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
Why Animal Rights Don't Exist
- 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.
saying so doesn't make it true
"Could animals have guilt, be blamed, feel regret and remorse, or apologize or anything on that order? No, and why so, that was the gist of my thesis: They are not moral agents like us, not even the great apes. "
The great apes do have many of the emotions that we have. There is absolutely no scientific basis to claim that they do not feel regret or remorse.
- reckoner
November 11, 2008 11:45AM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
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.
Then should Doctors Only treat Other Doctors?
Like Machan, we are all human. Our experience of pleasure, we are taught at a young age, should be mediated by our recognition that sometimes our pleasure can only be acquired at the expense of another's happiness. Therefore we should take care to be fair.
Thomas Hobbes painted a very bleak picture of humans, and suggested that civil society did not arise because human nature is essentially good and moral, but rather because quite the opposite - that we are essentially selfish but of basically equal strengths. To live amongst each other without ceding our independence to a lawmaker (a "Leviathan") would be to live in perpetual war. It might resemble something experienced in Iraq or Afghanistan now.
There are those who argue that Thomas Hobbes had an unfairly dim view of humans, and that really our fundamental human nature is kind.
But is it?
Machan vigorously argues that because we are more intelligent and that we are capable of moral reasoning, that we should therefore be accorded rights, but animals should not.
With all that intelligence, one is left wondering how Machan draws the conclusion that it is necessary to be able to exert moral reasoning in order to be worthy of being afforded moral consideration. That seems to me to be as ridiculous as arguing that only doctors should be treated in hospitals, only strong people in pubs protected by security guards and only righteous people being given holy sacrament (or the equivalent) by spiritual officers in houses of worship.
I have a problem even discussing "rights" as if they are anything but an abstract concept. In reality a "right" is something which is conferred, like a promise. It is different to a "contract" because in a contract, promises are exchanged. Rights can be declared, by law, or by people with a shared point of view, to be granted unilaterally. That is after all something which potentially elevates a group of people from being human beasts into becoming enlightened compassionate human beings.
We grant rights. If we are truly to be moral, we will protect those from human behaviour which would otherwise bring suffering and misery to others.
We already recognise that animals have the capacity to feel pain. So being moral agents, as only humans can be, in the same way that we protect some vulnerable adult humans such as intellectually handicapped ones, and some vulnerable other humans such as infants, and even some animals in limited capacities such as domestic pets from cruelty by their guardians, to be consistent, we really ought to grant animals rights to be spared from all suffering at the hands of humans.
It's kind of funny, in a wry way, that Machan can accuse PETA of being unfriendly. They are only unfriendly to people who systematically and callously do very unfriendly things to vulnerable beings on this planet that experience suffering and can't speak up for themselves.
Thanks for your leg work, Machan. Next time you're walking, perhaps give some pause of thought to the billions of animals each year we humans deprive of even that most basic of liberties as we put them through slaughterhouses and animal experimentation laboratories. How clever we are.
- sean joshua
November 12, 2008 9:27PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
Can or must ...
The need of one life to deprive another of liberty is inevitable, however, and as you seem to be aware, that need is far less frequent than we suppose.
There is a definite difference between deprivation of liberty because we must and deprivation because we can.
As I've said previously, deprivation because we can is unnecessary misery, human arrogance and madness. For what we are, there is much about humanity to celebrate, however, let us not use those truths as warrant to destroy merely because we are able.
Let us not forget we are also able to create. Let us create something far less miserable than is our habit.
- Naumadd
November 13, 2008 7:47PM
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.
...deprivation of liberty not inevitable
If ONLY conscious sentient beings can have liberty
If plants are not conscious sentient beings
If humans can survive on a diet of plants
Then it is false to say that "The need of one life to deprive another of liberty is inevitable".
When using the word "liberty", it only makes sense to me when referring to animals, not plants. The reason for the difference is because animals are demonstrably self-conscious, sentient (in that the feel pleasure, pain and emotions) have a will and are able to move by their own volition.
By contrast, plants, do not to the best of our knowledge possess these characteristics.
