Do animals have rights?

[Bakiryu]

Well, some people argue that since animals have a very low cognitive process compared to humans, they have no rights at all. Yet others argue that humans are just very advanced animals.

What's your point of view on this issue and why?

Do animals have rights? Should we all become vegetarians? Or should we just take what we want from the animal world since we are the most advanced beings and therefore everything is ours by intellectual right?


Edit: Please do not merge this thread with the If you teach a monkey to write...(cont) thread. I'm talking about something else here. Thank you Mods!

*If this thread makes you mad :rage: for any reason whatsoever don't blame me, blame the person who gave me the idea! :D

[Oniw17]

I'm not a fan of imprisoning animals in order to slaughter them, but there's not much land which isn't inhabited by humans left, and hoarding animals for food or entertainment may be the only way to preserve the many species that we have. I think some animals already have rights to some extent, for example, stray cats can do almost whatever they choose. If we give all animals rights, we have to give little kids rights, since the only reason we deny children rights is because their mental facilities aren't developed enough for them to live independently in modern society. I think you're asking about an animal's right to live though, and that you specifically the animals we eat. Of course they have that right, but for the time being it's best if we deny them that right, for their own survival. Maybe if we have a nuclear war or two we can give that and other rights back to the animals we share the planet with. Also, if you're talking about ants and such, giving them legal rights or not would be insignificant.

[Virgil]

No, animals do not have rights. They certainly don't vote. I see nothing in our constitution outlining rights for animals. That is the ultimate criteria. You can try to amend the constitution for animals to have rights. I think that would be silly. But that doesn't mean I think we shouldn't treat them with compassion and humanely. What rights do you want them to have? Vote? Free speech? The right to bear arms? The right to practice religion? And by the way, some of them are very tastey. :D

[NikolaiI]

We are not the highest evolved species on the planet, actually. Whales, for instance, have evolved amazingly ability to withstand high pressures, a higher evolutionary feat than what we have done. And why? They've been in their environment a lot longer than us.

Animals have rights, and we can only say they don't by the idea that might makes right. We can destroy the bears, wolves, and whatever else, and eat everything that tastes good. Why? We can, and we do. It isn't based on anything else. Human superiority- therefore we eat the others. In fact I think our whole society and everything is based on might makes right: we've taken everything, ultimately, from the earth, whether it is a basket of berries or a new car. So why are we so ungrateful?

Well, legally, Virgil, animals do have some rights, at least here in America. Hence, it is illegal to do certain things to different kind of animals, and if you're going to keep an animal you have to take care of it. If animals didn't have rights- we wouldn't have shows that show police taking animals from bad owners, the same way they would do with children (although it's a less serious crime)...

I also think places where there are just so many animals...the smell at those places! It's just awful. What they do to pigs, chickens and cows, is inhumane.

[Scheherazade]

Baki> what's your stand on this issue?

[Bakiryu]

Baki> what's your stand on this issue?

Well, I believe all livings beings have rights. We should protect them from harm and cherish them instead of EATING or MISTREATING them.

[bazarov]

No, they don't have rights.

[Bakiryu]

No, they don't have rights.

..why?

[NikolaiI]

Well, people feel differently and so they are fighting about it! I would be on the side of the animals! :D And, though I like Bazarov, I would join with the animals in overthrowing him...

[papayahed]

Well, I believe all livings beings have rights. We should protect them from harm and cherish them instead of EATING or MISTREATING them.


Plants are living things, should we not eat them or cut our lawn?

[Bakiryu]

Plants are living things, should we not eat them or cut our lawn?

We also need sustenance but then plants are easier to treat. We should plant more plants! and protect endangered plant species. But then, since plant have not been prover to suffer or think, I'm pretty sure we can eat then :p (I think about this when I eat my veggies)

And I'm against the practice of cutting lawns any more than it's necessary. Grass should be allowed to grow (and it looks pretty!)

[NikolaiI]

I was going to say, longer lawns are better for the environment (produce more oxygen)

[Scheherazade]

We should plant more plants! So as long as we breed more chicken and cattle, it should be OK to eat those too!

