Will animals eventually be considered equal to humans?

Great Debates
1

According to Gallup, 32% of Americans (and 42% of American women) consider animals equal to people. I interpret this as meaning “dogs” rather than “animals”, since the vast majority of Americans eat meat. But still, quite an astonishing figure.

Could you see a day, perhaps a couple hundred years from now, where nearly everyone is a vegan and eating meat and other animal products is seen as being just as immoral as we view slavery or genocide today? Will animal abuse and neglect (hell, hunting too) be a crime punishable by death or life imprisonment?

I don’t see humans as being qualitatively different from other animals, but I think we’re so much more complex and probably have a much higher degree of self awareness (though I do think at least mammals and birds have some self-awareness/consciousness). But really intuitively, I think there’s something wrong with elevating animals above people. I’d even save someone I hated over any animal if I had to make a life or death choice. A lot of people view humans as being culpable via free will and animals as being innocent, which probably is part of why there’s a “animals are better than people” sentiment among many, but I don’t believe in free will or that humans can be distinguished from the rest of the natural world.

Then again, I might be on the wrong side of history. I’m sure people made the argument 170 years ago that considering black people equal to white people would be a detriment to the rights of white people. And who knows, perhaps having a less complex brain has nothing to do with how capable of feeling and suffering a creature is.

2

I don’t think animals will ever have equal rights to humans, such as the right to vote, but I hope that one day they have more rights than they do now.

Previously, I had confidence that this would one day happen, as modern societies progressed and became more enlightened, but since the world is currently going backwards in this regard, my confidence has ebbed, although my hope remains eternal.

3

Link to the poll you are citing?

I doubt that a third of people consider animals to be “equal” in any way to people. That they should have better rights, that they should be better treated, that animal cruelty should be better investigated and prosecuted, I think people probably would go for.

But equality involves animals voting, going to school, learning to drive, choosing to seek employment and working at a job. These are not things that animals are capable of doing, no matter how well you treat them.

4

Don’t animals already have a lot of rights though? Hell, it’s more acceptable to hit your kids than it is to hit your pets (not that either are OK at all).

I do think factory farming is disgusting and should be reformed. People really should be eating less meat, and more humane meat.

5
6

If kids were kept in conditions like this, there would be a public outcry. As of 2014, approximately 95% of eggs in the US were produced in battery cages.

7

That poll did not say what you claimed it does in your OP and title. You claim that animals will be considered equal, when the 32% is not wishing for animals to be equal, just that animals be given equal protections. there is a difference there. It’s a bit of nuance, but vitally important.

There are not 32% of people advocating for animal suffrage or emancipation, just people concerned about the way that animals are treated, and wishing to see them treated better.

I do wonder if any of that 32% eats meat. I assume they have to, as according to the first link I googled, only a tenth of that 3.2% follow a vegetrian based diet, and only .5% are vegan.

So, unless nearly 30% of the population thinks it should be okay to eat humans, they have some sort of disconnect when it comes to their desire to treat humans and animals equally.

The question that was asked, was, “which comes closest to your point of view”, and 32% answered with the " animals deserve the exact same rights as people to be free from harm and exploitation". That’s not really asking for animals to be considered equal to humans, just having the same protections from harm and exploitation.

But still, that does seem to be 32% calling for the end of animal husbandry entirely, which means no more meat, no more wool, no more dairy, and well, no more pets. If my dog had the same rights to be free from “exploitation” as a human, then it would probably be quite the rights violation that I choose her food, her toys, her friends, I control when she goes to the bathroom, when she and how she exercises, I removed her ability to bear young. If she were a human, I would be a monster. If I respected her rights to make her own decisions in these matters though, her quality of life would be much poorer.

8

I think there is a qualitative difference, in that we cannot enter into moral contracts with animals. So, to simplify, I respect your rights in part because you respect mine: your right to live, for example; if I should have good grounds for believing you not to honor the social contract here (like, for instance, you holding a gun to my head), then I would likewise reject it, and try to stay alive even despite possibly having to violate your ‘right to live’.

So in general, we grant each other rights on a basis of mutual consent. This isn’t possible with animals. Should I end up on a desert Island with you, I would still trust you not to butcher and eat me, and at the very least, you would be morally condemned if you did. If I should end up there with a lion, well, I’m not going to take my chances: the lion has no concept of respecting my right to live. If he’s hungry, I’m prey, and it would be madness to condemn him on that basis.

