Do animals have rights?
If so, what are these rights?
Should they be respected by humans? Should they be respected by other animals?
We eat them. So it is problematic if they have rights. Same thing for plants.
Yes, it pisses me off how bunny gets not no respect. Hyena, wolf, boar, bear they are all after him! The hedgehog even!
No, animals do not have rights. That doesn’t mean that its not wrong to mistreat animals, just that such mistreatment cannot be considered aggression.
Most of them act as if they do.
If you attack them or threaten them, most animals tend to fight back.
If animals were to have rights then there would be many problems including: public nudity, defecation in a public area, respecting other rights(ie not just stealing someones food or something). I mean come on lol
My Vegan significant other would say they do.
I think there is something to be said for Animal rights however I dont personally subscribe to the idea that agression towards an animal is equivalent to agression towards a human. Why? Because of the fact that, animals do not find their virtue through freedom and non-aggression. Their virtue, in my mind is in their service to us - as food.
There was a large thread time ago,
I would love some answers from the animals-can-be-owned group;
¿How can you called your property something that runs away and attacks you when you try to use it?
There are only two options,
-
animals con be owned by humans, therefore unlimited torture and barbarism is perfectly ethical and right.
-
animals can not be owned by humans because they already have an owner, themselves.
The evidence (they control their body, their movement, have a brain similar to us, some have kid-level reasoning capabilities, some have consciousness, identify in front of mirrors, mourn their deads, have almost all of the human emotions).
So, beetween a rock or sand that can be owned and a human slave imported from africa that doesn’t speak ‘human languages’ (that’s what was said not long ago, less thant 200 years)…
I do think that at least those animals closer to us like mammals and birds are self-owned entities.
Everybody here knows that an animal cannot be in the same category as a rock, and those who that are either lazy intellectuals or too ashamed to come forward.
The way to go is very easy, liberalism as always, live your life and let others live theirs and if you are attacked, defend yourself.
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard
21. THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS
IT HAS LATELY BECOME a growing fashion to extend the concept of rights from human beings to animals, and to assert that since animals have the full rights of humans, it is therefore impermissible—i.e., that no man has the right—to kill or eat them.
There are, of course, many difficulties with this position, including arriving at some criterion of which animals or living beings to include in the sphere of rights and which to leave out. (There are not many theorists, for example, who would go so far as Albert Schweitzer and deny the right of anyone to step on a cockroach. And, if the theory were extended further from conscious living beings to all living beings, such as bacteria or plants, the human race would rather quickly die out.)
But the fundamental flaw in the theory of animal rights is more basic and far-reaching.1 For the assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one; individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. In short, man is a rational and social animal. No other animals or beings possess this ability to reason, to make conscious choices, to transform their environment in order to prosper, or to collaborate consciously in society and the division of labor.
Thus, while natural rights, as we have been emphasizing, are absolute, there is one sense in which they are relative: they are relative to the species man. A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color or sex, but for the species man alone. The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was “given” or,—in natural law, we may say “has”—dominion over all the species of the earth. Natural law is necessarily species-bound.
That the concept of a species ethic is part of the nature of the world may be seen, moreover, by contemplating the activities of other species in nature. It is more than a jest to point out that animals, after all, don’t respect the “rights” of other animals; it is the condition of the world, and of all natural species, that they live by eating other species. Inter-species survival is a matter of tooth and claw. It would surely be absurd to say that the wolf is “evil” because he exists by devouring and “aggressing against” lambs, chickens, etc. The wolf is not an evil being who “aggresses against” other species; he is simply following the natural law of his own survival. Similarly for man. It is just as absurd to say that men “aggress against” cows and wolves as to say that wolves “aggress against” sheep. If, furthermore, a wolf attacks a man and the man kills him, it would be absurd to say either that the wolf was an “evil aggressor” or that the wolf was being “punished” for his “crime.” And yet such would be the implications of extending a natural-rights ethic to animals. Any concept of rights, of criminality, of aggression, can only apply to actions of one man or group of men against other human beings.
What of the “Martian” problem? If we should ever discover and make contact with beings from other planets, could they be said to have the rights of human beings? It would depend on their nature. If our hypothetical “Martians” were like human beings—conscious, rational, able to communicate .with us and participate in the division of labor, then presumably they too would possess the rights now confined to “earthbound” humans.2 But suppose, on the other hand, that the Martians also had the characteristics, the nature, of the legendary vampire, and could only exist by feeding on human blood. In that case, regardless of their intelligence, the Martians would be our deadly enemy and we could not consider that they were entitled to the rights of humanity. Deadly enemy, again, not because they were wicked aggressors, but because of the needs and requirements of their nature, which would clash ineluctably with ours.
