We typically do not see cats and dogs as food because we have a "relationship" with them. When I go to the store and see some ground beef or chicken, for all practical purposes it could be dirt because I have had no relationship with it. Of course we are sanitized from the experience of the slaughterhouse once it gets under the celaphane in the store.
Originally posted by kirksey957that is so right on, kirksey!
We typically do not see cats and dogs as food because we have a "relationship" with them. When I go to the store and see some ground beef or chicken, for all practical purposes it could be dirt because I have had no relationship with it. Of course we are sanitized from the experience of the slaughterhouse once it gets under the celaphane in the store.
if we are going to do something like this, we need to have someone else do the dirty work and put it in a nice plastic wrapper.
in some countries, dogs (and cats) are eaten after enduring horrid treatment. (in fact, i believe there was a worldwide protest from dog lovers regarding this a few years ago). again, if we can distance ourselves in various ways from these other species, we can do as we please:
'The "Bok" days of Summer- are the worst for dogs in Korea, where, in direct violation of federal law, butchers slaughter dogs for consumption as a "health food" In order to make the meat more "healthy" dogs are beaten and strangled before they are released to death.'
for your viewing displeasure, this quote is from
http://animalrightshawaii.org/issues_dogs.htm
the page has some gruesome graphics so be warned. there is also a link to a korean AR organization which elaborates on the treatment of animals there.
in frienship,
prad
Originally posted by richhoeyStrange. Why do you think we have a right to eat and experiment on animals? Do you have any arguments in support of this view, or do you merely assume that because we eat and experiment on animals we must therefore have the right to do so? I don't see how this view of yours is consistent with your other claim that animals ought to be treated well. Do you think that we have obligations to treat animals well under most circumstances, but that these obligations dissolve as soon as we get hungry?
I don't believe animals have rights in the fundamental way that humans do. If they did, we wouldn't ever have a right to eat them or experiment on them and in my view we do.
Originally posted by fjordIf animals have no rights, then why is it wise for humans to treat them well? It seems to me, at least, that a wise person is one who has figured out some deep truths about the world and our place in it. If you think that part of wisdom is compassion, or respect for animals, then doesn't this commit you to claiming that we have certain obligations regarding our treatment of animals? And if we have obligations regarding our treatment of animals, then it seems to make sense to say that animals have rights that we must respect. Of course you are right to say that animals don't have duties. Animals are not 'moral agents' in the way humans are. But this doesn't entail that animals don't have rights. After all, we think that human babies have rights, and yet we don't think that they have obligations.
Animals have no rights. They have no duties either. Rights and duties are faculties of the homo sapiens. But wise humans have respect for non-human life and for nature in general.
Originally posted by CrowleyFirst, it is just silly to claim that because you are "on top of the food chain" you have the right to eat animals. The position of creatures on the food chain is determined solely by their ability to eat other creatures. You seem to be arguing that because you are able to eat animals, you therefore have the right to eat animals. But suppose I break into my neighbor's apartment and fry up their children. Do the mere fact that I am able to do this give me a right to do so? Of course not, because moral obligations are not determined solely by what we are able to do. The mere fact that I am able to kill does not entail I have a right to kill. Similarly, the mere fact that you are able to eat animals does not entail you have the right to do so.
Whatever dude.
What my post does is show my position on the subject of animal rights.
I'm on the top of the food chain and although I love my two dogs and cat, the rest I see as food.
Second, it is curious that you don't extend your love of your own pets to other animals. If someone were to skin and eat your pets, you would feel that they had done something wrong, and not merely because they mistreated your property. You would imagine the suffering your pets underwent, and you would feel that your pets themselves had been wronged. The fact that you fail to extend this sympathy to other animals is a curious blindness on your part; it is literally a form of irrationality.
Originally posted by bbarrYou've failed to take the self evident truth that eating one's own species (cannibalism) is wrong into account. Would you deny that a Lion has the right to kill a deer when it is hungry? I doubt it, but that's what this argument implies.
