Humans over other animals

[Fujin]

I think even though animals are bred for food, they deserve a decent life. I am not against slaughtering animals for food, but I am against the treatment they receive in the process. Some of them suffer their entire life, and to me that is morally wrong on so many levels.

 

They do deserve to at least have a good life before they end up in some ones stomach.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think even though animals are bred for food, they deserve a decent life. I am not against slaughtering animals for food, but I am against the treatment they receive in the process. Some of them suffer their entire life, and to me that is morally wrong on so many levels.

 

They do deserve to at least have a good life before they end up in some ones stomach.

My point exactly.

[Axeldeath]

Sooooooo... Free range??

[BTGBullseye]

Sooooooo... Free range??

If only the price was less than double or triple the regular...

[ArEstus]

I don't have a problem with it. Because they don't have the ability to think to survive they probably would just become endangered in the wilderness. (of course talking about bovine, poultry, and the such) But I haven't put too much deep thought into the matter. Probably the reason for my superficial post. Never really bothered me honestly what else is going to feed humans? We need meat and because of the society we are forced to live in it only encourages population growth. Considering a mass switch to herbivorous diets is very shallow. Not only is meat very important to a human's diet not to mention good, but considering a mass switch is so far left wing nobody would go for it. Then you'd just have the classic communist/revolution game going on. And we all know communism simply doesn't work. Those of you who believe in communism or extreme totalitarian socialism are ignorant and stubborn.

[Michael Archer]

Yes, we should put ourselves above other animals. To survive and live happily, we need our reason to exploit the earth and use its resources. We can't do that to each other because humans have the right to life and to kill them would deprive them of that.

 

Animals don't have the right to life because rights only apply to rational beings in a social context. Humans deal with each other very differently than to how humans deal with animals or how animals deal with each other. If a man breaks into a farmer's crop, the farmer can take legal action against him. You can't do this with a deer. It would be insane to apply rights to species that can not understand them nor can abide by them. A man is acting immorally for killing another man, but a lion is not acting immorally by killing a man or another animal. The lion can not reason and that's the way it survives.

 

No one wants to see animals suffer needlessly and we should morally condemn people who abuse animals. We shouldn't do anything about it, though. The government's job is to protect rights and since animals don't have rights, the government should do nothing.

[Geneaux486]

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unnecessary pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[BTGBullseye]

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unecesarry pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

Another +rep... I think I'll add you as a friend...

[Alyxx Thorne]

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unnecessary pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

I think animals belong to the group of sentient beings. Just because we cannot communicate with them does not mean they don't have their own thoughts or feelings and are just as much sentient beings as we are. Even if we feed on them, they deserve to be treated with respect.

[ajapam]

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unnecessary pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

I think animals belong to the group of sentient beings. Just because we cannot communicate with them does not mean they don't have their own thoughts or feelings and are just as much sentient beings as we are. Even if we feed on them, they deserve to be treated with respect.

 

This ^^ I mean, if you ever owned a dog or probably any kind of animal, this would be obvious.

[Alyxx Thorne]

I think if you study any animal long enough, you will begin to see personality traits. It even happens with certain spider species.

[xxxxxxxxx]

While I have no real position on this matter, I'd like to know yours. Animals are treated as less than human. They are slaughtered in slaughterhouses with varying levels of brutality, but nonetheless, animals are being killed in a large amount to feed the massive population of humans. In your opinion, how justifiable is it to kill animals in a large amount to feed humans?

 

I don't like eating anything I haven't killed myself, but when I do, I don't have a personal affliction to the animal, just because it's a biological organism. Plants have blood and skin, I eat them too. I won't dispute anyone, or think negatively of anyone who chooses not to eat a living organism, whatever their reasons may be for doing so.

Bugs are alive. I fucking hate them. Call me anything you like, but I hate the numerous, tiny, poisonous, pheromone-producing bastards that plague the earth.

 

Mammals and reptiles are different though. They're mostly sentient, weaker beings that can be controlled through force. I love animals, and have eaten almost one of every kind. I've had dog, I own a dog, I've had cat, I own a cat. Just because something can be trained to fetch a stick doesn't mean I won't kill and eat it. It's the way humans have acted since the beginning of time. (Whenever you believe that happened.) I should think it would be only natural for Christians to like to eat Snake. >=D

[Alyxx Thorne]

I hear snakes taste like chicken.

[xxxxxxxxx]

I hear snakes taste like chicken.

They are tougher. But it kinda depends on how you cook them.

[Geneaux486]

The plants being living things point you made is a good one. Plants are the source of most of what we need to survive, whether we eat them directly, or eat animals that have eaten plants. It's an unavoidable food chain until we learn to conduct photosynthesis ourselves. I get sunburned easily so I haven't really tried much.

[Axeldeath]

While I have no real position on this matter, I'd like to know yours. Animals are treated as less than human. They are slaughtered in slaughterhouses with varying levels of brutality, but nonetheless, animals are being killed in a large amount to feed the massive population of humans. In your opinion, how justifiable is it to kill animals in a large amount to feed humans?

