Ask a Philosophy Guy!

trigs

Milo;369178 wroteI was referring to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As for the idea that "if there are human rights, are there not also animal rights?", my answer would be "no", for the reasons I have explained. I mean, should I be brought up on charges for violating a mosquitoes "rights" because I swat them? What about cattle ranchers? Dairy farmers? Fishing fleets? No.

pretty sure we agree milo and we're just arguing semantics. would you consider the declaration of rights and freedoms as protective laws for our personal liberties?

i really don't recall ever reading that "rights" is a blanket term that can only refer to humans. i could be wrong but i don't know where to look and you are not giving me the info of where you heard/read this.

btw, are you being serious lately or are you just trolling? you seem to be bringing a lot of hostility to this thread lately. nothing personal but when you disagree with me you seem to be upset about it.

EDIT: instead of telling me why i'm wrong, maybe i'd understand better if you told me why you are right. why are all rights only for humans? are animals not even allowed to have the basic right to life? how does protecting animals in this manner harm humans (if that's what your concern is, idk)?

EDIT 2: am i the only one who finds it a little ironic/funny that the agnostic (as opposed to the theist) is the one arguing for more and better protections for animals? (keep in mind that i did outright state that animals should not have equal rights to humans, but they should have some basic rights.)

The Prophet 22

trigs;369180 wroteEDIT 2: am i the only one who finds it a little ironic/funny that the agnostic (as opposed to the theist) is the one arguing for more and better protections for animals? (keep in mind that i did outright state that animals should not have equal rights to humans, but they should have some basic rights.)

I don't think you are the only one. In my question (which I am not sure you really answered) I asked Does man have the right to control other animals? I talk about the pain the mothers go through when man takes the babies away from them. I have never been a big quote unquote animal rights lover. But that clip was disturbing and senseless. And so is this story.

Denmark zoo kills baby giraffe, has children watch as it's skinned and fed to lions

There is a whole theological discussion that could be had here based on one understanding of Genesis from both the pre and post sin. I will leave it for now. Have to finish a post/review for the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.

trigs

The Prophet 22;369187 wroteI don't think you are the only one. In my question (which I am not sure you really answered) I asked Does man have the right to control other animals? I talk about the pain the mothers go through when man takes the babies away from them. I have never been a big quote unquote animal rights lover. But that clip was disturbing and senseless. And so is this story.

Denmark zoo kills baby giraffe, has children watch as it's skinned and fed to lions

There is a whole theological discussion that could be had here based on one understanding of Genesis from both the pre and post sin. I will leave it for now. Have to finish a post/review for the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate.

you're right. i didn't outright answer that question.

the issue with the question is the word "control". do i think that humans can and should just use animals in any way possible as long as it is a benefit to humans? no, i don't think that is morally justified (yes, i think morality can extend to animals in this regard).

do humans have the right to "control" animals by regulating them to proper and adequate natural reserves where they can live and flourish without the overt possibility of human interference? yes, in fact i think this is an obligation for humans to act this way towards all other living species (and yes, that includes plant life as well).

we are stupid to think that the extinction of various animal and plant species will not effect us in the long run. biodiversity and our ecosystems are very delicate and we as living organism that can think and consider future events have an obligation to the entire planet to care for them, not only for our own futures, but the planet as a whole.

so, i think humans should have "control" over animals in order to better all our situations, not just to benefit humans. however, we tend to be a greedy bunch.

EDIT: and i'm excited to read that ham-nye response!

g2

My question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...

What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.

Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.

trigs

Possibly The Best Soldier-Dog Reunion Video Ever « Tammy Bruce

(my father just happened to email me this link today :))

trigs

g2;369189 wroteMy question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...

What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.

Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.

my assumption would be that they would be against dog fighting rings, but not for the sake of the animals (because if it was for the animals, that would suggest that they have some (ahem) rights to not be harmed and killed needlessly). so i'm guessing it would be for the monetary gains from an illegal enterprise.

now why is dog fighting and the like illegal in the first place according to those who think animals don't/shouldn't have rights? i have no idea how they'd answer this to be honest. if animals don't deserve any rights, even the most basic, i don't see why we don't have professional animal fighting rings. maybe someone who agrees with this can offer some opinions.

