Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 95
Do Animals Have Rights?Page 4 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

As such it simply is not universal. Keep talking about universally applied "Natural Law" all you want but it is nothing more than rhetoric.

In that case, what is the law by which all human society must abide? What is the source of that law? What is the source of authority?

If there is no law, then there is no authority except where "might makes right" and the bullies can impose their will and call it "lawful authority." Our law then becomes whatever they say it is and those of us who are not able to fight them and win are then subject to whatever "laws" the bullies care to impose on us. That would imply that we haven't left the jungle and haven't advanced one whit as a society. We might as well be swinging from the trees. If we live in such a society, why do we even suggest that it is at all free or just? The concepts become no more than ironic jokes.


Animals are only considered to be property in the eyes of the law because we have no other legal definition for stewardship or gaurdianship over animals

I'd hardly call the inhumane treatment of cattle raised for slaughter stewardship, or guardianship, so I'm forced to disagree with your statement. We are stewards and guardians of our children. We don't treat them inhumanely because even though they don't yet have moral agency, we assume their moral obligations for them (we are responsible for their behaviour and have a duty to protect them and see that their rights are not violated). We don't claim to own our children, yet we accept our moral obligation to them.

When it comes to animals, who, like children, are not moral agents, but sentient just the same, if we do not treat them as we would treat our children, then we are not their stewards & guardians, but the "owners", or slavemasters who treat sentient beings as though they were our property. How is that any different than human slavery, where human slaves were "owned" and treated as property? (This now leads us to my argument against property as it is currently defined) What gives us the right to claim ownership of ANYTHING? By what authority may we claim something to be ours? This becomes even more interesting to consider if your argument that there is no universal law, holds. If there is no law, then there is no legitimate claim to property either, right?


And what about a pregnant woman? Is it imoral for a pregnant woman not to go into a fire and die, or lose her child, to save a stranger?

Now we get into the "gray area", or slippery slope. What is right is not always easy to determine; even I will grant that. The only thing I could recommend to the pregnant woman in such a situation would be to follow her heart. Whatever her heart tells her to do is probably the right thing. What she decides ought to be a rational decision made with courage. If fear weighs in on the decision, the wrong one is likely to be made. (By that I mean that one ought to never let fear make their decisions for them. A moral decision has to be rational and made without fear)


The issue with animals has nothing to do with property, but with confinment

I disagree. If I can show that we can't logically "own" anything outside of ourselves and our labour (which I can), then we certainly can't own animals and if we can't own animals, then we can't do anything to them that doesn't arise from our own necessity (we have to eat & clothe ourselves, for instance). We simply don't have that right because they are not our property.


Morality is not a set consept, it is fluid and subject to interpritation and personal opinion, as such there is no line between what is moral and imoral

So there are no moral concepts or universal behavioural constraints whatsoever? Is there (or has there ever been) a society that allowed wanton murder of ones fellow society members as a right? (By that I mean a society wherein it was OK to kill your next door neighbor or your husband or wife simply because you didn't like their faces.)
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 96
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 9:17:07 PM

The concept of "rights" is not subjective, nor does it differ from reason. The process of reason is used to determine rights. They are an entirely rational concept. People may not agree on them, but I'm quite sure that rights are not determined democratically, as many seem to think. You are born with rights long before you know what's going on, long before you "vote."


And one of my rights is to live & not risk my life if I choose not to. So if I chose not to enter a burning building to try to save someone trapped there I would be exercising my right to life. And as I would be exercising my right to live it couldn't be immoral for me to choose to not enter the burning building.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 97
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 10:56:29 PM

one of my rights is to live & not risk my life if I choose not to. So if I chose not to enter a burning building to try to save someone trapped there I would be exercising my right to life. And as I would be exercising my right to live it couldn't be immoral for me to choose to not enter the burning building.

You are quite correct in what you said. Have I said otherwise? I think not.

