Talk:Animal rights/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Reads

Thanks Remarcsd. Reads much better now. Researcher 22:04, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Animal Welfare

As a wiki that puts forward a rational view, I reckon it's worth adding a quick distinction between animal "rights" (which they categorically don't have) and animal "welfare" (which every sane individual should support). They're two very different things and currently the article reads as if anyone who is against "animal rights" is some nasty, neo-con twat. ArmondikoV^narchist 09:28, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Actually, right now, Spain is giving rights to great apes (which are still considered animals) due to the fact that they are, functionally, as intelligent and capable as 4 or 5 year old children. Researcher 10:58, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

Amazing what you can learn on RationalWiki. I live in Spain and this was the the first I'd heard of it - but our old friend Google confirms the info. I can't honestly say that I would have expected Spain to be the first country in the world to do this - what with its bullfighting and goats thrown our of watchtowers - but it's a country of contradictions so there you are.--Bob^{bing up} 13:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

"animal "rights" (which they categorically don't have)" - I can only hope that someday an actual explanation will be given for this point of view RockyRob97 (talk)

animals with near human intelligence

Shouldn't animals with near human intelligence(such as cetaceans and chimpanzees) be granted human rights?--Thedoctor80 (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Near human? How near?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Intelligence that is comparable to a young human child P.S They could be given the rights of a child, not an adult's rights e.g The right to vote--Thedoctor80 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah right, no right to vote then but the right to universal state-paid education?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No offence to anybody, but it's stuff like this that just makes the animal rights movement look wacky. They do harm to their own cause. ^EXTERMINATE 17:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence is far too difficult to quantify for that to be meaningful way of issuing rights. If animals had the intelligence of a small child, then they - in principle - should be able to be taught and lean the same way as a small child. Alas experiment doesn't bear this out. If you attempt to raise a chimpanzee exactly the same way as a human you get... a chimpanzee. Whereas some indicators may show that younger children have a lower degree of sentience than some animals (do recall that we're all born considerably premature, though) but humans have the ability to grow beyond this - other animals just don't. ^pathetic 17:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more in terms of these:[1][2]--Thedoctor80 (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to animal rights. The problem is that calling them "human rights" is absurd. Humans have many rights by virtue of being ... well .. human. Voting, the right to run for office, (in the US) the right to bear arms, the right to religious freedom and so on. Giving these rights to animals would be clearly be absurd. I am quite aware on the Great Ape Project and their declaration [here] seems quite reasonable - though no doubt some will say it goes too far. But they don't call it "human rights".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

fair enough.--Thedoctor80 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal Rights is fundamentally irrational

Why aren't we shitkicking these emotionalist hippies and their stupid nonsense? --66.233.55.145 (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Because "shitkicking these emotionalist hippies and their stupid nonsense" is your supposed irrefutable proof that they're irrational. ADK^{...I'll regurgitate your poodle!} 14:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Aren't animals... less than human? Isn't "dehumanizing" considered offensive? Isn't caring about cute animals because they're cute irrational? (with all scientific evidence pointing towards their objective inferiority) I get environmentalism, I don't get this stupid crap. Do you even have a rational argument that Animal Rights is rational?

--66.233.55.145 (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Rational argument: animals have feelings. animals suffer. Suffering is bad if it can be lessened or eradicated. Humans are not the be all end all in the world, just cause we make big weapons. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Apes fling shit at each other. We've made The X-Factor and The Jeremy Kyle Show. I really don't think you can argue objective inferiority of non homo sapiens. ADK^{...I'll complement your teabag!} 19:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's your argument:

• Premise: Non-human animals are inferior to humans.
• Conclusion: Therefore, non-human animals don't have any rights.

Your conclusion would be a non sequitur assertion if we don't add the hidden 2nd premise "No rights should be ascribed to beings that are inferior to other beings." Now look at the argument I can construct with this premise:

• Premise 1: No rights should be ascribed to beings that are inferior to other beings.
• Premise 2: Not all humans are equally superior.
• Premise 3: Humans are the most superior kind of being in existence. (This premise is likely false, but let's go with it for now.)
• Conclusion: Therefore, only the most superior human(s) can be said to have any rights.