We can be pretty certain for example when an animal tied by a restraining device such as say a rope wishes to be free from the constraints imposed by the rope: it will demonstrably struggle against that constraint and it will be evident in its eyes and its body language of its intent and its aversion. A plant restrained by say a rope when "released" will not exhibit any change in its "behaviour".
Liberty only makes sense if discussed in relation to conscious sentient beings capable of valuing liberty. Even a drifting boat can not be said to be afforded "liberty", it has no way of appreciating the difference between being tied or not.
Even if it is possible that plants, contrary to intuition and the present state of our science, may be sentient and self-aware, the probability that animals are self-aware and sentient far exceeds the likelihood that plants are.
Therefore, the best guess to take, to err on the safe side and not risk "unnecessary misery", is to leave animals entirely alone. We do not need to eat animals ever nor to use their body parts as commodities for our industry. Increasingly too it seems that animal experimentation for medicine is unnecessary for medical advancement. One still wonders, is the loss of our human integrity worth the marginal medical gains we obtain from the massive scale of misery we bring to animals in animal experimentation? If we did not resort to and invest our money in animal experimentation research, would not this energy and finance find its way to more compassionate ways of making such advances?
Hopefully in time our ghoulish contemporaries awaken, and quickly, to see that the misery they bring outweighs the "growth" and "productivity" on which our culture measures its own progress.
- sean joshua
November 13, 2008 9:45PM
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.
And I blah blahblah blahed.
Just to push a little: Without modern conveniences, where would you get your food ? Without being able to go to the store to get your B12, where would you get it? Without access to all the things you need to be healthy AND vegan , what would you do?
The context of this argument has only arisen with modernity and is furthered by unetichical treatment of our FOOD. Animals are food. If you don't have respect for something that gives you life, then you have no right to it.
Complete opinion. Animals don't have the same rights as people - but they have the right to be treated with respect. Without that, there is nothing.... as we're finding out veeeeerrrrry slowly. We don't respect where our clothing comes from, our fruits, our vegetables (oh you think you do, but you don't), our electricity.... everything we are doing as humans is completely disrespectful of what sustains and gives us life. To use a the french term: We're fucking up. Animals and the treatment of animals is just one aspect.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2009 1:33PM
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.
How dumb
"Then should Doctors Only treat Other Doctors?"
Stupid response. There are a lot more humans than doctors. Doctors have a responsibility to treat other humans. Humans have a responsibility to care for other humans. Anything beyond that, ie caring for and protecting animals comes from our own compassion and what ever is necessary to ensure our own survival.
- tbcass
December 18, 2008 5:40AM
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.
Why Experts Don't Exist!
Mr Machan,
As an expert on the subject of rights you prove one thing for sure that you have no understanding that rights like morality do not really exist for anyone anywhere. We make them up based on our feelings of compassion and or empathy and what some humans might call justice. Humans make rights up but that does not mean we can not give them out to others. However, for you to claim because someone (animals included) or somebody (animals have bodies) does not comprehend the idea or concept of rights they do not have them is a bit ludicrous. No one has rights Mr Tough Guy unless they are granted by someone else. Women, children, African humans did not have rights in this country until they were granted them by an evolving society that saw past the arrogant thinking you exhibit. We as a species need to evolve and include animals in our moral community and grant them the right(s) not to be treated as mere property of humans. They have lives that are important to them whether you and your theory make room for that fact or not. It's amazing you have spent your whole career attempting not to be rational or even honest but attempting to hold on to something (the idea of rights) that only actually exists because others grant them to you. And like God(s) humans invented them. but rights unlike God are a necessary component of a rational civilized society. Get with it!!!
- Phat P
November 18, 2008 9:51PM
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.
Hold your temper
As a species humans have the obligation to other members of our species to grant equal rights as much as possible. It is best for our own survival that we treat each other as equally as possible. I treat animals with love and compassion and because I want to not because they have the right to it. A lion who eats a human has no obligation to give that human any rights whatsoever.
- tbcass
December 18, 2008 5:49AM
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.
I Love animals, right next to the Mashed Potatoes!
Lets choose, feed your family or the family pet. I choose my family and since animals can't make an intelligent choice, we win, they loose.