There is, in fact, rough justice in the common quip that “we will recognize the rights of animals whenever they petition for them.” The fact that animals can obviously not petition for their “rights” is part of their nature, and part of the reason why they are clearly not equivalent to, and do not possess the rights of, human beings.3 And if it be protested that babies can’t petition either, the reply of course is that babies are future human adults, whereas animals obviously are not.4
Not needed, but I say it anyways, I have a great respect for Murray, and I’m sorry that you just published his worst error.
individuals possess rights not because we “feel” that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man’s capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor.
Exactly the same can be said about animals, hunting in group, taking care of the family, one hunts the other babysits…
I try, but still I don’t understand the misconceptions many here have, the same or a similar action if done by a human is a ‘conscious choice’ almost praised by The Lord and deserving a medal or a statue, but the same action done by a non-human, be it a cat o a chimp is just ‘pure instinct, genes’… what, now humans don’t have genes? what are we aliens? how many here fuck for intellectual pleasure and how many fuck for either pleasure or baby-making?
“A rights-ethic for mankind is precisely that: for all men, regardless of race, creed, color or sex, but for the species man alone.”
Great, man (I prefer human if you don’t mind), humans have human-rights, that is contracts, we also have developed money, mathemathics and several other concepts-institutions like time… It doesn’t follow animals do not have basic rights to non-agression. It only points out we have more.
“The Biblical story was insightful to the effect that man was “given” or,—in natural law, we may say “has”—dominion over all the species of the earth.”
Now you are using the bible as an argument? I will deny any comment here out of respect.
“animals, after all, don’t respect the “rights” of other animals;”
Yeah, that’s why I see cows running after me, trying to rape me when i go to the mountains!
Just pointing out that vegetarian animals only attack when threatened, when their kids, their family or their home is in danger.
¿How is that different from us?
So, a squirrel looking for food and hiding/protecting it in her home and then taking care of her kids and using a small-division of labour with the father to take care of the babies and using force only to defend their home and their life is different than me being, living, in front of the squirrel in my home taking care of my family taking turns with my fiancee and having gathered food and resources and hiding/protecting them at my home.
And i do have the right to go the squirrel family home, put them in cages, burn them alive, experiment with them or kill them slowly for their fur.
Just because they are not in the ‘chosen’ group the humans? I still don’t follow the logic here, please explain to me, I want to understand.
You never explained why is it that animals don’t respect the rights of other animals. My cat for instance kills birds all the time. And birds eat insects…do insects have rights as well ?
Oh, I did explain, and you are wrong (well, that depends on the logic we are using).
Some animals do respect other animals. ‘Vegetarian’ animals respect other animals. (Human and non-human)
Some other animals do not respect other animals, hell they even eat them! sometimes even alive!
The differences is this, some of this animals that don’t respect others, can’t do anything about that, they are carnivorous only!
And the ironic part comes here, humans are both omnivorous and with the capability of complicated thinking!
But most of the humans still kill animals for food and not just for food, but for fun!
So, who is really ‘deserving’ rights, we come to the logical conclussion that only vegetarians should have rights because they are the only ones who respect others.
I don’t know…chickens have natural rights, but then a fox comes along and, since it’s in the nature of foxes to eat chickens…the chicken has a natural right to not be eaten yet the fox has a natural right to eat it…? It doesn’t make sense does it ?
Believing animals have rights comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what rights are in the first place. How do we know when we have violated the rights of another? We only know if they did not consent to it. If you kill someone, is it wrong? What if they consented to it? If you have sex with someone is it wrong? It depends. You have to ask, did they consent? A violation can only occur if one does not consent. But in order to be able to consent or withold consent, one has to have the ability to consent. Otherwise, when you pick up a rock and throw it, you have violated the rights of the rock, because it obviously did not consent. So, in order for one’s rights to be violated, one has to have the ability to consent, and then to withold consent.
Animals do not have the ability to consent. They only have instincts. They cannot choose to ignore their instincts, they can only do what their instincts tell them to do. As such, they have no rights. Otherwise, we would have to punish them anytime they did something to another animal without the other animals consent. And we would have to punish people anytime they excercise their powers on rocks, and throw them.
So, how does a blind person, a deaf person, or someone who can’t read? Could there maybe be a ‘verbal’ or ‘informal’ consent? Maybe staying there? Maybe screaming? Isn’t screaming crazy a clear sign of not wanting something done to them? So, because you don’t understand their language, you just assume they don’t have one?
