Why Animals Don't Have Rights

[Lemur866]

What is an animal? Very easy to answer. An animal is a member of the kingdom Animalia. An animal is not a Plant, a Fungus, a Protozoan, a Bacteria, and definately not a virus.

However, this definition includes some animals that don’t have nervous systems…and there is some evidence that things like sponges are unrelated to other animals. I think what the animal-definition people are trying to do is to get everyone to admit that humans are animals. Which they are. All mammals, all fish, all reptiles, all insects, all worms, all echinoderms, all coelenterates, all tardigrades, all rotifers, are animals. This is not a major issue…why do people need this defined before they’ll talk about animal rights? Pick up a biology textbook and find out for yourself what animals are.

Animal rights people agree that humans can kill plants, fungi, protozoans and bacteria morally. But why? What has a plant ever done to you that your life is more important? If we took the attitude that all life is sacred and that it is wrong to kill, we’d have to cut our throats…everything we eat is alive, or was alive. We had to kill animals or plants or bacteria to get it. I guess you could drink milk from cows…that’s not killing the cow. But the cow had to kill millions of blades of grass for your drink. That’s murder. You could be a fruititarian, and only eat fruits that plants offer freely…but there are probably lots and lots of insects and micro-organisms in that fruit that you kill when you eat them.

Now that we’ve defined “animals” lets get back to the morality of killing and eating them.

[Meephead]

*Originally posted by LonesomePolecat *
**Indians (not “Native Americans” - I am as native as any Indian ) may not have practiced individual ownership of land, but they definitely practiced tribal ownership of land and were more or less constantly at war over land. The notion that the American Indian was a noble savage living in spiritual harmony with nature is just plain ignorant.
**

It doesn’t matter whether you call them Native Americans, Indians, Injuns, or whatever other name that may be contrived, but to save confusion, I will call them “the people who originally lived on what we now call North America”. In that way we won’t confuse anyone as to who we are talking about.

The people who originally lived on what we now call North America had honed their existence to be quite harmonius with the land and all it provided. They indeed were in harmony with nature, and were able to live comfortably without exploiting the land. Animals well as plants were treated with more respect and were actually viewed as equals by most cultures. The earth itself was treated as a living organism in its own right.

Where do you get the idea that the “…notion that the American Indian was a noble savage living in spiritual harmony with nature is just plain ignorant.”?

Sure, there wew skirmishes over land, but not for ownership as we, with out eurpoean ideas, view it, but over hunting, fishing, and agricultural rights. I don’t view the people who originally lived on what we now call North America as noble or as savages, but I do think that they had a better grasp on human rights, animal rights, and ecology than we do today.

Another thing, how are you “as native as any Indian”? Did your ancestors live here for thousands of years before this land was “discovered” by the Europeans, or are you of European lineage as are most “Americans”? You don’t have to answer those questions, but I hope I made my point.

[Liberal]

As an aside, most Native Americans didn’t conceive of a concept of “owning” land. I guess that somehow justifies the theft of the Americas, since they did not conceive of that “right.”

The Osage nation conceived it well enough to sell theirs in 1870 for $1.25 an acre (total nine million dollars). The Cherokee also owned land. In fact Plato and Aristotle discoursed on issues of state owned versus privately owned land. There has been land ownership since there has been agriculture.

Perhaps you thought most Indians were nomads…

[Mr.Zambezi]

I guess that i should have used a hhookworm in my example. My bad.

I do think that they had a better grasp on human rights, animal rights, and ecology than we do today.

first of all, they never developed technology that would have allowed them to exploit nature, so you can’t really say that they wouldn’t have. But as for human right…Are you serious? what about the sacrifices made in the Inca and Aztec cultures? How about the cannibalism of the pueblo’s? And I am pretty sure that the Mohawk were not exaclty Quakers. They, like all humans, operated in their own best interest which sometimes resulted in attrocities against other men.

Another thing, how are you “as native as any Indian”? Did your ancestors live here for thousands of years before this land was “discovered” by the Europeans, or are you of European lineage as are most “Americans”? You don’t have to answer those questions, but I hope I made my point.

Well, DNA evidence suggests that the “native” americans were immigrants of Ainu descent. So if your idea of first come, first own is correct, the Ainu have a claim on all of the US. They did not sprout out of the ground in New Mexico. Rather, they did what the europeans did: traveled here and killed those who threatened their domination and/or survival.

Being stone age in the renaissance does not automatically confer the status of saint.

