Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

[Skeptic569]

I don't think a lot of people realize how intelligent some animals are.

Example:

YouTube - Kanzi and Novel Sentences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dhc2zePJFE&feature=player_embedded)

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

So, in light of that, I don't see how you can not support them having the same rights without being a hypocrite?

Should be an interesting debate..

[Elwar]

Can they enforce laws?

[nayjevin]

YouTube - Venus Fly-trap Catches a frog - Unforgiven Wilderness (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtQfZI6P6uE)

YouTube - Ants create a lifeboat in the Amazon jungle - BBC wildlife (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A042J0IDQK4)

YouTube - Dolphin play bubble rings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q)

[fisharmor]

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

Shenanigans.

The ape clearly grabs the jelly jar before she says anything about pouring the Perrier into the jelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans


I love these threads that go "should we" or "do they deserve". I am totally disinterested in what everyone thinks we should be doing. I am far more into what is, and what is not. If you make an intellectual argument that animals have natural rights, I'll consider it.

Thanks anyway for the semi-literal dog-and-pony show. But that's all it is.

[nayjevin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans


Clever Hans (in German, der Kluge Hans) was a horse that was claimed to have been able to perform arithmetic and other intellectual tasks.

After formal investigation in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing these mental tasks, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered this artifact in the research methodology, wherein the horse was responding directly to involuntary cues in the body language of the human trainer, who had the faculties to solve each problem. The trainer was entirely unaware that he was providing such cues.[1]

In honour of Pfungst's study, the anomalous artifact has since been referred to as the Clever Hans effect and has continued to be important knowledge in the observer-expectancy effect and later studies in animal cognition.

from that link, interesting

[Pennsylvania]

Can they enforce laws?

Is this really the standard we want to set though? If so, say goodbye to the rights of children and the mentally handicapped.

[Skeptic569]

Shenanigans.

The ape clearly grabs the jelly jar before she says anything about pouring the Perrier into the jelly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans


I love these threads that go "should we" or "do they deserve". I am totally disinterested in what everyone thinks we should be doing. I am far more into what is, and what is not. If you make an intellectual argument that animals have natural rights, I'll consider it.

Thanks anyway for the semi-literal dog-and-pony show. But that's all it is.

Can't rewatch the video right now to address this point but I will do it later.

One interesting thing is that Chimps that have been taught sign language have actually taught their children sign language without any human intervention there.

[FreeTraveler]

There's room for all god's creatures in my world.









Right next to the mashed potatoes.

[MelissaWV]

This is a silly question on several fronts.

1. If animals have rights, they have them. It isn't a matter of "deserving" or not.
2. All sorts of people have rights, but others violate them, many times as punishment. You have a "right to vote," yet that can be taken away. You have a "right to bear arms," but there are situations where you probably shouldn't be able to (like when you are actually in prison for a viable offense).
3. Even if all animals have rights, that does not mean that we have to step on eggshells to defend and protect each and every one of them. We have rights to go on about our lives and not be a slave to conservation.
4. We must make value judgments about where our efforts will be focused, and those are invariably going to rely on the competence of the animal in question, often mingled with whether or not violating the creature's rights is in our self-interest.

Perhaps if cows could satisfactorily tapdance or balance the budget, we wouldn't eat so many hamburgers. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference. I seriously doubt there are sharks having this conference right now, about whether or not eating the next surfer they mistake for a seal is a violation of that surfer's rights. "Rights" exist, but so does competition and survival instinct.

[Elwar]

Is this really the standard we want to set though? If so, say goodbye to the rights of children and the mentally handicapped.

Well, think about it...what are rights?

If you were the only person in the world you could do whatever you want. With other people in the world you have to come up with some rules to get along or else kill everyone else and go back to being the only person, again able to do whatever you want.

Those basic sets of rules have to be enforceable. If we can't enforce our own rules then we would then be reliant upon a higher being. Then, we don't really have rights, we're just amusements for the higher being, we can't truly do what we want as a people because we are beholden to the one in charge of enforcement.

Since we as humans can enforce our own rules, we are in charge of our own rights. We get to determine our societal rules.

If apes were intelligent enough to be able to live amongst humans and join in the debate on how they wanted society to interact, they would have to be on the same level as us in ability to enforce society's rules. Otherwise, they are subject to the whim of humans and their idea of how society should act.

