Turn on thread page Beta

Will animals ever be granted right? Should they be? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Should animals be granted rights?
    Yes - animals should be granted rights; and yes I think it will happen in the future
    21
    20.39%
    Yes - animals should be granted rights; but I do not think it will never happen
    24
    23.30%
    Undecided
    5
    4.85%
    No animals should not be granted right; but I do think it will happen in the future
    7
    6.80%
    No - animals should not be granted rights; and I do not think it will happen in the future
    46
    44.66%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The day that animals stop ****ing their mothers, THEN I'll give them rights...

    A right to life and liberty?
    Well, most animals have a life, and if they die, then y'know, it's just the circle of life.

    As for liberty, try opening the door to a housepet and going "You're free! On you go, go live a happy life in the magical forest with the friendly badger and the witty owl!"

    And to be honest, there are probably enough laws and care to allow most animals to live a good life. (RSPCA, laws against abuse etc)
    Not all, but then again, there are humans living in poverty as well.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    I thought you implied humans and animals both needed rights?
    Rights protecting them against us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Humans are animals that know their state so yeah I believe animals should have rights in this planet or at least we shouldn't exterminate them even though its the circle of life killing them...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    Rights protecting them against us.
    Ok what about rights protecting humans from animals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway as horrible as it looks, we will never give as much rights to animals than to humans because a race protects his own race before others( if they do protect others)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Ok what about rights protecting humans from animals?
    We're perfectly capable of protecting ourselves I think. I never have to worry about it in my day to day life.

    And then there is killing in self defence of course, which I consider acceptable if a last resort.
    Offline

    3
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Ok what about rights protecting humans from animals?
    I think it would be reasonable to say that humans take advantage of non-human animals far more often and far more systematically than non-animals take advantage of humans. That being said, if an tiger ever attacked you for food you wouldn't find me objecting to your shooting of it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Ok what about rights protecting humans from animals?
    These already exist. The Human Rights Act protects people in the UK from being harmed by animals (amongst other things) as part of the rights to life and personal body.
    If a animal attacks a human, it is generally put down by the authorities post-haste regardless of the views of the owner.


    Back on-topic, some of the views expressed in this thread are utterly ridiculous.
    Simply acknowledging that animals can and should be the subject of 'rights' doesn't really entail much. Whether its still legitimate to eat/keep them as pets etc. is unclear; I think its reasonable to acknowledge that animals should at least have the right not to be subjected to inhumane treatment.

    Any attempt to single out some 'special' characteristic of humans that justifies us having rights and animals not (NOTE: this is different to justifying humans having MORE rights than animals) ultimately always fails. Humans are animals, we are part of the same evolutionary chain. Everything that people see as unique to humanity: love, care for one's friends and families, altruism, conscious thought, the use of tools: these are ALL found in abundance in the animal kingdom, there is nothing 'special' about humanity biologically. Any viewpoint that says "humans have rights, animals don't have any at all" is therefore totally arbitrary. The only jusitifiable reason for giving a being rights is sentience and the ability to experience pain; its hard to deny that animals come under this category. What the substance of these rights should be is another issue entirely.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappinessHappening)
    That's something I'm reading about now. I'm going to pretend to know what sort of criteria would be suitable, but some of Singer's suggestions are quite interesting so far. Steven Wise has some points worth considering too.

    haven't read beyond this yet, so sorry if any of this has been said.

    I knew, just knew from your first post that you'd been reading a bit of singer.

    have you got to the bit where he advocates testing on the disabled? or the bit where its acceptable for babies to be killed as he see's it in the same light as abortion?

    Don't argue from Singer's point of view, in order for his speciesism to follow through as a consistent moral theory, it becomes a moral theory which is morally dubious in a practical and applicable sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesuperficial)
    haven't read beyond this yet, so sorry if any of this has been said.

    I knew, just knew from your first post that you'd been reading a bit of singer.

    have you got to the bit where he advocates testing on the disabled? or the bit where its acceptable for babies to be killed as he see's it in the same light as abortion?

    Don't argue from Singer's point of view, in order for his speciesism to follow through as a consistent moral theory, it becomes a moral theory which is morally dubious in a practical and applicable sense.
    He doesn't argue either of those things; he points out that it is a logical consequence of resting the notion of rights on some of the arbitrary considerations that people have proposed to justify giving rights to humans and not animals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:


    No, of course they shouldn't....
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ConservativeNucleophile)


    No, of course they shouldn't....
    Any reason for this?
    http://packphour.files.wordpress.com...mmon-sense.jpg
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Any reason for this?
    http://packphour.files.wordpress.com...mmon-sense.jpg
    Animals taste nice and it's natural to eat them. End.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yuffie)
    Animals taste nice and it's natural to eat them. End.
    Both of those facts are utterly and totally irrelevant to whether animals should have rights.