[Kimstu]

I’m with Bill H. and Feynn on this one: of course nonhuman animals have rights in a human society, if the humans decide to bestow any rights on them. (Similarly, a human in a nonhuman society would have whatever rights the nonhumans chose to give it—remember Julie of the Wolves, anyone? :))

If I’m not mistaken, it’s widely accepted that domestic animals do have the right to be safe from certain forms of maltreatment—that’s what the ASPCA and so forth are all about, and I believe there are legal penalties in some cases for neglecting or abusing an animal you own.

So LP, there’s no point in getting upset over any perceived inconguity in statements such as “Animals have rights.” Just read it as shorthand for “Humans should agree that animals have many more rights than are now legally and culturally recognized,” and you’ll be fine. You still may not agree with it, but at least you won’t be all tangled up in the jurisprudential implications.

[Highclass]

As I don’t care for the sneering tone of your response, I don’t care to get into any sort of extended discussion with you. This is all I have to say to you.

This is absolutely not how to argue. I don’t mean to have a “sneering tone” or anything but halfway through a discussion it is extremely rude to say, “No more debate…even if you respond to me I will not write back, consider this to be the final word: (insert your arguement here)”

If humans are simply another species of animal, why object to the way they behave?

One reason to object to the way humans behave is that other animals aren’t responsible for the current great extinction (a term I made up to refer to the widespread death of species around the world I read about in National Geographic recently, just don’t remember what they called it. It has happened 6 times before), in the past there were natural events such as giant meteorites which caused dust to cover the sun for long enough periods of time to kill off vast numbers of species. These appear as steep drops in graphs of the number of species versus time on a graph. The difference between those and the current decline is that the causes of the previous mass extinctions were temporary, the dust in our atmosphere cleared up and allowed the number of species to grow again. There is no sign humans will stop destroying the habitats of creatures, leading to their extinction. It is impossible to say what the result of destroying the delicate balace of ecosystems around the world will be, but anyone would be hard pressed to present a realistic scenario involving a positive result.

(all quotes from LonesomePolecat) The notion that the American Indian was a noble savage living in spiritual harmony with nature is just plain ignorant.

Please explicate, it is certainly unfair to say this and not respond again. Fighting does not imply your culture is not noble, it is natural for humans to fight.

Your real motivation isn’t love of animals, it’s hatred of people.

another unjustified attack, attacking others doesn’t make THEM look like people-haters…

[gobear]

Another thing, how are you “as native as any Indian”? Did your ancestors live here for thousands of years before this land was “discovered” by the Europeans, or are you of European lineage as are most “Americans”? You don’t have to answer those questions, but I hope I made my point.

Meephead, take off those rose-colored glasses. As someone with a Choctaw father and a Caucasian mother, I view both my parents as 100% American. I hate to break it to you, but Indians didn’t evolve here. My dad’s folks came over the Bering Land Bridge 11,000 years ago, so they’re immigrants, too.

The people who originally lived on what we now call North America had honed their existence to be quite harmonius with the land and all it provided. They indeed were in harmony with nature, and were able to live comfortably without exploiting the land. Animals well as plants were treated
with more respect and were actually viewed as equals by most cultures. The earth itself was treated as a living organism in its own right.

You re ill-informed. Visit Chaco Canyon, NM, an Anasazi settlement circa 1000-1100 AD. You’ll find out how the Anasazi ruined their environment by overirrigation. Visit the Hohakam sites in Maricopa County, AZ, you’ll find the same story.

Sure, there wew skirmishes over land, but not for ownership as we, with out eurpoean ideas, view it, but over hunting, fishing, and agricultural rights.

Depnds on the tribe. Eastern tribes, like the Cherokee and the Iroquois, most certainly had ideas of land ownership and property rights. So, for that matter, did the Navajo in Arizona.

I don’t view the people who originally lived on what we now call North America as noble or as savages, but I do think that they had a better grasp on human rights, animal rights, and ecology than we do today.

Many tribes tortured their enemies. Read some accounts of what the Hurons did to Jesuit missionaries, or how the Comanches and the Pawnee treated each other. Just like Europeans.
Plains tribes would cause buffalo to stampede off cliff, then take what they needed and left the rest to rot.

In short, Indians were just as benighted as white folk when it came to taking of the land and each other. Do yourself a favor, abandon your neo-Rousseau ideas and learn the real history of the Indians.

[iampunha]

*Originally posted by LonesomePolecat *
**My standard operating procedure is to ignore or refuse requests for definitions. In my experience, requests or demands for definitions are almost always red herrings, attempts to throw the whole dialogue off track with endless quibbling and nitpicking about definitions. I see no reason to make an exception for you. **

I promise you, this is not a red herring. I am honestly curious as to what you consider to be an animal. Opinions and definitions vary. I want to know what you mean when you say “animal”. Do you mean anything that is alive that isn’t human? Do you mean anything that’s served in a restaurant (I’ve known people for whom this was the definition)? Do you mean something entirely different?

