Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LukeatForest)
    I understand entirely what rights are, they just don't exist in anything but the imagination of a human being. You can't sit an animal down and talk to it about its rights. Two humans can indulge themselves with talks about rights but it doesn't change the fact that before they were born and after they die, what "rights" they had are irrelevant. Rights are basically things prescribed to you by other human beings with more power, anyway. Much in the same way as we are trying to do here with animals. If the powerful influences in our lives decided that actually, they're not going to give us rights any more then likewise we would have no "rights." Which is where we are with animals - we can give them an illusion of rights if we want but we're still going to round them up and slaughter them at t'end of the day. Which to me says they've no rights, except when it's convenient to us.
    off topic:
    What do you think of social contract theory?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    While I agree that Foi Grass and certain intensive farming techniques are cruel and inhumane, do you believe that chickens are capable of feeling an emotion as complex as happiness as we humans feel?

    I think some of that is anthropomorphising animals.

    But then again scientists make mice depressed by letting other mice bully them to test antidepressants... If they can feel depressed maybe they can feel happy... Follows logically if not scientifically.

    lol, I'm confusing myself. I'll shut up now.
    I believe most animals can understand at least on a basic level
    happiness and depression.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Like I said, that's the problem of other minds.
    This should be of interest:
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/
    Nice link. But that **** messes with my mind too much. I keep thinking "Is this made for me to find or is a common phenomenon that people believe this."

    :woo:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Politics Guy)
    Nice link. But that **** messes with my mind too much. I keep thinking "Is this made for me to find or is a common phenomenon that people believe this."

    :woo:

    Basically we don't have direct experience of other peoples minds so how do we know other people have minds?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Colour Me Pretty)
    I believe most animals can understand at least on a basic level
    happiness and depression.
    This. They have wants and desires, needs and necessities, and so as a living being they deserve rights.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varciani)
    This. They have wants and desires, needs and necessities, and so as a living being they deserve rights.
    Do they have preferences though?
    I've already answered this question (not on this forum) so to not influence your reply, I'll not post it, however;
    "since animals are unable to talk we can only suppose that they are unable to “have moral concepts” if indeed this amounts to anything other than being able to use moral language anyway. Therefore, we suppose that the reason we have no obligation to respect the animal’s point of view is that the animals don’t really have “points of view.”

    Narveson, J (1967). Morality and utility. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins Press. 87.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    If I had a human slave would you take that same view point with that situation?
    No. If you don't have a concept of a right you do not have that right, and vise versa.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Rights? no...maybe not. They probably have one right. The right to their life. Humans, on the other hand, do have rights.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    No.
    Why don't you instead of just saying no explain why not?
    What help do you think in a debate just saying no like that with out giving your reasoning will do?
    Or are you a troll?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    Rights? no...maybe not. They probably have one right. The right to their life. Humans, on the other hand, do have rights.
    Doesn't this need a fair bit of expansion.
    When is the right to their life applicable?
    Always?
    Are they to be protect by the state?
    In what way do you mean the word 'right'?
    Why only that right and not other rights?

    I'm not talking about the right to vote for instance, animals show sign of understanding what voting means so on so forth. It would be the same as talking about men having the right to abortions;
    "Many feminists hold that women have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same feminists are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too.”
    It's from somewhere from animal liberation by singer, but I found that extract of it here:
    White, J E (2006). Contemporary moral problems. 8th ed. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth. 379-380
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    No. If you don't have a concept of a right you do not have that right, and vise versa.
    So if a human slave didn't have the concept of a right, would it be okay to keep the said slave.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Do they have preferences though?
    I've already answered this question (not on this forum) so to not influence your reply, I'll not post it, however;
    "since animals are unable to talk we can only suppose that they are unable to “have moral concepts” if indeed this amounts to anything other than being able to use moral language anyway. Therefore, we suppose that the reason we have no obligation to respect the animal’s point of view is that the animals don’t really have “points of view.”

    Narveson, J (1967). Morality and utility. Baltimore, Maryland: The John Hopkins Press. 87.
    So we should not allow them rights simply because they cannot express their views?