 

I don't like eating anything I haven't killed myself, but when I do, I don't have a personal affliction to the animal, just because it's a biological organism. Plants have blood and skin, I eat them too. I won't dispute anyone, or think negatively of anyone who chooses not to eat a living organism, whatever their reasons may be for doing so.

Bugs are alive. I fucking hate them. Call me anything you like, but I hate the numerous, tiny, poisonous, pheromone-producing bastards that plague the earth.

 

Mammals and reptiles are different though. They're mostly sentient, weaker beings that can be controlled through force. I love animals, and have eaten almost one of every kind. I've had dog, I own a dog, I've had cat, I own a cat. Just because something can be trained to fetch a stick doesn't mean I won't kill and eat it. It's the way humans have acted since the beginning of time. (Whenever you believe that happened.) I should think it would be only natural for Christians to like to eat Snake. >=D

 

 

Numerous...tiny...pheremone-producing bastards. You just described the human race.

[Michael Archer]

I don't agree with your view that rights only extend to rational beings in a social context. Your argument seems to treat rights as though they are a static, singular thing, when in fact rights can be dynamic, with varying degrees. I believe rights should extend to the capacity a living thing has, or will have as it developes. For instance, something that is capable of feeling pain should be protected from being caused unnecessary pain, especially if it cannot protect itself. Therefore it follows that in the situation of abused animals, the government should intervene.

 

"rights can be dynamic"? No they can't! Rights are inalienable; didn't you learn this in civics class? It's mandatory here in Canadian high schools...that's not related.

 

Giving animals rights would create a double standard; we would have to act differently towards them while they would not have to act differently towards us. That means I am not allowed to stop that deer from eating my crop or invading my house. How is that fair? If a human does that, I can bring them to court.

 

I don't want to see animals suffer; it hurts me to see animals suffer, but pain is not the basis of rights, nor is it the basis for why humans have rights. Humans need rights to function socially, since humans use reason to survive. If someone initiates force on a human being, they are rendered helpless. Force and mind are opposites; to survive the human mind needs to be free from force, so this is where rights come in.

 

Animals don't use reason to survive; evolution gave them the power to initiate force on other beings. You can't really blame them for that; that's how they survive.

 

That is what separates us from animals: humans survive and interact by peaceful trade using the power of reason; animals survive by killing each other through the initiation of force.

[Geneaux486]

No they can't! Rights are inalienable; didn't you learn this in civics class? It's mandatory here in Canadian high schools...that's not related.

 

You're speaking in a legal sense. Just because a government does or does not do something does not make it moral.

 

Giving animals rights would create a double standard; we would have to act differently towards them while they would not have to act differently towards us. That means I am not allowed to stop that deer from eating my crop or invading my house. How is that fair? If a human does that, I can bring them to court.

 

There is no double standard unless you make one. You can stop a deer from eating your crop, but if you catch and torture it, that is wrong.

 

I don't want to see animals suffer; it hurts me to see animals suffer, but pain is not the basis of rights, nor is it the basis for why humans have rights.

 

You and I view rights in two separate lights. I belive all living things have at least some rights, while you focus on whether or not a living thing can contribute to its society. I fear we may be at an impass.

 

Humans need rights to function socially, since humans use reason to survive. If someone initiates force on a human being, they are rendered helpless. Force and mind are opposites; to survive the human mind needs to be free from force, so this is where rights come in.

 

Why do you think there are laws that dictate hunting limits? Animals use reason to survive as well, simply to a lesser degree. We need animals to not go extinct for a large number of reasons. It benefits us to protect them, and even if it didn't, rights of animals should extend to their capacities of awareness.

 

Animals don't use reason to survive; evolution gave them the power to initiate force on other beings. You can't really blame them for that; that's how they survive.

 

The existence of learned behavior in animals contradicts this.

 

That is what separates us from animals: humans survive and interact by peaceful trade using the power of reason; animals survive by killing each other through the initiation of force.

 

Only if one type of animal is predatory towards another. There are plenty of species that do coexist without preying on one another. There are many examples of mutually beneficial relationships between different species.

[Michael Archer]

You're speaking in a legal sense. Just because a government does or does not do something does not make it moral.

 

Are you implying that rights are not inalienable and that people may violate them or take them away at whim?

 

Because if you are...well...that's anarchy...there's a thread for that.

 

There is no double standard unless you make one. You can stop a deer from eating your crop, but if you catch and torture it, that is wrong.

 

And one would be created if we gave animals rights.

 

How do I stop a deer from eating my crop? The cheapest and most economically efficient way (I get tasty meat!), is to shoot it. I can't do this to a human if I see him raiding my house and he runs away when I see him; it's the government's job to decide what to do with him; a deer can't defend itself in court. If we give animals rights, I can no longer shoot the deer; I must treat him as a human; a deer eating my crop is fundamentally identical to a man raiding my house. I can't take the deer to court, nor can I shoot him, nor can I have a pleasant conversation and ask him to stop. This is a double standard.