[Bakiryu]

So as long as we breed more chicken and cattle, it should be OK to eat those too!

But plants don't feel pain! chicken and cattle do!

[bazarov]

Well, people feel differently and so they are fighting about it! I would be on the side of the animals! :D And, though I like Bazarov, I would join with the animals in overthrowing him...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Ask Napoleon to help you!


But plants don't feel pain! chicken and cattle do!
How do you know that?



And I'm against the practice of cutting lawns any more than it's necessary. Grass should be allowed to grow (and it looks pretty!)

Have you ever had 50cm or 20inches high grass in you garden?? Do you find that pretty?

[Bakiryu]

Have you ever had 50cm or 20inches high grass in you garden?? Do you find that pretty?


I've used to live on a farm. We had grasses that grew up to my waist (I was 5"4 when I left) I loved it. :p



How do you know that?


There is no scientific reason to believe that plants bring a consciousness or psychological presence to the world. They lack nerve endings, brains, hormones, and other structures that would allow them to experience pain. Therefore, they lack the fundamental mechanisms to experience pleasure, pain, and suffering. Fear and pain would serve no purpose in plants because they are unable to escape any threat.

[papayahed]

But plants don't feel pain! chicken and cattle do!

So, what do we do about the animals that eat other animals? Should we be protecting the hunted from the hunter?

What about locust or pests that destroy crops should thye have that right?

[bazarov]

Fear and pain would serve no purpose in plants because they are unable to escape any threat.

That's even worse: they are totally helpless! Pig or buffalo can run, poor daisy can't...:bawling: Plants grow; same as animals, I don't see why would they be without ''feelings'' and unable to experience things animals can.
It's interesting, everyone fights for animals; we have vegans, vegetarians but do we have someone who refuses to eat plants because of their suffer and therefore eat only meat?

[Bakiryu]

So, what do we do about the animals that eat other animals? Should we be protecting the hunted from the hunter?


Consider how many humans being are in comparison. Meat eating predators couldn't exaust as many natural resoursces as we can.

Also consider the worldwide inequality. Everyday massives amount are thrown away in rich countries while the poor starve. We're not even using our food wisely!



What about locust or pests that destroy crops should thye have that right?


Some of these pests are also beneficial for pollination, insects and such have extremely high reproductive rates. If let reproduce (and unhindered by natural predators) they would quickly populate the planet with their kind.

Our crops have to be protected but then we should only used insecticides which do not damage the environment or poison our groundwater.


That's even worse: they are totally helpless! Pig or buffalo can run, poor daisy can't...:bawling: Plants grow; same as animals, I don't see why would they be without ''feelings'' and unable to experience things animals can.
It's interesting, everyone fights for animals; we have vegans, vegetarians but do we have someone who refuses to eat plants because of their suffer and therefore eat only meat?

They don't have the mediums for feeling pain! How can you feel pain if you don't have nerves? Unlike animal growth plant growth isn't controlled by their brain.

Whoever person who said they do not eat plants because they suffer and only eats meats according to this reason would be a hypocrite because animals suffer more than plants can.

[Pensive]

But plants don't feel pain! chicken and cattle do!

You can't be too sure about that! You know plants are sensitive? They do show sensitivity as well, like touch-me-not.

[papayahed]

Consider how many humans being are in comparison. Meat eating predators couldn't exaust as many natural resoursces as we can.

Also consider the worldwide inequality. Everyday massives amount are thrown away in rich countries while the poor starve. We're not even using our food wisely!



Some of this pests are also beneficial for pollination, insects and such have extremely high reproductive rates. If let reproduce (and unhindered by natural predators) they would quickly populate the planet with their kind.

Our crops have to be protected but then we should only used insecticides which do not damage the environment or poison our groundwater.


I thought we were talking about animal rights? We protect one animal but let another one get mercilessly slaughtered?

