Animal Rights

[MrPresident]

Do animals have rights? Why is it that some animals such as cats and dogs are protected by the law and other animals such as flies and ants are not? Do you think that is right? Who decides whether animals have rights? Are they inherent or are they given by humans? What rights should animals have? For example, do chickens have a right to minimum living conditions? Should people be banned from battery farming chickens as a result? What do you think?

Note: This is not a thread about vegetarianism. This is a thread solely about animal rights.

 

[puglover]

Animals that are domesticated as pets have certain rights that other animals do not. They have been accepted into human society and killing them unnecessarily is wrong (note: this is not the same as saying that humans and pets are equal.)

Insects are abundant, they doesn't matter. However, an endangered species is a different story. Animals other than pets I don't really care about though. After all, they are only animals. It is good to take care of them and prevent overkilling, but not going too far.

As for the chickens, we are going to eat them anyway.

 

[CivCube]

If it can feel, it deserves to have proper care and love.

 

[Quiet Sound]

I limit what I'll agree to in that regard to prevention of unnecessary and unreasonable suffering, e.g. slaughtering an animal while still conscious. This could of course be applied to pets but I'm mostly thinking of animals bred purely to be used in some way.

 

[Bamspeedy]

As for the chickens, we are going to eat them anyway.

But if a farmer isn't feeding them so that they are starving to death, he can be charged with animal cruelty. While some animals are raised to be slaughtered anyways (like cattle), there is some regulations on how you treat them while alive. You can't let them starve to death, or keep them in stalls that are 2 feet deep in manure are some examples.

 

[Perfection]

Only if said animal is human does it deserve legal rights.

 

[WillJ]

The reason there is such disagreement on the concept of animal rights is because there are no actual facts on either side. It's all a matter of opinion as to what makes something sacred: intelligence, emotion, pain, abudance, etc.

I can't see myself siding with the "pro-animal" group nor the "only humans matter" goup (in fact, what's there to stop me from siding with the "even humans don't matter" group?). What is there to convince me? I'll give a cookie to whoever can bring an inherently relevant fact into the debate.

 

[10Seven]

If these are God's creation, then disrespect for these is, logically, also disrespect for God - regardless of whether a person might believe they are here for human exploitation.

It is commonly held, that the measure of a nation can be judged by it's attitude to animals - and, by extension, the human animal.

Cruelty toward one is reflected in attitude to the other.

 

[puglover]

But if a farmer isn't feeding them so that they are starving to death, he can be charged with animal cruelty. While some animals are raised to be slaughtered anyways (like cattle), there is some regulations on how you treat them while alive. You can't let them starve to death, or keep them in stalls that are 2 feet deep in manure are some examples.

In that case minimum rights should be required. Starving to death for example is cruelty, and so is the manure. But their rights should not be equal to those of non-food animals

 

[King Alexander]

Do animals have rights? Of course they do. Humans aren't something so special except that they are intelligent(unfortunately, not all of them). Every animal deserves a good treatment. We share this planet with them(fortunately, we haven't exterminated all the other species yet).

 

[LesCanadiens]

Animals should have no rights. This is a civilization of humans, for humans. Animals are subordinate to us in every way. Period. Until animals start developing complex languages and building towns and cities, they do not deserve legal rights of any kind.

I used to have a dog, and I loved her more than anything, and took very good care of her, and enjoyed time spent with her. But does that mean she had/deserved legal rights of any kind? No! If someone killed her (and technically, someone did) I wouldn't start screaming for x years in prison or the death penalty like some of the more PETA-inclined members of this board might.

 

[andrewgprv]

Where does anyone draw the line on what has rights and what does not? Today many people argue that animals have no rights that rights are for humans. Yesterday people argued slaves don't have rights, rights are for white men. The day before that people argued that barbarians don't have rights, only greeks have rights.......

I think anyone who has observed most mammals will observe a complex life form capable of intellegence and empathy. The same is true for many animals, I think where possable we should treat these animals with respect. It is unreasonable to try to enforce a no fly killing law, but it is very reasonable to punish those that drop kick a dog, or torture a rat, or behead ducks for fun etc....

The bottom line is that whenever possable we should treat our environment and fellow living creatures with respect. They are living free agents that are not here for our exploitation.

 

[Mise]

@LesCanadiens:
So, animals should have no rights because in your opinion they are inferior beings. In my opinion, you are an inferior being and have no rights .

Cruelty to animals sickens me, so naturally I think they should be protected.

 

[addiv]

Animals should have no rights. This is a civilization of humans, for humans. Animals are subordinate to us in every way. Period. Until animals start developing complex languages and building towns and cities, they do not deserve legal rights of any kind.

Not really original to copy-paste the same sentence in every thread about animals, eh?
It's sad that someone can think this simplistic. Just because animals don't have as complex minds as humans they have no rights whatsoever? How about doing the same to certain lesser intelligent humans then? Sounds rather fascist to me.
I shouldn't have to tell you this but animals, and especially mammals of course, have (physical and mental) feelings, so it's immoral to unnecessarily hurt them or treat them badly.

 

[Stevenpfo]

I think, we as humans, will someday pay for the attitude that we're adopting that we're conquered this earth so it is ours to destroy. The animals of this earth are just as much part of it's eco system as the trees, rivers and oceans.

I also equate beating a dog (or any other domesticated animal) as the same as beating a small child or a mentally handicapped person. It doesn't know better and it put it's trust in you and you used that against it to cause it harm.

Edit: I believe it was Descartes who said animals are just machines that 'learn' to react. This was the same principle that was applied to non-whites in many countries. They are not as smart as us, they just ... learn to react instead of thinking. This often made me wonder: What's the difference between thinking and learning? I only added this because I think it is somewhat relative to the conversation.

If animals can think and feel, do they not deserve some kind of rights? Or are we to lord over them and abuse them as we see fit?

One last thing: If you saw a man abusing animals, just because he could. Would you let him watch your children unsupervised? I ask this because I think on some levels the way we treat animals is on the same level we treat other people.

 

[King Alexander]

I also equate beating a dog (or any other domesticated animal) as the same as beating a small child or a mentally handicapped person. It doesn't know better and it put it's trust in you and you used that against it to cause it harm.

One last thing: If you saw a man abusing animals, just because he could. Would you let him watch your children unsupervised? I ask this because I think on some levels the way we treat animals is on the same level we treat other people.

Well said, Stevenpfo.
1) That's a good example.
2) I would never left my children(when I'll have any, that is) under an animal-beater's supervision.

 

[Perfection]

2) I would never left my children(when I'll have any, that is) under an animal-beater's supervision.

I'd never leave my children under a drunk's supervison but you don't see me trying to outlaw booze!

 

[LesCanadiens]

Not really original to copy-paste the same sentence in every thread about animals, eh?
It's sad that someone can think this simplistic. Just because animals don't have as complex minds as humans they have no rights whatsoever? How about doing the same to certain lesser intelligent humans then? Sounds rather fascist to me.
I shouldn't have to tell you this but animals, and especially mammals of course, have (physical and mental) feelings, so it's immoral to unnecessarily hurt them or treat them badly.

1) All humans have the potential for the same intelligence level.

2) You're comparing "lesser-intelligent humans" to dogs? Wow you're racist.

 

[Perfection]

In the words of Ol' Honest Abe I think government should be "of the people, by the people, for the people"

 

[Stevenpfo]

I'd never leave my children under a drunk's supervison but you don't see me trying to outlaw booze!

Because drinking is like raising cattle. Abusing your cattle would be comparable to an alcaholic... To use your own example.