2 edits
Originally posted by Bobla45the lion and the bear are presumably hungry. they are presumably not killing or torturing other species en masse for profit or pleasure. if you look at it as 'they' vs 'us', humans have done far more damage and destruction to animals, the planet and indeed to their own species than all the other creatures of the earth combined.
What rights does a lion give a zebra? What rights would a hungry grizzly give a child on a camping trip?
the reason animals should have rights is because they need to be protected from those who do abuse them. the rights may not be inherent, but without these rights, there is no protection for them from abuse.
in friendship,
prad
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 610682
Originally posted by pradtfIf we throw out torture, I would like to think lab animals are experimented on for the ultimate good of the human race. When I eat a hamburger, I presume, like the lion and the bear I am hungry also. We could take this to the next level and say plants should not be eaten, because they too, are living things. That would leave a free thinking human with no alternative but to starve himself to death, which i suppose would delight the maggots,
the lion and the bear are presumably hungry. they are presumably not killing or torturing other species en masse for profit or pleasure. if you look at it as 'they' vs 'us', humans have done far more damage and destruction to animals, the planet and indeed to their own species than all the other creatures of the earth combined.
the reason animals shoul ...[text shortened]... t, but without these rights, there is no protection for them from abuse.
in friendship,
prad
In friendship, Bob
7 edits
Originally posted by Bobla45bob, before we take it to the next level and have a thread about plant rights, let's at least try to wrap this one up a bit 😀
If we throw out torture, I would like to think lab animals are experimented on for the ultimate good of the human race. When I eat a hamburger, I presume, like the lion and the bear I am hungry also. We could take this to the next level an ...[text shortened]... which i suppose would delight the maggots,
In friendship, Bob
i know the general idea is that lab animals are experimented on for the benefit of the human race, but is it really so? and is that really what needs to be done? for instance, cosmetic testing is one of those practises that were supposed to be done for the protection of humans, but was really done to protect the companies from being sued (they had done the legal tests so they were unassailable). cosmetic testing is now generally frowned upon, though not eliminated. car companies used to use animals in their crash tests to pass apparent 'legal' requirements for the benefit of humans (even though anatomically 'correct' dummies provided far more accurate results). general motors was the last company to abandon these tests about 5 years ago. these are only 2 examples that the way thinigs are done are not necessarily for the benefit of humans. (there will be more specifically about the medical research in richhoey's thread)
the hunger issue is a whole other matter. apart from the fact that humans do not have to eat animals and actually live healthier lives if they don't, the mass agriculture industry do not have the best interests of humans at heart - not the interests of the consumer, nor the interests of the small farmer. these things are all linked together.
if you at least look at the information (opposed to the present usage of animals), which admittedly is attempting to change some mainstream lifestyles, you may see that it is addressing some very real problems and is coming from a variety of sources (not just AR people).
in friendhsip,
prad
Originally posted by bjarniguDefinitely not. Neither do they think you should have no rights. It is totally beyond their grasp and imagination.
Buddy..
My only answer is giving you a different question:
Would the animals think you should have rights?
One of the most intimate things we can share with animals is trust. The sad thing is that we betray them in this field enormously. That is why we should make laws to protect animals against our outbursts of greed and sadism
The whole point I try to make is that rights have nothing to do with animals. It sounds as strange as when someone says that animals should be rich. These are human projections.
Originally posted by fjordthat is beautifully put, fjord!
One of the most intimate things we can share with animals is trust. The sad thing is that we betray them in this field enormously. That is why we should make laws to protect animals against our outbursts of greed and sadism
The whole point I try to make is that rights have nothing to do with animals. It sounds as strange as when someone says that animals should be rich. These are human projections.
what's important is that we do not allow them to be abused - whether by rights or by laws doesn't matter.
in friendship,
prad
3 edits
Originally posted by bbarrgreat stuff, bbarr as always!
I think we owe this obligation to conscious creatures; we owe it to them to take care of their habitat and minimize the damage we do. Our obligations regarding nature are a function of the rights of animals to have space within which to live.
i think we also 'owe this obligation' to ourselves for it goes a long way to defining what we are like as a species.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by Bobla45What ultimate good for the human race I would like to know?
If we throw out torture, I would like to think lab animals are experimented on for the ultimate good of the human race. When I eat a hamburger, I presume, like the lion and the bear I am hungry also. We could take this to the next level and say plants should not be eaten, because they too, are living things. That would leave a free thinking human with no al ...[text shortened]... ut to starve himself to death, which i suppose would delight the maggots,
In friendship, Bob
Lions and Bears are designed differently especially there colons.
Yes, eating fruits and more of them would be the least damaging if you really want to get deep.
Do you think man would starve himself to death?
I know many that live on a high fruit diet and seem to be doing very well. One of them trains olympic and pro. athletes.
Big G.
1 edit
Originally posted by fjordSo, you must be claiming that the obligations we have regarding animals and their habitat are actually obligations we owe directly to other humans, for that is the only way you can agree with what I posted above and not contradict yourself. But if this is your view, then it entails that if someone tortures an animal for fun, they haven't actually wronged the animal but, rather, violated an obligation they own to other humans. If you seriously think that animals are just the benficiaries of obligations we owe to each other, then it is impossible to actually morally wrong an animal. So, suppose I catch a stray dog and slowly skin it alive. When I'm done, to whom should I apologize?
I agree with you and your answer affirms what I have been trying to express. If we decide (and we should in my opinion) to treat animals (and nature) with dignity, it does not imply that you give rights to the animals. The rights and obligati ...[text shortened]... rnational) law. The animals (and nature) are the beneficiaries.
