Do animals have rights?

[Vlad!]

This may belong in Off-Topic, but I think it pertains to Faith as well:

Do animals have rights? Where do these rights come from? Are they on the same level as human rights, or subordinate?

And the trickier ones:

What should be the punishment for violating animal rights (assuming they have such)? Is the government obligated to protect the rights (again, assuming they exist) of animals as well as humans?

[enemy anemone]

I don't know. I think that humans have a responsibility towards animals. on the one hand I wouldn't say animals have rights, such as the chicken, cow,  fish etc.. has the right to live and not be butchered and eaten, but on the other hand if someone is going around killing animals for the joy of killing them, one of the phrases that might come to mind is that those animals have a right to live too. I do think it is important not to hunt wild animals until they are extinct or otherwise exploit them but there is a place for using animal products.

sometimes you hear of people who delight in torturing animals. I think this is wrong and that such people should be punished, but I don't necessarily think it is the government's place to do that. I guess I suppose that their punishment ought to come from God or nature, I don't know.  

[Vlad!]

sometimes you hear of people who delight in torturing animals. I think this is wrong and that such people should be punished, but I don't necessarily think it is the government's place to do that. I guess I suppose that their punishment ought to come from God or nature, I don't know.

That seems fairly impractical, though, doesn't it? God generally leaves punishment up to the government rather than taking matters into his own hands, and nature? The grizzly bear gestapo who wander around mauling those who torture animals for fun? If something is wrong yet there is no consequence for it, that seems to be a fairly sloppy way to do business...

I'm not totally sure where I stand on this myself, but I wanted to bring up some of the questions that I thought yout point didn't address.

[enemy anemone]

LOL, grizzly bear gestapo. what I meant was more of a vague "what goes around comes around" sort of thing. someone who torments animals might get severely bitten by one someday and it would "serve him right".  

I hadn't really thought of the idea that God leaves punishment up to the government. I don't really see it that way, not with every single thing, anyway. because whether or not an action has an enforced punishment or consequence administered by the government isn't what determines its wrongness or rightness. maybe the government will let me beat my dog to death, I don't know, but I don't think it is right for me to do so.  I don't know what the punishment should be if I did do something like that, though. to me, having become such a cold, cruel person would be a punishment. should there be a law that would haul me off to jail or make me pay a fine or something? but that would only work if someone had seen me and reported me--the dog's friends and relatives can't do anything about it.  or was it actually okay after all for me to have beaten my dog to death?

[Vlad!]

what I meant was more of a vague "what goes around comes around" sort of thing.

I guess that sort of makes sense, but that's like saying people who beat their children should be left alone for the children to punish later. Maybe some will eventually lash out, but others might just have their wills slowly destroyed without even fighting back.

Re: the government thing, I don't want to get into this too much (whever I start an interesting topic, it always seems to get hijacked by some other equally interesting digression that we enter into), but your point is valid: I don't think God sees government as a substitute for his justice. It's just that, for crimes against man, I think he leaves it up to man to punish. I know it would be a lot less messy if he did it himself, but can't you say the same thing about, oh, evangelism?  

[RokrantheGreat]

Personally, I don't think that animals have rights. Maybe the right not to be mercilessly slaughtered... I definitely agree with trying to keep animals from becoming extinct. So... one right? Oh, heck, there's probably others. But very few rights, anyway.  

[Vlad!]

Personally, I don't think that animals have rights. Maybe the right not to be mercilessly slaughtered... I definitely agree with trying to keep animals from becoming extinct. So... one right? Oh, heck, there's probably others. But very few rights, anyway.

Ok, so you only believe they have few rights. Who should enforce these rights? And where do they get these rights?

I personally hate mosquitoes. And houseflies. Heck, most annoying bugs. Gnats, too. But let's limit this to mosquitoes. What if I were to kill all the mosquitoes in the whole world? Would that be wrong? It would deprive a few creatures of a food source, but they can find others, right? And is this really different than killing all the housecats in the world? Yet some who would object to the latter would agree with the former.  

[polka_dot]

You know what makes me sick?  Those crazy movie stars who go on and on about animal rights (like that chick who was so upset KFC mistreating their chickens, who was that again?)  and yet could care less about starving children in Africa.  Let's get our priorities straight, people!

