PDA

View Full Version : Animal Rights Follies



Dandelion
09-18-2006, 01:23 PM
Property lacks rights, which I understand alot of veganism is about animal rights. However, rights require citizenship. Having animals be citizens is outright silly because under law it would mean it'd be neglect for you to not have your cat attend school...nevermind. This isn't the point. The point is that we have a theft in
That's just silly, it is not what animal rights means. Please read Beyond Might Makes Right (http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/beyond.html) as a start.

The Unfan
09-18-2006, 01:37 PM
That's just silly, it is not what animal rights means. Please read Beyond Might Makes Right (http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocacy/beyond.html) as a start. Ironic how they drew the conclusion based on a study using animals. Also, the fact that they decided that rights should be based on the ability to feel pain (as humans do). It means that if a species lacks the ability to feel than it should lack rights, even if it is a living thing.

veganshawn
09-18-2006, 01:58 PM
Ironic how they drew the conclusion based on a study using animals. Also, the fact that they decided that rights should be based on the ability to feel pain (as humans do). It means that if a species lacks the ability to feel than it should lack rights, even if it is a living thing.

All animals feel pain, so what do you mean? And I know you are not vegan so you might want to study up on why we feel the way we do, right now you come off like a troll with the above comments.

The Unfan
09-18-2006, 02:05 PM
All animals feel pain, so what do you mean? And I know you are not vegan so you might want to study up on why we feel the way we do, right now you come off like a troll with the above comments.
Actually, if I recall correctly scientists in Norway determined that alot of crustaceans (including lobsters) lack the brain capacity to process pain. I'll see if I can find an article about it.

downwithapathy
09-18-2006, 02:21 PM
Actually, if I recall correctly scientists in Norway determined that alot of crustaceans (including lobsters) lack the brain capacity to process pain. I'll see if I can find an article about it.
I'm mostly leaving myself out of this debate, but I am going to state a pet peeve of mine. It really bothers me when whether or not an animal is in physical pain is the only consideration given. We've plenty of reason to believe that animals, to different degrees, can experience a wide range of emotions. Even if just panic in simpler way than humans, doesn't it make sense that that panic would be unpleasant to whatever animal?

Ours is the species in power right now, but the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative, not qualitative. I hope I'm making sense. Blahblahblah... animals can perceive. That's where I draw my line. Goodnight. :)

gr8flgrl
09-18-2006, 02:23 PM
the differences between humans and other animals are quantitative, not qualitative.


Well put.

The Unfan
09-18-2006, 02:28 PM
I'm mostly leaving myself out of this debate, but I am going to state a pet peeve of mine. It really bothers me when whether or not an animal is in physical pain is the only consideration given. We've plenty of reason to believe that animals, to different degrees, can experience a wide range of emotions.
Which is a very valid point...except that the site I was linked to's conclusion was that animals deserve rights because they feel pain like humans do, and desire to live like humans do. Pain is quite a bit different than panicking, and last I knew part of insect's mating rituals included dead. Orgasming once and then going out like that? Certainly not the desire to live like humans do.

Dandelion
09-18-2006, 02:33 PM
Which is a very valid point...except that the site I was linked to's conclusion was that animals deserve rights because they feel pain like humans do, and desire to live like humans do. Pain is quite a bit different than panicking, and last I knew part of insect's mating rituals included dead. Orgasming once and then going out like that? Certainly not the desire to live like humans do.
regardless of why, granting rights does not mean animals have to go to school, become citizens or vote and that was the original point which is now getting off topic.

The Unfan
09-18-2006, 02:42 PM
regardless of why, granting rights does not mean animals have to go to school, become citizens or vote and that was the original point which is now getting off topic.
Maybe not so. The best conclusion I can come to on rights is rights are created by societies. To gain rights they'd first have to be considered part of our society (the U.S. one) which requires citizenship (as per the current laws). Perhaps if you made a whole other branch of American society that applied to animals...however you can't logically force all animals into U.S. citizenship so that the rules apply to it anyways.

grog
09-18-2006, 02:51 PM
Mod Note: Folks, we have a philosophy forum, and threads on rights, please take that discussion there.