If apes wanted rights, they would need the ability to right the wrongs that they feel are being made against them. And then the ability to enforce such an equal state moving forward.

If a more powerful, intelligent alien were to come to Earth. We would be at their control and their whims. We would be beholden to them to give us any sort of rights. And those aren't really rights when you're beholden to others to provide them for you.

[Pennsylvania]

Well, think about it...what are rights?

I'm paraphrasing, but I like the following definition:

A right exists where it would be immoral for Person A to prevent Person B from performing action/non-action X.

With this in mind, I do not believe things like animal abuse is a right, because it would not be immoral for Person A to intervene in such an instance.


Since we as humans can enforce our own rules, we are in charge of our own rights. We get to determine our societal rules.

Certainly, but don't we determine societal rules with respect to children and the mentally handicapped? We act in their interest because we care about them and precisely because they wouldn't be able act in their own interest. In other words, we project a subset of our rights onto them.


If apes wanted rights, they would need the ability to right the wrongs that they feel are being made against them. And then the ability to enforce such an equal state moving forward.

Well I think it would work just like with children, someone would have to act in the interest of the ape, if, functionally anything were to be accomplished legally. In your opinion, does an orphan have rights? If so, which ones?

[Andrew-Austin]

I don't think a lot of people realize how intelligent some animals are.

Example:

YouTube - Kanzi and Novel Sentences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dhc2zePJFE&feature=player_embedded)

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

So, in light of that, I don't see how you can not support them having the same rights without being a hypocrite?

Should be an interesting debate..

No. The purpose of laws is to limit/avoid conflict b/w our own species.

[slothman]

Only sapient creatures get rights.
Only humans are sapient.
Other animals, or even plants, might be sentient or intelligent but they do not get rights.
Do they have free will?

[Elwar]

Certainly, but don't we determine societal rules with respect to children and the mentally handicapped? We act in their interest because we care about them and precisely because they wouldn't be able act in their own interest. In other words, we project a subset of our rights onto them.


They are part of society's rules. Sure, apes could be part of society's rules but they certainly wouldn't enjoy the same rights as those who enforce the rules just as children don't enjoy the same rights as adults.

If having a subset of rights is all that is called for then they already have those rights. They are allowed to exist in our world, they are allowed to live wild in the jungle or caged in our zoos. They have a subset of rights already. They will never have equal rights until they can equally enforce those rights.

[jake]

Do they have free will?

I assume so.. :confused:

[BenIsForRon]

Easy answer: animals do have rights, just not the same rights as humans.

[fisharmor]

If having a subset of rights is all that is called for then they already have those rights. They are allowed to exist in our world, they are allowed to live wild in the jungle or caged in our zoos. They have a subset of rights already. They will never have equal rights until they can equally enforce those rights.

So, what you seem to be arguing is that children and the mentally handicapped do not have equal rights, as they are incapable of enforcing equal rights, and a subset is by definition not equal to the superset.
This idea of a subset kind of flies in the face of the idea of natural rights, doesn't it?

[Dr.3D]

Easy answer: animals do have rights, just not the same rights as humans.

Now, since you say they have rights, just what are those rights?

Just because humans have been given the authority to control the animals, it doesn't necessarily mean humans should mistreat animals. Anybody with a little compassion would recognize that animals feel pain, and from observation, that they may also feel joy, and disappointment. Seems like people just need to observe what so many call "dumb" animals to see that they have many of the same traits as humans do.

Sure, we may say they don't have rights, but if animals could talk, would it make a difference in how we think about them? At one time, "dumb" meant the inability to talk, so I would come to the conclusion that people believe animals can't think because they can't talk.

[Danke]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

[furface]

Something that's up to states to decide. For instance:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/34470910/ns/today-today_pets_and_animals/

There are already anti-cruelty laws in most if not all states. I agree with those. However, applying "rights" to animals is generally an attorney full employment tactic. The more victims society has, the more attorneys can feed off them, as in the Vermont example.

The most important rights exist regardless of whether they're written down or not. In that sense animals already have rights, like the right not to be abused by a human.

[paulitics]

Abuse of an animal is not a human right.

[Krugerrand]

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Well put, Squealer.

[Krugerrand]

The most important rights exist regardless of whether they're written down or not. In that sense animals already have rights, like the right not to be abused by a human.

