How does this argument pan with “human rights”, don’t they have to be “pre-supposed” also?
Well, the answer I would give are that animal rights are not really rights in the same way as you think of human rights. Animal rights really refers to an ethical code of how humans should treat animals, not how animals treat animals.
Of course, no-one (at least no-one I could take seriously) would espouse the view that an animal death is morally equivalent to a human death, but killing an animal to make a coat so a human “looks” good, is that “ethical”? What about killing an animal because a particular human thinks it’s “fun”?
Are there any current practices in the Western world that you find unethical? Are their any ethical practices that are “unjustly” outlawed? Or is everything just exactly perfect, we show animals all the respect they deserve? Are there any pre-suppostions that are informing your mindset?
Aren’t human rights an ethical code of how we should treat other humans? Is it the lack of symmetry (that animals have no corresponding obligation to us) that causes you to form the distinction? It seems so arbitrary
What about “children’s rights”, are they not equally asymmetric?
Gangster Octopus, where are the human rights that we suppose “written in stone”? Could we not choose to (indeed, do we not already) grant animals some rights (and I don’t suggest identical rights)?
we are higher on the evolutionary ladder, therefor we have a responsability to care for our fellow creatures. We are more important, for the very simple reason that whatever we do, influences the world, and therefor animals. We are the only species that change the world around us to suit us, instead of adapting to it.We’re constantly destroying most wild animals’ natural habitat. We’re hunting them into extinction for fun or fur.
Bottom line is we don’t need to kill the amount of animals that we kill. We eat too much meat. We also don’t need to treat these animals the way we do. It’s not necessary. They deserve better.
our fellow creatures! we need to treat ANIMALS better. why arent ppl talking about countries where ppl have no freedom of speech, cant do what they want, cant protest, have to either go to school, which there parents cant aford, or go to work at a dangerous factory. yes we got rid of all that in america years ago, but dont tell me we sould worrie about animals before we worrie about them.
But it is not arbitrary, it is a fundemental underpinning of rights that their is an associated responsibility. I have the right to life means you have the responsibility not to kill me. It is not necessarily the assymetry I have between animals and humans, but between animals themselves. If their is a fundamental animal right then that should apply between animals, shouldn’t it? But is anybody suggesting that one animal has any rights relative to another? No, it is always, what rights do animal’s have relative to how they are treated by people.
Yes, they are. Of course, children also have human rights.
Gangster Octopus, where are the human rights that we suppose “written in stone”? Could we not choose to (indeed, do we not already) grant animals some rights (and I don’t suggest identical rights)? **
[/QUOTE]
How do people grant rights? But essentially, yes, that is what I am saying. I am not arguing that has moral beings we should not impose ehtical behavior on how we treat animals. I was simply making the distinction between animal rights and human rights.
Of course, there are also SDMB rights which state that no Doper should be subject to bad coding. D’oh!
Hang on! If there are so many more deserving causes than “animal rights” that we should all be devoting our energies to, how further down the ladder of deserving causes is your “animal rightists should shut the hell up” agenda?
That’s not how it works, is it towel2? – Consider this example – there are many worse things than not having the right to vote that could happen to someone (say, starving, or being tortured, etc), does not mean that we should not care about our rights to vote?
Do you see my point?
PS: Do you see that “caps lock” key.
So you agree that we have an ethical responsibility towards animals, I would connote the ethical treatment of animals with animal rights, lets agree to disagree on the arbitrary distinction.
Actually, scientists pretty much agree now that the linear view of evolution isn’t valid. Picture all species alive today as leaves on a bush. Humans would be one of those leaves. Not to be pendantic, but this rules out the noblesse oblige argument for the ethical treatment of animals.
I guess you could make the argument, though, that we’re at the “top” of the food chain, but I’m not sure what that would have to do with anything.
LOL! It’s so funny when people die. And this has nothing to do with the topic.
When was the last time you saw a lion kill a creature, discard the meat, and use the hide as a stylish pelt? What lions due may be interesting, but should not determine what humans do.
How does your using a computer fit in to this “natural order?”