The Unfan
09-19-2006, 01:42 AM
However, when we are talking about rights such as the right to live life free from undue suffering and cruelty, this is simply wrong. After all, it is not legal to abuse or murder visitors to the country and people living here that are not US citizens.
Actually, while we have the right to life, depending on how you define "freedom from undue suffering and cruelty" we might actually not have that right. From a physical standpoint it's pretty much true. However the constitution has the following quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Catch that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" basically means the U.S. congress can't make any laws to prevent me from verbally abusing anyone who enters the U.S. for any reason. I can speak to them in any way I see fit. It's simply unconstitutional, and if such laws exist I'm prepared to spend the money to defend the constitution. So I guess I do have the right to "abuse" someone. Just not harm them in a physical way. So now it becomes "can I harm someone in a physical fashion" to which I'll point out self defense. As long as one can claim it was in self defense I'd like to see anyone prove that that deer wasn't charging full speed at him. The idea that you can enforce such freedoms for animals doesn't work because they're too easilly dodged.

Dandelion
09-19-2006, 02:44 AM
Omnia was talking about animal rights not rights granted to U.S.citizens by the constitution. You keep equating the two but they are different. Listen:

Animals deserve to live their own life without oppression, just like you, just like me.

hazelfaern
09-19-2006, 05:53 AM
Actually, while we have the right to life, depending on how you define "freedom from undue suffering and cruelty" we might actually not have that right. From a physical standpoint it's pretty much true. However the constitution has the following quote
Catch that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" basically means the U.S. congress can't make any laws to prevent me from verbally abusing anyone who enters the U.S. for any reason. I can speak to them in any way I see fit. It's simply unconstitutional, and if such laws exist I'm prepared to spend the money to defend the constitution. So I guess I do have the right to "abuse" someone. Just not harm them in a physical way. So now it becomes "can I harm someone in a physical fashion" to which I'll point out self defense. As long as one can claim it was in self defense I'd like to see anyone prove that that deer wasn't charging full speed at him. The idea that you can enforce such freedoms for animals doesn't work because they're too easilly dodged.

You're making me laugh, Unfan. Not at yourself, but at the thought process which links the whole of the concept of rights to the US government, so much so that you'd drag out the US Constitution in a discussion of rights, as though rights did not exist before 1776, or as though the language and philosophy of human rights vanishes as soon as one crosses the border into, say, Canada or Mexico.

I understand where you're coming from. We live in a highly legalized age and we rarely discuss rights outside of a legal context. Yet there's a difference between legal rights -- some of which are spelled out in the Bill of Rights or discussed in the US Constitution, for instance -- and what our American founding fathers once viewed as natural or fundamental and irrevocable human rights -- they referred to the idea of natural rights frequently while founding this nation because they wanted our government's structure to be consistently aligned with their era's understanding of enlightened human relations.

There's a very slight difference between natural and legal rights, especially where natural rights have been codified and can be termed under either name, yet a substantial, defining difference is that, at least theoretically, natural rights exist whether or not there is a law to enforce those rights. Talking about natural rights is a way of referring to those realities which seem so fundamental to our perceptions as humans and our intrinsic understanding of ethics that we understood a breach of the human contract to have been inititated whenever those natural rights are broken. For instance, if you steal my car you've violated at least one of my rights, the right to own property, and I can say that this is true whether you're brought to justice or not, whether my rights are protected by my government or my community or not.

Of course we could turn to the Constitution itself to see that it holds three notable qualitites forth as being inalienable human rights -- the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- even though all of these concepts are highly abstract and therefore highly difficult to protect. As easily as one could kill an animal and claim that this action was taken in the course of self-defense, how much more easily can one's right to pursue happiness be confounded? The right to pursue happiness has never been truly defined, it's not a physical object, it can't be measured, held or adequately assessed. You can't store it in a bankvault and it'd be difficult to successfully sue someone for disrespecting it. Yet it's named as one of our rights. Not in the Bill of Rights, you'll note, but in one of our most important historical US documents.

What this means is that the idea of the free pursuit of happiness is a significant defining quality of the character of the lawmaking aspect of the United States of America. What it means is that future laws and initiaitives are measured against this concept, even though the right to the pursuit of happiness is not, itself, guaranteed in any written law.

In that sense, you'll note, what we're really talking about when we use the term right or rights is a kind of obligation taken up by a community in the interest of the individual or a unique subset of that community. Women's rights then are not just legal rights, they are particular obligations which women can claim from their community. If a woman is passed over for a promotion she can speak to a representative of her employer and complain that her right to equal consideration has been breached. And, because the collective beliefs of a community can create their own unique pressure equivalent to a form of codified law, her complaint may be investigated without any mention of courts or judges or laws ever being introduced into that discussion. Yet we can still say that this woman has a right to equal consideration whether her right is safeguarded or not.

When Amnesty International talks about human rights and individual violations of those rights they are usually discussing violations in areas where this is no legal guarantee of basic human rights. Despotic dictators do not tend to be highly motivated to recognize a universal right towards human liberty. In that sense, again, Amnesty International is not appealing to any form of legal rights but to the theoretical set of obligations that every human being owes another.