Does being attached to a buggy and forced to cart around people count as abuse?

[MikeStanart]

there's room for all god's creatures in my world.









Right next to the mashed potatoes.



this

[furface]

Does being attached to a buggy and forced to cart around people count as abuse?

For a human when it's non-consensual it would amount to abuse or abduction/slavery. Animals don't appear to be in much distress when they do it. It's impossible to apply human emotions to animals because we just don't know. All we can do is observe their reactions to it.

Regarding the issue of consent, there are actually people would pay money to be attached to a buggy and forced to cart people around. It's a fairly common sexual fantasy. Bringing it up is relevant because emotions are very complex things and certainly not something that you can figure out in a cross species manner.

In any case it's a state or community right to decide. If you don't want to have horse carts in your community, find a community where they don't allow them.

[Anti Federalist]

Ugh, not this again.

The ne plus ultra of human rights is the Non Aggression Principle, or, more simply, keep your hands to yourself.

The shark about to bite your ass in half does not understand this.

Neither does the lion on the African veldt.

Animals cannot have rights as we understand them (or are supposed to understand them) because they cannot reason that the NAP applies to them as well and cannot be reasoned with to understand that the other animal has rights as well.

Now, some will say that's a specious analogy since the examples are just instinctual feeding impulses.

Nonsense, animals will kill just for the hell of it, anybody who says otherwise has never watched a cat harass a mouse before killing it.

Until the time comes that you can reason with the cat to cease his violations of the mouse's rights, animals cannot have rights.

[JeNNiF00F00]

Can they enforce laws?

Perhaps laws of the jungle, or laws of nature :)

[pcosmar]

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
Genesis 1:26

A righteous man regards the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
Proverbs 12:10


There is balance in the Book. ;)

[Alawn]

Absolutely not.

[Elwar]

So, what you seem to be arguing is that children and the mentally handicapped do not have equal rights, as they are incapable of enforcing equal rights, and a subset is by definition not equal to the superset.
This idea of a subset kind of flies in the face of the idea of natural rights, doesn't it?

Natural rights come from our status as humans, and we as humans can enforce our society upon ourselves. Apes might have natural monkey rights but they aren't the same as human rights because they can't protect those rights.

The OP asked whether or not animals should have the same rights as humans.

Imagine the homesteading rights and tresspassing laws alone that would come into play if they had the same rights. Or the kidnapping charges filed against many a pet owner.

[slothman]

If they do get rightsthen which animals get them?
Only primates?
Only primates, cats, and dogs?
Any animal, including insects, worms, and sponges?
What about plants?

[RyanRSheets]

I don't think a lot of people realize how intelligent some animals are.

Example:

YouTube - Kanzi and Novel Sentences (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dhc2zePJFE&feature=player_embedded)

More intelligent and sentient than lots of people with low IQs that are considered to have natural rights by people here, including me, actually.

So, in light of that, I don't see how you can not support them having the same rights without being a hypocrite?

Should be an interesting debate..

Lawd Jeeezzzuusss the one with the metal head sounds just like a human being!

[ChaosControl]

The same rights? I don't know. But they definitely have some and need to be protected from abuse and such.

[furface]

Actually animals in general have more rights than human beings. The ones in the wild are generally left alone to do what they want and work things out for themselves.

I've never heard of an animal being required to fill out a tax form, nor have I heard of an animal being subject to a federal investigation with the intent of finding something out about the animal in order to harm it or coaxing it into making a statement that can be used to harm the animal. I've never heard of an animal being imprisoned for ingesting or breathing any substance like cocaine or marijuana.

People kill animals, but unlikely with the viciousness or cruelty that supposedly civilized human groups and governments do.

I've never heard of an animal being forced to do something or contribute to something that would upset the animal itself, for instance being forced to pay a tax to fund international military violence.

My cat lives at my house purely by consent. If we open the door to let it out of our house, it will come back within at least a few hours bugging us for food or just to be able to hang around on the couch. Our cat obviously doesn't yearn for a better existence, for freedom or liberty that it doesn't get.

This is in sharp contrast to the millions of Americans who feel trapped in an obsessive, militarist police state, forced to contribute to things they find reprehensible, no way out, no where to find liberty.

I'd say all in all animals have more rights than humans. What a revolution it would be if the federal government allowed its citizens the same rights as animals.

