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?
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:
Animals will fight mightily to avoid being killed. Hens in barns rush out first thing in the morning and start exploring, pecking at the ground, basking in the sun. Hens kept in battery cages, denied space and natural pecking opportunities, cope by pecking each other. Sows in two-foot wide gestation crates kick at the steel bars until their legs are bloodied. They desperately try to make nests out of their packed mud or concrete flooring. Primates in tiny steel cages in vivisection labs resort to endless rocking behaviors or self-mutilation; they go insane from the deprivation and confinement. Dogs left on chains all day become despondent.
When confined or deprived animals are given a supportive and accommodating environment, everything about them improves dramatically - their health, their demeanor, their energy, their appetite, their gait, their body language.
As much as we may want to elevate ourselves above animals, we, too, are animals. In fact, in some empathy tests, animals score higher than humans. Loss of humility leads to oppressive domination. We can be great and spread peace by being generous to all sentient beings, by extending our moral sphere of concern as widely as possible.
Paul Laurence Dunbar, in his beautiful poem “Sympathy,” said “I know why the caged bird beats his wing, till its blood is red on the cruel bars." The bird, with all his heart, wants to fly, not be imprisoned for life. Mr. Dunbar, the son of two runaway slaves, understood that animals, like humans, have needs that run deep and are extremely important to their lives. He felt the bird’s psychological pain.
Humans and animals both have profound interests and they suffer when those basic interests are denied or violated - that is the basis for legal protections, for our having compassion, and for rights.
- garyl
November 12, 2008 9:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Uncommitted
The contemporary mainstream Judeo-Christian is likely to point to scripture to justify the selective exercise of compassion practiced in today's world. It is no coincidence that Paul Fitzgerald is the director of a Catholic Studies course at his university.
Humans are amazing in their compulsion to overcomplicate issues so as to justify their own evil.
No need to overcomplicate what evil is. It is when one acts in his or her own self-interest at the expense of another. The greater the expense to that other, the more evil the conduct. Evil does not have to have the component of "sadism" in it in order for it to amount to evil. Just selfishness will do.
People try and justify and rationalise by all sorts of fabulous mechanisms.
Judeo Christian doctrine is one of the most convenient. It just so happens (what a coincidence!) that Paul Fitzgerald, who is arguing that it's not enough to have an instinctive desire to live in order to be entitled to live - he's arguing that one must have "an interest in leading [our] own lives".
Really? So a Downs Syndrome or autistic child or a baby merits no compassion nor protection from pain? If in some nightmare, a normal adult human was next in line in the slaughterhouse, must that human be thinking "I have an interest in leading my own life" or are the more probable mental processes going to be more basic ones of avoidance and evasion reflexes?
What arrogance for those such as Fitzgerald to presume otherwise. And what arrogance for him to suppose that animals do not have a pictorial dialogue in their head representing their own life. I've witnessed my dog yelping and moving whilst asleep and presumably dreaming.
The seemingly innocuous character of Mr Fitzgeralds arguments actually forms the depraved intellectual basis for a collective evil on a mass scale that is shameful.
Great beautiful minds such as those of Einstein, Jeremy Bentham, Voltaire, Pythagorus, Plutarch, Moby, Paul, Stella and Linda McCartney and Thomas Edison and many many others selflessly recognise the truth of something most of us are still unwilling to accept.
Those who agree with Fitzgerald can not honestly do so unless they have witnessed the truth of what we do to animals in order to get meat on our platters and medicines into our pharmacies.
This is not an academic issue, it is a practical reality from which we are shielding ourselves... with the encouragement of "academics" like Fitzgerald.
For starters, check out " www.meetyourmeat.com ", then " www.goveg.org " for more information.
- sean joshua
November 12, 2008 5:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Uncommitted
Speciesism is the grounds that make's this assumption, and the perfectly logical contradictions that follow, work for some.
- Alex M December 1, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animals kill and consume living beings (other animals and/or plants) in order to survive, and it is in their "interest" to survive and multiply according to the rule of the "survival of the fittest."
All of these qualities make-up a human being, so yea they do have an interest in leading their own life and it shouldn't be a surprise.
- pioneerlinh February 3, 2009 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Humans and animals are diffrent. We may share some qualites like the fact that we consume living beings for food. While we share traits other more important ones stand out. Such as the fact that as humans we are a higher form of life. Animals do many things similar to humans but we can do much more in the way of thinking and have our own society based on it. If animals were on the same level as human beings then some legal rights would be in order they, however much we argue, are simply not on our level. Animals may be higher developed in some instances but if animals and humans were truly the same and had the same rights then we would undoubtably be overrun and be the lesser species. We control the planet and what we do with it, animals are under our domain and do not have the same rights as you or I.
- Pedro February 11, 2009 9:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just because we are the more powerful species does not mean we should have the right to use animals like they're nothing. Would you want to be treated that way by a more dominate species for their benefit? I think not.
- pioneerlinh February 11, 2009 11:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Mammals are one of the most successful groups in the animal kingdom.
Primates, our Family in the mammalian class, consists of pottos, great and lesser apes, lorises, monkeys, and lemurs. Primates are known for a variety of species that are intelligent, lively, curious, and social. From the massive gorilla to the tiny mouse lemur, primates have many features in common. For instance, primates have long, flexible arms and legs. Most have opposable thumbs, binocular vision and most important, perhaps, they have big brains.
Nonhuman primates are of special interest to people because certain species are genetically close to humans, which makes them excellent animal models for medical research. Tests show that primates, particularly chimpanzees, are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.
However close, a lemur’s brain has a large smell center as well as a big area for the brainstem and instincts. The human brain has a huge cerebrum, the center of reason. The smell center and brainstem area have shrunk.
Not to mention, only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same.
In higher mammals, the cerebral cortex (the center of reason in humans and the smell center in lemurs, as I described above) has a large amount of folds, an indication of the intelligence level. The majority of non human primates share this trait with humans. But, this is not enough to rank monkeys as our equal. Humans have a cranial capacity nearly three times that of the chimpanzee, and even more than that in comparison to other primates.
Even with a cranial capacity three times the chimpanzee’s, the thing that most radically differentiates the chimpanzee brain from the human brain, is that the chimpanzee does not have the hemisphere specialization that human beings does.
This naive brain limits its host’s mode of perceiving, understanding and expressing itself. And even though it is known that chimpanzees seem to have artistic abilities, these abilities will never be hemisphere-related functions in the brain, as it is known from the creativity seen with the human being.
If humans were in the animals shoes, they most likely wouldn’t care too much how they were treated -if they noticed-, noting that they are incapable of doing so. Animals minds are innocent to desire because their problems are best soloved instictually. Therefore it is obsurd that humans, superior in innumberable ways, should grant equal or even partially equal rights to lesser beings who have not a single concern of freedom and equality.
- FhionaBridge1504 February 17, 2009 12:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
People are superior to animals, plain and simple. We have more highly developed brain functions and have our own intentons not just insticts. Animals should be protected to a degree, I have no problem with ending the mistreatment of animals but I do have problems with a cat having the same rights as me. If I go out and kill a person in cold blood, I'm obviously going to jail for a long time. If animals had the same rights as people and I ran over a dog that dashed across the street in my path then I could be arrested. Animals do have rights just not to the extent that humans do. All sentent life has some rights, but some are more important and should be treated as such. The life of the most sickly poor person on the face of the planet is more important than that of an animal.
- Pedro February 5, 2009 9:16AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I think that humans need animals just as animals need humans. We may be superior in "brain functions," but without animals at all, a lot of people would be unhappy. So why they are here living on this planet, isn't the least thing we can do is give them some rights like us, since we're already eating a big majority of them and testing them for our own purposes? I do admit that the life of a sickly poor person is more important than an animal, however can you single handedly kill an animal or test an animal and see its health deteriorate right before your eyes?
- pioneerlinh February 21, 2009 6:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes, animals do kill to survive, just like humans do. However, their desire to kill is purely instict. Not the interest to survive. They instinctivly know, from birth, what they must do to survive. Infant water buffalo can walk only hours after birth. Naked, blind, new born tasmanian devils instinctivly understand that they must crawl to their mother's pouch to live. They have no interest in doing these things, they have the instinct to do so.
Humans however, have emotions that envoke the interest to do things. Even during the later stages of life, when skills begin to develop, humans actions are based on interest. Thats what sets us apart from animals.
When an adult lioness stalks her prey, she uses a method that rarely changes, even throughout many generations. Humans develop easier and more efficent ways to 'harvest' food. We apply intrest. To better our species and our future. Animals do not.
- FhionaBridge1504 February 5, 2009 9:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Half of the things that humans do result from "instinct." For example, when we are born, we instictively have the want for our mothers. The other half of the things we do is yes, by "interest." However animals do have interests and do not always act on impulse. Take a cat. When they see a rat, their first instinct is to chase it and dispose of it. Nevertheless in one case, there was a cat who did see a rat, but instead of running after it, the cat just sat there observing it. Can you explain that? Or lets take a dog and its puppies. These animals were in isolation and starving to death. They had a small morsel of food and instead of the dog eating it, it gave all its food to the puppies. Wouldn't it be the dog's instinct to eat the food? Yes, but instead of acting on instinct, the dog acted out of interest.
- pioneerlinh February 21, 2009 5:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes, humans do have insticts. However, the section of the Human's brain that triggers an instictive response is not nearly as dominant as any anmials.
Humans have a larger cerebral cortex, allowing the to reason. Thinking problems through, prior to acting, is a characteristic of higher development.
When a feline spots it's prey, the first reaction is to stalk it. The cat -small or large- will observe the prey. Animals know when they are capable of snagging their prey. This is a primial observation that even some plants display. -EX: venus fly trap- When the opportunity to strike reveals itself. The cat will go in for the kill.
Also, dogs do show some minimal compassion to their offspring. However, I have personally seen many dogs -and other animals as well- devour their babies out of greed. The pooches were menatally unable to consider the consequences of their action. Besides, if they could, there would be none in their mind. Food is food. Canabalism means nothing. They wouldnt even bother to grieve.