It might be easiest to imagine a communities common interests as a kind of bank and a particular right or set of rights as a check drafted from that bank. When we claim a right as a member of a community we are really calling for consideration, help or protection from that community based on our common interests or similiarities.

In that same sense, then, when we discuss animal rights we are not talking about current laws, we are not even talking about potential future laws which may or may not be defensible or guarranteeable. What we are discussing is the set of obligations that we believe every human being owes the worldwide spectrum of living creatures that we call animals, simply because they are fellow citizens of this earth, because they are recognizable to us, because they share qualities including the perception of pain which we know and understand and tend to defer to, most frequently amongst ourselves, but when we think of it, amongst these other animals, also.

I believe in animal rights. I believe that as a human animal, I have an obligation towards all other animals, not just the human ones, but all my fellow living creatures. In fact, I see animal rights as a logical extension of human rights in the sense that every right we grant towards all animals becomes a right that can be claimed by any and all human beings. In that sense, universal animal rights fundamentally strengthen and underscore human rights by widening the field of our consideration and placing the convenience or preferences of a few individuals within a greater perspective. For instance, if we declare that all animals have a right to exist for their own reasons, free from the classification of property, that simple declaration brings a renewed and vivid perspective to any discussion of warlords or child soldiers, slavery or overwhelming debt.

I also believe that it is important to remember that we are culturally evolving (or occasionally devolving) all the time. When the US Constitution was originally drafted, a noteworthy number of its signers did not believe in the concept of universal human sufferage -- to the extent that they believed that only wealthy landowners should have any say in the formation of the government and that its laws, services and full aegis should only be applicable to those particular individuals, ultimating excluding women and the poor. I believe we may someday look back on our lack of consideration for all living creatures with as much chagrin as we currently look back on our lack of basic consideration for women and individuals from other races, cultural backgrounds and levels of fiscal stability.

/end of spontaneous mini-sermon; thanks for not throwing a rock at me, Veganshawn :)

hazelfaern
09-19-2006, 06:09 AM
Actually, if I recall correctly scientists in Norway determined that alot of crustaceans (including lobsters) lack the brain capacity to process pain. I'll see if I can find an article about it.

I found it, Unfan. It's not an indepth article by any means. Why would scientists assert that lobsters don't feel pain? The article doesn't go into any details about the study, how it was conducted or how the scientists felt their conclusion was justified by the results of their study -- let alone how big it was or how closely this study hewed to the golden standard of scientific research.

And, because I am biased, I was really amused by the PETA representatives response :)




CNN released the following on 2/14/05…

Study: Unlikely lobsters feel pain in boiling water

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) – A new study out of Norway concludes it’s unlikely lobsters feel pain, stirring up a long-simmering debate over whether Maine’s most valuable seafood suffers when it’s being cooked.

Animal activists for years have claimed that lobsters are in agony when being cooked, and that dropping one in a pot of boiling water is tantamount to torture.

The study, funded by the Norwegian government and written by a scientist at the University of Oslo, suggests lobsters and other invertebrates such as crabs, snails and worms probably don’t suffer even if lobsters do tend to thrash in boiling water.

“Lobsters and crabs have some capacity of learning, but it is unlikely that they can feel pain,” concluded the 39-page report, aimed at determining if creatures without backbones should be subject to animal welfare legislation as Norway revises its animal welfare law.

Lobster biologists in Maine have maintained for years that the lobster’s primitive nervous system and underdeveloped brain are similar to that of an insect. While lobsters react to different stimuli, such as boiling water, the reactions are escape mechanisms, not a conscious response or an indication of pain, they say.

“It’s a semantic thing: No brain, no pain,” said Mike Loughlin, who studied the matter when he was a University of Maine graduate student and is now a biologist at the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission.

The Norwegian report also reinforces what people in the lobster industry have always contended, said Bob Bayer, executive director of the Lobster Institute, a research and education organization in Orono.

“We’ve maintained all along that the lobster doesn’t have the ability to process pain,” Bayer said.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an animal rights organization based in Norfolk, Virginia, has made lobster pain part of its Fish Empathy Project, putting out stickers and pamphlets with slogans such as “Being Boiled Hurts. Let Lobsters Live.” Group supporters regularly demonstrate at the Maine Lobster Festival in Rockland.

PETA’s Karin Robertson called the Norwegian study biased, saying the government doesn’t want to hurt the country’s fishing industry.

“This is exactly like the tobacco industry claiming that smoking doesn’t cause cancer,” she said.