You have to recognize that not doing the right thing does not imply that you are doing wrong. I don't think anyone would stare down their nose at you for not risking your life to save the baby. BUT, it is my contention that social animals (and Man is a social animal) are compassionate and to some extent at least, altruistic by nature; it probably improves the likelihood of survival of the society as a whole. So too would a sense of fairness in dealings with one's fellows, hence an innate sense of what is fair and just makes for a more functional society (If everyone had the right to murder their neighbor (with impunity) the minute they took a dislike to him, the society likely wouldn't survive very long.) I would say it is in the nature of most of the "higher" animals to value the young more than the adults. There is an instinctive desire to protect to the extent that many of the "heroes" who do risk their lives saving babies don't know what the fuss is about...Wouldn't anyone do the same?...Maybe not everyone, but I suspect that many would. and it would probably be instinctive to do so. To make a long story short, you are doing the right thing if you think you are and if you feel bad about your inaction, it is probably because you didn't do the right thing; but again, not doing the right thing doesn't mean you are doing wrong.

It is kind of like the difference between the golden rule and the silver rule:
Silver: Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.
Golden: Do for others what you'd wish them to do for you.

Nobody can throw you in jail for exercising your rights and not being a hero, but people will know you definitely aren't hero material, and in your society, they will have a pretty good idea of what they can expect from you in the way of courage.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 98
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:42:10 AM

Studies even show some animals do have a sense of what could be considered a humanly defined 'moral' sense, moreso in pack/herd animals, THAN fiercely monoistic territorial animals.


Intersting but I've never seen a nature program that shows members of the herd rushing to protect 1 of the old/sick/slow members of the herd when it's attacked by a predator.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 99
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/24/2009 7:52:20 AM

You have to recognize that not doing the right thing does not imply that you are doing wrong.


The misunderstanding arises when your statements imply there is a universal or universally agreed "right thing". There isn't. It's all individual choice. And I've never personally encountered the burning building scenario so I don't know how I'd react.


You have to recognize that not doing the right thing does not imply that you are doing wrong.


You have to recognize that there is no "right thing" to do. Rushing into the building or not are both right.

In any case, I think this thread has gone off topic into what should be a seperate thread.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 100
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/24/2009 8:24:41 AM
Necessity is simply what is needed for survival. Food is a necessity, a three car garage isn't, especially if you still have to park the Viper in the rain.

The concept of "rights" is not subjective, nor does it differ from reason. The process of reason is used to determine rights. They are an entirely rational concept. People may not agree on them, but I'm quite sure that rights are not determined democratically, as many seem to think. You are born with rights long before you know what's going on, long before you "vote." It is by extrapolating the concept of rights to non-sapient objects that I intend to show (objectively) how they are tied to the concept of legitimate claim, property rights and ownership.

I think it can be successfully argued that the primary necessity for any living thing is an ecological/environmental niche in which to exist. As for "rights" and "property", i.e. "The only thing we can truly own is our labour, but I digress..."

Digress? not at all...

Let's apply this necessity/property paradigm to a domestic farm animal then, take for an example: Bos primigenius.

Consider the primary survival necessity, and your definitive criteria of "ownership":

- All beef and dairy cattle are domesticated breeds, the causality of their very existence is not a natural one, as their primary necessity -existence- is to be a commodity (beef, dairy, leather, draft animals) utilized by another species - us. As such, cattle are a man-made construct, with their divergence from naturally occurring species (the primary source species (Auroch) extinct since the 1600s) having occured in the Neolithic era.

It is in fact, our secondary and tertiary necessities for commodity that created their primary existential necessity, an ecological/environmental niche. All domesticated breeds of animal (and their botanical counterparts) owe their very existence to this human created existential niche. They do not exist without a human purpose, they have not survived without human intervention based on their value as a commodity, even among the Hindus who revere them as a spiritual/maternal symbol- they are a dairy source and a draft animal.

Historically they are "property": "The word is closely related to "chattel" (a unit of personal property) and "capital" in the economic sense."
~ Harper, Douglas (2001). "Cattle", "Chattel", "Capital". Online Etymological Dictionary.

Cattle are considered one of the oldest forms of "wealth", consequently the theft of cattle is considered to be one of the oldest "crimes" (re: Human: "Laws", "Property" and "Rights") predating by millennia, any codification of ownership, rights, laws, etc.


We all know that we can do as we wish with our property (and contrapositively, if you don't own something, you can't morally do what you want with it.),

This is false, and this can be shown by many and myriad examples of codified law.

but we make the erroneous assumption that things we don't really own are our property.

