Should animal rights be the same as human rights?

Answer 1

OF COURSE!!!! If you don't know that, then you're heartless.

Ignore the emotional rambling above, she probably pictures all animals to be virturous and all humans vice. (hmm, a little offensive)

• 1.3 billion people worldwide depend on animals as a profitable and efficient source of food and income. Poor people or animals?
• 800 million people go to bed hungry everyday, grazing animals such as cows are our only way of converting fiber into usagable energy. Hungry people or animals?
• Millions of people are still deprived of their basic rights and animal rights activists wish to extend those same rights to animals. Rights for people or animals?
• Trillions are invested in livestock related infostructure.
• 5Some pharmaceuticals can only be produced (or produced in sufficient quantities) with animals. Sick people or animals?
• Animals cannot understand the concept of rights as they have no morality.
• Animals cannot defend their right if granted by humans.
• Animals do not have the capacity to corporately maintain rights with humans.
• Animals cannot follow rights themselves.
• 10Animals cannot ask for rights or indicate a desire for them.
• Countless animals everyday are slaughtered for food or fun by other animals everyday, humans are no different.
• Only humans will be affected by animal rights as only humans will obey the law.
• The concept of being a heartless person is relative, if i was taught dogs liked being kicked and that it was the right thing to do i would be doing it right now.
• Animals rights do not benefit humans in any way, rather it harms humans.
• What if an animal loved to be hurt, humans have BDSM and it can be assumed that some animals also do. How can a person decide for the animal?
• If full animal rights were granted then all carnivores will have to be locked up for cannibalism.
• To what extent is something considered an animal? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.
• What should the rights be for an animal, they obviously are different, should there be different laws for each species? To what extent? How can we tell its the best for them? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.
• I believe most hungry and poor people will shoot you first before they let you do what you want with their cattle.
• People are judged on how they treat others, not animals as only other people can comment on your morality.

______________________________________________________________________

Ok, let me deal with the above, point by point.

Kenneth (K)1. The same argument would have justified the continuation of human slavery.

• The fact is that human slaves and animal are two different subjects, human slaves are accepted as having moral reasoning while animal cannot. Humans can uphold rights for others, and the fact is that human children are capable of eventually upholding and understanding rights (that is why we have legal guardianship and therefore at most it gives animals human guardianship to act as humans deem best)

K1. The point is that you do not accept injustice even if it benefits a lot of people. So the fact that a lot of people "depend" on animals to make profits is irrelevant to the question of whether it is right to use animals as property.

• But animals right now are treated legally as property in a majority of the world, and therefore as an advocate for change you must prove that animal rights somehow benefits the society that will enforce the rights.
• And the 1.3 billion people tend to fall into two categories

1. The corperations or someform of collectives which are intended to make profits who are the minority.
2. The poor among the world who depend on animals to survive or survive better who are th majority.

K1. I know that right now animals are treated legally as property. However, I do not agree that as an advocate for change I need to prove that animal rights benefit society, since this tactic could prove to be counter-productive. What if anti-slavery/feminist campaigners based their campaigns on the benefit to whites of the abolition of slavery or the benefits to males of gender equality? It is not clearly obvious that the abolition of slavery or gender equality benefits whites or males. The opposite seems to be the case. Justice campaignes are best dealt with arguments that seek to show the injustice of a practice and not the benefits or otherwise to the persons causing or benefitting from the "injustice". If speciesism is to be eradicated (or diminished), anti-speciesism campaigners must convince people that speciesism is wrong no matter the benefits to speciesists.

As for the poor who depend on animal exploitation, I do understand that one needs first to eradicate poverty before expecting the poor to become vegans. However, affluent or middle-class people can convert to veganism immediately with little if any effort at all.

________________________________________________________________

K2. Veganism is a healthy alternative, so this is no argument at all. In any case, animal rights advocates never claim that people who have no alternative to eating meat should starve.

• No just the added costs of animal rights inforcement would come down on the world's poorest the hardest,
• there the simple fact that in certain places there is insufficient rainfall for crops but enough for grazing animals
• And last i checked, humans cannot convert plant fiber into energy and that people are still going hungrey in the world, so therefore any increase in food production or avalibility is a boon to the human race.

