Do animals have rights?

Oi....this discussion again. Well, in all honesty, I don't give a flying fark about animal rights. And I'm not insensitive or some sort of guy who hates animals. I own 2 cats myself. The thing is, what do animals have the right to? Food every morning? Fresh water? It doesn't matter because the cost of getting this to every animal in the US would be beyond millions.

What I do think is that animals have the right to be treated in good measure, not as equal as humans mind you, but don't use your cat as a rag, then you'll be fine.


As for my stand on vegans and vegetarians and their whole "Don't kill cows" mantra, well....No. Probably some of the stupidest crap I've heard in years. Don't eat cows....Well, personally it would go against my religion to NOT eat cows, (Leviticus) and God tells me he put cows on the earth for me to eat them (Genesis). And that's where I stand on that.

Sure but like ours they aren't inalienable. Except maybe for our individual right to exist for at least a fraction of a moment or for our right to die.

No. Animals are not entitled to anything. They have no inherent dignity apart from humankind.

However, that does not mean that we should treat animals any way we want.

I think Nevin would have somthing to say on this.....
Unfortunatly I don't.

Onwards...

Why?

I think psycholopher is trying to point out that unless your some mean unemployed dirtbag with nothing better to do, there's no point to treating animals like crap. Beating up on teh kitty is wrong!

I can understand that, I would like to see his philosophical backing for it though.

Yes, I do, actually. Firstly, where in Leviticus does it say to eat cows? Secondly, in Genesis God gives Adam and Eve the right to eat grains, fruits, and vegetables. That's veganism right there. It was not until the time of Noah when God allowed the eating of meat -- and even then they were not allowed to eat meat with the blood in it, for the blood was thought to be a sort of "life force" of the animal at the time. I haven't completely formulated my own thoughts on the subject, but it seems clear to me that in the Christian faith it is not simply "eat meat and that's fine." If we take the Garden of Eden as representative of perfection, then in the ideal world we would not be eating meat. The Bible has other images of a world in which "the lion will lay down with the lamb" and the like -- perhaps the food chain is in some way analogous to the endless cycle of violence in our world? Not necessarily evil in and of itself (whatever other things I might say about animals I'm certainly not going to impose moral obligations upon them), but a sort of respresentation of the undoubtedly evil way in which we humans profit at the expense of others, even if it means their death? In the ideal world there is no violence, and it seems that perhaps there is no meat eating either. Now, I recognize of course that we do not live in the ideal world, but if we are striving towards perfection, might that involve vegetarianism or even veganism? Eating meat is not wrong in and of itself, of course -- but if we are capable of avoiding it, perhaps we should do so. In Biblical times it would have been nigh on impossible for them to maintain healthy diets without eating meat. However, today, it is quite possible to eat healthily without meat (although without dairy is much harder, I grant), and in fact vegetarians are often some of the most healthy people. I recognize that all this is not necessarily a compelling proof that we should all be vegetarians, but I certainly don't think it's something we should (as Christians, at least) just shrug off, which I fully confess to being guilty of until fairly recently. I really like meat, too, which makes me not want this to be true, but I think that to be intellectually honest and ethically consistent I may have to cease eating meat. As I said earlier, I'm still contemplating the issue, but it's not as black and white as I used to think of it as being.

I think there is some dameaning nature in humans who may treat animals wrong. Then, to me, that is an issue that the person has, which isn't right, because in the end, God did create all creatures, and I think there is a verse where we were told to respect the animals (open for correction). Also, back in the day, the best of the best animal was offered as a sacrifice. This was equivalent to God's own son dying on the cross. In some form, it can't be denied that deserves some respect (well, from those parties who beliefs are in the same line). But God also said we should eat from them. So, is it in-humane to kill and eat these animals? no. Is it inhumane to stand there, 2 feet from them, and but 2 shot gun rounds in them? I personally think so. They should be respected alive till their death. Their are put here, for us. Not for them to live a 'fulfilling' life of nothing.

For the same reason why you don't bang on the drums while singing a lullabye.

Deuteronomy 25:4
Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.

