Why Animals Don't Have Rights

[SubRosa]

I thought he was banned forever. That made me happy. This makes me sad.

Glad to see you too. Need a Kleenex?

 

[SubRosa]

I understood already. Emotionally based laws or ideals should not be forced upon another human, which is the point I think you are getting at. However, in some cases emotions of one human may be better then those of another (A sociopath or phycopath doesn't see anything wrong with murder, should they be except from those laws?) and therefore some laws should be based off of what is colelctivly agreed to be "Morally Correct". Indeed, all alws that humans have ever created have been based off of what their creators felt to be "Morally Correct".

Who decides who's emotions are "better"? Laws are based on rights. The right to not be murdered does not depend on emotions or religions or anything other than the fact that a person has the right to determine the course of their own life as I outlined earlier. Murdering someone, regardless of the murderer's or the victim's emotions is demonstrably wrong.

 

[SubRosa]

All cultures have standards of behavior. They are not necessarily based on emotion, correct? When I teach my daughter that it is wrong to hurt animals without a need to do so, it's not about emotion. It's about ethics (which are NOT the same as emotion), and it is has to do with what I want to teach her in order for her to lead a happy, fulfilled life. It's part of the culture of my family. Larger cultures can develop shared values, and some people believe it is acceptable to enforce these values through law. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but it is certainly something that happens regularly, and it's not about emotion.

Aaron how did you determine that teaching her to live that way would lead her to a happy, fulfilled life?

 

[happypoet]

Aaron how did you determine that teaching her to live that way would lead her to a happy, fulfilled life?

Through experience and observation, I have come to the conclusion that people are happier when they A) Have a general respect for the natural world, and B) Do their best to act compassionately. Of course there are some people that follow these two things that are miserable, and there are happy people that do not follow them, but as a general rule, I think that my conclusion is correct. I think that harming animals without a need to do so would violate both of the above principles.

(Living this way is just one part of living a happy and fulfilled life, of course)

 

[Fishfriend1]

Who decides who's emotions are "better"? Laws are based on rights. The right to not be murdered does not depend on emotions or religions or anything other than the fact that a person has the right to determine the course of their own life as I outlined earlier. Murdering someone, regardless of the murderer's or the victim's emotions is demonstrably wrong.

Whoever's strongest. In the US, that would be the majority voters. In China, the government, in religion, whatever gods they have. The strong decide the rules that all others must follow. They generally decide these rules based on what they as a culture beleive is right, or based on what the leader thinks is write. Who deices what "rights" you get, and why? What decides that you have the right to not be murdered? Emotion and sympathy, as well as a desire for self-protection, which is based off of ones love of themself, a powerful emotion. Who decides that murder is wrong and why?

 

[Reefscape]

opcorn:

 

[spencerguy1]

i have 2 points to add to this arguement.

firstly, look at those tribes that live in the amazon. some made their first contact with the outside world only 30 years ago. they have a huge respect for animals. they live with animals. if you dont have respect for animals, than you are underestimating animals. that is an important fact to know when you are walking around naked in the amazon stepping in murky puddles that could have pirahnas and caiman waiting for a snack.

secondly, i believe some animals deserve rights. adult chimps and orangutans have a higher intelligence than a young human child. yet we lock them in cages at zoos. do we do that to infants? this is disrespectful to those animals that can escape zoos and ride motorcycles. im not saying that we should put infants in cages. the reason we dont is that we as humans make regular contact with babies. we certainly dont make regular contact with chimps and orangutans, especially since they are both endangered.

just my 2 cents.

 

[Slappy*McFish]

this is disrespectful to those animals that can escape zoos and ride motorcycles.

This made me chuckle.

 

[SubRosa]

Through experience and observation, I have come to the conclusion that people are happier when they A) Have a general respect for the natural world, and B) Do their best to act compassionately. Of course there are some people that follow these two things that are miserable, and there are happy people that do not follow them, but as a general rule, I think that my conclusion is correct. I think that harming animals without a need to do so would violate both of the above principles.

(Living this way is just one part of living a happy and fulfilled life, of course)

But you will admit that this is value judgement based on your individual experience, and that the experience of others while it may be different is no less valid, yes?

 

[jetajockey]

firstly, look at those tribes that live in the amazon. some made their first contact with the outside world only 30 years ago. they have a huge respect for animals. they live with animals. if you dont have respect for animals, than you are underestimating animals. that is an important fact to know when you are walking around naked in the amazon stepping in murky puddles that could have pirahnas and caiman waiting for a snack.

Just a quick counterpoint. If they had more power/tech over the animals they'd in turn likely have less respect, I don't think that they or any other less developed group of people are living symbiotically with animals for any benign purpose, they respect them because they have to for the sake of their own survival.