First, it is just silly to claim that because you are "on top of the food chain" you have the right to eat animals. The position of creatures on the food chain is determined solely by their ability to eat other creatures. You seem to be arguing that because you are able to eat animals, you therefore have the right to eat animals. But suppose I break into ...[text shortened]... rly, the mere fact that you are able to eat animals does not entail you have the right to do so.
Originally posted by bbarr
If animals have no rights, then why is it wise for humans to treat them well? It seems to me, at least, that a wise person is one who has figured out some deep truths about the world and our place in it.
Right.
[b]If you think that part of wisdom is compassion, or respect for animals, then doesn't this commit you to claiming that we have certain obliga ...[text shortened]... thing that can be won in court; to me it is first of all an ethical, educational, moral question.
Originally posted by bbarrPart of my answer got lost in my last post. So here it is again.
If animals have no rights, then why is it wise for humans to treat them well? It seems to me, at least, that a wise person is one who has figured out some deep truths about the world and our place in it. If you think that part of wisdom is compassion, or respect for animals, then doesn't this commit you to claiming that we have certain obligations regarding ...[text shortened]... all, we think that human babies have rights, and yet we don't think that they have obligations.
Sorry my answer got lost. I try again
--If animals have no rights, then why is it wise for humans to treat them well? It seems to me, at least, that a wise person is one who has figured out some deep truths about the world and our place in it..--
Right.
--If you think that part of wisdom is compassion, or respect for animals, then doesn't this commit you to claiming that we have certain obligations regarding our treatment of animals?--
Yes, we have got an obligations, but not towards a specific being but to the totality of being.
--And if we have obligations regarding our treatment of animals, then it seems to make sense to say that animals have rights that we must respect.--
Here we differ. Why do you make that conclusion. We may for very good reasons feel that we have to take care for our body, house, and pets. But if we refuse to take care for these things does my body, my house, my pets have rights to defend themselves in court? I don't thinks so.
--Of course you are right to say that animals don't have duties. Animals are not 'moral agents' in the way humans are. But this doesn't entail that animals don't have rights. After all, we think that human babies have rights, and yet we don't think that they have obligations.--
I was afraid for this one ;-) Human babies belong to the human race; it is only a question of time. The rights they have got they normally pay back in a later phase of their lives. They are not like animals.
Anyway, where do you want to draw the line? If animals have rights about what animals are you talking? Mammals? Reptiles? Microbes? And why not expand that idea of rights to plants and minerals? To water, air, soil and fire?
Anyway, I' m not against the idea of animal-rights if I could believe that it would enhance our world. But I doubt that. Compassion for our surrounding world is not a thing that can be won in court; to me it is first of all an ethical, educational, moral question.
Originally posted by richjohnsonI don't see it as a self-evident truth that cannibalism is wrong. If we both got trapped on a mountain, and we didn't have enough to eat, would it be morally permissible for me to eat your body if you died of exposure? I think this is clearly permissible. Would it be morally permissible for me to kill you for food? Of course not. But the reason killing you for food is wrong has nothing to do with cannabalism being wrong, but, rather, with murder being wrong. Is it morally wrong when a male lion kills and eats the cubs of a female lion? Of course not, because it doesn't make sense to say of lions that they have obligations. Anyway, it is a misreading of my argument if you think I'm committed to the claim that because a lion can kill a deer it is therefore wrong for a lion to kill a deer. My argument is that nothing follows from the mere fact one has it within one's power to kill another animal. It doesn't follow that it is wrong, it doesn't follow that it is right. Strictly speaking, it is a fallacy to argue from the DESCRIPTIVE claim that one is able to X to the PRESCRIPTIVE claim that one ought to X (or that one ought not to X). In ethics this is called the Naturalistic fallacy, and it derives from Hume.
You've failed to take the self evident truth that eating one's own species (cannibalism) is wrong into account. Would you deny that a Lion has the right to kill a deer when it is hungry? I doubt it, but that's what this argument implies.
Originally posted by bbarrBennett, cannibalism is something you'll have to come to grips with before your trip to Germany in view of recent events 😛.
I don't see it as a self-evident truth that cannibalism is wrong. If we both got trapped on a mountain, and we didn't have enough to eat, would it be morally permissible for me to eat your body if you died of exposure? I think this is clearly permissible. Would it be morally permissible for me to kill you for food? Of course not. But the reason killing ...[text shortened]... e ought not to X). In ethics this is called the Naturalistic fallacy, and it derives from Hume.