You start a thread about animal rights, and then complain that nobody is talking about human rights in other countries??? Have you even bothered to read this board for a little bit? Every other day, people are complaining about some condition in some other country, and about conditions in the US. What they don’t do is hijack threads with arguments that have nothing to do with anything.
I know you are new here, but you really should stick to your own topic, stop with random generalizations about people, and provide factual evidence to support your viewpoint.
My own viewpoint is that endangered species should never be intentionally killed. I’m not in favor of killing non-endangered animals for food or clothing, but I don’t support making it illegal. I do think some medical or scientific research on animals is necessary, as long as strict guidelines are followed to minimize animal suffering.
Jesus Christ, man, the guy may not be the greatest rhetorician in the world, but cut him some slack. The point that choosing to espouse the cause of animal rights when that energy could be directed at helping people is a valid one. I have met many people who genuinely care more about Bengal tigers and square-lipped rhinos than they do about people. I don’t think that this is just a mixed-up sense of priorities, I think it’s perverse.
And as to your request that everything in Great Debates should be backed up by factual evidence, that’s nonsense. Rhetoric will do fine for the purpose of discussing ethics and human rights. Besides, you can’t really provide tangible evidence to support abstract and somewhat arbitrary concepts. Both require a leap of faith.
I’m not going to provide any solid back-up whatsoever for anything I’ve said. So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!
I disagree. While I personally would not spend my time focused on animal rights, it’s not my place to tell people how to prioritize. Furthermore, just because someone has an interest in animal rights, does not mean that they are not doing things to help people as well. The two interests are not exclusive.
Finally, I personally believe that when people spend some time thinking about how they treat the world around them (people, animals, environment, etc), it just makes them better people.
You’re right. Not everything has to be backed up with factual evidence. But look at the difference between your statement and his:
You have clearly indicated this statement in anecdotal evidence. Now, look at his statement:
He has made an assertion that people who talk about animal rights have no interest in human rights. He hasn’t qualified this statement in any fashion, and he hasn’t provided evidence of this. So, to this, I say… cite?
And then there’s this:
Who here has said this? Who is the OP talking about? What is he talking about? This is complete strawman rhetoric.
I quit smoking 2 weeks ago. 
He could cut me some slack by lurking for a while so he gets an idea of how Great Debates works. I wasn’t trying to be rude to him, but it’s obvious he hasn’t done this, and I thought it would be useful to steer him in direction which leads to better debating. As it is right now, I am having trouble finding a coherent argument in his posts, and I think if he was clearer and stayed on point it would be more useful in getting his argument across.
In order to be fully humane to all God’s creatures, I suggest we genetically modify ourselves to take in food directly from sunlight, because even if we don’t eat animals, vegetables are people too!
In retrospect, I believe I have been perhaps too harsh. I really have no dog in this fight, since I don’t have a problem with people eating meat or wearing furs, even though I myself would not do so.
I’ll admit that I get really irked when people start talking about “natural order.” Usually when people do this, they use behaviors that support their argument while ignoring behaviors that don’t. For example, I’m not an expert on lion behavior, but in the few documentaries I’ve watched, they exhibit behavior that I hope no human would do. Male lions (in these docus) commit infanticide and cannibalism. There were also a few docus where injured lions were driven out of the pack and/or abandoned. If one is going to use lion behavior to justify human behavior, then how come these behaviors are conveniently ignored? Unless someone is an expert in lion behavior (which neither I or the OP are) then this argument should be avoided completely.
I will add that both of the Green Parties in the USA have a commitment to humane treatment of animals. But most of their rhetoric concerns economic and social justice for people. So, the idea that anybody who has a commitment to animal issues is ignoring people is fals. PETA has some strange tactics, I think, but since PETA does not share my viewpoint, hopefully someone will come in here to explain what they think.
what i ment by my last postr was that ppl say “dont kill the animals there ppl too” then when i bring up actual ppl starving and being killed for no reason they almost always say “its not my problem” well why isnt it. u want to stand up for a helpless creature who cant defend itself getting traped in cages so its meat stays tender. but u dont want to see the actual evil in the world that could break down our doors one day and this way of life u love will be gone in a second. the reason why i started this thread was to first find out why ppl think animals are so important. then i want to ask u about the inhumaane treat ment of ppl. plus vegtibles live and breath and have children but u have no quams about eating them.
