advanced than theirs. We are beings that exist over time, and at some point, we had no rights. None of our children, who we need to love and care for in order to preserve our society, have any rights at the point in their lives when they most need that care. Some people (with Down syndrome, perhaps) live their entire lives as meaningful members of human society without ever reaching the level of understanding necessary to really claim their human rights. To devalue such individuals simply because they have no rights requires a certain emotional disconnect that isn't necessary with animals (animals whose society is generally outside the bounds of our moral community). I think the singling out of humans for these sorts of provisional rights is part of the very valuation of individuals that led us to recognize rights in the first place.

Okay, that's a fair point. But it doesn't change the fact that killing is overwhelmingly considered an injury or injustice in itself, and the right to life considered basic, even by people who don't think death per se causes pain.


No. But I think most do advocate a right to life, or at least, they advocate not killing animals rather than just not making them suffer. E.g. Singer advocates vegetarianism, not just humane butchery (although I'm sure he thinks the latter is a step in the right direction).

That's a legal right. I'm talking about moral rights. I don't really understand all the labels and "isms" in ethics, but I suppose I'm a sort of moral realist or objectivist. I think morality is discovered, not created, and rights can't be given or taken away, they just exist. If charities don't have a (moral) right to your donation (and I don't believe they do), giving them a legal right to it wouldn't change that fact.

misterdobbins 5661498

I see your point; if a right requires metaphysical understanding on the part of the "entitled", then no, an animal couldn't have a right. I guess I've just been nitpicking on this point. If a "law" was enacted to prevent needless suffering, then I wouldn't care if it wasn't also a "right".

Further on, you mention being more of a moral realist or objectivist, which might explain our differences in definition. For instance, I have a hard time distinguishing between laws and rights. Gays are currently lacking a "right" to marriage, which also means that it is "illegal" for them to marry. I think that it is morally proper for them to be able to marry, but I wouldn't say that they have a right to marry. I WOULD say that they SHOULD have a right to marry. In this sense, I think that a moral construct becomes a right only after gaining endorsement by an established institution.

But rescue dogs could be said to live their entire lives as meaningful members of human society without reaching... etc., etc. I mean, the dog cannot make meaning for itself, but it can derive a sense of value based on its treatment by humans, and of course the rescue dog is meaningful to society and the people it saves, possibly even more valuable than some humans. Furthermore, emotional connections do develop between humans and animals, and someone might become more attached to their pet than a co-worker (especially an annoying one).

If being eligible for a right requires metaphysical understanding, then this is all moot, but I think that animals can satisfy these criteria.

But are you referring to the killing of humans or the killing of animals? Killing of humans is definitely considered an injury or injustice, but I'm guessing that the majority of the world's population eats meat, and they know full well that their meat comes from slain animals. If this is the case, it seems that most people believe that it is wrong to kill people but permissible to kill animals for food. Is it okay to make an exception to a basic right to life, or would you say that anti-manslaughter yet animal-eating people are being hypocritical? (Having your cake and eating it too kind of deal.)

Maybe it's just nihilistic thinking, but as you mentioned, animals tend to live moment to moment based on rewards and punishments, whereas humans can plot out the future, think in deeper terms than reward/punishment, and see death at the end of it all. And I think death causes a problem for us, because we spend our lives trying to achieve success and wellbeing and better our minds and bodies through learning and exercise, knowing that it's not permanent and will inevitably come to a close. This makes our temporary lives extremely precious, and it is harmful to take it away from someone. But animals don't think this way, and I don't see harm coming to them through death. Also as you mentioned, people have a tendency to anthropomorphize, so...

That's where we differ. I think a legal right is the only right that exists. I think that morality does exist irrespective of law (as something that once derived from but no longer depends on evolutionary pressures), but attaching the term "right", for me, suggests institution of some kind, or an authority with the power to grant moral entitlements.

Plutopowered 5661625

The evidence being human animals don't need to abuse non human animals. It's been shown (scientifically) that non human and human animals experience emotions, feel pain, grieve, etc.

I'll ask again, what else do humans use animals for but their own pleasure?

Cheeseburgers, shoes, fur, glue, etc.

Your talking about several different topics in this one paragraph.

Human beings ARE rational (for the most part) and we, as humans, have something called choice. We can choose to harm others / other animals or not. The killing of animals may or may not be torture, abuse, neglect, experimentation, etc. and why should it include those things?

Plus, since we as human animals have a conscience and choice, why do we need to do any of those things since we know better? There is no reason to kill or do any of the things I just mentioned when it just isn't necessary, especially not to survive.

Who are you talking about that's "fighting for their lives" and HAS to have an animal to survive? Examples please.


What are you talking about? How nature works? What "beasts need to be killed by humans" and for what? Do they need to be tortured? As humans, what animals do we need to torture and, for what? Can you give some examples of what your talking about because what your saying sounds poetic but doesn't really make sense.


Not torturing animals? That's a good start.

How is his even a question?

How about let them be animals and not torture them? Who says we need to do anything but exist with them like we do with most of them. What do you think animals did before humans evolved? Stand around and be confused because no one "used" them for shoes? Because no one "did anything with them"?