I personally don’t understand the reasoning behind not defining the terms you use, especially in a debate, since I am not trying to bait you or quibble with you. I’d like to know, for the purposes of this discussion, what you define to be an animal.

[Phobos]

*Originally posted by LonesomePolecat *
**Animals function entirely or almost entirely on instinct.

Humans function on instinct to some extent too. So what?

An animal understands the concept of rights no more than it understands the laws of thermodynamics or the poetry of Shakespeare.

The average human does not understand thermodynamics or Shakespeare either.

Animals are not able even to conceive of the right to life, or property rights or the right to privacy or any other right.

I think you’re expecting animals to understand human activity, which is biased. As has been said, property rights is a big thing with many animal species. They just don’t put it in writing for humans to file into a hall of records. The right to privacy seems similar to territoriality. Many species do not kill their own kind…can that be a kind of “right to life”?

A hungry coyote will not give even a passing thought to respecting a rabbit’s right to life, and a deer cares nothing about the property rights of the farmer whose crops he eats.

And humans will eat other species when hungry too…often with pleasure (not just indifference) as indicated by the responses in this thread.

Making allowance for borderline cases such as the severely retarded or the insane, rights belong only to people because only people have the ability to understand what rights are in the first place. You do not have a right unless you have at least the potential to reciprocate that right. To reciprocate that right, you must have at least the potential to understand what a right is in the first place–

Contradicting yourself, as was pointed out. Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are (or should be) inalienable.

–and animals do not possess that potential.

Perhaps animals just don’t express it like we do. Granted, some animals are more sentient than others, so the degree of understanding probably ranges from zero to I-don’t-know-what (but humans are not the sole species gifted with the capability of understanding).

There may be compelling moral reasons to refrain from eating meat or using animals in medical research, but the notion that animals have rights is not one of them.
**

I curious what kind of morality would be applied if you did not consider an animal’s right to life & liberty. In what sense do you distinguish between how you treat an animal vs. a plant vs. an inanimate object? What creates the distinction?

[LonesomePolecat]

**Humans function on instinct to some extent too. So what? **

They don’t function on instinct to nearly the same extent. The difference in degree is extreme enough to be a difference in kind.

**The average human does not understand thermodynamics or Shakespeare either. **

But he has at least the potential to understand. A chimp or a dog doesn’t.

I think you’re expecting animals to understand human activity, which is biased.

No, I don’t expect them to understand human activity except perhaps on the most primitive levels. It is precisely because they can’t understand humans and human concepts that they don’t have rights.

**As has been said, property rights is a big thing with many animal species. They just don’t put it in writing for humans to file into a hall of records. The right to privacy seems similar to territoriality. Many species do not kill their own kind…can that be a kind of “right to life”? **

Territoriality, not property rights, is a big thing with many animal species. And territoriality is worked solely in terms of brute competition-the weak are not recognized as having rights even in theory and are simply shoved aside. Generally, human societies recognize at least some kind of obligations to even the poorest of the poor.

** And humans will eat other species when hungry too…often with pleasure (not just indifference) as indicated by the responses in this thread. **

So what?

**Contradicting yourself, as was pointed out. Rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are (or should be) inalienable. **

What contradiction? Where? I merely take note of the fact that no right, not even the right to life, can be absolute and unlimited, and I take note of the fact that there will always be borderline cases where it isn’t clear how or even if the principle applies. How is that a contradiction?

**Perhaps animals just don’t express it like we do. Granted, some animals are more sentient than others, so the degree of understanding probably ranges from zero to I-don’t-know-what (but humans are not the sole species gifted with the capability of understanding). **

It isn’t a question of expression, it’s a question of capability. Animals don’t have even the potential to grasp the concept of rights. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a chimp or a dolphin with a degree in law or philosophy.

**I curious what kind of morality would be applied if you did not consider an animal’s right to life & liberty. In what sense do you distinguish between how you treat an animal vs. a plant vs.
an inanimate object? What creates the distinction? **

(shrug) What are you talking about? Animals shouldn’t be tortured just for fun, sure. Hunting them for sport I waffle about, I don’t really know. Killing animals for food is certainly acceptable, provided they’re killed in a reasonably quick and painless way. Using animals for medical research, even if the animals suffer, is also acceptable. If ten thousand chimps have to die to find a cure or vaccine for HIV and AIDS, well, tough bananas, Bonzo.

[Phobos]

First, excuse my previous gainsays, I was in a flippant mood.

