Do animals have rights?

sarahsum1 said:
Also to add :D that is was also recognised by the European union in 1997. Animals can show similar signs of morality to a human. You only have to think of that poor knocked down doggy video on the motorway, where his doggy pal comes and drags him away to safety. He wasn't doing it to eat him, or to gaurd over him either as he let the rescuers take the dog away, he just pulled him to safety. (ok prob lame example, but in mind animals are sentient, and prob more so than a lot of bl00dy humans i could name! :)
Click to expand...

I sometimes suspect that it isn;t necessarily true that more morality is always a good thing
 
Xlthlx said:
I sometimes suspect that it isn;t necessarily true that more morality is always a good thing
Click to expand...

Whether or not it is a good thing, some animals do show this.

Do you mean, It would be better if they didn't? (sorry i'm not with it as usual):)

P.s stop picking on my posts! :P please note the (:P) :D
 
Don't confuse the concept of "reflection" with the concept of "self".

If animals knew about reflections, they would probably seem to understand self. But because we can't explain to them that the cat in the mirror is just a reflection of themselves, they do not understand it.

Not the same thing, IMO. A cat will still hurt if you kick it, feel hunger if you starve it, and come begging to you if you abandon it. Just because it doesn't have the capacity to recognise reflection doesn't mean it hasn't got a sentient mind!
 
Katikins said:
Urm... have you ever seen a cat in front of a mirror? Tell me that it understands the concept of 'me'.
Click to expand...

A mirror is a man made object, we as humans have the highest intelligence (again debatable with some humans :D). Animals understand me, but not in a human way. Also if you actually search you tube, cat in front of mirror, then yes i have seen plenty :p
 
Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot. You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion. I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level. Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair. Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
 
Niraf said:
Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
Click to expand...

No, our lives are not more important than theirs but we are the species that has managed to domesticate other species. Therefore, it is our obligation to treat them correctly, i.e. allow them to live without pain, cruelty and suffering, rather than their right.

Do you think it's the foxes' rights to rip chickens to shreds for the fun of it, leaving them for dead but not taking them away to eat?

I would say no, it's not their right per se, it's just what they do. It's in their nature.

I would agree that it is an animal's right to hunt for food, but you could also argue then that as animals, it is our right to hunt to protect our food/pets/loved ones whatever....
 
Katikins said:
Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot. You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion. I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level. Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair. Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
Click to expand...


No animal that I know of has committed the atrocities that man has. My dogs are more civilised than some people. I will certainly not treat them like humans, they deserve better.
 
Katikins said:
Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot. You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion. I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level. Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair. Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
Click to expand...

Who said they have human emotions? What some of us are saying is that animals are sentient, which there have been numerous studies to prove!!

And why the sarcastic stroppy tone? it's a friendly debate not a slanging match.
 
Last edited:
blazingsaddles said:
[/B]

No animal that I know of has committed the atrocities that man has. My dogs are more civilised than some people. I will certainly not treat them like humans, they deserve better.
Click to expand...


u shld c sum of the stuff our muts get up 2 its a bloody disgrace!!!!
 
Xlthlx, did you used to have an Ostrich as an avatar picture? Or am i confusing you with someone else? Just curious :)
 
Harper_Gal said:
[Apes are known to murder children and rape women.... Big cats will murder children... most animals will declare "war" on other tribes and "genocide" is very common, as is cannibalism and child abuse...

But animals lack the moral law that says all of the above are wrong.
Click to expand...

Mark Beckoff, former Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Colorado, might disagree with you there.

Not many apes in Essex, as far as I know. There are, however, plenty of half-cut, immoral layabouts that wouldn't pi55 on you if you were on fire. Especially on a Friday night. Big cats have been sighted , but no reports of them murdering children as yet. It could be a different story in the Serengeti admittedly. I am yet to be enlightened of any animal responsible for the genocide/extermination of over 6 million (inc 1.5 million children) of its own species in the space of 12 years.


any hoooow......this is interesting reading

http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/40/6/883
 
Rake said:
Firstly, thank you to those of you who replied to my first thread on the repeal of the hunting act. It gave me, as a "foal", a valuable insight in to the workings of the forum; and, as a born again "ANTI", has provided me with a niche in the great H&H scheme of things to maybe get on or two of you thinking about, and maybe even questioning, your beliefs in the traditional hunting staus quo.

