I can't believe I walked into a thread where some people are outraged that non humans don't get human rights
I think reclassifying pets to the same status as adopting young children seems the right way to go... even if they are not as intelligent as children and obviously dont need intensive schooling, they have about the same responsibility over their actions and it would help a lot with certain stuff.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51555447]I think reclassifying pets to the same status as adopting young children seems the right way to go... even if they are not as intelligent as children and obviously dont need intensive schooling, they have about the same responsibility over their actions and it would help a lot with certain stuff.[/QUOTE] Basically my whole thought process. Animals really do get unfairly treated imo in the west. I'm just not comfortable with equivocating them to humans.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51555412]I'm having kind of a hard time understanding the first sentence due to how it's worded, but if I understand you correctly, you're saying we exclusively hold these rights because we're individuals with the capabilities to take care of ourselves. Aren't most animals (except pandas) capable of taking care of themselves? If that's not what you meant, then apologies.
(Also, as a side note, I don't particularly think we should even really draw the line with intelligence, so I don't think we need to argue about that since you acknowledged that other animals can use tools and shit)
You have a point about it being legally dangerous to assert, but to be fair, there are a lot of concepts that we take for granted that were likely just as dangerous to assert into the law, like the idea that slavery's awful.
[/QUOTE]
Well, it's because we're a species, and species prioritize those more related to them over others. Richard dawkins is kind of a meme but the selfish gene is pretty good on this. And that probably is the practical barometer that'll be used to decide the rights conferred onto animals. Actually as an aside when we're talking about conservation I've heard it described as "survival of the cutest," because while we care so much about pandas, who are somewhat pointless to preserve, we let various crucial fungi and whatnot die out. But yah still dogs wouldn't be = to humans.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51555469]Well, it's because we're a species, and species prioritize those more related to them over others. Richard dawkins is kind of a meme but the selfish gene is pretty good on this. And that probably is the practical barometer that'll be used to decide the rights conferred onto animals. Actually as an aside when we're talking about conservation I've heard it described as "survival of the cutest," because while we care so much about pandas, who are somewhat pointless to preserve, we let various crucial fungi and whatnot die out. But yet still dogs won't be = to humans.[/QUOTE]
Some people argued that we're a civilized species who's gotten out of some natural instincts. If this is to be legitimately considered, surely you would think that we should be able to get out of the selfishness instinct and the "survival-of-the-cutest" instinct, as well.
[QUOTE=Primigenes;51555461]What kind of question even is this? Yeah my morals weigh more than others regardless of their authority but that wasn't the point.
You can disagree with the Judge on a moral basis all you want but mentioning that he isn't automatically morally right is a waste of time. Morals are subjective, he's considered morally sound to whoever agrees with him just as you are. I see no point in arguing or even bringing anything up on a moral basis in this conversation.[/QUOTE]
I was saying the lack of legal rights for non-human animals wasn't necessarily morally sound. It didn't have anything to do with the judge's decision other than the fact that he said that that was the reality of the whole thing, and like I said, for better or for worse.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;51555444]I can't believe I walked into a thread where some people are outraged that non humans don't get human rights[/QUOTE]
Welcome to the world of moral relativity and the destruction of inherent human value.
Honestly, once you take away the axiomatic assumption that human life has special value on the basis of it being human, then there's really no good argument against giving at least some animals right similar to those we give humans. (Hence people like Peter Singer who argue just that.)
[QUOTE=Skerion;51555329]So what, that means they can't have it?
[/QUOTE]
So what you're doing is replying to a statement I never made. I never said they can't have it. That's just why certain rights extend to us above other animals.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51555447]I think reclassifying pets to the same status as adopting young children seems the right way to go... even if they are not as intelligent as children and obviously dont need intensive schooling, they have about the same responsibility over their actions and it would help a lot with certain stuff.[/QUOTE]
Oh bud, no. The work that goes into adopting/fostering is absolutely needed, getting a dog is absolutely not. Are you arguing that you need to be trained for years on dog care for a place to look into your home, to check that you are a safe owner? Not sure how it is in other countries, but Canada has a 2 year training period for adoption, plus you must be married a certain number of years.
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;51555673]So what you're doing is replying to a statement I never made. I never said they can't have it. That's just why certain rights extend to us above other animals.[/QUOTE]
It seemed like you were implying it considering the context of your previous post, but maybe I'm just reading you wrong.
Genuine question to the people in the thread supporting "human" rights for pets or at least a child-like status. Is that a shorthand/convenient way of saying expanded rights and protections for pets, more responsibility resting with the owners, more accountability and potential criminal charges or is it actually straightforward application of children's rights or human rights to pets?
