Do animals have rights?

R

Rake

New User
Joined
17 June 2010
Messages
6
Location
God`s own New Forest
Visit site
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.
 
ok Rake,consider this- do lambs and poultry have rights, i think so, they have a right to live without fear of being killed by a predator for the sake of it- that is why WE hunt.
 
Do lambs and poultry have the right not to be killed by predators? Do the said predators have the right to prey on said lambs and poultry?
I think this will open a can of worms, really. (Do worms have rights? :-/)
 
No. Even if you leave common sense aside and go purely on the fact that there is a Universal declaration of human rights, and not one for animals...
 
Rights have to come with responsibility, and animals don't have that. If a dog bites a person, for example, that is the responsibility of the owner that did not control their dog, and also possibly the person who was bitten if they were behaving in such a way that provoked the dog, for example by hurting or tormenting it. If a person is bucked off a horse because it is in pain, does the horse bear the responsibility for that? No, because the rider should have read the signs and stopped before it got to that point.

People have a duty to ensure good animal welfare, but that is not the same as animal rights.
 
Via domestication and the 'right' humans feel they have to remove an animal's ability to look after itself and alter the environment to the stage where natural balances are upset humans have the responsibility to ensure animal welfare.

Agree with above, animals do not have rights as such.
 
lillith said:
Via domestication and the 'right' humans feel they have to remove an animal's ability to look after itself and alter the environment to the stage where natural balances are upset humans have the responsibility to ensure animal welfare.

Agree with above, animals do not have rights as such.
Click to expand...

The right to be treated humanely - perhaps
 
'Do' they have rights - no, not in the law. 'Should' they have rights is the difficult one. Currently animals in captivity are regarded as property and they are protected by the Animal Health and Welfare Acts, which refer indirectly to the Five Freedoms, so humane treatment should be covered. Wild animals are subject to different legislation.
If the current law is rigorously upheld, then welfare should be high, and the question of rights just a philosophical one. I'm not sure that animals ever could have rights that are equivalent to humans....
One area that manages to skip around the law for pets etc of course is factory farming, particularly broiler chickens and battery laying hens. There is, I think, a section of the legislation which effectively exempts these types of management because they are commercial - you couldn't keep a caged battery hen in your back garden within the law and yet millions of them are kept for commercial egg production in barbaric conditions. So really the aim should be for ALL animals, us included, to have high welfare, and then perhaps worry about the rights issue.
 
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. There is a lot of debate as to what it means by rights, because babies have rights but not responsibilities, same as disabled people. So its not actually a matter of whether they have responsibilities, or fully understand there actions, but whether they can suffer.
All animals can suffer, feel pain, fear, depression etc so maybe we should look more at that instead of actual rights. Animals should not be inflicted with being kept in cages, killed for sport, slaughtered for meat, used for vivisection, because all animals can feel pain and fear, same as humans.
Another question, what gives us the right to murder, abuse, use, test on, hunt for sport?
 
Excellent post Spudlet! Therefore when a dog bites some foul human,who probably asked for it anyway, the dog ain`t responsible.I am all for that..the person responsible,not the dog ,gets put down ..bloody great!
 
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.
 
Jennyharvey said:
Animals should not be inflicted with being kept in cages, killed for sport, slaughtered for meat, used for vivisection, because all animals can feel pain and fear, same as humans.
Another question, what gives us the right to murder, abuse, use, test on, hunt for sport?
Click to expand...

It seems unlikely that animals suffer a chronic fear of death - obviously in an immediately dangerous situation they fear for their lives, but I don't think beef cattle spend their days dreading the trip to the slaughterhouse. So there is no reason why high welfare can't be compatible with a humane death, therefore 'murder' for meat isn't a problem as long as the 'murder' is carried out in a humane manner. They you can get into the length of live v. quality of life debate, the fur debate (if it's okay to eat meat, it should be okay to wear fur and leather as long as the animals have been subject to the same high welfare standards as some of us demand for our meat). Hunting for sport is really on the fringes - generally the animals will have had a good life (?) and if it's only a short period at the end of that good life that is stressful, is that a big problem? The only people who can really argue for animal rights with any clout are strict vegans who refuse medical treatments that have been tested on animals - how many of those are there about?
 