    Surely, because of this, animals should be viewed as a separate case; we should use a different method to see if they 'deserve' rights? The current way of thinking just seems a little bias...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Doesn't this need a fair bit of expansion.
    When is the right to their life applicable?
    Always?
    Are they to be protect by the state?
    In what way do you mean the word 'right'?
    Why only that right and not other rights?

    I'm not talking about the right to vote for instance, animals show sign of understanding what voting means so on so forth. It would be the same as talking about men having the right to abortions;
    "Many feminists hold that women have the right to an abortion on request. It does not follow that since these same feminists are campaigning for equality between men and women they must support the right of men to have abortions too.”
    It's from somewhere from animal liberation by singer, but I found that extract of it here:
    White, J E (2006). Contemporary moral problems. 8th ed. Belmont, California: Thomson Wadsworth. 379-380
    What other right? I don't believe that they have other rights because as far as I am concerned all other rights involve humans. They take place in our world. Animals do NOT belong in our world, imo. They do not understand our world no more than a severly retarded person does. And the retarded person has only one right. The right to her life.

    When is the right to their life applicable?
    Always?
    I don't understand what you mean. They have the right to live their lives without coercion. Now ofc their rights can sometimes conflict with our rights. For example, If humans have the right to property then things get complicated. Say, I buy a piece of land in Africa. There are lions living there. Do they have a right to my property? namely, do they have the right to use my property? (to continue to live there?) if they do, then we no longer have property rights. If they don't, then we do have property rights.

    Are they to be protect by the state?
    No state is necessary for animals to have rights. Perhaps we do need a state to enforce those rights. Still, I don't see how this is relevant? The state right now does not "protect" their rights. But you do agree that animals have rights.

    In what way do you mean the word 'right'?
    In a Kantian sort of way? I didn't know the word right had different meanings.

    Why only that right and not other rights?
    Well you tell me what other rights can animals have?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I read an argument against this the other day, the general jist of which was that the concept of having 'rights' is linked to having responsibilities in society, and that, because animals don't have such responsibilities, you could argue that they also do not have rights. :dontknow:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    1)What other right? I don't believe that they have other rights because as far as I am concerned all other rights involve humans. They take place in our world. Animals do NOT belong in our world, imo. They do not understand our world no more than a severly 2)retarded person does. And the retarded person has only one right. The right to her life.


    3)I don't understand what you mean. They have the right to live their lives without coercion. Now ofc their rights can sometimes conflict with our rights. For example, If humans have the right to property then things get complicated. Say, I buy a piece of land in Africa. There are lions living there. Do they have a right to my property? namely, do they have the right to use my property? (to continue to live there?)4) if they do, then we no longer have property rights. If they don't, then we do have property rights.


    5) No state is necessary for animals to have rights. Perhaps we do need a state to enforce those rights. Still, I don't see how this is relevant? The state right now does not "protect" their rights. 6) But you do agree that animals have rights.


    In a Kantian sort of way? I didn't know the word right had different meanings.


    Well you tell me what other rights can animals have?

    Rights are either natural or legal. Which type do you mean?
    I'm presuming the former, in which case see my past post on rights (it has a link to Bentham's view, which I currently agree with).

    1)Well surely the right to life could be interpreted in a way that allows for battery farms? The birds are still alive?

    2) It's nice that you're at least not hypocritical in that regards.
    How do you feel about babies and rights?

    3) Rights in the legal sense would be the state has made these laws and rights to be followed. In a liberal state we'd be protected as an individual, but would you say the gnu should be protected from the lion?

    4) Not a valid argument, but close to one, surely if animals were there and you had to accommodate them, property rights could still exist. Firstly what about say, my clothes.
    Secondly what if a piece of land has no animals on it?

    5) again this is dependent of what you mean by rights, my Kant is a bit rusty (and I'm not that well read on him anyway) could you give me a brief definition of what he means by rights?

    6) I would agree some animals have been granted rights, but that's going by legal rights, most animals haven't been granted any.

    Link to Bentham:
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/#SH5b
    go to contents and click on 5b in the contents.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrospect)
    I read an argument against this the other day, the general jist of which was that the concept of having 'rights' is linked to having responsibilities in society, and that, because animals don't have such responsibilities, you could argue that they also do not have rights. :dontknow:
    That seems to be based in social contract theory.