Robertson said many scientists believe lobsters do feel pain. For instance, a zoologist with The Humane Society of the United States made a written declaration that lobsters can feel pain after a chef dismembered and sauteed a live lobster to prepare a Lobster Fra Diavolo dish on NBC’s “Today” show in 1994.

It’s debatable whether the debate will ever be resolved.

The Norwegian study, even while saying it’s unlikely that crustaceans feel pain, also cautioned that more research is needed because there is a scarcity of scientific knowledge on the subject.

And, many consumers will always hesitate at placing lobsters in boiling pots of water.

New Englanders may feel comfortable cooking their lobsters, but people outside the region often feel uneasy about boiling a live creature, said Kristen Millar, executive director of the Maine Lobster Promotion Council.

“Consumers don’t generally greet and meet an animal before they eat it,” she said.

nauthiz
09-19-2006, 07:57 AM
Maybe not so. The best conclusion I can come to on rights is rights are created by societies. To gain rights they'd first have to be considered part of our society (the U.S. one) which requires citizenship (as per the current laws).

Your concept of rights is shaky. If you don't get it unless you have a membership card, it's not a right. It's a privilege.

gr8flgrl
09-19-2006, 08:31 AM
Catch that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" basically means the U.S. congress can't make any laws to prevent me from verbally abusing anyone who enters the U.S. for any reason. I can speak to them in any way I see fit. It's simply unconstitutional, and if such laws exist I'm prepared to spend the money to defend the constitution.

No, freedom of speech does not extend to verbal abuse. And I won't go into why because I believe you know. Your post is antagonistic and does a disservice to the thoughtful, well intentioned, discussions that people try to have here. From this and prior posts, it doesn't appear to me that you have any genuine interest in veganism. Tell me if I'm wrong.

Omnia
09-19-2006, 08:31 AM
Actually, while we have the right to life, depending on how you define "freedom from undue suffering and cruelty" we might actually not have that right. From a physical standpoint it's pretty much true. However the constitution has the following quote
Catch that? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" basically means the U.S. congress can't make any laws to prevent me from verbally abusing anyone who enters the U.S. for any reason. I can speak to them in any way I see fit. It's simply unconstitutional, and if such laws exist I'm prepared to spend the money to defend the constitution. So I guess I do have the right to "abuse" someone. Just not harm them in a physical way. So now it becomes "can I harm someone in a physical fashion" to which I'll point out self defense. As long as one can claim it was in self defense I'd like to see anyone prove that that deer wasn't charging full speed at him. The idea that you can enforce such freedoms for animals doesn't work because they're too easilly dodged.

I was speaking of physical harm and abuse, as well, the dog left on a chain to die and the veal calf that spends its entire life in a tiny crate have a lot more to worry about than what you say to them.

So now you're claiming that we can't protect animals from physical harm because self defense can be used in defense of the human agressor? :rolleyes:
Please explain how self defense can be used in our systematic abuses of animals.
*The mink threatened my life if I refused to skin him alive*
*All the pigs, cows, and chickens in the world were plotting to take over the world and exterminate humankind, and we just HAD to do something about it" (i wouldn't blame them by the way)
Also, your logic, if applied to human-on-human violence, would mean that people should not be protected from one another because self-defense can be used to dodge laws.

Anyway, this is a silly argument because it has nothing to do with animal rights.
I was only trying to point out that you bringing up such things as the right to vote, go to school etc. had nothing to do with simple rights such as the right not to be opressed, physically abused, and slaughtered.

nauthiz
09-19-2006, 09:29 AM
I can't help it.

I gotta say, this discussion is reminding me of a previous thread. (http://www.plantbasedpeople.com/showthread.php?t=8766)

hazelfaern
09-19-2006, 09:34 AM
I can't help it.

I gotta say, this discussion is reminding me of a previous thread. (http://www.plantbasedpeople.com/showthread.php?t=8766)

Why?

And why wasn't Omnias original post split along with the rest of this thread, if that's what most of these responses are referring to?

nauthiz
09-19-2006, 10:21 AM
Why?

The discussion has done some dancing around the question of what the law has to say about right and wrong, which is one of the themes that Kohlberg dealt with.

Dandelion
09-19-2006, 10:22 AM
Why?

And why wasn't Omnias original post split along with the rest of this thread, if that's what most of these responses are referring to?
half of Omnia's post referred to the dogsdeservebetter thread and half to animal rights. since unfan quoted the passage i allowed her post to stay for the sake of the dogsdeservebetter thread.

