Humanism vs. Animal Rights

[Dre89]

I generally try to be as open-minded as possible, but I have never been able to grasp the animal rights argument.

People talk about the brutality of how we kill animals for food, but it's also how animals kill other animals in the wild to survive, so I don't see what's wrong with it.

If you're going to say we're just animals too like the rest of them, then there'd be nothing wrong with eating meat, considering it's natural for other animals to do it too.

Or if you're going to say that humans are different and therefore shouldn't kill animals, then you've just basically admitted that humans aren't really animals and that we're superior to them.

If it isn't natural for humans to eat animals, it doesn't make sense then why our bodies are structured so that meat has health benfits for us, and why our taste receptors are deisgned to give a positive reaction to the experience of meat (ie. they make meat taste good).

The only reason why we find it so disturbing is because we're so privellaged and spoilt that we can sit at our computers, in a society completely dettached from nature, and have other people do all the work for us. So as soon as our bubble is broken and we are exposed to the harsh reality of the world we're disturbed and make out it's so wrong just because it's not compatible with the illusion we live in.

I bet killing animals isn't that disturbing for all those poor rural tribes around the world who have to hunt for themselves everyday merely to survive.

It's ironic that in western society we label killing animals 'unantural' and disturbing, yet we're the ones who are most dettached from nature, and anyone who is familiar with nature knows how disturbing the reality of it is. It's the people in those rural tribes who are most familiar with nature, not us.

And the only reason why we have the luxury of being vegetarians is because society was made by urbanising natural habitats and killing off animals in those areas.

Basically, to be vegetarian, or uphold animal rights, humans actually needed to destroy animal habitats and their lives so that we could uphold those ideals.

Had we done nothing of the sort, we would either have to be killing animals anwyay to eat them, or killing them off by eating plants that they eat, essentailly imbalancing and corrupting any ecosystem we infiltrate.

So to me, the animal rights argument seems hugely ironic and contradictory.

What do you guys think?

 

[RDK]

I think the point of animal rights is to acknowledge that we too are animals (humans are in the animal kingdom, we are not special) and to have respect for them as such. Whether or not you want to be a vegetarian is your choice, but the goal is to stop the abuse and inhumane treatment of animals.

If we ourselves are somehow entitled to certain rights and laws regarding our well-being then we should extend the same to those of us who can't speak for themselves.

Although I don't really have a problem with eating meat so I guess I'm a little off-topic here.

 

[Dre89]

I disagree that humans are mere animals. Here is a paragraph from an essy I did recently showing why I think they are different.

"Before we continue, this assumption must be briefly defended. The existence of levels of perfections is evidenced by the existence of various levels of superiority. These various levels of superiority are evidenced by the fact that there three are general types of beings: those which are purely means to an end, those which are created as means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, and that which is purely an end in itself. Beings which lack the capacity to commit moral goods and evils are purely means to ends; their goal is to contribute to an ecosystem or a natural cycle, and their individual goals or purposes cannot be altered by them themselves, only those who govern them. Humans, like all other beings, were created for a specific purpose, so they are a means to an end, but flourish as ends in themselves, for their moral capacities allow them to alter their desires and what they contribute towards - a capacity they would not posses if they were not intended to flourish as ends in themselves. Despite this capacity, humans cannot alter what true human flourishing is, only their ideal of it, so in a second way they are also means to an end. Finally, God, being self-necessary in nature, is purely an end in Himself. What is evidenced here is that certain beings relate to other beings in varying manners, suggesting there are degrees of superiority and perfection; for if all beings were equal all beings would be ends in themselves, requiring them all to have the same fundamental nature, which is not the case."

I'm expecting this to require clarifcation so let me know if you guys have any questions/criticisms.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The point of animal rights is to recognize that all sentient beings have some basic rights. Whether or not humans beings are superior doesn't matter, and it doesn't even matter if humans are animals or not. Killing an animal to eat it is one thing; killing an animal by lighting it on fire or slamming it into a wall is something entirely different. If animals must die to support human life, I have no problem with that. However, animals should be protected against capricious and arbitrary violence. That is a right they have simply by existing.

And if society has given us the luxury of being able to say, "I don't want to engage in this activity because it is no longer absolutely necessary for my survival," isn't that a good thing?

 

[Dre89]

The point of animal rights is to recognize that all sentient beings have some basic rights. Whether or not humans beings are superior doesn't matter, and it doesn't even matter if humans are animals or not. Killing an animal to eat it is one thing; killing an animal by lighting it on fire or slamming it into a wall is something entirely different. If animals must die to support human life, I have no problem with that. However, animals should be protected against capricious and arbitrary violence. That is a right they have simply by existing.