K2. Animal rights enforcement could obviously be only realistically applied to first world countries, and only when the majority agrees with general animal rights philosophy. Protecting non-human animals does not mean we should not help the poor, but that is a different topic. Regarding your last point, you should check again. Actually meat production is much more wasteful and less efficient than a vegan diet.

• Collective meat production is quite inefficient, i argee.
• I am not saying a vegan diet is bad, but there is the physical limitation that unlike plants livestock can move with people, you can't outlaw meat eating.
• that in someplaces with insufficent rainfall for crops grazing animals can survive.
• And that animals that can convert fiber into protein provides an additional source of food, and no I'm not talking about feeding grains to livestock (that's wasteful) I am talking about feeding grass that we can't eat anyways.

K2. Thanks for conceding that meat production is inefficient. I also understand that livestock moves with people. That is why I believe that animal rights campaigns should not be conducted in isolation. They should go hand in hand with the anti-poverty cause. That said, it does not follow that those who can go vegan immediately should wait until everybody can. As for "outlawing" meat eating, I have already explained that this would only possibly happen when it is the majority view.

As for the rest, I only advocate veganism when it is possible (it wouldn't make sense otherwise).

____________________________________________________________________

K3. Why should one have to choose? We never asked "rights for women or rights for black people". Why not both?

• I never asked to choose, i asked to prioritize human rights before animal rights.

K3. Actually, what you said was "Millions of people are still deprived of their basic rights and animal rights activists wish to extend those same rights to animals. Rights for people or animals?". So yes, you did ask to choose, and you chose humans, even though we do not have to choose. You may still prioritize human rights while at the same time respecting non-human animal rights, like you can prioritize black people's rights without abusing women.

• True, badly worded statement

K3. No problem. We all make mistakes.

______________________________________________________

K4. Trillions were also invested in human slavery. That still does not justify slavery.

• Refer to point 1
• I'm pointing out the reality that to abolish it would violate the property rights of anyone who invested into into livestock related infostructure.

K4. Abolishing human slavery violated the property rights of slave owners who invested in human slaves. The question is whether non-human animals should be property. This is not resolved by claiming investment and property rights, but by debating why non-human animals should or should not be human property.

• I agree with you here on the focus of the debate.

K4. Thanks.

_________________________________________________

K5. False. But in any case, what if some pharmaceuticals could only be produced by torturing and killing humans?

• I never mentioned torturing and killing humans, my point is to prioritize human well being before animal well being.
• And just saying my point is false is not an argument, it's a statement, you need something to back it up.

K5. The point is, should we sacrifice unwilling others for the "common good"? Regarding saying that your claim is false, claims that are made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

• Everything in the human world is built on exploitation, we exploit the earth, others, and life in general wether we do it willingly, unwillingly or unintentionally to attain our material and social comforts. I rather exploit animals than humans.

K5. Depends on what one means by exploitation. Here I use it in the narrow sense of using someone against their will. And by someone I mean animate creatures who have a will (the capacity to make decisions). I exclude inanimate objects. To be clear, my employer exploits me in a certain sense, but I am a willing exploitee since in so doing, I exploit my employer to get my pay. Slavery is when one is physically forced to work - non-human animals would fall in this category.

________________________________________________________________

K6. Human infants cannot understand the concept of rights. Should we deny them rights?

• Humans can uphold rights for others, and the fact is that human children are capable of eventually upholding and understanding rights (that is why we have legal guardianship and therefore at most it gives animals human guardianship to act as humans deem best.
• The fact is that humans are naturally capable of moral reasoning and advanced language provided that he/she is not sufficently damaged chemically, physically, or physiologically.

K6. You don't know whether children will grow to understand rights. Would you deny rights to mentally disabled children?

• Not all people have moral reasoning, not all people use moral reasoning, but people are the only species capable of moral reasoning. It is proven 6 billion times that humans have the capability to have moral reasoning, it is not proven that animals can morally reason. '
• And no you can't judge on a case to case basis, it has to apply to a species as a whole to be efficient.