The Unfan
09-22-2006, 07:07 AM
I believe in animal rights. I believe that as a human animal, I have an obligation towards all other animals, not just the human ones, but all my fellow living creatures. In fact, I see animal rights as a logical extension of human rights in the sense that every right we grant towards all animals becomes a right that can be claimed by any and all human beings. In that sense, universal animal rights fundamentally strengthen and underscore human rights by widening the field of our consideration and placing the convenience or preferences of a few individuals within a greater perspective. For instance, if we declare that all animals have a right to exist for their own reasons, free from the classification of property, that simple declaration brings a renewed and vivid perspective to any discussion of warlords or child soldiers, slavery or overwhelming debt.

This makes sense when first reading it, however, to extend human rights to animals would take our the right for animals to kill other animals and ultimately does more harm than good. If all animals have the right to life, that means no animal has the right to kill just for, you know, food and stuff. To top this off, half of our right to "torture animals" goes back to our survival. When we test medical drugs on animals we're doing it to save our own lives, when we eat animals it's typically part of a healthy (or maybe not so) diet. So if we (we meaning humans and other animals) have the right to life we have the right to kill other species for survival reasons OR if we have the right to survive we do not have the right to eat meat and neither do they which can be harmful to some of their diets. It creates a double standard. To give animal rights while taking ours away puts the (other) animals a step higher than humans.

nauthiz
09-22-2006, 07:39 AM
This makes sense when first reading it, however, to extend human rights to animals would take our the right for animals to kill other animals and ultimately does more harm than good.

No, that would only happen if we were to extend moral agency to animals, which nobody is suggesting. Rights just delineate the list of things we (and other moral agents) shouldn't do to them.

But that's all a waste of time to hassle about anyway - it seems to me that this whole time you haven't spent much effort on trying to discuss any actual animal rights arguments or conclusions. Instead, you're just taking a lump of words, throwing your own definition at it, and then criticising that definition you came up with. That's not philosophy, that's not a debate, that's just following that most infamous of intellectual tangents, the semantical argument.

The Unfan
09-22-2006, 08:02 AM
No, that would only happen if we were to extend moral agency to animals, which nobody is suggesting. Rights just delineate the list of things we (and other moral agents) shouldn't do to them.
So then they don't have the right to life as it's perfectly fine for them to kill each other but not for us to kill them? So basically you believe we should stop research on cures to fatal illnesses because we should treat animals who lack the right to life better? Makes perfect sense, the human race needs not to survive because we're not furry and cute!

stegan
09-22-2006, 08:08 AM
This makes sense when first reading it, however, to extend human rights to animals would take our the right for animals to kill other animals and ultimately does more harm than good. If all animals have the right to life, that means no animal has the right to kill just for, you know, food and stuff. To top this off, half of our right to "torture animals" goes back to our survival. When we test medical drugs on animals we're doing it to save our own lives, when we eat animals it's typically part of a healthy (or maybe not so) diet. So if we (we meaning humans and other animals) have the right to life we have the right to kill other species for survival reasons OR if we have the right to survive we do not have the right to eat meat and neither do they which can be harmful to some of their diets. It creates a double standard. To give animal rights while taking ours away puts the (other) animals a step higher than humans.
Mmmm- pretzel logic. :drool:

Your arguments is entirely without merit, but I'll just point out two things-

1.If we really wanted to to find out what effect drugs would have on humans, we'd test them on consenting humans who have the condition the drug is being prescribed for. Anything else is non-consensual torture.

2.The idea of animal rights is a "live and let live" principle, not some sort of "civil rights", as you're trying to make it out to be. Nothing needs to be cooped up in a cage and forced to breed for the human diet, it's that simple. Whether an animal kills for food is irrelevant.

The Unfan
09-22-2006, 08:15 AM
Mmmm- pretzel logic. :drool:

Your arguments is entirely without merit, but I'll just point out two things-

1.If we really wanted to to find out what effect drugs would have on humans, we'd test them on consenting humans who have the condition the drug is being prescribed for. Anything else is non-consensual torture.

2.The idea of animal rights is a "live and let live" principle, not some sort of "civil rights", as you're trying to make it out to be. Nothing needs to be cooped up in a cage and forced to breed for the human diet, it's that simple. Whether an animal kills for food is irrelevant. Not so, I mentioned the "right to life" which would fall into the live and let live principal. If we just lived and let live we'd lose alot of research which help advance medical science. Basically by stating we should leave animals alone you're saying they have the right to live more than we do, which is complete ass. If they are permitted to killing a minor amount of animals to live, we should be permitted so too. On that note, if I knew choking a monkey to death would allow for a medicine that could potentially cure 1,000 people who would die otherwise I most certainly would choke that monkey to death, with my bare hands if need be. The few thousand of animals we kill in the name of science now saves lives for generations to come. The trade is more than fair, especially considering alot of the medicines will help animals too.

stegan
09-22-2006, 08:51 AM
Basically by stating we should leave animals alone you're saying they have the right to live more than we do, which is complete ass.
I said nothing of the sort- animals have just as much right to live as we do. And watch your mouth, seriously.

