Animal Rights?

[Saucie]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

[ThisYouWillDo]

The right not to suffer at mankind's whim.

Can't think of anything else offhand.

[Saucie]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

[Moonraker]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

[Ozme52]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

[_ID_]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

[Warbaby1943]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I do believe they should be protected but not have more rights then human beings have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

But what is a whim? One man's whim could be another's need.

No man needs to torment any animal. Ever. He might need to eradicate dangerous, disease carrying vermin, but he can do it humanely, as befits the conduct of a human being. He might need to kill animals for food or clothing, but he can do that swiftly and painlessly. He can tame an animal and treat it as a pet, but he must not then abandon it if it is unable to fend for itself in the wild.

An animal's right not to suffer is the corrollary of mankind's duty to treat all living things considerately and with human compassion. It is not the same thing as falling victim to a cat which will torment its prey; cats know no better. We do. And we feel ill-at-ease when we learn of mistreatment, which is why we punish people who do neglect or abuse other creatures.

TYWD

[ThisYouWillDo]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

[Aadenn]

What about animal testing? Do animals have the "right" not to be experimented on?

I say no. "Rights" is something that gets thrown around an awful lot without full consideration of what it means.

While I think testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is incredibly vain and immoral, I dont believe animals have any rights in that dept nor do I feel testing on animals for medicinal purposes is immoral or vain.

[Thorne]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.

[mkemse]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.

altho I do beleive in animal right myslef, i agree with you 100% when you say that anoyne who kills an animal justtowathc it die, for the "Thrill Of The Kill" should be placed as you suggested, just do not know if i would want to subjectthe animals to them

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

[Ozme52]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

[Ozme52]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away.

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

[_ID_]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

[Thorne]

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

I have no opposition to using animals, of any kind, for MEDICAL tests. I don't consider testing of cosmetics, except in very rare circumstances, to be medically related. I do think that a lot of animal testing can be eliminated by proper use of computer simulations, but eventually you MUST perform animal, or human testing before finalizing your research.

[Thorne]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

[fantassy]

We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

[Saucie]

I prefer to see it from the opposite direction, not the rights of animals but the responsibilites of man ie not the right of animals not to suffer but the responsibility of modern man not to inflict unnecessary suffering. And as custodians of the planet we have a responsibilit to preserve and protect the planet and wildlife for future generations.

We are striving to become more civilized so the focus should be on how far mankind has progress since the cavemen. Not too far I would suggest, young boys still pull wings of butterflies for fun and leaders see war as a solution to problems. In bygone days there was the concept of noblesse oblige; it beholds those with power and influence to defend and help those without.

An advantage in the responsibilty vis a vis rights approach is that instead of just punishing the few who infringe on animal rights we are making all of us responsible for their protection. The "its nothing to do with me I never hurt the animal" defense no longer holds. Yes it is, you are wearing the mink coat.

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility. I support animal testing (fuck yeah, I'm an insulin-dependent diabetic, and guess how commercial insulin got developed), and as long as an animal isn't endangered and there's no cruelty involved (cruelty defined as unnecessary infliction of pain), then I'm fine with hunting, food production, and fur production.

My big trouble is when a person's property rights conflict with an animal's interest. As a Social Contractarian with very strong Libertarian leanings, I take property rights very, very, very seriously. But I hate animal cruelty... I don't want to be inconsistent in my ethics, but on the other hand, I'm not heartless. And so I think about it, and think about it...

[Ozme52]

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

[Saucie]

No, animals have no rights.

But I have the right to know they don't have to suffer needlessly, and especially not for the pleasure of human "entertainment" nor for most human needs of comfort or luxury.

It's about human rights on behalf of pets and wildlife and even some practices used on domesticated animals.

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?

[Ozme52]

Remember, though, that they rarely use wild animals for these furs anymore. Most real furs are from farm raised animals. (There are, of course, exceptions.) Those animals would not have been born if it weren't for those farms. I don't believe that real furs are necessary, anymore. The faux furs are quite realistic. But I don't have any objection to using the real ones if someone is silly enough to pay the price.

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

[Saucie]

I don't think animals have rights, or the need to not suffer. We do all kinds of things to animals for the sake of human progression. Animal testing anyone? I am not going to be nice to an animal if its suffering will lengthen my life, do something to promote health, keep me warm, or any other such form of progress. Animal suffering for entertainment has no value in our progression, so isn't really ethically meeting the above.

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

[Saucie]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

What is a "natural right"? Where would it come from? Whose responsibility would it be to enforce those rights? Can they be taken away for any reason, and if so, how? People use that phrase all the time, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means in concrete terms. Would you clarify?

[Saucie]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

[Ozme52]

I'm confused by what you mean when you say "right". Would you clarify?

Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

[Saucie]

But the question is rarely as black and white as the boundaries you have set out here. Rarely is the choice between the animal suffering and some form of progress. Usually the choice is between animal suffering and progress costing a few pennies more. Should animals be forced to suffer when a viable but slightly more expensive alternative exists?

Perhaps. If testing on animals means that a certain medication is less expensive, and the woman with no insurance can afford to buy it, then wouldn't that outweigh an animal's suffering? I say let the testers do as they will, and those labs that use animals less, or more humanely, or whatnot, will make certain that consumers know about it. (Case in point: organic groceries.) Then, consumers can choose products based on their own personal ethics and incomes.

[Ozme52]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

[Saucie]

Rights are strictly a concept born of our self-aware, intellegent minds.

If man didn't exist, there would be no entity on earth (as far as we know) to contemplate animal rights. Carnivores would prey on smaller carnivores and herbivores. Including stealing and consuming new borns, the elderly and weak. No right to live, no right to pursue happiness, no right to "liberty" lol, no concept of liberty, let alone rights.

Rights are strictly human, a human construct and in my opinion strictly about us dealing with each other. That's why "animal rights" is about my personal sensibilities with regard to what is and isn't acceptable treatment of animals.

Ah, the state of nature. I'm such a Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau groupie. Anyway, I agree with this post completely. For some reason, in your other post, I thought you were saying something else entirely. My mistake.

[Saucie]

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.