- FhionaBridge1504 February 26, 2009 2:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We cannot deny that animals act in self-interest- but we cannot be sure they act only in self-interest and indeed have no interest towards others.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:07AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animals exist separately from our ideas about Sate and God, since they do not participate in these ideas - should we be considering them in the context of religion and State and applying our own values to their lives?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is a mistake to claim that, because another form of life does not or cannot hold similar or same values as human beings or to the same degree, it therefore has no values at all. It is quite clear that every form of life values one thing over another either consciously or unconsciously. If morality is simply one's set of values, I believe it quite easy to show that every form of life has a morality of sorts and is therefore a moral agent. Every life chooses among available options. There is always a basis for such choices. There is no doubt one animal form or another does not make choices the same as a human being, however, it is human arrogance to claim they must do so to qualify in a human mind for rights of their own.
Unlike those you name above, I make make no claim to a lack of fundamental difference between human beings and other forms of life. To make such a claim is an error of far broader scope than the issue of animal rights. Nevertheless, in the face of fundamental differences, we ought not put our very human expectations regarding rights onto species that have no obligation whatsoever to meet our expectations. On what basis do we require other species to meet our needs without any such obligation in the reverse? Any bases I'm aware of are decidedly humanocentric, not universal.
Whether human beings intellectually grant "rights" to other species is a matter for human beings. We debate such things to justify or suppress our own predatory instincts. I happen to believe the ability to value one's own life and the desire to go on living is hardly unique to our species. If a lion decides you may be a particularly tasty treat, your assumptions about your rights and his will be rather irrelevant. It is from that point of view any real truth in this "animal rights" debate will be found.
- Naumadd November 11, 2008 6:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
I agree that animals should have rights. I believe that MOST are thinking, feeling, sentient beings. Many of the species we keep as pets , mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds, definitely (in my opinion) are sentient.
It weird because I believe that reptiles are sentient, but not amphibians. The only reason that I can think for that belief is that I've never had a pet that was an amphibian. I've never formed an emotional bond with an amphibian, never spent enough time observing them to witness intelligent or emotional behavior.
I believe that invertebrates like octopus are sentient, but not clams, snails, and insects. But what about arachnids? I'm sure that spider enthusiasts would state that (at least some) spiders are sentient.
Are ALL animals sentient, from the lowliest bug to the mightiest mammal, and if not, WHERE do we draw the line, or, more importantly, HOW de we decide WHERE to draw the line?
- gatorgirl7563 April 17, 2009 4:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So we can never again use pesticides to protect our produce.
- gatorgirl7563 July 20, 2009 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
While all of my pet have always been reptiles I wanted to share a fun fact. Most if not all reptiles are on there own from birth and of all animals I feel they have one of the strongest instinct drives for survival. Frogs (mainly most arrow frogs) after the male and female do their little dance which leads to reproduction, I say reproduction because no actual copulation occures, The male will carry tadpoles one at a time and place them in a pond or water source where the feel their child will have the best chance of survival. I feel all creatures have the right to dignity and fair treatment but am not oppossed to agriculture , hunting ,or controlled collection of species provided they are treated as such.
- Mcdowelli76 June 1, 2009 8:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I have no problem agreeing that animals are not moral agents (meaning not that they have no morals- but have different morals to humans- ie lions have territorial laws which they all agree on- and we have no idea if they are acting instinctually or reasoning). I have no issue with the comment that animals do not behave morally towards each other - in a way people would consider to be moral. But I do think it is impossible to prove that animals have no sense of right and wrong-defined according to their own rules. This would of course mean that animals are categorically differetn between species of all sorts.
However, if humans are moral agents (which we all agree with)- then this automatically gives animals rights. Here is why- humans as moral agents hold it to be wrong to kill, enslave, or profit from the suffering of others. "Others" in law means other humans, hence the urgency of Tibor I think to demonstrate an existential difference between humans and animals. But if humans are moral agents this itself means they should not be drawing this immoral distinction. Ie it is not moral according to human law to discriminate based on intellectual capacity, appearance or even moral agency. The last point is important- human criminals who have violated the moral code are tried in just trials before they are convicted- ie they are treated with moral discretion and are preceived to have moral value- so if humans are moral agents with free will - why shouldn't they bestow basic rights to animals who also either have not moral agency or have a different one to humans?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 5:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
It is obvious that most commenters don't understand the literal meaning of the question. Humans allow (bestow the right" of other humans to own animals .... conversely, they do not allow (bestow the right) to animals to own humans.
A righ is an abstract expression of what one livimg creature allows another!
- CitizenZebra October 25, 2009 3:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
You said: "Hardly anyone can have escaped one or another moral lecture from parents or neighbors concerning the treatment of cats, dogs, or birds." And you told of torturing insects and shooting at pigeons purely for "fun."
I find this assumption telling. In fact, not everyone has received such a lecture. Only those who ABUSED animals received that lecture.
“One of the most dangerous things that can happen to a child is to kill or torture an animal and get away with it. - Margaret Mead
- ElaineVigneault November 18, 2008 7:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
"Thus an animal that is capable of experiencing pleasure or happiness may be sacrificed to further some human purpose only if that demonstrably contributes to the overall pleasure or happiness on earth"
This is awful. Why should we have to sacrifice at all? We are not barbarians. We have come farther in humanity and should be above this. Animals and humans both, have the right to choose whether they want to be sacrificed or not.
- pioneerlinh February 3, 2009 9:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Surely, we must agree that all beings who exist and have an identity also have free will (positive freedom). I know some believe that single cell organisms have no free will and even that higher vertabrates have no free will, since they are entirely like machines executing the commands of instinct. Science has shown this not to be the case- even individual cells have free will as to single cell organisms. They may not have moral agency- but this means only they have no sense of good and evil. Since we have scientfically come to this realisation now and since we as humans have moral agency, we must on the basis of this new evidence completely change our attitude towards animals . We can no longer regard them as automatons controlled by instinct- we must bestow on the them the right to freedom.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 6:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
It matters not their "importance." It matters not your perception of their "value."
What matters are simply these two things:
1) Do they suffer?
2) Can we prevent that suffering?
- ElaineVigneault November 18, 2008 7:33PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
When it comes down to it, the argument is that difference equals superiority or inferiority, measuring everything on a hierarchical scale. Nevermind the fundamental cores of human and nonhuman animals are the same, nevermind this is an excuse to treat living beings as property. This same argument is used by racists, sexists.....speciest are no different.
- progressisdead April 4, 2009 6:19PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Evaluation or ranking of any kind implies that there is an agent who is doing the evaluating! Can such evaluation be impartial? In this case the agent is us- which makes the evaluation kind of biased?! How can such evaluation possibly be 'natural' or 'neutral'? Also the word 'important' requires us to establish-important for whom and for what? Again, the answer is 'important' to us. We are more important to us. After all we are not more important to animals than animals are to themselves? Indeed, this is almost a theistic argument implying that there is a universal criterion for the ranking of 'importance' or value and furthermore, we have been let in on the secret scale used, while animals have not, hence they have no idea they are not important! But we know better.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 6:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Humans have individual rights only because our society has evolved to think of the individual as having rights. Nature itself certainly didn't give them to us. We have rights because we respect the value of the individual. Beyond that is nature and nature operates on rights given to the strongest. Human society was created for humans to live in a way to maximize our combined strengths so that we could share in the benefits that come from that, not the least of which is a greater ability to live a life with the maximum sense of peace possible to pursue what we, as individuals, want.
Having said this, I do not believe that just because we are at the top of the food chain that we have the right to do as we please with the other creatures of the world. We need to respect life in general as a resource just like any other resource on this planet. Animals, perhaps due to their status in the pecking order of intelligence, are owed more respect than say others of lesser intelligence. However, this in no way means that animals should have the same rights as people. Humans created their society of respect for the individual human, and, as the top of the food chain humans have a stewardship responsibility to those below us on the food chain, but that is all. It is not the same as the rights afforded our individuals.
As a society to extend animals the same rights as the individual is to go against nature's pecking order in a major way that would ultimately destroy us as a species because in the end our existence itself could only impinge on the extended rights of animals and that is tandemount to saying humans should sacrifice ourselves so that animals can live unimpeded by us.
- talisgeirf February 20, 2009 3:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
But what is moral is relative- even among humans. Could animals also be moral agents with different morals to us, but with individual rights within their own juridiciton domain? Animals clearly have laws among themselves. Lions are upset and attack other male lions who enter their territory. Beavers do not react well to other beavers taking over their home etc..If we violate the individual rights of animals, why shouldn't animals eat us and therefore violate our moral right not to kill? Whye do we put down dogs who kill our children ? Shouldn't dogs then have the right to kill humans who put down their pups or violate some other dog right? Why should we assume that we are entitled to a dominion where we are soverign when it comes to making moral choices? How do we know for sure animals do not also make moral choices within the parameters of their own morality? Why is our morality more important and dominant?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 6:30AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Animals are much like modernist works of art- we should not attempt to justify them- their content is unknown- only their form is apparent to us. They have a right by default to exist outside of our influence and unaltered by us. Their existence and the right to that independent existence is present on its own terms and exists only for its own sake- outside of any human considerations of morality or lawfulness or religion . It is not necessary to prove that animals are like us, or that they have morality to justify their right to be in and for themselves and not in our interest or for us.
Furthermore, their very beingness and its nature is not understandable. Animals are self-sufficient and self-referntial- like modernist art works, except when we attempt to place them in the context of our value systems. It is then that they cease to have meaning.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 12:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(0)
Side: No
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
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
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
'Animals are not beings with basic rights to life, liberty, and property, whereas human beings, in the main, are just such beings.' It is not clear how we arrived at this assumption- to do so we must also assume that there is a universal assessor or evaluator of rights who favours a particular morality over another or who favours the existence of a morality over the non-existence of one in assigning rights.
It is not morally transgressible to trespass on another's property to rescue a child being tortured- so why should it be so if it is a cat? If this is because the cat might not do the same for us- this is not logical, since according to all the previous arguments we are the ones with moral choice and the cat has none, so we must not expect the cat to do so for us. If indeed we are the higher moral creatures- why do we discriminate between a child and a cat? If we choose to do 'much better' than is the law of nature- and we are moral and therefore just- why do we not choose to do much better to other species and not only to our own? Does not the fact that we only choose to do better when it comes to our own species make us no different to aniamls morally?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 6:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"Yet it is confusing, as I have argued above, to introduce the idea of rights, since what distinguishes them in moral discourse is that they are the framework for the treatment of beings with a moral nature, beings who can make moral choices, which is not the case with animals ."