What kind of consent gives a baby? a small kid?
Have you ever ever been ‘near’ an animal in your life? Consent clearly can be given, not signed with a pencil, but informally given, and clearly being tortured is evident that consent hasn’t been given, go to a dominatrix if you want to be in a cage, and give your consent, but screaming in pain and trying to run away I think is a sign of not wanting something.
Have you read ‘anything’ of what I have written before? really, before posting the lie that they just act on instincts, so you have absolutely no instincts? and you can choose to ignore them? can you ignore the suffering? the hunger? the will to breathe?..
Please, read what has been written before, in this and the other thread, the link was posted somewhere, anyways it can be found through the search engine.
Men have natural rights because they have the moral hardware to do so. You could even say it is an instinct.
the mass slaughter of sentients capable of feeling not just physical pain but emotional torment is bad.
I eat meat that I kill myself, I try to avoid patronizing the meat industry.
I hope that we gain the technology to grow meat substitutes that taste exactly the same (cheaply) soon.
OK, so rather than ranting, please explain why one should not hold animals culpable for the violation of the rights of other animals. If they’re rational enough to have rights, they’re also rational enough to suffer the consequences of violating them, which is more or less what rights are meant to specify (i.e. when one is justified in using force against another)… or should Frodo the chimp get his own genocide trial? I’m open to the idea that an animal could possess rights were its species to become capable of rationality, but only when that can be demonstrated. Also, the non-possession of rights does not automatically entail all ways of treating an animal are equally moral, if that is what you think.
Who said you shouldn’t?
If a wolf kills your favorite dog who is saying you can’t kill it?
But you are hiding and avoiding the real question, what’s your legitimacy to go to the jungle to hunt chimps, put them in cages and experiment on them.
Where does your legitimacy come to keep a cow in a massive industrialized farming prison? And not just the cow, but her just-born babies.
What is your claim you are using against these baby cows to trying to make a case for their premeditated murder? And against the chimp in the jungle?
What has he done to you that you can claim any kind of ‘compensation’? is that what you are saying? and how is torture a ‘compensation’? and what about the babies born in the animal-prison? what’s your justification for holding them there?
You talk about ‘demonstration’ of rights, but you never logically explained clearly the conditions to acquire them so that we can all talk about that.
All I have heard is ‘we have rights because we are human’, and 'because we are human we have rights. A circular fallacious reasoning.
Also the same with abstract not clearly defined words like ‘we have reason’, ‘they don’t’, ‘that’s why’.
Because lot of animals are pacific by nature and never harm any others, for example, the sheep, that’s why it’s used whit the meaning it has.
Tell me, if I’m a human, living in my home, in my island, alone, i grow my own garden, and everyday i see sheeps there and other pacific vegetarian animals. And now one day, a human hunter arrives and starts shooting and launching his tortured-trained dogs to attack and hunt all kind of animals, and then takes their fur, and some of them into cages to be locked up for all their lifes in matrix-like farms.
So, who’s the ‘animal’? who is the one who doesn’t respect others?
I would say in this case, the human hunter is the worst, because he has no biological programming to do so, instead chooses to do evil, and is even proud of that, even more, tortures his dogs, training them to be better hunters for him.
After that, we could attack the dogs and the wolfs and other carnivorous animals. At least they let their victims in peace almost all their lifes until the short moments where they were killed, for food, to eat, because they were biologically-programmed to do so, animal meat is the only food their biology allows, and if they don’t it, they will die, so it’s either dying of hunger or killing to survive, and with strong instincts to prey, and an inferior and less powerfull brain than humans.
So, do you consider the position of this human vegetarian more ethical respecting other sentient beings who also have their own will to live, even when they are dumber than us?
Vocalization is not the only way to communicate.
No. There are people that like to scream in pain, but they pay to have it done to themselves anyways.
None, until they develop the ability to do so. Otherwise, every time a baby/child does not consent to what their parents want them to do, then their rights would be violated, and the parents should be punished.
Of course.
Agreed.
But it does not tell us if they had the ability to give or withold consent in the first place.
Of course I have instincts. But, since I have the ability to reason, I can choose to ignore them.
The suffering? Yes, I can choose to ignore hunger if I so wish to. However, in regards to breathing, I am always ignoring “the will to breathe”. I do not have to conciously think about breathing. It just happens. Just like my heart beats. If I hold my breath for long enough, I will pass out, and just start breathing again. But, if I really wanted to, I could hold my breath.
Please, use your brain, and quit having knee jerk emotional reactions.