- tlah
November 22, 2008 3:55AM
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.
Evil, Evil, Evil
Following your theory, if I judged myself to be stronger and more intelligent than you, then I could do whatever I wanted with you. Since nature empowered me to do so.
For me, you are just a man with a incredible lack of compassion that is trying to feel ok about it.
- cassioam
November 26, 2008 9:03AM
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.
Dumb dumb dumb
Just for you I am going out tonight and buying a nice juicy steak - because cows taste good. So does their milk. It is because humans can reason that separates us from animals. Compassion is not reasonable - it calls for a sacrifice based on something's demands - in your case for some stupid animal's pain and suffering. And if you are stronger or more intelligent (whatever that means) you can do whatever you wanted to - as long as you don't interfere with others (humans) life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. So yeah Cassioam- go do what you want, go be smart, go be strong - you should... but you wont' make it far if you act like an animal - and think with no reason.
- selfish December 3, 2008 3:03PM
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.
Dumb Indeed
First off, your assertion that you should do anything you want as long as it does not harm a human is arbitrary. You do not state the criteria of why you should not interfere with their life, liberty or happiness so i'm going to assume its because they are a member of the human race - which is totally arbitrary. You could use the same justification to not harm those with brown eyes, because you like brown eyes more.
What you fail to see is that both animals and humans deserve the same consideration because they can both feel pain. Intelligence, rationality or even an ability to be numb to compassion is arbitrary.
You state the compassion is not reasonable, and yet you also state that we should be compassionate to other humans - contradicting yourself....
Your last comment made me laugh. It is reason that allows us to decide to grant rights to animals.
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 4:20PM
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.
I don't understand your reasoning
Because you are of the same species you have an obligation to the other person regardless who is the stronger. Among different species all bets are off. I'm a naturalist. Competition among species is what insures survival. Any rights animals have comes from our compassion and love, not from some inherent natural law. If you believe that animals have rights that comes from your own opinions and beliefs but others may disagree.
- tbcass
December 18, 2008 5:55AM
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.
Speaking of morality
You use "moral agency" as a defense of human supremacy, ironically enough. Because humans are moral, we should therefore do things that harm others? Right. Rights are a way for us to express our "moral agency." They have no inherent existence. The only thing inalienable about rights is their existence UNDER the U.S. law which declares the rights it upholds to be inalienable. Of course, this still doesn't mean they're inalienable.... it's all in theory. Rights are not the way things are, but the ways things should be. Therefore, the entire discussion of whether or not rights exist is flawed. It's a question of whether or not they SHOULD exist, not whether or not they do.
I don't agree that nonhuman animals have the same rights as humans because we have denied them those rights quite deliberately. That's the way things are. Fortunately, some albeit few of us are able to see past the way things are to the way things should be without confusing the former for the latter.
- Ciuma
December 1, 2008 11:03PM
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.
Instincts?
Does Machan really think humans are driven entirely by free will and not by instincts?
And why does he think animals, by default, have no rights, instead of rights being the default?
- Blue Linchpin
December 16, 2008 11:16AM
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.
On default rights
"Does Machan really think humans are driven entirely by free will and not by instincts?"
I would think so.
"And why does he think animals, by default, have no rights, instead of rights being the default?"
I doubt he's completely against any moral reason not to harm animals, but I'm pretty sure he feels humans are vastly more exceptional than animals. Thus killing an animal to save a human would be more acceptable than killing a human being to save one.
- F2XL
December 19, 2008 9:48PM
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.
Humans driven by instinct as well
I'm assuming you share Machan's opinion, then, that humans are driven entirely by free will and have no instincts, no chemical/physical processes in the brain that affect their behavior?
Short answer, you're wrong. I'd quote scientific literature, but hell, most of us see the proof every day. Something as simple as a drink, medication, or physical changes in the brain change our personalities, moods, thought processes, and how we act. We're also driven largely by instinct: instinct tells us to run or fight, to mate, to behave "morally", to act like sheep, etc.
Or are you prepared to debunk years of science?
- Blue Linchpin
December 20, 2008 9:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
Looks like you've ignored the main point but okay then
"I'm assuming you share Machan's opinion, then, that humans are driven entirely by free will and have no instincts, no chemical/physical processes in the brain that affect their behavior?"
