PDA

View Full Version : Animal Rights



Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 06:11 AM
What gives us humans more rights over animals? Why are we allowed to kill them, eat them. use them as our pets and slaves?

Snoop
July 14th, 2005, 06:24 AM
Because we can :)

Because they would overtake us if we didn't control them.

Because they are a nuisance and cause harm to crops which we need to survive.

Because God intended it that way?

Seriously - we are all animals, and survival of the fittest has been the law around here for as long as anyone can remember. Maybe the law should be changed?

P.S. My pet is in no way a slave - more like the other way around sometimes.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 06:42 AM
Because we can :)

Seriously - we are all animals, and survival of the fittest has been the law around here for as long as anyone can remember. Maybe the law should be changed?
Do you mean we should be allowed to do anything we want if we have the ability to do it? In the same manner, why shouldn't we be allowed to kill retarded, handicapped, essentially "unfit" people?


Because they are a nuisance and cause harm to crops which we need to survive.
Not all animals are a nuisance. Also, in the same manner again, many humans are a nuisance, not flushing toilets (my pet peeve :p), vandalising, spitting gum all over the place, being just plain annoying, etc. Why can't we kill them?


Because God intended it that way?
Ah-hah. You hit the nail on the head. Theists can use this to justify their beliefs. Therefore, this thread is mainly targetted at atheists/evolutionists. Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes, what gives us the right to dominate other animals?

Note that if you intend to use the "fittest wins" theory, you will need to address the challenges made above regarding "unfit" people. ;)

Snoop
July 14th, 2005, 06:49 AM
It's funny that I make careless, casual remarks and they always get taken seriously!

Regarding the "unfit people" - we have compassion and reasoning capabilities - that's what separates us from other animals. Slavery is an extreme example of animal abuse, not the norm.

Ibelsd
July 14th, 2005, 09:08 AM
There is no reason not to use animals as we choose. Much as we feel free to use vegetation for self-preservation and entertainment. Animals outside of our own species are just that, not human. We have no eqalitarian bond with them, we are under no obligation to protect them, and in many instances they are used to benefit our own survival. Why should we drink water? Think of all the microbes which die once they enter our body. Where would you propose we draw the line?

Meng Bomin
July 14th, 2005, 09:19 AM
What gives us humans more rights over animals?
Survival instincts. Just as wolves are more likely to recognize the "right" to live of another wolf in the pack than a deer they are hunting, humans are more likely to recognize the "right" to live of another human. So, being that we are the only animal that has developed civilizations and has the ability to control the environment to a limited extent (actually beavers do, but to an even more limited extent), we do have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to conserve our resources. However, that does not mean that we need to great other animal species "rights".

Why are we allowed to kill them, eat them. use them as our pets and slaves?
We are definitely not the only ones to eat other animals and we aren't the only ones who use other animals as "slaves", ants do it too:
http://www.insects.org/entophiles/hymenoptera/hyme_008.html

It is not as if the lion just lies down with the lamb and all the animals in the wilderness get together, sing and dance, and proclaim world peace. They, like us, are interested in survival and ensuring the same for their kin.

Jamie
July 14th, 2005, 09:27 AM
What gives us humans more rights over animals? Why are we allowed to kill them, eat them. use them as our pets and slaves?

The food chain? I wouldn't say it is rights, but that we are bigger, and more powerful, so therefore higher up on the chain. Now that doesn't mean I think we should be allowed to torture animals before they are killed or that they should live in horrid conditions before death.

As far as slavery, lol. Lets see who has it made. My old dog she laid around outside napping. Got her hair brushed each day, a nice bath everyother day, treats for just being her, I paid the vet bills, I played with her, walked her, bought her toys, made sure she had no fleas, purchased her a bed, and made sure she was always in stellar conditions by making sure she had the best of the best. So really who is the slave? LOL! She got all this free stuff, what do I get? Puppy kisses. :p

Apokalupsis
July 14th, 2005, 09:33 AM
If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 09:35 AM
Survival instincts. Just as wolves are more likely to recognize the "right" to live of another wolf in the pack than a deer they are hunting, humans are more likely to recognize the "right" to live of another human. So, being that we are the only animal that has developed civilizations and has the ability to control the environment to a limited extent (actually beavers do, but to an even more limited extent), we do have a responsibility to ourselves and future generations to conserve our resources. However, that does not mean that we need to great other animal species "rights".
OK, so, why should we help protect retarded people? Won't they just be excesssive baggage to our society, eating up our resources and time? And what about those with genetic defects? Why not kill them off to ensure the purity of our gene pool, if it is so important to maintain the survivability of our species?

nanderson
July 14th, 2005, 09:41 AM
Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes, what gives us the right to dominate other animals?