Just a random verse to show that the ancient Hebrews had some concept of animal rights. For those of you to whom this is not clear, before farming machinery came along, animals were used to tread out grain. Now, as an ox is walking along stomping on this grain, he's naturally going to want to eat some. The temptation, of course, was to put a muzzle on the ox so he didn't eat any of your food. But the Law prohibits this, showing that for the Israelites, at least, animals clearly did have some sort of rights. The ox had a right to be rewarded for his work.

Thank you Nevin :)

That would seem to be an action based merely on enjoyment of the activity. Prehaps I find enjoyment in kicking a dog, now explain.

Ok, so in Leviticus it doesn't point out cows specifically, but you can't deny that it says, "You may eat animals that have four hooves and chew the cud." That's a cow right there my friend. And I'll give you that, it's not black and white. But God made the plants and animals for us. Now, unless you can tell me what we can use cows for besides giving us milk, meat, and mowing our lawns, then I don't sway my decision. I'm not condoning mistreating cows, which is more what animal rights is. We treat cows fine then we slaughter and eat them. Just as (in my opinion) God intended. And in the ideal place we ended up sinning and getting kicked out, obviously we weren't meant to be there. If God tells me I can't eat meat, then by all means, I won't eat it. But he's given me the go ahead. So sayonara cows!

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

P.S: I apologize if I did not answer your post to the best of my ability. I just woke up.

Likely, that would be symptomatic of aggressive masochism, in which case you'd be referred to a psychologist.

But why would that be wrong. Philosophically, explain to me why we should treat animals in a "humane" way.

Plato often talked about the virtue of being virtuous-- the question being: why be good when you can be powerful? His fundamental argument was that you being good for the sake of being good was actually beneficial to you--in other words, if for no other reason than to benefit the self, it's worth being good. He argued that if you were just, wise, moderate, and courageous, you more closely approach the "Good," which is a reward in and of itself (much like knowledge is).

I don't believe in Plato's "forms," but I will still borrow from his argument. I believe that ethics ought to be based upon a broader concept of harmony, rather than on "right" and "wrong." This shifts the ethical experience from the purely rational to a more intuitive experience.

Rather than asking "what is right to do," we might ask, "what would be the harmonious thing to do?" Some would argue that I've simply replaced the word "right" with "harmonious" and haven't really gotten anywhere, but I disagree.

We intuitively know harmony and beauty when we see them. Neither harmony nor beauty are completely relative to culture or to individuals. I believe the same goes for ethics. There are certain things that we intuitively know to be morally dissonant--beating up toddlers, for example.

Without pursuing the philosophical implications of this too much, let me turn it back to the individual--I also believe that there is a particular harmony that we ought to maintain within ourselves, that can be cultivated with awareness, knowledge, community support, and discipline.

In short, recklessly destroying animals and/or the environment not only disrupts the harmony of the world (or the overall relationship between man and animal), but it also is disruptive to the inner harmony of the self.

I'm guessing that many will take issue with this type of argument. I haven't fully fleshed out this ethics system, but when I do, I'll post it as a separate topic. So if you take issue with the ethical system, wait until then.

Meh, not so much, its pretty good :yes:.

I suppose if you hold "harmony" as a goal, then yup it would work, but it would be a "right" sort to speak, would it?

I'm a bit confused about the harmony thing. I do know what you mean by "intuitively know". Like most people intuitively know that kicking dogs would be mean, and as you put it "morally dissonant". But that sort of brings back the issues of killing creatures for meat. Would this not be morally dissonant? I'm not sure, I just think it could use a little clearing up.

On another note, what of people who have screwed up morals, resulting from different family affairs or such psychological burdens. If we let people decide on morals, then we might not always get the same result, because some people don't "intuitively" know what's morally dissonant or consonant.

