Admit it, you believe in animal rights.

[Jon_Stripe]

Depends on the scale.

(in response to my opening question)


I don't understand.


I believe that it is wrong to wantedly torture or do unjustified harm to a living being, especially when that being really can't defend it's self.

If you're talking about bactiria and viruses, well, killing it prevents an ailment on your end so it is justified.

I like what the far back poster said about how government can somewhat regulate what you do with your property.

Very well put.

BTW, hunting to feed yourself and family is not animale cruelty, which some animal rights activists say.

 

[Michael C]

Somewhere between the total softie who won't kill a mosquito and the person who abuses and eats any other species without any qualms, you have to decide where you draw the line. I eat bits of cow or chicken, but if my local supermarket sold bits of gorilla I wouldn't buy them.

Having said that I eat cow or chicken, this doesn't mean that I deny them all rights. I consider slow, drawn-out torture to be much worse than swift killing. I see no contradiction in keeping certain animals with a view to eating them, but insisting that their lives should be as agreeable as possible.

The bottom line: I answered "yes", to the poll, but I have to qualify it. I can only work with some sort of sliding scale. I accord more rights to an orangutan than I do to a pig, but I accord more rights to a pig than I do to a horsefly. Deciding how much, or little rights I should accord to a certain species is a complex and imprecise process. At best I use the idea of "perceived level of consciousness": the higher the consciousness of an animal seems to be, the more rights I am likely to accord it.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, it would be fine so long as it was fine with the society. I never said it was fine by me. The coyote thinks it's fine to eat baby ducks. He evolved to do so. The Great Egret Casmerodius evolved to commit siblicide. It's necessary to their survival.

If morality were absolute then the Coyote and great egret would be immoral.

And yet you never learned that morality isn't absolute. That our sense of morality is an evolutionary trait that could have been very different. There is nothing special or transcendent about humans. If humans evolved to kill their siblings in order to survive then that would be moral. Period. End of story.

It's not a source of controversy for anthropologists. It's getting you to understand the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and that there is nothing absolute about morality that is like pulling teeth.

Some criticisms of my post:

Coyotes and egrets don't "think" the way humans do and don't have a concept of morality. To say that the coyote "thinks it's fine" is nonsensical.

One could also argue that in addition to not "thinking", in the sense that humans think, the coyote and egret lack mind theory and the ability for empathy and therefore lack any rudimentary sense of morality necessary to come to an opinion as to what is right and wrong.

That said, though we have the mechanics for morality (theory of mind and the ability to feel empathy) it does not mean that those mechanics automatically lead everyone to the same conclusions about what is and is not moral. Cultural indoctrination has a significant influence on our morality. There was a time when it was moral to own slaves. The Spartans left to die handicapped children. There was once a popular proverb that stated "the tears of foreigners are just water".

We can see throughout history that morality is fluid and often arbitrary. Though there is a good argument to be made that given reason and progress most societies will come to see things like slavery, murder, rape and robbery as immoral but there is no proof that this will always be the case. Why? Because there is nothing in mathematics, science, philosophy or the natural world that would dictate that morality is absolute and that all people who try and deduce what is and is not moral will arrive at the same conclusions based on any empirical data.

Those that argue that morality is absolute without any empirical evidence that morality is absolute beg the question and rely on appealing to emotion and/or bias. When someone makes an argument that given that morality isn't absolute then it would stand to reason that there could be a society that believes that it is moral to kill people with purple hair they are simply begging the question. Yes, I think it is immoral to kill people simply because they have purple hair. Yes I think there is good reason not to kill people simply because they have purple hair. That doesn't make my belief that it is immoral correct.

The proposition to be proved (morality is absolute) is assumed implicitly in the premise (that killing people with purple hair is immoral). However, if we evolved genetically to believe or if we were culturally indoctrinated to believe that people with purple hair were in some way harmful to society then we could perceive that it would be moral to kill them (for the logically impaired, that's a hypothetical).

 

[Minadin]

Pigs, on the other hand, are just so tasty that they are obviously asking for it.

This reminded me of the Simpsons episode where Lisa decides to become a vegetarian:

Lisa: I'm going to become a vegetarian.
Homer: Does that mean you're not going to eat any pork?
Lisa: Yes.
Homer: Bacon?
Lisa: Yes, Dad.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: Dad, all those meats come from the same animal!
Homer: Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!