    On another point, I see that you have decided to ignore my response to you just a couple of posts above?
    http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4c...sful_troll.jpg
    If you have something sensible to add to the topic, say it. If not, stop trolling. This is D&D.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Simply acknowledging that animals can and should be the subject of 'rights' doesn't really entail much. Whether its still legitimate to eat/keep them as pets etc. is unclear; I think its reasonable to acknowledge that animals should at least have the right not to be subjected to inhumane treatment.

    Any attempt to single out some 'special' characteristic of humans that justifies us having rights and animals not (NOTE: this is different to justifying humans having MORE rights than animals) ultimately always fails. Humans are animals, we are part of the same evolutionary chain. Everything that people see as unique to humanity: love, care for one's friends and families, altruism, conscious thought, the use of tools: these are ALL found in abundance in the animal kingdom, there is nothing 'special' about humanity biologically. Any viewpoint that says "humans have rights, animals don't have any at all" is therefore totally arbitrary. The only jusitifiable reason for giving a being rights is sentience and the ability to experience pain; its hard to deny that animals come under this category. What the substance of these rights should be is another issue entirely.

    And I said humans' specific characteristics have been being intelligent enough to further their own species (the goal of all species, no?) by developing the technology to farm and experiment on animals.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    He doesn't argue either of those things; he points out that it is a logical consequence of resting the notion of rights on some of the arbitrary considerations that people have proposed to justify giving rights to humans and not animals.
    I was in a rush, and phrased that badly and wrongly.

    However, Singer doesn't exactly move away from abitrary considerations of rights, he still places beings on a sliding scale using Lockeian personhood ideas. i.e. reason, reflection and being able to consider oneself as 'being'. So Singer would consider an animal who demonstrates these abilities to some degree as having a higher moral standing than a disabled person or child (if there is a conflict of interests)

    In some cases, such as battery farming etc, Singers argument is fine, but like all utilitarian arguments, it fails to be one which can be fully applicable, it goes, if nothing else, against our common sense and instincts of self-preservation. In this, it is a hard standpoint to argue from.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Back on-topic, some of the views expressed in this thread are utterly ridiculous.
    Simply acknowledging that animals can and should be the subject of 'rights' doesn't really entail much. Whether its still legitimate to eat/keep them as pets etc. is unclear; I think its reasonable to acknowledge that animals should at least have the right not to be subjected to inhumane treatment.

    Any attempt to single out some 'special' characteristic of humans that justifies us having rights and animals not (NOTE: this is different to justifying humans having MORE rights than animals) ultimately always fails. Humans are animals, we are part of the same evolutionary chain. Everything that people see as unique to humanity: love, care for one's friends and families, altruism, conscious thought, the use of tools: these are ALL found in abundance in the animal kingdom, there is nothing 'special' about humanity biologically. Any viewpoint that says "humans have rights, animals don't have any at all" is therefore totally arbitrary. The only jusitifiable reason for giving a being rights is sentience and the ability to experience pain; its hard to deny that animals come under this category. What the substance of these rights should be is another issue entirely.
    There are some quite compelling arguments as to why reason and rationality separate us from animals. Kant, Frey, Korsgaard.

    But I agree about sentience and pain being the basis for according animals something. If not rights, then at least a basis for moral considerability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Only the higher species. Living meat should be excluded by all accounts, as their only rights are to end up on my dinner plate. YUM!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesuperficial)
    However, Singer doesn't exactly move away from abitrary considerations of rights, he still places beings on a sliding scale using Lockeian personhood ideas. i.e. reason, reflection and being able to consider oneself as 'being'. So Singer would consider an animal who demonstrates these abilities to some degree as having a higher moral standing than a disabled person or child (if there is a conflict of interests)

    In some cases, such as battery farming etc, Singers argument is fine, but like all utilitarian arguments, it fails to be one which can be fully applicable, it goes, if nothing else, against our common sense and instincts of self-preservation. In this, it is a hard standpoint to argue from.
    That is not what Singer argues. Singer does not go into what the substance of rights should be, and that is not what this topic is about. It is enough merely to accept that animals are sentient, therefore their interests warrant moral consideration, therefore they have rights.
    Common sense and instincts are based on logic. You can't just vaguely refer to common sense and instincts as justifying something; you need to point to a logical basis.
    You appear to be taking a completely hypothetical situation, and then trying to debunk what is clearly the only rational and logical standpoint by referring to non-defined and non-descript notions of 'common sense and instincts of self-preservation' without any justification for this.