I agree that the degree of difference in the use of instinct between humans and other animals is significant. I was just saying that using instinct is not a disqualification for having rights.

Understanding rights does not seem to be a prerequisite for having rights. Sure, in the way of Nature, “force” can be a final arbitrator, but we thinking humans understand the concept of rights, as you say, and therefore, must consider whether they apply to other species or are they just a means for controlling our own actions in dealing with each other (inclusively).

I think property rights, on some level, is just a formalized form of territoriality. Before humans became “civilized”, we too used brute force to claim property. Actually, we still do considering that the root cause of many wars is over land disputes. The more formalized keeping of records to claim land is our new, civilized method of brute force. This way, it is not the physically strong that win, but the legally (intellectually) strong. (egad…did I just equate lawyers with smarts?)

And humans will eat other species when hungry too…often with pleasure (not just indifference) as indicated by the responses in this thread. **

So what?

This was in reference to your comment that animals will just eat other animals without regard. My point was, so do we.

**I curious what kind of morality would be applied if you did not consider an animal’s right to life & liberty. In what sense do you distinguish between how you treat an animal vs. a plant vs.
an inanimate object? What creates the distinction? **

(shrug) What are you talking about? Animals shouldn’t be tortured just for fun, sure. Hunting them for sport I waffle about, I don’t really know. Killing animals for food is certainly acceptable, provided they’re killed in a reasonably quick and painless way. Using animals for medical research, even if the animals suffer, is also acceptable. If ten thousand chimps have to die to find a cure or vaccine for HIV and AIDS, well, tough bananas, Bonzo. **

After all my other flippant points, this was the crux of my post. Under what logic do you say that animals shouldn’t be tortured? (of course, I don’t think they should…I’m just looking for a discussion of the logic behind it.) Is it because they shouldn’t be made to needlessly suffer and be killed pointlessly? If so, isn’t that a type of right to life? If we categorize the world as human and non-human (animal/plant/mineral) as far as rights are concerned, then why do we treat the different components of the non-human set with different respect?

Anyway, I’m asking for opinions as much as I am offering my own. Good discussion.

[DKW]

I eat meat, sometimes in all three meals of the day, and always at dinner unless I’m not too hungry for some reason. Every wallet and belt I’ve ever owned, leather. See cockroach, smash cockroach. And I’ve always believed that after 10 PM, the dogs need to shut the **** up.

However, I’m opposed to hunting for sport (a total waste, and since when is killing a defenseless animal a sport?) and believe that experiments should be done as humanely as possible, and only when there’s a specific, important purpose (like searching for a cure for AIDS). I also spray cockroaches only as a last resort, since it takes hours for them to die, never a pleasant experience (for me or the insect).

In other words, I believe that animals are entitled to some very basic rights, but certainly not all the rights of human society. That just makes sense to me.

And yes, meat does taste good. Try it sometime.

[wolfman]

One other thing we should bring up is the myth that animals only kill or hurt other animals for survival. I’ve see many a mother cat mangle a mouses legs and drop it in front of her kittens for them to play with, then just leave it after they got bored, cause they had already had plenty to eat. I’ve seen a lot of dogs chase rabbits, cats, smaller dogs, and whatever with no intention of eating it, just to see if it can catch it I guess, usually if the dog does catch it, it gets this surprised look on it face and waits for it to run again. I saw a horse kill a garter snake, and nearly the rider, because it just didn’t like snakes aparently. I’ve seen starlings push a sparrow’s eggs out of the nest. It is kind of stupid to put a nobility on animals, they are cruel and efficient, using fairly devious plans to get what they want.
If we decide to keep animals around, to keep a better environment, or to keep a perspective on the beauty of nature, than that is very admirable, but saying individual animals have rights is ludicrous.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

Lonesome Polecat, you have said If humans are simply another species of animal, why object to the way they behave?

But then you are at great pains to point out differences between humans and other animals: Animals function entirely or almost entirely on instinct.
Animals don’t have even the potential to grasp the concept of rights. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met a chimp or a dolphin with a degree in law or philosophy. etc…

So humans are not simply another species of animal following your argument, they are set apart from all other species (a somewhat christian argument, it seems to me.) Then following that view, one could argue that humans have the responsibility to themselves to respect the rights of other species precisely because we are aware of the concepts of injustice and rights. We shouldn’t expect the same of animals because they don’t have intelligence. That doesn’t remove our responsibility to treat them ethically.

If one chooses to argue the reverse (which point of view you seem to oppose), namely that humans do not really have moral qualities much different than many species of living beings, then I would argue that we should avoid mistreating these other species in the same way that we avoid mistreating other humans, because we are all “brothers under the skin”.