1 edit
Originally posted by fjord
"And if we have obligations regarding our treatment of animals, then it seems to make sense to say that animals have rights that we must respect." -bbarr
Here we differ. Why do you make that conclusion. We may for very good reasons feel that we have to take care for our body, house, and pets. But if we refuse to take care for these things does my body, my house, my pets have rights to defend themselves in court? I don't thinks so.
Reply: This claim of mine comes from a view about the nature of rights. Rights and Obligations are interdefinable, I think. If everyone has a moral obligation not to torture people for fun, then that means that people have a right not to be tortured for fun. If people have right to be treated with respect, then everyone has a moral obligation to treat people with respect. In other words, rights and obligations are two sides of the same moral coin, they come together. So, if you think that everyone has an obligation to respect the well-being of animals, or that everyone has an obligation to treat animals with compassion, then you are committed by definition to the claim that animals have a right to their well-being, or to be treated with compassion. Unless, however, you have a different view about what rights are. If so, I'd like to hear what that view is.
"Of course you are right to say that animals don't have duties. Animals are not 'moral agents' in the way humans are. But this doesn't entail that animals don't have rights. After all, we think that human babies have rights, and yet we don't think that they have obligations" -bbarr
I was afraid for this one ;-) Human babies belong to the human race; it is only a question of time. The rights they have got they normally pay back in a later phase of their lives. They are not like animals.
Response: So, this implies that babies who are afflicted with a terminal disease that will kill them before they mature do not have rights. For that matter, it implies that the irreperably mentally ill do not have rights. Are you prepared to accept these implications of your view?
Anyway, where do you want to draw the line? If animals have rights about what animals are you talking? Mammals? Reptiles? Microbes? And why not expand that idea of rights to plants and minerals? To water, air, soil and fire?
I'd want to limit possession of rights to creatures with the capacity to suffer. So mammals and reptiles would be included, but microbes would not. I like the idea of taking ecological systems into consideration when engaged in deliberation, but I don't think they are things to which we have obligations. I think we are obligated to take them into consideration purely in virtue of their role in the well-being of other creatures.
Originally posted by bbarrThat is the wrong conclusion
Response: So, this implies that babies who are afflicted with a terminal disease that will kill them before they mature do not have rights. For that matter, it implies that the irreperably mentally ill do not have rights. Are you prepared to accept these implications of your view?
We agree that rights and obligations are interrelated. You see that relation as being the two sides of the same coin..
My point of view is that this cannot be true because rights and obligations belong to the human domain. We may feel obliged or may feel entitled to something by our conscience or by reasoning without another person/being involved.
Although there is often a relation between the rights of one person (or group of persons) and the obligation of the other person (or group of persons) I cannot see why this should be the case in every situation.
Indeed, rights and obligations are intertwined. We may argue that we have the right AND the obligation to work. But does my obligation to work give anyone else a special right? I would not think so.
In my opinion all beings that belong to the family of human race have rights and obligations. But there are many variations. Children have mainly rights and little obligations. The same counts for sick, disabled and old people. Other people, like criminals have lost some rights. In my opinion includes a civilized culture all their members in the best possible way in the distribution of rights and obligations.
Now you seem to feel that all beings that are able to suffer should become part of this parcel. A sympathatic idea. But how can you discriminate between who or what suffers or is able to suffer and what not? You mention mammals and reptiles. But what about trees? (One of the sisters of the queen of Holland is famous for her conversations with trees and according to her they can suffer too). What you probably mean to say is that all categories that can show behavior in way that human beings can interprete as suffering are entitled to have rights. That idea creates some problems as someof the reactions in this thread already show.
I think the observation of (the creation of) suffering is just one tool for determination if we act in a responsible way to our Umwelt. We have more tools. We can promote our willingness to listen to our conscience; we can keep an eye on the ecological consequences in relation to our behavior. And we may realize that humans are able to choose between destruction and saving. You mention them too. But I do not understand why you think we have no obligation to our planet as a whole.