Animal Rights

[Capitalist Pig]

How can you determine an animal's will? Or whether it consents or does not? Are animals even capable of volition? Common sense tells us you can not, and that animals probably do not possess the mental faculties to understand their situation and to give or decline consent to something a human does to it. Animals, after all, are not humans; and while it can be argued that humans are merely animals, too, we are the only sentient animals that we are aware of.

Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, this fact gives us a special rank in the food chain and I daresay affords us dominance over this planet and any other we may inhabit (unless, of course, another sentient species had happened to populate it first).

Just why should animals be granted the same rights that are reserved for man? They can not petition for rights, they do not voluntarily contribute to our society and our continued survival as a species, nor do they make any attempt to integrate with our culture. Animal rights, therefore, are a preposterous notion worthy of nothing but its immediate dismissal as an attempted mockery of mankind.

If you're still not convinced, then follow me to the logical conclusion of the line of thought that leads one to believe in such a silly thing as "animal rights."

Why is it that proponents of animal rights never stop to consider the rights of bugs, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses, and parasites alongside those of animals? Plants, insects, bacteria, viruses, and parasites, after all, are living things, too. Obviously they must possess some kind of inherent will to live, just as they purport animals to have. Why should we not respect their rights as well?

What, pray tell, differentiates the grain farmer from the pig farmer? Does the grain farmer not senselessly slaughter millions of crops every harvest for the manufacture into foodstuffs to feed the greedy, starving human masses? Or how about the microbiologist? Does he not conduct his horrid experiments on viral strains to find new and better ways of murdering them before they can infect another human soul? The virus is only exercising its right to live, even if its mode of living is at the expense of another living organism.

Think of it this way: if animals are allowed to become the property of humans, they may never become extinct. Why, you ask? Because so long as there is a demand for animals, people will do their best to ensure those particular animal populations never become extinct. Cows are in no danger of extinction, because we breed them specifically for industrial purposes: their milk for dairy products, their meat for food and sustenance, their hides for fashioning into coats and other miscellaneous uses. We will probably never see the extinction of deer, because so many people enjoy consuming venison and hunters love to hang them from their mantles. The same applies to fishermen, zoos, wildlife preserves, and so fourth.

Conservation, therefore, is a direct offset from peoples' desires to consume animals! Even if that consumption is restricted to merely owning an animal as a pet.

I originally posted this earlier today on another forum. It's actually part of a post I made in response to the topic of beastiality. The only ommission was the final paragraph, however the rant about animal rights was provoked by the OP's insinuation that animals, somehow, possess rights, or at least ought to. I thought this would make an excellent discussion, as I believe there are a few PETA types lurking around here.

Further reading on animal rights and why they are ridiculous is available here.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

We don't kill animals and eat meat out of cruelty, we do it cause we like the way it tastes. Just like an animal out in the jungle hunting a more passive animal is doing it to survive, they're not doing it because they get a thrill out of torture.

It's energy balance. If there was nothing stronger and meaner to eat the cute stuff, the cute stuff would overpopulate the earth and you wouldn't be able to walk anywhere.....the earth wouldn't be able to sustain itself. So therefore, nature created things to eat the cute stuff we like. But, it did it very intelligently: The cute things are always going to be more plentiful and outnumber the predators. Applying human traits to carnivorous animals is quite dumb.

They tried to do this in a Buffy episode and I cringed. They tried to compare bullies in high school to a pack of hyenas. It sort of worked, but it was just off. Human bullies are....human bullies. They're not hyenas.

I agree with you mostly, but I still think most people eat too much meat in their diets and not enough fruits and veggies to balance everything out. Human beings are quite interesting cause we really are the cute fluffy bunny and the raging wolf, all in the same body.

[GGustavus]

I think we should eat homeless people who don't contribute anything to society.

[Capitalist Pig]

I agree with you mostly, but I still think most people eat too much meat in their diets and not enough fruits and veggies to balance everything out.

Possibly true. We are omnivores, after all, and the bulk of our early diet was what we could gather from foraging.

I think we should eat homeless people who don't contribute anything to society.

I would argue that homeless people still voluntarily contribute more to society than animals do, even if its chiefly the liquor and narcotic industry they patronize.

[GGustavus]

I would argue that homeless people still voluntarily contribute more to society than animals do, even if its chiefly the liquor and narcotic industry they patronize.

I'd argue that cattle contribute more than homeless people because they support the cattle feed industry, cattle regulation industry and bestiality porn industry.

Alright, can we at least eat homeless people who aren't voluntarily homeless, like drop-outs and refugees from war zones?

