Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

higher order animals deserve more rights.

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think animals ought to be granted the same rights as humans, but I do think they have (and ought to be granted) some rights. I mean, it's obviously wrong to torture a horse just for the fun of it. That means the horse has a right not to be tortured for fun by us. If there's any situation in which it's wrong for us to treat an animal in some way, then the animal has the right not to be treated that way by us.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:50:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
You're missing another assumption that can be made, which seems inherent to the resolution: That humans are above animals, certain animals are above other animals, and so on, thus granting rights on a scalable degree. If the resolution granted the same amount of rights to both higher order animals and humans, then your dichotomy would be valid.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:30:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:49:39 AM, philochristos wrote:
I don't think animals ought to be granted the same rights as humans, but I do think they have (and ought to be granted) some rights. I mean, it's obviously wrong to torture a horse just for the fun of it.
If a group of people doesn't believe this to be the case, will your statement still be true?

That means the horse has a right not to be tortured for fun by us. If there's any situation in which it's wrong for us to treat an animal in some way, then the animal has the right not to be treated that way by us.
I guess the question that I would raise then is how do we know that it is wrong to treat an animal in a certain way?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:47:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any animal in the care of a human should be treated in a way so that it isn't inflicted with gratuitous pain (unnecessary pain). This applies to all animals I think, that aren't endangering human life.

I agree that humans have more rights than animals, but that doesn't mean humans can't treat animals any way they wish (in fact, the law in all 50 U.S. state has made it a felony to treat animals egregiously).

Animal rights are real according to our nation's laws and various international agreements.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:49:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

I agree that humans have more rights than animals, but that doesn't mean humans can treat animals any way they wish
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life, but by the Christian standards, they don't. They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:47:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.

You want proof that animals have a right to life? How about you try to prove why you and your family have a right to life in a civilized society and I'll tell why animals should have a right also.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.

I prefer to discuss this with someone who is going to participate in the discussion and not just wander of down the road after I put in the effort to dismantle their argument.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:41:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.

The Bible is not at all silent on animal rights.

Genesis 1:26 states we were created to rule with God over earth.
Genesis 2:15 Lord put Adam in the Garden to work it and take care of it.
Genesis 1:30 God provides plants to feed the animals

Then in the regulations for the Sabbath this is a rest day also for the livestock. Check out the regulations for a lost ox. http://www.christianitytoday.com... a lot of thought was put into compensation. Read where it talks about the ox goring someone and the owner being held responsible. In one situation both the ox and owner are stoned to death.

In Luke 14:5 Jesus says, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out"

Proverbs 12:10 says, Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God

Job 22:7 But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you

Jeremiah 8:7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the Lord

And many more versus. It is obvious that all life is valuable. That animals are to be treated respectfully (even to learning from them), taken care of, the enviroment is to be worked and taken care of, and that they are subordinate to humans. To say the bible is quite on animal rights, like so many things. Is completely and utterly wrong.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:52:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 6:47:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.


You want proof that animals have a right to life? How about you try to prove why you and your family have a right to life in a civilized society and I'll tell why animals should have a right also.
I see you're getting emotional. But I'll take the bait. Me and my family don't have the right to life in a civilized society any more than anyone else does. Since everyone else wants to live together in harmony, they will destroy those who attempt to fight the views of the group.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.



I prefer to discuss this with someone who is going to participate in the discussion and not just wander of down the road after I put in the effort to dismantle their argument.
So long as you want to argue, I'll hang around.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:54:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 7:41:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.

The Bible is not at all silent on animal rights.

Genesis 1:26 states we were created to rule with God over earth.
Genesis 2:15 Lord put Adam in the Garden to work it and take care of it.
Genesis 1:30 God provides plants to feed the animals

Then in the regulations for the Sabbath this is a rest day also for the livestock. Check out the regulations for a lost ox. http://www.christianitytoday.com... a lot of thought was put into compensation. Read where it talks about the ox goring someone and the owner being held responsible. In one situation both the ox and owner are stoned to death.

In Luke 14:5 Jesus says, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out"

Proverbs 12:10 says, Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God

Job 22:7 But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you

Jeremiah 8:7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the Lord

And many more versus. It is obvious that all life is valuable. That animals are to be treated respectfully (even to learning from them), taken care of, the enviroment is to be worked and taken care of, and that they are subordinate to humans. To say the bible is quite on animal rights, like so many things. Is completely and utterly wrong.