Great thread Trendum.....

If there is no God then animals and humans are the same. I disagree with your above quote though, because if there is no God there is nothing wrong with even killing humans, if there is no God, then objective "rights and wrongs" do NOT exist....therefore killing ANYTHING would not be "wrong", because "wrong" would not really exist.

Meng Bomin
July 14th, 2005, 09:48 AM
OK, so, why should we help protect retarded people?
An interesting question. My answer is that it depends on societal conditions and the wishes of the society as well as how useful the individual in question is. Some of the cognitively disabled can be quite useful, while others do nothing but sap resources. I think that in a country like our own, where we have the luxeries that allows to care for cognitively disabled people, that we should. However, societies that live in harsher conditions may not be able to do the same.

And what about those with genetic defects? Why not kill them off to ensure the purity of our gene pool, if it is so important to maintain the survivability of our species?
Eugenics hasn't shown much promise. Instead it has merely lead to the ethnic cleaning ideas of Hitler and the like. What does one define as a "genetic defect" and how does one choose which ones to stamp out. If a person can be of help to society, let them help.

tinkerbell
July 14th, 2005, 10:16 AM
If God didn't want us to eat animals he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: You sick twisted funny funny man. Example of why rep points for humor are also important /\

Jamie
July 14th, 2005, 10:19 AM
OK, so, why should we help protect retarded people? Won't they just be excesssive baggage to our society, eating up our resources and time? And what about those with genetic defects? Why not kill them off to ensure the purity of our gene pool, if it is so important to maintain the survivability of our species?

Cause we can't eat them. We can't take there skin shape it into a boot/purse stick the name Dior on it and sell the boot/purse for $1,000.00 Maybe I have no faith in humanity but if killing the above mentioned offered benefits to the majority of people I am thinking they would be killed off and used to benefit.

chadn737
July 14th, 2005, 10:19 AM
There is no reason why we should not use animals for food or other reasons.

Death is NECESSARY to life. Plants feed upon nutrients in the soil, most of which come from the decay of dead life forms. Animals, including man, obtain energy and nutrition from the plants. Other animals, including man, obtain energy and nutrition from other animals.

All things die, and death is necessary to live. There is no reason, other than emotional ones, not to kill and use other animals.

Now I think we should not allow ourselves to sink to abusing animals or prolonging and promoting their suffering, but there is nothing wrong with killing them and using them for food and other purposes. And in the case of work, a well treated and raised animal will not suffer from work, but willingly do so and may even 'like' it.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 10:39 AM
Ok, I'll pose this question again, since it has not really been directly addressed yet.

Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes*, what gives us the right to dominate other animals? What makes us inherently superior? Aren't we just another animal, acting based on our bestial instincts?

*According to evolutionists/atheists

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 10:40 AM
There is no reason why we should not use animals for food or other reasons.

All things die, and death is necessary to live. There is no reason, other than emotional ones, not to kill and use other animals.
Then what reason is there not to kill other humans (other than "emotional ones")? Aren't humans classified as animals too?

Ibelsd
July 14th, 2005, 11:59 AM
Ok, I'll pose this question again, since it has not really been directly addressed yet.

Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes*, what gives us the right to dominate other animals? What makes us inherently superior? Aren't we just another animal, acting based on our bestial instincts?

*According to evolutionists/atheists

I think I addressed your question very directly.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 07:03 PM
I think I addressed your question very directly.
Ok, let's examine what you said then...

There is no reason not to use animals as we choose. Much as we feel free to use vegetation for self-preservation and entertainment. Animals outside of our own species are just that, not human. We have no eqalitarian bond with them, we are under no obligation to protect them, and in many instances they are used to benefit our own survival. Why should we drink water? Think of all the microbes which die once they enter our body. Where would you propose we draw the line?
Why do we have an obligation to protect people of our own species?

mog
July 14th, 2005, 08:00 PM
Ok, I'll pose this question again, since it has not really been directly addressed yet.

Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes*, what gives us the right to dominate other animals? What makes us inherently superior? Aren't we just another animal, acting based on our bestial instincts?