K6. Agreed, people are perhaps the only species with moral reasoning. However, when speaking of rights, one is speaking of rights of individuals. Abstract concepts (such as humanity) cannot have rights - only individuals do. And since not all individual humans are capable of moral reasoning, while all individual humans are deserving of rights, this shows that the capacity for moral reasoning is not a prerequisite for having rights. Otherwise one would have to deny rights to humans who lack moral reasoning (such as the insane).

As for judging on a species as a whole, this would be as arbitrary as any other form of group-based discrimination. For instance, if it is conceded that most women are not strong enough to work in the construction business (as builders), yet one would act unjustly (sexist) if one does not employ a woman who is strong enough to get the job.

Groups don't have rights. Its the individuals who compose the group who do.

______________________________________________________________

K7. Human infants cannot defend their rights too. That is why we should intervene on their behalf.

• Humans can uphold rights for others, and the fact is that human children are capable of eventually upholding and understanding rights (that is why we have legal guardianship and therefore at most it gives animals human guardianship to act as humans deem best.

K7. Already answered (see K6).

• K7. Already answered (see K6).

_____________________________________________________________

K8. Whatever "corporately maintain rights" means, the same answer as 6 and 7 applies here.

• Rights only work if its participants defend their rights, since animals cannot they do not meet the requirement for rights.

K8. Rights exist even if no one respects or defends them. You have the right not to be tortured, even if no one agrees or defends your right.

• Rights are an artificial construct made by humans, it does not naturally exist, just as laws do not exist on the moon, it is made by humans , it can only be observed by humans, and it can only be acted upon by humans, the only natural right you have is your will and that's only if your Biology allows it .
• It is up to you to prove that animals deserve rights as once again you are arguing against the norm.

K8. We definitely have a different concept of rights. Legal rights are an entirely human construct meant to protect "natural rights". Natural rights are what we conceive through reason as being rules to govern right conduct. I do not refrain from beating someone up because someone else dictated that I should not. I refrain because reason shows me that I should not.

Animals deserve rights because to deny them rights while allowing them to individuals in a similar predicament, would be arbitrary and unjust. The only non-discriminatory standard we use to protect all humans is the recognition that individual humans are sentient and conscious, and have an individual welfare (their life could get better or worse depending on their own and others' actions). Any other standard would exclude some humans from having rights. It is only if we discriminate between species that we can "give" rights to humans who are mentally equal to some non-human animals, while denying rights to all non-human animals. It is speciesist discrimination that requires justification. The argument that humans have rights because they are human, is circular and simply begs the question.

____________________________________________________

K9. Same as above.

• rights only work if its participantsuphold the rights for others, since animals cannot they do not meet the requirement for rights.
• What is to prevent a lion form killing a human child?

K9. Same as above. As for what is to prevent a lion from killing a human child, it is us who would prevent this.

• What is to prevent a lion form killing a human child?It's to make a point that animals cannot participate in the legal process, so in order for society to make a massive economic and legal change in relation to animals you must once again prove how this benefits society.

K9. Of course animals cannot participate in the legal process. Neither can human children or the permanently mentally disabled. As for showing how animal rights would benefit society, I have already explained that one would be expected to do the moral thing even if doing the immoral thing benefits most people. I am not justified in killing you, not even if I donate all your money to the poor.

_____________________________________________________________

K10. Same.

• Rights only work if its participants defend their rights, since animals cannot they do not meet the requirement for rights.

K10. Already shown to be irrelevant.

• It is relevant as shown above

K10. The permanently mentally disabled cannot defend their own rights. They still have rights.

___________________________________________________________

K11. You only claim humans are no different when it suits you. Carnivorous animals would starve if they do not eat meat. We have a choice.

• So do omnivores such as monkey's, but they do not have morallity and eat meat anyways. And yes we have a choice but what makes your choice to not eat meat more right than my choice to eat meat?
• And no i claim that humans are superior in their possession of moral capabilities
• So therefore we should intervene to prevent all animals from eating meat when possible?