I guess so, but I was more referring to the diea that animals are equal. Although a problem is that if you're going to concedede animals are inferior and shouldn't have as many rights as we do, how do you determine what rights they have?

A prime exampple would be an insect. People are sicked if you kill a puppy for no reason. People don't care if you squick an ant. People don't care if you fishing. People care if you go whaling.

How do you determine what was what rights? Any attemtp appears arbirtrary to me.

And if society has given us the luxury of being able to say, "I don't want to engage in this activity because it is no longer absolutely necessary for my survival," isn't that a good thing?

But the problem is if it is wrong to kill animals, the only reason why we can uphold that principle now is because we killed them in the past. Clearly that means that animals weren't supposed to be free from death by humans. It's a contrdictory argument.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

There's nothing wrong with killing an animal humanely and quickly as opposed to making an absolute *** of it. Many animals feel pain, most of the one's we eat do. So, it's just kindness and decency. In my mind, if they're going to die to make us happy, they at least deserve a little respect.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with others being vegetarians, it means more food for me! Also, they're doing something noble, protecting the environment (livestock farming is disgusting for the environment) and in some cases improving their diets.

Dre, some vague line could be drawn at the level of sentience; bacteria don't really feel too much pain (if any), so I'm fine with brutally poisoning them to death. However things like whales feel much more pain, so brutally poisoning them to death would be just frankly unkind at the least.

Also, I think your presentation is slightly better here, the arguments are short and sweet(ish), I like it much more.

 

[rvkevin]

But the problem is if it is wrong to kill animals, the only reason why we can uphold that principle now is because we killed them in the past. Clearly that means that animals weren't supposed to be free from death by humans. It's a contradictory argument.

I don't follow the reasoning here. It could still be considered right to consume animals in some situations and not in others and avoid contradiction. If it is necessary to consume animals in order to survive, then the suffering partaken from the animals is necessary suffering. However, when we have the means to sustain our diet without killing animals (this is debatable whether we've reached this point yet), then the necessary suffering becomes gratuitous suffering and becomes not acceptable. This means that it could be acceptable for people in tribes to consume animals whereas, while at the same time, not acceptable for people in the modernized world.

There is no contradiction if you are prescribing a moral theory based on situational ethics; there is only a contradiction if you consider something like Kant's categorical imperative, rule utilitarianism, etc. Also, in situational ethics, you don't inherent atrocities, so even if it was wrong to modernize an area and doing so carried an immediate negative externality, that is a sunk cost and bears no weight in deciding what to do from here on out.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The point of animal rights is to recognize that all sentient beings have some basic rights. Whether or not humans beings are superior doesn't matter, and it doesn't even matter if humans are animals or not. Killing an animal to eat it is one thing; killing an animal by lighting it on fire or slamming it into a wall is something entirely different. If animals must die to support human life, I have no problem with that. However, animals should be protected against capricious and arbitrary violence. That is a right they have simply by existing.

I agree with all of this.

I guess so, but I was more referring to the diea that animals are equal. Although a problem is that if you're going to concedede animals are inferior and shouldn't have as many rights as we do, how do you determine what rights they have?

A prime exampple would be an insect. People are sicked if you kill a puppy for no reason. People don't care if you squick an ant. People don't care if you fishing. People care if you go whaling.

How do you determine what was what rights? Any attemtp appears arbirtrary to me.

It is arbitrary. The reason people care about the puppy is because many dogs are domesticated and we have a special attachment to them. We don't care about ants because they're everywhere and have no special meaning to us. Also they don't produce a lot of blood and gore when they die, which, unfortunately, probably is a big factor. People don't care about most fish because they're very common, whereas many whales are endangered.

But honestly, it's hard to find a "cutoff" point. We have no real system for that. A lot of the way people feel about this issue isn't logically thought out, so yes, there are many animal rights inconsistencies.

By the way Dre, we ARE animals. If you think we're not animals, then you must think we're either plans, fungi, or single-cellular, because those are the only other classifications of life.

Dre, some vague line could be drawn at the level of sentience; bacteria don't really feel too much pain (if any), so I'm fine with brutally poisoning them to death. However things like whales feel much more pain, so brutally poisoning them to death would be just frankly unkind at the least.

Lobsters feel pain, yet they're often cooked alive.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I guess so, but I was more referring to the diea that animals are equal. Although a problem is that if you're going to concedede animals are inferior and shouldn't have as many rights as we do, how do you determine what rights they have?

A prime exampple would be an insect. People are sicked if you kill a puppy for no reason. People don't care if you squick an ant. People don't care if you fishing. People care if you go whaling.

