Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Last year Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, Trouble, setting off a heated courtroom battle. California just passed a proposition that says farm animals must be humanely caged. The legal line between humans and animals is blurring further everyday. When it comes to "animal rights," should your cocker spaniel be entitled to the same freedoms and protections as your kid?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Is There Room for Animal Rights?
- From Tibor Machan
By Tibor Machan - Author/Journalist/Professor
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, absolutely not.
In a world where animals had all the rights of humans i.e. "total animal liberation", the claimed goal of radical organizations such as PETA and others, is absolutely insane. Animals allowed to go about their lives in the way they so choose, without any human interferance whatsoever is completely ludacris, if animals were allowed to do so, we would suffer overpopulation, not by humans, but by animals, walking our streets and interfering with OUR lives, defacating all over the place, and causing uncontrolled plant growth as well as a result. Animals were created as lower than humans, each to serve a specific purpose. some were MADE to be eaten! others were made to serve as companions to us, etc., but under no circumstances should animals have the same rights as humans.
- Brady
November 10, 2008 10:25PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
All wrong.
After reading all the way through your comment, I think it's safe to say you are viewing the world and its inhabitants as having been "created". Perhaps by a christian god? There's really little room for debate, if that's the case, so I don't know why you'd participate in one. If it's not, then it would be great to engage you on some of your points:
Namely, the notion that animals need human interference. What controlled overpopulation before humans? Can you guess what species of animal is considered to be overpopulating unchecked and extending beyond reasonable sustainability? Homo sapiens. We are putting streets on THEIR habitat. We are defecating all over the place. And I have no idea what you mean by "uncontrolled" plant growth.
The statement that animals were made to be eaten is very troublesome. Please develop an argument so that we can debate valid issues backed by empirical data or at the very least well-founded theory.
The very question of this whole debate is based on a logical flaw. It is a faulty generalization. Of course non-human animals should not have ALL of the same rights and freedoms as a human. That is absurd. But just because they are not all applicable doesn't mean that there are none.
The question should have been: Are there certain rights that should be afforded to all sentient beings?
- mike
November 12, 2008 1:02PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
meh
Well i think just because someone believes in a god they should not participate in this debate. There are religions that hold animals (or at least some of them) in even higher regards than humans. And I think it's safe to say if there were ever a ballot measure in any given state of the U.S. regarding animal rights, that they wouldn't exclude Christians from voting on it! And in addition, organizations such as PETA are trying to market to religious people, even making absurd claims like "Jesus was a vegetarian." I think I have a right to display my opinion to anyone, religious or not, about religion and animal rights.
And might I ask, have you ever been on an airplane? a trip across the country at an altitude low enough to see the ground would be enough to convince anyone that the United States is not overpopulated. Maybe some countries like China, Japan, and India for example sufferfrom those problems, but for us, it's not an issue. Speaking of India, take a trip there! They don't eat cows because the Hindu religion regards them as sacred. They have an overpopulation of cows there, most of them sickly and disease-ridden, often spreading those diseases to humans! Why? Because they aren't allowed to "interfere" with their lives. And my comment about plant growth was (half sarcastically, but who is to say) regarding the fact that feces is a natural fertilizer. And also, we flush our feces into a toilet. Pretty sure animals can't build sewers.
But I do agree with your comment on this question being badly phrased.
- Brady
November 18, 2008 5:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Resources
To say that humans are not facing overpopulation and support it by pointing out all of the available land as seen from an airplane is a very narrow scope. It is also a very problematic interpretation of a biblical passage from Genesis.
Land is only one of several vital resources.
Overpopulation doesn't mean there's simply not enough physical space for us. It means that we are not sustainable. We are destroying unfathomable quantities of all resources and converting them into things that we can no longer use to survive. The rate at which we do this is what determines our state of population. We are currently overpopulated, because in our current state, we are sinking into the red. We are not breaking even by an stretch. This is why we have sewers. There are simply too many of us to expect our feces to cycle through the ecosystem in any sustainable time frame. We are overpopulated
Again, the notion that without our killing animals, they would overrun their own habitat is a completely unfounded one. That includes India. India has 1/3 the world's population of cattle. Their overpopulation is a direct result of human interference. Materialist humans are overbreeding, and Jainist humans are not killing them. Both of these practices end up causing great suffering, but only one is directly causing the overpopulation.
I could show biblically that animals were not made for us to "use" and I could also show that the god of Abraham most certainly had no intention for us to destroy all of his creations. It would be simple enough to show that just because we are a "fallen" people doesn't mean we should not be striving for a return to Eden.
But these points are moot, because in a debate where you can defer to a "because my god says so" answer, there is nothing to be gained. Plus, you could just as easily spin biblical text to support your views. You'd have to first take on a debate titled, "Can the bible be a logical guide within any consistent moral framework?" Then bring those arguments here.
Until then your statements are unfounded, and your arguments are undebatable.
- mike
November 18, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Careful What You Hold to be True
Your argument holds only on the assumption of human superiority and dominion over all else that lives. I would suggest that human superiority is contextual, not universal, and dominion mere arrogance brought on by the first assumption.
I dare say, bacteria and viruses and everything akin to a hungry lion care little for human delusions of superiority and dominion. In many contexts, a human being is mere resource for consumption ... even among other human beings. If you do not already see yourself as prey, you are more prey than those who do.
As it happens, every form of life owns itself. You must assume this, otherwise, your claim to own your life falls without support. What you enjoy is not superior rights but, rather, the liberty to dominate other life - human or otherwise - but this liberty isn't permanent nor entirely unique. Inevitably, and assuming you are not already in some ways mere resource to the lives of others, you too will become food for another generation of life despite delusions of dominion.