[Bakiryu]

You can't be too sure about that! You know plants are sensitive? They do show sensitivity as well, like touch-me-not.


Mimosa pudica is well known for its rapid plant movement. In the evening the leaflets will fold together and the whole leaf droops downward. It then re-opens at sunrise. This type of motion has been termed nyctinastic movement. The leaves also close up under various other stimuli, such as touching, warming, or shaking. The stimulus can also be transmitted to neighbouring leaves. These types of movements have been termed seismonastic movements. The cause is a loss of turgor pressure. The movement is caused by "a rapid loss of pressure in strategically situated cells that cause the leaves to droop right before one’s eyes".

.....


I thought we were talking about animal rights? We protect one animal but let another one get mercilessly slaughtered?

Harm-causing Arthropods are best kept away from our crops and such. Sadly, no method has been found to keep them away from causing illness and famine without killing them.

The now crude methods we have are damaging to other non-harmful insects as well and new methods are being explored.

[Pensive]

Mimosa pudica is well known for its rapid plant movement. In the evening the leaflets will fold together and the whole leaf droops downward. It then re-opens at sunrise. This type of motion has been termed nyctinastic movement. The leaves also close up under various other stimuli, such as touching, warming, or shaking. The stimulus can also be transmitted to neighbouring leaves. These types of movements have been termed seismonastic movements. The cause is a loss of turgor pressure. The movement is caused by "a rapid loss of pressure in strategically situated cells that cause the leaves to droop right before one’s eyes".

I know but does this very fact not prove the sensitivity of plants? When we get hurt, it's also because of the pressure on our brain/heart. The study of Biology indicates that during tension the nature of our body changes or if the nature of our body changes, our behaviour changes as well. Not necessarily the feelings of plants have to have the same nature as that of animals...

[papayahed]

Harm-causing Arthropods are best kept away from our crops and such. Sadly, no method has been found to keep them away from causing illness and famine without killing them.

The now crude methods we have are damaging to other non-harmful insects as well and new methods are being explored.

Soooooo only animals that don't cause us harm should have rights?

It's a slippery slope and it's not called the food chain for nothing.

[Bakiryu]

when you get hurt your nerves tell your brain to feel pain, how do you know what pain is if you cannot feel it? How do you know you're hurt if you can't see it? How can you be tensed/stressed if you don't know what it is? If you lack the organs necessary for knowledge?

It's like saying naturally (born) blind people know what sight really is. They know the definition but they haven't FELT it. (or in this case seen it.)



Soooooo only animals that don't cause us harm should have rights?


No. Only animals that can actually feel pain. Beneficial insects your be protected but pest and plagues kept down to a sane number as possible.

What are your standpoints on this Pensive and P-hed?

[Pensive]

when you get hurt your nerves tell your brain to feel pain, how do you know what pain is if you cannot feel it? How do you know you're hurt if you can't see it? How can you be tensed/stressed if you don't know what it is? If you lack the organs necessary for knowledge?

The thing is how do you know plants can't feel pain? They can have some other way, something undiscovered by human-beings yet. What we know today is not the end of knowledge. It has not been proved yet but neither disproved. As I say the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.


It's like saying naturally (born) blind people know what sight really is. They know the definition but they haven't FELT it. (or in this case seen it.)

Plants are not people. So are not animals. They haven't told us if they can see or hear or feel but it doesn't disclude this possibility.

[Themis]

Well, some people argue that since animals have a very low cognitive process compared to humans, they have no rights at all. Yet others argue that humans are just very advanced animals.

What's your point of view on this issue and why?

Do animals have rights? Should we all become vegetarians? Or should we just take what we want from the animal world since we are the most advanced beings and therefore everything is ours by intellectual right?

I think what we all need to do is acknowledge the fact that animals are animals and no human beings.
If we wanted them to have rights, it would only be reasonable to also assign them certain duties. Like, say, a dog's duty not to pee where-ever he likes to. Or a rabbit's duty not to gnaw at somebody else's table-legs.

