We have to remember that we are aren’t the only life on earth who are currently suffering. What do we say about non-human animal rights?
Personally, I see the killing and eating of non-human animals as morally wrong, so in my ideal society they would have the same rights as humans.
What are your views though?
So, if all animals (humans and non-humans) truly had equal rights, would you arrest and prosecute a wolf for killing a sheep? After all, wouldn’t the wolf be aggressing against the sheep’s rights?
Why do you see it as morally wrong?
Gimme a break, animals don’t have rights. God made them for us to eat.
Nobody gets to tell other people how to treat their animals.
I think if we start with the moral principle that the killing and eating of humans is wrong (A), we then have to ask why that is the case. Without getting too much into meta-ethics, I think the reason is something to do with the fact that we are sentient life, we feel pain. If it is that which is what makes it wrong, then clearly the first moral principle (A) must also apply to all sentient life; therefore, the killing and eating of sentient life is morally wrong.
It can be put into the following form:
P1: The killing and eating of human life is morally wrong.
P2: (P1) is the case, because the killing and eating of sentient life is morally wrong.
P3: Therefore, the killing and eating non-human animals, who are sentient, is morally wrong.
'Gimme a break, animals don’t have rights. God made them for us to eat.
Nobody gets to tell other people how to treat their animals.’
I assume you are just trolling. But incase you are actually being serious, then since your argument is dependent on the existence of God, you need to prove such existence; good luck with that one!; but like I said, I think you’re trolling.
‘So, if all animals (humans and non-humans) truly had equal rights, would you arrest and prosecute a wolf for killing a sheep? After all, wouldn’t the wolf be aggressing against the sheep’s rights?’
I think we need to make a distinction between equal rights and equal responsibility. How can an animal be morally responsible when it does what it does, out of survival, as is the case for animals in the wild - but not for humans.
That God part was figurative speech, don’t be so serious. I already know how this ends though. If you accept these ethics, then it is morally wrong for you to eat animals. But you have no right to coerce other people not to do it, because human liberty trumps ‘animal liberty’. So any ‘animal rights’ laws would be illegitimate.
How can one kind of liberty ‘trump’ another kind? LIberty is liberty, regardless of who it is for. Next I’ll be hearing people saying that white liberty trumps black liberty!
Oh wait, that has already happened.
@Chris_Bacon
Should people be punished equally for using force against animals as they are for people?
“I think we need to make a distinction between equal rights and equal responsibility. How can an animal be morally responsible when it does what it does, out of survival, as is the case for animals in the wild - but not for humans.”
This is a myth. Animals do not necessarily kill other animals for food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_%28zoology%29
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/06/21/why.chimpanzees.attack.and.kill.each.other
Those are just a couple of examples. My favorite is male lions killing cubs so that they can have sex with the female lions.
No kidding an animal is not morally responsible for its actions. I don’t care much for human morality either. What I do care about are rights. Humans have them. Now, what reasoning are you using to find that animals have rights too?
That and animals do not necessarily kill out of survival. Would you arrest and prosecute a male lion for killing a female lion’s cubs so that he can have sex with her?
Is it okay if the lamb consents?
“I swear, it just hopped into the fire, and out came this roast!”
The definition of life goes beyond just “animals”, as you know. Why not go down the line of what we should not be allowed to kill? Is it immoral to destroy a hornet’s nest that was made inside my house? Why only “sentient” life, and not all forms of life? How are you defining sentience? Consciousness?
Many pests cling onto life as desperately as they can, even plants have forms of defense and live with purpose- why are their rights not recognized?
I dont consider human life to be precious because humans are sentient forms of life- but because I’m human. Someone who’s in a coma and can’t feel or perceive anything is still someone I wouldn’t kill or eat.
When I say rights for animals, I don’t mean the exact same rights that we have, that would be simply silly; for example, I wouldn’t give a lion the right to education.
‘The definition of life goes beyond just “animals”, as you know. Why not go down the line of what we should not be allowed to kill? Is it immoral to destroy a hornet’s nest that was made inside my house? Why only “sentient” life, and not all forms of life? How are you defining sentience? Consciousness?’
I’m defining sentience as the ability to feel pain. We know that vertebrates do feel pain since they have a nervous system and pain receptors. The reason I would only include sentience (the ability to feel pain) should be obvious, it’s because morality generally focuses on the quality of life, that is a thing is good if it increases the quality of life, and bad if it reduces it.