This is the part of the argument I have most difficulty with. Firstly, 'moral' is difficult to define. What beings do have a moral nature and what beings do not is pure sepculation, since 'moral nature' is a completely relative concept and since we have no way at all of proving that being either do or do not have a moral nature. Animals feel guilt, but they might not feel the kind of guilt that would make them want to deliberately seek penance or punishment to redeem their sense of guilt. But does this make them immoral? Who is the judge of what is and is not a moral nature- us?
And why is it that only those creatures who have a 'moral nature' have basic rights to life, property and liberty? Should not all living things have this right? This might not be a right that is respected in nature often- animals eat each other and so on....but it is a right we bestow on animals because we ourselves value our life, freedom and liberty and we know they value theirs. Because we can bestow these rights on them- not because we must- because we are more comfortable than animals are in their battle for survival-because we are freed from the battle for survival? not because we are morally superior.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:04AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You mentioned that you haven't convinced the people that only animals have rights but if you read all of your arguments and those of Eric Presscott you find the underlying message you have missed. When people violate the rights of others theirs can be taken away and since the animals cannot make such moral decisions to not violate the others rights they themselves cannot have rights.
Humans even in varying stages of development have the capacity for such. The retarded baby example has been brought up numerous times yet it does not violate the life of others so it does have the right to life. If you don't believe me about the rights of people being taken away look at prisoners
Sentience is the best thing we can ascribe to animals, not rights.
- Matt Eastwood May 25, 2009 4:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The right to be free from suffering and pain, the right to be free from enslavement, the right to reproduce and take care of one's offspring, the right to have access to an environment which supports ones basic needs for food , water, shelter etc- none of these rights are in any way conditonal on the subject being a 'thinking being', but only on the subject being a 'living' being with a sufficently complex nervous system.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 4:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It is absurd to compare computers to animals and is very much in the 17th century tradition, when animals were considered to possess no free will, but were automatons- hence it was considered valid to vivisect them. Animals are alive, machines are not alive- this is the fundamental difference.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 4:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Good grief, what a dog's breakfast of philosophically unsophisticated claims. Let's see if Machan does any better on any of his other posts.
- Beast Man February 3, 2009 11:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If human beings are indeed 'special' as the argument states- such that they are apart from non-humans animals in their moral choice not to inflict the kind of carnage (including infanticide) on each other (that animals readily do)- then why are they(humans) no sufficiently special morally to extend such morality to their own treatment of animals? Why cannot the special status of humans in the way they treat other humans by means of laws be applied by humans to animals? After all not all humans who are treated with moral discreation by other humans are intelligent, or even sentient (some are in a coma)? I guess I am wondering why the line is drawn at animals in particular? Don't animals have basic moral value (at least the same as humans) by virtue of humans who conferr such values having special moral standards?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 5:35AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
"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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"Animals are NOT moral agents". that says it all...
- lonewoof July 31, 2009 10:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Really, it seems most of us forget this very simple point- we are "human" animals.
The one thing that really separates humans from our fellow critters is us saying we are separate. We cannot prove human-animals are more intelligent, more capable of love or sorrow, or even more apt to enjoy life.
- M3house November 18, 2008 11:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
People are animals, true, but the notion that it is impossible to prove that humans are more intelligent with more complex emotions is absurd. The human brain has been proven vastly more capable of thought, emotion, reason, language, and ability to understand life than other animals. Even chimpanzees, our closest relative in the animal kingdom, are far less capable than humans. Arguing that just because humans are also animals means that all animals are equal is ridiculous, and driven purely by emotion.
- richardsonkr December 3, 2008 2:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think the question itself is antagonistic and combative. People who frame the animal rights issue in this way do not want to deal with the real aspects of responsibility involved with this issue. By asking this question they are attempting to trivialize the subject and subjects. Most of them knowing full well that it is a subtle form of hostility to ask such a ridiculous question. These people who ask if animals should have the exact same rights as humans are the same people who ask...Should carrots have rights too?
- Phat P November 18, 2008 8:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I believe that animals should have rights, you don't know what you're talking about when you say "These people who ask if animals should have the exact same rights as humans are the same people who ask...Should carrots have rights too?" Carrots are NOT sentient, animals ARE sentient... they think, they feel happiness, sadness, love, fear, infact the only thing they lack is the ability to vocalise with humans!
I have chosen 'yes' on here, but I believe that animals SHOULD have rights similar to Human Rights
- veganpanda December 3, 2008 2:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The brains of many animals are incapabable of any emotion at all! Any perceived emotion by humans is a projection of self onto them by humans. The few that are capable of emotion are hardly capable of the complexities of the human brain, displaying only the very primitive emotions of fear, anger, and excitement. Some animals, such as fish and worms, don't even feel pain! Animals think little, feel little, and are not sentient beings. This is not emotion talking, this is science.
- richardsonkr December 3, 2008 4:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I've met numerous animals in my live. dogs, cats, horses, etc.. and everytime i've met one, i tried to communicate.. and hey, there was no problem. EVERYONE who ever had an animal KNOWS that every animal has its own personality, habits and even opinions... but even if this wasn't true, you said, that they have "primitive emotions" as fear.. well, that's true. They fear death, pain and torture the same as humans.. for me, that means that we should not kill or harm an animal..
- Lo0m
December 8, 2008 12:45AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Yes
I think you're right. The way the question is being presented doesn't really address the issue properly.
Of course there are differences between human beings and animals. The question should be simply stated as "Should animals have rights?". I'm sure many of the responses would be different.
I am without a doubt very concerned about animal rights, but I am realistic enough to know that there is a difference between human beings and animals.
My concern is that we need to abolish the acts of cruelty that exist with respect to the treatment of farm animals, as well as our domesticated pets and research animals.
- LORIMAR10 March 3, 2009 8:02AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Do animals pay taxes? Write novels? Bake cakes? Study law and discover laws of thermodynamics?
See the thing is that if animals should have 'similar rights' to us then they should be like us themselves. Which obviously..they are not.
- zebrakin November 23, 2008 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Zebrakin,
The rights that should be afforded animals have nothing to do with writing novels or studying thermodynamics. You are also missed the ways that they are similar to us in the ways that they have have emotions, feel pain. are sentient, live individual lives with individual experiences.
The rights that should be afforded to animals are the basic rights to live on their own terms without being enslaved, abused and tortured.
Rights to live their own lives without being used for our purposes.
- Jadedshade December 1, 2008 2:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Jadedshade,
If we humans would do as you ask and give the animals - ..."Rights to live their own lives without being used for our purposes." - it will cause their extinction.
Given the fact that for thousands of years we humans have been domesticating these same animals for various purposes - in the food chain - think meat , cheese, milk and butter, wool, leather, next to the pets we keep at home, what will happen to all these animals when we stop their use in our lives? Let them starve and let them take care of themselves? And perhaps castrate them all so that they cannot procreate?
And yes, we made the choice so long ago - to take care of these animals while using what they could give us - food and loving pets. It's more abusing than using these days - I agree with this, and am absolutely against many practices of mass production and awful way of existence today, but, than still - should we let them all die, and from today on declare the entire world vegan?
- Panther
April 1, 2009 4:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Quote:
"Do animals pay taxes? Write novels? Bake cakes? Study law and discover laws of thermodynamics? See the thing is that if animals should have 'similar rights' to us then they should be like us themselves. Which obviously..they are not."
Can babies, some mentally challenged people, or the severely senile? The answer is no. It would follow, then, that these humans should not have "similar rights" as you and I - to vote, for example. You are stating a fact, which is derived from the nature (e.g., intellectually) of the individual being considered.
Re-read Mr. Torres' and Mr. Prescott's response to this question (and my challenge to it as a straw man) and you will better understand why your argument doesn't carry the critical weight that you believe it does.
- Alex M December 1, 2008 8:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Animals do NOT have signifigant emotions, do NOT sentient, and do NOT have any kind of understanding of self! The only generalization that is made about animals to justify the idea of animal rights that has any kind of merit is that they feel pain, and that's not even true for all species! The fact that animals sometimes react to stimuli in a way similar to humans does not mean that the process they took to get there was the same. Humans are the dominant species of the planet for a reason, and the fact remains, that if humans did not use animals for their own purposes, they would probably be exterminated. Common Cattle and American Bison, for example are very similar, except that cows are more useful to humans. Therefore, Cattle numbers are very high in the United States, while American Bison would have gone extinct without human intervention. This intervention came because they were still useful to humans, in that they could make humans feel better about themselves when they saved another species from destruction at their hands. We can debate whether animals are sentient or not all day long, (even though they are not) but the reality will always remain, that animals will survive alongside humans only so long as they are useful.
- richardsonkr December 3, 2008 4:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Your response, richardsonkr, is more of a statement than a coherent argument. You should begin with a defense of your statement that cows are not sentient, seeing as it conflicts with evolutionary biology and all indicia that we use to justify the assumption that human animals are sentient. We can then tackle your other mere statement that animals not being people, which is baseless as an ethical matter, and your defense of interventionism.
- Alex M December 4, 2008 5:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
please just think about this. If killing animals isn't alright because they feel pain. (and im not excusing how the kill the animals and how they treat before they die...because it IS cruel to anybodys standards..) THEN what do we do about animals that the majority of the population hates? insects. Shall we not squash them? Shall we let droves of fruit flies eat up our fruit just because they 'deserve equal rights'? What about spiders? Lets be rational.
If you say that we must pick and choose which animals have rights you go against your own agruments. If you say ALL animals should have rights your undermining the popular opinion of most americans and most likely the world.
To say animals have rights makes an argument that they should be dealt with like they have rights. And the most basic right is to live. Do you have any idea what your argument implicates?
- zebrakin December 12, 2008 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Zebrakin,
Your argument seems to be slowly slipping away from you if you need to clutch on this idea. If you research it they are numerous methods of "pest control" that for example use frenquencies to cause insects to leave your dwelling or even not enter it at all.
Obviously if an animal was for example attacking you, you would need to take action out of self presivation just as you would with another human being.
The main issue at hand with animal rights is the fact that they are enslaved by us and caged enmass and left without anything that is natural to them.
We can be both rational and compasionate.