[charrob]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?


as humans, my hope is that we one day evolve so we share the earth fairly with all creatures and do the best we can not to infringe upon their freedom, their habitat, their health, and their lives.

http://www.adoptadolphin.org.uk/Images/Home_CuteDolphin.jpg

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

Nope. Let me know when they are able to hold an intelligent conversation.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?


as humans, my hope is that we one day evolve so we share the earth fairly with all creatures and do the best we can not to infringe upon their freedom, their habitat, their health, and their lives.

http://www.adoptadolphin.org.uk/Images/Home_CuteDolphin.jpg

Sounds like happy face socialism to me.

[ChaosControl]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?


as humans, my hope is that we one day evolve so we share the earth fairly with all creatures and do the best we can not to infringe upon their freedom, their habitat, their health, and their lives.

http://www.adoptadolphin.org.uk/Images/Home_CuteDolphin.jpg

:)

[Mike4Freedom]

In some cases animals are already free. Even dogs are as well. My dog does not have to listen to what I say. If she does'nt though no treats for her.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

In some cases animals are already free. Even dogs are as well. My dog does not have to listen to what I say. If she does'nt though no treats for her.

I like dog treats. yummy ;)

maybe my future wife will give me that treatment

[Fox McCloud]

no, they don't, and I'd strongly argue animals have zero rights, as well.

[The Patriot]

No.

[The Patriot]

Abuse of an animal is not a human right.

This.

[Dr.3D]

Nope. Let me know when they are able to hold an intelligent conversation.

Mine do. Perhaps you have not listened to them. They don't use speech the way we do, but they do communicate.

Here is an example:

My older dog is eating a bone and the younger one wants that bone. She goes over to the window and looks out and begins to bark. The older one drops the bone and goes to the window to see what she is barking about and then she trots over and takes the bone and starts to eat it.

If that isn't intelligent, please explain why it isn't.

[charrob]

Nope. Let me know when they are able to hold an intelligent conversation.

Dolphins Learn English:
YouTube - The Language of Dolphins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz3sQsTE5tA)

Dolphins Have Complex Language Between Themselves:
YouTube - Dolphin Communication (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOA9OPV6nU&feature=related)

Dolphins Communicate To Each Other Through 'Clicks' And 'Whistles':
YouTube - Dolphin Underwater Audio Sounds Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQeYkrYU28o&NR=1)

[nayjevin]

It seems to me that so long as we are limited in what we can know about the relative sentience (if that's the proper measure) of a given entity, it would be responsible to leave open the possibility that there are moral implications to our actions which involve that entity.

I'm sure that making laws about it would be a bad idea.

[Danke]

Dolphins Learn English:


Aww...

How do they taste with mashed potatoes?

[BenIsForRon]

Animals have rights.

Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Right to not be tortured.
Right to not have its entire species removed from existence due to non-essential human activity.

Now if you have to choose between feeding yourself and protecting an endangered species, you have to feed yourself, animal rights are overruled.

On the other hand, if you just want to build a water park that threatens an endangered species, then the animals rights win out and you can go fuck yourself.

[Anti Federalist]

Now if you have to choose between feeding yourself and protecting an endangered species, you have to feed yourself, animal rights are overruled.



"Rights" that can be overruled to suit your present need are not rights.

I don't have the right to kill and eat you just because I'm hungry.

You can write regulatory protections all you want, but you cannot assign rights where none exist.

[noxagol]

Animal rights makes human life impossible.

[charrob]

It seems to me that so long as we are limited in what we can know about the relative sentience (if that's the proper measure) of a given entity, it would be responsible to leave open the possibility that there are moral implications to our actions which involve that entity.


...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... :p ).

[noxagol]

...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... :p ).

That sounds like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

....So long and thanks for all the fish!!

[BenIsForRon]

"Rights" that can be overruled to suit your present need are not rights.

I don't have the right to kill and eat you just because I'm hungry.

You can write regulatory protections all you want, but you cannot assign rights where none exist.

They are separate and unequal to human rights, but they are still rights.

There are some people on this earth who think freedom of religion should not be a right. Yet most people in civil society believe it should be, and enforce those rights with the legal bodies set up by a constitution or other means. Same goes for animal rights.

[MelissaWV]

...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... :p ).

...except that they were whales.

[Krugerrand]

Animals have rights.

Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Right to not be tortured.
...