That being said, I think that animals don't necessarily have "rights", but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them.  We should treat them with decency.  There seems to be a distinct separation between animals that are capable of interaction with humans (dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, etc.) and bugs and spiders and what-not.  But then again, some people have pet spiders.  I don't know.  Does anyone here think animals have souls?

[Josh]

(like that chick who was so upset KFC mistreating their chickens, who was that again?)

Ha... nice use of the word "chick" there.  

Not sure who you're thinking of, though Jason Alexander used to be KFC's pitchman, but when he found out exactly how the chickens were treated, he demanded that KFC change their policy. He was fired.

The Bible tells us to subdue and replinish, which makes it fairly evident to me that there's a find line here. We need not give animals "rights," really, but it is our duty to protect them.

[PriestofDasani]

You know what makes me sick?  Those crazy movie stars who go on and on about animal rights (like that chick who was so upset KFC mistreating their chickens, who was that again?)  and yet could care less about starving children in Africa.  Let's get our priorities straight, people!

That being said, I think that animals don't necessarily have "rights", but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to them.  We should treat them with decency.  There seems to be a distinct separation between animals that are capable of interaction with humans (dogs, cats, horses, dolphins, etc.) and bugs and spiders and what-not.  But then again, some people have pet spiders.  I don't know.  Does anyone here think animals have souls?

I am quoting polka dot because that is essentially my view.

Priorities, yes, unborn babies, hello... save the baby humans!

Animals don't have rights per say, but they can have feelings and God has put us in charge of them. The extinction of any animal is bad. (and insects and whatnot, they are important) I do not believe that animals have souls- I have seen absolutely no Biblical basis for that idea. Bugs and spiders and the like would be classified as vermin or pests and I think you should feel absolutely no regret in killing them. (unless you kill all of them or they happen to be a pet)

About the government...
I think you are forgetting that the government already does things about this. There are laws to protect endangered species, as there should be.  You have to have a license to hunt. (and btw there aren't enough hunters in some cases, there is a deer overpopulation in the US, we need to do our part to help correct this   ) Most of all has anyone seen those animal planet shows where they go and take away peoples pets because they are mistreating them. This I think is wrong, they are stealing private property. I think that they *might* should fine those people, or not allow them to get any more animals till they change, but this is a waste of your tax dollars.(pounds already have plenty of animals to worry about, and also think about how much they have to pay these "animal cops", and people complain about Iraq rebuilding budget (b/c the news is liberal trash, I mean come on, Iraq has people in it, human life... but if this upsets you ignore it, I am not aiming to make anyone angry (although I find that I am really good at it)))

wow my punctuation is interesting! and the words aren't just a work of art either, *sigh*

[Vlad!]

I think you are forgetting that the government already does things about this.

I actually do know this. My question isn't really how are things now, it is how should things be. Do animals deserve equal protection under the laws? Probably not, but you'd be surprised some of the opinions I hear around campus.

Why is the extinction of a species bad? Some certainly would have a drastic effect on the ecosystem, but I hear some ecologists citing statistics that some large number of species per day go extinct. Obviously these are tiny species and subspecies of small insects, protists, and single-celled organisms, but it still (purportedly) happens. Maybe you could counter my mosquito example with something like Kant's categorical imperatave, but even then it puts less concern on the animal and more on the impact of the animal's death on the environment.

But we're making this too hard, I think. The questions are simple: do animals have rights? Who should enforce those rights? Do those rights exist on the same level as human rights?

Rand suggests that anything sufficiently powerful to protect its rights has rights, and anything not doesn't (that's a blatant oversimplification). This is a really crappy position to hold, but (at least for animals) does the ability to assert rights have any bearing on their presence?  

[enemy anemone]

what exactly do we mean by "rights", anyway?

[Vlad!]

Take your pick and define your terms. Do they have any rights at all? That is, is there something inherent that animals posess that humans (and possibly other animals) must respect? Are they even deserving of respect? Or you could define it differently: are humans obligated in any way to treat animals in a specific fashion, or (perhaps more likely) NOT treat them in a certain fashion?

We can play semantic games all day

[oneafroboy]

Rand suggests that anything sufficiently powerful to protect its rights has rights, and anything not doesn't (that's a blatant oversimplification). This is a really crappy position to hold, but (at least for animals) does the ability to assert rights have any bearing on their presence?