- Jadedshade December 22, 2008 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I think the issue here is who has free-will? Morality and ethics are only meaningful in the context of freedom. If someone holds a gun to my head and forces me to kill someone else, then that would not be murder on my part because I would not have acted out of my own free will. So moral accountability depends on the degree of freedom which the agent has when executing an act.
Interestingly, most seem to agree with the notion that humans have more of this thing called free-will than do animals (who often act out of necessity or instinct as opposed to choice). Does not this also then mean that humans are more accountable for what they do?
As we climb higher up the evolutionary progression of species, those more evolved species are perceived by us as having more free-will. Eg a dog is more free than an ant. Therefore a dog is more of a moral agent than an ant. This is where the argument leads to humans. Having the greates degree of free-will of all the animals, humans should have the greatest sense of accountability. It is not reasonable therefore to expect humans to act towards animals in the same way that animals act towards each other or humans, because humans have more choice, whereas animals have less choice. It is therefore perfectly logical to not to hold animals accountable for their actions, while holding humans (provided they are sane) completely accountable.
Coming back to where to draw the line- the answer is again all about free-will. We do not have the free-will to avoid stepping on ants or to avoid protecting ourselves from parasites eg insects by killing them. It may be that it is an unavoidable necessity to kill insects. Perhaps one day we will find anothe way. But, where we do have a way ie a choice, then we should not make animals property or kill them. And when it comes to eating animals, we most certainly do have a choice because we are omniovres and not obligatory carnivores.
- sor666 August 31, 2009 7:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If animals are not sentient and are limited to experiencing only three primal emotions (fear, anger, and excitement), can you explain this 45 second video to me?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_35g
Thanks.
- opiper December 9, 2008 3:23PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Sorry Richardsonkr,
Droning on with the same point over and over doesn't make it true, there is a gigantic body of research that shows animals to be the sentient beings that they are, forming complex relationships, feelings and emotions.
The idea that animals would be exterminated if we didn't use them is ridiculous, and why should they exist just for our purposes anyway? If it came to that I would rather they didn't.
Another ridiculous point you have made is the statement that some animals don't feel pain, this is preposterous.
If these ideas you are so aggressively pushing are true where is the research and proof?
There are many people still debating this issue so you having come to such a firm and aggressive stance seems dubious at best to me.
The very fact that animals react in the same ways we do to the same situations outward manifestations of stress, pain, fear, enjoyment, excitement etc, says a lot to me.
- Jadedshade December 22, 2008 8:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The fact that animals would cease to exist as a more dominant lifeform filled or so modified their specific niches that they could no longer function is not an idea, it's fact. The fact that the current dominant lifeform has a use for other species is the only thing unsuring their continued survival. Your feelings mean nothing.
In light of new evidence, I have to moderate my opinion on the ability of animals to feel pain. This is not because of the validity of your argument, because there is none, but simply because new evidence seems to suggest that not only animals but also plants are capable of feeling stress, pain, and other basic emotions.
The fact that animals seeem to feel the same complex emotions that humans do is a result of projection of your feelings and (semi) logical nature onto their instintcual response. Again, your emotions mean nothing.
- richardsonkr January 23, 2009 5:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Ensuring, not unsuring. That is all.
- richardsonkr January 23, 2009 5:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Would you rather test an unknown substance on a family member or a family "pet" that could be replaced? I’m not saying that we should treat animals viciously; however, I am saying that I would rather my favorite “pet” be tested on rather than a loved one whom I could never replace.
- Tanya Tye January 25, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The fact you would rather- does not make it right. That is just your preference. I would rather my mother was tested on than my pet rabbit.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 12:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
animals shouldn't have voting rights and so forth because those things don't really affect them. The rights that do though, should be the ones that matter and should be concerned.
I agree though, they should however have rights that are SIMILAR to our humana rights.
- pioneerlinh February 3, 2009 9:20PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This seems logical, but should animals only have rights to life (not being killed by us) and freedom from us- (not being used by us) if they are moral agents?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
In the course of one hippie dinner (vegan of course) we had to pray before eating for "the poor vegetables who had died for us" (exact wording). Several of the hippie guests burst out laughing when they got to this sentence. Yet some of them actually avoided eating some types of vegetables eg only ate fruit because this meant not breaking a branch off the tree or pulling out a root etc...Until we can clearly distinguish between sentient and non-sentient ' animals ' we will never be able to argue for animal rights convincingly- since we have not defined who we consider to be 'sentient' animals and why exactly would we not include insects (if we do?) and plants? This is because the concept of freedom is inseprable from the defintion of 'being'. In fact, we cannot argue that animals have a right to freedom until we have decided exactly what kind of beings they are and what does it mean when we say that they 'are'.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Proving that animals are or are not qualitatively different to people to decide if they should have a right to life and freedom is a waste of time. In the past such proofs were sought to decide in favour or gainst sexism or slavery and the proofs were contraversial. We still cant agree on all the ways in which different races differ from each other or how the sexes differ- and we dont need to in order to protect differnt individuals of all races and sexes from murder, slavery etc. So, why do we feel we need to prove that animals are like us (moral agents, intelligent being etc) in order to grant them basic rights? Is it not enough that we know for sure that they are alive and therefore they are beings and not things. It is important to establish that animals are beings and the question of rights resolves itself. All beings implicitly have a right to freedom because 'beingness' is a condition of freedom (positive freedom - ie free will). It is not possible to be alive and not to have free will.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 12:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The fact that we even have to debate this question implies, not that we are intelligent, but egocentric.
In the same way that animals can "communicate" with us, we can't supposedly stoop ourselves down to their level to communicate with them, either. Evolutionary advances have nothing to do with rights. No other animal conquers a different species, or even gives thoughts to 'rights'. Not necessarily because they can't, but because there is no need to. Our species has evolved the beautiful problem of not being able to leave anything alone. For those people that wish to compare and say that we are animals too, that we are part of the wild, then fine. I will concede and say that it is okay to kill animals for survival, if you can kill it like an animal. The truth is obvious. We can't. Our bodies were not designed to outrun a deer, take down a cow with our bare hands, or catch a fish without some type of device. We had to invent ways to kill animals because we are not able to. No other species on this planet has to do that. Bodies are designed accordingly. Carnivorous teeth to the ones with speed and agility, and plant chompers for those of us that don't have the evolutionary capabilities to survive in the wild on a meat based diet . The bottom line is that we don't know what animals think, but we do know they feel. Sadly enough the joke will be on us when animals will outlive the human race . The sick part? We'll die by our own hand, and not natural selection. How much we "know" will mean nothing if don't take a step back from our own egos.
- levi944 August 19, 2009 10:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Absolutely agree! Animals have right to live and to be free!
- SL70
September 2, 2009 3:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I honestly can't even believe this topic or that I am commenting. I think when the animal is 100% self sufficient, like a human, then we should consider his or her rights. I mean when they earn their own living, pay for their own home, go to the grocery store and buy their own food !!! then they should be treated as human!! Come on, really!! Don't get me wrong, I love animals , but there are laws in place to protect animals. And most of the animals I know are treated better than a lot of humans!
- karens September 23, 2009 2:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Animals already have a certain amount of moral rights.
- Tanya Tye January 25, 2009 7:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Bob Torres brings up a good point about animals “seek[ing] out comfort, avoid[ing] pain, and desir[ing] companionship.” Most animals are just as social as humans are. They yearn for attention as children do; however, they are not children. There is a wall separating a human from an animal. Most people do not treat children as though they were animals. I am not saying that because animals are not human we should not treat them with respect or inflict intentional pain, but I am saying that we do not need to stop eating “livestock” and testing on animals because they may feel “uncomfortable” with the idea.
- Tanya Tye February 12, 2009 8:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I think many people are too insensitive towards animals. People mistreat, brutally torture, and kill animals every day. Simply going on the PETA website would confirm this. But even in school I've heard stories about horrible things being done to animals. A lot of times, it makes me feel sick to my stomach knowing that people could be so cruel because animals are innocent and have little defense against a human wishing to hurt them.
I do not believe that animals should have the exact same rights as people. I think leaving huge amounts of money to your dog when you die is a bit ridiculous. But, they should be given equal moral consideration. When it comes to animals, I think in many situations people should live by the rule that we were taught at a young age: "Treat others the way you would like to be treated." Basically, if you would not abuse or kill a human, then you should not do it to an innocent animal.
- Emar February 22, 2009 6:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I am not trying to be absurdly critical of your argument, I am merely interested in how people derive worth from various things in this world. You argue that it is so plainly apparent that animals should have rights and should be treated fairly, yet laugh away the idea that vegetables should also have rights. I am not trying to argue for rights for vegetables, but merely stating that it is apparent that animals have more rights than vegetables. Your basis for this comes from the fact that animals feel pain and have sentience. Firstly, how is the ability to feel pain any less of an arbitrary characteristic than rationality or language. Is it alright to eat a paraplegic because they can't feel anything? Secondly, how do you define sentience? Do you use that in the sense of self awareness? I doubt a fly is aware of its own existence . Are you referring to a sentience that means merely the ability to feel pain or pleasure? We have no way of knowing the feelings of another person, let alone another species. We can only draw conclusions based on reaction to stimuli. However, many things in this world will react to stimuli. Even a computer program. Something not even out of a science fiction artificial intelligence scenario, but a simple program. When you input proper data, the program responds with accurate data. When you make it try to divide by zero, it crashes. Did you hurt it? Did it feel pain and stop working? I don't see how your views of why animals should have rights differ from the views of these anthropocentric philosophers who are basing their arguments on "arbitrary characteristics".
- Khaos April 21, 2009 3:09AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
You must distinguish between things that are dead and alive. Computers are dead- animals are alive. All animals with a sufficiently complex nervous system feel pain- including all vertebrates and some invertebrates- plants dont have nervous systems. I think this is an absurd comparison- between plants and animals and then computers.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 4:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Feeling pain and being sentient is not an arbitrary characteristic like moral agency or free will because we can prove scientifically when a being is dead or alive and we know plants do not have nervous systems (ie cannot feel pain), nor do machines. Being dead or alive is not generally a point which is not clear and which cannot be verified through measurement or science . We cannot however measure or determine morality or intelligence, with certainty. I think this is the difference.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
But what would you say to those who argue that animals do not grant basic right to life and freedom to other animals, to humans or to each other- so why should we do so for them?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As I understand the definiton of a moral right does not imply that the subject to who has a right need to also respect the same right in another subject ie animals can have a right to life- yet kill other animals or humans.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
have interests, i.e. the interest to reproduce and the interest to avoid death. Plants have these interests. Do plants have the same rights as people?