Animals that kill for food do so because they need that to survive. Humans are not carnivores and do not need to kill animals to survive. Don't confuse the desire to exercise a perverse control over animals with sustenance.

If you have no problem with killing an animal "in the name of progress", then why do you have a problem with using humans for the same task? All I'm saying is that a consenting human will always prove a better drug test subject than an animal. See, cause they can provide feedback. And they're actually sick to begin with.

nauthiz
09-22-2006, 09:05 AM
So then they don't have the right to life as it's perfectly fine for them to kill each other but not for us to kill them? So basically you believe we should stop research on cures to fatal illnesses because we should treat animals who lack the right to life better? Makes perfect sense, the human race needs not to survive because we're not furry and cute!

Did you even read the two sentences you quoted?

ETA: Unfan, while you've done a great job of showing your proficiency with erecting straw men and knocking them down, I'm wondering, are you going to get bored with that anytime soon?

The Unfan
09-22-2006, 09:09 AM
Did you even read the two sentences you quoted?

ETA: Unfan, while you've done a great job of showing your proficiency with erecting straw men and knocking them down, I'm wondering, are you going to get bored with that anytime soon?Enjoy selective quoting much? I set up that whole point in the same post which responds mainly to number 2.

And what straw men? I've tackled why animal rights don't work from a political stance and a moral stance. Do you simply not enjoy politics?

Omnia
09-22-2006, 09:43 AM
This makes sense when first reading it, however, to extend human rights to animals would take our the right for animals to kill other animals and ultimately does more harm than good. If all animals have the right to life, that means no animal has the right to kill just for, you know, food and stuff.

From "Beyond Might Makes Right" :
"In most of the world, human beings are granted basic rights. These fundamental rights are usually (at a minimum): the entitlement of individuals to have basic control of their lives and bodies, without infringing on the rights of others. In other words: the right not to be killed, caged, or experimented on against their will at the hands of moral agents (persons able to understand and act from a moral code)."

We can assume that moral agents = human beings. The idea of rights helps guide us, as moral agents, to living the most ethical life with respect to all beings.


To top this off, half of our right to "torture animals" goes back to our survival. When we test medical drugs on animals we're doing it to save our own lives, when we eat animals it's typically part of a healthy (or maybe not so) diet. So if we (we meaning humans and other animals) have the right to life we have the right to kill other species for survival reasons OR if we have the right to survive we do not have the right to eat meat and neither do they which can be harmful to some of their diets. It creates a double standard. To give animal rights while taking ours away puts the (other) animals a step higher than humans.

It does not put other animals a step higher than humans - it does give us more responsiblity however. We hold ourself to be the species with the highest ability to reason and consider moral obligations - it would be nice if we lived up to that.

As others said, we do NOT need to eat animals for survival. When we do so, we are inflicting unneeded harm on animals. The relationship between us and the animals we manipulate and torment for food is not comparable to the relationship between a carnivore and its prey in the wild.

As for experimentation - You point out that you feel the rights of an animal to live are in conflict to our right to survive by "use" of that animal. Do you then feel the same way about experimentation about humans? After all, any good that can come to humans from the use of animals in experiments is actually much higher if we substitute other humans in those experiments.
After all, you said :


On that note, if I knew choking a monkey to death would allow for a medicine that could potentially cure 1,000 people who would die otherwise I most certainly would choke that monkey to death, with my bare hands if need be. The few thousand of animals we kill in the name of science now saves lives for generations to come. The trade is more than fair, especially considering alot of the medicines will help animals too.

so the end justifies the means, correct? the suffering of one monkey is more than made up for by the saving of 1000 people, just as the torture and slaughter of a few thousand for the generations of human and non-human animals to come according to this logic. And actually, what you state here is very much in the vein of the principle of utilitarianism. However, to be consistent, you must also be willing to hypothetically choke a human being to save others. I'm curious to how you'd feel about that?

Omnia
09-22-2006, 09:56 AM
So then they don't have the right to life as it's perfectly fine for them to kill each other but not for us to kill them? So basically you believe we should stop research on cures to fatal illnesses because we should treat animals who lack the right to life better? Makes perfect sense, the human race needs not to survive because we're not furry and cute!