Thank you for that contribution. I didn't know of that before hand.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 7:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 7:54:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/2/2014 7:41:19 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.

but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.

The Bible is not at all silent on animal rights.

Genesis 1:26 states we were created to rule with God over earth.
Genesis 2:15 Lord put Adam in the Garden to work it and take care of it.
Genesis 1:30 God provides plants to feed the animals

Then in the regulations for the Sabbath this is a rest day also for the livestock. Check out the regulations for a lost ox. http://www.christianitytoday.com... a lot of thought was put into compensation. Read where it talks about the ox goring someone and the owner being held responsible. In one situation both the ox and owner are stoned to death.

In Luke 14:5 Jesus says, "If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out"

Proverbs 12:10 says, Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.

Luke 12:6 Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies? And not one of them is forgotten before God

Job 22:7 But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the heavens, and they will tell you

Jeremiah 8:7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the Lord

And many more versus. It is obvious that all life is valuable. That animals are to be treated respectfully (even to learning from them), taken care of, the enviroment is to be worked and taken care of, and that they are subordinate to humans. To say the bible is quite on animal rights, like so many things. Is completely and utterly wrong.

Thank you for that contribution. I didn't know of that before hand.

Your welcome I hope that was not too harsh. The verses are very interesting covering animal cruelty and other facets. I hope you investigate the claim deeper.
AngryOrb
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 8:12:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

In my opinion we already (sort of) apply a ranking system what "rights" we give to certain animal species. The amount of rights they acquire is determined by 2 factors:

- Time/energy efficiency to breed: If we have to put a lot of effort into breeding to maintain or increase the current population of the species, we are willing to protect them. This factor also determines their economic value.
Example: Rats and mouse's are extremely easy to breed. One pregnancy from one of the animal gives us easily 8-9 new ones. This is also the reason why they are used for (sometimes abusive) experiments. We would never even think of trying to do this to let's say a horse.

- Usefulness: If an animal is more useful to a human, we are willing to protect it more and thus give it more rights.
Example: Rats aren't very useful in our daily lives rather then their use in experiments. A horse is used for sports ,recreation and even food, thus increasing it's level of usefulness to mankind.

We can also easily see the differences between cultures. Cats and dogs would never be used in the Western culture as food, in the Asian on the other hand it is.

But I believe that at some level every animal should have some rights. No unreasonable amounts of pain, no abuse, etc. all comes to mind. But a human still is unarguable an animal and thus part of the food-cycle. Other species didn't suddenly change to being vegetarians and neither should we.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 2:19:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Higher order animals have more rights.
Fixed.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:20:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reason humans have rights is because we take them. We're not granted the right to live, we fight for it. Animals do so too but when pitted against humans they don't really stand a chance with our modern inventions. Your right to do anything IS granted by the country you live in. You have no true rights when it's an individual vs. a group. So do we kill animals because they are inferior? That seems to be your position.

It's obviously, like many things in life, dictated by the power one group holds. Once the power shifts the other loses rights. You can witness this in politics or the animal kingdom. So now you are left with two choices. Do something because you can, or access the situation and determine the best outcome. Surely killing because you can ought to be something that is discouraged?

Animals ought to be granted certain rights. Why? Because it reflects how we treat each other. If I can go out and kill an animal because they can't stop me, what does that mean when a dictator comes to power and nobody can stop them? To say that a human being is inherently different from an animal with regards to the right to live, is a mistake. We have the right to survive, as witnessed by the animal kingdom, but to senselessly kill or torture (by our standards) is a human invention.

From a philosophical standpoint I believe that a world where everyone and everything is happy is the best possible world to live in. From a religious one I think that a god would be displeased to see his creation exploited just for the sake of exploitation. Surely no god would want us killing off entire species for no good reason, and I assure you there is no good reason. Make any hypothetical argument you want that's all it will be. Hypothetical.

We live in an age where we can make due without exploiting our environment unduly. Imagine still having some of the species that have been hunted to extinction like the Moa. Maybe that's not a huge deal to you but for some people having all the cards instead of only the ones that are left is a better option.

Life is a like a playground. We sit in the sand or wood chunks with our toys and slowly but surely lose or break them all. Until one day we decide we don't need toys and move on to bigger and better things. Here's the catch though. We can make more toys. We can't make more species.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 3:38:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

That would mean you're against human rights since humans are animals.