I was answering your question on whether or not Machan's views where as you described them. Of course chemical/physical processes affect behavioral mechanisms.
"Short answer, you're wrong."
See the above point.
"I'd quote scientific literature, but hell, most of us see the proof every day. Something as simple as a drink, medication, or physical changes in the brain change our personalities, moods, thought processes, and how we act."
Tell me something I don't know. Anyone who knows someone on anti-depressants would agree with this.
"We're also driven largely by instinct: instinct tells us to run or fight, to mate, to behave "morally", to act like sheep, etc."
Agree completely, add fight or flight to that list.
"Or are you prepared to debunk years of science?"
BLP, it's really stupid to make accusations of me making false presumptions of what communism actually means and then accuse me of holding beliefs I personally don't even subscribe to. Anyone with a brain knows chemical processes are part of it's function, anyone who knows what a neuron is holds such a view to be true.
- F2XL
December 20, 2008 11:22PM
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.
Not crazy to assume you agreed
Accusing? Not so. I simply assumed you agreed with those arguments since you felt necessary to clarify but not add anything of your own, and you were on the same side.
So basically you're calling me stupid then agreeing with me. Okay...
- Blue Linchpin
December 21, 2008 12:10AM
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.
Right but...
"So basically you're calling me stupid then agreeing with me. Okay..."
I was pointing out the fact that you altogether ignored my main point.
"I doubt he's completely against any moral reason not to harm animals, but I'm pretty sure he feels humans are vastly more exceptional than animals. Thus killing an animal to save a human would be more acceptable than killing a human being to save one."
Do you have disagreements with this view?
- F2XL
December 21, 2008 5:35PM
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.
Rationally, no
There's no real reason to save a human life over an animal life, as if we were somehow better or more important. However, seeing as /instinct/ tells me to save a human over an animal life, if the time comes, I would save a human by killing an animal.
- Blue Linchpin
December 21, 2008 6:56PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
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.
Irrelevant Example
Your example of killing animals to save a human world and visa versa is irrelevant and ill founded.
In modern society the opposite is true. If we all accepted animal rights it would cure so many social and economic problems like world hunger, thus saving the world for many humans. Granted there are many other social factors associated with world hunger, but it is a greatly ineffiecient to feed plants to animals, when as a matter or priority these foods should go to feeding the hungry.
What would you or machan would think about humans who are intellectually, phyisically and rationally dead, as there are many many humans in this state. Following machan's and your logic they should be stripped of rights, correct?
- ScreamingChicken
March 14, 2009 4:26PM
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.
Wrong Sir or madam...
Actually, i am in highschool and i wrota a paper on this... Actually if animals had rights 6 BILLION people would die in a matter of weeks, because we have only enough food in the WORLD to feed 20 million people in one growing season.. So if my calculations are correct.... The world will have ONLY animals by next march form today if all the world right now did that. Also hunting helps preserve the wildlife and help the economy , by buying tags 90% of the money goes to your economy. I am sorry to say i do beleive i have won this debate. If you wish to read my paper i will email it to you. reply with your email and it will be sent to you
- Platnum
November 6, 2009 3:12PM
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.
Roaming Animals
We view animals as property; we do not consider a human being property. Imagine how many dangerous animals would be roaming the areas where innocent children played; if animals had the same rights that a mentally stable humans had.
- Tanya Tye
January 25, 2009 7:16PM
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.
Broken-chair fallacy
Key to Machan's argument is his defence of what has been called "the argument from species normality" -- namely, the idea that cognitively disabled humans who are not moral agents are entitled to the same moral standing as the majority of humans who are moral agents just because they belong to the same species. Machan says, "broken chairs, while they aren't any good to sit on, are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees." By analogy, he means that cognitively disabled humans are still humans and should be treated as such.
Note the fallacy in Machan's argument: in philosophy it's called "begging the question". No animal-rights advocate denies that cognitively disabled humans are humans. But that's not the point! That's not what is at issue. What's at issue is whether there is any reason to ascribe rights to those who ARE human but ARE NOT moral agents, while simultaneously denying rights to non-humans of similar or superior cognitive capacities. To this question Machan has no rational response. His claim that he relies on "the good sense of making certain generalizations" is just another way of saying "Humans have rights and animals don't because I say so."
