As an aside... I'm reading a nice little book called "Lincoln's Virtues: An Ethical Biography" by William Lee Miller. Miller relates a story where young Abe comes upon a group of boys joyously putting hot coals on turtles. Lincoln puts a stop to the "fun," uses his Abe charm to persuade the boys not to do that again, and then goes to school the next day and delivers an essay on... the rights of animals! This fits in with Lincoln's moral approach as he only hunted once as a youngster and never again (which is pretty startling considering he grew up poor and on the frontier) and throughout his life continually rescued and looked after all sorts of animals. Needless to say, this marked him as a bit odd in those days. Now if living today, Lincoln would certainly be too practical to be in a radical animal liberation group, but there is a good possibility that the founder of the Republican Party would be an avid supported of animal rights.
I don't know about years MacBeth, but there is a telling story about his performance in the Blackhawk War where he protects an indian messenger from his troops. The troops want to kill the guy thinking he's a spy (even though he has a letter from a general saying he isn't). Lincoln steps in front of the troops who had just elected him Captain and says he will respect the letter and fight any man who wants to challenge that stance. The Indian is saved, the troops respect Lincoln more, and he carries out the campaign without excesses.
What about in the case of animal research? Is this something that is acceptable under no circumstance, or are there cases where this type of work is appropriate? I'm really interested to see exactly where people draw the line with regards to animal research, and I haven't seen this discussed here before.
An animal’s inability to understand our rules is as irrelevant as a handicapped person's inability to do so. Humans have the intelligence to choose between behavior that hurts others and behavior that doesn’t. Pain and suffering is pain suffering, regardless of how humans classify an animal's place in the world.
Absolutely, Ethical/conservation mided like ourselves need to make our voices heard. I love nothing more than hunting, processing and cooking my own game. I ALWAYS respect the animal that I take--it was killed so I could live and deserves reverence as a worthy sacrafice. Too many hunters don't respect their game and are more interested in killing than harvesting. Pulling a trigger or releasing an arrow with the intent to kill another animal is the one of the most deliberate acts modern man can partake in. Respect and honor your game; does that sound to "new-age"? I don't know.... But I don't believe in the full-scale suffering of animals because they don't have "rights".
I don't think that is a valid argument for animal "rights," because humans are a step above any animal. Animals have no ability to think rationally, to create art or science. All they have is simple instinct with some learned behavior thrown in. How can one have rights without laws governing and protecting the weak from the strong? The only law applicable to animals is survival of the fittest.
In Genesis, it says that man should "rule over" other creatures. I would consider this a form of stewardship more than a fiat for exploitation. Speaking of Genesis, there is an interpretation that asserts that there was no killing (of animals) at all before the Fall. I think it is based on Gen 1:29-30: "Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so." Notice he gives the plants for food and then mentions animals -- and how they would also have plants for food. Right after the Fall, you start seeing references to livestock and sacrifices. But, on the subject, I understand that "Animals Have Rights" is, in some ways, just a short-hand for 'stop abusing animals so much.' But, in that form, it is really silly in my understanding of what rights are. If you look at rights in a social contract context (a la Rousseau, Hobbes and whatnot), rights are things that citizens have mutually agreed to reserve for individuals from the prying interests of the corporate body (often embodied in the government). We can do that when we are citizens mutually in membership in some corporate body. For this reason, Americans have a right to vote for the US President, but Russians do not -- they are not members of the body. In the same way, we do not share membership in a corporate body with animals, so we cannot come to any understanding with them on rights. However, that does not mean that animals don't deserve and don't have protections. Just as illegal immigrants have protection in the law (say if they are murdered or whatever), so do animals. And they do have protections. Citizens are not allowed to abuse them or kill them willy-nilly. People are allowed to keep animals without abuse and some are licensed by the state to abuse or kill animals for a desireable purpose. They don't get the same protections that people get, but they are protected. Should they get more protection than they do? Maybe, but that protection is not the same thing as a right, because only members of a society have rights, and they are not members.