In response to the OP, I don't believe in animal rights in the same way that I believe in human rights. I agree with reasonable laws with the aim of protecting animals from undue cruelty. But I think it's an incredibly specious argument to try to use some idea of "basic animal rights" as a reason to legislate some sort of forced vegetarianism, not that it would fly in any event.


And for Mumble: Ingrid Newkirk is a complete nut and PETA as an organization is so full of fringe zealots and angry, insane people that it's practically a terrorist organization itself. Not to mention the fact that they are also total hypocrites:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I think that the vast majority of people who join PETA or assist them by donating volunteer time or money don't know what the official positions of the organization and the leadership are documented to be. I mean, who would be against treating animals ethically? It sounds like a worthwhile charity.

 

[tkingdoll]

Is it OK to stomp a kitten to death? Is it OK to skin a puppy alive? Certainly animals have a right to humane treatment. Whatever other rights one has in mind would be up for individual discussion.

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef. So on many levels, it's is 'OK' that it happens because the end result is a tasty steak.

Similarly, sometimes a baby chick will be stomped to death by a bored teenager during a vacation job at a factory farm. That's not nice either, but I'd be willing to bet that it happens frequently enough. Cruelty is just part of the general lack of care for the 'life' part of the living creatures in that process. They're just products, and not respected on that level. Factory farming might breed compassion in some people, but the opposite in others.

Kosher and Halal butchers don't stun the animal first, they cut the artery and allow the blood to drain. This leads to a slower and more painful death for the animal than intensive farming procedures, but almost no-one is out protesting it. Every animal killer in the UK is legally obliged to stun the animal first, except those praying to two specific gods. And yet my local Subway only uses Halal meat and no-one minds.

The difficulty here is when producing and processing living creatures for human consumption, we disassociate ourselves from the actual killing part because it's distasteful. But when we think about kittens and puppies, which we don't eat, it's more upsetting. Why?

The only way to ensure humane treatment of commercial meat animals is to dramatically reduce demand for meat.

 

[Michelle Lyon]

I voted yes. In my corner of the planet, animal rights is typically discussed in relation to scientific experimentation. The ethics of each case has to be considered separately from the other cases. For example, animal experiments on a new medical drug for, say, diabetes, would be ok (don't forget that veterinary medicine is also helped by such experiments), but experiments on a cosmetic product to remove human wrinkles, or any other non-life-saving product, would not. If the ethics weren't in place with the IRB, there's be no limits on what to test on animals. Experiments need to be designed with as little suffering to the animal as possible, and the desired outcome has to justify any possible suffering.

I draw the line at radicals who like to break into labs and free all the animals into the ecosystem, carrying, suffering from, or spreading to wild animals, whatever drugs, injuries, or diseases they may have from the controled experiments. Even healthy animals would have been bred in captivity and won't know how to defend themselves in the wild. Setting them "free" is not animal rights, it's hypocricy.

ETA: A lot of posts here discuss the eating of animals. I have no problem with eating animals that were bred or hunted for eating. There are lots of other animals on the planet who eat other animals. What I do have a problem with are things like cruel slaughter practices (such as dog slaughterhouse practices in Korea - not the animal type, but the method used to slaughter them) or hunting an animal and then not using the entire carcas (trophy-hunting).

 

[Michelle Lyon]

Ingrid Newkirk is a complete nut and PETA as an organization is so full of fringe zealots and angry, insane people that it's practically a terrorist organization itself. Not to mention the fact that they are also total hypocrites:

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/

I think that the vast majority of people who join PETA or assist them by donating volunteer time or money don't know what the official positions of the organization and the leadership are documented to be. I mean, who would be against treating animals ethically? It sounds like a worthwhile charity.

Thank you!
This remains my favorite Bullsh*t episode.

 

[Terry]

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef.

No, "everyone" does not still buy beef. I don't buy beef, for instance.