Congratulations, you're a Nazi. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Except that your argument makes logical leaps. Just because humans are superior to animals, does not mean more superior humans deserve more rights above less superior humans. A less intelligent human can still deserve the same rights as a more intelligent human by nature that they are both more intelligent than animals. There is a spectrum this can all ride on. So there is a premise you could insert between your third premise and your conclusion. Scryer360 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It clearly depends on how you frame the construction of rights, and thus can either be irrational or rational depending on your a priori assumptions and some of the a postiori observations and how they feed back into those assumption. Saying "X is irrational" only holds if one of the following is true:

1. It's contradictory to itself.
2. It contradicts widely understood evidence.

Otherwise you're just projecting rationality onto what you personally believe. Sheesh. Ikanreed (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are we arguing with a BoN who drove by four years ago? Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Why not? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Language test?

Is that even a serious mark of consciousness, let alone one of the "strongest" arguments against animal consciousness? Says who? 68.187.218.86 (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I find that pretty odd too. And exactly how broad or narrow a sense of 'language' are we speaking of anyway? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. Language relies on far too many factors to be physically feasible for most animals. The case which I think makes this most questionable would be octopi. They are very intelligent but notably reclusive so they were unlikely to evolve language-their ability to use tools and problem solve indicates a great deal of sentience and purposeful action. Arachne1988 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

http://33.media.tumblr.com/5abefea769b6b8a58e14eb5db67a71cc/tumblr_njk6mxEqpO1tyncywo1_250.gif

Take this gif for example. Would it make the cats any more intelligent or sentient if they were using the suggested human language to illustrate their sentiments? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

History of Animal Rights?

Shouldn't some of the history of animal rights activism be mentioned? Such as Peter Singer, who founded the modern conception of animal rights and also believes in infanticide and bestiality?

And also, the article states that there is no justification for granting rights based on species membership, but species is a biological construct. It exists regardless of our understanding or lack of understanding of it. Species is not the same as race or sexism, which are social constructs. Shouldn't scientific fact regarding biology be considered in moral arguments? After all, the entire basis of what is an "animal" is rooted in biology. How can we divorce a subject from itself when considering its moral relevancy? Scryer360 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The absurdity of animal rights

While rights of an animal (more exactly, non-human animal) may exist in theory, their practical implementation is impossible. Or, if possible, totally irrational.

One of the widespread arguments of animal rights' proponents is that while animals are not mentally competent to apply their rights, some categories of humans are too, such as children and mentally ill people. In theory, it's logical. Well, imagine if we gave the animals some basic rights, such as the most essenital of human rights, the right to life. In the wildlife, almost every animal's right to life can be breached by another animal. In incompetent people, who can't apply basic human rights on their own, these rights are served by their guardians, parents, nursing home personnel, etc. So if we want to implement the right to life on the animals, we have to assign a guardian to every animal or place all of them to some analog of nursing home, which would look like a prison. This is largely impossible, or, if someday becomes possible, it would contradict the main goal of animal rights proponents, which is to give animals an opportunity to live on their own.

So, if we want to protect animals from some unrightful human use, we have to call our means to do so everything but "animal rights". Have I missed something? Nonexist (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nuance, maybe? Is it really such a dichotomy? Or not? It's gotta be one or the other. MarmotHead (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't get into how one can implement animal rights similarly to human rights. If there is no way to do so, does one have to elaborate a complete different jurisprudence for (non-human) animals?

It wouldn't be a reductio, if I didn't bring an example, just asking. Nonexist (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Though animals, as moral patients, may have no rights claims against each other, they can have rights claims against moral agents RockyRob97 (talk)

Contributions of Animal Experiments

"This ignores the real contributions animal testing has made to our understanding of drugs and disease — including drugs and diseases that impact animals". Sorry I find this pretty weak. This is like a group in the 18th century being opposed to slavery, and the response being these people were being irrational because they were ignoring the real contributions that slavery had made to the then-society. Or, hell, even if we rephrase this current situation into one where we had always being doing experiments on mentally impaired humans to find cures for all of us for diseases, including them. Would that be wrong to be opposed to? ^{— Unsigned, by: RockyRob97 / talk / contribs}

1. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you.
2. Are you implying that animal testing has made no real contributions to our understanding of drugs and disease (including those that impact animals)?
3. That comparison you just made

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Sorry about that
2. Not at all. Just that it's irrelevant to whether or not it's justified, in the same way most people would probably agree experimenting on a few humans to find cures for many others wouldn't be justified despite the gains.
3. Which comparison? The slavery or the mentally impaired people one? If it was the first one, the point was to show to that just because something seems to have benefits doesn't mean it's right. The second was for the sake of the predictable "humans are more intelligent/aware/can-suffer-more than animals" to point out this is not always true, as these qualities can vary within humans, even some to below the relevant animal's ability

RockyRob97 (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Bad argument by RockyRob97, but it's not a huge waste to ponder the differences between human and animal experiments. The CIA denies MKULTRA even existed, and Obama publicly apologized for the guatemala syphilis experiment. Animal experiments aren't treated to be as bad in public as human testing. However RBP's point is altruism. We make few animals suffer in hopes that it prevents humans from suffering.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody has explained why a human suffering is always worse than an a non-human animal suffering, without resorting to either scripture or speciesism RockyRob97 (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Try to understand this analogy: Fishing is seen as relaxing to human, the same way playing with a mouse is fun for a cat. Both can be seen as extremely cruel acts in one perspective, but the individuals in question do not seen it that way. This is because humans are better sympathizers with other humans. With animal testing there's a great benefit of helping many people as opposed to just one individual, which is a major difference.—HamburgerPlate  (talk • stalk) 23:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

There is really no such thing as 'speciesism'. Equality doesn't really apply to humans outside of ideological fever dreams, and it surely does not cross species lines. We keep around the cat and the snake because we'd rather have them around than mice or rats. This is for the convenience of our own species, even as it favors some above others. We feed the hummingbird but drown the ants. The claim that all species are equally entitled to, well, anything, slides down a slippery slope and into a bottomless pit. Nobody, even the most self-righteous vegan, acts consistently with this alleged belief. It follows that while for some it may be a talking point, it's one that nobody sincerely believes. (And comparing animal testing to human slavery is something you ought to simply step back and walk away from. Even I have better manners than that.) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

You seem to misinterpret what speciesism is and what its opponents argue. To paraphrase Peter Singer, anti-speciesism is not the position that “all animals have equal worth”, it is that ‘’species membership’’ is irrelevant in deciding the moral worth of a being’s life. For instance, in a burning building where one had the choice between saving a human or a dog – a non-speciesist would NOT “see no difference” between the human and the dog. It would be more rational to save the human. Why? Well, because usually the human has a better understanding of life, has a higher self-awareness, their death will usually have more of an impact on others, they have plans for the future etc. far more than a dog. Opponents of speciesism make the point that the reasoning to save the human is because he/she is more cognitively aware, not solely because they are human. The species membership is irrelevant, it is the other qualities that matter.

The point goes further here, (this is where people get uncomfortable). If in the “burning building” scenario, if the choice was between an orphan who was extremely cognitively disabled or a fully sentient dog, it would be more rational to save the dog as the dog has a higher cognitive ability and value for their life than the human would. A choice between a fully aware chimp or a person in a state of advanced senility would demand rational people to save the chimp instead for similar reasons. A speciesist would always save the human. There would never be a case where they would value the animal over the human. The sole fact that “they are human” takes precedence over everything else.

The point I was making was that doing tests on animals is generally seen as better than doing tests on humans because “they are less intelligent”. I was pointing out that there is hypocrisy here because an argument to test on mentally impaired people (even some to ‘’below’’ the research animals ability) would be met rightfully with howls of outrage. Ultimately, the real reason why people want animals to always be tested on instead of humans is pure blind speciesism, which is rationally indefensibleRockyRob97 (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

RE "To paraphrase Peter Singer, anti-speciesism is not the position that “all animals have equal worth”, it is that ‘’species membership’’ is irrelevant in deciding the moral worth of a being’s life."

Would that not imply that eating beef or chicken is morally equivalent to cannibalism?

