Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We passed legislation in Parliament as far back as 1932 that gave animals some rights - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/a...imals-act-1932
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    We passed legislation in Parliament as far back as 1932 that gave animals some rights - http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/a...imals-act-1932
    Do you think animals should have rights?
    If so which rights?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Do you think animals should have rights?
    If so which rights?
    Some should (e.g. animals that are dependent on human beings for their welfare) and some shouldn't (locusts/flies/ants - the sort of things that unchecked can cause a public health hazard).

    As for which ones, that's too complicated a question to answer for these boards - I'll leave that to colleagues in the RSPCA.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    Some should (e.g. animals that are dependent on human beings for their welfare) and some shouldn't (locusts/flies/ants - the sort of things that unchecked can cause a public health hazard).

    As for which ones, that's too complicated a question to answer for these boards - I'll leave that to colleagues in the RSPCA.
    I've met some really f* idiots at the RSPCA, not saying they're all idiots, but...oh they didn't understand basic animal rights concepts.
    Not as bad as PETA though.

    Do you think that humans should be allowed to do whatever they want to animals?
    Do you think that animals should be free from human harm, from meat eating to wearing leather to eggs and milk so on so forth?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    for those of you that don't think animals should be equally considered please type earthlings into google and then click video and watch the documentary. Make sure you watch it the whole of the way through and then judge it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    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).
    Ok, the Kantian tradition of rights. Not treating people as means to ends. Treating people (maybe animals too?) as ends in themselves. Each person has rights and those rights impose constraints on other people's goals. Rights trump interests/obligations and therefore each person's rights which must be respected by everyone else. I already know you disagree with this...(on account of your Benthamism :p:)

    Also think Locke with regards to property. Natural rights/inalienable rights. Those rights will dictate state law, not the other way around, imo. So whether or not the state recognises my right to property is irrelevant. It still exists.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    x
    As for 1) and 4)

    1) I have already explained this:
    (Original post by SunOfABeach)
    They have the right to live their lives without coercion
    4) Tell me what you did not understand. I thought I made myself clear?

    I'll check the Bentham link although I think I already know what he was talking about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I've met some really f* idiots at the RSPCA, not saying they're all idiots, but...oh they didn't understand basic animal rights concepts.
    Not as bad as PETA though.

    Do you think that humans should be allowed to do whatever they want to animals?
    Do you think that animals should be free from human harm, from meat eating to wearing leather to eggs and milk so on so forth?
    Like I said earlier, for some, explicitly not, but for others, I don't think we should go about legislating saying "OK, you are allowed to pour hot water on ants' nests" or "go ahead with pouring salt on slugs." We'd run out of paper to write the laws on.

    Should animals be free from human harm? Again, depends which animals you're talking about. If you decided to prosecute every child who stamped on a beetle we may as well turn schools into prisons. And as for those gardeners...

    Where does it end? Stopping animals from harming each other?

    "On the fourth of August 1941 it is alleged that the defendant, a Mister Thomas the Cat - AKA "Tom" knowingly and maliciously tried to strike the defendant, a Mister Gerald the Mouse - AKA "Jerry" - with a broom."


    I like to take the Al Murray view that in Britain we have reasonable laws because we are a reasonable people, and that a well-functioning Parliament (big assumption I know) stops the executive from proposing laws that allow things to get out of hand. I couldn't possibly comment on his claim that if we had no rules, we'd be in France, and if we had too many rules, we'd be in Germany and if we had too many rules in favour of cyclists, we'd be in the Netherlands.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RugbyLad)
    for those of you that don't think animals should be equally considered please type earthlings into google and then click video and watch the documentary. Make sure you watch it the whole of the way through and then judge it.
    I'm not a particularly big fan of that. It relies heavily on shocking images.
    However if you're interested in the philosophy behind it, a basic and interesting start are some parts of animal liberation-singer
    Classical utilitarianism
    preference utilitarianism

    'unsanctifying Human Life'- Kuhse, H
    'The case for animal rights'-Regan, T
    'Against liberation'-Leahy -M P T
    'In defence of Animals'-Singer P
    Something by Frey
    'And defending animal rights'-Regan, T
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    theres too much love you have positive rep u wonderful person
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i see this like a pyramid of power in a way, we are at the top, they are below, we enjoy cooking and eating animals so how can someone be such a hypocrite and say consider animals got rights. I mean we breed animals in a way so that we can eat more of them.
    The problem comes in when people or companies dont know where to put the limit, bcos there should be a limit to how much you make animals suffer, i mean we kill them to fill our stomachs but probably in a way they could have a better life-short one though.

