Jump to content
Aveyond Studios Community
Sign in to follow this  
Gen

*Debate Topic* -- Animal Rights

Recommended Posts

The claim that animals have ‘rights’ was first put forward by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer in the 1970s and has been the subject of heated and emotional debates ever since. There are many contexts in which the question of ‘animal rights’ comes up. Should we farm animals? If so by what techniques? Should we eat animals? Should we hunt and fish them? Is it morally acceptable to use animals as sources of entertainment in the context of zoos, circuses, horse racing etc.? Often the same organisations that campaign on environmental issues (e.g. Greenpeace) are also concerned for the welfare of animals: both sets of concerns derive from a commitment to the value of Nature and the Earth. The question of animal rights might well come up in a debate on biodiversity, and is one with so many political and social implications that it is also worth having in its own right. This debate is about the ethical principles at issue; the separate debates on biodiversity, vegetarianism, zoos, blood sports, and animal experimentation deal with more of the concrete details.

 

Whats your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think animals have certain rights. For example, dog used for fights shouldn't be allowed because it just doesn't lead to happy life for the dog. In most cases of when a dog fighting ring is busted, the dogs are put down because they are deemed too aggressive for adoption. I don't see anything wrong with horse racing, zoos, and circuses though as long as they treat the animals humanely. Should we eat animals? Yes we are made to eat animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I eat meat, kill insects, and other things without feeling guilty. I support using animals for testing things that will end up on the human market.

 

So let's answer your questions in order;

 

Farm animals: yes. Don't know farming techniques.

 

hunt/fish: long as it's not to extinction. Extinction's not cool.

 

morally acceptable to use as entertainment: yeah, we use humans for entertainment too lol. Remember the last time you watch a sports match or movie? ;)

 

The only real 'pro animal rights' position I have (that I know right now), is a mild 'save endangered species'. I'd like to be able to see a live cheetah or tiger 15 years from now. And some endangered species of plants might prove ultimately very beneficial for humans if harvested and synthesized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it ridiculous for us to have the notion of animal rights. Our morality and ethics is developed to service human society. To apply these outside human society is anthropocentrism. It's a flaw in logic. We empathize with animals when they feel pain because it reminds us of human pain. Similarly, we want to GIVE them rights because we see similarities between them and us. In my opinion, we shouldn't torture animals just for fun, but we shouldn't inconvenience ourselves for fear of harming animals either. (Boiling pots & lobsters for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While i find it ridiculous for us to have no notion of animal rights. Morality and ethics may be based in human society, but it is not confined by a strict border. In fact, ethics and morality almost by definition are meant to extrapolate. anthropocentrism is a rather subjective view, we are in fact of nature, implying ecocentrism, anthropocentrism is a species bias.

 

we empathize with animals because we ourselves feel the same pain that they feel, by your own words: we empathize, not sympathize.

 

Pain is not an abstract notion to humans, and we are after all mammals, the same as other animals. If we feel pain, then they feel the same pain; as humans we know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By empathize, I don't mean a literal feeling of pain, I mean the assumed recognition of pain. We can look at an injured dog and see that it is in pain, and we feel bad, not because we feel the dog's pain, but because we translate the dog's visual actions as a human's pain.

 

If a dog was shot by an arrow and started to sing and dance, we wouldn't feel bad for it. It's because we see visual similarities between humans and dogs expressing pain that we have negative feelings.

 

To further prove my point, dismembering insects would seem cruel and painful, but in reality, insects do not have the physical capacity to feel pain.

 

That means that it's all in our own heads. If you deliberately cause pain in an animal, you are running on an unspoken premise that this animal will react the same way a human does, and it shows that you will probably do unto humans what you do to the animal. However, deliberately inconveniencing the human race to avoid imaginary animal rights is absurd.

 

Simply put, the notion that animals deserve rights comes from a lapse in thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just because humans can't physically feel the animals pain, they shouldn't have rights? That's dumb. I'm not trying to be rude here. It's just saying just because we can't feel their pain animals shouldn't have rights isn't a valid reason. When a person sees another person in pain we feel their pain. Just like when we see a dog or a cat in pain we can feel their pain. Animals should have rights so people do go and purposefully put them in pain. Animals do feel pain, and humans can feel it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strawman fallacy.

 

The logical breakdown of my argument is not

 

1. Animals do not feel pain

2. Only things that feel pain deserve rights

3. Therefore, Animals do not deserve rights

 

My argument is as follows:

 

1. Rights are an imaginary concept developed by humans for humans

2. Applying these rights towards animals is incorrect because there are distinctions between humans and animals.

3. Therefore, attributing rights to animals, in the case that it inconveniences humans, is a poor decision.

 

An example would be "Animals deserve the right to live, so we shouldn't eat them".