Both an equivocation and a contradiction in terms.

In the old days, slaves were our property, and were treated accordingly, until we decided that you can't own people and abolished slavery.

Again, equating humans with domesticated (or other) animals for the purpose of demonstrating a concept of "animal rights", is as repugnant and contemptible as it's converse reasoning, and for the same reasons.

Today, we stand on the verge of knowing that we can't own property.

Such is the nature of equivocation that any definition of terms can be rendered meaningless.

The flea has a right to exist though, and of necessity bites & irritates the dog. We can't fault the flea for that, since he does what he does to survive, but we note that the flea doesn't own the dog (or any part of him).

The flea is a pure parasite, it is not a symbiotic relationship by any stretch of the imagination, equivocation can't even budge this objective reality (rendering it as specious in this example). Further, the flea exists because a natural ecological/environmental niche independent of human involvement except in regards to the primary necessity of existence of the dog, which is a domestic species. Therefor, eradication of said fleas in said ecological/environmental niche in regards to human interference can be reasoned objectively without any regard for a spurious connection to "rights".

The entire issue of "factory-farming" can be empirically shown to be "wrong" in the context of its purpose and the codification of law, ethics and morality within the paradigm of commodity/wealth/necessity without any need for equivocation, "appeal to ____" fallacy and emotional blackmail. It can be shown to be a failure in regards to its intended purpose by examining the effects of its practice on secondary and tertiary facets of necessity it is one of many Keynesian Free-Trade/Globalization failures in regards to "commodity" and human "necessity".

Solutions to the problem already exist in the realm of codified law, codified human rights and the ideas of "property" and "necessity". If you are unconvinced of this, you may need to avail your self of the mountains of objective data that supports this reality, UNDP reports are a good start for any who are ignorant of this, a more complete analysis can be found in John Ralston Saul's, "The Collapse of Globalism".

Here's where the disconnect of "rights" equivocation as a self-defeating avenue has yet; another shining example of an obstacle (as a distraction) to problems/solutions that are already a matter of fact and can be clearly demonstrated by objective reasoning, empirical definitives and critical thinking.


Intersting but I've never seen a nature program that shows members of the herd rushing to protect 1 of the old/sick/slow members of the herd when it's attacked by a predator.

Their are many video recorded examples of Cape Buffalo attacking predators (especially crocodiles and lions) that are quite dramatic and obvious in intent. A prime example why they are not a domestic/commodity animal.


Legally, unfortunately it may be okay to kill them for use or game but ethically it is wrong wrong WRONG!


We owe our very existence to the fact that we evolved to our ecological/environmental as hunter/gatherers rendering this unsubstantiated axiom bullshit from the git go.


I'm often amused when people like to think they have the "right" to live THEIR full life but other animals do not!

The only solution to those adhering to this definition of "rights", and fulfilling an attached principled duty to upholding them is to commit suicide. This is yet another example of the equivocal nature of "animal rights" as a non-perfunctory absolute.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 102
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/24/2009 11:15:53 AM
So you are saying that because we are of a certain species we have a right to own, enslave, torture other beings at our discretion, regardless of the intelligence of the other beings.

Had I wanted to "say" that, I would have. I didn't, hence - no.

The justification for slavery was that they were animals. This was the justification for the holocaust as well.

Again, a perfect example of the dangers of equivocation in regards to "rights", see: "Slothful Induction".

How can you possibly claim that the screams of pain are meaningless in animals but real in humans?

I didn't say this.

What gives you the right to declare that animals were put on the earth to serve the human race?

Outside of the reality of domesticated species and the concept of commodity, I didn't say this, did I? Applying your personal view based on equivocation of "rights" in the context of anthropomorphism won't change this.


All domesticated breeds of animal (and their botanical counterparts) owe their very existence to this human created existential niche. They do not exist without a human purpose.

I have witnessed cows on public, wild range land. They quickly learn to protect themselves and their young from predators, forming a circle with the adults, head down, horns facing outward, and the young in the middle.