Note: This implausible entailment of your view is not the only thing you must explain away. You have yet to respond to any of the numerous objections I provided above.
Originally posted by Bobla45This is some strange slippery slope type argument: "If we can't eat animals because they're living things, then we can't justifiably eat plants either, and thus we are doomed to starvation...". But look at the antecedent of the conditional premise: "If we can't eat animals because they are living things...". NOBODY is claiming that this is the reason eating animals is morally wrong. The reason eating animals is wrong is because they are conscious creatures, capable of suffering, in many cases capable of rudimentary reasoning and in some cases even aware of themselves as individuals. There is absolutely no reason to think plants have any of these capacities.
If we throw out torture, I would like to think lab animals are experimented on for the ultimate good of the human race. When I eat a hamburger, I presume, like the lion and the bear I am hungry also. We could take this to the next level and say plants should not be eaten, because they too, are living things. That would leave a free thinking human with no al ...[text shortened]... ut to starve himself to death, which i suppose would delight the maggots,
In friendship, Bob
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 610682
Originally posted by bbarrI take it then you are a vegetarian
This is some strange slippery slope type argument: "If we can't eat animals because they're living things, then we can't justifiably eat plants either, and thus we are doomed to starvation...". But look at the antecedent of the conditional premise: "If we can't eat animals because they are living things...". NOBODY is claiming that this is the reas ...[text shortened]... as individuals. There is absolutely no reason to think plants have any of these capacities.
Originally posted by fjordJust because the concept of 'rights' is a human concept, it doesn't follow that rights are human projections. The concept 'chair' is a human concept as well, and that surely doesn't entail that chairs are human projections, after all, you can't sit in a projection. If you think that rights are just fictional entities like unicorns, then it follows that you don't have any rights either. This may be an extreme view, but at least it would be consistent. If, however, you think that you actually have rights, then there must be some criterion you satisfy in virtue of which you qualify as a rights-holder. You've claimed before that the properties of being a reasoning, self-aware creature are sufficient to qualify a creature as a rights-holder (remember the alien example above), yet you would refuse to recognize the animals who also satisfy these criteria (like gorillas and chimps, for instance) and yet recognize as rights-holders those who fail to satisfy these criteria (like human infants and the severely retarded). Please address these glaring inconsistencies in your view.
The whole point I try to make is that rights have nothing to do with animals. It sounds as strange as when someone says that animals should be rich. These are human projections.
7 edits
Originally posted by bbarr
Just because the concept of 'rights' is a human concept, it doesn't follow that rights are human projections ...
If you think that rights are just fictional entities like unicorns, then it follows that you don't have any rights either. This may be an extreme view, but at least it would be consistent. If, however, you think that you actually have rights, then there must be some criterion you satisfy in virtue of which you qualify as a rights-holder.
i find this very profound. i have to admit, i have been thinking too result-oriented and have been diverted from stressing this concept enough.
what you are saying is that because an animal possesses 'the properties of being a reasoning, self-aware creature' as well as the capacity to suffer, this being has inherent rights because the same criteria is what we use to give humans rights. it makes no difference whether 'rights' are a human fabrication or not.
fjord's pragmatic statement that 'we should make laws to protect animals against our outbursts of greed and sadism' is a most natural and necessary outcome when it is spawned from your consistent framework!
i should have seen this way back when - after all, one of the best star trek episodes 'the measure of a man' deals with the rights of the android data and which are validated by precisely such an argument. the inevitable result of not acknowledging this, as was recognized in the show and is rampant now, is slavery (whatever form you wish to see it in).
thanks.
in friendship,
prad
1 edit
I understand that this is a thread about animal rights and so arguments have ensued around this. The bottom line to me is that animals are not abused by human kind. Whether this is achieved by the concept of rights or the concept of "custodial care" (though this cocept may grant our species an inflated status) is not as important. What counts is the actions we take not what we say we believe.
It seems there are two kinds of arguments in this thread, one which does not involve harm to animals and one that does. Arguments which rationalize abuse have dire consequences . These are by far the more dangerous for actions that follow harm animals. These rationalizations maintain staus quo, close our hearts and prevent change.
As we become more callous to suffering, we also hold back our own evolution into more compassionate beings.
in friendship
Ranjana
Originally posted by bbarrSo, you must be claiming that the obligations we have regarding animals and their habitat are actually obligations we owe directly to other humans, for that is the only way you can agree with what I posted above and not contradict yourself.
Yes, indeed.
But if this is your view, then it entails that if someone tortures an animal for fun, they haven't actually wronged the animal but, rather, violated an obligation they own to other humans. If you seriously think that animals are just the benficiaries of obligations we owe to each other, then it is impossible to actually morally wrong an animal.
That is not the right conclusion.
Let me go back to the example with the beggar. Suppose the beggar would die if you do not give the alms you are supposed to give according to the agreement you made with others. You still can righteously claim that you had no obligations towards the beggar, neither had he rights towards you. At the same time we agreed that such an attitude is wrong.
The moral question is a different issue. Or do you believe that rights and obligations and morality are unconditionally interrelated? Personally I would indeed feel it as immoral to torture whatever whoever.
So, suppose I catch a stray dog and slowly skin it alive. When I'm done, to whom should I apologize?
Definitely to humanity. It is inhumane behavior towards animals. And the culprit should be punished by humans and by human law.
And yes, another punishment could be when he realizes he has lost the trust of the animals, although he probably will not care so much about that.
Note: This implausible entailment of your view is not the only thing you must explain away. You have yet to respond to any of the numerous objections I provided above
I apologize. My original post was indeed much longer, but for the readability I decided to limit myself to the (in my eyes) most important part. Please, feel free to repeat the questions that you want me to answer.