I'm sure the buffalo being eaten alive by the pack of wolves would agree with you. I doubt the pack of wolves would.

I hope humans don't have an obligation to feed the wolves so they don't torture the buffalo.

Of course, then there's what cats do to mice. We'll have a hard time stopping that one, too.

[AlexMerced]

This is a silly question on several fronts.

1. If animals have rights, they have them. It isn't a matter of "deserving" or not.
2. All sorts of people have rights, but others violate them, many times as punishment. You have a "right to vote," yet that can be taken away. You have a "right to bear arms," but there are situations where you probably shouldn't be able to (like when you are actually in prison for a viable offense).
3. Even if all animals have rights, that does not mean that we have to step on eggshells to defend and protect each and every one of them. We have rights to go on about our lives and not be a slave to conservation.
4. We must make value judgments about where our efforts will be focused, and those are invariably going to rely on the competence of the animal in question, often mingled with whether or not violating the creature's rights is in our self-interest.

Perhaps if cows could satisfactorily tapdance or balance the budget, we wouldn't eat so many hamburgers. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference. I seriously doubt there are sharks having this conference right now, about whether or not eating the next surfer they mistake for a seal is a violation of that surfer's rights. "Rights" exist, but so does competition and survival instinct.

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

[MelissaWV]

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

Yep. Just because someone/something has rights, does not mean that those rights will never be violated. Sometimes those violations are even for a perfectly fine reason. There might very well be a "moral" obligation to care for animals, but the standards for such are obviously not absolute.

[charrob]

...except that they were whales.

thank you, i stand corrected...the song of the whales. --just looked it up... 1986... that's about right (long time ago). Star Trek was always so good not just because of strong characterization but their plots always carried a powerful message like this...that we as humans walk around so arrogantly thinking we are the superior species and nothing else much matters... and this movie quite dramatically proves how that arrogance can sometimes blind us.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

thank you, i stand corrected...the song of the whales. --just looked it up... 1986... that's about right (long time ago). Star Trek was always so good not just because of strong characterization but their plots always carried a powerful message like this...that we as humans walk around so arrogantly thinking we are the superior species and nothing else much matters... and this movie quite dramatically proves how that arrogance can sometimes blind us.

*whispers*star trek also has a strong underlining theme advocating communism.

[noxagol]

*whispers*star trek also has a strong underlining theme advocating communism.

Yeah, piccard I think it is, explains how society works in the future in the movie where the borg go back in time to try and prevent humans from reaching warp speed and catching the attention of the vulcans. Sounds very communist to me.

[MelissaWV]

Yeah, piccard I think it is, explains how society works in the future in the movie where the borg go back in time to try and prevent humans from reaching warp speed and catching the attention of the vulcans. Sounds very communist to me.

It is and it isn't.

It's explained time and time again that there's no money, for instance, but there are also hints that a lot of things fell out of favor because they were replaced by better alternatives. Alcohol was replaced with synthahol (sp), but it doesn't appear to be outlawed, since real alcohol is kept by some of the crew openly. It's just seen as old-fashioned and pointless.

The communism angle is strong, yeah, but it's theoretical... it's touchy-feely and everything works properly. Things just seemed to fall into place after a time when things had been exceptionally bad.

It's sci-fi ;) Star Trek is pretty naive in a lot of ways.

[Danke]

I think we could learn a lot with how Capt. James T. Kirk treated Tribbles.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/tribbles.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

Music will bring us all together...

http://www.dustygroove.com/images/products/n/nimoy_leona_spacedout_101b.jpg

http://www.maidenwine.com/04_the%20touch/04_TTOLN_cover.jpg

[M House]

Um if you get in trouble for abusing an animal, why would I be sympathetic? There's little point in arguing that in nature animals aren't nice to each other. I assume as a human being you are holding yourself to some higher status anyway, if you say they have no rights. Animal protection laws are pretty limited anyway and don't have massive enforcement. I see no reason the state can't pass laws against you performing a variety of cruel acts to them either. Until they start legislating what dog food is acceptable to give your pet, I do not see this as a threat to your liberty.

[Krugerrand]

Um if you get in trouble for abusing an animal, why would I be sympathetic? There's little point in arguing that in nature animals aren't nice to each other. I assume as a human being you are holding yourself to some higher status anyway, if you say they have no rights. Animal protection laws are pretty limited anyway and don't have massive enforcement. I see no reason the state can't pass laws against you performing a variety of cruel acts to them either. Until they start legislating what dog food is acceptable to give your pet, I do not see this as a threat to your liberty.