Well, so much for protecting unborn babies. Or the mentally ill. Or the infirmed. Or the handicapped. Or people of third world countries. Or... (can you see where this is going?)

I personally have heard about the processes used to kill chickens en masse for consumption. Sometimes the chickens survive the inital electrocution and so they get boiled alive or have to be electrocuted again. ::Shudders:: I mean, I'm not going to restrict anyone's right to eat meat. God allowed humans to eat meat after Noah. But let's at least not be so cruel to the animals.

I think for Christians, anyway, that animals do have life. Life is still precious. Now obviously, human life supercedes the life of an animal, but that does not negate that animals have life. That being said, I think wildlife species should be protected because they are a part of God's creation and part of our job is to *take care* of our home. Now, things like harmful bacteria (I mean, no one objects to the eradication of certain bacterial diseases...it would be great if menangitus could be erradicated) or virus for that matter (which aren't living, but are...but anyway) perhaps should be destroyed because they threaten human life. I don't know if killing misquitos would disrupt the eco-system, but it's so complex, I'm not going to be the first one to advocate it.

Interesting, environmentalists and marine biologists have been giving warnings to our consumption of sea animals. According to said scientists (and I'm sure fishers would agree too), the worlds fisheries are being drastically depleted. Not only does that mean the whole undersea world may be destroyed, but we've just destroyed a source of food for ourselves! I think we ought to be careful and take care of what God has given us. Once it's gone, it's gone.

I think animals have a right not to be treated cruelly. This is one of the reasons why I don't like circuses in general. The treatment of animals is horrific. They now have refugees for former circus bears and other circus animals. Many will always carry scars around their paws and bodies because of the treatment they received. It's very sad. To use animals cruelly for entertainment seems pretty sinful to me. Torture is not something any living thing should go through. (I do think there is a need to do animal testing, though, but not for things like make up--how distrubingly vain!)

Actually, last night I went to a lecture where the speaker concluded that the human race was like a cancer. And we kind of had just three choices: Continue to destroy and consume everything, 'til there's nothing left, kill ourselves off, or to start taking better care of this world. To me it seems that the last of the three choices is the appropriate approach.

But I think I understand what Vlad!'s running into. You'd be surprised at how many people think of humans as a cancer to be controlled. Many people do think that we're no higher than tapeworms. There was actually a bunch of students who created a "Save the Tapeworms Club". And from an evolutionary standpoint, there really is no difference between us and an amoeba. So, for those who take this to heart (not all people who believe in evolution believe that animals and humans are on the same level), what gives us any more rights than the animals?  

[Vlad!]

Well, so much for protecting unborn babies. Or the mentally ill. Or the infirmed. Or the handicapped. Or people of third world countries. Or... (can you see where this is going?)
 

Why do you think I said this is a tough position to hold?

I personally have heard about the processes used to kill chickens en masse for consumption. Sometimes the chickens survive the inital electrocution and so they get boiled alive or have to be electrocuted again. ::Shudders:: I mean, I'm not going to restrict anyone's right to eat meat. God allowed humans to eat meat after Noah. But let's at least not be so cruel to the animals.

I think for Christians, anyway, that animals do have life. Life is still precious. Now obviously, human life supercedes the life of an animal, but that does not negate that animals have life. That being said, I think wildlife species should be protected because they are a part of God's creation and part of our job is to *take care* of our home. Now, things like harmful bacteria (I mean, no one objects to the eradication of certain bacterial diseases...it would be great if menangitus could be erradicated) or virus for that matter (which aren't living, but are...but anyway) perhaps should be destroyed because they threaten human life. I don't know if killing misquitos would disrupt the eco-system, but it's so complex, I'm not going to be the first one to advocate it.

Interesting, environmentalists and marine biologists have been giving warnings to our consumption of sea animals. According to said scientists (and I'm sure fishers would agree too), the worlds fisheries are being drastically depleted. Not only does that mean the whole undersea world may be destroyed, but we've just destroyed a source of food for ourselves! I think we ought to be careful and take care of what God has given us. Once it's gone, it's gone.

