Can anybody argue coherently for any rights for animals ?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

What is your stand on the issue of animal rights ?

  • Animals have no rights whatsoever, humans are entitled to do as they will.
  • Animals have a degree of basic rights, such as not being tortured or abused, and are to be protected from human adversity whenever that does not touch any legitimate human interest
  • Animals have rights to life, a habitat and an existance free from, or with minimal interference of humans. Ideally all animals should live their entire life without ever meeting a human being.
  • Animals have exactly the same rights as humans, there being no significant difference between the two on this matter
  • Animals have all rights humans have, and on top a right of precedence over humans, in the sense that if there is a conflicting interest of a human and an animal, the animal has automatic precedence
  • Animals have all rights humans have, and on top a right of precedence over humans, in the sense that if there is a conflicting interest of a human, or a group of humans no matter how large, and an animal, the animal has automatic precedence
0 voters

Considering that bloated vegetarianism thread, and the fact i simply do not understand what exactly must one be thinking to consider animals have any rights whatsoever, or that there should be any reasons why humans should not maim, torture, eat (cooked or otherwise), throw around, engage in sexual intercourse, pluck hairs and feathers, use in medical experiments, including such experiments as poisoning, infecting with deadly organisms, dissecting, etc any animal whatsoever, including any apes and monkeys, and including cute kitties and nice puppies and any other pets, i would like to ask that anyone who thinks there should be any limitation whatsoever on what humans can or should do to animals to post here explaining his reasons.

I would like to ask people that hold strong beliefs on the matter but do not wish, or are not able to offer arguments on the matter, or do not think the matter should even be discussed to content themselves by voting in the adjoined poll, but not post. Please. It really is pointless.

I would further like to ask posters to base their statements on reasons, and those reasons should ammount to more than belief or conjecture.

For simplicity you do not have to argue all the stands on animals rights you hold all at once, mangled together. you can for instance just start with a post detailing why red herrings should be not touched, because they are so valuable for philosophers everywhere [joking]. But seriously, pick a speciffic animal, or a specific right and argue that first. its easier to do and easier to read. then later on, add another. and give formalised reasons.

[Edit : Conclusions of what has been posted, i will keep editing this so we know where we stand]

Dark Magus : Pain itself is not enough, i dont think. For instance, do you consider taking kids to the dentist to be morally wrong ? They can sure buck and kick and scream all the way tho… And what about BSDM clubs ? is it wrong to flog and cut and whatver else they do to their sex partners ?

Monooq : I am better than your dog because your dog is a bitch.

Ucissore : I agree with your showing that animals can feel pain, just as i agree with magus on this respect. I agree with your statements about animals as not moral agenst. I retain the point about human implicating themselves in “sub human” acts. This will take some arguing however.

arendt : I agree when you say that cruelty must exist in the act. I still do not see why this should necessarily imply anything more, particularly why humans should avoid cruelty to animals altogether. For by the same argument, rape also exists in the act, and that is no reason to avoid having sex.

Mentat monkey, you are hijacking a thread. i will more than happily discuss any other subject in any other place, but kindly please do not clog this one.

As conclusions :

these take no further proving, i accept as true :

1.1. Animals are capable to feel pain, and inasmuch as they are similar to humans, they feel pain and react to pain similarly to humans.
1.2. Cruelty is not a matter of circumstance, but a matter of fact. Which is to say that once we have judged an act to be cruel, there is no ammount of context that can possibly change that.
1.3. Animals are not moral agents.
1.4. Animals are aware of their surroundings and their own bodies, they react decidedly to avoid death and paining themselves.

these are things i suspect to be true, and i offer some reasoning or standing why i consider them so, but i will gladly hear more :

