Animal Rights?

[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.

[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...

[Moonraker]

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.

There are no inate rights. Historically almost all rights have been granted after a struggle of some form and rights can just as easily be taken away. Yes, it's impossible for animals to have rights since they cannot come to the bargaining table and consent to the "contract". It's possible I guess to appoint a body as their spokesperson with "power of attorney" as another poster implied. But we are going into murky legal waters and begging the question by what right does this group speak for animals. What next, the right of trees not to be cut?

This is why I prefer to approach the problem from the other side of the coin and agree with Ozme, that we should have the right to have a clean conscience and to pass onto our children a world with animals . We pay taxes for governments to pass the laws we want and create the society we want to live in.

It seems to me that there is a tendency to take a word, make it fashionable and then misuse the word in another context. Animal "rights" being the case in point. Democracy is another word that seems to be a recent fashion word. Maybe a simple thing like using different terminology could clear up much confusion regarding many issues.

Personally I can see no need for any cruelty to animals. I once read that the total cost of the space program over the first decade was less than what american women spent on cosmetics in any single year. If we can develop technology to put a man on the moon I can't see it as beyond our ability to make animal testing a thing of the past.

And while we're at it, let's broaden the topic of animal cruelty. If somebody burned your home and crops you'd find that pretty cruel. So what about man encroaching on animal habitat and food supplies. And the converse of course, what about your right to defend yourslef from animals eating your crops and living in your home. I mention this one because it is often used by fox hunters in my country, ah the foxes eat the chickens so we have to chase after them in our finery on horses to kill them and smear their blood over out childrens faces.

[Moonraker]

oops posted same post twice. Trigger happy. How to delete a post I wonder?