Good for you, this doesn't refute the statement or its contextual relevance; the primary necessity of the niche, and the idea of property.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 103
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/24/2009 4:32:37 PM

There is a thread of a video taken by a person on a safari where a few lions separated out a baby cape buffalo, I think, at any rate it was a big bovine of some type, and were well on the way to kill it. After a little bit of hesitation, the biggest of the male buffalos and a few other large buffalo charged the lions, and eventually the calf was released by the lions.


I believe you so I won't bother searching for the clip ... but have these bovines been recorded working to save old sick or lame members of th eherd from predators? My question was in reference to post #163 :


Studies even show some animals do have a sense of what could be considered a humanly defined 'moral' sense, moreso in pack/herd animals, THAN fiercely monoistic territorial animals.


It's only natural ( and instinctive) that the herd would protect the infants from harm, ohterwise the herd would be wiped out. But to equate such instinctive behavior as a "moral sense" is a false comparison, unless it can be shown that the herd protects the lame, old, sickly etc. And that the herd would also work to ensure such a non-contributing member is provided with food etc.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 106
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/25/2009 6:32:06 PM

Do we have a moral obligation to intervene when one animal enslaves another?

Generally no, other animals are not in your jurisdiction (they are not part of your society), so you should not interfere.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 107
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/26/2009 12:31:11 AM
In general, humans find animals much too useful as a matter of convenience to ever believe they are capable of things like compassion, or a sense of "decency". If we did, we'd be forced by conscience to admit that many "animals are people too", which would screw up our wonderful system, because it is largely supported by the enslavement of animals.
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 108
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/26/2009 8:36:03 AM
Decency?

Are you shittin' me?

First off, again, you're using fluid terms that are subjective- and secondly- they don't seem to have much trouble with nudity. Or having sex infront of their children. Again, giving the subjective matter of the word you choose, theres room for interpretation, but what about animals makes you think they have decency?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 109
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/26/2009 9:10:35 AM

what about animals makes you think they have decency?

As you mentioned, "decency" is a very subjective term. You will note that I didn't say I thought animals had a sense of decency; I didn't even hint at that; I merely said that IF they did, we wouldn't be inclined to acknowledge it because that would imply that we have unjustly enslaved them and treated them as a convenient resource for our enrichment at their expense. Not wanting to see ourselves as immoral hypocrites, our natural defense would be denial.

That you chose to read what I didn't say from my post suggests either that I'm right about the natural inclination of humans to deny wrongdoing, or that some (not mentioning any names or anything) just like to argue for the helluvit.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 110
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/26/2009 12:03:13 PM

They should put some clothes on them pigs.
I mean even a thong would help.

I've worn thongs (gotta humor the SO every now & then, you know). I can practically guarantee that a thong on a pig would be a bad idea, unless your idea of fun is watching pigs trying to kill the guy who put it on them.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 111
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/26/2009 1:30:38 PM

now if they made “that” an Olympic sport they would probably get a lot more people watching.

Yeah, but it isn't fair that the big draw (the irate pigs) wouldn't get a cut of the royalties because they have no "rights" in human society. In any event, I think the example serves to show that pigs ought to at least have the right to not wear thongs. In my own case, I claimed that right a long time ago!
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 112
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/27/2009 1:03:56 AM
For me the premise on which I say "Yes , animals have rights ' is based on the fact that animals don't lie . aliar is the ultimate perverter of natural justice . And when this thread asks 'DO animals have rights ?"... I say WTF do you mean . Rights to what ? Define the issue someone .
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 113
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/28/2009 2:51:50 PM
Dukky,

No offense intended here.

it seems that most of your posts come from an "Eastern" minded origin.
Am I correct?

by the way,, What did the Zen master say to the hot dog vendor?

Make me one with everything.

superciliously yours,

Dale
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 114
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/28/2009 3:03:16 PM
Jiperly

about decency,

they can and do share the same water sources at the same time, only go on the "Hunt" when needed, and have a challengeable heirarchy, and some times they seem to go along with what "Emily Post" already has put to paper.

If you wish to, review the Natural behaviours of any animal in relation to the "Order" of its environ.



Dale
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 115
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/28/2009 3:25:27 PM

it seems that most of your posts come from an "Eastern" minded origin.
Am I correct?