I may be wrong ( though I`ll never admit it ), but I think that fundamental to the argument of whether hunting is cruel, fair, right or wrong, is the way we think about the fox, the hounds and the horses, in short the animals involved in hunting. Do they have rights. If you believe that the answer is yes, then which animals have them and what are they?

I do not believe that animals have rights. I think that rights are a humanity and as such are the reserve of humans.

Come on you hoof-heads, let`s have a debate!

regards.
Click to expand...
so Rake, where are you now- reporting back to the LACS?
 
Rake said:
I may be wrong ( though I`ll never admit it ), but I think that fundamental to the argument of whether hunting is cruel, fair, right or wrong, is the way we think about the fox, the hounds and the horses, in short the animals involved in hunting. Do they have rights. If you believe that the answer is yes, then which animals have them and what are they?
Click to expand...

If you take the human out (some of us don't deserve rights ;))

The fox - All 5 needs/freedoms
The dogs - All 5 needs/freedoms
The horses - All 5 needs/freedoms

Why should any of the animals not have theses basic rights? I do believe that they all deserve more than just these few rights/needs but it's a start :p:D
 
LauraWheeler said:
don't get me started on Vegis who eat fish :mad: :mad: :mad:
Click to expand...

I feel the same I'm a veggie but couldn't understand why when I said I was that the waiter put a plate of fish infront of me :eek::rolleyes:
Fish is the same as beef and chicken - the flesh of a living animal!

The proper name for a 'veggie' who eats fish is - piscatarian (sp) (piscavore - only eats fish)
Someone who eats white meat - Demi/semi vegetarian
No meat/dairy- vegan
There are many more variations... Just can't remember them all off the top of my head :D
 
I've read the first few posts, then skipped to the last few. Do animals have rights? Of course they do. Those "Rights" are, however limited, in my view, limited to the level of respect which we apply to them. We have a duty to be humane. If we use animals for sport, then accepting that there are those who will never agree with me, we have a duty to terminate a life in a humane way, or the most humane that the circumstances will allow.

I don't hunt, but I do shoot, keep coursing dogs and I also stalk deer, which is a passion. Without exception, all of those who I know and respect and who also take part in blood sports, have a passionate respect for the quarry.

There will never be a clear answer to this.

Alec.
 
Jake10 said:
I feel the same I'm a veggie but couldn't understand why when I said I was that the waiter put a plate of fish infront of me :eek::rolleyes:
Fish is the same as beef and chicken - the flesh of a living animal!

The proper name for a 'veggie' who eats fish is - piscatarian (sp) (piscavore - only eats fish)
Someone who eats white meat - Demi/semi vegetarian
No meat/dairy- vegan
There are many more variations... Just can't remember them all off the top of my head :D
Click to expand...

I think there are two variations:
A. proper vegetarians, or
B. fussy eaters
:D
 
Male lions will murder any cubs of a group of females it takes over,to delete his predecessors genes..and it brings the females back in heat so he gets his leg over quicker! Animals do not for see pain as we do,except by experience..as in a dog that ducks to a raised hand.That is why a hunted fox does not worry too much,he will only get hunted close up once and will not percieve approaching death.It is an animals right to not witness another animals death, in case that connection might be made. Of course animals have rights,our religion demands it,which is lucky for any living in Christian countries . However ,Australia,presumably is a Christian country but have a very much harder attitude esp to farm animals and sheep in particular. Look up "mulesing" on the PETA site..if you dare.
 
