As an ethical vegan, this is the most important concern of mine. Just wanted to get a feel for the mentality towards animal rights here. If you are against or for, please state why. For me it comes down to unnecessary harm. If we don't need to eat/exploit animals it should be up to the person proposing an action (positive right) to defend it. Not the person claiming inaction.
No, there's an established position, and if you want to change it you have to come up with the arguments. I don't think animals should have any "rights". I think that the current laws are basically alright, but there probably needs to be a dedicated arm of police/prosecuters to enforce them.
This is my first post here, so forgive any minor mistakes I may make while writing this. In general: An animal's right to live isn't something most people think twice about at the dinner table. With animals that are consumed for food, a lot of people simply do not want to think about the animal's death...it's unappetizing. But some people do, particularly those raised on farms, where livestock is a commodity that is also a meal. For those people, the idea of the animals having rights is kin to saying the tires on the tractor have rights. Don't get me wrong, they want the animal "healthy" (a matter of opinion, of course), they want it content, and they don't want it to suffer excessively when it's time to kill it. But they also consider costs and profit first, before anything else. It is nearly the same with wild animals that are hunted and consumed. The hunter doesn't want the animal to suffer excessively. In some cultures, in some individual's beliefs, they thank the animal for "providing" it's body to be consumed. This must sound odd to an ethical vegan, but with farmers and hunters, they have a type of bond with the animal, a type of respect. Finally, domesticated animals, such as cats and dogs. Some cultures consider them edible, of course, but in America (my home) they are considered beloved pets, or family. The idea of eating them is repulsive, kin to eating a human ...almost. I identify most with the domestics, as I have never hunted and was not raised on a farm. That said, I long for the taste of meat and potatoes alike. These are only my opinions of what people most likely feel when they think of animals. I hope that this is what you were looking for, but if not, feel free to ask me specifics.
I have the gift of transposition. And from this, I ask the following question to you. In a remote area of the Yukon, would a group of polar bears ask this question before eating you? In a remote area of the Congo, would a group of lions ask this question before eating you? I didn't think so. Let's not pretend that we are civilized.
The way a person treats an animal says a lot about them. Now with that said, I love steak. I am heartbroken when I hear of a cat or dog suffering but I loose no sleep over cows being slaughtered for my taste buds. Not sure what that says about me, but there it is... honesty.
I like this post. Never really thought about it that way. I raise animals for food and their welfare is my major concern...rights??...not so much.
Animal rights, lol. My dear, you are profoundly right. With all this ego-inflated morality and justice that pervades such forums you would think something as basic and small as treating another living thing with kindness and respect would be a foregone conclusion. Aside from merely killing those things we need to eat, animal cruelty is a very real thing. There are laws against it because the supreme court will hardly say, "Yeah, sticking pins in cat's eyes is completely within your rights." But they won't be enforced unless great public pressure forces their hand. It's just not that important, people will say. If you were a Helot slave on a Spartan farm, you just wouldn't be that important either. But it's all relativity, you see...
Really, so slavery was ok until someone came up with an argument against it? We're animals. Why do we get rights? And before you bother to type something up, let me go ahead and deal with most answers you and others will give. Don't tell me it's because we're more intelligent, as this does not apply to all humans. Some animals are more intelligent than some humans. Don't tell me it's because have a soul, because that's completely unmeasurable. Don't tell me it's because we're sentient because other animals have shown sentience. And don't tell me we need to eat meat, because millions of vegans and vegetarians are proving you wrong. So, if another animal does it, that makes it ok? So, can I just come over to your parents home and eat them? I mean, would another animal ask? No, so let's not pretend we're civilized. What's your argument?
The moral worth of a society can be measured by how it treats its least powerful people. It can also be measured by how it treats its animals. I'd say my local society can be described as pretty morally worthless. It has little regard for both poor people and animals, and seems to care about nothing but protecting the rich from taxation.
I am for animal rights, personally. But as an activist who spreads awareness of factory farming, my goal right now is to get people to understand the issues of factory farming. Many people are not even ready to accept the reality of what happens in factory farms. Many go into denial about it and try to come up with some of the silliest excuses for still buying cheap factory farmed animal products. So if I were to tell them they should stop eating meat altogether, they would try to call me an extremist and I would just have no chance at all getting them to understand the severity of factory farming. Personally, for me, it is extremely silly to actually want to eat an animal when we have so many other options that are all in all just better. But when it comes to other people eating animals, as long as it was humanely and responsibly raised, I'm not going to tell them I have a problem with that, since it is after all only natural. Excuse me for rambling, it's 2:47 AM here. But my biggest issue is with factory farming. I feel like organizations like PETA just make a joke of the cause and make it easier for people to deny how serious the issues surrounding factory farming are. (Sorry, I know as a vegan you must hate whenever people bring up PETA. I know I do at least.) I think we will get to the point where most of us won't eat animals and people will look back in history and be horrified at factory farming and disgusted that we actually ate meat. But for now I think we need to just focus on ending factory farming.
When I see that some people despise other humans persons to protect animals, I'm shocked... As exemple, in some poor country where people kill or capture rare animals to earn their life; we musn't blame them to protect animals; because if they use animals as they do, they will be in the poverty... That's sad to see some animals exploited, but, human rights are more importants than animals rights, in my opinion...
What's wrong with PETA ? Without their tireless efforts over they years, I would guess animals would be a lot worse off, no ?
Same with me. BUT, I dont think the cows should be put into stalls where they cant move ever for their entire life, and fattened up with steroids so much they cant support their own weight, and stand knee deep in their own crap. In short. The conditions that we make cows and chickens live in is appaling. They should be allowed to free roam eating grass ( not corn ) in sustainable areas that are not over crowded.
In most cases it is not as bad as all that, but chicken houses are pretty nasty and pig farms ain't no better. That is why i would like to see more people grow their own food. If you grow your own you know they have been treated well and been fed a good diet. You may save some money (in the long haul) too.
The problem with poaching (killing rare animals) is that the species will die forever. Then they have no more way to earn their life after anyway! Many people poach not to survive, but to make more money than they need. To be rich and greedy. This is wrong.
Intelligence is irrelevent and so is animality. Rationality (the faculty of volition/reason) is the source of rights. Humans have the rational faculty. Non humans do not.
You really think humans are the ONLY species to be able to do as they please on their own free will, and figure things out? This is what you mean by volition/reason right? Or what other definition?
That's really vague. Please define this better, and show me that it also includes infants, mentally disabled people, and certain mentally ill people. Something tells me you don't really even know what you mean, and if you do, it doesn't apply to all humans, and therefore, is invalid. If you can get past that, tell me how this supposed difference between humans and other animals qualifies us for special treatment. Why is suffering only relevant when creatures meet this criteria?
It is NOT relevant according to that criteria, and it is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in this forum. The faculty of reason is not the source of rights. The source of rights is simply the capapility to experience suffering, in any degree. A for the "rational faculty", no, humans are not the only animals with it. Cats, dogs, parrots, pigs, elephants, chimps, dolphins, and other intelligent animals, have lots of reasoning ability. And animal rights are within the legal framework of society too. Every state in America has animal cruelty laws with a year in jail or more for offenders. http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/AnimalCrueltyLaws.pdf http://www.politicalforum.com/off-topic-chat/274518-take-home-stray-cat.html#post1061911099
I completely agree, however I'd describe myself as a vegetarian, as there are some animals and such that I continue to eat, such as oysters and prawns for example.
No one here is really saying that. Most cruelty to animals occurs in conditions whereby the relevant activity is not being carried out to curb poverty and the overwhelming source of assault against animals is done purely for unethical reasons. What makes you say that?
Well no, that's just wrong. There is never an "established position" that cannot be questioned such that people who support do not have to validate their continued adherence to it. Why? You have as much a responsibility to explain yourself as the OP (which they did).