The thing is, they don't know right from wrong, not according to our standards. A dog may be trained of course, but it isn't in his nature to be particularly choosy about the place where he lifts his hind-leg.
We should, as I'm sure has been said before, avoid unnecessary cruelty and be "good" to our (domestic) animals and but we should not try and humanise them because they just aren't human.

[Bakiryu]

The thing is how do you know plants can't feel pain? They can have some other way, something undiscovered by human-beings yet. What we know today is not the end of knowledge. It has not been proved yet but neither disproved. As I say the absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

No nerve endings or form of outside communication.



Plants are not people. So are not animals. They haven't told us if they can see or hear or feel but it doesn't disclude this possibility.

People are only very advanced animals. Animals can see and feel THEY HAVE BRAINS, HORMONES and NERVE ENDINGS.



I think what we all need to do is acknowledge the fact that animals are animals and no human beings.
If we wanted them to have rights, it would only be reasonable to also assign them certain duties. Like, say, a dog's duty not to pee where-ever he likes to. Or a rabbit's duty not to gnaw at somebody else's table-legs.


Good luck with that! :lol:




The thing is, they don't know right from wrong, not according to our standards. A dog may be trained of course, but it isn't in his nature to be particularly choosy about the place where he lifts his hind-leg.
We should, as I'm sure has been said before, avoid unnecessary cruelty and be "good" to our (domestic) animals and but we should not try and humanise them because they just aren't human.

So? does that mean that they don't/can have rights? We're not humanizing animals we're just giving them their dues as citizens of this world.

[Pensive]

No nerve endings or form of outside communication.

I guess I would have to repeat it again. Just because you can't see a thing, doesn't prove that thing doesn't exist.


People are only very advanced animals. Animals can see and feel THEY HAVE BRAINS, HORMONES and NERVE ENDINGS.

Yet their brain and everything else works much more differently than human-beings.

Anyway, I am not arguing about animal rights. My point is that plants have the possibility to feel as well.

[papayahed]

No. Only animals that can actually feel pain. Beneficial insects your be protected but pest and plagues kept down to a sane number as possible.

What are your standpoints on this Pensive and P-hed?

That seems a bit arbitrary doesn't it? Feeling pain is a fact of nature, you want to grant rights to animals that can feel pain?? Wildebeast get torn apart by lions daily that has to be painful are we suppossed to stop that?

[Themis]

So? does that mean that they don't/can have rights? We're not humanizing animals we're just giving them their dues as citizens of this world.

But that's just what I mean. They're no citizens because citizens do have rights and duties. You can't - says me - give someone only half of what's due.

They don't have rights but still, we should be sensible enough not to cause them unnecessary pain. And of course, people who are cruel to animals should be punished, but the point I'm trying to make is: human rules and standards - and rights - shouled only apply to human beings.

[Bakiryu]

But that's just what I mean. They're no citizens because citizens do have rights and duties. You can't - says me - give someone only half of what's due.

They don't have rights but still, we should be sensible enough not to cause them unnecessary pain. And of course, people who are cruel to animals should be punished, but the point I'm trying to make is: human rules and standards - and rights - shouled only apply to human beings.

So according to your logic people who don't do anything are not citizens of the world?


an inhabitant, or denizen: The deer is a citizen of our woods. from the dictionary.

But then, if I follow your logic young children shouldn't have rights. And then, what do babies do? Or fetuses?

Should we start child labor then?

[Virgil]

We are not the highest evolved species on the planet, actually. Whales, for instance, have evolved amazingly ability to withstand high pressures, a higher evolutionary feat than what we have done. And why? They've been in their environment a lot longer than us.

Oh that is rediculous. We have gone through this before. Can any animal build cities, analysize math, build airplanes, submarines, ipods, electricity? Come on. Anyone with common sense can see right through that statement. Man is the most complex, developed creature on earth. We rule the planet.