Wow...don't you think you're exaggerating quite a bit with your assumption that the human race will not survive without testing cures no animals?

I'm not going to claim that there can't be anything at all achieved from animal experimentation (something being useful doesn't make it moral). However, we, as a race, can certainly survive without it.

nauthiz
09-22-2006, 10:01 AM
Enjoy selective quoting much? I set up that whole point in the same post which responds mainly to number 2.

If by "set up that whole point" you mean "respond as if I'd said something completely different from what I did say." I explained the difference between having rights and having moral agency, which is a pretty fundamental distinction in most any system of ethics and that, in my experience, is something that pretty much everybody understands innately even if they've never heard it articulated in philosophical jargon. I don't see why the concept should even be a speedbump in a discussion about animal rights. I'm not even sure what you were replying to, because you responded as if there is no difference but didn't even come out and say why you disagree with the distinction or anything like that.


And what straw men?
straw man


I've tackled why animal rights don't work from a political stance and a moral stance.

No you haven't. You've tackled why some fabricated ideology that you call animal rights but that doesn't seem to have much of a relation to actual animal rights thought doesn't work. Quite honestly, I agree, a version of animal rights that's constructed the way you seem to think it is would be pretty silly. Which is why nobody thinks of animal rights that way.


Do you simply not enjoy politics?

I haven't said a thing about politics yet. I'm just trying to point out fallacious reasoning, which is one thing that I do think folks should strive to avoid.

The Unfan
09-22-2006, 10:22 AM
No you haven't. You've tackled why some fabricated ideology that you call animal rights but that doesn't seem to have much of a relation to actual animal rights thought doesn't work. Quite honestly, I agree, a version of animal rights that's constructed the way you seem to think it is would be pretty silly. Which is why nobody thinks of animal rights that way.
The first definition to come up for "right" on www.webster.com is


qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval
Which is silly so we can skip to number 2...

something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled <voting rights> <his right to decide
Makes a bit more sense. The animal's thing it has a just claim to. Right? Like life. Animals have a just claim to life, agree? So an animal has the right to life...and kill something for food thus taking away another animal's right to life?

mountainvegan
09-22-2006, 10:29 AM
Unfan, I highly recommend you do some basic reading in ethics and moral philosophy in general, but especially in the distinction between moral agents and patients, as nauthiz pointed out. Your ignorance in this area is astounding, assuming you are trying to make a serious argument and not just pushing buttons.

I’d also recommend that you educate yourself on the medical research industry, how entrenched it is in blind tradition and old, established economic patterns, how dangerous it is these days to humans (i.e., how many humans have died) to attempt to apply research findings on animals to humans, how similar humans and animals are at the level of gross anatomy and how different they are at the level of microbiology (which is where disease is cured and started), and how all of the new technology and methods and clinical research are the answer to helping humans medically.

Here’s a link to get you started: http://www.curedisease.com/

From what I’ve read so far, and given your unsophisticated, even unintelligent posts, you seem to be more like a troll than someone who has really thought about the issue and has some intelligent questions. As such, and since I don’t see you going away on your own choice (as entertaining as this must be for you), I’d like to see you blocked from posting and wasting our time responding to your thoughtless posts (or clever, entertaining posts if your goal is to see where the line is and how seriously people will take your silly objections).

stegan
09-22-2006, 10:34 AM
thank goodness- what took you so long, MV? :)

bird
09-22-2006, 10:37 AM
thank goodness- what took you so long, MV? :):laugh: :yes:

Dandelion
09-22-2006, 10:54 AM
As such, and since I don’t see you going away on your own choice (as entertaining as this must be for you), I’d like to see you blocked from posting and wasting our time responding to your thoughtless posts (or clever, entertaining posts if your goal is to see where the line is and how seriously people will take your silly objections).
Yeah this is not an argument we need to have in the friendly confines. He's outta here!

mountainvegan
09-22-2006, 11:23 AM
:p Everyone was kicking Unfan’s Uninformed bootie quite well, so I didn’t see the need to post, but then I just got tired of it.

Thanks for showing him the door, Dandy. :)

Miso Vegan
09-22-2006, 11:52 AM
Yeah this is not an argument we need to have in the friendly confines. He's outta here!
But - but - he didn't get to see my witty retort on another thread!!! :bawling:

:p

nauthiz
09-22-2006, 01:27 PM
But - but - he didn't get to see my witty retort on another thread!!! :bawling:

:idea:

Well I'm sure someone here could get a hold of his e-mail address for you. . .