Thus, we can’t grant animals rights on the same basis as we grant (other) humans rights, since the element of reciprocity is missing. That doesn’t mean, of course, that we can’t, or shouldn’t, grant them rights at all, and generally treat them a lot better than we’ve done so far; but even if we do, this won’t put animals on equal footing with humans.

9

I’m going with “no”. The animals and plants and minerals are on this planet for us all to use.

Folks are discussing equal rights, though I don’t think that’s really the issue. It seems a bit silly to give them the right to vote or an education.

But I think they could be given a higher value and better representation. E.g. when we’re going to build a new Ikea store, the builders don’t consider all of the animals that will be displaced. The animals have no representation or value within that discussion. Perhaps they should.

10

Where do you draw the line? Mosquitoes are animals, and I’d never want a law banning the slapping of mosquitoes.

11

Tapeworms are animals too. Is it abortion to remove the tape worms before they are fully mature?

12

If animals were equal to people, wouldn’t they be equal to each other? So what do you do when they don’t act that way toward each other?

13

I think most people, even those with only partial brain function, would recognize that mammals like pigs, cats and dogs are capable of greater sentient thought and have greater emotional capacity than insects like mosquitos.

It’s an absurd notion that if one gives a minimal set of rights to organisms that are capable of, for example, understanding over a hundred words, then one must also give the same rights to mosquitoes and amoebae.

14

I would dispute this idea. It’s an anthropocentric notion that the planet and all the other life that exists on it are here to support humanity. We’re just a part of the overall system.

15

But if rights are based on levels of consciousness, the counterargument is that humans obviously have a much higher level of consciousness than pigs, dogs, or cats do. If mosquitos aren’t entitled to the same rights as pigs, why should pigs be entitled to the same rights as humans?

16

It also opens up a big can of worms with regard to human beings with diminished capacities (as compared to a normal adult). Do you loose your rights if you’re in a vegetative state? Do babies have fewer rights? How about the developmentally disabled?

17

Topics like this kind of annoy me because so many people (not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just the general trend) just spout off what they think when they have not educated themselves on the topic. Science is actively chasing down hard evidence, using scientifically rigorous studies and peer review, to prove which species have cognitive function and how much. Here is a good starting point for educating yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Words-What-Animals-Think/dp/1250094593/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1503597061&sr=8-9&keywords=animal+communication

There are many more. Please, everyone who is interested in the topic, I beg you to do some reading and thinking and then come back to the discussion.

I’m very sorry for sounding all hoity toity on this. But it’s become a peeve of mine. I want to have intelligent discussions with people on this.

18

It’s an absurd notion to give rights to pretty much any animals, beyond the rights that we wish to impart upon them for what we consider “humane” treatment.

They can’t know it, they can’t appreciate it, they cannot return the favor.

Some of the great apes and other primates, maybe are aware enough to be able to reciprocate, maybe some of the cetaceans, but they will still not be anywhere near on the level as us. We would be granting them, at best, the rights we grant to severely mentally handicapped humans. A severely mentally handicapped human cannot reciprocate in securing our mutual rights, as they are not able to understand them, but they are still a human, which is a pretty decent “bright line” for when human rights start and end.

So, I don’t really see all that much difference in absurdity between granting rights to say, squirrels, and granting the same rights to tape worms.

It’s not anthropocentric, it’s nature. The food chain? We’re at the top. The king of the jungle? We’ve had the crown for a long time. The great circle of life? We’re the ones making it spin these days.

It’s not religious or anything else that gives us dominion over the earth, it’s the fact that we have dominion over the earth that gives it to us. The earth is here for us to do with as we please. There is no one to stop us but our own selves.

That said, we should be good stewards of the planet and the creatures that inhabit it. We should look out for the beings that cannot look out for themselves, and alleviate suffering in places where unnecessary suffering is common.

19

I can understand the misinterpretation but I didn’t mean that as a one-way street. I agree with you… one part of a system. Bacteria munch on us and some plants rely on us for cultivation. It’s a web, man :stuck_out_tongue:

ETA: **k9bfriender **did a more thorough job than I.

20

How about sharing some of the insights you have gained, from all of your reading and thinking, rather than just telling the rest of us that we are uninformed.