How do you determine what was what rights? Any attemtp appears arbirtrary to me.



But the problem is if it is wrong to kill animals, the only reason why we can uphold that principle now is because we killed them in the past. Clearly that means that animals weren't supposed to be free from death by humans. It's a contrdictory argument.

Well, how do you determine human rights? If life is a natural right, why isn't health care, which protects life? I'm not necessarily saying health care should be a natural right, but it's all arbitrary at some point, because we have to choose a starting point. I think a fair point to begin is to protect animals from random violence. Yeah it's arbitrary, but what isn't?

Also, you're putting words in my mouth with that last point. I never made the blanket statement that killing animals is wrong. Killing animals for food or hides is not wrong, not now or in the past. Violence against animals for its own sake is wrong.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I agree, but for a different reason than "we are not animals".

IMO, we are animals, but we are animals not only at the top of the food chain, but miles above anything else. This means we have tons of options available to us. And being that we are at the top of the food chain, why should we give two ****s about any other species's rights?

 

[rvkevin]

And being that we are at the top of the food chain, why should we give two ****s about any other species's rights?

If you are at the top of a pyramid, it is not wise to chisel at the foundation. The same with the food chain, if you kill or poison the base, the higher forms of life become effected. Granted, our diet is very diverse, if we kill off one species, we can substitute many others, but sooner or later, our demand will exceed the supply. If we want a plentiful food supply, then it is in our interest to nurture ecosystems by taking care of the ones already present and to build new ones, and to harvest only enough members of a particular population such that the process is sustainable.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

If you are at the top of a pyramid, it is not wise to chisel at the foundation. The same with the food chain, if you kill or poison the base, the higher forms of life become effected. Granted, our diet is very diverse, if we kill off one species, we can substitute many others, but sooner or later, our demand will exceed the supply. If we want a plentiful food supply, then it is in our interest to nurture ecosystems by taking care of the ones already present and to build new ones, and to harvest only enough members of a particular population such that the process is sustainable.

Oh, this is clear. However, that's got nothing to do with "animal rights" as such, and more with protecting the natural order that keeps us humans fed and fat-we can be as brutally evil as we want to said animals, as long as we don't **** up too hard..

 

[Jam Stunna]

I agree, but for a different reason than "we are not animals".

IMO, we are animals, but we are animals not only at the top of the food chain, but miles above anything else. This means we have tons of options available to us. And being that we are at the top of the food chain, why should we give two ****s about any other species's rights?

So might makes right?

 

[rvkevin]

However, that's got nothing to do with "animal rights" as such, and more with protecting the natural order that keeps us humans fed and fat-we can be as brutally evil as we want to said animals, as long as we don't **** up too hard..

True. I suppose the only reasons are moral reasons.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Lobsters feel pain, yet they're often cooked alive.

Then that should probably stop. Why not just kill 'em first? I don't really understand.

 

[manhunter098]

You have to boil lobsters alive because if you kill them first, the meat goes bad extremely quickly.

I would look more to utility, as long as we are using the animals death for food, fur, and anything else we can find useful in a species, or if they invade our environment or cause harm to the local environment. As long as the above conditions are upheld, I really don't think there is too much wrong with killing animals.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

You have to boil lobsters alive because if you kill them first, the meat goes bad extremely quickly.

I see. That's a shame isn't it. Good thing I don't really eat lobster then...

 

[RDK]

So might makes right?

However in the wild, might does make a sort of "right".

I don't necessarily agree with this view but I'm just throwing it out there to make things more interesting.

 

[KrazyGlue]

IMO, we are animals, but we are animals not only at the top of the food chain, but miles above anything else. This means we have tons of options available to us. And being that we are at the top of the food chain, why should we give two ****s about any other species's rights?

Well this would be valid if you have no morals or ethics whatsoever.

I would look more to utility, as long as we are using the animals death for food, fur, and anything else we can find useful in a species, or if they invade our environment or cause harm to the local environment. As long as the above conditions are upheld, I really don't think there is too much wrong with killing animals.

Unfortunately sometimes the way we receive these benefits is through torturing animals. For instance, the way Foie Gras is produced by forcibly inserting a tube in a chicken's mouth and injecting food into their stomach directly to fatten them up. (Granted, some places are starting to make foie gras illegal, but it's still legal in most areas).

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So might makes right?

More or less.

Well this would be valid if you have no morals or ethics whatsoever.

Morals and ethics should be formed to what we as humans need to live to the best of our abilities. Not so that animals don't feel pain.

 

[RDK]

Morals and ethics should be formed to what we as humans need to live to the best of our abilities. Not so that animals don't feel pain.

That's completely subjective.