What you don't address in all of this is: do animals have rights qua animal, or do their rights extend from pragmatic reasons (killing all of x creatures will disrupt the ecosystem and adversely affect humanity)? You say that chickens should not be subjected to such a 'cruel' fate...why not? They have no eternal soul. Does the life of an animal really have any meaning? The chicken feels pain, probably, and its tiny chicken brain may even feel a vestige of what we would call fear. But then it's gone, and the only thing that remains is some greasy bones in a cheap cardboard box after some family has devoured it. Either this is wrong, in which case you tell me why, or it's right because my desire for a yummy drumstick supercedes the chicken's "rights" (if any) to live a long, productive chicken life.

I think animals have a right not to be treated cruelly. This is one of the reasons why I don't like circuses in general. The treatment of animals is horrific. They now have refugees for former circus bears and other circus animals. Many will always carry scars around their paws and bodies because of the treatment they received. It's very sad. To use animals cruelly for entertainment seems pretty sinful to me. Torture is not something any living thing should go through. (I do think there is a need to do animal testing, though, but not for things like make up--how distrubingly vain!)

I'm not a big fan of makeup, but I'd rather see an animal break out in hives than a human. Why not test it on animals? It won't kill them (hopefully), and in general it won't even affect them. So if it's not wrong to test an experimental drug on an animal, why is it wrong to test a new cosmetic product?
And you say animals have a right to not be treated cruelly. Fine, where does this right come from? You will notice that when God is setting up Jewish law, a law so minute that it deals with how mildew should be treated, the only time it mentions animals at all is when they are treated as property or food, and (as far as I know) there is no set of rules as to how we should treat animals. So where does this come from? And who should enforce it?

But I think I understand what Vlad!'s running into. You'd be surprised at how many people think of humans as a cancer to be controlled. Many people do think that we're no higher than tapeworms. There was actually a bunch of students who created a "Save the Tapeworms Club". And from an evolutionary standpoint, there really is no difference between us and an amoeba. So, for those who take this to heart (not all people who believe in evolution believe that animals and humans are on the same level), what gives us any more rights than the animals?

Believe it or not, I don't believe in wanton or cruel treatment of animals. I just want to serve as a provocateur to make you think about your position. But one thing that I cannot stand is people who put animals on a level equal to that of humans.

[leinad]

You say that chickens should not be subjected to such a 'cruel' fate...why not? They have no eternal soul.

What does an eternal soul have to do with it?

[oneafroboy]

Okay, I don't feel like quoting everything, so I'm gonna try to respond as best as I can.

I agree with leinad that the fact that chickens don't have souls doesn't mean their pain is meaningless. They still feel pain. If we took that approach and coupled it with a nihilistic view point of life, then letting ppl starve to death or allowing or even causing other sorts of pain wouldn't matter. Cruelty is still cruelty.

How do I make this claim? I think I said in my previous post that God charges us to take care of our home. Not to mention, life is still a gift from God, human or otherwise. It's still His. I think to pervert that gift that He has given us by abusing or misusing it is sinful.

Btw, for makeup tests, animals have actually gone blind from them. I just see it as pointless. From what I have read, they aren't really necessary. Why make an animal suffer for our vanity? I think that"s that different from allowing an animal to suffer to save human lives]

I would type more but my keyboard is acting up] "Til next time]]]

 

[Vlad!]

What does an eternal soul have to do with it?

If an animal had an eternal soul, I would feel obligated to treat it as being at least on some level equal with myself. As it is, I feel that the posession of a soul makes me greater than my physical body, greater than my tactile senses. Animals are not; they are what they appear to be, and have no greater essence about them. While I would find it to be reprehensible to torture a human, torturing an animal would be mildly disgusting. Killing and eating a human is unthinkable, while killing and eating an animal is a common, and for me an everyday, occurance.

I agree with leinad that the fact that chickens don't have souls doesn't mean their pain is meaningless. They still feel pain. If we took that approach and coupled it with a nihilistic view point of life, then letting ppl starve to death or allowing or even causing other sorts of pain wouldn't matter. Cruelty is still cruelty.

Except that for a nihilist, the cruelty doesn't matter, since nothing matters in the end. You're proving my point rather than contradicting it. For Christianity is NOT nihilistic, so cruelty we enact on other humans does matter. Cruelty to an animal, on the other hand, matters nothing qua animal, its only significance is how it applies to us.