The former opinion I can agree with 100% no questions asked.
Why the latter is ridiculous is explained really well by the judge I think. Unless the points he made change first how would it be even possible to apply those rights to pets? Breeding, kennels, neutering, leashes and restraints, euthanasia etc... will pretty much all have to go for there to be any equivalency at all and is that possible and/or even desirable?
[QUOTE=sgman91;51555541]Welcome to the world of moral relativity and the destruction of inherent human value.
Honestly, once you take away the axiomatic assumption that human life has special value on the basis of it being human, then there's really no good argument against giving at least some animals right similar to those we give humans. (Hence people like Peter Singer who argue just that.)[/QUOTE]
The qualities that have been used to support the uniqueness of humanity have also been seen in other animals, like tool-use, consciousness, awareness, and theory of mind. Though other animals may not be as smart as us or technologically advanced, they still deserve some degree of moral status.
Recognizing that these beings deserve to have rights do not "bring down" or own value. It's such a petty fear that humans are somehow not considered "as special" anymore, as we deem other beings worthy of basic respect.
Oh sorry, I've been using the word rights when I mean moral consideration, I don't mean to sound absolutist if I'm coming off that way. In my mind I was referencing/remembering the general moral guidelines from various sources like "the right to species-specific behavior" or "the right to not suffer needless, undue harm."
What I mean is that, as we continue to study and better understand the extent to which non-human animals are intelligent/social, our moral philosophy will change (such as giving them more moral status/recognizing that certain practices are morally wrong, ie Seaworld-esq keeping of killer whales in captivity/isolation) in us recognizing that we're not inherently as special as we once believed and giving more moral consideration/protection over other animals does not somehow [I]erode[/I] our own moral status.
Every animal capable of intelligence should have rights/protections given to them based within the context of their abilities. You wouldn't give a chimpanzee, which has the mental age of a human toddler, the ability to vote of course.
Or hell, if we created a non-human/non-animal that was just as smart as a typical human, they should undoubtedly qualify for full personhood and inherent rights that us humans claim to have.
Also I'm not a philosophy or bioethics expert at all so there might be a chance that I'm completely and utterly wrong in my assumptions and/or understanding.
[QUOTE=Fetret;51556329]Genuine question to the people in the thread supporting "human" rights for pets or at least a child-like status. Is that a shorthand/convenient way of saying expanded rights and protections for pets, more responsibility resting with the owners, more accountability and potential criminal charges or is it actually straightforward application of children's rights or human rights to pets?
The former opinion I can agree with 100% no questions asked.
Why the latter is ridiculous is explained really well by the judge I think. Unless the points he made change first how would it be even possible to apply those rights to pets? Breeding, kennels, neutering, leashes and restraints, euthanasia etc... will pretty much all have to go for there to be any equivalency at all and is that possible and/or even desirable?[/QUOTE]
I believe there are some things that we could do away with.
I do feel that some people have their hearts in the right place when they euthanize their probably severely sick pet, but the idea of it becomes kind of iffy once you consider the fact that the pet doesn't really have a say in his euthanasia, and you can't really always easily tell whether your pet feels like living or dying, especially with the language barrier.
I'm not so sure about what needs to be done with neutering, though. On one hand, I can see why it's done and the benefits it has. On the other hand, you're pretty much forcefully removing the dog's balls which is rather iffy, and as I said before, there's a lack of consent.
I've seen people put leashes on their kids. Obviously, I wouldn't doubt that people respond pretty badly to that. Still, leashes aren't nearly as severe as neutering and euthanasia, so that probably doesn't need to go away unless there's a way to know whether your pet is responsible or not.
Also, desirable? Why does it need to be particularly desirable to humans?
[editline]20th December 2016[/editline]
Animal rights wouldn't nearly be as easy if human desires weren't taken into account, but it's just the principle of it.
[QUOTE=Levithan;51557020]Oh sorry, I've been using the word rights when I mean moral consideration, I don't mean to sound absolutist if I'm coming off that way. In my mind I was referencing/remembering the general moral guidelines from various sources like "the right to species-specific behavior" or "the right to not suffer needless, undue harm."
What I mean is that, as we continue to study and better understand the extent to which non-human animals are intelligent/social, our moral philosophy will change (such as giving them more moral status/recognizing that certain practices are morally wrong, ie Seaworld-esq keeping of killer whales in captivity/isolation) in us recognizing that we're not inherently as special as we once believed and giving more moral consideration/protection over other animals does not somehow [I]erode[/I] our own moral status.