- quantummechanik April 1, 2009 4:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
But not on planet Earth! Absolutely unbelievable comment!!!!!
- CitizenZebra October 25, 2009 4:08AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Define sentience. It is an ambiguous and nebulous term. What is sentience?
- pemmom April 16, 2009 9:28PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Necessary is of course relative- what may not appear to be necessary to one person can seem very necessary to another. I agree that "self-awareness" is very problematic as a term. Can we be sure that plants are not self-aware?
- sor666 May 6, 2009 7:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's refreshing to read clear thinking on this topic.
- dan November 19, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As an ethical vegan and an animal rights supporter I think the question itself in this debate is actually antagonistic and combative. People who frame the animal rights issue in this way with a question like this do not actually ever want to deal with the real aspects of responsibility involved with this issue. The problem here is if one should answer yes to the question you will most likely be perceived as not living in reality and deservingly so. If you answer no you will merely appear as a statistic at the side of the page and will be probably lumped in with arrogant insensitive human chauvinists. The people who ask the question if animals should have the exact same rights as humans are to me... pretty much the same type of people who ask......Dude, should carrots have rights?.... when confronted with questions regarding animal abuse, animal advocacy or animal rights.
- Phat P November 20, 2008 1:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I agree it is an excellent analysis. Moral and legal rights are two different things.
- Tanya Tye January 25, 2009 7:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Animals moral rights are important and protecting endangered species is as well. But legally they do not deserve the rights we posses. I dont think animals have the rights of humans as legally presented under the Constitution.
- Pedro February 11, 2009 9:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Pedro,
Of course nonhuman animals do not have the same legal rights as humans. That was my point. The abolitionist AR movement seeks to change that by encouraging humans to recognize what you yourself suggest you believe: that animals have moral rights.
It would seem immoral to me to recognize that nonhumans are morally relevant yet exclude them from protection under the law, don't you think? What valid argument can you present to suggest that nonhumans do not deserve basic legal rights, such as the right not to be be property? Humans have that legal right, and I have yet to find a non-arbitrary justification for withhodling that legal right from nonhumans.
That said, as I believe I mentioned way back in November, nonhumans have no interest in certain other human rights. Moreover, they may have other moral rights that merit legal protection that we do not possess. While humans and animals share some fundamental interests in common (e.g., avoiding pain, continued existence, etc.), that doesn't mean that all our interests are the same, and that of course means that nonhumans would not necessarily be granted all the same legal rights as humans if we they were given the legal right to be protected by legal rights in the first place (for instance, it would be absurd to speak of the 'right' of dogs to vote).
- Eric Prescott March 6, 2009 6:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This argument is completely logical to me. The only point I find difficult is- that nonhumans do not have an interest in protecting the rights of humans or other nonhumans- so therefore why should humans have such an interest? This is the most crucial response one gets from those who argue against granting basic rights to animals and one I have never been able to argue except to suggest that we have a 'duty of care' to animals which they do not have towards us.
- sor666 May 6, 2009 4:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Contractualism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/contractualism /#ConProAni
This is a bit simplistic for the sake of time, but we don't ignore the interests of human babies, the infirm, or the mentally incompetent even though they may (or do) not have an interest in respecting (or even the ability to understand) our moral or legal rights. Similarly, there is no justification for us to ignore the interests of nonhuman beings simply because they are unable to consider ours.
- Eric Prescott May 6, 2009 5:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Yes, this seems logical to me. But what about Tibor's argument that because animals do not act morally (in the human definition of moral) towards other animals, animals are not moral agents, while the concept of rights only applies to moral agents.
- sor666 May 11, 2009 5:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I think you'd be interested in Tom Regan's The Case for Animal Rights. He deals at length with this question, so you'd probably be better off reading his explanation than whatever summary I could drum up.
- Eric Prescott May 11, 2009 7:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
sorry but are you totally bonkers?
with rights always come responsibilities. and they have to be fulfilled by the subject that demands the rights. if he/she doesn't do that, he/she will lose these rights. simple as that.
please try to tell a cat or dog or even dolphin to clean up after he made a doodoo. or make him/her/it pay taxes . or even obey simple rules of society like not crossing a red light.
if you can produce only one animal that understands that, i am all for animal rights . but before that....that just sounds stupid.
that doesnt mean animals should be treated with no respect. every living or growing organism deserves that. but all in the right measurement.
i think you are not asking for animal rights, but for human common sense. and with that my friend, good luck.
- Silvio
April 22, 2009 2:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
I think there is confusion about the word "rights". Rights could mean the right to prosecute someone for stealing your car, for fraud etc but rights also mean the right to life,freedom and self-determination. It is true that some rights can only apply to people, since they are relevant only within the context of human society . However, there are other rights that are universal. The right not to be enslaved to the needs of another being is universal.I think we can all agree that while there are no animals who file prosecution claims against other animals (nor do we want this to happen because imagine what the court system would be like then!), there are also no animals who enslave other animals. Animals do not intensively farm other species, breed them with a view to profiting from their lives, or conduct experiments on them. So, that at least is one right animals do have, even if one considers that rights must be reciprocal- the right to freedom. There are no aniamls who take away the liberty of entire species of other animals in this way. Only humans do this. It may be because other animals simply haven't learned to do this. However, whatever the reason, it is exactly because humans uniquely can do this, that they must create a concept of animal rights - where the one right they cannot violate is interference with the freedom of animals to be of and for themselves and not of and for our benefit.
- sor666 May 10, 2009 2:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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
Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No ... the source of right or rights
A "right" or rights are derived from the specifics of who and what one is. No two individual human beings can be declared "the same", although they might certainly be called similar. It's likely they have similar rights, but cannot have the same rights. They are not the same and never can be if examined entirely. So too with other species. No two individuals within a species have the same rights, nor can individuals across species have same rights. Each life is different from the next and thus each "right" is different in its whole nature. Differences cannot be wished away. One may not want them to matter, however, what one wishes is rather irrelevant. In the real world, differences always matter and ought to. It matters greatly that no two lives are the same. This is what makes them "two" lives instead of simply one. What matters too is whether or not one recognizes the differences and takes them into consideration or ignores the differences thus disrespecting the truth at probable peril to oneself and others.
The primary right which is the foundation of all others is one's right to one's own life. A life, big or small, simple or complex, belongs to itself. It cannot, by right, belong to another, although another life may or may not be at liberty to possess it in some way. Whatever life it possesses is its property to do with as it wishes. There is dominion over self, but there cannot be dominion over anothers. This is not a right that is given or taken away. It is a fact born of that life itself. It is a right that exists with that life, neither existing before that life nor existing after the life which is it's basis is gone.
What is at issue and what is always at issue among us human beings either regarding ourselves and each other or members of other species is whether or not one is to be given the liberty to exercise the right of one's own life. Many varying reasons are marched out in favor or against such liberty - some with good factual information and consistent logic, most of it without. The most arguable reason for denying the liberty of another is the inescapable fact that one life must kill another to survive. To keep life, one must take life. This means that regardless how one feels about the right to life of another being - human or not - at some point one must decide to kill to survive or perish and be consumed. This particular law of nature cannot be circumvented for the sake of high-minded morality. Still, one is usually at liberty to postpone such decisions until absolutely necessary and one is usually at liberty to pick and choose which life must go and which will be preserved. What one must remember at such times is one has the right to live but cannot have a right to deprive another of the life they possess. Again, a life belongs to itself and cannot, by right, have a master. It is unavoidable that one must kill and often we find ourselves with such liberty just as all of the rest of life on Earth is at liberty to kill or not kill.
In this liberty to kill or not kill, yes, we and other animals are equal. No two, however, are equal in their willingness and skill in limiting or ending the life of another. There are many with an overabundance of such. As for me, though I am at liberty to impose myself on many other lives, I choose to exercise such liberty as conservatively as I'm able to manage. I opt to give as many lives - human or other - the freedom to live as I'm presented the opportunity to decide. It is not the right of those lives to continue living by their own determination that comes into my mind. That right is unquestionable.
I exercise my rights liberally, however, I exercise my liberties conservatively.
That's compassion.
- Naumadd
November 11, 2008 5:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
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 worry about rights when instead we can just do what is right?
Naumadd, you are a skilled writer, a profound thinker who does not fall for the trap of some of some of these other writers in that you do not think without first filtering your thoughts through that part of your mind which I call heart. What point thinking and reasoning without compassion?
I am grateful to you for your contribution and believe it is people like you who give humanity and this planet hope.
I would only point out, that I believe there is a misconception with the word "rights". It is bantied around as if "rights" exist, somewhere. You wrote "It's likely they have similar rights, but cannot have the same rights".
This begs the question: from where do these so called rights originate? What or who is the source of these "rights"? This very question reveals that rights are something which people arbitrarily declare. We might justify the ascribing of a particular set of protections, in law or in ethics, to one or another group of beings by reference to some other body of edicts or rules... which it will turn out also issue from the minds and writings of other people. At the end of the day though, we make them up.
So if compassion is a fundamental higher ethic, and if we make rights up, then why not just ascribe rights to animals to be free from cruelty at the hands of humans, whether for sport, medical research or food? Given that we don't need to kill animals in order to be happy, why should we continue to degrade the essence of humanity, damage the environment and bring such misery into the world by continuing to deprive animals of such rights.
Plutarch foreshadowed such a day when animals too would be recognised for their interests in freedom from suffering. Thomas Edison, Einstein and Jeremy Bentham all recognised that our exploitation of animals was cruel and would see our ruin.
Time to stop bickering about whether or not animals have rights, and to start doing what is right.
- sean joshua
November 12, 2008 11:39PM
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.
Necessity and Misery ...
Well, as I indicated, assuming one wishes to continue living, there is no escaping the clear necessity to take the life of another in order to continue one's own - plant, animal or otherwise. As I also indicated, ownership of one's own life is not something that can be given or taken away. Each life belongs to itself and no factual or consistently reasonable argument can be made to the contrary. Nevertheless, in the end, rule number one always confronts us - consume or be consumed. For continued living, killing is a necessity regardless of the form of life and that necessity precedes any considerations of the fact every life owns itself.
