Animal Rights

well this thread comes of the hunting thread

becuase

should we have the right to kill animals and/or torture them all we want?

should animals have rights?

Honestly though, while I think healthy interaction with animals is important in regards to how it relates to a persons mental state, I don’t think animals have the same intrinsic value as people do. In others words torture is a bit much, but killing them is fine (if there is a reason).

We kill and torture animals, because, unfortunately, might makes right. However, to me, saying that you have a RIGHT to kill them because they are inferior really just bugs me. If you kill them because you like killing, I disagree with your motivations, but as long as the meat is used, I can accept it. If you are hunting for food, then I have absolutely no quarrels with the practice, as it is by nature a necessity to feed ourselves.
Compound that with the fact that many of the animals we hunt haven’t got natural predators any more (we wiped many of them out, as they were a threat to us), and I would say that, in fact, killing an animal in a habitat that is over carrying capacity is in fact a humane practice, as you are saving it a slow death from starvation.
That’s just answering the “to kill” question. Now for the second, more relevant one.
bq. Do we have the right to torture them

I say absolutely not. To me, saying that an animal is inferior gives us complete power over them is ridiculous. Every animal is a biological marvel, a perfect expression of form that best suits the environment in which it lives. That being said, I do not disagree with the practice of domestication, as it is a necessity in order to more effectively utilize land to supply a growing population. However, during it’s life, it should be observed that animals can feel pain, and have emotions. Though the ultimate goal is to kill them for food, practices like those shown below should not and cannot be allowed.

As I have said before, animals do have feelings, though not, perhaps, as developed as those of a human’s. They should not, obviously, be accorded the same status as a person, but I personally think that the rule of thumb here should be “Could I do this to another person, without getting in legal trouble?”. Right up to the point where we kill them, that is. You can have extremists on either end, like those cat-stomping bastards you mentioned earlier (cats are cute!), to the people at PETA , have taken it far too far. If you want to be zealous and/or creepy in your practices, fine. Just don’t tell us.

Though the ultimate goal is to kill them for food, practices like those shown below should not and cannot be allowed.

Why not? Who cares if they have feelings. They’re going to die.

“Could I do this to another person, without getting in legal trouble?”

No more meat… Ever. And you can now marry them! And sue them!

What do you think happens in the wild if we don’t eat it instead? PETA people are naive.

A lion might rip off the back leg of its pray and starts eating into its stomach while its still alive.

etc

etc.

Hmm. Anything you can apply to animals you have to apply to humans as well unless you give a logical reason not to.

logical reason would be that animals are not humans. a species is only responsible for itself, in the end.

Where does that argument come from? And where does the assertion of responsibility come from? Why should responsibility exist at all? There’s nothing ‘logical’ about making assertions based on observation; that’s induction, and it’s not reliable.

If it wasn’t reliable we wouldn’t do it. It IS reliable, mostly. Just not always.

As for why, simple empathy.

There is no way of knowing how reliable it is. I would say that inductive decision making turns out to be incorrect very frequently. It’s a bad way of reasoning when it comes to things where no actual measure of likelihood is available, and no way of finding evidence either way exists.

Where does that argument come from? And where does the assertion of responsibility come from? Why should responsibility exist at all?

now you’re just arguing semantics. the only thing a species needs for itself is its own survival. our ethics do not apply to other species because they don’t fall under “protection of the species”.

It’s not about semantics this time. As far as I know there is no real connection between an animal and the species it is a member of, especially since ‘species’ is an artificial term anyway. I don’t think it makes sense to discuss the ‘needs’ of a species, as a species is not, even if it could be clearly defined, something which qualifies as having ‘needs’.

I think this idea of ‘protection of the species’ comes from a misunderstanding of the process of evolution and how genes relate to their carriers.

Why should responsibility exist at all?

Unlike other animals, we have a far greater ability to manipulate the environment around us. As such our responsibilities will be different. Our responsibility is somewhat a product of social interaction; for it to function it creates specific expectations of individuals. The expectations are our responsibilities towards others, and while an individual can choose to ignore it the one who is at peril is primarily himself. Since our interactions with animals are a reflection of our personalities, it can be seen as a mirror to show how we understand our responsibilities. Someone who tortures animals without cause most likely has difficulties in understanding the intrinsic value of life and such has a limited understanding of their basic social responsibility.

That’s interesting, SaintAjora. I think that fits snugly with what I said about populations before. I’m not so sure about using it as a measure of entitlement to rights though, since not all human beings are capable of making such choices.

i personaly think that i have the right to eat good food (im sorry i do) and in my opinion i cannot eat off vegis and nuts and my favorite saying the yahoo email came up with this for a random suject (if you have yahoo email click the subject button a few times some of them are quite funny)

i like animals cos they’re made of meat

it kinda sums it all up realy, BUT i think that unless you or somebody else is going to eat it it should not be killed

I’m no vegetarian, I just dislike the idea that animals should be treated badly.

could you please explain to me in which way it is difficult to define a species?

seriously, I am starting to get inclined to think you’re just making stuff up as you go.

i like animals cos they’re made of meat

Humans are also animals. They are also made of meat. Go figure.

Also, Jesus wasn’t a vegetarian to say the least.

It may be just me, but I’ve always found it difficult to define a human in a way that includes genetic illnesses, etc but excludes (say) step by step dilution of human DNA with other species’ DNA. So, I too would like to hear the view of someone who is an expert in the field :)

So, I too would like to hear the view of someone who is an expert in the field :)

It’s a gaming website. Don’t get your hopes up.

They’re welcome to post here ;)

you don’t need genetics (at least not to the extent of DNA modification and/or analysis) to define a species. A Species is a population of individuals that can theoretically mate and have fertile offspring.

Torture? No. Eat? Yes. Kill for safety? Yes.

I despise when groups like PETA try to put animals rights on or above the same plane as human rights. e.g. I don’t want human breast milk in my ice cream simply because they think milking cows is wrong.

On the other hand, I appreciate when they make reasonable effort to stop realistic abuse or improve some conditions for them.

I believe animals have a right to live long side people without being attacked just for the pleasure the person gets from hurting something. However I don’t disagree with the killing of an animal for survival.

yum yum