*According to evolutionists/atheists

We have the right to dominate animals because we can, and they can't stop us. That we choose to waive this right as it applies to other humans is due to an artificial moral construct that characterises such benevolent mercy as superior.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 08:02 PM
We have the right to dominate animals because we can, and they can't stop us. That we choose to waive this right as it applies to other humans is due to an artificial moral construct that characterises such benevolent mercy as superior.
Is this artificial moral construct hard-wired in our bestial instincts or is it something more? If so, is it limited to the human race only?

mog
July 14th, 2005, 08:26 PM
Is this artificial moral construct hard-wired in our bestial instincts or is it something more? If so, is it limited to the human race only?

I don't think it could be hard wired. For example, there is fair evidence of early humans being cannibals, so it seems likely to me that they killed each other quite often. I would guess that this morality simply emerged as society evolved and relationships became more complex, building on the known fact that teamwork was mutually profitable. While other species form societal groups, I doubt they have the mental capacity to fathom any such morality.

Meng Bomin
July 14th, 2005, 08:45 PM
Since we all share a common ancestry, and came about through blind and brute evolutionary processes*, what gives us the right to dominate other animals?
Non sequitur. Common ancestry does not mean we are the same species. Beyond that, we would not survive without killing some sort of organism. That's how animals, including humans, survive.

What makes us inherently superior? Aren't we just another animal, acting based on our bestial instincts?
Another non sequitur. Being superior has nothing to do with it. Is a lion superior to antelopes because it eats them? We just act as many other animals do toward survival. Ants from the same colony and bees from the same hive treat each other better than they treat other insects. What should matter is conservation, not "animal rights".

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 08:52 PM
Non sequitur. Common ancestry does not mean we are the same species. Beyond that, we would not survive without killing some sort of organism. That's how animals, including humans, survive.
My point of common ancestry is that since humans are descended from the same ancestors as beasts, then why are we commonly elevated to a higher status than animals? Why is a human life construed as more important than an animal life?


Another non sequitur. Being superior has nothing to do with it. Is a lion superior to antelopes because it eats them?
Precisely, it is not. So why are humans commonly regarded as being of a higher status, a superior species? Keep in mind, most of the time the reason cited is not "because we are of the same species". It's something more than that.

Trendem
July 14th, 2005, 08:54 PM
I don't think it could be hard wired. For example, there is fair evidence of early humans being cannibals, so it seems likely to me that they killed each other quite often. I would guess that this morality simply emerged as society evolved and relationships became more complex, building on the known fact that teamwork was mutually profitable. While other species form societal groups, I doubt they have the mental capacity to fathom any such morality.
So are you saying that the human's sense of morality is just a by-product of increasing mental capacity?

Meng Bomin
July 14th, 2005, 09:02 PM
My point of common ancestry is that since humans are descended from the same ancestors as beasts, then why are we commonly elevated to a higher status than animals?
Because we are a different species than other animals, common ancestry is basically meaningless in terms of survival. Antelopes and lions had a distant common ancestor. Why should lions be allowed to eat antelope?

Why is a human life construed as more important than an animal life?
Because the ones construing it that way are humans. To humans, humans are more intristically valuable than other animals.

mog
July 14th, 2005, 09:30 PM
So are you saying that the human's sense of morality is just a by-product of increasing mental capacity?
In a roundabout way. When you become advanced to the point that it is relatively easy for a society to guarantee the survival of it's members, you can afford to have morals that thwart the survival of the fittest principle.

KevinBrowning
July 14th, 2005, 09:40 PM
What gives us humans more rights over animals? Why are we allowed to kill them, eat them. use them as our pets and slaves?

Because the Bible says so, in Genesis.

CliveStaples
July 14th, 2005, 09:52 PM
To humans, humans are more intristically valuable than other animals.

This explanation strikes me as lacking.

I am male. Do I then believe that males are more intrinsically valuable than females? No. In fact, I may come to the opposite conclusion.

Meng Bomin
July 14th, 2005, 10:06 PM
This explanation strikes me as lacking.
It is perhaps overly general and focuses upon the main reason behind actions.

I am male. Do I then believe that males are more intrinsically valuable than females? No. In fact, I may come to the opposite conclusion.
I think this would be a false analogy. Males and females are part of the same species and both contribute to human society in their own ways. Without one, the other would not survive long.

Ibelsd
July 18th, 2005, 08:50 AM
Ok, let's examine what you said then...

Why do we have an obligation to protect people of our own species?

Obviously, in many cases, we don't. Hence all the wars which result in man killking others. On the other hand, within a society we have a construct which is called the social contract. We protect one another in order to maintain our own freedom. This social contract is not extended to bunnies nor deer. So, our obligation to other humans is based on a mutual arrangement. Last I checked, catfish have never been able to harm us, and we, therefore, have no reason to include them in our social contract.