With all due respect,
~~~Mr. Cain and Mr. Abel

I agree that people have slightly different conceptions of what “harmony” is, but again, not entirely. Let me put it in a Christian perspective, since you seem to respond well to that. Christianity holds that each person has a “conscience,” that can distinguish right from wrong regardless of how intelligent that person is, and regardless of the culture that he or she grows up in. I suppose what I’m advocating is something similar to that—that we all have a general sense of what would be morally harmonious. That’s not saying that each person dictates what’s moral and what not—it means that it’s incumbent on each person to pay attention to that moral sense of theirs.

Suprisingly enough, that approach worked. Well, yeah. Makes sense to me, and I totally agree. The concsience or "ISH" (Intuitive sense of harmony) doesn't change among people, we know in our heart of hearts what we really should and shouldn't be doing. Like kicking dogs for pleasure or treating any other animal like a useless lump of turd.

You mistook my point. I don't know of a specific verse that says "you may eat animals that have four hooves and chew the cud," but I don't doubt that it's there -- and even if it isn't God allowed for the eating of meat way back at the time of Noah. What I was saying is that it does not tell us to eat meat -- it merely says that we may. Granted, there was the whole thing of animal sacrifice, but that's a different topic (and was clearly done away by Christ's sacrifice at any rate).

No, I disagree. God made us to care for his creation, not to simply do whatever we want for it. Everything -- plants, animals, even our own selves -- ultimately belongs to God. We are not owners of this Earth, rather we are stewards, or caretakers, of it.

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it.

A bumper sticker I saw the other day sums it up nicely: if you love the Creator, take care of Creation.

In a sense yes, in a sense no. Originally, we were suited for paradise, or else we would never have been there. Sin banished us from paradise, but we still have that longing for Eden within us. And does not Christian doctrine teach us that in dying we will gain eternal life in paradise? Indeed, one of my most basic beliefs that we are not made, ultimately, for this Earth, that we are ultimately created for God's kingdom, for paradise, for perfection. Perfection may never be fully attainable in our lifetime, but that does not mean that we should not strive for it. As I said earlier, eating meat was allowed, but it was not explicitly commanded. "'Everything is permissible for me'—but not everything is beneficial." Paul says that, in 1 Corinthians 6:12. Eating meat may not be wrong in and of itself, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should do it.

Psycholopher: I like your idea of harmony; it's one that I've been tossing around in my own mind, especially as pertaining to this issue. I like it less as to thinking about human rights, because it seems to me to downplay the right of the individual too much for my liking -- although I'm all for the good of the whole, I hold that human beings do have certain rights and dignities for themselves. I'm hesitant to say the same about animals or anything else, however, and and this idea of harmony seems to be a nice way of expressing my environmentalism.

As much as I would like to believe that -- and I really would -- I'm not entirely sure that I can. Ideally perhaps, we all have that sense, but what of, for example, psychopaths? I'm not intimately familar with psychopathy, but my understanding of such people is that they have an actual mental condition which keeps them from feeling emotions such as guilt or from having that innate sense of right and wrong -- essentially that they are people without a conscience.

Well, if you consider not being beaten or cruelly treated a right, then yes they do. But this animals rights movement that is going on is ridiculous. They are just animals. We should trying to improve the quality of life for humans, because humans do mean more than animals. I'm for treating animals fairly, but as for thinking they are equal with me, I find that comical.

As are we


I find many of those supporting other species rights as being hypocrites of some kind. They support spaying and neutering pets and such yet want to do away with other things. In effect they support the mutilation of them while at the same time condemning other types.

I've always failed to the logic of securing animal rights before we've secured human rights. How can we do for another species what we can't do for ourselves as a species?

My personal point of view is that all species have a right to try to exist. That mankinds hunting to extiction of some species or the interference with the environment so that extiction is a natural consequence is wrong. It is wrong to knowingly do so. It sometimes happens unintentionally, but this should be avoided if known and measures taken to prevent.

Everything on this planet feeds on a chain of life energy. I don't blame myself for eating fish or meat any more than I blame the big fish for eating the little one or the bobcat its hare. All life feeds off its environment. Of all life on this planet humanity has the greatest controlling ability to manage the environment so that all species can continue exist. Not to mention life's diversity is in our best interest.