Nope! The farthest east I've ever been was Montreal; do my posts have a French accent?
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 117
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/29/2009 1:34:05 PM
Slider,

In a perfect world this would be so.

However, the planet- let alone nature,man, animals ,vegetation,- depends on imperfection in order to get by.

If, as I believe, we were in the" pefect " world, there would be no need for sustanance/shelter/clothing/ bathing/ and most of the minutia of details/happennings/... that occur in life.

The puritans came to America to live the " perfect/Ideal" life.
The first 2 things they undertook was to build a jail, and a cemetary.

Hardly a Utopian beginning

this world i think needs a compromised balance between perfection and chaos to function.
Sort of like Taoism
or a pendulum on a clock-- each progression of the pendulum sets how far it swings to one side before it begins to the other side.

And each movement , not only sets the "Time" to our pace but also is somewhat predictible in its path. given the occasional adjustments for correction/chance happenings. if the balance were perfect it would stop moving all together.

and nothing would" begin/end". nirvanah would be reached as it were.

but it is the chaos of life actually being, that sets the pace of the pendulum and the measure of its swing in accordance with what is necessary for a balance to be tenatively reachd in effect/affect


Dale
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 118
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 3:41:22 PM
Willow,
I both agree and disagree ,on seperate things, in both of your and Isdimes latest posts.

mostly, I believe if we are omniverous wholely parasitic gluttons of the world then wars would break out world wide and would never cease until a minute few survive, and agree that they should each live as they want to. then every thing else in nature has overpopultated,and thrived, like animals,birds, gators, snakes,... would soon over take the people and the world would go on without us!

the doom and gloom scenarios put forth by extremists causes, et al, are just that.

in other words, they are merely groups of people who veil their selfish ego infested survivalists actions as "save the planet " when all they are doing is trying to get by on hand outs from everyone else. And believe me when you are guilted into "donating " to their causes; the eat, live and have a life better than you and I do.

Yes we eat too much food. yes we drink reservoires of water,and other liquids, yes we are competitive in life,...

However, we grow our food, and if we eat too much then we adjust and the next year we grow more food. And we may drink too much, but then we adjust and create more ingredients and such that go into what all we drink.

when you get right down to it, would you rather be eating nuts and berries that grow naturally in the world, and be subject to natural cycles of drought,floods,heat/cold snaps,... or would you be amiable to work and contribute to your own causes ; self -preservation and procreating..., without guilt and without giving your money/time to someone else who is better at finding an easier way to live the goodlife.

for every vegetarian, there is a farm conglomerate of people getting more of that persons money by artificially creating a bigger demand, for each cow or bird you eat, their is a company and battalion of Ranchers/growers that breed the bird and cow to take its place.

We,as I've said before live in a world of people that can compensate/ and grow what we eat/ drink.

Yes, EVERY life has a purpose, whether to be for food/ survival of man or just live in general in natural settings which balance themselves in the long run with or w/out mankind.


Dale
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 119
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 4:10:11 PM

Within a natural world all lives are equal, and therefore not insignificant

this is a meaningless statement, and COMPLETELY misses the point.

Actually, it hits the nail on the head. The only reason we are "better" than a bacterium is because we think we are. (Is it possible we might be a bit biased?) Other organisms don't seem to worry too much about their "position" of value in the hierarchy of life. Who made up the hierarchy and assigned the values to living organisms?...Let me think...Oh yeah!...We did. Frankly, I'd be inclined to think that the most valuable organisms are the ones that live sustainably and in balance with nature and planet earth. If earth were sentient, I suspect it would place humans at the BOTTOM of the hierarchy. Good thing earth has no say regarding its most "valuable" species.

Back on the subject of "rights", I'd say even a rock has a right to be left alone. If we have to use the rock out of necessity (say for building a house), that's fine...We HAD to "disturb" the rock. For survival, it is ethical to do just about anything, but if it isn't about survival, I'd say we don't have the right to do anything to anything, living or not. The question now becomes where do rights come from? To me they are like axioms of mathematics. Did we create them, or discover them? THAT depends on your point of view. Rights are similar. Like mathematics, they apply indiscriminately to the world around us. If they exist in the Platonic sense, then they must be applied equally to all things to be ethical. If they are just a concept we made up, we can revise or rewrite them to suit our purposes. One might think my argument regarding the rights of rocks is frivolous; I make it not to be frivolous and "grant" rights to rocks, but to ensure that our rights can't be taken away. If we can take away a rock's right to remain unmolested, what is to stop us from taking away your similar right by simply claiming it doesn't exist? Do YOU have a right to be left alone? Where did it come from? How do you know it won't be taken away? If is taken away, how could it have been a right?