2.1. since animals are not moral agents, no moral of reciprocity can be applied to them. that because it would put animals in the position of the hipocrite, personam tu quoque type 3.
2.2. Humans should not be cruel to animals because that is diminishing their moral status. I would like to observe a few things however :
2.2.1. It is not clear why should there be carry over. If i am one who tortures animals, why should this make a difference when the subject is humans ? It would seem this to be a good reason for animals to avoid me, but should be indifferent to humans. You still have to show more than the fact that cruelty is in the act to convince me cruelty is an universal.
2.2.2. Precisely how does being cruel to animals diminishes humans their moral status ? For instance, pounding a sheet of metal, which is not a moral agent, does not diminish my moral status, for indeed interactions with things that arent moral agents can not affect my moral status, or can they ?
2.3 humans should not be cruel to animals because animals do make an honest effort to avoid pain and death. This is a very doubtful thing. For instance, water makes an obvious effort to get to the ground. should we never keep water in a glass ? if anyone wants to argue that water is not self aware, while animals are, i will point out that there is scarcely any way to prove water is less aware of itself pouring to the ground than the mice going for the cheese. Further, trees also make very obvious efforts to get to water/light etc. should we be discussing rights for plants on the same grounds ? and furthermore, how does all this relate to computer generated realities ? is it cruel to beat things on the screen ? considering they to avoid injury and defend their “lives”.

2

i’m not saying that i believe this, but you could argue that …

  1. creatures with central nervous systems (e.g. humans, dogs, hamsters, cows, chickens, etc.) can feel pain.

  2. the subjective experience of pain is an undesirable state of affairs and should be avoided.

  3. to inflict injury or death on any creature with a central nervous system creates the subjective experience of pain in that creature, which is undesirable and should be avoided.

3

define central nervous system…

one could argue that since some plants physically turn toward the light, they have an intelligence of a sort… they do choose the light afterall…

plants need more rights than animals…

the animals had the chance to run away, only a coward would attack a poor defenseless living plant which does nothing but sit and grow… vegetarian butchers attacking helpless innocent living plants…

perhaps newton was justified in attacking the apple tree…

yes, one needs to posit animal rights against humanity when humans can’t even posit human rights amongst themselves…

absurdity at its finest…

-Imp

4

Consciousness seems to operation on a sliding scale. That is to say, some beings can be more or less self-aware than others. For evidence of this, I cite evolution. I am conscious. My distant ancestors were non human, and my extremely distant ancestors weren’t conscious at all- they were slugs and such. If we accept that, there are only two options: Either there was one particular generation in my ancestry in which conscious sprang up, fully formed, or consciousness developed over time, much the way brains have deloped over time. I consider the second much more likely, and if this is true, then it is also true of the animals living today- some, such as an ape, may be nearly as conscious as a human, and others, such as a sea-slug, may be completely un-conscious.
Part of what it means to be conscious is surely to experience suffering or distress. It is reasonable to believe, then, that animals can experience pain or distress- they certainly behave as though they do, and we have just as much inductive evidence to believe in the pain of an animal as we do the pain of our fellow humans. I would argue that working to reduce how much pain we inflict is a moral good, and that the pain of animal is real. Thus, seeking to reduce the pain in an animal is a good, though this by itself doesn’t obligate any particular act.
By the same token, however, animals are not moral agents. They do not act with moral intention, and are not capable of being held accountable meaningfully for what they do. Morals, if they exist, are abstarct concepts which can only be understood by reasoning. It is this kind of reasoning that seperates humans from every other natural thing. Moreover, animals inflict on each other every sort of injustice and horror that would be unacceptable for humans to inflict on each other. What this mean is, morals do not apply to animals in and of themselves. When a lion kills a deer, or kills it’s own cub, there is no moral content in these actions.
So then, if there’s nothing wrong with a lion killing a lion cub capriciously, then how could it be wrong for a human to do so? The answer I would argue for is that since a human is a moral agent with ‘intrinsic’ value, when they inflict needless pain on others, they are doing a wrong to themselves. If I torture an animal, I become “one who tortures animals” instead of “one who avoid causing pain whenever possible” and this does an injury to the value of my own character. Thus, I seek to avoid harming animals. At the same time, animals are not humans, and the eating of animals causes humans pleasure. Human pleasure is a thing of value, so the issue of eating animals vs. vegetarianism becomes subjective, with the best answer being to allow for the eating of animals as long as humans want to, while always working to minimize the amount of suffering in the animals this causes.
In summary, then, animals can suffer much as humans suffer, but there is no objective moral content in animal suffering unless a human is involved in it, and only then, because the human causing the suffering makes themselves lesser by so doing.

5

you’re an idiot. first off, why don’t you make an argument for why anybody should torture, maime, rape, and so on, animals. moreover, that’d presuppose that you’d want to in the first place… and you ought to have reasons for that.
but no, this is just a why not, may as well type post.
i don’t know what makes you think you’re better than my dog, to be honest. (i’m assuming you do). she’s obviously more intelligent, and all kinds of other good qualities.