Never mind, on re-reading I parsed the next few paragraphs better and noticed my eyes had skipped over the cognitive awareness clarification/point. Daev (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I at least change the sentence back to the old form where it read "According to some, this ignores the real contributions animal testing has made to our understanding of drugs and disease — including drugs and diseases that impact animals"? At least that way it doesn't read as if this is a black-or-white issue. Also, for the point about slavery above, I wasn't meaning to suggest human slavery and animal testing are both equally morally reprehensible, I was just trying making the point that saying something is justified or not based solely on its benefits doesn't necessarily work. Sorry if it came across otherwise RockyRob97 (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, the according to some portion was removed for the plain reason that those are textbook weasel words. I don't think you should worry that the article, taken in total, sends any message about how 'the suffering of animals should never be contemplated' or anything. To the contrary, and rightfully so. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I take back what I said when I wrote "I wasn't meaning to suggest human slavery and animal testing are both equally morally reprehensible". I now fully stand by that comparison. I would much rather be a slave than a laboratory animal RockyRob97 (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pets and animal rights

There are 'pets and other animals' who show every evidence of being pleased to see one/are willing to include 'their owner's house' as the centre of their territory; others which are totally indifferent to whether they are considered pets or not so long as they have an appropriate environment and food (eg stick insects) etc - so long as they are well looked after. Are these creatures' rights being curtailed by being 'owned' - and if they live better lives (sufficient food, medical care and entertainment etc) as pets over being free are their rights lessened by being put into the wild?

More generally, what about selective breeding programs which enable species with low numbers (from whatever causes including natural reasons) to be maintained or increase without inbreeding/placed in environments where they can survive (eg after natural disasters)? And should smallpox and rinderpest be allowed out of 'the containers' in which they currently reside?

Who will argue against the statements that accept that animal welfare should be maximised and that animals have some rights? (There is some overlap between the two concepts.) Anna Livia (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The welfare of wild animals and pets strikes me as more compelling than the welfare of animals used as livestock. I don't see it as anything owed to animals as individuals, but rather as something owed to the planet in general. Livestock animals are scarcely at risk of extinction, just because they're livestock. Rather, the phenomenon of livestock underlines the facts that animals are not moral actors who can be the subjects or objects of moral duties. Domestication by humans is a Darwinian bargain that has vastly increased the reproductive success of those animals.

Likewise, captive breeding of endangered animals is mostly a sop to our own consciences. Human activity is of course the major cause of extinctions. And even those animals that were scarce to begin with are things we seek to preserve because we find them picturesque or objects of intellectual curiosity. So it's all for our own benefit, in other words. I find it pretty much inconceivable that we somehow would be acting more morally by allowing those endangered species we breed to fend for themselves, because their right to roam free includes a right to run into the bulldozer of human activity. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is the borderline between 'I wish to survive, enjoy life, not be damaged unnecessarily, and have my local environment and group/species maintained, or improved so I will accept that other species should be so treated (and will look after the environment somewhat/make donations to those groups seeking to improve animal welfare etc)' and would want 'the life of luxury and being cared for that is known as petdom' (with the addition of interesting work etc) and 'animal rights activism'?

What #are# the rights of 'the diseases in containers (and any others which might be so consigned)'? Anna Livia (talk) 09:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

if you would make a tasty burger, you life is forfeit. pray that your flesh does not have a pleasing taste. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Be reasonably useful, and be cute.

As said at the top of the page - there is a case for animal welfare (and animal rights #may# be a part of welfare). There is also a case for maintaining maximum diversity, and as humans have created the situation that they should attempt to solve the problems arising (or improving the situation generally - eg after natural disasters, 'and whatever else RWians can think of.'

And see Aliens point 11 here [3]. Anna Livia (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The end goal of the animal rights movement is the end to the "property status" of animals. It's based on the principle that humans have no right to "own" animals (and thus use them for whatever purpose we please). So yes, pet's rights are being curtailed by being 'owned'. I know people hate the slavery comparisons but an argument that was used to defend "humane" slavery was that if they are treated well, the slaves would have better lives (sufficient food, medical care and entertainment etc) being owned by rich people instead of being free and having to look after themselves.