Anyway, my personal point of view is that animals should not be mistreated because it demeans our humanity. As you agree with yourself when you say “animals shouldn’t be tortured.” Assuming for argument’s sake that a human being could thrive on a purely vegetarian diet, wouldn’t it be more moral to avoid raising animals for food? I remember reading a thread a while ago where many posters were incensed that PETA was going to pass out at McDonalds’ restaurants some “unhappy meals” showing Ronald McDonald as a butcher with a bloody knife. The outrage shown by many members of the Teeming Millions indicates to me that most people have a somewhat confused sense that killing animals is an unpleasant and somewhat unjustified idea. Otherwise, why be shocked that your children would be made aware of the realities behind the food they eat?

[Kimstu]

Very good point, Arnold. In the days before fast-food restaurants (or restaurants in general, really), children wouldn’t have understood how you could portray a vendor of meat foods except as a butcher with a bloody knife. We’ve become extremely well insulated from those realities, as you point out. Come to think of it, that’s an aspect of carnivoracity that the vegetarian-taunting meat enthusiasts don’t seem to make much of, do they? Where are all the posts saying “Mmmm, chopping the heads off them chickens sure is satisfying…you should try it sometime!”?

[samclem]

Heck! When I was growing up in a setting that was as urban as Arlington, Virginia, we still used to cut the heads off of chickens in our backyard. This would have been 1954-1960. And, as a kid, I thought it was totally cool, watching them run around the yard for what seemed like minutes, with no head. While I can’t say it was satisfying, it didn’t horrify me. Don’t know what that says about my morality.

[Lemur866]

Hi Kimstu!

I’m one of those meatitarians who’s killed many an animal personally. I’ve killed and prepared chickens, sheep, clams, fish, rabbits, deer, moose, etc.

I disagree with the silly notion that if only we saw where meat comes from we’d be vegetarians. Um, 100 years ago American was mostly farmers. Now, there may have been one or two vegetarian farmers back then, but most of them killed, prepared, and ate animals with relish. It is only because we are insulated from the reality of food production that people are shocked that meat comes from animals.

It was somehow satisfying to kill the animals I ate…it made the meal seem much more important. I didn’t enjoy the killing, but it was…well, like seeing inside a factory, or understanding a procedure. Understanding and participating on a visceral level with the reality of the sun producing the plants, the bugs eating the plants, the chickens eating the bugs, and me eating the chickens. And yes, if you eat meat you should try it sometime. If you can’t “stomach” killing the animals yourself, then how can you stomach it if someone else does it where you can’t see?

The big difference is how much of a production it is to go from a chicken scratching around in the dirt to Sunday dinner. Get the hatchet, grab the chicken, take it to the choppin’ stump, lop its head off, stick in a bucket till it stops moving, skin it, gut it, bury the waste, all the time trying to keep out the dirt and chicken manure and feathers, cutting it up…and then you’ve got to start cooking the damn thing.

Iampunha: didn’t you see my post about defining animals? This is easy. Plants are not animals, that’s crazy. People are animals, dogs are animals, clams are animals. Why is this such a big deal?

And nobody has analysed why we’d have to lock up wolves and predators if we granted animals rights. If a deer has a right not to be killed by a human, doesn’t it have the right not to be killed by a wolf? It is exactly the same thing, since humans are animals. If animals have rights that humans have to protect, do we only have to protect them from human animals? It would make no sense.

[betenoir]

"I think I could turn, and live with the animals, they are so placid and self-contained.
I stand and look at them long and long.
They do no sweat and whine about their condition.
They do not lie awake in the dark and weep for their sins.
They do not make me sick discussing their duty to God…

Not one is respectable or unhappy over the whole of the earth."
Something about these post, the brilliant and the stupid, somehow made me want to post that.

[Arnold_Winkelried]

*Originally posted by Lemur866 *
I’m one of those meatitarians who’s killed many an animal personally. I’ve killed and prepared chickens, sheep, clams, fish, rabbits, deer, moose, etc.

I am persuaded that most people would agree that killing an animal “for no reason” is wrong. i.e. if my neighbour Joe spends his week-ends going out on his fishing boat to try to shoot dolphins and subsequently let their corpses drift away, most people I know would find his behaviour reprehensible.

The question becomes then “what is an acceptable justification for killing an animal?” A vegan or vegetarian may very well say “nourishment is not an acceptable justification since one can remain healthy (possibly even healthier) with a fully vegetarian diet.” I think that this point of view is perfectly defensible.

[TampaFlyer]

> The next question is, how do the mentally disabled taste?

Like chicken.