I know more than one person that says it's cruel and abusive to but a bridle and bit on a horse. Outlawing that would hit a lot of people's way of life and is not legislating your dog's food.

[M House]

I know more than one person that says it's cruel and abusive to but a bridle and bit on a horse. Outlawing that would hit a lot of people's way of life and is not legislating your dog's food.

Something like that's probably not gonna fly. ALOT of people like riding horses. Then again we do have ALOT of stupid laws so its not impossible. Is there a good real life example of an animal rights type law you wanna bring up?

[M House]

There's the Animal Welfare Act which I'd have to disagree with since I don't see this as a Federal government power remotely. Though, I don't believe it was a terrible thing to do.

[andrewh817]

I think it's really too soon in modern society to bring up complaints about the abuse of other animals, when our own species is by far the most oppressed. Maybe this discussion should continue once humans by and large have attained freedom themselves.




If apes were intelligent enough to be able to live amongst humans and join in the debate on how they wanted society to interact, they would have to be on the same level as us in ability to enforce society's rules. Otherwise, they are subject to the whim of humans and their idea of how society should act.

Okay so what about children, then? They can't really join a debate on how they want society to be, so is it just to subject them to the whims of their elders?

[Krugerrand]

Something like that's probably not gonna fly. ALOT of people like riding horses. Then again we do have ALOT of stupid laws so its not impossible. Is there a good real life example of an animal rights type law you wanna bring up?

Nope. I was more interested in talking about the principle - not the legal application.

[Fox McCloud]

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

nor should it be forced upon me to treat animals in a particular fashion or not be allowed to own particular animals because "you're taking them from their natural environment". Well, if people want to use that silly argument, then we'd never have domestic dogs, cats, horses, cows, chickens, etc.

[Fox McCloud]

Okay so what about children, then? They can't really join a debate on how they want society to be, so is it just to subject them to the whims of their elders?

no, because they haven't matured or developed enough within their natural lifespan to make those kind of decisions yet, but they will be (absent brain damage, ultra-low IQ, retardation, down's syndrome, etc) able to one day--the same cannot be said for the great apes.

and I do think that there is a case for paternalism, up to a particular age (what age that is is still open to debate, I think).

[LibForestPaul]

when an ape can carry a gun, that is when i'll think about it

[JosephTheLibertarian]

when an ape can carry a gun, that is when i'll think about it

qft! :D I agree

[awake]

Why you're at it, issue property rights, the environmentalists will love it. They can finally deny man of all his property rights and instead issue them to the beasts of the earth.

I can see it now, "the rich polluting humans must pay the poor animals who are forced to live in poverty all due to our wasteful and selfish ways. Hurry, we must at once confiscate the wealth of men and transfer it to the animals!" Are they not the worlds poorest and underprivileged?

[MN Patriot]

“In my view, natural law and natural rights are human inventions (not discoveries) intended to further the interests of the inventors” L.A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights.

[andrewh817]

no, because they haven't matured or developed enough within their natural lifespan to make those kind of decisions yet, but they will be (absent brain damage, ultra-low IQ, retardation, down's syndrome, etc) able to one day--the same cannot be said for the great apes.

and I do think that there is a case for paternalism, up to a particular age (what age that is is still open to debate, I think).

If your answer is no, because they haven't matured or developed the brain power, then age has nothing to do with it.

My proposition is this, if you have an infant who is about to touch a hot stove or running into a busy street, by all means grab them. After that, gauge whether or not the child will understand the principle of heat = hurt, and speed x weight = force generated, and once they've demonstrated an understanding of those principles, don't initiate force on them any longer. Of course there are plenty of other important principles for safety, but I feel that's a good methodology for deciding when to stop initiating force.

[erowe1]

What does intelligence have to do with anything?

[charrob]

Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?



all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all of God's creatures.

[Anti Federalist]

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all of God's creatures.

Many here say there is no such thing as "god".

Those who think otherwise point to God's word where dominion and use of all resources is given exclusively to man.

[charrob]

Many here say there is no such thing as "god".