Still, although to take life in order to keep it is an inescapable necessity, our own misery and the misery we inflict on other life is NOT a necessity. To inflict misery simply because one is too ignorant or lazy to do otherwise or because one loves the misery of another has nothing at all to do with inescapable necessity. To inflict misery on another or to remain complacent regarding one's own misery is choice. It is at those times necessity no longer precedes the fact of an individual life's ownership of itself. It is at those times one has an alternate choice to be compassionate or not regarding another life and to be happy or not regarding one's own. One's survival is not at issue.
It isn't madness to want to survive, however, to want to survive while experiencing as much misery as one can endure and while inflicting as much misery as one is capable is surely madness.
In the end, this question "Do animals have the same rights as people?" is a disguise for the real question - "Ought human beings grant liberty to other forms of life to exercise the right of their own lives?" I happen to take animal rights as a given because, if I hold as true I own all rights to my own life, I must maintain that every life owns itself for the same reasons I use to support my own claim. What is truly at issue is whether I'm willing to grant other life the liberty to live as it chooses because I too value that liberty. I love my life. If I assume other life values itself, I must grant that life the liberty to live it, otherwise my love of my own life and my value of its liberty is a sham should I attempt to use one argument for myself and a different argument for the value of other life.
A life's ownership of itself is a given. I grant other life liberty of self-determination because I too value such liberty. Nevertheless, if I am to survive, no matter how much I value my own liberty or the liberty of other life, rule number one is the final arbiter - consume or be consumed. What I will not do is impose myself on other life beyond my own necessity. I will not inflict misery on another out of laziness or love of misery.
That is not necessity, it is madness.
- Naumadd
November 13, 2008 7:07PM
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.
Rights are....
are simply abstract expressions of what all living creatures bestow upon one another.
- CitizenZebra
October 25, 2009 3:02AM
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.
Who are non-human animals?
I thought I will pose a quesiton - if dominion over self is here meant to mean "free will", then we are again in trouble with this argument- "free will " can only be defined as positive freedom and to so define it we must agree about the identity or the nature of the existence of the subject who has "free will"- but as all the arguments that follow illustrate- there is no agreement about what it means to be a non-human animal ie no agreement as to the nature of the existence or identity of non-human animals - no one actually knows who non-human animals are and some have gone as far as to equate them with plants and machines. Legally some have suggested animals should have the status of children , others that of disabled people- so the fundamental question is "who are non-human animals?". We need to decide if we agree that they are "sentient" or even "alive".
- sor666
May 6, 2009 5:19AM
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 actual answer to the question
NO! The question requires a simple answer, not 700 words of unrelated philosophy!
- CitizenZebra
October 25, 2009 2:58AM
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.
Straw Man
It seems to me that this entire debate is proceeding from a "straw man" premise: It assumes that there are people who believe that animals "should have the same rights as people." There aren't, to my knowledge. Likewise, human rights advocates believe that all humans ought to have some similar rights; however, all babies, for example, or some mentally challenged humans, do not have the right to vote for good reason - all humans, then, don't have the same rights. Attacking this premise, then, is simple, although the argument doesn't amount to much. The question ought to be re-framed, as Mr. Torres' is beginning to do, asking instead: Should human animals and nonhuman animals share certain basic rights, i.e., not to be the property of another?
- Alex M
November 14, 2008 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
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.
Hopefully I've moved it in the direction
Alex, I've held off on jumping into this debate for days for this very reason. I have only provided three short responses (and the initial formatting is off, for some reason, so hopefully O.V. can fix the HTML), but hopefully they address the question while also addressing the basic idea underlying the question (as far as I see it), which is whether nonhumans actually possess *some* of the same basic moral rights as humans and, if they do, whether they then ought to enjoy *some* of the same basic legal rights as humans.
- Eric Prescott
November 15, 2008 12:05AM
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.
Yes and No: Animals Deserve Some Basic Rights
The question is deliberately absurd. Of course animals shouldn't have exactly the same rights as humans. Animals shouldn't be allowed to sue other animals, they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry or form civil unions, they shouldn't have the right to choose medical procedures for themselves like abortion or birth control, they shouldn't have the right to attend public schools and learn to read, etc...
Get Real.
But regarding fundamental rights: Yes, animals deserve the same rights as people. The very basic right of governing one's own body, the right of freedom from torture, the right of freedom from unjustified violence are rights ALL living sentient beings deserve. Animals and humans alike deserve some basic autonomy and freedom from interference from others.
Get Honest.
Wild animals deserve to be left alone, not hunted, not captured and euthanized, not caged and enslaved as circus animals. Tame animals/ companion animals/ pets deserve to be treated kindly in a manner similar to how we treat human babies or small children. They deserve food and water, a resting area, opportunities for play, and basic medical care. "Farm animals"/ "food animals" deserve freedom from torture and human-inflicted, unnecessary death. They deserve not to be eaten simply because people like the taste.
Get vegan.
Get real. Get honest. Get vegan.
- ElaineVigneault
November 18, 2008 10:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
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 second that!
Loved your response to all this madness!
- peggysue12384
January 27, 2009 2:57PM
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
Get real: Animals eat animals
Get honest: Animals have been eating animals ever sense they were put on this earth. (most I admit there are some herbivore animals) The first humans had to survive by eating animals if they were all "vegan" we'd have all starved to death.
DON'T get vegan: Why not? Simple eating only vegan food 's is [b] UNHEALTHY [/b] . That's right people unhealthy. How come? Simple just like eating meat is unhealthy. You have to have a well rounded diet . :D and besides meat is delicious
- Dylandts
August 12, 2009 7:58PM
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.
VEGAN IS HEALTHY
The nutrition experts say that a vegan diet can be very health and in fact can have health benefits superior to a nonvegan diet because of the lower risk of heart disease, diabetes , cancer , and obesity :
"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy , lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."
source: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl /advocacy_933_ENU_HTML.htm
- ElaineVigneault
August 13, 2009 10:51AM
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.
My friend
It is healthy to have a balanced diet . Now I admit vegan DIETS can have good effect's such as weight loss. BUT their are a lot of nutrition values from meat , and animal based product's. I don't have the time to search site's so take it upon yourself. Yes eating vegetables is healthy and I do it daily, but I balance my nutrition by eating meat , egg's, bread, milk, etc etc. (PS: those are animal based products) An all out vegan diet is not healthy.
- Dylandts
August 14, 2009 9:46PM
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.
Response to get real.
It is the basic right of evolution that animal rights radicals are trying to take away from animals who more than 50,000 years ago aligned themselves with human beings for survival. Domesticated animals in the wild suffer from diseases, starvation and early death. Animal species owned by human beings receive environmental advantages that ensure the survival of the species as a whole. In biology you will find many symbiotic relationships between species that ensures the survival of both species. The human and animal relationship benefits both species in the reduction of diseases, starvation and predator control that could eliminate either species.
Animal rights radicals believe that domestic animals cause global warming . In order to force the extinction of all domesticated species they must reframe the original biologically driven relationship that benefits both species as cruelty or slavery. In order to take away property and constitutional rights they must redefine standards of care by raising animals to the status of humans. Only in this way can they pass laws that are against the best interests of both humans and animals.
Organizations such as HSUS and PeTA lie to the public in a number of ways. They pretend they need money for saving homeless animals when in fact their goal is to kill off domestic animals by passing laws that make breeding or raising animals impossible. They ignore biology and pretend that all human beings can be healthy without essential animal fats. Biologically we are omnivores and as such our bodies require essential animal fats to regenerate cellular structure. One of the most prominent vegan diet promoters Chet Day has written on the dangers of eating a strict vegan diet. He reveals that many publicly strict vegan leaders do eat animal protein; they just don't tell their followers. Day has observed that over the short term a vegan diet may help in some aspects, but in the long term a diet without the essential animal fats will irreversibly damage your internal organs.
The argument that animals should have the right to be left alone presumes to tell animals that their more than 50,000-year-old collaboration with human beings to maintain the survival of their species must end. This is naively presumptuous at best, but in reality deceitful. They do not tell the truth to their followers or to the public, that they want all domestic animals extinct. A clear example is their attempt to blame all production of methane gas on domestic animals. What they don’t tell the public is that methane gas is only 7.9% of the total greenhouse gases. Methane from livestock is only 17% of that 7.9% total. A drop in the bucket compared to fossil fuels contribution to the greenhouse effect. The other 83% of methane gas comes from plants particularly rice paddies, wetlands and tropical forests. See "Plants release methane, a potent greenhouse gas ", a study by the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics where researchers made a surprising discovery that plants release 10 to 30 percent of the world’s methane gas. In no study does it ever say that 90% of the methane gases come from animals as many animal rights radicals report. It is the animal rights radicals who misinform the public in order to support their crusade against eating meat or owning animals. They reframe every study that links health problems to overeating to one of eating meat. Eating vegan does not automatically make one thin or even healthy. It is moderation in caloric intake, a balanced diet and exercise that creates good health.
It is clear from the number of animals that have died since HSUS and PeTA began pushing draconian laws that their goal is the extinction of all domestic animals. PeTA has killed over 25,000 healthy adoptable pets . In Denver alone it is estimated that the city killed over 5,000 family owned pets since enacting its breed ban law . HSUS routinely recommends death over placement even claiming newborn puppies are dangerous. These laws pushed by HSUS and PeTA have killed so many pets that the private rescue shelters on the east and west coasts are importing diseased feral puppies from other countries to stay in business. They would have the people in this country believe that everyone who raises animals is evil and that is not the case. From their own mouths you will know their agenda. Wayne Pacelle director of HSUS states; "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. …One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals”.
- Rosset
August 27, 2009 10:33PM
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.
Check yourself
While I respect your choice to live vegan, I disagree intensly with the reasoning behind it. Do you really want to "get honest" and "get real"? Humans are just as much apart of the food chain as a chicken, or a cow, or a polar bear. Would you repremand a wolf for eating a lamb? No. Why? Because it's part of the natural order. Likewise, human beings have been hunting and consuming meat since we gained the intelligence to do so.