    I still think of animals as food, and just considering the idea of survivng with only vegetables is.......(cant even say it with words)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamnotarobot)
    Do you consider animals equal to humans?
    Equal to humans in what sense? They are not of a similar level of intelligence, that's for sure. But that doesn't make them less worthy of living. If it's a question of intelligence, then are people with below average intelligence less equal than you and me? Certainly not.
    The whole idea of equality is a human construct; I find it difficult to apply it to such an arguement.

    Yes, in some cases, people value a human life more than an animal's life, but does that really determine whether animals are inferior to humans. Some may argue that animals are more important to the eco-system and the well-being of the planet that the humans; in this sense, animals are superior to humans.

    Honestly, I don't know the answer to this question.

    Would you go out of your way to help an animal in distress?
    Of course I would; provided that I had to ability to help the animal in the first place; and if not, I would more than likely contact an organisation that could help the animal.

    Are you automatically caused grief or pain or whatever by the thought of harm coming to an animal?
    Yes. Blood sport is barbaric and disgusting.

    And I understand that the whole point of this question is to allow other users to say: "Yeah, but you probably still eat meat, and those animals were killed an butchered!"

    But whatever...

    In a situation where for whatever reason it was necessary, would you be able to cause harm to an animal yourself?
    It really depends on the situation. If an animal was threatening me, I would defend myself. But otherwise, I wouldn't be able to.

    And just generally, do animals have rights? What are they, and how do they compare to humans'?
    Yes, if animals are in the care of humans, then it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the animal is well taken care of. It is the animal's right to be treated humanely.

    Wild animals are no exception. If they are to be destroyed, then it must be done humanely.

    Animals have the right, in our society, to live a life without suffering.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    So if a human slave didn't have the concept of a right, would it be okay to keep the said slave.
    Yes. it would also be within ones right to enslave the owner, as enslaving ones fellow human shows acceptance of the right to enslave humans. In doing so one would also open himself up to slavery. And then the right to own a slave would then be dictated by ability to own a slave, rather than right.

    The whole concept of 'right' is farcical to some extent. Unless there is a God, no one has the right to anything. Going on the atheistic premise that God doesn't exist, there is no wrong or right, just what makes the individual feel good and what one can enforce. Animals have as much of a right not to be tortured by animals as animals have as much of a right not to be tortured by us. Cats play with live mice and rip them to shreds. This is not because they are hungry. This is neither right or wrong. This is something that happens in our world. Humans hurt animals for our own ends. It is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that happens in our world. Whether we choose to not use animals to satisfy our ultimately hedonistic ends is neither right nor wrong. It is just a choice humans make. Sticking to an atheistic premise, there is no outside objective right, therefore nothing is anything but existence. Whether I torture a horse for my own enjoyment or not, on the grand scale of things that does very little. The universe is billions of years old, if animals had a sacred right to die of bacteria or injury I'm sure it would have manifested itself by now. What is certain is that if we stick to atheism, your right is no less right than my right, and my wrongs are no less wrong than your wrongs. When it comes to rights and morals, it is true to say that one's perception is the reality upon which one act, however farcical and unreal that may be. Animals do not have rights, objectively, because rights do not exist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Do you consider animals equal to humans? yes
    Would you go out of your way to help an animal in distress? yes of course, i couldnt bare to think that i left them suffering
    Are you automatically caused grief or pain or whatever by the thought of harm coming to an animal? yes
    In a situation where for whatever reason it was necessary, would you be able to cause harm to an animal yourself?
    i doubt it
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paella)
    Yes. it would also be within ones right to enslave the owner, as enslaving ones fellow human shows acceptance of the right to enslave humans. In doing so one would also open himself up to slavery. And then the right to own a slave would then be dictated by ability to own a slave, rather than right.