Well, they seem to react poorly (as human animals do) to torture, being skinned alive, boiled alive, beaten, tails cut off, etc. Just like people react to the same kinds of torture. So, why do it? There's no need. Can you show any need?


Huh? "Do they want to be our friends? Seriously.

A cow would just go about being a cow. Why is that so difficult to understand? Just like squirrels go about being themselves. What do you think you have to do to animals? Is it humans responsibility to "do something with them"? Once again human animals don't "own" non human animals.

Are you serious? How about live on the planet like they already do?



I'm not sure if you're aware but not every animal is a Carnivore or predator. Once again, very poetic but not close to reality.

You still haven't given any reason to support torture of non human animals while there's plenty of reasons not to (like I've said in my posts).

I really have no idea what you're talking about. What should we do with them? How about not torture, maim, beat, skin alive, club for fur, use steroids on for more meat, put in small cages so they can't move, etc.

Nature has this uncanny ability to control itself without human help. Do you find that so unbelievable? The animal kingdom doesn't need man to "do something" with it.

Plutopowered 5662006

Link to Questions

trendkill 5662155

Yeah, that seems to be a difference on a more basic philosophical level than this discussion. But I will note that your position, along with the definition of a right as an entitlement, seems to imply that there are no purely moral entitlements. This might be a weak reductio.

They could, but I don't see their place in society that way. What is their position supposed to be, exactly? They're not persons, they're not expected to be persons at any point in the future, they're not the family relations of persons. They have a different status--one of livestock, pets, etc. You can become attached to anything, that doesn't mean it has rights.

You think animals can understand the social contract? Maybe on some level, but I doubt it. I think they want stuff, and if they find there are rules for getting it they're going to follow those rules, but I doubt they have a theory of morality such that the would be disposed to call someone out for breaking the rules. If the pigeon starts getting a shock when he fails to press the lever before taking the food, I don't think he goes "this isn't fair, I shouldn't have to press the lever, I have a right to my pellets".

I think it was clear from my example of Singer's position on the subject that I was including animals. Of course people who eat meat aren't likely to consider it an injustice, but that's why animal rights people tend to be vegetarians.

Plutopowered 5663184

He probably has a lot of time to think about this stuff in prison...

misterdobbins 5663327

Would you say that there _are_ purely moral entitlements? If so, did someone/something grant the entitlements, or is it something that we claim for ourselves? For instance, I think you mentioned that gays have a moral right to get married, regardless of legislation. Now, not all people share your view. Is a moral right somehow different from plain ol' subjective morality?

Yeah, at this point, I'm taking the position that animals can't have rights if the definition of a right requires an ability to grasp sociocultural contracts. I was just saying that those reasons given as to why lesser functioning members of society are granted proxy rights (being meaningful, having emotional attachment, etc.) apply to certain non-human animals as well. Here, you've brought up position, so yes, a dog is and will always be a dog, and if rights require metaphysical consideration, then it is incapable of having a right.

I'll still need to think about whether a right needs to be fully grasped by the "entitled" party to truly be a right...

trendkill 5664321

Of course, and I think most people would. It's a rare person that thinks some powerful institution has to lay down the law before you're actually entitled to anything.

As I implied earlier, I'm not too clear on the meaning of labels like "subjective" and "objective" when it comes to morality. A moral right is different from not having a moral right, though. I.e. if I buy something with my own money, someone does not get to come along and take it with the justification that it's best used elsewhere. This is true whether or not there's a law against stealing, because I have a moral right to my own stuff.

misterdobbins 5666836

Okay, that makes sense. The powerful institution factors into it only insofar as it permits or forbids you from getting what you believe you are entitled to.

Yes, it's hard to think of morality in terms of subjectivity and objectivity. Obviously morality is, to an extent, subjective because people don't see eye to eye on ethical issues. But within a given individual's mind, morality can be objective, in that they believe something is always right, no matter what anyone else says. Taking Hitler, most people would agree that he acted immorally, but I'm sure that he himself thought that he was doing the world a favor.

I guess it doesn't really matter in practice though. You believe that you have a right to your own stuff, but suppose you suddenly find yourself in a communist society that thinks they should be able to take away your stuff if you have too much of it and other people don't have enough. You would subjectively believe that you have an objective moral right, that stands irrespective of what the governing authority believes and imposes on you. But it is still objective at all anymore? It's not like a quality of the physical world that we can observe and validate; other people can only take your word for it that what you think is a moral right is in fact perfectly moral.

Zeluvia 5667057

Ideally, to me, we would allow animals to live as naturally as possible before killing them for meat. I think to satisfy industrial production, we should figure out how to grow meat without a brain or nervous system.

Consciousness and the ability to feel pain tell me that we should ethically minimize this pain in other creatures that have the same abilities.

I wouldn't mind seeing hunting preserves expanded, because I think animals that are hunted, such as deer, actually have a better overall quality of life than animals in a feed lot or industrial production setting.