 

Each species abides by 2 sets of rules. The rules of their species, and the overarching rules of nature.

 

Cats:

Personal rule = do not eat other cats

Natural rule = survival of the fittest (eat other animals)

 

Humans:

Personal rule = morality, human rights, etc.

Natural rule = survival of the fittest (eat other animals)

 

It would be absurd for cats to band together and say that mice deserve the same rights that cats do.

 

Similarly, it is absurd for humans to band together and say that other animals deserve the rights that we do.

 

We deal with humans using one set of morals, we need to deal with other animals using another set of morals. Mixing and matching them leads to confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess by your logic we should make drugs legal as to not inconvenient the police officers that go after drug users/dealers. Animals deserve respect and rights, simply put some of these animals were here before we were and we took their land or are just using them for our purposes. Animals deserve the same set of morals we use for people. We wouldn't just kill a person for no valid reason, so why should we kill an animal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo Kleptin, a very well thought out outline of your opinion. However, how about the torture of animals for entertainment, or (er, whatever). I am not speaking of horse-riding, farming and such, I am speaking of the sheer abuse, such as starvation, mutilation, beating, or even castration.. which really seems awful imo, even if somewhat necessary. Those animals should not be forced to succumb to such barbarianism, for sheer cruelty.

 

@mopiece:

 

No valid reason? People do have to eat. So do animals. If you were near a crocodile would it think twice about chomping deep into your flesh because it was immoral? No. Animals do not go by any moral code or system. It is something that humans themself have created for their own kind. (as stated by kleptin)

 

like I said above, the abuse of animals is wrong, but we do need to eat meat to be healthy. It is part of nature for one organism to eat another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me address this point by point.

 

"So I guess by your logic we should make drugs legal as to not inconvenient the police officers that go after drug users/dealers"

 

Incorrect use of my logic, and a further strawman fallacy. The fact that your analogy and my logic uses the word "inconvenience" doesn't make it a good analogy. You're missing my actual point and misinterpreting it.

 

"Animals deserve respect and rights, simply put some of these animals were here before we were and we took their land or are just using them for our purposes."

 

Animals not only take land from other animals, but they also use other animals for their own purposes. We're all animals and we're all playing the same game, it's just that humans are better at it.

 

"Animals deserve the same set of morals we use for people."

 

Why? Cats apply one set of morals to other cats, and apply another set of morals to mice and birds. Why should we do something different?

 

"We wouldn't just kill a person for no valid reason, so why should we kill an animal?"

 

Incorrect use of logic. That's like saying

 

"We peel bananas before we eat them, so why shouldn't we drive cars?"

 

The correct statement would be

 

"we wouldn't kill a person for no valid reason, so why should we kill an animal for no valid reason?"

 

Animals kill other animals for food. Animals kill other animals for protection, to show dominance in front of mates, and even to just practice pouncing/killing. Similarly, we kill animals for food, for protection, for clothing and even shelter, and to practice our ability to kill animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mopiece and I never agree, but on this I agree with her totally.

 

"Applying these rights towards animals is incorrect because there are distinctions between humans and animals" is false, there are minor distinctions, but there are also minor distinctions between me and you. Homosapians are in essence animals, simply more "advanced" and dominate (we colonize, breed, develop, etc.) Should I begrudge you rights because you are asian, while I am not? or should I begrudge indigenous people rights simply based on the fact that, due to my perspective, they are not living in an "advanced" society?

 

Like I said Kleptin, species bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you explain further, I didn't catch your point, nick. You are saying that .....

 

Unless we give rights to animals we are discriminating against them?.. I'm sorry I just didn't catch it that well..

 

Though I will say this. Asians and Americans. Whatever, we are all part of the same species. Homosapiens. We will usually not discriminate against our own kind. (though yes, we do sometimes, especially in the past and still in the present)

 

You are saying since ..

 

Rights are given to humans among their own kind, they should also go to animals?

 

I'm all for protecting animals from abuse.

 

However, why would we stop eating them? Lets say we were a lesser being. Not as strong, not as smart. Nature wouldn't think twice about taking our lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nick

(this is like the second time we have agreed? I might take a screen shot just in case anyone asks if we have ever agreed)

 

@Gen

I think Nick is trying to say humans are essentially animals. We just are more evolved and developed so we were able to build our societies.He is saying there are minor differences between animals and humans just like there are minor differences between Caucasian, Asians, Africans, Europeans, etc. So basically he is saying just because animals aren't as developed as us, they shouldn't get the same rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, but if Nick was "agreeing" with you it wouldn't be..