How about because you are hungry, or because you wish to make a profit? Or because this animal may well hurt someone?
What I meant by the pre-supposing rights is that I have seen no chain of reasoning that isn’t either wholly arbitrary in which animals get which rights or ends up with people indebted to their skin cells.
I am, for the record, challenging the assertion that there is a moral way to treat animals. If you beat cattle to death with a baseball bat, then you’re a sick mofo. But I don’t see how you could say that a cow has a right not to be beaten with a baseball bat, but does have a right to be slaughtered humanely.
A brief explanation:
PETA embodies the school of thought that animals have certain basic rights regardless of whether or not they are useful to humanity, or how humans feels about other species in general. What these specific rights are is relative to the animal, but the question of whether or not they have these rights is an absolute. As absolute moralisers, they are also proselytisers.
This is as opposed to the alternative line of thinking embraced by what I’ll call animal welfarists. Generally speaking, they can be typified by the idea that the “ethical” treatment of animals is relative to how it affects humanity - and/or - is a personal moral decision made by an individual. As relative moralisers, they are (usually) not proselytisers. BrightNShiny’s view might be one example:
So from an ethical standpoint, the treatment of animals by humans can be debated as: absolute v. relative morality.
The chain of reasoning that pre-supposes human rights is also arbitrary in that it’s species specific. At one time it was also race and/or gender specific, wasn’t it? Arbitrary.
This “right” is based on one of the primary interests of all sentient beings: To avoid pain, or to suffer needlessly. It also corresponds with the ethics of humanity: To avoid inflicting pain or suffering needlessly.
Towel,
Maybe you could separate the two issues and start an other thread about human rights?
And you have a strange argument when you state that people who care about the treatment of animals don’t care about people.
I find that difficult to follow. Maybe you know such people but I don’t.
You also bring forward your fear that neglecting the problems in other countries will have an influence on your way of life. You give the impression that this is what matters for you.
As for the treatment of animals: In my opinion one can judge a civilisation or society on the way it treats animals.
It is also known that people who tend to mistreat or even torture animals aren’t such great persons to deal with and tend to develop criminal behaviour.
I’ve read somewhere that the current US president used to blow up frogs when he was a child. It is some time ago so I don’t remember where it was published. And of course I don’t know if it is the truth. But the comment of a psychiatrist which was included made very much sense.
And now you bring even vegetables into the discussion. You have a good point that plants are living beings who deserve respect and in many cases need protection.
Yet until now I must discover the first serious research that comes to the conclusion that plants have feelings, feel pain and thus can suffer from maltreatment.
As for eating them: one must eat in order to stay alive, no?
There is a man who lives already for several years without eating and only drinks now and then, but I guess that is a curious exception. He sits every day at least one hour in the sun and that seems to be enough to keep him healthy.
The article mentioned that he was invited by the NASA in order to study on him and there awas also mentioned that he was followed up some time by a doctor who reported that he didn’t eat for more then 130 days (I believe 138) .
(Now don’t ask me the source of this since its an article I didn’t consider as one that should be kept. )
Until now I haven’t tried to stay alive with only sunlight and some water.
So yes, like evry one posting here (I suppose) I do eat plants. But mine aren’t genetically modified.
And I eat also meat. Yet I don’t keep animals in cages too small to even lie down or get on their feet, I don’t inject them with hormones and other substances, I don’t feed them things that are unnatural for their species and I don’t keep animals for their fur only.
And yes, I wear leather but I know it comes from animals who weren’t slaughtered for their skin only.
And yes, I do care for other people; it is one of the obligations for a muslim to do so. As it is an obligation to care for all of God’s creation.
Yet one musn’t be religious to have a good idea of morality. It is something that you have or have not.
Salaam. A.