Animal Rights?

[_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.

[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?

[_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).

[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.

[_ID_]

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.

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

[Ozme52]

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

[_ID_]

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I would agree, but I am still going to use them for these purposes.

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

That's what makes intelligent debate so cool. We can understand each other, but disagree.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

I'm not an an ant-abortion camper, just one that believes it should be out of necessity not as a substitute for a Trojan.

[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.

[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?

[Thorne]

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?

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

[Ozme52]

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

I happen to agree. I don't care much for horse racing for a number of issues. This is about where you draw the line. How to know what the animal would "do" if it had a choice. We anthropomorphize a lot... say that horses love to run. That's bullshit of course. They're bred to run... originally from predators. What about using dogs to help us hunt? Is it mutilation to spay and neuter dogs and cats? There are so many nuances and issues that the topic can easily snowball.

LOL, it even got a comment about terrorists and prisoner interrogations. (Not a laughing matter.... just that it occured in this thread.)

[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 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?

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

[Saucie]

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

[Ozme52]

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

You were arguing the issue of the necessity of luxuries and who defines it. But you were arguing against my specific question to ID. I happen to agree with your point. (but not with using the guitar v. tree analogy. LOL)

[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]

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.

[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?

[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]

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.

[Ozme52]

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.

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or politically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

[Saucie]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or poticically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

[Ozme52]

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

No. The guy with the shotgun was going against the law (at the time) and was being unethical. Those who owned slaves were 100% ethical within the belief system at that time. We believe today that those beliefs were wrong. Our ethics have changed. They are malleable based on knowledge, culture, and beliefs.

And yes, the Emancipation Proclomation was ethical... and if not for the civil war, if it had been passed beforehand, compensation to "property" owners, (i.e., slave owners,) would have been part of the new law. It was or had been under discussion in Congress. Owning slaves, prior to the civil war was considered ethical in the south.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

I think you're arguing what is and isn't ethical... and I'm arguing about the defintion of ethics.

(Though I admit I raised the question 'was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical' in the prior post... but that was in response to your previous post.... the threads or the conversation grow fuzzy in my mind. lol)

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

It's significant if you believe in innate 'animal rights' as opposed to whether any rights they have are at our descretion.

I went back and looked at your intial question.

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

I don't think we can get to the question "should have rights" until we agree whether or not they have innate rights... and that's what the thread is churning over.

[In2kink]

An interesting topic Saucie. Clearly animals do in fact enjoy limited rights as every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty but just as clearly they don’t enjoy personal rights to the degree that we as human beings do. The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

Clearly I do think some people overly personify animals (attribute to them human qualities). I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. But just as clearly to me at least, there is much more to an animal that meets the eye. Consider this excerpt from the writings of Voltaire;

“Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”

[Thorne]

The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

While it is true that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic based religions (among others) justify the domination of animals, I don't agree that they represent the source of this idea. Basically, we developed from our tree dwelling ancestors into omnivorous ground dwellers, where meat was an important part of our diets. All animals were fair game, and most were as dangerous as they were delicious. The idea of domesticating animals could only come about when the value of the work the animals did exceeded the nutritional value to the tribe. Formalizing this concept through religion was only a way to justify it.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

I agree with you 100% here. If the bear were to come into your home, or your neighborhood, you would not be unjustified in killing it, if you can, in order to protect your family or your neighbors. And the reverse is true: if you go into the bear's neighborhood, expect to be attacked.

In fact, I would venture to offer a suggestion to those activists who place more value upon the lives of animals than they do upon the lives of humans: take your manifestos and your speeches out to the African veldt and preach to the lions. They are eagerly waiting to hear from you, and will undoubtedly invite you to dinner. Perhaps you can convert them into vegetarians as well!

[Aadenn]

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, what exactly do you mean by property rights? This raises an interesting question of territorial domain and animal preservation. Do you think mankind has the "right" to dominate the ecosystem and push endangered animal species into extinction through habitat destruction?

Is there such a thing as a 'right to more land?' or a 'right to develop land?' I come back to your definition of a right as being a contract. If this is indeed a 'right' of corporations or individuals, then what is their responsibility that goes along with that right? What is the contract? And who decides? and when does that decision come under the global flag of "animal rights" or is it semantically more appropriate to refer to it as environmental policy?

I dont think "animal rights" should include that kind of restriction, but I also think an individual's property rights (in my mind the right to own land) should come with the responsibility of not doing excessive damage to the ecosystem.