:D

Miso Vegan
09-22-2006, 01:41 PM
Hah! If it were actually a witty retort, I might consider it... :D

carabdle
03-30-2007, 12:56 PM
Hum...seems that I've run into Unfan (using a different name) at another forum and he's still spouting the same stuff. (Of course, when I looked at his "Hi" thread, it's obvious that he's not really a vegan...became one to try to have sex with a vegan and occasionally eats meat?) I finally just stopped responding to him as he's obviously only interested in proving how "right" he is...I mean, word-for-word he's using almost the identical same arguments. I guess I just get upset when people seem so focused on proving that it's OK to mistreat animals or kill them when there are other options and it's completely unnecessary IMO. Yes, there are many research options for the vast majority of situations that are not only available, but also more accurate than animal research. Yes, there is plenty of food for the vast majority of people that does not involve animal (including invertebrate) killing. (Though sometimes people don't have access to any other "food" source:( Thankfully in most modern societies, animal products are an unnecessary part of the human diet.)

He also likes to argue that invertebrates probably don't feel pain and that kinda bugs me too. I don't always agree with behaviorists, but on one point I think they're right: an animal's behavior is often the best indicator of "truth." Since even invertebrates react negatively to painful stimuli--by squirming or trying to avoid/flee, it should be obvious that while it may not be pain such as a human feels (we can't know that), it is definitely an unpleasant stimuli to them. That is enough "proof" for me. Sorry, just venting, but I'm relieved to see that here people can't just keep spewing that propoganda indefinitely--unlike on the other unnamed forum;)

hazelfaern
04-02-2007, 01:47 AM
Hum...seems that I've run into Unfan (using a different name) at another forum and he's still spouting the same stuff. (Of course, when I looked at his "Hi" thread, it's obvious that he's not really a vegan...became one to try to have sex with a vegan and occasionally eats meat?) I finally just stopped responding to him as he's obviously only interested in proving how "right" he is...I mean, word-for-word he's using almost the identical same arguments. I guess I just get upset when people seem so focused on proving that it's OK to mistreat animals or kill them when there are other options and it's completely unnecessary IMO. Yes, there are many research options for the vast majority of situations that are not only available, but also more accurate than animal research. Yes, there is plenty of food for the vast majority of people that does not involve animal (including invertebrate) killing. (Though sometimes people don't have access to any other "food" source:( Thankfully in most modern societies, animal products are an unnecessary part of the human diet.)

He also likes to argue that invertebrates probably don't feel pain and that kinda bugs me too. I don't always agree with behaviorists, but on one point I think they're right: an animal's behavior is often the best indicator of "truth." Since even invertebrates react negatively to painful stimuli--by squirming or trying to avoid/flee, it should be obvious that while it may not be pain such as a human feels (we can't know that), it is definitely an unpleasant stimuli to them. That is enough "proof" for me. Sorry, just venting, but I'm relieved to see that here people can't just keep spewing that propoganda indefinitely--unlike on the other unnamed forum;)

A few years ago, I was the member of a writer's message board that discovered that one of its moderators was a fictional entity that'd been created in order to feed a somewhat widespread and elaborate monetary/emotional-needs based hoax. "She" was really sick for a long time, "she" wrote really bad, gut-wrenching poetry about it, then, suddenly "she" died (her "sister" informed someone who created a dedicated mourning thread), there was this huge emotional catharsis across the site and then, within a week, we found out this person had never existed at all and some members had been swindled out of money and a lot of people had been suckered for their time, intimacy and affection.

It may sound jaded but there's never any reason to assume that the individuals you come across via the internet are who they say they are, or that the arguments that they make are straightforward or legititimate.

Just as food for thought, one of the sessions I attended at the last Animal Rights conference featured a gentleman who's run some of the oldest AR listservs on the internet (according to him) and he pointed out that he's joined hunting listservs and pro-animal testing listservs and deliberately instigated an argument just so that he could get his opponent to say something really dumb and, more importantly, quotable. He then pointed out that there's never any reason to imagine that the reverse scenario couldn't happen and that it's important to always be aware of what you're saying, to whom and why and as much as possible never let your emotions get the best of you -- because when you're not in charge of your responses, someone else probably is.

carabdle
04-02-2007, 09:40 AM
True:)

Minoesj
01-16-2008, 10:32 AM
very true hazelfaern

Milkweed
01-20-2008, 09:47 PM
You guys pretty much wiped the floor with him - his arguments were ridiculous

edennforever
02-11-2008, 09:22 AM
I believe in animal rights. I believe that as a human animal, I have an obligation towards all other animals, not just the human ones, but all my fellow living creatures. Veganshawn :)

This.