K11. The question is, are you a monkey? So why should you weigh your morals according to the standards of a monkey? Lots of humans steal. I don't, and to claim that one may steal just because other humans do it, is no justification. Regarding preventing animals from eating meat when possible, if they are not natural carnivores, perhaps we should. If not, we shouldn't.

• So therefore it is alright for animals not to respect animal rights but not for humans? So humans would impose a self-restraining law for what? Why are we not allowed to interact with nature?
• Very simple fact that your vegan eating habbits i cannot judge and my meat eating habits you cannot judge on.
• And BTW we are omnivores, that means we naturally eat meat and vegetables.
• Regarding preventing animals from eating meat when possible, if they are not natural carnivores, perhaps we should. If not, we shouldn't.Ok I'll post policemen in every block in the jungle, because the law must be enforced, and I'll give them tofu to give to animals as a substitutefor meat. The point is your going up against nature here, we have a choice not to eat meat but we also have a choice not to eat vegetables.

K11. It is not all right for anyone not to respect rights. However, we understand that some humans cannot respect rights (for instance the severely mentally disabled). Therefore, while we are entitled to protect ourselves from any of their actions that harm us (self-defence), we are not entitled to punish them for the harm. Punishment is only deserving to those who are conscious of the harm they do.

As for judging, any controversial debate must include judgment. It makes no sense to debate while holding the view that "all opinions are equally valid".

As for being omnivores, being an omnivore does not mean that we must eat both meat and plant-based food. It means we can choose either or both. In any case, the definition of omnivore is not what matters here. What matters is whether we can live with forgoing meat and animal products. Yes we can.

As for preventing non-natural carnivores from harming other animals, I only answered the question because you asked it. We are not expected to police every inch on our planet. However, this does not mean I should not stop harm to others (for instance stopping an adult severely beating up a child) when I see it.

_________________________________________________________

K12. There is something called "doing the right thing" no matter how many others do not.

• There's a thing called what's right is relative.
• Furthermore what is the point of giving animals rights if only humans follow, animals would still kill and inflict suffering onto other animals(and humans at times).

K12. I see...a moral relativist. So I guess murder, theft, incest, rape...it's all relative! I think I'm wasting my time.

• SO me having my own opinions on whats right or wrong should not be and we should all adhere to one definition of whats right or wrong and do not question it at all.
• murder, theft, incest, rape are commonly agreed upon as wrong as their victims could tell us so, I'm point out the fact that animals are still up for debate and therefore is not proven that supporting animal rights is right as animals cannot reason morally.
• It is up to you to prove how animal rights is right.

K12. That's not what I said. You are entitled to your opinions, but you cannot say that morality is relative. If we both have opposite views, at least one of us must be wrong. If one says that "what's right is relative", being right loses its meaning. As for "proving" how animal rights is right, that's what I have been doing all along. However, moral issues are not mathematics, where one can "prove" something to be true. Moral debates could only convince. Philosophy cannot prove...it only convinces.

___________________________________________________________

K13. True, the concept of being "heartless" is relative. However, when one learns that non-humans are sentient and yet kills them unnecessarily, one cannot claim ignorance as an excuse.

• ONce again the term sentient is relative and judgment based, we assume animals are sentient whereas humans can communicate their sentience, animal sentience is judgment based and no human opinion concerning something that does not violate the rights of another is relative and up for debate.
• Furthermore the value of sentience is relative , and the same argument of relativism as stated above.

K13. Sentience is not at all relative. Read some science. And once again, a moral relativist...I'm wasting my time debating morals when morals are relative...might as well say "you can do what you want".

• What's your point here?

K13. My point is that it is beyond question that most non-human animals are sentient, and that it is pointless debating morality with a moral relativist, if that is the case.

__________________________________________________________

K14. It could equally be claimed that rights for women or black people do not benefit white males, and yet decent people acknowledge their rights.