Niraf said:
Agree with JennyHarvey. Of course animals have rights, they are sentient beings and not inanimate property. They have the right to live their lives without pain, cruelty and suffering. Our lives are not more important than theirs and it is hugely arrogant for us to think so.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :)
 
Katikins said:
Oh sorry... all the scientists out there who have been working on this kind of thing for years and years and have numerous accreditations and qualifications should actually talk to you lot. You should write to them and tell them their work is of no value.

And I never said that animals didn't feel pain or emotion. I said they don't understand the concept of self, certainly not on a human level. Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair. Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
Click to expand...

I don't think people are treating animals as humans, they are treating them as equals in terms of their right to be on this planet and to not have to suffer at the hands of humans who feel they are above any creature that walks this earth.
 
Katikins said:
Drive me mad when people put human emotions on animals, its just not fair. Treat them as what they are, do not treat them as human.
Click to expand...

Well said...one of my pet hates, be it owners who put their own nuerosis on their horses, to silly women dressing up dogs....
 
I do believe animals have rights. They have the right to live free from pain, free from abuse, free from cages, and i dont believe animals are on this earth soley for human needs and desires.
Mentioned by JennyHarvey

I totally agree with that statement.

I strongly believe animals should have rights.
 
sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses, perhaps you could explain why you do so.

Alec.
 
a1b2c3 said:
sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses, perhaps you could explain why you do so.

Alec.
Click to expand...

How does keeping horses equate to believing that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires?

Are animals here for our pleasure? No, patently not. Why do I choose to keep a horse? Because I enjoy the relationship I can create with another living thing - and particularly enjoy the challenge of learning to communicate effectively without using spoken language.
 
So, Kittykins, you don't keep animals for pleasure, but you do gain enjoyment from them, and they're your words not mine. I must admit to having problems with that argument!

The point which I'm making, and have made previously in this thread, is that whether we keep horses, train dogs, keep goldfish, or race pigeons, we do it because it gives us pleasure and we enjoy it.

Animal rights are limited to the level of responsibility which each of us accepts, and in our own individual ways, demonstrate to our charges, and as individuals we decide upon our own direction.

Some will be happy to hunt, whilst others wont. It's generally been my experience that the man who hunts, has a far better understanding, and yes a respect for his quarry, than the man who would tell him that what he's doing is wrong. Attempting to explain this the the man who sits in judgement is futile, and I don't know why I bothered!

You have my apologies for interrupting your thought train.

Alec.
 
a1b2c3 said:
So, Kittykins, you don't keep animals for pleasure, but you do gain enjoyment from them, and they're your words not mine. I must admit to having problems with that argument!

The point which I'm making, and have made previously in this thread, is that whether we keep horses, train dogs, keep goldfish, or race pigeons, we do it because it gives us pleasure and we enjoy it.

Alec.
Click to expand...

Well, I would hope that she enjoys it too! So what if we do it because we enjoy it - what's wrong with that? Horses are pretty big animals, if they're not happy, they tend to make that known.

In fact, my horse came to me because she didn't get on with her last owner. Not a bad owner (lavishes her horses with attention), just a personality clash. So clearly animals can make their feelings known.

LIkewise, in this year's Grand National, one of the horses didn't race because when the tape went up, he just stood still, depite the jockey's best efforts to persuade him otherwise.

Horses, dogs, cats etc are domesticated animals. I think it would be far crueler to release them into 'the wild' and ask them to fend for themselves, where they aren't guaranteed daily meals and have no access to medicines.
 
a1b2c3 said:
sugarmia et all,

so you don't believe that animals are on this earth solely for human needs and desires? Assuming that you keep horses, perhaps you could explain why you do so.

Alec.
Click to expand...

In general, it's religious people that tend to believe that animals are here solely for humans to exploit. The majority of people I know that don't believe in a creator tend to view us all as equals (myself included) although there are the odd few that still think animals are just there to serve us.

I keep a horse because I love all animals and I intend to give as many of them as I can, a good quality of life when and if I can whilst i'm on this planet!

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top