    The whole concept of 'right' is farcical to some extent. Unless there is a God, no one has the right to anything. Going on the atheistic premise that God doesn't exist, there is no wrong or right, just what makes the individual feel good and what one can enforce. Animals have as much of a right not to be tortured by animals as animals have as much of a right not to be tortured by us. Cats play with live mice and rip them to shreds. This is not because they are hungry. This is neither right or wrong. This is something that happens in our world. Humans hurt animals for our own ends. It is neither right nor wrong. It is just something that happens in our world. Whether we choose to not use animals to satisfy our ultimately hedonistic ends is neither right nor wrong. It is just a choice humans make. Sticking to an atheistic premise, there is no outside objective right, therefore nothing is anything but existence. Whether I torture a horse for my own enjoyment or not, on the grand scale of things that does very little. The universe is billions of years old, if animals had a sacred right to die of bacteria or injury I'm sure it would have manifested itself by now. What is certain is that if we stick to atheism, your right is no less right than my right, and my wrongs are no less wrong than your wrongs. When it comes to rights and morals, it is true to say that one's perception is the reality upon which one act, however farcical and unreal that may be. Animals do not have rights, objectively, because rights do not exist.
    Go through the thread and read my posts.
    Including links provided to the relevant points made in your post.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's really difficult to say, I think, and it's something I struggle with. I think there are some animals that are more equal than others, and anyone who says otherwise is talking crap- I would always save a human over another animal, as would anyone in their right mind. At the same time I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the thought that we mistreat and kill living things who have some degree of consciousness and intelligence- even if it isn't to the same degree as ours.

    Basically, I think it's an important question that can't be answered, and that anyone who says simply 'no they're food' or 'yes they're equal' are kidding themselves. I'm en route to vegetarianism just so I don't have to grapple with the morals of it all.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    It's really difficult to say, I think, and it's something I struggle with. I think there are some animals that are more equal than others, and anyone who says otherwise is talking crap- I would always save a human over another animal, as would anyone in their right mind. At the same time I feel increasingly uncomfortable with the thought that we mistreat and kill living things who have some degree of consciousness and intelligence- even if it isn't to the same degree as ours.

    Basically, I think it's an important question that can't be answered, and that anyone who says simply 'no they're food' or 'yes they're equal' are kidding themselves. I'm en route to vegetarianism just so I don't have to grapple with the morals of it all.
    Care to back any of that with this brilliant thing called logic?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Care to back any of that with this brilliant thing called logic?
    Well, I figured the example I used explained my point adequately- that I can't imagine anyone saving an animal's life over a child's life. Would you?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Well, I figured the example I used explained my point adequately- that I can't imagine anyone saving an animal's life over a child's life. Would you?
    You've not said why a childs life should or shouldn't be considered as more important.
    Furthermore "I'm en route so I don't have to grapple with the morals" etc.
    So you're not a vegetarian?
    And vegetarianism is a lifestyle not a diet, meaning you can drink milk, eat eggs and honey, wear leather and suede.
    All being a vegetarian means is that you don't knowingly digest animal matter and actively try to avoid doing so.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    You've not said why a childs life should or shouldn't be considered as more important.
    Furthermore "I'm en route so I don't have to grapple with the morals" etc.
    So you're not a vegetarian?
    And vegetarianism is a lifestyle not a diet, meaning you can drink milk, eat eggs and honey, wear leather and suede.
    All being a vegetarian means is that you don't knowingly digest animal matter and actively try to avoid doing so.
    And you've not answered my question. Would you save an animal's life over a child's?

    I know what vegetarianism means, thanks. I'm not looking for analysis of my lifestyle choices.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.