Animal rights - for or against? Discuss. Watch

helraizer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#1
Just for the continuation that was taking over another thread.

As the title says. Discuss the points for and against.
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 11 years ago
#2
What the hell are animal rights? It's a dumb buzzword. Animals have the right not to be tortured, but don't have the right to drive a car. What specifically are you asking?
0
reply
jess079
Badges: 0
#3
Report 11 years ago
#3
Oh i want to but I am so tired! I will be back tomorrow!
0
reply
Yasmin2K8
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 11 years ago
#4
I think once we sorted human rights out then we can get back to this 'hobby' so many people have
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 11 years ago
#5
Rights are human constructions. They do not exist independantly of us.

Therefore animals (and for that matter humans) could only possibly have the 'rights' humans give to them.

I am against animals being given rights; they dont respect rights, dont enforce their own rights, and can be adequately protected with prohibitory laws on human behaviour.

We might just as well argue for "tree rights"
0
reply
helraizer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#6
(Original post by generalebriety)
What the hell are animal rights? It's a dumb buzzword. Animals have the right not to be tortured, but don't have the right to drive a car. What specifically are you asking?
If my dog could drive, that'd be friggin' awesome tbh.

This thread was started as a result of the thread ' Dog tied to railway line and set on fire.' So basically, I'm not really sure, the general jist was:

Have you ever swatted a fly and half killed it, and seen the amount of twitching and clearly suffering it is in then.
It blatently does suffer :s and their is no way a biologist can ever tell whether a fly can feel pain or not.
And we have many abilities that an evolutionary basis would say we wouldn't benefit from so that logic seems flawed.

It is twitching because it is not 'programmed' to know what to do in this situation - it is probably attempting to fly, move or something else but cannot. It is not 'pain' as we feel it - if a fly could experience the world just as we do, then why would be need such a vastly more complex nervous system?

By your reasoning, what is the difference in killing a fly and a dog? What is the difference between killing a fly and a human - if they both suffer equally?

Please give me an example of such an ability in humans which cannot be accounted for by evolution

So "How different is it to kill a dog to swat a fly? Since a fly has a smaller nervous system, will it feel less pain and thus be less significant?"

etc..etc..
0
reply
HJV
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 11 years ago
#7
(Original post by helraizer)
So "How different is it to kill a dog to swat a fly? Since a fly has a smaller nervous system, will it feel less pain and thus be less significant?"

etc..etc..
Conversely, "How different is it to kill a human than it is to kill a dog? Since the dog can't talk and write, will it feel less pain and thus be less significant?"
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 11 years ago
#8
Why should we care whether animals feel pain?

Thats really the most interesting question.

And dont just say "empathy" because that is a mechanism for reason, not a reason in itself (and it implies if noone felt empathy for animals, torturing them would be fine)
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 11 years ago
#9
(Original post by HJV)
Conversely, "How different is it to kill a human than it is to kill a dog? Since the dog can't talk and write, will it feel less pain and thus be less significant?"

Personally I think the only difference is we are human and so we should look after our own species. Theres no good moral or biological reason.
0
reply
generalebriety
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#10
Report 11 years ago
#10
(Original post by helraizer)
If my dog could drive, that'd be friggin' awesome tbh.

This thread was started as a result of the thread ' Dog tied to railway line and set on fire.' So basically, I'm not really sure, the general jist was:






So "How different is it to kill a dog to swat a fly? Since a fly has a smaller nervous system, will it feel less pain and thus be less significant?"

etc..etc..
That's even less clear. Are you asking about the rights of the dog, or of the fly? Of course it's wrong to kill a dog in that way; there's a thread full of people saying so, and the kids got / are getting punished for it. As for killing a fly, I don't much care. I don't swat flies anyway, they don't bother me.

(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Rights are human constructions. They do not exist independantly of us.

Therefore animals (and for that matter humans) could only possibly have the 'rights' humans give to them.

I am against animals being given rights; they dont respect rights, dont enforce their own rights, and can be adequately protected with prohibitory laws on human behaviour.

We might just as well argue for "tree rights"
What are you even arguing for? You just said the same as the OP - that 'rights' are a human concept and it's not clear what rights animals have because humans are meant to decide and we're indecisive - and concluded "therefore they shouldn't have any". What do you mean, "they don't respect rights"? Of course they don't enforce their own rights - they can't - and yes, they can be protected by laws, but it is exactly this that the OP was asking: what laws should there be to protect animals?
0
reply
jgupta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 11 years ago
#11
Personally, I see no reason why we should give humans 'rights' yet not extend some of these to animals.

I am not a tree-loving hippie believing that all animals are equal, 1 fly = 1 human etc...however it is clear that some animals can suffer, and when they are suffering they make this very clear by exhibiting the same reactions as we do - attempting to move away from the source of pain, showing fear when the source of pain is reproduced at a later date, yelping / crying...

Descartes' response to this was to say (in order to reconcile the existence of animal suffering with that of a theistic God) that animals do not, in fact, feel pain, but are simply complex machines

This point is not, in itself, absurd but it is absurd to apply it to animals but not humans.
0
reply
helraizer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#12
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Rights are human constructions. They do not exist independantly of us.

Therefore animals (and for that matter humans) could only possibly have the 'rights' humans give to them.

I am against animals being given rights; they dont respect rights, dont enforce their own rights, and can be adequately protected with prohibitory laws on human behaviour.