‘What I do care about are rights. Humans have them. Now, what reasoning are you using to find that animals have rights too?’
Where you don’t care much for morality and more for rights, I care more for morality than for rights. When I say animal rights, I am mainly referring to the right to life and the right to freedom; these rights come about from the argument at the top of the page.
@skylien
‘Should people be punished equally for using force against animals as they are for people?’
I don’t know to what extent people should be punished for killing other people, but my argument isn’t concerned with that; it’s concerned with whether eating animals is moral or not, not whether immoral acts = punishment.
Is it okay if the lamb consents?’
Is it ok if a human consents? Answer that, and you have your answer.
You’re statement was, that animals should have the same rights as humans in your ideal world. But it’s not a right without enforcement. EDIT: I did not ask to what extent aggressive behaviour against people should be punished, only if the same punishement should be used for both. So yes or no?
Do you think it is equally morally wrong to aggress against any animal as against any person?
I’m a Vegan and an advocate for Veganism. I try to exclude animal use from my life to the best of my abilities because I think Animals appreciate not being coerced as much as Humans do. In my ideal society there would be no animal exploitation by choice and/or efficiency.
As an Anarchist I don’t advocate coercion to force people to become Vegan; advocacy and education are the way to go. Persuading someone to go vegan lowers the demand for animal products and thus gives the market signal entrepreneur to seek profit elsewhere. It’s the only workable solution to the animal exploitation issue.
Also I believe that technology will eventually make animal use irrelevant from a sheer efficiency stand point. Things like, 3D printing, Nano-technology, Robotics, Genetics, and Space Colonization will have much to do with making a Vegan society a reality.
To be honest, this stuff is probably nothing more than a relic of animism mixed with any form of interchangable social signaling status device and can probably be done away with at this point in life.
Either way; do as you will, as animals will do as they will. Don’t think about theoretical rights, or any decent analysis of a clear cut morality worth talking about as a possibility. In such a form, it’s just confusing mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus that relates to nothing within the bounds of intellectual discussions.
Wow, what poor arguments against animal rights just by asking rhetorical questions and short statements of substance.
The reason that I value human beings is not because they can feel pain or have feelings, I value human life because of the fact that humans are capable of reason and achievement. Animals are stupid, they are mentally weak and incapable, and they are utterly incapable of intellectual reasoning.
I don’t care about a being who can never be anything than stupid, barbarian, wandering aimlessly around a field all day doing nothing but eating and sleeping simply in order to avoid bodily pain. They are incapable of self control or much of a grasp on cause and effect, animals cannot restrain their desires to mate and they cannot create much of anything of significance, it is beyond their understanding past a primitive level.
We are superior beings inherently, while if you put a cat or a dog out in the wild they will use the most primitive shelter that they can, men have effectivley proven that they can work together to make civilization possible, life out of a billion useless things. Humans are gods compared to animals, and life itself or mere emotions are not enough to warrent rights which they are incapable of even comprehending.
The reason that I value human beings is not because they can feel pain or have feelings, I value human life because of the fact that humans are capable of reason and achievement. Animals are stupid, they are mentally weak and incapable, and they are utterly incapable of intellectual reasoning.
Which is fine I guess. But this is not an argument, this is just a value statement such as “I value blue over black because I like the sound of the word better”.
Words like “superior”, “value”, “smart” and "dumb, etc can’t be discussed in a rational way unless we are talking about the value free intersubjective way put forth by the Austrians.
"Words like “superior”, “value”, “smart” and “dumb, etc can’t be discussed in a rational way unless we are talking about the value free intersubjective way put forth by the Austrians.”
I agree but if you choose to discuss ethical questions then you have to bring this up and give a reason that people might accept about why they should respect or value one thing and not another. Yes, I know that morality is subjective, but just asking how one can rationally value a human over an animal is not necessarily pointless
So is cannibalism in the (presumably) unintelligent cannibalistic societies justified?
“So is cannibalism in the (presumably) unintelligent cannibalistic societies justified?”
No as they are consuming humans who I believe should be entitled to rights. After a certain point it doesn’t matter exactly how much more intelligent one is than another, he is consuming a creature capable (and possibly utilizing) reason. Just because a society lives primitivly does not mean that those living in it are stupid. I doubt very much that in terms of pure brain capacity people living today are any more intelligent than those living in poverty ridden villages during the middle ages.