There is also some instances where dogs are dressed as people, have their own parlor and dietician while there is this hobo who is half-naked and dying of hunger.
Animal rights are there more to keep us from being cruel to animals. They are not rights as much as they are just rules of our behavior towards them. We humans are cruel creatures. People pour gas on animals and set them on fire just for entertainment. Its been proven time and again that cruel behavior towards lesser creatures can and probably will lead to cruel behavior towards humans and or society. Also we are caregivers gaurdians to our lesser cousins because of our sentience and abilities. As the highest predator we have the responsibility to ensure animal safety and life. This is not all altruistic, it is self preservationtoo, but, as guardians should we not be the best we can be? Won’t that help our own mental growth? Yes. We protect others so that we are protected. We protect others so that there will be a decent future. Any that enjoy cruelty to animals are bullys that need to be removed from the playground of life IMO because I sure don’t want bullys around my grandkids, if I ever get grandkids. Animal rights are there to protect us and all from us.
Therefore Animal “rights” are not intristic but rather extensions of our dignity as human beings. Our humanity is reflected on how we treat our environment.
Peter Singer claims that animals have moral status because a moral “wrong” causes suffering on the part of the wronged, and that animals can suffer. He is, then, claiming that the suffering is a defining element of a moral wrong. This is actually a radical and unchristian view, but he can make a case. I disagree, but he argues that animals can have rights without responsibilites - its a version of Natural Rights, in the end.
Iose - you are making as logical error - if animals have rights, that we may also abuse a hobo (if that’s what you are saying - I think that’s a tough case to make, as most hobos are voluntarily so) does not justify abusing animals. There is no connection between the two, unless it is clear that we must choose between the hobo and the animal.
Kris and Faust I think you’ve given the standard argument for animal rights, and I feel that that way of thinking is sound, but somehow I still am not convinced that it matters how I treat animals. I actually think that if kicking a dog makes me feel better, that I should kick it. Let’s keep working on me here until I can at least become a little bit humane. There’s gotta be something more convincing.
Lets put it this way then… Sure kicking the dog gives you a temporary sense of power and control. A pretty cool rush in fact. Emotions like that may as well be drugs, they become addictive. Power control. Dangerous emotions there, just ask any dictator on their way to their own beheading. You can be cruel but, you also must be prepared to pay for those actions.
I don’t think any one could fault you for kicking the dog if it took a chunk out of you or came up and peed on you. But just because it makes you feel better, dude that is just so wrong… its like child abuse. An adult raping a child is on the same trip as that, it makes them feel better. Is indulging selfish emotions a good reason for abuse? No, because if we all indulge in those emotions our species would dead,this earth would already be dead. Abuse is a dead end street, always has been and always will. Abusers tend to end up dead after they have harmed others or lesser beings… Lets say you kick that dog, That dog turns and takes a nice chunk of meat out of you which happens to be where an artery is… bye bye Smears. If you abuse, in the end you only harm yourself the most. So if you are going to be selfish at least be selfish enough to realize that. Be smart enough to realize that… and take a look at all the abusers, and such people that are behind bars or in county or state graveyards… how many people visit these people? How many people rush to save their dead bodies from a paupers grave? Very very very few. You get the label of an abuser etc… You may as well have the bubonic plague or leprosy, your family and aquaintances and employers will drop you like you were poison. If these non altrusitic reasons are not enough to keep you from harming an animal or child, then Smears, I pity your future.
I see what you mean Kris, but I don’t think that those things really apply as readily to an individual situation as they might seem. Sure society would be better off if people weren’t abusers. But since so many people are, I think it’d be better for them to abuse animals than people. I dunno. It’s sorta like, we’re never going to stop all the evil that’s in the world, so we need to find the best place to channel it. I think it’s better to abuse an animal than a person.
Because people are more likely to retaliate, because animals can’t express thier pain in a way which appeals to my sympathies. I dunno, plenty of perfectly good common sense reasons.
Aren’t there other ways that don’t mean kicking dogs to relieve frustration? Must Smears find dog kicking the only source of relief of his frustration? Maybe try a bobo doll?
If we all had a dog to kick, maybe there would be less violence against humanity, but there’d sure as hell be a lot of wailing dogs which would probably lead me to move from kicking dogs to kicking people to shut up their dogs. Or maybe we’d have some still kicking dogs while being kicked by people…