    (Original post by thesuperficial)
    There are some quite compelling arguments as to why reason and rationality separate us from animals. Kant, Frey, Korsgaard.

    But I agree about sentience and pain being the basis for according animals something. If not rights, then at least a basis for moral considerability.
    Kant wrote in 1800; his observations have since been proved totally false. Neither Frey nor Korsgaard are particularly convincing in this regard.

    It is simply false that there is a dividing line between animals and humans which says "humans can use reason and act rationally, animals can't". Animals clearly can reason their way through problems and clearly do act rationally. Chimps have even been taught to communicate on a very high standard using sign language.
    We evolved from animals. Once you accept that simple fact, you can't deny that we get all our characteristics from animals, simply because we are animals. In evolution, there is no arbitrary dividing line of this type. The only way you could possibly maintain that animals are not entitled to no rights at all and that humans are is via a religious explanation which holds humans in some sort of special esteem. Short of God, there is no possible arbitrary dividing line between humans and animals because of the way that evolution works.

    (Original post by Yuffie)
    And I said humans' specific characteristics have been being intelligent enough to further their own species (the goal of all species, no?) by developing the technology to farm and experiment on animals.
    There are plenty of animals who have a good degree of intelligence, and who act in order to further their own species. What would actually be correct would be to say that animals are MORE intelligent, as a species. This is true. You are then identifying the notion of 'rights' as being based on intelligence. You could then justify giving humans MORE and BETTER rights than animals. But, if that is the case, you must then logically accept that intelligent animals must have SOME rights, by virtue of the fact that they do have intelligence. I really don't see any possible way to escape this conclusion, other than by reference to a God.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    That is not what Singer argues. Singer does not go into what the substance of rights should be, and that is not what this topic is about. It is enough merely to accept that animals are sentient, therefore their interests warrant moral consideration, therefore they have rights.
    Common sense and instincts are based on logic. You can't just vaguely refer to common sense and instincts as justifying something; you need to point to a logical basis.
    You appear to be taking a completely hypothetical situation, and then trying to debunk what is clearly the only rational and logical standpoint by referring to non-defined and non-descript notions of 'common sense and instincts of self-preservation' without any justification for this.


    Kant wrote in 1800; his observations have since been proved totally false. Neither Frey nor Korsgaard are particularly convincing in this regard.

    It is simply false that there is a dividing line between animals and humans which says "humans can use reason and act rationally, animals can't". Animals clearly can reason their way through problems and clearly do act rationally. Chimps have even been taught to communicate on a very high standard using sign language.
    We evolved from animals. Once you accept that simple fact, you can't deny that we get all our characteristics from animals, simply because we are animals. In evolution, there is no arbitrary dividing line of this type. The only way you could possibly maintain that animals are not entitled to no rights at all and that humans are is via a religious explanation which holds humans in some sort of special esteem. Short of God, there is no possible arbitrary dividing line between humans and animals because of the way that evolution works.
    1. well it is what Singer argues. His argument covers the concept of personhood as well as preference utilitarian model which is based on the equal consideration of interests.

    2. when did I say that Singer gave substance about what rights should be? I simply pointed out his argument, and the things that follow from that.

    3. I agreed with you about sentience and pleasure/pain. That doesn't stop me disagreeing with Singer's argument as a whole.

    4. dont patronise me.

    5. Kant may have written a long time ago, but he still has relevance here. Particulary his points about animals having relative value, and the idea that we have indirect duties towards humanity to treat animals with respect. Espeically, he notes, considering that animals clearly feel pain. Would you like to explain properly how Kant has been proved 'totally false'? quite a sweeping statement. feel free to justify it.

    6. Frey has his moments, but I agree, is not especially convincing. However, Korsgaard's ideas about animals being engaged in conscious activity whilst not been conscious of them, is better.

    7. Animals don't CLEARLY do anything, we make assumptions on their behalf, and their behaviour appears similar to ours in many way. This does not mean that they CLEARLY reason, or are rational beings.

    8. I am not arguing for no rights at all, where on earth did I say that? don't put words in my mouth. Disagreeing with Singer does not neccesarily mean I don't advocate humane treatment and moral considerabilty for animals. It just means I think they are DIFFERENT ENOUGH to have moral considerabilities of different kinds. i.e. different enough in the sense that adults and children are different enough to have separate moral considerability.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.