- Beast Man
February 3, 2009 8:55PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
Exactly...
Machan claims that mentally disabled humans should be given rights because they are still humans, and humans in general are "moral agents". But mentally disabled people themselves are not "moral agents". Machan has no basis for claiming that a being should be granted rights if it belongs to a group that consists mostly of moral agents. Sure, mentally disabled people belong to the group of all humans, which are mostly moral agents, but the mentally disabled could also be said to belong to a group consisting mostly of beings that are not moral agents. Consider, for example, the set of all fish, birds, and Tibor Machan. Tibor Machan is in that group, and that group consists almost entirely of beings that are not "moral agents", so by Machan's logic, he should be denied rights. Now, Machan would of course claim that my grouping is completely arbitrary, but I would argue that his grouping by species membership is equally arbitrary. I also think his grouping by "moral agent" status is invalid, because mentally disabled people would not be given rights, once we realize that his lumping in mentally disabled people with all other people is completely fallacious. The only logical criterion in determining whether or not a being should be entitled to rights is whether or not the being is sentient. That is the only way to explain why it is wrong to kill a "normal" human, it is equally wrong to kill a mentally disabled human, and "torturing cats is still vicious" (as stated by Machan). It could be argued that since humans are "more sentient" than other animals , our rights are more important. I think Machan somewhat agrees with this (considering he thinks torturing cats is vicious), but I think Machan grossly overestimates how much more important our rights should be. Sure, in a situation where either a fish or a human has to be killed, I would agree that the fish should be killed in almost every possible situation. However, when it comes to completely unnecessary suffering (such as the killing, abusing, and exploitation of animals in order to please humans' taste buds), I think humans are completely unjustified in treating animals however we want just for pleasure.
P.S. I am "uncommitted" because of the wording of the question. Animals should not have the "same rights" as people; elephants should not be able to vote, and elephants have no interest in voting . I do, however, think that animals' interests should be given (nearly) equal consideration as humans' interests.
- mjohnson91
May 31, 2009 1:35AM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
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.
Instinct or Free Will
You say that "Animals are mostly instinctually driven to behave as they do" well yea, so does the rest of the human population. Why not just blame it on free will then?
- pioneerlinh
February 3, 2009 9:02PM
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.
animals truly cant have the same rights
animals do not talk or feel guilt or show any emotion. they cannot be punished in the same way as a human. what would be the point of sticking an animal in a jail? what would that prove to the animal? ultimately it would prove nothing since they do not show any emotions for their actions.
- tator
February 17, 2009 2:11PM
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.
re" animals truly cant have the same rights"
Animals DO "talk"- just not the same way people do. Nonhuman animals just have nonhuman ways of communicating.
Further more,we do stick animals in jail- they are called animal shelters. Jails don't even prove anything to humans- the recidivism rate is like 70%.
Finally, non human animals do show emotions. You just aren't paying attention if you can't see that animals feel sadness, fear, anxiety, excitement and love.
- anarchyanimalsandme
February 18, 2009 1:35PM
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.
Self absorbed.
Humans are undeniably self absorbed. For some reason we think that we are the reason the world turns, that we are above all other species. Guess what, when the sun runs out of fuel and engulfs the earth, humans are going to vaporize along side every other animal (substitute your preferred end of the earth scenario). We won't be remembered, by anyone or anything (well unless we meet other life forms or something to that effect). Humans are animals , plain and simple.
- ikenovak
April 2, 2009 3:40PM
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.
The argument that animals do not have free will cannot be proven
If we wish to argue that animals do not have free will- we must be very sure of what animals are first. From what I have seen no one actually knows the answer to this. Remembering that identity and postive freedom are inextricably linked, how can we be sure that animals do not have free will if we are not sure of their identity - ie precisely what they feel and think.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 5:26AM
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.
No rights
"Animals are NOT moral agents". that says it all...
- lonewoof
July 31, 2009 10:54PM
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.