[Capitalist Pig]

You are ESE?

get out

[Beautiful sky]

get out

GO FUCKING EAT WHAT YOU LIKE. YOU HAVEN'T EVOLVED ONE BIT; THERE'S PLENTY OF A-1 SAUCE FOR YOU TOO.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

It's somewhat irrelevant how you determine an animal's will....at least compared to a human's. In a court of law during a murder case, the unprovoked killing of another is murder.

It's hard for me to place the life of an average animal over that of an average human...and yet it is clear to me that there are too many humans on this planet than it can sustain.

I think that preventing any kind of suffering is generally considered a "good thing", and that it therefore makes more sense to talk of "animal rights" than "vegetable rights".

Saying that species with a greater level of intelligence should have a greater level of rights is a little bit of a shady area - especially if you draw with the human population (it isn't really considered acceptable to say that people with less "intelligence" have less rights). But things should be seen more in terms of self-consciousness and the ability to endure pain and so on.

I don't think a brilliant argument for continuing to breed and eat cows is "by doing so, we ensure they don't go extinct". I think each cow is probably more concerned about not becoming extinct itself, not on the future of its 'species'. As it happens, the species of cow that is eaten around the world is a domesticated species with a fairly narrow genepool which may do so well in the wild compared to a wild species. ...Although the wild species that domesicated cattle originate from became extinct a few centuries ago, ultimately because of human intervention.

Not wiping out species is generally a Good Thing...but continuing the breeding of cattle and the growing of domesticated crops is almost the opposite of that.

[Absurd]

Yeah, CP, you need to watch more interviews.

[Capitalist Pig]

[Beautiful sky]

::

Do you have any pets?

*Well, try not to have them*

How do you pose such a shallow argument in the 21st century?
We justify our actions no matter what corner we turn. If we eat meat, then we're at the top of the food chain. If we kill, then we do it rightfully so. Let's abandon all of our efforts, in science and just lead nomadic lives. If we run out of food, let's start killing each other.

We came up with an agricultural society to sustain a steady flow of food. We don't need to rape the sea and the land for food. We don't need to kill the homeless either. We need to think smart, like when we started to think when we developed ways to have food without eating everything up. In that I hope is where our humanity is, and where we can evolve.

[discojoe]

I eat animals because I don't care about them.

[Beautiful sky]

I eat animals because I don't care about them.

then eat your dogs
why should you care about them?

purchase one less steak this month and start chopping those dogs for food.

are you going to share the meat?
*if so, do it with CP and GG*

[discojoe]

then eat your dogs
why should you care about them?

purchase one less steak this month and start chopping those dogs for food.

are you going to share the meat?
*if so, do it with CP and GG*

I care about my dogs only because they are mine.

[Beautiful sky]

I care about my dogs only because they are mine.

Great argument:

I don't eat it because I own it. Lots of people eat their sheep and their cows and they own them.

I don't kill people because I don't want to go to prison.

How do you suppose that law came into effect?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

How do you suppose that law came into effect?

There was some general consensus that killing your neighbours without their permission is not generally a good thing

[Beautiful sky]

Here's a better argument DJ

I eat cows because they are not as energetic as dogs, they don't follow me around begging me for food and give me the "kind of attention" that I feel my dog gives me. So I eat it.

New rights; those who have less feelings can eat the humans who have more feelings. Hopefully, you'll take me first and be humane about it, as in give me a sedative before you chop me up.

There was some general consensus that killing your neighbours without their permission is not generally a good thing

Because people started to have feelings and feelings are generally a product of evolution. Wailing after the loss of your loved one becomes annoying after a few days.

[Beast Man]

Capitalist Pig: It appears you don't understand the word "sentient". It means to have perception by means of the senses. In other words, it means having subjective awareness, which commonly includes the capacity to experience pain or pleasure. Many animals (e.g., dogs, cats, pigs, cows, wolves, mice) are sentient. Rene Descartes denied this, but his views are considered several hundred years out of date.

You ask, "Why is it that proponents of animal rights never stop to consider the rights of bugs, insects, plants, bacteria, viruses, and parasites alongside those of animals?" The simple answer is that these creatures are not sentient. If a being is not sentient, then nothing done to it can make any difference to it subjectively, because it has no subjectivity. A pig is a "someone" -- there is "someone home", so to speak; what happens to the pig matters to the pig. A plant is no one; there's no one there. This is not rocket science.

Most humans exhibit greater mental capacities than animals, but not all humans do (infants, the severely mentally handicapped, the senile). Many animals are more intelligent than many humans. Many animals exhibit more autonomy than many humans. Many humans cannot petition for rights and indeed have no conception of rights and responsibilities. Wherever we decide to draw the line for entry to the moral community (i.e., those whose interests count significantly and who must be accorded respect), either some humans will fail to make the cut or else some animals will make the cut. (This is called the argument from marginal cases.)

