I think it was on page 13-14 that I attempted to steer the discussion in this direction. I've already stated that animals need not be granted the same rights as humans as I accepted that not all of those rights would be meaningful in the sense that they wouldn't be useful. However I proposed the general principle that animals should be granted the basic rights that would encourage responsibility in their treatment as well as reflect our changing sentiments towards and knowledge about them.
Therefore I would base the rights on the criteria of quality of life (a loose determinant I may have to refine in future). In short, the vague wording would be "animals ought to have a right to responsible consideration by humans, accounting for context." Lots of wiggle room in that because this is a broad topic.
As to how this reflects on current laws, that would probably involve a firmer conservation laws, stricter (and therefore probably unpopular) regulation of the meat industry, particularly breeding and slaughter practices, and as far as humane treatment goes, may require some refining because the ownership laws have some pretty big gaps and furthermore have some arcane and rationally unsubstantial features, but in this day and age I'm guessing we can leave the ownership focus relatively intact. Debates on informed consent will generally go nowhere and it does not make sense to base the rights on strictly a consent-based philosophy (as human civil rights are framed), which will sit uncomfortably with many on both sides, but nonetheless because from our perspective, humans exert the greatest influence over many animals' environment, we'll have to allow for some degree of paternalism.
My problem with drafting a charter of rights is that my problem-solving approach isn't concerned so much with rights as the social engineering required to encourage their adoption: mainly in the form of education and lobbying. Not quite the PETA kind of lobbying, mind you!
While I am in favor of regulations concerning the meat industry and its humane treatment of animals, we must be careful not to regulate it out of existence. After all I still like cheeseburgers and no matter what someones morals may be they have no right to tell me that I am not allowed to eat meat. Animals should have rights concerning there treatment such as the right not to be tortured but not rights equal or greater than humans. To wit, say I had the choice between the life of one human and the entire chimpanzee species, not taking into account their contributions to medical research and the lives saved therein, I would happily consign every single chimp in the universe to death. Should we treat animals with kindness? Certainly. Do we have to? Not until the animal council wrights up a declaration saying so.
look , some animals , u just cant live without , like u need them for food and stuff.. but others are just .. well leave alone types , like lion and wolves and all
I feel they should I mean, a kill is a kill and when I say animals i mean anything other than insects.
They should because they helped to our nation as much as we helped ourselves.They shouldn't be counted as a whole person but up there, enough for at least 5 years a kill.
Okay, because of the frustration from some of the major participants of this thread: Which rights should animals have?
I think Zophia's list is good to refer to here. Also some common sense. Being able to eat, sleep, move freely, be without stress or pain. Not being mistreated, as animals are beings too, but that is pretty much the same as being without pain or stress. Animals for food should be treated well, and be able to move freely, and be slaugthered without stress, though most butchers and meat concerns try to make the death as peaceful as possibly, mainly because of them not wanting the meat to be stress. Pets should be treated with some kind of respect at least, for the sake of them having a good life. Some would say pets have a better life than other animal, but many humans actually mistreat the animals by spoiling their dog or cat.
Being able to eat, sleep, move freely, be without stress or pain.
Exactly the things veterinarians (at least the ones I've known) look at when evaluating whether an animal should be put to sleep or treated. If an illness is causing them to lose one or more of those life qualities, it is commonly judged better to give them a peaceful death. Thus those should be the things animals are granted the right to have, despite what some humans may think they deserve. Responsibility...
Funny how that is illegal to do with humans... You know, mercy kills... Even if a sick human wants to die, no one is allowed to kill them... I find that silly somehow...
At the risk of repeating myself, how far do you take those rights (Being able to eat, sleep, move freely, be without stress or pain.)? How free is the movement? A cow cannot move very far during milking and yet it needs to be milked (just as it needs to be kept from the various dangers of the world lest it eat poison oak and die.) or it will sicken and die.
How do you kill (killing an animal is sometimes necessary) humanely? Do you you give it an injection of cobra venom so it simply goes to sleep so deeply its lungs and heart stop? If its a meat animal (steer) that will make it inedible to humans and they will figure out that they are being poisoned and the fight it thus, stress. How about shooting it in the head? Sometimes that doesn't work the first time because of the thickness of the skull thus, pain. Poison gas? Same problem as lethal injection. Even a mercy kill, no matter how necessary it is (and it sometimes is), is still death and no matter how you do it death sucks.
Just trying to help... To be feed or be able to feed on something is direly important, and animals should be given the right amount of the right food. Animals should be able to sleep when they need to, and have the space to do it. As for moving freely, animals should only be held in a stable if it is needed, as for milking. At other times, at least in the summer, cows should have the option to wander on open fields. Chicken and pigs should have a good amount of space to move on, per individual.
I am not sure how steer is slaughtered, but I know butchers do what they can to prevent stress and fear on the animal.
Agreeing with Zophia on the matter about "mercy kills", but I guess this is not the thread for that.