Those who think otherwise point to God's word where dominion and use of all resources is given exclusively to man.

ok... i'll re-word:

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all creatures.

it's just my opinion... ;)

[catdd]

Some of them already have more rights than the Palestinians.

[Anti Federalist]

ok... i'll re-word:

all animals deserve to live in an environment free from human pollution, overdevelopment, and cruelty. Humans should leave a small footprint so we share the earth fairly with all creatures.

it's just my opinion... ;)

Not trying to pick a fight, we are all just voicing our opinion, but for that to happen, the part in bold, about 5 billion people must go.

A dangerous road to go down.

[tmosley]

Animals will get rights when they respect the rights of humans, and not a second before. Unfortunately, 99.999999% of species don't have anywhere near the intellectual capacity to recognize the rights of others. Those that come close, like dolphins and apes, might get some rights, and in a real way, are treated better than other animals that don't recognize the rights of humans (like termites, rats, wolves, etc).

The rights that those animals will get will be a right to live without being murdered at will, and the right to property, as little as they keep.

[charrob]

Not trying to pick a fight, we are all just voicing our opinion, but for that to happen, the part in bold, about 5 billion people must go.

A dangerous road to go down.


i agree with you and have always felt unfettered increases in population are detrimental to our environment and nature. although i'm positive this is a very unpopular stance, i believe for each child one has, their taxes should be increased substantially not decreased through deductions: education, for one, should be paid for by those who choose to have children that use it. although small, incentives like this could slowly change and better balance population growth.

[libertythor]

What about the right of an Ostrich to marry a human? Studies show that they have a natural sexual attraction to humans.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1117284.ece

Dr Paxton’s colleague, Charles Deeming, said: “We found the females would often drop to their knees in mating position when humans were at the pen fence. Some male birds would try to take advantage of that, but their efforts were often clumsy and inept.”

Dr Paxton added: “The more the ostriches were interested in humans, the more hopeless they were at sex with other ostriches. Some males tried to mount females the wrong way round, and could have broken their legs.” An 8ft male can weigh 350 lbs.

Start at 1:30
YouTube - Natural Bridge Wildlife Ranch - Addax, Ostrich and Emu (HD 1080p) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPpWhukFVqU)

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

http://www.maidenwine.com/04_the%20touch/04_TTOLN_cover.jpg

Okay, that is an officially EVIL post there AF. IINM, that record has the godawful Ballad of Bilbo Baggins for which Nimoy should have to endure being whipped with a wet noodle, repeatedly, for singing.

[Anti Federalist]

Okay, that is an officially EVIL post there AF. IINM, that record has the godawful Ballad of Bilbo Baggins for which Nimoy should have to endure being whipped with a wet noodle, repeatedly, for singing.

HAHAHAHAHHAH

I was wondering if anybody was going to catch that.

LOLOLOLOL :D

[helmuth_hubener]

Something like that's probably not gonna fly. ALOT of people like riding horses. Then again we do have ALOT of stupid laws so its not impossible. Is there a good real life example of an animal rights type law you wanna bring up? They outlawed the horse processing industry a while ago. So now there's huge herds of wild horses ravaging the countryside in the west. Instead of selling the old or useless horse for a couple hundred bucks to be processed and sent to Asia or made into dog food, the owner must release the horse to the wild. Or shoot it covertly, which is illegal. It's a waste. All because someone thought eating horses was eww, icky.


Abuse of an animal is not a human right. Yes, it is.

Well, as long as you own the animal.

[Anti Federalist]

Okay, that is an officially EVIL post there AF. IINM, that record has the godawful Ballad of Bilbo Baggins for which Nimoy should have to endure being whipped with a wet noodle, repeatedly, for singing.

Ask, and ye shall recieve

:D

YouTube - UNCUT - FULL - Ballad of Bilbo Baggins - Leonard Nimoy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPh12Q7cpeE)

[low preference guy]

i wouldn't stop at animals. the strawberry plant should also be protected. strawberries are just too beautiful to be eaten.


http://wtcarbon.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/strawberries.jpg

[Pete Kay]

Rights are a human creation. The idea that rights exist because some cosmic force says so is just silly. In different nations, they have different rights. In most of the world, the right to free speech is not the same as it is in the US. If animals have rights, it's because we gave them rights. Animal cruelty laws exist because humans created them.

The question should not be about whether animals have rights, the question should be about what rights we want to give animals.