 

[Darat]

Hmm. Why kittens and puppies? Sometimes commercial meat animals (such as cows) are skinned alive inadvertantly due to failings in the stunning process for intensive processing of beef. It's an economic process: get the meat processed as fast an efficiently as possible, and so the speed and inevitable shortcuts taken by a profit-driven operation lead to accidents. It's not nice when this happens, but it happens frequently and yet everyone still buys beef. So on many levels, it's is 'OK' that it happens because the end result is a tasty steak.


...snip...

I can't see how cattle can ever be skinned alive. The process today of the slaughter of a cow is generally:

stunning > sticking (the removal of blood & then the head) > dressing (the first steps are removing the feet and then the hide)

Even in the Hala & Kosher methods the animal is still sticked before it goes onto dressing.

 

[RandFan]

I can't see how cattle can ever be skinned alive.

I watched something on cable once that demonstrated how it happens but I don't remember what the source was. I can find a lot of claims about cows being skinned alive on Google but they all seem to be questionable sources and simply make the claim.

FWIW, having worked on a dairy I've seen cows slaughtered. It's a hell of a thing. I think everyone should have the opportunity to see it and I wish they would see it. I eat beef but I understand what is necessary for me to do that.

 

[Darat]

Just been looking for a good source for a description of how the slaughter should be done and found this site: http://www.noelchadwick.co.uk/abattoir_slgthtr_cattle.html (I accept that this is best practice)

 

[tkingdoll]

No, "everyone" does not still buy beef. I don't buy beef, for instance.

I was rounding up

Plus, I just got back from Texas. I think that's 100% beef consumption territory.

But I think the most consistent position if you have a problem with animal welfare is to either raise and slaughter your own animals in a manner that's acceptable to you ethically, or not buy commercially-produced meat at all. I don't understand people who have a problem with it but buy it anyway.

 

[volatile]

The difficulty here is when producing and processing living creatures for human consumption, we disassociate ourselves from the actual killing part because it's distasteful. But when we think about kittens and puppies, which we don't eat, it's more upsetting. Why?

The only way to ensure humane treatment of commercial meat animals is to dramatically reduce demand for meat.

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?

The hypocrisy involved in my omnivorous diet, owning pet non-edible pigs and my work looking after cats is one of the reasons I went vegan.

 

[RandFan]

The hypocrisy involved in my omnivorous diet, owning pet non-edible pigs and my work looking after cats is one of the reasons I went vegan.

I think something is missing in your post. Where is the hypocrisy in this? FWIW, I'm not attacking your stance I'm just confused.

 

[Bluefire]

I voted "no". I do not believe animals have any rights. Now, it might not be considered nice or good to kill or maim kittens or baby-eyed puppies or whatever, but it would not be a transgression of any rights since they don't have any.

So to a previous posters question of whether it is OK to do horrible things to cute animals I would say that on one level it is/should be "ok" (eg. rights-level, legal level). You should not be jailed for it.

On another level it might not be OK, which is more of a moral level disconnected from rights. Sort of how one might not be jailed for being rude and abusive but others might shun you if you are. In the same way it would be understandable for kitten lovers to boycott people that needlessly stomps kittens.

For the record, I personally like cats and would not do anything to harm them, but I understand that this is purely emotionally based on my part, and in no way confers them rights. If someone were to set up a cat-restaurant I should not have the ability to send the police on them, even if the cats suffer.

 

[tkingdoll]

I agree with you entirely. That said, though - your solution to this ethical dilemma, such that it is, is to feel no qualms at all about the death of any animal. Why not push this in the other direction and feel qualms about the death of all animals?

Ah, but we're humans and never consistent. I'm ethically neutral on many issues (meat is one of them, and like I say I appreciate it's not a popular standpoint and I don't expect agreement. For example I really do not give a damn about the suffering of the goose to make foie gras. I love the stuff. If they could make it without the suffering, that's preferable, but if not, I'm still going to buy it), but I am pretty sure I'm not consistent on any issue. Otherwise I'd be a robot. My gut goes 'awww' at a picture of a cute cat but not a picture of a chicken. How I rationalise that, though, is what's important. I would be perfectly happy to eat cat despite the gut reaction of 'awww', as I'm perfectly happy to eat chicken. Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough? Yes, I probably would. Would I eat my dead sister if hungry enough? No, I'd probably choose to also die. Would I kill another human being if we were both starving? I don't know. What if the other human was a bad person? And so on. We draw ethical lines all the time, some of which are hypothetical, and some of which are irrational.