 

So basically he is saying just because animals aren't as developed as us, they shouldn't get the same rights.

 

It would be,

 

So basically he is saying just because animals aren't as developed as us, it doesn't mean they shouldn't get the same rights.

 

By the way, like me and Kleptin are saying, animals eat other animals without any guilt, why should WE feel guilt? Because in our mind we symbolize their pain as our pain. However, it is essential for our life, just as it is essential for a cheetah to hunt, or a wolf, or a shark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nick

 

The rules of natural selection form a group called a "species". I, being Asian, am capable of impregnating a Caucasian female, just as you, being Caucasian, are capable of impregnating an Asian female.

 

However, neither of us can impregnate a cat.

 

Therefore, your argument fails in the respect that you are talking about race, whereas I am talking about species.

 

Humans have human rights that apply to humans, but not to cats.

 

Cats have Cat-like codes of conduct that apply to cats, but not to mice.

 

If cats can eat and kill mice, why can't we eat and kill other animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is arguing that people shouldn't eat animals. I think the argument here is animals do deserve rights even though they are just a different species. And you missed his point. It was there are only a few differences between Humans and Animals. Animals are just not as developed as humans are, other then that they feel the same pains we feel. Animals should have rights that protect them from unnecessary pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think before we go any further, we need to define what "unnecessary pain" is. However, I don't think there should be any situation where a person can go

 

"Hey! you're violating that animal's rights! Off to jail you go!"

 

If someone is torturing or mistreating an animal, they should go "Hey! You're psychotic! Off to the funny farm you go!"

 

People should be punished for harming animals, but not because they are infringing on animal rights, but because what they do to animals shows what they may do to humans. This means, you don't send them to jail, you send them to rehab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now that "that" is settled, I will agree with the point:

 

"Animals should have rights that protect them from unnecessary pain."

~Mopiece

 

I already talked about this here.

 

"However, how about the torture of animals for entertainment, or (er, whatever). I am not speaking of horse-riding, farming and such, I am speaking of the sheer abuse, such as starvation, mutilation, beating, or even castration.. which really seems awful imo, even if somewhat necessary. Those animals should not be forced to succumb to such barbarianism, for sheer cruelty."

~Me xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say that even in that case, animals should get absolutely no rights. But humans who do any of those hideous things should still be punished, by sending them to psych wards.

 

Read what I said above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that such practices as dog fighting should be banned and not allowed. I also agree that animals should be protected from starvation, mutilation, and beatings. Castration I don't have a problem with as long as the person is just trying to keep the animals from getting to populated. For instance, the dog population, we have a lot of dogs in shelters which is why people are encouraged to spay/neuter their dogs. I think that's a good idea because less puppies then the less dogs that will have to be put in shelters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree that dog-fighting/cock-fighting should be banned. I'm unsure, however, whether dog racing or horse racing is morally just, in that case.

 

As for castration, that's a good point for why we should not give animals any rights, and why we should help animals by limiting ourselves and not giving freedom to them.

 

If we give animals rights, what justification would we have for infringing on their freedom to reproduce? What justification would we have to even keep them as pets, or use them to do work, or to produce food?

 

Giving animals rights is a slippery slope, which is why we cannot do it. The best thing to do is to regulate things from our end. Inhibit human activities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some countries limit the amount of babies a family can have though.

 

I don't see anything wrong with dog/horse racing as long as the animals are being treated humanely.

 

For castration, we are helping them by getting the population under control. Animal shelters do not have enough space for all the stray dogs or the dogs that get abandoned. Most shelters euthanize the dog after a certain period of time. So by castrating them, less dogs will have to die.

 

How do we justify keeping them as pets? Well they make us happy. Some people like to care for others, which is they have pets. Pets bring joy into a family. Justify using them for food? We are made to eat animals. If we were supposed to be vegetarians we would just have molars and our stomachs would be designed differently. Justify using them for work? Animals are stronger than us, so it makes since to use them for work (again as long as the animal is being treated humanely).

 

Animals deserve rights just like humans do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So if I treat you humanely, can I put a carrot on your head and make you run laps?

 

What about castrating people? There are way too many of us, should I go around to hospitals and castrate newborns? More food to go around, easier to take care of less people, will make for happier and healthier lives.

 

What about you? Can I keep you as a pet? I'll take very good care of you, and I'll feed you, take you for walks, I'll tie you in front of my house and you can help chase away bad guys.

 

And if I get hungry, can I eat you? I have molars and canines to eat you with. I'll make sure I won't torture you before I cook you though.

 

If Animals deserve rights just like humans do, then humans deserve rights just like animals do, right?

 

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×