The other point about selective breeding programs and breeding endangered species is generally considered bad, since AR advocates want a sort of "hands off" approach to nature. Like humans should, you know, leave wild animals alone. AR philosophy is concerned with the individual animal, not the species as a whole. A species itself cannot suffer, and no suffering will take place if a species goes extinct. Wild animals tend to get very stressed in captivity, just research "zoochosis". With regards to serious imminent threats like a natural disaster and wanting to protect animals from it, I think that can only be really judged on a case-by-case basis. RockyRob97 (talk)

Taken to its logical extreme the animal rights position would accept the extinction of #all other animal species#.

Most humans have empathy and wish to help others - which extends to some degree towards animals, and will tend towards the maximising animal welfare end of the discussion (which might well include saving creatures (and plants, mushrooms etc) from natural disaster).

One of those cases where there is no single right answer (but 'the logical conclusion' appears illogical. Anna Livia (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

If setting animals owned by humans free meant that they would go on to establish their own sorts of civil society where they would be defended against predation and disease by their fellow animals, that would be one thing. Somehow, I don't think it works that way. Wild animals have no rights at all, of course, nor any context where you could imagine them having rights. They are liable to be killed by everyone higher on the food chain. Allowing them to run free to their deaths seems little better than the existences they enjoy in captivity, where they get to thrive for a time. And some animals -- dogs, cats, and horses specifically -- have evolved behaviorally to serve as human companions and beasts of burden. And only some of the animals we breed in captivity are capable of living in the wild. I don't see how their happiness is increased by turning them loose to starve. (Animal rightsers have done this. They've created a number of local ecological disasters, usually with fur bearing mustelids.) - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Animals should be protected (especially from natural disasters, and the effects of human activity); and 'who would disagree with trying to improve the quality of the lives animals have/protecting the environment as part of this and similar considerations'? Anna Livia (talk) 18:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

This reminds me of the famous "you stupid vegans, if everyone stopped killing animals they'd have to be let free and would starve. We have to kill them so they don't suffer". The truth is, for all our achievements, humans are very reluctant creatures to change. If animal rights ever does make headway, it would happen slowly - more and more people would slowly stop eating meat, buying leather, going to circuses, reducing their support of vivisection etc. As less animal products are demanded, less animals will be bred.

The suggestion seems to be that AR advocates want all domesticated animals to be released into the wild. But that's not what anybody is suggesting. You can't do that practically because those animals are domesticated, and are not natural breeds, they were selectively bred. So it would be releasing billions of animals into eco systems which would cause so many unknown problems. What AR philosophy promotes is for animals to stop being bred. It isn't a question of - either they get eaten by wild animals, or by us. We don't need to be breeding them at all.

I understand the concern people have, they are scared of cats, dogs, cows, chickens and pigs etc. going extinct if there is no demand for them. What needs to be remembered though is, for example, in the case of livestock animals have been selectively bred by humans to be of profit to us. They suffer all kinds of health problems because they are bred to be much bigger than their natural ancestors. The same is true for purebred dogs. Also, they actually probably won't actually vanish (though their numbers would dramatically reduce), the last remaining farm animals would probably be transferred to animal sanctuaries which would look after them (since farmers wouldn't want them anymore) RockyRob97 (talk) 11:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

One of the problems is that several different issues are being submerged into 'the issue of animal rights', which overlaps #to some extent# with animal welfare (and those creatures and plants etc which make use of human created environments).

Most people are likely to be 'in favour of animal welfare' and 'in favour of protecting the environment' (but which environment - considering the amount of human modification and 'those natural environments which humans are maintaining so that the species thereon can persist') and similar actual and theoretical ways of 'increasing the world's happiness and diversity etc' which are fairly easy to carry out.

And the animals rights activists who get into the news are likely to be the ones with more 'newsworthy opinions and acts.' Anna Livia (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This line is still here? *Sigh*

"This ignores the real contributions animal testing has made to our understanding of drugs and disease — including drugs and diseases that impact animals."

Again, no it doesn't. It just a follow on from the ethical principle that we shouldn't sacrifice few for the many. RockyRob97 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

You're technically right. It doesn't ignore it, it disregards it(on the basis you supply here). ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Rinderpest

Various stocks of this disease were recently destroyed (I don't know if there are other 'colonies' elsewhere). Were there any protests about this? Anna Livia (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)