Milo

trigs;369180 wrotepretty sure we agree milo and we're just arguing semantics. would you consider the declaration of rights and freedoms as protective laws for our personal liberties?

i really don't recall ever reading that "rights" is a blanket term that can only refer to humans. i could be wrong but i don't know where to look and you are not giving me the info of where you heard/read this.

I take the issue of Rights to be referential to human beings, exclusive of other life on this planet.

btw, are you being serious lately or are you just trolling? you seem to be bringing a lot of hostility to this thread lately. nothing personal but when you disagree with me you seem to be upset about it.

I do not mean to come across as "hostile", but I have argued with enough animal "rights" types who WOULD equate their dogs life with my daughters, and it does frustrate me to no end. That frustration should not be directed at anyone in this thread, and I apologize ifg it came across that way.

EDIT: instead of telling me why i'm wrong, maybe i'd understand better if you told me why you are right. why are all rights only for humans? are animals not even allowed to have the basic right to life? how does protecting animals in this manner harm humans (if that's what your concern is, idk)?

For want of a better term, it is because we are the apex life form on this planet. That may sound like hubris, but it is fact. I will stipulate that some of it probably comes from Catholic upbringing, but the fact remains that we, as a species, have a unique ability to affect this planet that encumbers us with a duty to make sure that this planet survives for ALL species.

And, to answer Brent's question directly, "yes".

EDIT 2: am i the only one who finds it a little ironic/funny that the agnostic (as opposed to the theist) is the one arguing for more and better protections for animals? (keep in mind that i did outright state that animals should not have equal rights to humans, but they should have some basic rights.)

No . . . what does one have to do with the other?

g2;369189 wroteMy question for anyone who has the position that animals deserves no "rights"...

What is your position on dog-fighting rings? Or anything equivalent.

Because I would think that if you are of the opinion that animals deserve not even basic rights, it would follow that you are OK with dog-fighting rings, or any animal abuse for that matter, as long as no humans are being harmed.

Then you obviously did not read my previous posts. Just because I refuse to subscribe to the idea that animals should have "Rights", does not mean that I do not think they should be afforded protection under the Law. We already have statutes on the books that deal with these sorts of crimes, otherwise Michael Vick would not have gone to jail (and rightly so).

Big Mike

A human being has the right to life - if we agree to limit the discussion to post-birth humans I'm sure we can all agree with that statement. If you are a death penalty proponent, you might say that that right can be forfeited but nevertheless it exists.

So, an innocent human has the right not to have his life ended by another human. His other rights include liberty and property.

An animal does not have rights, not as a human does. The antelope does not have the right to not be killed by the lion, nor the trout by the bear, nor the cow by the human.
So without the right to life, why not have dog fighting rings?

I think it can be wrong to be subjected to cruelty without necessarily being granted "rights". Or maybe all living things do have the right to be cruelty-free?
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.

trigs

Milo;369201 wroteNo . . . what does one have to do with the other?

god is all good. god created everything. everything god created is good. god created animals. hence animals are good. but it's still okay for humans to slaughter animals at will if they want? aren't you supposed to rejoice in god's creations or something like that, not just use them for your own gains?

i question gods existence and therefore i don't see animals as something necessarily good that has been created by my god that i should/must have at least some respect for.

between us, you have some obligation to care animals it would appear, whereas my beliefs don't hold me accountable in the least, yet i'm the one suggesting that we should be caring for the animals more than we already do.

idk, it's ironic...isn't it?

trigs

Big Mike;369202 wroteThe problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.

this is definitely a big issue obviously. idk where to draw the line to be honest.

Milo

trigs;369205 wrotegod is all good. god created everything. everything god created is good. god created animals. hence animals are good. but it's still okay for humans to slaughter animals at will if they want? aren't you supposed to rejoice in god's creations or something like that, not just use them for your own gains?

Except that, if you are going to follow those tenets, you would also acknowledge that God gave Man dominion over the Earth and all the creatures on it.

i question gods existence and therefore i don't see animals as something necessarily good that has been created by my god that i should/must have at least some respect for.

between us, you have some obligation to care animals it would appear, whereas my beliefs don't hold me accountable in the least, yet i'm the one suggesting that we should be caring for the animals more than we already do.

idk, it's ironic...isn't it?