Animals have rights, and we can only say they don't by the idea that might makes right. We can destroy the bears, wolves, and whatever else, and eat everything that tastes good. Why? We can, and we do. It isn't based on anything else. Human superiority- therefore we eat the others.
Yeah. So. We are superior. The reason there are billions of chickens in the world is because we have cultivated and raised them. Otherwise their would just be a hnadful. And thank God. I just had chicken for dinner and I would have been hungry otherwise. ;)


In fact I think our whole society and everything is based on might makes right: we've taken everything, ultimately, from the earth, whether it is a basket of berries or a new car. So why are we so ungrateful?
I don't have a clue as to what you're trying to say. Ungrateful for what? We say thanks to God before dinner for the blessings of that chicken we just ate. :D


Well, legally, Virgil, animals do have some rights, at least here in America. Hence, it is illegal to do certain things to different kind of animals, and if you're going to keep an animal you have to take care of it. If animals didn't have rights- we wouldn't have shows that show police taking animals from bad owners, the same way they would do with children (although it's a less serious crime)...
Well they have legally granted rights that change with evolving laws. They can be taken away at any time. They do not have constitutional rights which require a constitutional ammendment. I've already said we should treat them with compassion and humanely. But that does not stretch so far as to say they have constitutional rights. No one is a bigger lover of dogs than me. Lots of unwanted dogs are routinely destroyed because there is no place for them. While I regret this, I certainly wouldn't support a law that said that no dog can be put down because it is unwanted.
.

[papayahed]

So according to your logic people who don't do anything are not citizens of the world?

from the dictionary.

But then, if I follow your logic young children shouldn't have rights. And then, what do babies do? Or fetuses?

Should we start child labor then?

Children don't have rights.

[Bakiryu]

Children don't have rights.

they have basic rights. If they didn't people could kill, rape or torture and remain unpunished by the authorities.

[Themis]

So according to your logic people who don't do anything are not citizens of the world?

from the dictionary.

But then, if I follow your logic young children shouldn't have rights. And then, what do babies do? Or fetuses?

Should we start child labor then?

Pardon me?

What I said - or meant to say, one never knows these days - is that _animals_ are no human beings. I would never say that there are differences between human beings.

[Bakiryu]

I'm sorry Them. I misread your post. :blush:

[Oniw17]

I've used to live on a farm. We had grasses that grew up to my waist (I was 5"4 when I left) I loved it. :p



There is no scientific reason to believe that plants bring a consciousness or psychological presence to the world. They lack nerve endings, brains, hormones, and other structures that would allow them to experience pain. Therefore, they lack the fundamental mechanisms to experience pleasure, pain, and suffering. Fear and pain would serve no purpose in plants because they are unable to escape any threat.
You can't say that no plants feel pain, there's still not a lot known about the way a venus fly trap works. Not that you aren't probably right. Also, what do you think about the idea that without farms and zoos, many species of animals would go extinct?

Soooooo only animals that don't cause us harm should have rights?

It's a slippery slope and it's not called the food chain for nothing.
The word sentient could have something to do with it, but I think the line should be drawn at what we're allowed to kill depending on whether they have theory of mind.

[NikolaiI]

Oh that is rediculous. We have gone through this before. Can any animal build cities, analysize math, build airplanes, submarines, ipods, electricity? Come on. Anyone with common sense can see right through that statement. Man is the most complex, developed creature on earth. We rule the planet.

I don't remember going over this before, and also, please don't be so thoughtlessly dismissive in your posts. I.e., please don't say things that reduce down to "everyone with a brain would see how ridiculous that is," via, "everyone with common sense can see through that statement." It's just, ah, what's the word...inflammatory.

Now, what I said was that whales have evolved something which is a "higher evolutionary feat" than what we have. This is just opinion.

One (unfair) way to compare the two would be to take a human and drag it down to the bottom of the ocean, watch it burst and then pronounce: whales are superior. I know that's unfair, and to compare them we have to see each in its own environment, still I'd say it's a more impressive feat the whales have done, if for no other reason than the hundreds of millennia which took to bring it about.