• Once again animals do not have morals, they can be conditioned to help humans but they cannot be convinced. That is why we have animal trainers instead of animal diplomats.
• Humans have the morality basis requried for rights and they can communicate their morality, once again its a claim, it is historically shown that slavery reduces innovation as the slaves do not have incentitives to improve and therefore a segement of the population is not innovating which harms the society as a whole.
• The point is humans are capable of rights, there are times where human rights are violated and it could be judged as either right or wrong based on person to person , but since animals do not even have the basis of moral reasoning required it cannot be argued that they have rights.

K14. One does not need to have morals to have rights. Severely mentally disabled humans have rights.

• already answered above

K14. Same.

______________________________________________________________

K15. The assumption should be that no sentient being likes to suffer, since observation shows that the majority don't. By your same reasoning, we should kill you because some humans commit suicide.

• But i can reason, i can communicate what i want as opposd to animals.
• Morality is something agreed upon by two parties, both of which have to understand and uphold the contract, there are always exception but their not the norm.
• And like you said it's an assumption and therefore anyone's opinion is right and since animal rights do not violate anyone's rights people are free to choose and any law concerning animal rights would be imposing ideology upon others who do have rights to how they act towards animals.

K15. Severely mentally disabled humans cannot communicate. We still assume (rightly) that they do not enjoy suffering. As for morality being agreed by two parties, I guess it is useless arguing with a moral relativist. I'll agree to disagree. As for imposing ideology, I have already explained (see further down) that any law is an imposition of ideology. However, laws are made by elected representatives of the majority view. I'm not arguing for immediate legislation. I am arguing to convince.

• I am arguing to convince. same here, I'm argueing that the majority if there is one does not have the right to impose opon others as it does not violate others humans' rights, that the law should be made to protect its citizen's rights but stray clear of areas that do not concern the rights of an individual.

K15. Exactly. Laws that violate the rights of the individual are immoral. That is why slavery was abolished...because the legislators acknowledged that the rights of the individual (black slaves) were being violated. Similarly, if/when the majority recognise animal rights, animal slavery would be abolished.

You will also realise that when human slavery was abolished, this was done even if it is a fact that there were people who still opposed slavery's abolition (particularly the owners of slaves). The same would apply in the case of the abolition of animal slavery if/when the majority hold the animal rights view. It won't happen any time soon (definitely not in my lifetime), but I am working for that goal.

__________________________________________________________

K16. Most carnivores are not cannibals - they don't eat members of their own species. In any case, animal rights is about causing no harm only when it is possible.

• I meant it in the fashion that if animals are given rights and therefore treated as citizens or whatever biased status a group grants them eating any other animals that have rights would be considered cannibalism.
• And claiming that most carnivores are not cannibals does not eliminate the fact that there are animals cannibals.
• And once again the term harm is relative and judgment based, I could've been conditioned to think that animals loved being kicked and that it helps animals to do so.
• And I'm sure there will be people who disagree on your notion of the goal of animal rights

K16. There is only one meaning for the word "cannibal". As for granting non-humans citizenship, I am asking for no such thing. All I expect is for non-human animals not to be exploited and abused and treated as property...its the minimum basic requirement for one's rights to be respected. Regarding a minority of cannibalistic animals, there is also a minority of cannibal humans...so what's your point? As for people who will disagree on my notion of the goal of animal rights, I'm also sure of that. Presently they would be the majority. Truth does not rest on numbers. The earth wasn't flat before we discovered it is spherical.

• Once again they are not entitled to rights as they cannot follow, uphold, or understand the concept of rights. And this is morallity, it cannot be proven right or wrong with an equation, it is not absolute and therefore judgment based.

K16. The severely mentally disabled cannot follow, uphold or understand the concept of rights. Are they not entitled to rights?

________________________________________________________________

K17. Being an "animal" is not the question. Being sentient is. This requires a brain and nervous system. All the animals humans eat do.

• No, certain animals do not have sufficent nervous systems to be"sentient "
• And its not about being sentient, my computer can be programed to act sentient and and it would be judgment based perception, it's about morality and the ability to understand and uphold rights.

K17. If certain animals do not have "sufficient" nervous system to be sentient, then they would not have rights. And no, computers cannot presently be programmed to be sentient, although they can act like they are. However, all respectable biologists will confirm that most non-human animals are sentient. Again, read some science.