Capitalist Pig, you seem to be a libertarian of some sort. Libertarians ought to support animal rights, as this article makes clear.

If anyone is serious about finding out whether the notion of animal rights makes sense, they might consider either this book or this one.

[Satan]

Beast - you're trying to have a conversation with a pig.

[Crispy]

Most humans exhibit greater mental capacities than animals, but not all humans do (infants, the severely mentally handicapped, the senile)

With the exception of the severely mentally handicapped this is a horrible argument. Infants DO (read: have the potential to) have much greater mental capacities than animals in the long term (which is what matters). The average infant will grow into a being with much greater mental capabilities and the average senile individual WAS a being with much greater mental capabilities. You are focusing on a momentary phase of an individuals life and not looking at the beings full potential. In the case of the mentally handicapped, they probably shouldn't hold the same rights, but do so because they belong to a species that is empathetic towards it's own species.

If other animals can kill lesser species guilt-free, we should be entitled to the same, until of course the animal kingdom comes together and bans it.

, as this article makes clear.

EDIT: Just read most of this link.
I totally agree with The Argument for Species Normality. I also find there's a major hole in the rebuttal to this argument.

This idea'that how individuals should be treated is determined by what is normal for their species'has a certain appeal, because it does seem to express our moral intuition about defective humans. 'We should not treat a person worse merely because he has been so unfortunate,' we might say about someone who has suffered brain damage. But the idea will not bear close inspection. Suppose (what is probably impossible) that a chimpanzee learned to read and speak English. And suppose he eventually was able to converse about science, literature, and morals. Finally he wants to attend university classes. Now there might be various arguments about whether to permit this, but suppose someone argued as follows: Only humans should be allowed to attend these classes. Humans can read, talk, and understand science. Chimps cannot.' But this chimp can do those things. 'Yes, but normal chimps cannot, and that is what matters.' Is this a good argument? Regardless of what other arguments might be persuasive, this one is weak. It assumes that we should determine how an individual is to be treated, not on the basis of its qualities, but on the basis of other individuals' qualities. This chimp is not permitted to do something that requires reading, despite the fact that he can read, because other chimps cannot. That seems not only unfair, but irrational. (p. 100, Animal Rights and Human Obligations, Tom Regan and Peter Singer, eds.).

In order for there to be a chimp that crossed the threshold into smartville, his species would have to be on an evolutionary chain to produce MORE smart chimps. Since we would recognize the potential for OTHER chimps to become smart like this one did, we would then place chimps on equal grounds with humans, and Species Normality still works.

Therefore, according to the Argument from Species Normality, we should punish even marginal humans for their bad actions. If, for example, a man suffering from the advanced stages of Alzheimer's escapes from a nursing home, steals a car, and runs over a child, we should convict him of manslaughter and throw him in the clink.

Yes in this case, if a senile old man runs over a young child, we SHOULD convict him. Species Normality holds.

[The Exception]

With the exception of the severely mentally handicapped this is a horrible argument. Infants DO (read: have the potential to) have much greater mental capacities than animals in the long term (which is what matters). The average infant will grow into a being with much greater mental capabilities and the average senile individual WAS a being with much greater mental capabilities. You are focusing on a momentary phase of an individuals life and not looking at the beings full potential. In the case of the mentally handicapped, they probably shouldn't hold the same rights, but do so because they belong to a species that is empathetic towards it's own species.

Also want to add that the mentally handicapped are not completely useless! The mentally handicapped can still think, reason, and feel just like the rest of us. Some of them can hold simple jobs. People with normal intelligence would probably think of them as menial tasks, but these jobs do serve some purpose to society. Also, some of the mentally handicapped people are kind, generous, and loving and bring joy to the others around them.

[Beautiful sky]

I see nothing wrong with eating meat, but at the same time I believe we should be respectful and thankful for animals, and this means treating them humanly. Even though they may not understand what's going on, they may still have an inner knowing. I feel like they most often sense things, perhaps more strongly than us, and of course, they feel pain too.

This expresses my feelings on the topic well. Thanks.
In many ways, I find that INFp's are my window to expressing my feelings the way I want them to be expressed

[Azeroffs]

Whats the point in asking whether or not animals have rights when it seems pretty clear that rights don't exist any more than the ten commandments.

I'll just assume the question is whether or not we should give animals the same treatment as people. In that case, we should probably do whatever is beneficial to do. Unless it would be beneficial to do otherwise, generally we shouldn't let animals go extinct. Beyond that, there's no reason to go out of our way to make animals suffer, but unless it will affect your sleep, we should do whatever will make life easiest. Pain is the price for life. Of course the consequence of this is that if enough believe that animals should have "rights" for whatever reason, then we should grant it to them. It wouldn't be beneficial to contradict the majority. Obviously not to the whole, and in most cases not to the individual.