Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2021 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 17:00 UTC, 30 November!

Talk:Animal rights

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Quote in the first paragraph[edit]

In the first paragraph "Which rights?" there is a weird quote "animals are people and should have basically the same rights" seemingly attributed to the philosopher Tom Regan, but it is not found in the reference link. I am familiar with his writings and would be surprised if he wrote something as exaggerated as that. Can we find a real reference for this quote or otherwise replace it? — Unsigned, by: Sandris / talk / contribs

The "Cruelty" Argument in the Understanding Section for Arguments Against[edit]

Can someone please explain why it's impossible for animals to be cruel to each other? The author seems to think that because animals do what they're "programmed" to do, they can't be "cruel." Humans aren't an exception to that kind of determinism (the author even hints to that: "same way humans do most of the time"), yet they seem to believe that humans are capable of inflicting cruelty on other humans, but animals aren't capable of being cruel to other animals. Wouldn't a cat killing a mouse it had no intention to eat be causing unnecessary harm and thus cruelty? Why would it be considered speciesist/human exceptionalism to hold all organisms to the standard of not causing unnecessary harm? Sure, a lot of animals would fail to meet this standard, but so would plenty of humans. AlexUnknown (talk) 09:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you believe that it is morally acceptable to hold an obligate carnivore accountable for doing what it needs to do in order to survive (i.e. eat other animals, almost always by killing them)? 72.92.237.87 (talk) 02:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC) A

Possible Ignoratio Elenchi?[edit]

"A racist comparison[4] these groups will often use is slavery, stating that slavery itself would not be justified just because the slaves were treated well. Examples of animal rights groups are Animal Aid, PETA and In Defense of Animals."

Let me write in defence of the animal rights supporters here. I think that by focusing on the offensiveness and shock value of the analogy to slavery, we risk missing the underlying point being made here. The argument isn't necessarily that black people should be compared to animals, but that the oppressions faced by both groups have a common root - economic exploitation, justified by the lack of 'rights' afforded to these groups. Slavery is immoral, but in those days, since blacks were argued to not be the equal of whites, and therefore deserving of no rights, the abhorrent system was defended - on completely arbritary (and, as demonstrated later, false). Today, people defend carnism along the same lines, affording animals no rights and thus defending their exploitation even though the reasons for not affording them these rights are arguably arbitrary ("sentience", as the argument from marginal cases shows).

They are arguing that both groups should be afforded rights, but while black people do at least have legal protections under the law, animals are still considered ok for killing for the purposes of consumption, or exploited by dairy and leather companies for other human uses. We know it's wrong to exploit living beings in our own species, so why not afford this to others?

As user evejanlucille puts it, from the website cited:

"The basic message, as put succinctly in this book [The Dreaded Comparison - Human and Animal Slavery] is that since we know it is wrong to treat humans as slaves, and we know animals suffer the same, then surely it is wrong to do the same to animals."

The aim is not to de-humanise black people or downplay their struggle; it's simply showing the logical root of two disagreeable systems. The same way showing that humans and apes have a common ancestor doesn't equate the two, or consider them "the same".

Focusing on the shocking nature of the comparison doesn't show why it's faulty, it only demonstrates possible speciecism. The conversation now shifts to the 'racism problem' of veganism.

I don't necessarily agree with the logic, but that is what they'd argue, the way I imagine it. Do let me know what you guys think. Rationalissimo 02:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Pets and PETA:[edit]

I think the section about PETA and pets doesn't states clearly the stupidity of the idea. We love dogs and cats so they should go extinct? Come on! This idea is radical, and i think most animal right activists don't think that way. Cats and mainly dogs have evolved to be human companions and they depend on us for survival. Isn't this enough reason to state that pet keeping is good? Is more ethical to drive dogs and cats to extinction without their consent? And is more ethical to kill most dogs in your shelter?— Unsigned, by: Ep0605 / talk / contribs

Feel free to add to it!--Hastur! (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


Two Instances of Bullshit in this article[edit]

  1. "A racist comparison these groups will often use is slavery, stating that slavery itself would not be justified just because the slaves were treated well" - I fail to see how this is racist, owning black people was wrong => owning animals is wrong. That's it. There's nothing else implied here, at least from the AR camps. I mean yeah I've heard the whole "oh black people were compared to animals that's why they were treated so bad". Well yeah the AR movement would obviously see this as wrong too (for non-speciesist reasons though).
  2. "This ignores the real contributions animal testing has made to our understanding of drugs and disease — including drugs and diseases that impact animals." Yeah this is still categorically, morally, ethically, spiritually, physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably bullshit. A - Hundreds of millions of animals are used for experiments every year, the amount of animals used for vivisection FAR OUTPACES the amount that receive veterinary care and B - Recognizing something is ill-gotten gains DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE IGNORING SAID FUCKING GAINS RockyRob97 (talk) 18:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The difference, of course, is that animals are categorically different from people. Domestic animals exist partly because animals aren't complicated enough to care about 'liberty', and tend to be more interested in where their next meal comes from. So if someone feeds them regularly, they will follow that person into the literal jaws of death. And this is why animals should be property but humans should not. (No such thing as 'speciesism', either.) Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh my god you're right. I assume you also agree that there is no issue with people who are born (or become) cognitively disabled being the property of others since they have no concept of 'liberty' and are completely dependent on their carers and wouldn't survive without them.
"No such thing as speciesism", really? Even Carl Cohen, arguably the most outspoken person opposed to the idea of animal rights, structures his arguments around why humans should be speciesist https://lionsden.molloy.edu/ICS/icsfs/ResearchPaper_Sample.doc?target=4565879b-2bda-408b-a8c5-ee31d5c060c7#:~:text=Carl%20Cohen%3A%20Proud%20%E2%80%9CSpeciesist%E2%80%9D,seeking%20to%20abolish%20animal%20research., not outright declaring the viewpoint doesn't exist. Your assertion of this point of view is very distinctive, and leads me to one of two conclusions:
1. You have a completely unique view on this topic that has not yet been made since Peter Singer's Animal Liberation was release in 1975 which introduced and discussed this topic in depth for the first time.
2. You are a fucking idiot who has no clue what he/she is talking about.
I wonder which one it is? RockyRob97 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
You seem nice. And where, again, were those other species that even possess the concept of "liberty" for any other species? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Why are you obsessed so much with the cognitively disabled? Uncle Mark (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Could be because the whole idea of "humans are intrinsically better than animals" completely breaks down when we consider those humans who are less intelligent than some non-human animals. --178.235.12.49 (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
"I fail to see how this is racist, owning black people was wrong => owning animals is wrong." This is often brought up by black people themselves. The slavery comparison is usually considered racist because it's very reductive and because equating once-enslaved minorities to animals, intentional or not, is not good optics. Uncle Mark (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)