Originally posted by hurricane177I would say that, in virtue of being non-selfaware, animals are innocent, and that with self-awareness, and the capacity for self-control, comes the capacity to be guilty.
Animals are not self aware, or can not make decisions so they can not be innocent as they wouldnt know if there doing right or wrong.
Originally posted by hurricane177Does someone have to decide that a creature, human or animal, has a right before they have that right? I would say: not always.
If some animals have more rights than others, then who decides these rights?, and humans dont have different rights to each other so, animals must have there own rights and not those the same as humans
Humans do have different right to each other. Embryonic and brain dead humans, many would argue, do not have the same rights as humans with intact brains.
1 edit
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well, it's absurd to state that animals or not aware. You'd have to be a professional philosopher like Descartes to spout such nonsense.
This is an absurd statement. Just because they don't speak doesn't mean they're not self aware. Dolphins have a higher IQ than humans. And they screw like bunnies. They're not self aware?
However, very few animals are self-aware in any well-developed sense, for example, to the degree that they would recognize themselves in a mirror. Theese would include humans, the great apes (except Gorillas, oddly), and perhaps dolphins.
And, SURELY, however they screw, dolphins do not screw like bunnies.
Edit: And, sure, dolphins are smart, but still way dumber than most humans.
3 edits
Originally posted by hurricane177If some animals have more rights than others, then who decides these rights?
If some animals have more rights than others, then who decides these rights?, and humans dont have different rights to each other so, animals must have there own rights and not those the same as humans
The simplest answer to this question is that the law does. Each citizen is required to abide by the laws of their land, so this makes it real easy.
and humans dont have different rights to each other so, animals must have there own rights and not those the same as humans
You’re reading to much into this whole rights issue. Animals don’t give rights to themselves or to other animals. In this way they are limited in their ability to reason. It’s humans who give rights. Why? because we can contemplate the deeper meanings of right and wrong. Every society (and there are thousands of them) affords its people and animals specific rights and this is the law.
Our laws (U.S. & UK) afford certain animals certain rights. This makes it nice and easy to understand. Nothing difficult to figure out. Just check the law book.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, what justifies a right? Which rights are good, and which rights are bad? This is where it becomes difficult. Rights are basically a legalized moral. Not everybody is going to agree on what “good” and “bad” morals are, so I’ll just give my own opinion here.
Those who are morally challenged might say that there is nothing wrong with torturing animals for the fun of it. They may try to use crappy excuses like “animals are not self-aware” to justify this. Most people know that this is wrong. Why is this wrong? Because animals suffer just like we do. Empathy is closely related to morals. This is the reason why even animals who are raised to be eaten have rights that are given to them by people to not be abused.
There are many different ways to argue this, and of coarse many different cultures see it differently. Buddhists for example don’t like to even mow the grass because of the potential danger to the bugs. Inuit’s on the other hand must kill seals is order to survive. The simplest way to handle it is to base our morals on empathy, conscience, and common sense. I say that this is the simplest way because God gives these things to everybody. This way we can avoid arguing over the definitions of words like “justice” and “virtue.” If this proves too be to difficult, refer back to the law book.
Now, back to the original question.
What do you think about fox hunting?
Is a fox vermin that needs to be controled?, or an innocent cudley animal that has rights?!
Depends entirely on the size of the population. If foxes are too numerous and damage the economy and environment, then their numbers should be controlled. Personally, I'm against the hunting of animals for the sport of it.
Peace.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI agree!
[b]If some animals have more rights than others, then who decides these rights?
The simplest answer to this question is that the law does. Each citizen is required to abide by the laws of their land, so this makes it real easy.
and humans dont have different rights to each other so, animals must have there own rights and not those th ...[text shortened]... ld be controlled. Personally, I'm against the hunting of animals for the sport of it.
Peace.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole... very few animals are self-aware in any well-developed sense, for example, to the degree that they would recognize themselves in a mirror.
Well, it's absurd to state that animals or not aware. You'd have to be a professional philosopher like Descartes to spout such nonsense.
However, very few animals are self-aware in any well-developed sense, for example, to the degree that they would recognize themselves in a mirror. Theese would include humans, the great apes (except Gorillas, oddl ...[text shortened]... rew like bunnies.
Edit: And, sure, dolphins are smart, but still way dumber than most humans.
I'm not sure you're giving animals enough credit. Budgies, a type of parakeet, will become frustrated if you put a mirror in their cage. They will peck at it, and get mad when it doesn’t respond to them. This has been documented.
If you put a mirror in the cage of a cockatiel, this doesn’t happen. Apparently the cockatiel knows that its reflection is not another bird.
Originally posted by The Chess Expresswow one bird can tell the difference between a mirror and another bird, and another one cant.
[b]... very few animals are self-aware in any well-developed sense, for example, to the degree that they would recognize themselves in a mirror.
I'm not sure you're giving animals enough credit. Budgies, a type of parakeet, will become frustrated if you put a mirror in their cage. They will peck at it, and get mad when it doesn’t respond t ...[text shortened]... el, this doesn’t happen. Apparently the cockatiel knows that its reflection is not another bird.[/b]
Im not saying animals are incapable of responding to external stimulus, but that they dont think ie- in a 'to be or not to be' way, consciously making descisions.
1 edit
Originally posted by hurricane177Survival of the Cutest.
If some animals have more rights than others, then who decides these rights?, and humans dont have different rights to each other so, animals must have there own rights and not those the same as humans
My opinion are that foxes are innocent, cudly animals with rights that need to be controlled somewhat since humans have messed up the whole ecosystem, the same goes for deer.
Originally posted by hurricane177Fox hunting as in horses and hounds is a (cruel) sport and not for the purpose of controlling fox populations. There are far more efficient and possibly more humane methods for controlling pest species.
What do you think about fox hunting?
Is a fox vermin that needs to be controled?, or an innocent cudley animal that has rights?!
Are they innocent ? that depends on what laws you have applied to them and whether the jury was human or fox.
Rights are not some inborn property of living things such as people but merely a concept invented by people to make society work better.
Is a fox cuddly ? If it is a pet, probably about as cuddly as a pet dog. If it lives in the wild not so cuddly.
And why does cuddly = rights ??
What about rats dont they have rights, yet we poision them quite readily.
Would it be just as acceptable to kill a innocent cuddly sheep for mutton (or lamb) by chasing it around a field with dogs then chopping it to pieces while still alive rather than the current methods in slaughter houses ?