Animal Rights

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

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.

[Eric]

The question of animal rights is an emotionally charged issue.

Is it? Why?

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]

(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

(Here) the penalities for animal cruelity exceed those of being nasty to people.

represents an extreme lack of judgement.

[Eric]

(Note: I'm experimenting with different types of introductions to my threads).

Really. Why? Will this make it more interesting to read?

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.

Indeed, 'Rights' is a human concept and, as such, does not apply to animals - much like the phrase, to treat "humanely" which inplies humanity.

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?

Needless to say, I think this...

(Here) the penalities for animal cruelity exceed those of being nasty to people.

...represents an extreme lack of judgement.

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.

"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]

You don't believe in hurting animals because of the way it makes you feel?

No, because of the way it makes me behave.
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.

(Note: I'm experimenting with different types of introductions to my threads).

Really. Why? Will this make it more interesting to read?

I think that sometimes lengthy introductions prevents the thread from getting off the ground in the first place.

[Eric]

I think that sometimes lengthy introductions prevents the thread from getting off the ground in the first place.

True. Short and sweet and to the point is good but it needs a sting in the tail - different people react to different things.

So, do you see as cruelity to animals and humans as the same thing?

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

So, do you see as cruelity to animals and humans as the same thing?

No, but closely related.
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.

[Chroelle]

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.

[Eric]

No, but closely related.

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.

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?

does that not mean that we already give animals the same rights as people in our head (legislation aside)?

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.

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...

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.

I see hurting animals and killing animals for food or mercy as two seperate things.

I'm pretty sure we all know this - I certainly see and acknowledge the difference.


Cheers,

Eric

[Zandrav Ibistenn]

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?

[Eric]

I certainly agree with your words.

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?

<shrug> Each to their own.

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