And so on. Not consistent. That's ok though, I'm a person. And I fully expect other people to be as amused by my inconsistencies as I am at theirs.

 

[volatile]

I think something is missing in your post. Where is the hypocrisy in this? FWIW, I'm not attacking your stance I'm just confused.

It touches upon what Teek said, really. Why was I not cool with killing cats for food, or my pet pigs, but still content to tuck in to pork chops for dinner? Why did I find the idea of stunning a dog or a monkey or a horse or an elephant with a bolt through their brains horrific, but perfectly OK with the same action on a sheep or a cow.

I, like most people, have a general sense that hurting animals unnecessarily is wrong. Seeing as I can eat just as healthily without killing animals, on what basis should I continue to do so if my ethics are to be consistent? That's all.

I'm not dogmatically against eating animals for food. If you're a subsistence farmer or you're starving hungry in the jungle, then hell yes, tuck in. But I buy my food from supermarkets, so why would I pick the chicken over the tofu? I wouldn't kill a cat. Why would I pay someone to kill a pig?

I wouldn't dream of suggesting everyone follow my position; nevertheless, I am convinced that it is the most internally consistent and non-hypocritical one to take if you have a general sense animal cruelty is wrong.

 

[volatile]

Ah, but we're humans and never consistent. I'm ethically neutral on many issues (meat is one of them, and like I say I appreciate it's not a popular standpoint and I don't expect agreement. For example I really do not give a damn about the suffering of the goose to make foie gras. I love the stuff. If they could make it without the suffering, that's preferable, but if not, I'm still going to buy it), but I am pretty sure I'm not consistent on any issue. Otherwise I'd be a robot. My gut goes 'awww' at a picture of a cute cat but not a picture of a chicken. How I rationalise that, though, is what's important. I would be perfectly happy to eat cat despite the gut reaction of 'awww', as I'm perfectly happy to eat chicken. Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough? Yes, I probably would. Would I eat my dead sister if hungry enough? No, I'd probably choose to also die. Would I kill another human being if we were both starving? I don't know. What if the other human was a bad person? And so on. We draw ethical lines all the time, some of which are hypothetical, and some of which are irrational.

And so on. Not consistent. That's ok though, I'm a person. And I fully expect other people to be as amused by my inconsistencies as I am at theirs.

Sorry Teek, but that just sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't it behove us to at least try and be consistent? If we can openly acknowledge an irrational hypocrisy, aren't we in some way compelled to at least address that? Though no-one is perfect, and no-one is above inconsistent behaviour, I don't think it's OK just to handwave away those inconsistencies when they become apparent. To my mind, we should either rationalise the behaviour or we should change the behaviour. You're just proposing apologising for the the behaviour, and that would bother me.

 

[volatile]

Would I be perfectly happy to eat my mom's pet cat though? Not happy, but I would eat it if I was hungry enough and there were no alternatives. Would I eat a dead human being if hungry enough?

On this issue - me too. Post-apocalypse, I'm eating all the zombified cats I can get my hands on. But at the moment, right next to the shelf your chicken is sold on, is an alternative. You have alternatives to eating the cat. The way most of us in the industrialised West construct our diets, there is no need to eat the cat, the cow or the pig.

 

[Darat]

Sorry Teek, but that just sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't it behove us to at least try and be consistent? If we can openly acknowledge an irrational hypocrisy, aren't we in some way compelled to at least address that? Though no-one is perfect, and no-one is above inconsistent behaviour, I don't think it's OK just to handwave away those inconsistencies when they become apparent. To my mind, we should either rationalise the behaviour or we should change the behaviour. You're just proposing apologising for the the behaviour, and that would bother me.

I think the solution to your stated issue is encapsulated in the wording you use: "an irrational hypocrisy".

There are many ways that the eating of one type of animal can be quite rational compared to the eating of another animal.

For example we could use the meat of the animal as our consideration (to remove any concept of "cuddly feelings" from the question) and a cat may not be very nice to eat in terms of the meat's texture or taste, quantity of meat per cat, cost to raise that meat all of which are quite rational reasons to choose to eat a lamb over a cat.