    But you have to subscribe to social contract theory for that argument to be applicable really (or a similar theory).

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varciani)
    So we should not allow them rights simply because they cannot express their views?

    Surely, because of this, animals should be viewed as a separate case; we should use a different method to see if they 'deserve' rights? The current way of thinking just seems a little bias...
    If they don't have language they don't have the views you're talking about (at least that's that particular argument, I don't subscribe to it myself).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Rights are either natural or legal. Which type do you mean?
    I'm presuming the former, in which case see my past post on rights (it has a link to Bentham's view, which I currently agree with).

    1)Well surely the right to life could be interpreted in a way that allows for battery farms? The birds are still alive?

    2) It's nice that you're at least not hypocritical in that regards.
    How do you feel about babies and rights?

    3) Rights in the legal sense would be the state has made these laws and rights to be followed. In a liberal state we'd be protected as an individual, but would you say the gnu should be protected from the lion?

    4) Not a valid argument, but close to one, surely if animals were there and you had to accommodate them, property rights could still exist. Firstly what about say, my clothes.
    Secondly what if a piece of land has no animals on it?

    5) again this is dependent of what you mean by rights, my Kant is a bit rusty (and I'm not that well read on him anyway) could you give me a brief definition of what he means by rights?

    6) I would agree some animals have been granted rights, but that's going by legal rights, most animals haven't been granted any.

    Link to Bentham:
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/#SH5b
    go to contents and click on 5b in the contents.
    1) How? can you get a chicken inside a battery cage without interfering with its life? I seriously doubt it. You "manipulating" it is strike one. You putting it into a cage is strike two. You continuing to manipulating it everyday whilst it is inside the cage is strike three.

    2)Same thing. What other rights to babies have other than not to be eaten/killed/beaten/etc? (i.e. the right to their life)

    3) Protected legally? I do not have a clear view regarding legal rights so I don't know if I can answer this. I do tend to favour natural rights though utilitarianism sucks :p:

    **4) If animals are there and if I have a right to that area then I can do whatever I like with that area. I can bomb it if I choose to do so...Now if humans were in that area, I could ask them to leave. If they didn't leave, I had the right to force them to leave. I don't see how this is different with respect to animals (other than I can not communicate with animals this way ofc)

    5) "Let justice be done though the world perish?"

    6) No I meant that just because animals have not been granted "rights" yet doesn't mean that they don't have "rights". Slaves had rights. It's just that those rights were simply violated. But theoretically speaking, they had rights all long, don't you think?

    edit: **whether or not there are animals on the land RIGHT NOW is not really relevant (I used it as an example). If a lion were to come later, would she then acquire a right to my property? (to come inside?) I don't know that animals respect any right. Which is a problem really...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    1) How? can you get a chicken inside a battery cage without interfering with its life? I seriously doubt it. You "manipulating" it is strike one. You putting it into a cage is strike two. You continuing to manipulating it everyday whilst it is inside the cage is strike three.

    2)Same thing. What other rights to babies have other than not to be eaten/killed/beaten/etc? (i.e. the right to their life)

    3) Protected legally? I do not have a clear view regarding legal rights so I don't know if I can answer this. I do tend to favour natural rights though utilitarianism sucks :p:

    4) If animals are there and if I have a right to that area then I can do whatever I like with that area. I can bomb it if I choose to do so...Now if Humans were in that area, I could ask them to leave. If they didn't leave, I had the right to force them to leave. I don't see how this is different with respect to animals.

    5) "Let justice be done though the world perish?"

    6) No I meant that just because animals have not been granted "rights" yet doesn't mean that they don't have "rights". Slaves had rights. It's just that those rights were simply violated. But theoretically speaking, they had rights all long, don't you think?

    Click on my link then reply again.
    Your 5) is incredibly vague and serves no use to anyone who does not know the context of what Kant was talking about. Please explain what rights to Kant are.

    with regards to 1) you called it the right to life, not you're calling it a right to a life without interference. This is where the confusion lies.

    You haven't addressed my points made on 4).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Farm animals (pigs, chickens etc) should not be kept out of their natural environment or in cages. We exploit them far too much in the sense that we can buy eggs from battery hens simply because it's cheaper.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,782

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.