The most advanced beast is far below the most intellectually deprived human being. There is no comparison. But, to answer the question, I say no. My point is the relation of humans to that of the animal kingdom. Not human to human. Although, if you ask that question to a cannibal, you may find someone who agrees with you.
I respect your preference to not hunt. But I would like to know why you feel that hunting is WRONG? Hunting just for the sake of killing something isn't proper IMO, but hunting for food, sport (legally and contained for proper preservation of game animals) or survival IS proper, to me. Please tell me your view. Is it wrong for a tiger to chase down a baby zebra amongst the herd? How is it wrong for man to hunt animals? Is it because we have an unfair advantage? I hate to believe, although I know it's true, that emotional feelings are what influence many people. Emotions fog the mind.
First of all, you are wrong about the mental capacity of many animals...but that is another issue. Also, do you seriously think that the animal kingdom does not have laws regulating their societies? Have you never watched their behavior of protecting weak from the strong, etc.? More to the original point, the severely handicapped do not have the ability to think rationally or to create anything. Further, my dog possesses more skills of logic and brainpower than many of them. If "human" is defined by skills and ability (which is what you did) then does it follow that the severely handicapped are not human? If there are primates out there that could function more as human than many of the handicapped, then why are they still a step below those handicapped? To back up JV, there are a decent number of Jewish and Christian vegans out there that believe they are following the words of the Bible, based a lot upon the scripture cited.
Ok, I see your response. Did you know that male Lions will kill the babies of the female just to get her into heat sooner? The animals kill themselves to get their jollies...... Some sport hunting is needed in overpopulated areas, for the good of some species. Legal sport hunting is not bad for the animal population, as we are smart enough to have the necessary regulations-which are needed because there are so many people that do it. Killing animals for sport and/or food yeilds the same result. A dead animal. The only hunting I'm against is any act of poaching, or just killing an animal and leaving it to rot-not using it for something. Haha, spiders........them bastids never respected my right to occupy my own home, as I got bit several times recently. At least we don't have "arachnids have rights" activists.
1) What is far below? 2) How much lower is it than the difference between the least and most 'advanced' human? 3) What is the objective criteria for comparison, and who established it as it relates to this debate? 4) Humans are part of the animal kingdom and as such it is still an internal distiction that you are making. Are you aware, for example, that you share a greater than 95% similarity with a chimpanzee in terms of DNA...which is not all that different than would be the similarity between you and another human being. And did you realize that a chimpanzee would share a MUCH lower DNA similarity with, say, a turtle. In other words, they have much more in common with us than with other members of 'the animal kingdom'...SO depending on the criteria you are using to make your distinction, it could certainly be argued that it isn't a two-tiered wild world out there as you seem to suggest...
I thought the dinosaurs were wiped out in some sort of asteroid collision, or ice age or something. That seems to be fitting along the lines of instant extinction to me. Anyway, I don't see a relation in the mistreatment of animals and extinction of animals. The animal rights activists are opposed to the hunting and killing, or raising and killing of animals, and of course, any sort of abuse. I can understand the abuse aspect, abuse is uncalled for. But they still have no rights, other than survival of the fittest. Extinction of a species is largely because of the animals homes being made into our homes. I bet many animal rights activists are now living where bambi once slept. Many species WERE hunted into extinction, and some still are, I'm sure. But that's another topic. For this discussion, in this area of the world, game animals, and animals that we raise for food, are not in any danger of being wiped out.
I think that "animal rights" is just a way for cheapening the existence of humans. I challenge you to show me one single painting or song created by a monkey. If primates and cetaceans are so damned smart, why don't they have a civilization? There is nothing wrong with treating animals humanely, but animal "rights" are not possible. The only law that matters in the animal kingdom is the survival of the fittest. There is no mention of animals in that definition and nor should there be, they are incapable of rational thought. As to your attempt to use the handicapped as a part of your argument, you can not judge the race of man by its weakest members. So what if they are not rational beings, they are still humans and still a step above any animal in the grand scheme of things. And as for laws governing animal behavior, it is not achieved through a social compact as our laws are drafted. They are simply an adjunct to survival and are achieved via instinct, not through rational thought.