So by all means, save the cows and the chickens and the pigs. However, I highly doubt a mountain lion would afford you the same oppurtunity.
- maedle17
September 24, 2009 3:52PM
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.
Humans are animals.
Humans are animals. We are not better or superiour, we just like to think we are.
I don't know about rights, that's a complicated issue but I think we have a moral obligation to take any suffering seriously. Non-human animals suffer in the same way humans do, therfore they should have the same rights regarding causes of suffering.
- Johnstuff December 22, 2008 10:11AM
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.
Were do right originate from?
You will find it difficult to argue that rights or moral obligations even exist given your evolutionary starting point. Both are concepts that are better argued from a theistic perspective. For example, the Declaration of Independence (of the US) states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Thus, in the U.S., if evolution is really believed to be true, there is no guarantee of equality or unalienable rights for its citizens.
The uniqueness of man can be seen in our establishment of governments (which are more complex than the social orders found in animals), our comparatively well developed speech and reasoning abilities, etc. The Bible (which the founding fathers of the US referenced repeatedly) explains that mankind was created distinct from other animals. While this does place us over animals, we are also responsible and will answer to God for how we treat them. The Bible says that a righteous man is cares for his animals (Proverbs 12:10). So, I agree that we have a moral obligation to treat animals humanely. However, I have a logical basis for that claim because I accept the biblical view that God created us above the other animals and made us caretakers for His creation. This same view makes it clear that animals do not have all the same rights as humans.
- seektruth
January 13, 2009 4:27PM
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'm an athiest.
I'm an athiest though so that doesn't really do it for me - sorry.
Our current treatment of non-human animals is far from humane even by the majority of theists.
If we base our actions on compassion then we would not abuse others the way our society does.
- Johnstuff January 15, 2009 11:03AM
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.
Why do atheists steal from theistic worldviews?
Ok, but how do you explain your contention that our treatment of animals is inhumane? Where does this idea come from in an atheistic worldview that is based on evolution ? All humans and animals are just random accumulations of matter. Life has no meaning or purpose. It is survival of the fittest. To show compassion or not is personal opinion and has no meaning. Moral obligation is an oxymoron.
So, the idea that we should have compassion and, in our handling and use of animals, minimize their suffering fits a theistic worldview (as I explained earlier). However, it is an idea that lacks any force in your atheistic worldview. In fact, the whole idea of compassion is taken from a theistic worldview as is the concept of moral obligation. So, if you are really an atheist, how do you justify your position and why should anyone take your opinion seriously?
My point is not to argue that animals shouldn't be treated humanely; it is only that you are stealing concepts from my Christian worldview (right and wrong, moral obligation, compassion, etc.) and when you try to use them in your atheistic worldview they don't make logical sense. I think you have failed to make a complete conversion to atheism. Only a theistic worldview properly explains the existence of a conscience (which can be ignored or warped) and it seems you still have one if you care about suffering in someone else or in animals.
- seektruth
January 16, 2009 8:38AM
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 do YOU think only Christianity has morals?
Wow. Your post is so blindly ignorant. I haven't heard an argument like that since I lived in Texas. Only Christians have morals? Wow, just wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Atheism is not an opposition to everything associated with theism . Atheism is an opposition to one thing: theism. If you look up theism in the dictionary, it says nothing about having a "purpose" or "morals." It says something about "God" or a "personal god" or a "Supreme Being" or a "ruler." Atheism is saying one thing: there is no "God." Also, Buddhism is completely based on the idea of overcoming suffering, hence compassion and love, and that is neither an atheist nor a theist religion . You seriously have no clue.
- Ciuma
April 22, 2009 11:26PM
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.
Did you really read what I wrote?
Atheists are free to be moral. I never said otherwise. Where is an atheist ''s logical basis for such morality ? If you disagree with what I wrote, then you should have provided evidence that atheists have a logical basis for morality. Instead, you falsely accused me of stating something I never said.
- seektruth
April 23, 2009 9:21AM
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.
one step further back
An atheist or an agnostic would answer your question "From where does morality stem" the same way it has been answered over and over again. All religions documented morality on what was acceptable or not to society at the time. Morality existed long before Moses delived stone tablets.
You say we took morality from your religion . We say you documented it from the worldview (which was of course much smaller at the time). Then again, we don't believe the world is only 6000 years old, and came with a rulebook. Religions far older than Judaism had mores. They had judicial systems on which what was "right and wrong" was measured. I would almost be willing to say that we each have a different philosophy, but the Judeo Christians have not argued back this point enough to gain headway. Simply stating "the bible says" does very little to convince those that don't believe the bible to be the inerant inspired word of god.
- tek June 18, 2009 9:24PM
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.
Myths about animals abound.
That is a false assumption that non-human animals suffer in the same way as humans. They do not need homes or beds or even care where they sleep as long as it is dry. They do know pain but they do not contemplate their death. The eat their own feces and will eat their own puppies even with food available. They are not human children although we occasionally refer to them as our fur kids . Many of them prefer the outdoors even when it is cold and some prefer to lie beside the fireplace. People who do not understand that animals are different from humans constantly try to anthromorphize their pets simply because its easier than actually training a pet. This causes problems when animal rights people try to make laws that require standards of care suitable for humans, but entirely unsuitable for all dogs. The Alaskan Malamute suffers in the heat and prefers the freezing cold, but hairless breeds might prefer the fireplace. Hunting dogs want to hunt even if you don't and herding dogs want to herd and bark even if you don't. Some behaviors can be modified and come can't. Spaying and neutering is not in the animal's best interest it is merely convenient for the owner. Behavior problems - it's a myth that spaying and neutering improves the behavior of animals. In fact, in many cases it causes negative behaviors that include shyness, increased aggression, and timidness. The average pet owner is under the assumption that s/n is beneficial and carries no negative health effects. Tampering with the hormonal system of your pet causes a multitude of health issues. Spaying and Neutering is highly destructive to an animal's hormonal balance. These operations are driven by Social and Political agendas. This is not a "health" initiative. The evidence indicates that spay/neuter, especially early spay/neuter as would be mandated by HSUS and PeTA does in fact damage the health of our pets. The literature shows that no compelling case can be made for neutering male dogs, (especially immature male dogs) in order to prevent future health problems. The number of health problems associated with neutering exceeds the alleged health benefits. Negative Effects of Neutering Male Dogs if done before maturity, it increases the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer ) by a factor of 3.8. It increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6;. Triples the risk of hypothyroidism. Increases the risk of geriatric cognitive impairment. Triples the risk of obesity , and with it many of the associated health problems. Quadruples the small risk (
Beneficial Claims made for Female Dogs, they claim it will reduce the risk of mammary tumors, but it does not eliminate them! Spaying they claim also reduces, but does not eliminate, the risk of pyometra, which otherwise would infect about 23% of intact female dogs; pyometra kills about 1% of intact female dogs but is also kills spayed dogs. Negative Health Effects of spaying female dogs if done before maturity, increases the risk of osteosarcoma by a factor of 3.1; this is a common cancer in larger breeds with a poor prognosis. Increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 and cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of more than 5; this is a common cancer and major cause of death in some breeds. Triples the risk of hypothyroidism. Increases the risk of obesity by a factor of 1.6 - 2, and with it the many associated health problems. Causes urinary spay incontinence in 4-20% of female dogs. Increases the risk of persistent or recurring urinary tract infections by a factor of 3-4. Increases the risk of recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis, and vaginitis, especially for female dogs spayed before puberty. Doubles the small risk (
Increases the risk of orthopedic disorders. Increases the risk of adverse reactions to vaccinations. Negative behavior problems - increases aggression, timidness, shyness depending on the animal.
One thing is clear -- practically all the spay/neuter information that is available to the public is unbalanced and contains claims that are exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. Proponents of spaying and neutering are compelled to preach health benefits that simply do not exist. At the same time they ignore health dangers that are very real. Their agenda however is primarily focused on social or political issues, not health. Any surgical or health decision should be made by pet owners after being told the complete truth regarding any and all health risks. It is not the right of Government to get involved in the health decisions that affect our pets!
- Rosset
August 27, 2009 11:33PM
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.
Spaying vs putting down
Surely, you would agree that given the huge numbers of unwanted dogs and cats that are put down, even if spaying and neutering has health risks it is preferrable than the situation where 80 kittens are put down a day (at my local shelter) because no one wants them? Your argument seems to support the idea that perhaps we should never have domesticated animals in the first place,
- sor666
August 31, 2009 8:18AM
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, because then I would have lready killed hundreds... of ants.
Nough said.
- The Other Conservative Guy
January 22, 2009 10:13PM
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.
obviously not
No, animals are used directly as food and resources by many native tribes around the world. Animals aren't civilized and don't have social structure so why would they deserve the same rights as people. Since the beginning of time they have been relied on as a food source and as resources, and while they should be treated humanly, equal rights as humans is ridiculous.
- kumquat
February 11, 2009 11:46AM
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.
Why should humans have rights?
why should humans be special, not everyone is the same, you do not know for sure that the person next to you feels pain, or if they can have emotions.
so if i can't be sure you can have feelings, then by argument, you shouldn't have rights, right???
if i don't know if you can feel pain amd emotions, does that automatically give me the right to own or eat you?
humans do not accept animal rights because they cannot accept the fact that they are no superior than any other creature on this planet.
- Stormwolf
February 12, 2009 3:36PM
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 conflict arises..
..with faulted set of formula the liberal mind has as utilities. IT's very hard to grab a liberal, shack him, and say, 'hey make sense, term what you are saying and be consistent.'. they nature is to be selish and dishonest. That's not off the marks. it's the simple truth. They change thevalue of what they say in the same sentence sometimes. with these people truth is just not an object. I want to make a point. THe liberal has a very hard time condemning a convicted unrepentent child murderer. by they have no problem with partial birth abortions or lab grown fetus farms. The reason is simple, they can never be a farm grown fetus, but they can be child murderers. Pedophillia is 'just something a liberal hasn't tried yet'. These are the people we're dealing with, and these people are worse than the worst animals . But see how the line is blurred. They can not distinguish morality . They are just skilled liars. that's what they are. IT's amazing, that the large quantities...