 

I too believe that it's morally wrong to catch a torture a deer eating your crop; it says a lot about yourself, how you view the world and other people. But we shouldn't do anything about it because it's not moral to initiate force on other humans and the only facility that should be allowed to use force is the government and only in retaliation to other people violating other people's rights.

 

And animals don't have rights.

 

You and I view rights in two separate lights. I belive all living things have at least some rights, while you focus on whether or not a living thing can contribute to its society. I fear we may be at an impass.

 

Way to take me out of context. I never said living things get rights if they can contribute to society; it would be evil to take away someone's rights because they don't "contribute to society" (if that even means anything). Rights define and sanction rational beings' actions in a society when it interacts with other rational beings. That's all I said.

 

Are you still following me?

 

Why do you think there are laws that dictate hunting limits? Animals use reason to survive as well, simply to a lesser degree. We need animals to not go extinct for a large number of reasons. It benefits us to protect them, and even if it didn't, rights of animals should extend to their capacities of awareness.

 

Hunting laws? You said earlier that we're talking about moral, not legal. I'm confused!

 

We need animals not to go extinct for a very good reason: so we can exploit them. e.g. use food, have pets, make coats. We exploit them the same way we exploit all of nature for all our daily commodities.

 

I agree; it would be devastating for them to go extinct.

 

Animals don't use reason to survive; evolution gave them the power to initiate force on other beings. You can't really blame them for that; that's how they survive.

 

The existence of learned behavior in animals contradicts this.

 

Please name one animal (not humans, obviously) that use the power of their reason to engage in peaceful trade with one another, to override their biological imperative, to establish a body to make sure their rights are protected.

 

As a human, I can use my reason to decide whether or not I follow by biological imperative i.e. get my freak on. I can override my instinct; only reason allows me to do that. Reason would not let the male angler fish get absorbed by the female to become her portable sperm bag. Reason would not allow the male praying mantis to literally risk his head for the sake of procreating. Reason would not allow the flatworm to penis fence its mate and risk becoming the mother (I'm not making this one up. It's funny, I know!).

 

That is what separates us from animals: humans survive and interact by peaceful trade using the power of reason; animals survive by killing each other through the initiation of force.

 

Only if one type of animal is predatory towards another. There are plenty of species that do coexist without preying on one another. There are many examples of mutually beneficial relationships between different species.

 

So like the anarchous autonomy in Monty Python and the Holy Grail! Heh, just kidding. But seriously, the crux of the argument for anarchy: "Humans are good, we get along fine! We don't need a government!". I'm sure there are many beneficial relationships that would come in anarchy.

 

But there are also many bad ones. Even if animals are not predatory towards each other, they still partake in a lot of forceful actions which are completely normal. I've seen a seagull violently chase another away for a piece of moldy bread in the parking lot of a supermarket. My point is that even though animals may not theoretically be hostile towards each other; in the jungle, might always makes right. Just like in an anarchous society.

[Geneaux486]

How do I stop a deer from eating my crop? The cheapest and most economically efficient way (I get tasty meat!), is to shoot it. I can't do this to a human if I see him raiding my house and he runs away when I see him; it's the government's job to decide what to do with him; a deer can't defend itself in court. If we give animals rights, I can no longer shoot the deer; I must treat him as a human; a deer eating my crop is fundamentally identical to a man raiding my house. I can't take the deer to court, nor can I shoot him, nor can I have a pleasant conversation and ask him to stop. This is a double standard.

 

I know many hunters who have killed deer. Let's say one of them cut off the deer's arms and legs and skinned it alive? Why should the governemtn *not* try to stop such cruelty?

 

Way to take me out of context. I never said living things get rights if they can contribute to society; it would be evil to take away someone's rights because they don't "contribute to society" (if that even means anything). Rights define and sanction rational beings' actions in a society when it interacts with other rational beings. That's all I said.

 

 

And animals interact with other animals in a way that benefits both. I'll get to that further down.

 

Hunting laws? You said earlier that we're talking about moral, not legal. I'm confused!

 

 

I'm covering your side as well as mine.

 

We need animals not to go extinct for a very good reason: so we can exploit them. e.g. use food, have pets, make coats. We exploit them the same way we exploit all of nature for all our daily commodities.

 

Yes, we use them for food, and as pets. Neither use justifies causing them undue harm. We rely on nature to survive, that never gives us the right abuse it, and so it is important for anyone in any position of power to protect nature from such abuse.

 

Please name one animal (not humans, obviously) that use the power of their reason to engage in peaceful trade with one another, to override their biological imperative, to establish a body to make sure their rights are protected.

 

Fish and anemones can have symbiotic relationships. The fish bring anemones nutrients while the anemones offer protection. The base instinct of both result in a peaceful trade. Just because they lack the same reason as us does not mean they are incapable of resourceful coexistance.

 

We as humans helping each other, while respecting the rest of the animal kingdom is not anarchy.