Do Some Animals Deserve the Same Rights as Humans?

[Fox McCloud]

no, they don't, and I'd strongly argue animals have zero rights, as well.

 

[The Patriot]

No.

 

[The Patriot]

Abuse of an animal is not a human right.

This.

 

[Dr.3D]

Nope. Let me know when they are able to hold an intelligent conversation.

Mine do. Perhaps you have not listened to them. They don't use speech the way we do, but they do communicate.

Here is an example:

My older dog is eating a bone and the younger one wants that bone. She goes over to the window and looks out and begins to bark. The older one drops the bone and goes to the window to see what she is barking about and then she trots over and takes the bone and starts to eat it.

If that isn't intelligent, please explain why it isn't.

 

[charrob]

Nope. Let me know when they are able to hold an intelligent conversation.

Dolphins Learn English:
YouTube - The Language of Dolphins

Dolphins Have Complex Language Between Themselves:
YouTube - Dolphin Communication

Dolphins Communicate To Each Other Through 'Clicks' And 'Whistles':
YouTube - Dolphin Underwater Audio Sounds Part 2

 

[nayjevin]

It seems to me that so long as we are limited in what we can know about the relative sentience (if that's the proper measure) of a given entity, it would be responsible to leave open the possibility that there are moral implications to our actions which involve that entity.

I'm sure that making laws about it would be a bad idea.

 

[Danke]

Dolphins Learn English:

Aww...

How do they taste with mashed potatoes?

 

[BenIsForRon]

Animals have rights.

Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Right to not be tortured.
Right to not have its entire species removed from existence due to non-essential human activity.

Now if you have to choose between feeding yourself and protecting an endangered species, you have to feed yourself, animal rights are overruled.

On the other hand, if you just want to build a water park that threatens an endangered species, then the animals rights win out and you can go fuck yourself.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Now if you have to choose between feeding yourself and protecting an endangered species, you have to feed yourself, animal rights are overruled.

"Rights" that can be overruled to suit your present need are not rights.

I don't have the right to kill and eat you just because I'm hungry.

You can write regulatory protections all you want, but you cannot assign rights where none exist.

 

[noxagol]

Animal rights makes human life impossible.

 

[charrob]

It seems to me that so long as we are limited in what we can know about the relative sentience (if that's the proper measure) of a given entity, it would be responsible to leave open the possibility that there are moral implications to our actions which involve that entity.

...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... ).

 

[noxagol]

...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... ).

That sounds like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

....So long and thanks for all the fish!!

 

[BenIsForRon]

"Rights" that can be overruled to suit your present need are not rights.

I don't have the right to kill and eat you just because I'm hungry.

You can write regulatory protections all you want, but you cannot assign rights where none exist.

They are separate and unequal to human rights, but they are still rights.

There are some people on this earth who think freedom of religion should not be a right. Yet most people in civil society believe it should be, and enforce those rights with the legal bodies set up by a constitution or other means. Same goes for animal rights.

 

[MelissaWV]

...beautifully stated...i can't agree more...

...does anybody remember an old Star Trek movie...i think it was in the threatre like 20 or 25 years ago (it's been awhile)... but it was about aliens communicating with beings on earth... and i think Kirk and Spock, et al, were trying to decode their language and eventually they realized the aliens were already communicating with what they had thought were the most intelligent beings on earth...and it turned out the aliens were communicating with the dolphins...

...i'll never forget that movie and what a great statement it had made...

(--used to be such a trekky... ).

...except that they were whales.

 

[Krugerrand]

Animals have rights.

Here are a couple off the top of my head:

Right to not be tortured.
...

I'm sure the buffalo being eaten alive by the pack of wolves would agree with you. I doubt the pack of wolves would.

I hope humans don't have an obligation to feed the wolves so they don't torture the buffalo.

Of course, then there's what cats do to mice. We'll have a hard time stopping that one, too.

 

[AlexMerced]

This is a silly question on several fronts.

1. If animals have rights, they have them. It isn't a matter of "deserving" or not.
2. All sorts of people have rights, but others violate them, many times as punishment. You have a "right to vote," yet that can be taken away. You have a "right to bear arms," but there are situations where you probably shouldn't be able to (like when you are actually in prison for a viable offense).
3. Even if all animals have rights, that does not mean that we have to step on eggshells to defend and protect each and every one of them. We have rights to go on about our lives and not be a slave to conservation.
4. We must make value judgments about where our efforts will be focused, and those are invariably going to rely on the competence of the animal in question, often mingled with whether or not violating the creature's rights is in our self-interest.

Perhaps if cows could satisfactorily tapdance or balance the budget, we wouldn't eat so many hamburgers. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference. I seriously doubt there are sharks having this conference right now, about whether or not eating the next surfer they mistake for a seal is a violation of that surfer's rights. "Rights" exist, but so does competition and survival instinct.

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

 

[MelissaWV]

I agree with this, rights must be defended, and if animals want the same right they'll have to put up the same fight. Do I condone some of the brutal animal mistreatment... no, and I discourage it and it does have harmful effects but it doesn't mean it's our human duty to protect animal rights.

If you want to defend and protect animals, more power to you, but there's no moral obligation too.

Yep. Just because someone/something has rights, does not mean that those rights will never be violated. Sometimes those violations are even for a perfectly fine reason. There might very well be a "moral" obligation to care for animals, but the standards for such are obviously not absolute.

 

[charrob]

...except that they were whales.

thank you, i stand corrected...the song of the whales. --just looked it up... 1986... that's about right (long time ago). Star Trek was always so good not just because of strong characterization but their plots always carried a powerful message like this...that we as humans walk around so arrogantly thinking we are the superior species and nothing else much matters... and this movie quite dramatically proves how that arrogance can sometimes blind us.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

thank you, i stand corrected...the song of the whales. --just looked it up... 1986... that's about right (long time ago). Star Trek was always so good not just because of strong characterization but their plots always carried a powerful message like this...that we as humans walk around so arrogantly thinking we are the superior species and nothing else much matters... and this movie quite dramatically proves how that arrogance can sometimes blind us.

*whispers*star trek also has a strong underlining theme advocating communism.

 

[noxagol]

*whispers*star trek also has a strong underlining theme advocating communism.

Yeah, piccard I think it is, explains how society works in the future in the movie where the borg go back in time to try and prevent humans from reaching warp speed and catching the attention of the vulcans. Sounds very communist to me.