- jxzac April 1, 2009 11:23PM
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.
the conflict is simple.
liberals use a faulted set of formula when they conclude things and form ideas. IT's very hard to grab a liberal, shack him, and say, 'hey make sense, term what you are saying and be consistent.'. they nature is to be selish and dishonest. That's not off the marks. it's the simple truth. They change thevalue of what they say in the same sentence sometimes. with these people truth is just not an object. I want to make a point. THe liberal has a very hard time condemning a convicted unrepentent child murderer. by they have no problem with partial birth abortions or lab grown fetus farms. The reason is simple, they can never be a farm grown fetus, but they can be child murderers. Pedophillia is 'just something a liberal hasn't tried yet'. These are the people we're dealing with, and these people are worse than the worst animals . But see how the line is blurred. They can not distinguish morality . They are just skilled liars. that's what they are. IT's amazing, that the large quantities...
- jxzac April 1, 2009 11:25PM
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.
i want to walk the other way with this.
Now it's ok to slaughter chinkens and cattles.. but a mudering child molester? we have reservations here? I know most liberals view these people as heros. I've seen it too many times and i understand it is most. Not that they're stupid enough to reveal themselves in a negitve way, but they reveal themselves to me often enough. THe majority views these 'monster's' as heroes. THey are liberal heroes. What are these people. They are not animals , they are monsters. We as people do no have sustain these monsters. we are not indebted or oblidged to do so. We should turn them out and let them perish without the sanctity of consistency, truth, reason, logic. They would die. they're indebted to us. Why the liberal says otherwise is because it it their kin. That is their true nature, that is the completion of their ideas, and it is for this reason that we see these people arise. They are the ones who feel compelled to show their nature for what it is. They are the cowards, the weak. rebels. but not all people are like that.
- jxzac April 1, 2009 11:40PM
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.
No clear definition of rights
Without a clear definition of rights I cannot see how anyone can say who or what should or should not have rights. I see rights as human constructs - rules that allow groups of people to live in relatively harmonious situations. Humans have created the concept of rights and not all societies have the afforded the same rights to their citizens. Rightsholders are not allowed to freely harm others in their group, even those who are not mentally capable of understanding the concept of rights are not allowed to harm other rightsholders.
Non human animals on the other hand, freely violate each others rights on a daily basis. They are self aware to a certain degree, but they do not have a concept of future, past, or life or death. They are not pure instinct, they can learn behaviors that appear to lead some to think they are displaying "human emotion". They are not. Please don't cart out the old saw that this is a cartesian theory, it isn't. Those who believe that non human animals are displaying "human emotion" haven't really spent time with chickens, cattle , sheep, horses, dogs, cats.
Humans have an obligation to provide those animals in their sphere with kindness and humane treatment , even up to and including humane death for food animals. The myth that all food animals are raised in "factory farms" is just that, a myth. When my dogs can show that they will not violate the rights of mice, voles, and other vermin, then I'll believe that animals have rights.
- pemmom
April 16, 2009 9:26PM
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.
What a completely hypocritical argument
Your argument is utter hypocrisy and even circular. You say that you will give rights to animals if they give rights to other animals. Read: you will not give rights until others give rights. But wait! Since you're not giving rights to anyone, why should anyone give YOU rights? By your logic, since you can't give rights to "mice, voles, and other vermin," or even dogs, then you should not believe in your own rights because you freely violate other animals' rights. You talk about animals as if they have rights to be violated and then say you don't believe in animal rights . There's your first problem right there.
- Ciuma
April 22, 2009 11:39PM
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.
READ what was written
No where in my argument to I use the word "GIVE" regarding rights. Again, rights are a human construct between humans as a species. No other animals have developed a system of rights and obligations in a society . My argument is that IF non human animals do have rights, then they have the obligation to not violate other non human animals' rights, which they cannot do. Since I believe that rights are indeed a human construct and therefore apply only to humans, my argument is not circular. Nice try though, Ciuma. Again READ what I said, not what you wanted to read.
- pemmom
April 23, 2009 9:36AM
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.
Playing with words
You're just playing with words. Explain to me why it matters that you didn't use the word "give" and how that indicates I didn't "READ" what you wrote. I wasn't quoting you. Your argument is still false. Rights are NOT "a human construct between humans as a species." You did not construct rights the rights that protect you now. You did not construct the freedom of speech , or the freedom to the pursuit of happiness. Someone else constructed them, and you took them, and now you're taking them for granted by saying that only those who now have them should have them. You don't say that a child should have no rights, no interests worth protecting, just because he violates your rights. For example, if a street kid steals your wallet, that does not suddenly mean that he has lost his right to own property and now you can go and take everything he owns and even OWN him. W/o rights, this is what you're giving to animals . That is absurd and shows your complete ignorance about what a "right" is.
- Ciuma
April 23, 2009 11:10AM
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.
Will our Senators and Congressman Represent you and your pet?
Let's get real. Animals do not have rights. Do animals pay taxes , do animals have constitutional rights, do they have voting rights, do they have civil liberties?
No they do not. Do you enjoy being in some animals food chain?
Do they deserve humane and loving treatment . Of course.
But why is there more propaganda about animal rights than there is about unborn fetuses? How about women's rights in Muslim nations under the Taliban or in Saudi Arabia? (one of our allies?)
- American Patriot
April 24, 2009 1:22PM
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.
No
Humans are animals , therefore the question itself is ambiguous. The question should read "Should seemingly non-sentient animals have the same rights as humans." Humans is a more general term that encompasses all lifeforms on earth that have been given their place in our socialization process. To simply use the term person would exclude all people who have been deemed unfit to exist in our society (commonly people refer to inmates as "animals" due to the nature of their crimes, thus separating them from the populous).
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0 ,2933,494067,00.html
That is the example that I will skirt around again and again when I think about whether animals DESERVE the basic AND institutional rights which all humans have in one form or another. True, poorer nations have lacking human rights, but I'm not here to type about that. The ape is an example of an animal that exhibited human characteristics. It had used prescription drugs before. That day it reacted differently.
- TheOni
April 30, 2009 4:10PM
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.
This a badly posed question
There is a qualitative difference between humans and animals so no animals cannot have the same rights as humans- at least not all of the same rights (assuming by humans we mean human animals). Moreover, animals of different species cannot have the same rights because they are different creatures.
Is it then, that we really wish to say that animals should have an intrinsic moral worth which is equal to that accorded to people? I certainly agree that logically they should. But according to whom? To people? Animals do kill other animals and clearly do not value other species as much as they do their own (sometimes not even other individuals within their own species)- so why should we value animals of another species as much as we value our own? Aren't we also animals?
I dont think there is a clear answer to this - except to say that clearly we have no obligation to value other animals as much as we value humans- but we could choose to do so.
Furthermore, we have the choice to do so, while other animals definately do not have the choice to do so. To explain this- obligate carnivores are so called biologically because their digestive systems can only digest meat - they cannot eat any vegetable matter except that pre-digested by the herbivores they kill which they get from their stomachs. Omnivores in the wild (like bears) will eat meat as a preference because they only have a few short months to put on weight in summer before they hibernate- eating meat is more claorie efficient for putting on weight.
So the point I am making here is that a matter of survival non-human animals do and must enslave each other (for instance by eating each other). Early humans were also obliged to do so to survive- hence they made animals their property and enslaved them in agriculture.
But and I think most would agree- we no longer must do this to survive. We can to enslave animals and make them property, but this would be largely out of greed not need. There are few people on earth living in developed countries who absolutely must eat animals not to die- due to the overwhelming productivity of farms which produce plant and other products. There are few people so ill that they must use animals for experiments, or must go to zoos or must have pets.
So, why should we grant animals the basic rights ( and these rights have nothing whatever to do with how intelligent or reasoning you may consider animals to be, but only relate logically to the fact that indisputably they are living beings with nervous systems- ie the ability to feel pain)- the right to an environment which sustains their need for food , the right not to be enslaved and owned as property by humans, the right to rear their young and breed etc- we should give them these rights not because we must- but because we now can afford to do so- given our affluence and independence for our survival from the environment.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 5:08AM
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
A dog is a dog a Animal!this is a no brainer!NO!
- zman
May 31, 2009 9:34PM
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.
yes
humans are animals
so human rights are animal rights
- oliu1
August 9, 2009 2:20PM
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.
The right's they should have
They should have the right to not be killed just for the fun ( eating meat DOES not count so eat meat :D) and if they are a "pet" they have the right to be fed, given water , and medical needs satisfied. Hope that help's you PETA people come down from your clouds.
- Dylandts
August 12, 2009 8:00PM
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.
NO
I do not believe in needlessly harming an animal and that if one should kill an animal they should eat it. However, I did not climb to the top of the food chain to bow down to animals that some people feel should be put on top of some sacred pedestal.
- rkm
September 23, 2009 2:33PM
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.
Should Animals Have The Same Rights As People.
Animal and human emotions are identical,intelligence the same, as
animals do possess: common sense, compassion, empathy, reasoning, and
wisdom. The only difference is physical features that do not enable
them to make a kite (because their digits are not like humans, except
for the Great Apes and other simians), and they're designed by The
Good Creator that they do not need to write stories on paper, film or
internet , and they do not need clothing, nor make-up... you get the
understanding; otherwise they have all the necessary equipment to live
life normally. The terrible side is that human-beings are the ones
that destroy, harm and kill for no good reason - look at our plant -
just overloaded with human-beings that care little for what the Good
Creator had creator for all living beings to live with humbleness and
common sense, compassion, empathy, and reasoning, and a healthy, happy
life. Because of our over population of human-beings, our greed and
selfishness, we have become 'crazy, or to put it better insane'.Animal
will never let humans know what they know unless humans believe in them.
What's the point - makes good common sense, doesn't it - it would be a
waste of time.
- darling sapphire
October 16, 2009 1:56PM
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.
stupid
This is the stupidst question I ever read. I love my dogs and they have the run of our home and would never abuse them.. but to put them in the same catagory as my kids i dont think so. Domestic animals such as dogs, cats, and some birds should be loved and petted and well treated ...Farm animals like cows, pigs, chickens, turkey are for eating and i dont apologize for that...wild animals are beautiful and should not be shot for sport to hang on walls etc.. as you see i am not fanatical on the issue of animals..as some people just because it is politically correct to do so.
- cbooh
October 30, 2009 11:37PM
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.