I do not find it ironic. You simply place more value on animal life than I do. And you have made a slight error in how you phrase a theist's position viz. animals.

Milo

Big Mike;369202 wroteA human being has the right to life - if we agree to limit the discussion to post-birth humans I'm sure we can all agree with that statement. If you are a death penalty proponent, you might say that that right can be forfeited but nevertheless it exists.

So, an innocent human has the right not to have his life ended by another human. His other rights include liberty and property.

An animal does not have rights, not as a human does. The antelope does not have the right to not be killed by the lion, nor the trout by the bear, nor the cow by the human.
So without the right to life, why not have dog fighting rings?

Because we, as a society have deemed that certain types of animals are "special" and deserving of legal protections that we have agreed upon. The "ugly" or "tasty" animals do not merit this sort of consideration, but that's how it goes.

I think it can be wrong to be subjected to cruelty without necessarily being granted "rights". Or maybe all living things do have the right to be cruelty-free?
The problem with that is that cruelty can be subjective: Dog-fighting, bull fighting, bull riding, chuckwagon racing, zoos or marinelands, hunting for sport, using animals for farming, keeping a bird or fish in a cage/bowl, keeping dogs or cats as pets, keeping bees for honey - all of these are considered cruel by someone somewhere.

and those are the animal welfare types that I find so annoying . . . they will weep for a bear in a circus, but not shed a tear for the children living in squalor in the Third World (since we are avoiding the unborn).

trigs

Milo;369207 wroteI do not find it ironic. You simply place more value on animal life than I do. And you have made a slight error in how you phrase a theist's position viz. animals.

can you clear it up for me? i did phrase it as a question.

trigs

Milo;369208 wroteand those are the animal welfare types that I find so annoying . . . they will weep for a bear in a circus, but not shed a tear for the children living in squalor in the Third World (since we are avoiding the unborn).

okay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?

Milo

trigs;369206 wrotethis is definitely a big issue obviously. idk where to draw the line to be honest.

I think that we have sufficient laws on the books to protect our four-legged friends. So, in my opinion, we have drawn a sufficient line. Now we just need to extend that line so it covers areas we have grown to realize are no longer tolerable (Sea World, Zoos, what have you).

I do not regret giving my daughter a chance to experience dolphins up close and personal when we were in Cuba. Would I call their conditions cruel? I don't know, particularly as one of the handlers made mention of the fact that many of the younger dolphins actually "escape" the facility for days at a time, only to return again.

Milo

trigs;369211 wroteokay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?

The more extreme among them . . . definitely.

trigs

Milo;369213 wroteThe more extreme among them . . . definitely.

fair enough.

Big Mike

trigs;369211 wroteokay, you really think they do this/think this way? i mean really?

Well, there are certainly many people who give money to various animal charities. Not all of those people give equal (or any) money to charities for humans. This would be evidence that there are indeed people who think that way.

Of interest though, as I googled an example of an animal charity, was coming upon this quote:

“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi

trigs

Big Mike;369221 wroteWell, there are certainly many people who give money to various animal charities. Not all of those people give equal (or any) money to charities for humans. This would be evidence that there are indeed people who think that way.

i think i have to disagree with this statement. following this logic, if i only donated to children's charities that means i don't care about adults. if i only donate to cancer charities, i don't care about people with other diseases. (and i'm phrasing it "don't care about" as opposed to the harsher way Milo phrased it).

Of interest though, as I googled an example of an animal charity, was coming upon this quote:

“If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi

haven't read that quotation before. nice.

Big Mike

On the topic of the giraffe that was killed in Copenhagen, I came across a good article today. It was posted by a friend of mine who worked at the Toronto Zoo this past summer.

The Death of Marius

In it they discuss an interesting philosopical/moral difference between North American and many European zoos: The Copenhagen zoo does not allow contraception, as they consider mating and child-rearing to be a healthy part of the life of an animal, though they will cull offspring that need to be. Most zoos here will either castrate or drug animals to prevent such offspring.

« Previous Page Next Page »