Maintaining our species at the expense of our world and environment will ultimately result in the destruction of our species.


wow, so this is how we die? Can i borrow your crystal ball sometime??

North Americans alone would require the resources of 6 planet earths to continue living as they do. The simple fact is, we are not living sustainably and we have no "competing" species to keep our numbers in line. In short we don't live in harmony with nature and if we don't clean up our act NOW, we probably will die off as a species in the not-too-distant future.
 Dale 09
Joined: 5/21/2009
Msg: 120
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 4:53:01 PM
Dukky,

I think of it this way:
if conflict is an outcropping of resources/ skills denial, then a person/ group can use the resources/skills of their land in bartar for the resources/skills from other lands/groups of people. harmony ensues/ war averted.

no matter what , I believe that is what the Europian union is attempting to do! not so much nation by nation but as a group of peoples coming together for a general/specific purpose (s), to have a better way of life,position ,in the world at large.

The U.S. has done this already for our position to have gotten where we were. but since we started thinking about "world opinion," we have sublimated our position to feel "Better" about ourselves.

if you disagree, then when a disaster happens -let the rest of the world try to do as much as we do either monetarily, or in resources, skills of all the nations. instead of america footing 90% of the "bill".

perhaps that is why americans and latin americans and canadiens are deftly trying to unite sooner or later, to make the overall partnership beneficial to all members of the continent. And then be better able to gain a better overall position on the world stage.




Dale
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 122
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 10:31:13 PM

We are "better" than a bacterium because we have the ability to understand that we are better. In fact, we invented the concept of "better"

That is my point! Are we God that we can objectively say which species is more "valuable"? I say we rigged the game...OF COURSE we are going to consider ourselves more valuable...WE define the criteria and the scale; WE make the determination based on our personal prejudice for humans. Do you actually claim that we are "right", that we are being objective? I think you are the one who has fallen for a logical fallacy, if you can't see that our determinations are based on our human bias for ourselves as "supreme beings." Such a line of reasoning falls apart if we ever encounter another species who consider themselves as far above us as we feel we are above cattle. Since humans could be considered as cattle, all that's needed by them will be a sweet tooth for human meat. Are you suggesting that it'll be OK for them to treat us the way we treat pigs because they are so far "above" us (by THEIR criteria) that our feelings won't matter to them? I already know you won't because you've already argued that our "qualifications" to be more than cattle would prove that we shouldn't be cattle. Would the advanced species with a sweet tooth for people agree?...I doubt it, not if their attitude is at all like ours. I would say they'd find it laughable that dinner would protest its very reason for its existence and its eventual destiny as food.

Only by acknowledging that ALL life forms have a right to life and food is only killed (humanely) as a matter of necessity (as opposed to preference/convenience) and that (if we must have a hierarchy of life forms) the "lowest" life forms take precedence over the "higher" ones as our necessary meat. This doesn't say that the advanced species wouldn't have us for dinner anyway, but at least we'd hold the moral high ground as we would know we are being killed wrongly. Who knows, it might even "shame" them into improving their own moral code. In point of fact, if there were such an advanced species, I rather suspect they would acknowledge that ALL life forms have a right to life, and that they would likely not infringe on another species' right to life except as a matter of necessity.


To disagree with this is to say that using an antibiotic is equal to mass murdering tens of thousands of people

Don't be absurd. haven't I already said necessity cancels the moral obligation to live & let live? If you have to "murder" a some billions of bacteria to save your own life, it becomes justifiable germicide, so it ain't murder by a long shot. It isn't murder to kill a deer or moose if it's needed to feed your family (but if you just want a stuffed trophy, I consider it unjustified murder)

I have a better idea...Let's go back in time a few hundred years or so and buy some "persons" to be our property and see what we get as punishment for "disposing" of our wholly owned property as we see fit (by killing them). Chances are good that if we don't kill them humanely, we'll get some kinda fine, but we likely won't see jail time because everybody "knows" that "persons" aren't real men & women; they are our property. Are you going to argue with the collective wisdom of society and say something so "ridiculous" as to suggest to the people back then that killing a slave is murder?