I wouldn't mind paying to hunt a wild cow, for meat for a year, probably be leaner, less additives and hormones.

I don't care for this nonsensical discussion of rights.

arkirk 5667565

A shrike (definitely a non-human) is known to catch lizards and pin them on cactus thorns alive till they feel like coming back and eating them. An Orca can swim through a herd of seals and take a bite out of many of them with the idea of returning and dining at leisure...sometimes just to do it without even returning to eat. We are not the only cruel or heavilly exploitive species. We do not commit the only cruel acts. That does not justify us doing it anyway.

Freedomseer 5667715

that's that.

animal lovers are idealists, that's what I say.

Sabine Grant 5667925

IMO a thought challenging point and I will take the "bait"..

- in general the attribution of rights and privileges implies a specific identity reflecting the capacity to exercise such rights and privileges. Constitutional Rights come to mind as dependent on Constitutional Identity. Human Rights come to mind as in the UDoHR as dependent on being a member of the human species.

-however, in both cases some of those Rights cannot be exercised or even mentally processed by a human being void of any mental capacity. (take a PVS brain trauma person for example). Yet, such subject will still benefit of protection due to his/her initial identity which triggered the attribution of such Rights.

It appears that the identity is the motivational factor in the attribution of Rights.

It would make sense to me that we tend to attribute rights and privileges to other species based on their species identity as we proceed with our own species.

In fact, we do tend to be more protective of species which reflect degrees of resemblance to our own. We will cringe at the news of great apes being in danger of extinction where as most of us would not bat an eye at the news of any insects being in danger of extinction.

The other factor is this : we have integrated other species into our human social constructs. Canine species were not originally evolving in human environments. We removed them from the wild and domesticated them. We sort of elevated them to the rank of "important"enough creatures to become the object of our affection and nurturing. And most probably because dogs will respond and interact with us, returning affection and even providing comfort and aide to us.(guide dogs for the blind for example). In our culture, the notion of consuming dogs as meat is quite repulsive. Because we have developed an emotional bond with them.

Subjectivity : it seems to me that how we treat other species is very subjective. And certainly not logical and consistent with any notion that we value mammals above other species. We would not farm and raise cattle for meat consumption if it were so. Same with pigs. Sheep. Goat. Rabbits. Horses.

However, some folks do have pet pigs, sheep, cows and goat , horses and rabbits.(if not common in the US, we do consume horse meat in Italy and France).
I would bet that a little boy given a choice between an ant farm and a puppy would pick the puppy. Why? because pup will interact with and respond to the human subject.

To conclude : I do not think there is any inherent notion of unilateral Rights existing within other species. Rather we attribute such rights based on our level of emotional connection with other species. Folks who have a pet bunny are going to be repulsed at the idea of eating rabbit meat. I can have a pet bunny(and I have had quite a few) yet appreciate the taste of a rabbit stew as in "Civet de lapin". But under no condition would I consider consuming my pet bunny because I have established an emotional connection with the furry and cute critter. Furry cute critter will be given an importance in my life other bunnies will not benefit of. He becomes worthy of having the right to live and be pampered by me.(and protected). Other bunnies will end up on my stove or in my oven.

trendkill 5668077

I think it matters. There's a difference between beliefs and preferences. It's just a quirk of language that they sometimes sound the same (e.g. "Pizza is better than broccoli"). If morality isn't objective, it's really about preferences and not beliefs. Which is fine until you


I disagree. That's the whole distinction--if morality is objective, then if you reject it, you're not just taking a different preference, you're being irrational. Moral judgments be appealed on grounds of reason; logic and observation can support or disconfirm claims about them.

If it's subjective, however, then what you describe is the case; it is just a matter of preference. In that case, there is absolutely no point in arguing about morality; the most you can do is preach about it.

misterdobbins 5668631

Well, it matters depending on the circumstances. If you were king, it would matter. Whatever you felt to be right would be the law of the land. But when it comes to voting, you may be right that gay marriage is a moral right and that anyone who disagrees with you is... not thinking morally, to put it lightly. But if there are more of them than there are of you, it doesn't matter how right you might be.

But I would say that "Pizza is better than broccoli" IS a belief. Saying, "I prefer pizza to broccoli" would be a preference. People aren't saying, "I prefer to be married to people of the opposite sex." They ARE saying, "Straight marriage is better than gay marriage (because gay marriage is bad)," which is a belief.

So would you say that a communist society is objectively immoral, because a right to your own stuff is objectively moral? (Or was a right to your own stuff just for example's sake?)

I think I agree with the idea that moral judgments should be appealed on grounds of reason, although I'm still having trouble seeing how morality can be objective. I mean, I agree with what you said - if morality is objective and we reject it, we are being irrational, and if morality is subjective, we are just expressing preferences. But how can we know that morality is objective? Even when it comes to observable things, like financial inequality, doesn't someone have to be around to attach a "right/wrong" label to it? Without people, inequality would still exist, but it can't express the rightness or wrongness of its being unequal. A sentient being or beings needs to be around to say so. Doesn't that make it always subjective?