Does this make any sense? Or is it thoughtless, ignorant, ridiculous. Seriously, I was hurt by your post, Virgil. I'm not interested enough in the topic to discuss it with someone who won't go into it, and it's one I don't know how to go into either. You know in Buddhism they train to argue topics, they train about the different ways to talk about them correctly; ah, the fakery.

You could say we rule the planet, but it would be equally viable to say that bacteria rule the planet, or thunder storms rule the planet.


Well they have legally granted rights that change with evolving laws. They can be taken away at any time. They do not have constitutional rights which require a constitutional ammendment. I've already said we should treat them with compassion and humanely. But that does not stretch so far as to say they have constitutional rights. No one is a bigger lover of dogs than me. Lots of unwanted dogs are routinely destroyed because there is no place for them. While I regret this, I certainly wouldn't support a law that said that no dog can be put down because it is unwanted.
.

Yes, the do have rights, given to them by us in our laws. I don't know if the rights are in the constitution, state or federal laws or whatever. I certainly don't care.

What Baki is saying is- should they have rights? And I think she's saying they should, and arguing that. You see, no one but concerned humans can speak for the inarticulate animals.

-

So what if an alien race came to earth and slaughtered us all, because they thought we couldn't speak their language (something to do with emotions, or telepathy). Actually this is the premise in Ender's Game...

Anyway, I see people arguing with Baki over plants: so why are people who eat meat, now arguing with Vegetarians that they should not eat vegetables!!!!!!!!!???? Isn't this a double standard? Or are they saying vegetables are MORE intelligent than animals!!??

[papayahed]

To get back to the original question. No animals don't have rights.

Since the dawn of time the bigger stronger animals have dominated, humans now have their moment in the sun.

Just from a logistics stand point what animals get rights and which don't? What rights would/could they have?

[Virgil]

What rights would/could they have?

I say they should get freedom of speech. Woolf, woolf. Meow, meow. :lol:

[papayahed]

I say they should get freedom of speech. Woolf, woolf. Meow, meow. :lol:

then they should be paying taxes!!!!!;)

[NikolaiI]

To get back to the original question. No animals don't have rights.

Since the dawn of time the bigger stronger animals have dominated, humans now have their moment in the sun.

Just from a logistics stand point what animals get rights and which don't? What rights would/could they have?

Well they do, in our legal system, anyway (the U.S.). They have rights as much as we do (not the same rights, but they do have them).

You're right, though, what are rights if no one respects them? This is why we were taught so much about our own rights, and that we should stick up for them. Animals can't protect themselves, so we have animal rights activists, etc. And again, like I said, it's just us fighting over them.

So- why? Well, I'm sure everyone has their different reasons. For me, I don't think it's right to take from force someone's life (or something? an animal?) anything you want, just because you can. And that seems to me the reason our system is the way it is.

[Virgil]

I don't remember going over this before, and also, please don't be so thoughtlessly dismissive in your posts.
Perhaps it was before your time. That discussion was held here: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19619&highlight=rabbits
I'm not going to reiterate all my points.


I.e., please don't say things that reduce down to "everyone with a brain would see how ridiculous that is," via, "everyone with common sense can see through that statement." It's just, ah, what's the word...inflammatory.
Oh grow up. Some arguments are rediculous. If you're going to enter into the world of debating you're going to have to devolop a little thicker skin. That was not meant as a personal attack but a weighing of the merit of your point.


Now, what I said was that whales have evolved something which is a "higher evolutionary feat" than what we have. This is just opinion.

One (unfair) way to compare the two would be to take a human and drag it down to the bottom of the ocean, watch it burst and then pronounce: whales are superior. I know that's unfair, and to compare them we have to see each in its own environment, still I'd say it's a more impressive feat the whales have done, if for no other reason than the hundreds of millennia which took to bring it about.
Have you ever heard of a submarine? Have you ever heard of an airplane? Can a whale fly?


Seriously, I was hurt by your post, Virgil.
Sorry. I forget how young some people are around here. I really should debate with people my own age.

[Scheherazade]

Since this thread has drifted away from its original aim, it will now be closed.