You must see by now that your argument that "We are better because blah blah blah..." reduces to the circular "We are better because we are better"? Or "We are better because we said so?"


you can't PRACTICE your arguments in reality.

In point of fact, the arguments can and should be practiced. I have little doubt that in a few hundred years time, the morality of it will be as obvious to the people of the future as our current knowledge that it WAS immoral for our ancestors to kill people just because they said slaves weren't people. I've made no secret of my hypocrisy. I still eat meat and can hardly picture going without it, but my disgust for the way we raise & treat cattle HAS had an effect; I eat far less meat than I used to and hope one day to wean myself from it entirely. I'll probably feel a lot better about myself when I do.

Will we ever stop killing? Of course not; we HAVE to kill to survive. That does not give us the right to kill for any reason other than necessity. I probably kill many ants without knowing it just going for a walk, but if I see an ant, I no longer step on it; I simply don't have the right to deliberately kill it and I now have too much respect for life itself to even want to. Would you argue that I should have the right to step on an ant deliberately and kill it just for laughs because, well, it's just a bloody ant and no big deal? Maybe the ant doesn't care if it lives or dies, but I've killed enough of them out of pure youthful malevolent curiosity to know that they try to save themselves, so they must "care" whether they live or die. You might say that is just instinctive programming resulting from evolution and you are probably right, but the same argument can be applied to a human's drive to survive as well.


We have taken the position of domination of all other species. This position requires responsibility. It comes with the territory.

Very well said! I would also note that we have been VERY irresponsible with respect to ALL species, even our own.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 123
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 11:28:31 PM

And why are these things okay?? Because we are superior to this creatures.

They are NOT okay because we are "superior". They are okay because EVERY organism has a RIGHT to do what is NECESSARY for its own survival.

For instance, a mosquito has a right to suck your blood (even if it gives you malaria in the process) because it does so out of necessity. Mosquitos are pests, often dangerous, sometimes deadly, but they are not evil or immoral. They live their short parasitic existence because they evolved that way and there is no malice aforethought when they bite. So mosquitos have a right to bite you and you have a right to the integrity and safety of your own body and are justified in swatting them. You are both within your rights and whatever happens, the morality of it is not an issue; you both do what you do out of necessity. It only becomes murder when you go out of your way to hunt down & kill mosquitos simply because you don't like them. (If protecting your community, family, or self is a motivator, even hunting them down is OK morally speaking.)


Can you kill billions of humans to save your own life? of course not. Can you kill your neighbor to feed your family? no.

Actually, if those billions of people are directly threatening your life, you are within your rights to kill them and it will be justifiable mass homicide. If my neighbour is the only source of food and my family will starve if we don't eat him, I'll kill him (as humanely as possible) and "invite" his remains over for dinner. Necessity gives me the moral justification. Fortunately for my neighbours, food isn't all that scarce (yet?).


what if i kill a billion bacteria just for fun?

Then you are a germicidal maniac and oughtta be either locked up, or given a job as a hospital janitor. But leaving that shitty diaper in the woods? Well, we may look at you funny for not picking it up and dumping it in the trash bin, but we'll look at you a lot funnier if we see a murderous glint in your eye and hear a crazed laugh as you burn a shitty diaper. In fact, you might find yourself explaining the thrill of killing bacteria to a psychiatrist... Good luck with that!...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 124
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/30/2009 11:42:37 PM

i think it reflects your understanding that your viewpoint here is absurd

It isn't really absurd, but I'm following the slippery slope wherever it may lead and sometimes can't resist a joke. make no mistake, I am being entirely honest with my responses. What I'm really saying is that the popular attitude of today will be (correctly) perceived as immoral one of these days (though I doubt any of us will ever really consider the killing of billions of bacteria to be anything more than simple hygienic practice).

My ethical sense regarding life comes from albert Schweitzer and my arguments are probably the same arguments he would have made.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >