The question of animal rights is an emotionally charged issue.
Simple time:
Should animals be given rights? If so, on what basis should said rights rest? Sentience? Capacity to suffer?
Alternatively, disfavouring "rights" what reasoning should define human handling of animals - if any at all but power to control them?
Shoot.
Animal Rights
Moderator: Crew
- Zandrav Ibistenn
- Patron
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:32
- Location: Irrelevant
Animal Rights
Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Re: Animal Rights
Is it? Why?Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:The question of animal rights is an emotionally charged issue.
Anyway, for starters, define 'rights'. The same 'rights' which, apparently, human beings have?
In defining 'rights' I would include freedom from oppression, choice, etc... the usual stuff. The problem here is that many if these are human concepts and don't apply to animals, for example, "the right to bear arms" - this irrelvancy for the modern day doesn't apply to animals.
I believe that animals shouldn't treated poorly, just as I believe the same for people... but people are crappy to each other so there's not a chance in hell that we can expect any sort of decent treatment towards animals from some people.
Here, in Australia, we have the RSPCA which is the guardian of animal welfare (rights). The penalities for animal cruelity exceed those of being nasty to people.
Cheers,
Eric
- Zandrav Ibistenn
- Patron
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:32
- Location: Irrelevant
Re: Animal Rights
(Note: I'm experimenting with different types of introductions to my threads).
I'm not the right person to ask why the question of animal rights is an emotional issue. It isn't to me, but in my experience it is to some people.
Personally, I find that "rights" without responsibilities are meaningless to say the least. As animals understand neither, the desire to grant rights to animals is absurd.
I adhere to the Kantian notion that people should not display cruelty towards animals, because doing so brutalizes people. Consider how, in childhood development, cruelty towards animals is one of "the red flags". In other words I don't ascribe particular importance to the animal state of mind, because I believe that to be a mistaken priority, because the welfare of people, always, takes precedence over the welfare of animals. Cruelty towards animals should not be tolerated, not because of what happens to the animal, but because of the brutalizing effects I believe it has on people.
Needless to say, I think this
I'm not the right person to ask why the question of animal rights is an emotional issue. It isn't to me, but in my experience it is to some people.
Personally, I find that "rights" without responsibilities are meaningless to say the least. As animals understand neither, the desire to grant rights to animals is absurd.
I adhere to the Kantian notion that people should not display cruelty towards animals, because doing so brutalizes people. Consider how, in childhood development, cruelty towards animals is one of "the red flags". In other words I don't ascribe particular importance to the animal state of mind, because I believe that to be a mistaken priority, because the welfare of people, always, takes precedence over the welfare of animals. Cruelty towards animals should not be tolerated, not because of what happens to the animal, but because of the brutalizing effects I believe it has on people.
Needless to say, I think this
represents an extreme lack of judgement.Eric wrote: (Here) the penalities for animal cruelity exceed those of being nasty to people.
Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Re: Animal Rights
Really. Why? Will this make it more interesting to read?Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:(Note: I'm experimenting with different types of introductions to my threads).
Indeed, 'Rights' is a human concept and, as such, does not apply to animals - much like the phrase, to treat "humanely" which inplies humanity.Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:Personally, I find that "rights" without responsibilities are meaningless to say the least. As animals understand neither, the desire to grant rights to animals is absurd.
???Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:I adhere to the Kantian notion that people should not display cruelty towards animals, because doing so brutalizes people.
'I will not hit my finger with the hammer while hitting this nail because it will hurt me" kind of logic. So let me clarify your stance:
You don't believe in hurting animals because of the way it makes you feel?
Indeed. Although I should clarify that this is not the case literally.... but on a comparison basis, you'll do less 'time' (suffer less punishment) for killing or maiming a human that you would an animal.Zandrav Ibistenn wrote: Needless to say, I think this...
...represents an extreme lack of judgement.Eric wrote: (Here) the penalities for animal cruelity exceed those of being nasty to people.
"Lack of Judgement" perhaps - but only in the sense that we do not punish offenders of human related crimes with enough force.
Cheers,
Eric
- Zandrav Ibistenn
- Patron
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:32
- Location: Irrelevant
Re: Animal Rights
No, because of the way it makes me behave.Eric wrote:You don't believe in hurting animals because of the way it makes you feel?
If I can be cruel towards animals, I can probably be cruel towards people too. In fact, I'm more likely to be than if I wasn't so callous.
I think that sometimes lengthy introductions prevents the thread from getting off the ground in the first place.Eric wrote:Really. Why? Will this make it more interesting to read?Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:(Note: I'm experimenting with different types of introductions to my threads).
Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Re: Animal Rights
True. Short and sweet and to the point is good but it needs a sting in the tail - different people react to different things.Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:I think that sometimes lengthy introductions prevents the thread from getting off the ground in the first place.
So, do you see as cruelity to animals and humans as the same thing?
- Zandrav Ibistenn
- Patron
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:32
- Location: Irrelevant
Re: Animal Rights
No, but closely related.Eric wrote:So, do you see as cruelity to animals and humans as the same thing?
Cruelty towards animals does not occur unless a behavioral contraint normally preventing it has been broken. We have a conscience and normally don't like to behold (much less inflict) the suffering of another living creature (which we innately antropomorphize to some extend). The natural revulsion towards violence and torture towards animals comes from the same contraint that inhibit us from doing the same to people. Many serial killers killed animals (large ones, not bugs) for fun as children and moved on to people as adults, that way they became desensitized to violence and at the same to addicted to the thrill of it.
Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
- Chroelle
- Admin emeritus
- Posts: 9870
- Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:19
- Location: Location, location...
- Contact:
I have a question that at the same time maybe states my responses to the above posts.
If you do not like hurting animals due to the way it makes you behave, and you say that if you are willing to hurt animals then you are likely to be able to hurt people too, does that not mean that we already give animals the same rights as people in our head (legislation aside)?
If so, then why should they not get rights, and even rights to be treated humanely (humanlike)?
If serial-killers hurt animals in their childhood and then moved on to people as adults, maybe this should be enough for us to stop hurting animals.
I think you should treat animals animaly (animal-like) but since we are higher evolved species we tend to play god, and make other things fit into our shape and as such "cast" them to have a specific role. The lion for example is a king which nobly kills other animals, while the hyena is a vile thing that kills for fun.... Let me see.... Is the hyena truelly laughing or is it just us casting it into a role as the "scholl-yard-bully" of the animals...
(Who saw "the lion King").
The same way we cast animals in food cathegories. eg: The cow is a stupid animal so we are allowed to eat it. The horse is a beutiful animal so we are not allowed to eat it (unless we do, and then it is a delicatesse). The mosquito is an annoying animal so we can squash it, while the bumbblebee is a cute little guy, so no need to squash that...
In simple terms. Treat animals like animals, and treat people like people. Not animals as people and people as god.
Disclaimer: I see hurting animals and killing animals for food or mercy as two seperate things.
This tends to struggle with the fact, that I don't see killing people for fun, and killing them as a punishment for crime, in war and in any other way as being ok.
If you do not like hurting animals due to the way it makes you behave, and you say that if you are willing to hurt animals then you are likely to be able to hurt people too, does that not mean that we already give animals the same rights as people in our head (legislation aside)?
If so, then why should they not get rights, and even rights to be treated humanely (humanlike)?
If serial-killers hurt animals in their childhood and then moved on to people as adults, maybe this should be enough for us to stop hurting animals.
I think you should treat animals animaly (animal-like) but since we are higher evolved species we tend to play god, and make other things fit into our shape and as such "cast" them to have a specific role. The lion for example is a king which nobly kills other animals, while the hyena is a vile thing that kills for fun.... Let me see.... Is the hyena truelly laughing or is it just us casting it into a role as the "scholl-yard-bully" of the animals...
(Who saw "the lion King").
The same way we cast animals in food cathegories. eg: The cow is a stupid animal so we are allowed to eat it. The horse is a beutiful animal so we are not allowed to eat it (unless we do, and then it is a delicatesse). The mosquito is an annoying animal so we can squash it, while the bumbblebee is a cute little guy, so no need to squash that...
In simple terms. Treat animals like animals, and treat people like people. Not animals as people and people as god.
Disclaimer: I see hurting animals and killing animals for food or mercy as two seperate things.
This tends to struggle with the fact, that I don't see killing people for fun, and killing them as a punishment for crime, in war and in any other way as being ok.
Currently testing Life version 2.9 (With added second child)
(Beta testing in progress)
www.paed-it.dk - My blog in Danish
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
--Mark Twain
(Beta testing in progress)
www.paed-it.dk - My blog in Danish
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
--Mark Twain
Re: Animal Rights
I agree. Although I would question whether serial killers had a conscience and whether cruelity towards animals was necessarily a stepping stone to murdering people.Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:No, but closely related.
But you seem to be implying that you refrain from tormenting animals because you are worried you will become a physco-killer - or do you believe that such behavior is abhorrent and would refrain from such regardless?
Yes, animals are already protected in many parts of the world. As per my initial post where I questioned what definition of 'rights' ZI was refering to. But I do think we have agreed that 'Human Rights', as we might have, are not applicable to animals.Chroelle wrote:does that not mean that we already give animals the same rights as people in our head (legislation aside)?
This just returns us to the point ZI made about people whom anthropomorphize animals - laughter is a human expression of joy (shared only by some primates) - and more than likely, the hyena is doing no such thing. The hyena is one of the most important animals on the Africa landscape too.Chroelle wrote: The lion for example is a king which nobly kills other animals, while the hyena is a vile thing that kills for fun.... Let me see.... Is the hyena truelly laughing or is it just us casting it into a role as the "scholl-yard-bully" of the animals...
I'm pretty sure we all know this - I certainly see and acknowledge the difference.Chroelle wrote:I see hurting animals and killing animals for food or mercy as two seperate things.
Cheers,
Eric
- Zandrav Ibistenn
- Patron
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 2:32
- Location: Irrelevant
I will clarify my position:
In people I think there are natural barriers against violence, e.g. revulsion against gore. Such mechanisms decreases the probability that an individual will commit violent acts, but the barriers can be gradually eroded and the individual desensitized to violence.
Violence against animals facilitates this process, weakening the behavioral contraints inhibiting violent impulses directed towards animals as well as human beings.
This cannot simply be transferred to the individual level, saying that if I decide to kill my cat for fun with paracetamol I will become Ted Bundy. Of course not, but observing a large group of people who exhibit cruel and careless behavior against animals, it is probably true to say that on average, they are more careless and cruel to each other as well as their pets, because their natural inhibitions against harming each other have been weakened through the harm they've cause to their pets. Not a necessary stepping stone, but a predisposing factor.
I mentioned serial killer as a reference to the MacDonald Triad.
Thus I think we should be as kind towards animals as is practically possible considering human needs, but initiatives to grant rights to them are the result of misguided anthropomorphization.
On a different matter I'm under the impression that misanthropes are often animal lovers (e.g. harboring notions such as "humanity should be destroyed, so that animals can thrive" and "humans are inherently evil and animals are morally superior"). What do you think about that?
In people I think there are natural barriers against violence, e.g. revulsion against gore. Such mechanisms decreases the probability that an individual will commit violent acts, but the barriers can be gradually eroded and the individual desensitized to violence.
Violence against animals facilitates this process, weakening the behavioral contraints inhibiting violent impulses directed towards animals as well as human beings.
This cannot simply be transferred to the individual level, saying that if I decide to kill my cat for fun with paracetamol I will become Ted Bundy. Of course not, but observing a large group of people who exhibit cruel and careless behavior against animals, it is probably true to say that on average, they are more careless and cruel to each other as well as their pets, because their natural inhibitions against harming each other have been weakened through the harm they've cause to their pets. Not a necessary stepping stone, but a predisposing factor.
I mentioned serial killer as a reference to the MacDonald Triad.
Thus I think we should be as kind towards animals as is practically possible considering human needs, but initiatives to grant rights to them are the result of misguided anthropomorphization.
On a different matter I'm under the impression that misanthropes are often animal lovers (e.g. harboring notions such as "humanity should be destroyed, so that animals can thrive" and "humans are inherently evil and animals are morally superior"). What do you think about that?
Man's fault lies in his propensity towards willingly doing what feels good and his procrastinating reluctance to doing what is immediately uncomfortable but good.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
- Immanuel Kant
Custodian of the Symposium.
[b]Error Tracking[/b]: Let's begin at the amygdala...
I certainly agree with your words.
I think such ideas are nonsense. Of course, such notions are on one side of the extreme and most people who like animals are not deluding themselves that they would sacrifice their own lives for the sake of an animal or pet.
Oddly enough, the animal will put itself at risk for our sake (especially dogs). Now there's food for thought.
Cheers,
Eric
<shrug> Each to their own.Zandrav Ibistenn wrote:On a different matter I'm under the impression that misanthropes are often animal lovers (e.g. harboring notions such as "humanity should be destroyed, so that animals can thrive" and "humans are inherently evil and animals are morally superior"). What do you think about that?
I think such ideas are nonsense. Of course, such notions are on one side of the extreme and most people who like animals are not deluding themselves that they would sacrifice their own lives for the sake of an animal or pet.
Oddly enough, the animal will put itself at risk for our sake (especially dogs). Now there's food for thought.
Cheers,
Eric