I could create a human morality system based on how much pain is felt by other animals and it would be just as valid as yours.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

That's completely subjective.

I could create a human morality system based on how much pain is felt by other animals and it would be just as valid as yours.

Morality is at its heart subjective. However, would your system be as beneficial for humanity's overall survival as mine?

 

[RDK]

Morality is at its heart subjective. However, would your system be as beneficial for humanity's overall survival as mine?

No, but that wouldn't matter because defining which system is best is completely subjective anyway. That was my point.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Morals and ethics should be formed to what we as humans need to live to the best of our abilities. Not so that animals don't feel pain.

So we should just kill off people with mental diseases? How about people with terminal cancer? They're going to die soon and are taking up space in our hospitals. How about killing off people in retirement homes, who are no longer contributing anything to society? Oh, and why don't we do it by cooking them alive and making it food for the rest of society to eat? That would benefit us as humans more than just waiting for them to die and then burying them in a hole. In fact, why don't we just do this for any dead human? Cook them up and make them food so it can benefit the rest of society. Right?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

So we should just kill off people with mental diseases? How about people with terminal cancer? They're going to die soon and are taking up space in our hospitals. How about killing off people in retirement homes, who are no longer contributing anything to society? Oh, and why don't we do it by cooking them alive and making it food for the rest of society to eat? That would benefit us as humans more than just waiting for them to die and then burying them in a hole. In fact, why don't we just do this for any dead human? Cook them up and make them food so it can benefit the rest of society. Right?

The only point I'd really argue there is that cannibalism is healthy. Aren't there various health risks involved with eating other human meat (for example, BSE)? Also, I somehow doubt that the meat of a human who has had cancer, or one that has lived for a very long time would be good eating.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'll concede that part of it. But you'd be in favor of killing them off?

 

[manhunter098]

Unfortunately sometimes the way we receive these benefits is through torturing animals. For instance, the way Foie Gras is produced by forcibly inserting a tube in a chicken's mouth and injecting food into their stomach directly to fatten them up. (Granted, some places are starting to make foie gras illegal, but it's still legal in most areas).

Well, I do think that we should at least take the most humane method when dealing with animals, but when we are growing them for the slaughter, if it is necessary for the actual quality of the product being produced from those animals, I wouldn't disagree with torturous means to achieve that product, as long as its the most humane method we can find so far for the job.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Well, I do think that we should at least take the most humane method when dealing with animals, but when we are growing them for the slaughter, if it is necessary for the actual quality of the product being produced from those animals, I wouldn't disagree with torturous means to achieve that product, as long as its the most humane method we can find so far for the job.

I see what you mean.

My position is sort of like this: "it's unrealistic to assume we'll ever stop raising animals just to slaughter them for food, but they should be treated as humanely as possible while alive". Foie gras does just the opposite. It tortures the animals every meal of their lifetime just to make the meat taste a liiitle bit better. It would be perfectly healthy, reasonably well-tasting meat without torturing them. Plus the chickens are kept in tiny wire cages their entire life that cut them and don't even give them enough space to turn around. This also arguably lowers the quality of meat, as disease is free to spread rampantly in those conditions.

 

[manhunter098]

I don't disagree that there are problems with factory farming, if they could keep the conditions clean there though I would think the health hazards would be significantly diminished. Unfortunately factory farming is the densest means of production we can manage with raising animals, so while its its a very harsh environment to keep animals in, my first concerns are with how it affects people, and second concerns is to the welfare of the doomed animals involved.

 

[Teran]

The whole concept of rights is an arbritrary human invention.

No living being is entitled to anything. Sure you may think it's unpleasant, but that's life.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Why does something being arbitrary devalue it?

 

[KrazyGlue]

The whole concept of rights is an arbritrary human invention.

No living being is entitled to anything. Sure you may think it's unpleasant, but that's life.

So basically you're in favor of lawless anarchy?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Why does something being arbitrary devalue it?

It doesn't. It just makes it easier for other factors (for example, negative effects to humanity) to be applied to devalue it.

 

[RDK]

Acknowledging that rights are a human invention derived arbitrarily doesn't make one an anarchist. How did you even come to that conclusion.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Acknowledging that rights are a human invention derived arbitrarily doesn't make one an anarchist. How did you even come to that conclusion.

He said no living being is entitled to anything. Isn't that what all our laws are about? Protecting people's rights? If he doesn't believe we're entitled to any rights, than doesn't that mean he doesn't believe there should be laws?

 

[RDK]

There's a difference between "should" and "is".

The idea that certain beings have more rights than others based on insert whatever argument is completely arbitrary. That's all that's being said; it has nothing to do with whether or not we should have laws.