• Sentience does not automatically qualify a species for rights, rights are an artificial construct created by humans and agreed upon between humans. It would be a contradiction to grant rights to animals who clearly cannot understand, enforce, and follow rights.
• A fish can probably feel pain as pains helps it to survive and maybe love and such if it survives better in a school, but that does not give it the ability to reason or use rights.
• The simple fact is that pain and suffering is everywhere, and it is my perference to exploit animals to reduce human pain.

K17. Would it be a contradiction to grant rights to severely mentally disabled humans who clearly cannot understand, enforce and follow rights?

The ability to reason is not a prerequisite for having rights, unless you would deny rights to many humans.

It is true that pain and suffering is everywhere...all the more reason to actively diminish or eliminate it when we can. It is also true, in any case, that in most cases in the civilised world, one need not exploit animals to reduce human pain.

______________________________________________________________

K18. The best rule would be not to treat non-human animals as human property. The rest follows logically.

• Once again you can't just say the best rule would be not to treat non-human animals as human property, you need logic to back it up, this is your opinion right now.

K18. I don't see you convincingly explaining why non-human animals should be property. However, if you do, you would have a hard time explaining why the severely mentally disabled should not be used as property, since the same reasons apply both to them and to non-human animals. And being human does not explain why humans should be treated differently...it simply begs the question: Why?

• Simple, people benefit more when animals are property.
• The norm right now is that animals are property and therefore you have to justify yourself as you are asking for change , justify that society can somehow benefit from animal rights.

K18. Of course people benefit more when animals are property, just as whites benefit more when blacks are property, or men benefit more when women are property. But morality is not just about counting benefits.

We did not ask ourselves how the rest of society would benefit when we abolished human slavery and sexist discrimination. We simply did the right thing.

_______________________________________________________

K19. So, what's your point exactly?

• My point is you would be imposing your ideology on people who depend on animals.
• Who may potientially starving without lovestock.

K19. Again, all legislation is imposition, and I would vote against any legislation that would make people starve. The change would be gradual in any case, so there would be ample time to make necessary changes in infrastructure. It's not as if all our politicians will turn vegan tomorrow.

• You assume humans are giving and kind, but the poorest will most likely stay poor, and to deprieve them of a potential source of economy and nutrients for the aesthetic preference of others is just not right. (at least for them)

K19. I do not assume anything. I only do my bit to change the world by attempting to convince. If I fail, at least I would have tried.

___________________________________________________

K20. So, would you kill a human if no one is watching?

• I never said anything about killing humans, and no people can still judge your actions after they occur. I'm making the point that animals cannot judge and therefore cannot have rights as a right required both parites to uphold the right.
• Let people treats animals as they see fit

K20. What you said was that "people are judged on how they treat others, not animals as only other people can comment on your morality". If you kill a human while no one is watching, no one will judge you on how you treat others because they wouldn't know. Would you still do it...I don't think so. There is something called "doing the right thing" no matter who does or does not judge you.

• I disagree on your perception of what the right thing is, i do not believe treating animals well is a necessarily a virtue, just as you believe it is ;there cannot be an agreement here.

K20. Of course there isn't agreement here...we would not be debating each other if there was, would we?

______________________________________________________________

I think the main thing here is the differences in our perception of the status of an animal, I believe sentience itself and the ability to feel emotions is insufficient to qualify animals as equals or for consideration of legal status so I do not see a resolution here.

K. "All animals are equal", while being a catchy slogan, is misleading. I do not advocate "same treatment". I only advocate fair treatment in matters that concern individuals. In most cases, all that is required is to leave others (non-human animals) well alone and not interfere in their lives unless when required to protect ourselves.

But I agree that presently, I can't see us agreeing here. But who knows what the future holds in store. I used to love eating meat, after all.

It's been an interesting conversation...have a nice day.

Normally, when an answer has become a debate such as this one, the debate is removed. But in this particular case, it presents both sides quite well, so I am leaving it as is and protecting it from further debate.