There is no competition of rights. That is not the nature of rights. There is, however, a competition of liberties. Some you win, many you lose. I happen to believe you lose more than you think when your viewpoint is one of assumed superiority and dominion in all contexts. Such a viewpoint is incredible vulnerability to predation.
- Naumadd
November 13, 2008 7:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, I appreciate you're theoretical viewpoint.
And yes, a single human may not hold dominion over a single lion or a single virus, but the human race engineers weapons to combat the lion, and medicines to combat the virus. Our RACE holds dominion over all others, and it will remain that way unless a virus were to wipe us all out, or lions could somehow over-run our cities and make us submit to their demands.
- Brady
November 18, 2008 5:17PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dumbinion
Yes..If lions were able to somehow dominate humans according to you....would that make their cruel treatment of us RIGHT, fair or correct just because they could make us submit to their whims? A single white person never had dominion over a single african person but the race of whites did...that did not make it a JUST reason for slavery. Non humans should be treated the way you would want to be treated if you were the subject of their life.
- Phat P
November 18, 2008 8:58PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Brady
Who do you think you are GOD or some kind of a supreme being who made animals . How in the Hell do you know what animals were MADE for?
Give me a break and go back to school!
- glo6110
August 12, 2009 10:56AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Make Room
All of the reasons in which you state that humans should be granted rights do not always apply to every human either... so the argument is false. However, rights are accorded to those in a society based on feelings of justice, empathy and most simply to make sure that what you would not want inflicted on yourself NOT BE inflicted on you. Rights simply protect your interest in not being injured by someone else, discriminated against or having your freedom(s) taken away. It seems to me that animals like human children or the mentally handicapped may not understand the philosophy behind all these reasons that rights are granted yet none of the above would want to be harmed.
- Phat P
November 18, 2008 8:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animal Rights?
Humans were created/evolved as the dominant and most intelligent species on earth. Why would anyone think of animals as being as smart as us when all they can think about is where their next meal is coming from. I think it is absurd for groups like PETA to think that animals are our equals.
- Mander
February 11, 2009 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals aren't stupid
Studies have shown that animals do more than just "think about where their next meal is coming from" Mammals have brains. So they can feel pain, experience fear, and react in disgust. If a wildebeest did not feel pain, it would carry on grazing as lions chewed its hind leg. If an antelope did not experience fear, it would not break into a sprint at the first hint of a cheetah. If a canine did not experience disgust, it would not vomit; it would not be, as the saying goes, sick as a dog. So can you still say that all they think about is food? They have emotions just like humans do. We were not "created/evolved as the dominant and most intelligent species on earth," we just think we are.
- pioneerlinh
February 21, 2009 6:09PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Everything has it's place
I am somehow sensing from your comments that none of you live on a farm and make a living by raising and butchering livestock; my family does. I understand that some people choose not to eat meat, and that is their personal choice. The thing that irritates me is that they try to interfere with the carnivore’s lives and tell them what they should and shouldn’t be doing. I believe that pets should be treated differently than livestock because that is their purpose; to be a companion. I don’t think a turkey would make a very good pet, in fact, I know they wouldn’t. They don’t have the same mental capacity as cats or dogs have. You couldn’t train them to fetch a ball or perform tricks. Therefore,I feel that livestock’s place in this world is to provide food for man, and pets place is to be man’s companion.
- Jack
February 11, 2009 11:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
People are omnivores, not carnivores..
No one is forcing meat eaters to go vegitarian. They just want animals to be able to have less tortured lives. If you have ever seen any PETA videos of how livestock are treated in factories, then you would at least feel sympathy for them and stand up for them.
You say that a cat is a pet which serves as a companion, but can you see your companion getting locked in a cage and have its health deteriorate with each passing day. All animals have a different purpose, but while we're eating away their population, can the least thing they have is a few freedom rights?
- pioneerlinh
February 21, 2009 6:16PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Are humans really that different?
There is no proof that humans have basic moral rights that are intrinsic to them (humans) and are distinct from the moral awareness of animals . Morals differ even between humans and are relative. After all, it is well known that when humans find themselves in conditions of hardship they resort to infanticide, murder, cannibalism and so on and have no issues with inscest. Humans' morals are quite possibly different to those of animals because humans live in a less stressful, survival orientated environment . This is the comfortable lifestyle which humans have created for themselves because they have oppsable thumbs, can speak anatomically and can reason (intellectually) in a way which permits them to make objects and construct an environment for themselves.
But even if we assume that humans are fundamentally different to animals- does not this difference and the suppossedly elevated moral status of humans mean that humans should bestow basic rights to animals?
- sor666
May 6, 2009 6:41AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Animals Should Have Rights To Protect Themselves.
If a dog or cat, or other animal attacks a human it's most always the
human's fault, yet we used to blame the dog. If a human kills another
human we don't kill the human who done it. I have never known an animal
to kill an animal for fun, for trophy, or use an animal in any
abnormal way. Humans can kill in wars, come home mentally ill. Humans,
I won't go into it, can do so very many horrible things to other
humans, and to animals - so who is the worse of the two...HUMANS.
LIMIT HUMAN POPULATION AND TRY TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE BY
FOLLOWING THE GOOD HUMAN BEINGS WHO CARE FOR ANIMALS AND THE ENVIRON-
MENT - PEOPLE WHO USE COMMON SENSE, COMPASSION, EMPATHY, REASONING AND
WISDOM.
- darling sapphire
October 16, 2009 3:54PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.