Why Animals Don't Have Rights

[Fishfriend1]

Altruism, yes. It would be nonsensical for anyone to claim that they would essentially risk their own life for their pet and somehow gain some genetic benefit from that...

Well, there are some people who probably would, and in some cases people may do that. I'm not one of them (Skipper can get herself out of the burning house, she smart enough to figure out the way) and I would only go so far as to leave the door open as i run... but some people may go back for beloved family pets. Emotion makes humans dumb.

 

[spencerguy1]

it always makes me sad when the pet in a movie dies...

 

[jpappy789]

Well, there are some people who probably would, and in some cases people may do that. I'm not one of them (Skipper can get herself out of the burning house, she smart enough to figure out the way) and I would only go so far as to leave the door open as i run... but some people may go back for beloved family pets. Emotion makes humans dumb.

I'm not saying that there are not people that wouldn't die for their pets, I'm sure there are a few that would...but how can someone claim that by doing so it would increase the chance that THEIR own genetic material gets passed on ie. altruism in a biological sense?

 

[SubRosa]

Well, there are some people who probably would, and in some cases people may do that. I'm not one of them (Skipper can get herself out of the burning house, she smart enough to figure out the way) and I would only go so far as to leave the door open as i run... but some people may go back for beloved family pets. Emotion makes humans dumb.

I will reply to your apparent inconsistency Travis. If emotions make humans dumb, why do you put so much stock in using them to dictate human behaviour? If we're doing something dumb I would think we would want to do less of it than more.

 

[SubRosa]

*sigh* last try then...

Animals are unessesary to humans now. With tech we can outdo and replace any animal on this planet, with tech we could someday cease needing this planet altogether. Therefor, logically, humans should wipe out all animal life, because such life is a possible threat to us through disease, predation, competition for resources, extra. That is the logical solution to all our problems. No animals means no reason to care about earths ecosystem, beyond allowing it to sustain plant life. So now, logically, animals deserve no rights whatsoever, because they are not human.

Was that heartless enough for ya, or do we need to enter the realm of open cruelty (if we haven't already)

Travis if you're going to use logic it helps to start from a point of logic. Using logic to support a premise which on its face is illogical doesn't show one in the best light. Your premise that we would be better without animals is faulty in so many ways. Animals give us happiness on so many different levels, that the threat you speak of is more than compensated for. Consider the unintended consequences of eliminating all other animal species. And obviously doing so without eliminating ourselves would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Those who think that all we do is destroy animals need look no further than Whitetailed Deer and Coyotes. Both species are far more numerous than they were when white men landed here. We change things that is true, but some species adapt well to those changes. Some don't. Tough luck for them. Would you want to have Mountain Lions and Rattlesnakes living in your neighborhood? Think of the danger to your cat if not yourself and your potential children. Btw you might consider keeping her inside already. Coyotes like eating cats and it would likely surprise you how many there are around here.

 

[SubRosa]

Hooray for Anthropocentrism!

(there's my useless sarcasm)

As an anthropoid, any attempt at seeing things from a view other than an anthropcentric viewpoint is an exercise in futility and/or self-delusion. You will always be a human trying to think like a dog, cat, bird, or whatever species you choose.

 

[happypoet]

Well, there are some people who probably would, and in some cases people may do that. I'm not one of them (Skipper can get herself out of the burning house, she smart enough to figure out the way) and I would only go so far as to leave the door open as i run... but some people may go back for beloved family pets. Emotion makes humans dumb.

It's not necessarily dumb. Our individual lives are meaningless to us if we do not find things to value highly. It really doesn't matter (to our own individual sense of meaning. Of course it matters to others) what it is that we find, but we must find something. The person that goes back into a burning house to save their dog has something in their life that makes it meaningful.

 

[SubRosa]

It's not necessarily dumb. Our individual lives are meaningless to us if we do not find things to value highly. It really doesn't matter (to our own individual sense of meaning. Of course it matters to others) what it is that we find, but we must find something. The person that goes back into a burning house to save their dog has something in their life that makes it meaningful.

That's a very good point Aaron. My emotions are important to me, your emotions are important to you. They're part of our respective value structures and should have a part in how we live our respective lives. But my emotions shouldn't dicatate how you live your life, and vice versa. Which is the point of this whole thread, at least when I started it.

 

[happypoet]

But my emotions shouldn't dicatate how you live your life, and vice versa. Which is the point of this whole thread, at least when I started it.

I agree with this. However, I'm not convinced that the idea that there ought to be some legal restrictions on how animals are treated is strictly an emotional one. It's true that it's not a strictly rational argument in the sense that since animals clearly do not have a right to their own lives (we can eat them, we can keep them as pets), it's intrinsically illogical to give them other rights. On the other hand, there are other rational reasons to legally restrict some kinds of animal cruelty. One could very well argue (from a rational standpoint) that the entire society benefits in a whole host of ways from agreeing to certain standards of behavior within the community, and among them could certainly be not torturing certain animals.

Now, of course the above argument assigns more power to the governing body and more power to the community over the individual than some would consider to be good. But again, then we're entering into a discussion of the role of government rather than one on animal welfare.
From your political ideals as we've discussed them (and is hinted at in your signature), I absolutely agree that animals should not be granted any sort of rights from any governing body. I respect that view and I believe that it is logical. On the other hand, it's not the only lens out there that can be looked through rationally.

 

[Fishfriend1]

I will reply to your apparent inconsistency Travis. If emotions make humans dumb, why do you put so much stock in using them to dictate human behaviour? If we're doing something dumb I would think we would want to do less of it than more.

*cough* global warming, deforestation, pollution, war, econamy, nuclear bomb *cough* *cough*

Travis if you're going to use logic it helps to start from a point of logic. Using logic to support a premise which on its face is illogical doesn't show one in the best light. Your premise that we would be better without animals is faulty in so many ways. Animals give us happiness on so many different levels, that the threat you speak of is more than compensated for. Consider the unintended consequences of eliminating all other animal species. And obviously doing so without eliminating ourselves would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. Those who think that all we do is destroy animals need look no further than Whitetailed Deer and Coyotes. Both species are far more numerous than they were when white men landed here. We change things that is true, but some species adapt well to those changes. Some don't. Tough luck for them. Would you want to have Mountain Lions and Rattlesnakes living in your neighborhood? Think of the danger to your cat if not yourself and your potential children. Btw you might consider keeping her inside already. Coyotes like eating cats and it would likely surprise you how many there are around here.

Is that emotion I sense here? I thought we weren't allowed to use emotion? Cyotes in Bridgeport? Skipper doesn't leave the back yard anyway, we don't let her. But thanks for the concern. I never said we destroy all animals (case in point: white tailed deer have taken over my dads area, need to get deer netting to hold them back from the gardens, second case in point: cats/dogs/anything domesticated: we spread they spread) what I said was that, using ONLY logic, and NO emotion, humans should wipe out all other animal life on the planet for our own protection. We would just need to put our minds to it for a little bit and we could probably manage to do it without wiping out ourselves or any important plants (like corn, trees, grain, beans, stuff we need to survive).

That's a very good point Aaron. My emotions are important to me, your emotions are important to you. They're part of our respective value structures and should have a part in how we live our respective lives. But my emotions shouldn't dicatate how you live your life, and vice versa. Which is the point of this whole thread, at least when I started it.

Huh? I thought the point of your thread was to logically and without emotion decide if animals deserve rights or not?