I personally see no point in making animals suffer needlessly though. If we can easily turn away from their pain/suffering then we are doing so to ourselves as well. Its a reflection I personally don't enjoy and would like to see less of. But I think securing humanity's rights would have to occur first globally before animal rights are secured globally. I once read that 2/3's of the planet's resources have already been consumed & mostly in the 50? or less years. We have got to prioritize the sustainablility of the earths forests, coral reefs, aquatic & land life if life on this planet is survive at all. I haven't been to the world resources institute site lately. I should go back.

Animal Rights.. ahmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

well as I believe, save the environment and you save yourself.. before it is too late

so when doing that, save all the other species along with it, sounds good to me ^_^

Okay, but how does that translate into "rights."

well, shouldn't we be humane then? in our acts of selfishness we want fur and leather and all this crap but is it really worth the price?

I understand what you're saying, but I feel as if you're missing the point of the topic, how does what your saying translate into an actual set of rights for animals.

We should be humane to humans, yes, but I don't see how anything that you're saying, such as, "We should be nice to them," means they have rights. It merely means that, well, we should be nice to them for the sole purpose of being nice.

Well anything thats living should have rights.

Okay, but again, what is your philosophical reasoning for that statement? I'm looking for more than "it lives, it should have rights" or the like, what can you draw upon, what logical analysis can you use, etc.

Add more meat to your statement/post, give reasoning, don't just say "'A' should do 'B'"

What about Plants, Fungi, Parasites?

Whoa, Whoa, Whoa!!! I'm sorry no, all living things do not have rights!!! Society has moral power over nature, and Intellect/Reason have moral precedent over society. (Pirsig.LILA) Do animals have rights?

Lemme start here: Where do rights come from?

If you beleive in the Natural Rights philosophy of John Locke, then you beleive that "rights" are granted and gauranteed by God. This idea was overturned largely by John Stuart Mill in "On Liberty." In which the idea of rights, as a self evident truth, was determined to be non-empirical, and a circular arguement.

However, in the 20th century American Pragmatists John Dewey, John Rawls and later Robet Pirsig, and many many other philosophers discuss "Human Rights." Now my arguement does not lie in the label "Human" rights, but that is part of it. The majority of current philosophers beleive that "Rights" are a Human creation, and are also enforced by humans.

Rawls system of rights (which he wrote in Justice as Fairness) is based on rational decision making in an idenitity-less state of mind(the veil of ignorance). For instance, if I don't know what place I have in society, I could be a woman, a black person, gay etc. Then when I'm asked to make decisions about rights, I do so on a purely rational basis, and without bias. Such as: Ought black people have equal access to oppurtunities? yes because, when the veil of ignorance is removed, I may be african american, and So logically I should create laws to create a level playing field for people of different race. IE the 14th amendment.

Would I want a society underwhich slavery is legal? One would decide no, on the rational grounds that one might be a slave. 12th amendment (Actually Rawls uses this basic model to create a whole theory gov't and a new form of social contract, A Theory of Justice.)

Ok so if we were to apply Rawls' model to animals, we enter a difficulty, becasue A) Animal are not sentient beings, so they can't create rights, nor enforce them because B) they have no power. Therefore, they have whatever rights we decide to give them. The only scenario for Animal rights, is then based on the view that Animals are the property of humans. As a property of human beings, Animals may receive some protections. At the end of the day, No I don't think animals have "rights" in any sense other than that which we give them. And there is no rational model under which one might give animals' rights, for being animals in of themselves, only under the context of their relationship with Human Beings.

Ah, how I love the Rawls game, truly shows who we really are.

But I think you hit on something important, that is, if animal "rights" are defined as their rights in relation to what humans bestow upon them, and in their relationship to humans, and aren't something they can create or enforce, then the point is moot. They have no rights, at least in my line of thought.

I agree with Delta.

People have the responsibility to protect and ensure the relative safety of animals. But that doesn't mean animals have rights. People can establish organizations to defend the wellbeing, safety, and preservation of a species, but giving animals rights wouldn't make sense. If we defend, enforce, and bestow the rights, then wouldn't we still be higher then them? Apart from not-being-torture and preservation, animals don't really have "rights" :mellow:

How can an animal "possess" rights? seems a silly anthropocentrism. but, the conceptual kernel is useful: we shouldn't abuse (or kill) other sentient beings. yep, i sympathize with that.