Every animal capable of intelligence should have rights/protections given to them based within the context of their abilities. You wouldn't give a chimpanzee, which has the mental age of a human toddler, the ability to vote of course.
Or hell, if we created a non-human/non-animal that was just as smart as a typical human, they should undoubtedly qualify for full personhood and inherent rights that us humans claim to have.
Also I'm not a philosophy or bioethics expert at all so there might be a chance that I'm completely and utterly wrong in my assumptions and/or understanding.[/QUOTE]
The problem is that you can just as easily turn it in the opposite direction. The more we equate humanity with other animals, the less human rights matter.
There's really no objective or non-arbitrary reason to go one way or the other with it. I also can't quite imagine a naturalistic argument for giving all people equal rights once you've established that rights are based on measurable metrics (like consciousness, intelligence, etc.) Why wouldn't people who experience higher levels of those traits have a stronger grasp on the rights associated with them? For example, why would a 1 year old baby have more rights than a chimpanzee when the chimp has a comparatively higher level of intelligence and self-awareness (This is the argument made by Peter Singer. So it's not even a hypothetical argument.)
[QUOTE=sgman91;51555541]Welcome to the world of moral relativity and the destruction of inherent human value.
Honestly, once you take away the axiomatic assumption that human life has special value on the basis of it being human, then there's really no good argument against giving at least some animals right similar to those we give humans. (Hence people like Peter Singer who argue just that.)[/QUOTE]
Moral relativity has it's downsides, sure. But until your able to base your axiomatic assumptions on things that are more secure than those that the moral relativists who are destroying human value then you're in the same boat.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51557709]Moral relativity has it's downsides, sure. But until your able to base your axiomatic assumptions on things that are more secure than those that the moral relativists who are destroying human value then you're in the same boat.[/QUOTE]
I'm fine with having that discussion. The part that frustrates me is when moral relativists pretend like there's no problem at all.
Things that aren't people don't need to be considered people under the law. How is this hard to understand? Do you want people "sueing for their dogs"? Dare we forget that from conception, fetuses are considered a judicial person in Louisiana (and see how much that is abused if you want examples)
Animals should be classified as animals. Laws should give rulings about animals in their own category.
[QUOTE=Skerion;51557562]I believe there are some things that we could do away with.
I do feel that some people have their hearts in the right place when they euthanize their probably severely sick pet, but the idea of it becomes kind of iffy once you consider the fact that the pet doesn't really have a say in his euthanasia, and you can't really always easily tell whether your pet feels like living or dying, especially with the language barrier.
I'm not so sure about what needs to be done with neutering, though. On one hand, I can see why it's done and the benefits it has. On the other hand, you're pretty much forcefully removing the dog's balls which is rather iffy, and as I said before, there's a lack of consent.
I've seen people put leashes on their kids. Obviously, I wouldn't doubt that people respond pretty badly to that. Still, leashes aren't nearly as severe as neutering and euthanasia, so that probably doesn't need to go away unless there's a way to know whether your pet is responsible or not.
Also, desirable? Why does it need to be particularly desirable to humans?
[/QUOTE]
Well I hadn't really made that list as items to be refuted before we grant animals child-rights but you do have some points.
Truth be told I am completely against any sort of attribution of human rights to animals. I'd like to make the distinction very clear though: I completely, 100% for expanded animal rights, much much more stringent controls over kennels/breeders/purebreeds, ownership licenses, training, actual criminal charges for animal abuse and cruelty etc... I am not for considering animals to be humans and subject them to human rights in the eyes of the law. That is what I was trying to ask with my question. Do people think the same way as I do when they say animals should be protected like children or do they actually want laws protecting children or humans to apply to animals too?
It is about much more than consent. If pets do have human rights, where do you even get one? Can you get one? Can you own one, is that slavery? Ok you have decided to adopt, where is that adoption coming from? Who gave the pup away for adoption? The dog parents? Or the 'owners'? If your dog bites someone who is responsible you or the dog? If the dog is, how is it to be dealt with.
I feel we pretty much share the same point of view overall (ie expanded animal rights), it is just that I am being pedantic with the use of human rights/child rights in relation to animals and in the end agree with the judge completely.
[editline]21st December 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51558303]Things that aren't people don't need to be considered people under the law. How is this hard to understand? Do you want people "sueing for their dogs"? Dare we forget that from conception, fetuses are considered a judicial person in Louisiana (and see how much that is abused if you want examples)
Animals should be classified as animals. Laws should give rulings about animals in their own category.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much what I wanted to say, just said way more succinctly.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