The points you make here, and the rest of your points that I will not specifically address, certainly have value. But they don't answer my question. I want to hear whether animals in themselves have rights, what these rights are, who gave them these rights, and who enforces/should enforce them. You saying that God charges us to care for our surroundings comes close, but I think it is more as a charge to us for our own well-being as a species, not necessarily because the surroundings are sacrosanct in themselves...

[oneafroboy]

Maybe I need to make myself clearer.

1) God has created life.
2) Life, human or otherwise, demands respect.
3) God has, however, created humans above the animals (and below the angels).
4) God's creation demands respect, however, humans have precedence over animals, because we are above them.

I believe in the sanctity of life--all life. Now, I believe in levels of that sanctity, but I believe it to be true. Now God charges us to take care of our home for 2 reasons: 1) to provide for ourselves and 2)because it is His and is "good". Yes, we are allowed to use it, but not abuse it.

I hope that made what I'm trying to say clearer.  

[Vlad!]

So animals have the right to "respect"--whatever the heck that means--by virtue of the fact that they and we are co-creations of God. But we sort of supercede them, giving us the right to do stuff like eat them, wear their hide as clothing and footwear, stuff our pillows with their feathers, and other such indignities. But even though we apparently have the 'right' to kill them to satisfy our Big Mac cravings, we should still treat them with respect.

You are, of course, free to hold your own opinion. But I don't buy it.

[oneafroboy]

Well, I think you are mocking what I am saying and stretching what I mean. But I stand by what I believe and I don't think it's as ambiguous or arbitrary as you make it out to be.

 

[Skrappybiskit]

I think we can find some guidance in the Bible -- of all places -- which has a lot to say about animals.

1) God clothed people in skins for coverings, providing an example. In Genesis somewhere.
2) God allowed people to eat animals after the flood.
3) In the Law, there's a provision to not "muzzle the ox that treads the corn" or something along those lines. And though Jesus later drew specific anthrocentric application from it later on, that doesn't negate the fact that it was on at least some level given to preven cruelty to the animal.  There are more things like that in the Old Testament.
4) God has commanded that humans be good stewards of the earth that he has created. That has implications that involve not being unecessarily cruel to animals.
5) Animals are in some ways like humans, sort of relating to how humans are like God. That likeness, that sort of sameness begs for a measure of restraint. The fact that an animal *can* feel pain and express their pain is enough to negate the idea of unecessary pain being alright.

Taking all of these things together forms my idea of how we should treat the animal kingdom.

Skraps

[Vlad!]

Well, I think you are mocking what I am saying and stretching what I mean. But I stand by what I believe and I don't think it's as ambiguous or arbitrary as you make it out to be.

I don't intend to mock your ideas, but respect is a fairly ambiguous term, and so I viewed it as idealistic rhetoric more than actual proof. As I mentioned before, and as Skraps says, the very fact that animals can feel and express pain seems to be sufficient reason for a compassionate person to not cause them such pain unnecessarily. But this is one thing that a lot of people take way too far, so I like to keep things sensible. And the thought of showing respect to an animal seems somewhat unsensible, in the way I usually think of respect.

[oneafroboy]

I think there is a clear difference between respecting a person and respecting life.

Respecting life is simply treating as God's creation because it is.

Props to Skraps for giving more specific Biblical proofs for what I was saying. I thought that's what I was getting across, but I guess not.

[PriestofDasani]

Why is the extinction of a species bad? Some certainly would have a drastic effect on the ecosystem, but I hear some ecologists citing statistics that some large number of species per day go extinct. Obviously these are tiny species and subspecies of small insects, protists, and single-celled organisms, but it still (purportedly) happens. Maybe you could counter my mosquito example with something like Kant's categorical imperatave, but even then it puts less concern on the animal and more on the impact of the animal's death on the environment.

But we're making this too hard, I think. The questions are simple: do animals have rights? Who should enforce those rights? Do those rights exist on the same level as human rights?

Extinction is bad because God created the world with all the creatures in it and I am sure he knew what he was doing. I think it is likely that even things that may be a result of the fall are still important in the world because God has designed the world to work together with them as part of it. That's just what I think.

I have already voiced my opinion about animal rights so I don't think I'll say much more about that.

negate is a great word