We might just as well argue for "tree rights"
They don't respect our rights. To be perfectly honest, we haven't got a clue whether they have their own rights, for all we know they might.

My arguement is: how can murder be one of the worst crimes ever and yet people/farmers cull foxes or livestock all the time. If a cow can't produce milk for a farmer, usually (sometimes) it is killed. Yet cows, although they are not humans, are still living, with brains and CNS still feel pain. So even if cows don't have their own rights, what gives us the right to kill them?

Saying that, I'd kill for a steak any day. (Figure of speach :p: I wouldn't actually kill anyone, just so you know =P)
0
reply
Bateman
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 11 years ago
#13
On another thread on tsr about the boys who tied a dog to a railway track, a stupid idiot replied " those responsible should be killed"

People like that are morons, i am against animal rights, it comes without saying that i am against dog fighting and dog abuse, however god did give us stewardship, yes we do have to look after them and i do agree, we shouldn't abuse them or kill them, and if they are to die they should die in dignity, therefor i am for the fox ban, however i am against animal rights activists who terrorise scientists, they are hypocrites , they don't deserve human rights, because they value animals over humans, for example you don't see them protesting for the troops to get out of iraq... they don't protest for MEDCs to help the poor african nations..

We are superior to animals, we do have to look after them, however if we can use them to help humans then why not?
0
reply
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#14
Report 11 years ago
#14
Reminds me of the bestiality thread too. If animals should have no rights as people argue, then bestiality is allegedly okay, even if it abusive, because they have no rights, so they say.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#15
Report 11 years ago
#15
(Original post by jgupta)
Personally, I see no reason why we should give humans 'rights' yet not extend some of these to animals.

I am not a tree-loving hippie believing that all animals are equal, 1 fly = 1 human etc...however it is clear that some animals can suffer, and when they are suffering they make this very clear by exhibiting the same reactions as we do - attempting to move away from the source of pain, showing fear when the source of pain is reproduced at a later date, yelping / crying...

Descartes' response to this was to say (in order to reconcile the existence of animal suffering with that of a theistic God) that animals do not, in fact, feel pain, but are simply complex machines

This point is not, in itself, absurd but it is absurd to apply it to animals but not humans.

While i agree with the logic, having done a masters on human rights I find my conclusion is different;

Rather than extend rights to animals, we should retract them from humans. Prohibitory laws are far better theoretically justifiable.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#16
Report 11 years ago
#16
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Reminds me of the bestiality thread too. If animals should have no rights as people argue, then bestiality is allegedly okay, even if it abusive, because they have no rights, so they say.
Collosal fallacy propegated by the AR crowd here;
The assumption that no rights = no protection.

That is utter BS. Animals can be protected through prohibitory laws on human behaviour. Rights simply dont make SENSE in a non-human context.
0
reply
helraizer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#17
(Original post by Bateman)
We are superior to animals, we do have to look after them, however if we can use them to help humans then why not?
Yeah. I agree. I'm not really for, nor against animal rights. I don't really think about it too much. I'm all for those human-hybrid embryos because they could help people, also they could bring up some pretty cool results. A human with hooves or something.

It just seems weird how some people fight to condemn those who murder, however those who hunt or kill animals for either sport or just 'cause they can, are allowed to live normal lives. Seems a little odd.
0
reply
NeverMindThat
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#18
Report 11 years ago
#18
Its not odd, its obvious. The evolution of all law and social constructs is the concept of a mutual pact; for example I wont hurt you if you dont hurt me.

In society this is enforced collectively; we dont commit crime primarily because we dont want crime committed against us (in my opinion, and this subject is v. controversial, morality is just an evolutionary construct to enable this process), and society ensures that those who break the pact are punished.

Animals a) cant be party to such a pact and b) cant do **** to us and therefore c) we dont react to an animal death in the same way as a human death.
0
reply
helraizer
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#19
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#19
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Reminds me of the bestiality thread too. If animals should have no rights as people argue, then bestiality is allegedly okay, even if it abusive, because they have no rights, so they say.
Except for the whole 'consent' thing - no consent then it's rape. I think only Dr. Dolittle could get away with that one. :p:


________________________________ _________

a) Why not?
b) I'm pretty sure a lion or other vicious carnivore can.

Another example of my point is those terrior dogs ( I think it's a terrior); it bit a human so a woman ran out and hit it accross the face with a friggin' 14lb sledge hammer. xD

So I'm pretty sure that'd've done more damage than a bite.
0
reply
jgupta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 11 years ago
#20
(Original post by NeverMindThat)
Why should we care whether animals feel pain?

Thats really the most interesting question.

And dont just say "empathy" because that is a mechanism for reason, not a reason in itself (and it implies if noone felt empathy for animals, torturing them would be fine)
Why should we care whether...anything...feels pain?

I think the point you make is a valid one, but it is actually a much more fundamental question to morality - almost all moral theories fall for the so called 'naturalistic fallacy' - assuming that just because something IS so, it OUGHT to be so.

Taking utilitarianism as an example, it says that we avoid pain, and therefore pain is bad.
Technically, yes, this is a fallacy - but perhaps with morality we are going to have to take some things for granted if we are to make any progress in it.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (141)
17.89%
It's just nice to be back! (213)
27.03%
Not great so far... (282)
35.79%
I want to drop out! (152)
19.29%

Watched Threads

View All