6

Zenofeller,

If you define cruelty as “an abuse, mistreatment, or neglect that causes pain and suffering”, then there shouldn’t be any question or doubt if we say that both humans and animals alike suffer under cruel acts. The question of whether animals feel pain or not, and do they suffer the same way as humans do is irrelevant. The objectionable thing about cruel acts lies in the act, not in the recipient of the act. Next, pain is a subjective feeling----both humans and animals alike can only give cues as to the presence of pain and as to the degree of its painfulness, so given proper inquiry, both should show signs that they are in pain and suffering. So, any questions as to who feels pain, etc. is again irrelevant.

If you agree that we understand what cruelty is, and we agree that cruelty exists, then it must exist in the act. Cruelty against people is the same as cruelty against animals.

7

Very good posts both arendt and Uccisore.

First of all, we must know about what types of animals we are talking about. If we are including all organisms that are part of the Animalia Kingdom, then I wouldn’t even dream of putting them all on the same level as humans. I will never mourn over an ant I just crushed, or a tick I killed because it tried to suck my blood.

But I draw the line at when an animal is considered sentient, and is capable of suffering. It’s at that point that I put animals on the same level as humans in most areas. I don’t care if animals are killed painlessly(assuming that the animals death doesn’t cause another sentient being to mourn or suffer, and that the animal’s race isn’t endangered), in fact I personally wouldn’t care if I saw humans killed painlessly (although it’s almost impossible to do so without causing either the victim or the victim’s friends/family mental suffering). Suffering is where I draw the line.

And as Dark Magus, Arendt, and Uccisore have pointed out, there are many reasons why causing suffering is wrong.

8

Okay, I think it’s time for a different approach to this subject.
While this topic does have a baseless implication that animals are somehow inferior to humans, his questioning if we should be cruel to them is as valid a question as any.

Why should we be nice to animals?
This entire topic is completely subjective as whether or not cruelty itself is a reason not to cause it does differ depending on each person.
Because of this, I want to know if we should be nice to humans? Why shouldn’t we inflict cruelty to humans if it will benifit us?
Whether the victim of the cruelty is sentient or not is also completely objective. There are some people who think that humans are animals. There are others who think that there is no such thing as a sentient animal. There are also definitions for sentience that not only validly demonstrate that animals are not and can not be sentient, but if are taken further also demstrate that humans under the age of puberty are not sentient either. (Sure infants can behave like sentient beings, but they only do what they’re trained to do)

I would just like for zenofeller or one of his proponants to tell us why we should not be cruel to humans.

9

Hello Zenofella,

You’re asking questions that have been answered to such a degree already, and with such immense research and accuracy that I feel ashamed to try to replicate them here. Please see the following:

1971, Animals, Men and Morals, Gollancz.

1964, Animal Machines, R. Harrison.

1964, The Sicentific Conscience, Roberts.

1969, In Pity and Anger, J. Vyvyan

1975, The Sunday Times “The Rights of Animals”. ← this one had an impact that was huge.

1972, The Civilised Alternative, Wynne-Tyson.

1988, Food for a Future, Wynne-Tyson (seen as the definitive logical argument for the necessity of application of rights to animals, and furthermore proves how anyone not applying rights to animals cannot equally claim any themselves.)

1972, Men, Beasts and God, G. Carson

1976, Animal Liberation, P. Singer ← this one put the academic seal of approbation on a re-examination of our obligations towards other forms of sentient life.

1965, The report of the Brambell Committee

1977, Cambridge Symposium hosted by RSPCA, and following RSPCA: Animal Rights, a Symposium.

1981, Horizon Lectures, P.Singer

1984, The Struggle for Animal Rights, T. Regan

1985, Cambridge union debate on animal rights, transcripts available online (probably).