1 vegan here. I am against any animals used for food and clothing. We simply do not need it. Im not against people hunting for their own food, but that doesnt really happen. Not in this country. Most people hunt for sport and prizes.
MOst animalks are confied to small cages or barns, except mabey a few months in the field for dairy and beef cattle.
Studies have shown that vegans and vegetarians are healthier, lower colesterol, lower body fat, less risk of hear disease and cancer. So im not just vegan for the animals, but because its good for me.
 
I agree with the OP. I don't think animals do have rights. Some animals in some countries are protected by laws but that is the extent of it.

There are welfare laws in place for domestic animals and livestock although they do not always prevent suffering. Different countries view animals differently.

I believe that those who own animals have a responsibility to care for them correctly.

I am not a vegetarian or a vegan and I am pro-hunting. None of which means that I am not an animal lover.

I believe that all animals should be able to experience the five freedoms but I do not have an issue with eating animals although I choose to buy british meat from butchers only and organic dairy products as I believe our standards of welfare are higher than in other countries.
 
I agree with the principles of buddhists. ALL living beings have rights, All living beings should be respected. Although when youtake fleas and flies etc into account i'm not sure how possible it is to live a completely mindful life in this way. I mean if your child has head lice, you kill them, and yet a buddhist i presume would say they are a living being , so .....:confused:

But in short, yes IMO animals do have rights, they are as entitled to a place on this world as much as we are and i strongly believe that all the suffering caused to animals and indeed people, will have consequence in either years or lives to come. But that is another subject matter altogether :D

I try to treat all living beings with respect. Apart from head lice and fleas but that is where lies the problem :)

ETA fully aware that even though i don't eat meat that other animal products are used in my daily life, such as above medication, but i do believe we all have to begin somewhere, and for me my journey has just started, so please go easy :P
 
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...

Just to be a pain in the ar$e. Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
 
The day someone can sit a fox down and explain to him that it is wrong to come into my garden and kill two cockrels (goldie was my favorate :mad:) and only eat one (it never came back for the other one) I will stop hunting them.

I have fallen out with my sister a few times over this topic. Unless you live in a cave don't eat meat, wear leather, makeup or recieve any medical treatment you have no right to preach to anyone else how they should live your life. I asked her if she would poison a rat? "Oh yes she said they are vermin" I wanted to know who died and made her god. Why did she have the right to deside which animal was fluffy enough to be aloud to live and don't get me started on Vegis who eat fish :mad: :mad: :mad:
(i don't poison rats by the way i use terriors a much kinder way to kill a rat)

Anyway i'll get off my soapbox now and be prepared to be linched :rolleyes: :o
 
Katikins said:
Just to be a pain in the ar$e. Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Isn't it safer to assume that all animals ARE sentient until proven otherwise, rather than the opposite view ie requiring proof that they are sentient before we act accordingly towards them. I'm pretty sure that all my animals are sentient - they have thoughts and feelings that matter to them.
 
Katikins said:
Just to be a pain in the ar$e. Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
Click to expand...

There is a legally binding protocol (yes just googled :p) that recognises that animals ARE sentient. :D
 
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! :)
 
Katikins said:
Just to be a pain in the ar$e. Animals aren't sentient:

Sentient: having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
Conscious: aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Very very few species are self aware so that makes your argument invalid.
Click to expand...

Obviously you dont understand animals very well!
 
Before you can meaningfully answer the question as to whether animals have rights or not you really have to answer the deeper question as to what exactly rights are.
 
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...



I don;t think anything animal or human has the right to live without pain or suffering.

That's like saying we have the right not to have toothache.

Wether and in what circumstances we have the right to CAUSE suffering is another question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top