Forums → WEPR → Should Animals Have Rights? Why?
| 309 | 56812 |
- 309 Replies
The point is that why should I treat my food like something other than food?
I won't. Nothing you ever say can change my view on that. I see your points as idiotic justifications of a deprived lifestyle. Do I treat my own animals badly? No, but I don't treat them like I would a fellow human. They are fed and cared for, they aren't beaten, but they are still treated like animals.
Obviously watching South Park is not really intellectual
I happen to disagree with that lol. Watching South Park is as intellectual as you want it to be 8D
Not if you understand that animals don't have a set system to tell when something is "dead". That mother's instincts drive her to protect her young, even after death. She doesn't understand the concept of death, so she doesn't understand.
I believe this is actually a misinterpretation of the behavior. We happen to believe that a person is still meaningful after death. Furthermore a number of species have been demonstrated to display mourning behaviors.
How did we get onto this line of discussion anyway?
Right, now I've read back. The premise you guys are arguing about presently is the value of intelligence as conferring "right to live".
My problem with this, apart from the criticisms already pointed out, are that given that we haven't already assumed that humans are intrinsically different from other animals, that it's hard to define intelligence in itself. The argument over the past 3 pages has been about trying to assess the intellectual value of various human pursuits but even that is a relative measure.
So let's extract the main points that come out of this:
* Humans have their own form of intelligence, and animals have others. I would contend that certain species would have more capacity to express suffering than others. This relates to Moe's point on page 1, about experiential import.
* Does increasing human education have any bearing on how we ought to treat other animals? This depends on how much you value said education.
Currently the common consensus, across the board, is that we should not act irresponsibly or commit that which is unnecessary. Despite my personally not liking the way Megamickel puts it, most of his points appear to be internally consistent and consistent with the above. But what I'd add to this is that I believe that many of the processes that increase humanitarian treatment of animals might also go hand in hand with improved efficiency and reduced waste, provided we have sufficient initiative to make those changes. And we do have compelling reason to take that initiative.
Yes. They also have life of their own. The only difference between them and us is our ability to reason.
I think animals should be kept in better living conditions and killed more humanely, but I don't think they should be killed for fashion at all.
Animals should have the right not to be tortured, or be over-killed, but humans still need to kill some animals to eat, or we'll starve or all become veg-heads. Honestly, I'm not sure whats worse, becoming a veg-head probably.
I see your points as idiotic justifications of a deprived lifestyle.
Well thanks. It's funny because even when I'm super super polite on a forum I still get some joker who insults me. On a forum about drug use a stoner calls me ignorant. One another someone calls me arrogant. Here someone calls my reasoning idiotic and my lifestyle deprived lol. If it wasn't funny I'd give up on forums all together.
I just don't that humans are all that special. Our minds are superior and that's about it. Cats are better at hunting mice, bears are better at catching salmon, humans are better at reasoning, and dolphins are better at swimming. Eventually we will all die out and a new race will evolve from some animal species. So humans are not really that hot in the grand scheme of it all.
Planet of the Apes. Charlton Heston didn't fine it so funny to be treated like an animal when the apes had control. Once you are the inferior nobody cares what happens to you.
Eventually we will all die out and a new race will evolve from some animal species.
I'd like, at this point, to give a shout out to what is most commonly thought of as what "sets humans apart": consciousness.
It's a particularly nifty thing because as a process it appears to be one of those self-reflective autonomous properties. Something that makes you believe you have it. And it's this that also makes us believe that we're important etc. which is why I often refer to such statements as anthropocentric.
Given that this implies that reason is a construct (which doesn't make in inapplicable), it does also imply that our motivations to using reasoning depends on how we relate to other animals and therefore how much empathy we have.
Therefore I don't think it's any less important that I object to cruelty to other animals because it makes me upset. But in this day and age of reason it is an advantage that I'm able to mount comprehensive arguments on multiple fronts as to why it's worth thinking about and changing for.
I'm going to step out of line this one time to reply with:
That is all.
Humans are animals. What are you talking about, humans or just animals like cow, pig and non humans?
Please specify what kind of animals you were talking about.
If you are talking about non-human, then i think animals should have the same rights we do. They should be left alone in their habitats and not killed just for out food, when we dont really need it.
Well, my problem is with treating animals "humanely".
THEY'RE NOT HUMANS!!! WHY SHOULD WE TREAT THEM LIKE THEY ARE???
You think a lion gives a rabbit rights? No. We are the dominant species and we don't have to give them shit.
That's it.
THEY'RE NOT HUMANS!!! WHY SHOULD WE TREAT THEM LIKE THEY ARE???
I actually agree with this.
It's one thing to say "humans are not intrinsically different from all other animals", but quite another to say "humans are the same as all other animals". But nonetheless "humanely" doesn't actually mean "like humans", but more "with the compassion associated with the morally desirable traits of humans" or something like that.
Which is to say that we don't have to treat other animals like humans (you can if you want and see how far you get!) but rather bridging our differences for a more productive relationship.
...but in response to Klaushouse, the reason we're thinking about rights now is because, let's say, consciousness gives us the ability to think about rights and whether we ought to or not.
Rights here don't have to be treated as real things, because really they're not. But rights here are a mediator to behavior towards and management, as a reflection of our moral compass and how much we identify and understand these other species.
You must be logged in to post a reply!