If you need more ‘reasons’ by all means I can provide them. You cannot expect to be taken seriously unless you have read at least some of the existing writings on the subject (which from your post it is clear you have not, or could not have, else you would have at least an understanding of the arguments you seek and not proclaim utter ignorance of ‘how anyone can attribute rights to animals [sic]’)

10

oxford, you are in fact correct, i have not read any of the abundant literature concerning animal rights. that is entirely a fault of my own. i have neither read any of the abundant literature concerning the healing powers of crystals, the practices and scope of psychyc teleportation, white power, et caetera.

this thread has been born out of manifest laziness, ie i will not be bothered to read A SINGLE BOOK with regards to the rights of animals. i have only this much time and in my own hierarchy of what is important, books on animal rights score very low. to get to them would first mean i finish a pile of about 20 other books i been struggling with ever since september, and then all the others i still want to read that come before animal rights, and i have other things to do than just read, mind you. ofcourse there is no reason anyone should care for these faults and shortcomings of mine. i however make an application to your kindness and charitable spirit.

should you feel inclined to explain it to me, in a simple form as it is adequate to this board, while still maintaining logical rigour, i will be much in your debt.

this i do because while i do suspect my stand on animal rights might be very wrong, i am unsure at the moment precisely why and where. if i remain ignorant, nothing lost. but then again, if you teach me things, that will not only satisfy my lazy thirst for knowledge, but also your own responsability sense for those less fortunate and blessed.

11

Indeed, yet you are not posting such questions about any of those other topics (not that there is any reason to compare magic crystals to animal rights).

That’s fine, many do have a problem with ‘remaining ignorant’ (your words) but then, many do not. The difference between the two groups, of course, is the philosopher. :slight_smile:

12

there is an excellent reason to compare them, which is the fact i have not read either literature. anyways, we are going the wrong way. its the weekend, got some time to write a tutorial ?

13

I don’t think it is wrong to EAT animals, because human beings are designed to do so. One look at any face will show you that our eyes are in the front of our heads and we are therefore predators. Add into the mix that we have canine teeth and are capable of both chewing and digesting raw meat and it is pretty clear that we have evolved to consume other animals. I should also mention that it is also possible for us to live without an appendix, something that is necessary for purely vegetarian species.

I do however think that it is “wrong” to be cruel to animals, not because of any inherent right that animals have to be feel from cruelty, but that to inflict cruelty debases the proponent.

IMO saying animals have rights is ridiculous. We are the top of the food chain, along with sharks. A shark would not hesitate to kill us if it were hungry - there is no morality involved whatsoever in the equation. It is mere biological imperitivism.

Vegetarians should just get over it and have a good steak.

14

A person avoids harming others, not merely because others are moral agents, a person avoids harming other because he or she is the moral agent. He or she makes the active choice to avoid harming others. This choice has moral consequences for the individual making the choice.

When I choose to harm, no matter if I harm another person or an animal, I lower my own moral quality.

(Plus animals tap into our bias to protect the innocent. Especially cute, innocent looking mammals.)

15

well if you do not opperate on a moral of negotiation (ie we dont harm others as a negotiated, better form of social organisation than homo homini lupus) then i definitely dont see any acceptable grounds for moral at all.

and if you do, wether the recipient is or is not a moral agent is of utmost importance.

16

zenofeller

Morality won’t disappear just because we lack a sufficient model to explain it.

Go kill some puppies and see if it has zero consequences for you. :wink:

17

It would appear that the rights of animals decided by the human being is not universal, but selective, as animals that only have certain uses would be utilized to those uses and nothing more. Some animals, like puppies, which interact with humans account for a greater level of rights as they accept the dominion of mankind over them.

In Daybreak, Nietzsche commented on the morality of humans and animals by saying: “We do not regard the animals as moral beings. But do you suppose the animals regard us as moral beings? An animal which could speak said: ‘Humanity is a prejudice of which we animals at least are free.’”

18

Please read the harrison table of comparative biology, ‘of the species’ as referenced above. You’ll see why it has little to nothing to do with our eyes being ‘in front of our face’. :slight_smile:

19

Well since ‘rights’ are a human concept animals have whatever rights we choose to give them.
I can, however, give good reason for not being cruel and abusing them … it is just not efficient.
Taking due care with the plant and animal kingdoms is really in the best interest of humanity.

20

what if i create the greatest work of art known to man, but i use for it 250 pounds of puppy livers (the puppies must be under 6 months and cute, and the animal must be alive, conscious while i gut it, and watch me use its bowels)

and what if i only suspect maybe i could create a great piece of art if i went through the above procedure ? how does efficiency relate to artistic pursuit for one thing ?