There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

What do you mean by "above" and "intrinsic value". Obviously animals value their own lives which means their lives are intrinsically valuable. And any animal would put his or her life *above* that of another animal.


In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed.

Humans aren't just the same as animals: they are animals. Since humans are animals, would you say that nothing of moral signifigance is observed when a human kills another human.

In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Again, this would be special pleading if it were not applied equally to humans since humans are animals.


Thoughts?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 4:31:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 3:20:39 PM, Nebelous wrote:
The reason humans have rights is because we take them.
We don't just take them we make them. Only we have rights, other animals do not; animals don't know WTF a right is.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Nebelous
Posts: 58
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 6:10:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 4:31:28 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 5/2/2014 3:20:39 PM, Nebelous wrote:
The reason humans have rights is because we take them.
We don't just take them we make them. Only we have rights, other animals do not; animals don't know WTF a right is.

Semantics. We don't make rights. We might objectify them and whatnot but they certainly exist outside of human abstraction.

When a lion takes territory like a watering hole from other animals that are incapable of fighting back the lion gains rights, the other animals lose them. The ability to drink from the watering hole unimpeded is a right. Rights are synonymous with power in this context.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:03:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 8:12:34 AM, AngryOrb wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

In my opinion we already (sort of) apply a ranking system what "rights" we give to certain animal species. The amount of rights they acquire is determined by 2 factors:

- Time/energy efficiency to breed: If we have to put a lot of effort into breeding to maintain or increase the current population of the species, we are willing to protect them. This factor also determines their economic value.

Example: Rats and mouse's are extremely easy to breed. One pregnancy from one of the animal gives us easily 8-9 new ones. This is also the reason why they are used for (sometimes abusive) experiments. We would never even think of trying to do this to let's say a horse.
I'd disagree on the grounds that many species who take huge amounts of effort to breed get far less protection that mere cats and dogs. Turtles for instance are not even protected by law in many places even though their breeding cycles are extremely risky.

- Usefulness: If an animal is more useful to a human, we are willing to protect it more and thus give it more rights.
Example: Rats aren't very useful in our daily lives rather then their use in experiments. A horse is used for sports ,recreation and even food, thus increasing it's level of usefulness to mankind.
I'd disagree on the grounds that many animals which are of no use to humans whatsoever are granted more rights than dogs. Monkeys for example are not allowed to be experimented on, yet killing a monkey will incur a heavier penalty than killing a dog.

We can also easily see the differences between cultures. Cats and dogs would never be used in the Western culture as food, in the Asian on the other hand it is.

But I believe that at some level every animal should have some rights. No unreasonable amounts of pain, no abuse, etc. all comes to mind. But a human still is unarguable an animal and thus part of the food-cycle. Other species didn't suddenly change to being vegetarians and neither should we.
If a human is a part of the food cycle and isn't different to a human, we know that animals killing animals is not wrong, yet why is human killing animals wrong, granted that humans are animals?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 9:22:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:50:34 AM, ClassicRobert wrote:
You're missing another assumption that can be made, which seems inherent to the resolution: That humans are above animals, certain animals are above other animals, and so on, thus granting rights on a scalable degree. If the resolution granted the same amount of rights to both higher order animals and humans, then your dichotomy would be valid.

Indeed. The dichotomy actually seeks to undermine rights altogether. On a separate note, you signed up for that DDO horror story thing and you are one of the perspective characters, (the one who the story follows). Just finished writing the first chapter. hehehe. You're gonna enjoy this...
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/2/2014 10:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I chose to put this topic in the philosophy forum as opposed to the society forum because I like the frequenters to this forum better. The topic in full resolution is: "That we should grant higher order animals limited human rights." This is the topic I will be debating against Avila College tomorrow night, and it's not until now that I see how deep this debate gets and how interesting it actually is.

The case I am representing is the negative. We have finalised our team split etc, but it occurred to me during our team brainstorm that animals shouldn't really have rights anyway. Let me explain.

There are two preconceptions one can take to this debate. The first is that humans are the same as animals, and are not fundamentally different. The other view is that humans are above animals, and whose life has intrinsic value.

In the first case, humans are the same as animals and as animals kill animals, humans killing animals is no different to animals killing animals. Nothing of moral significance is observed. In the second case, we assume that we are above animals and therefore our powers and rights allows us to ensure our survival is of higher priority to the survival or well-being of any lower species.

Either way, I think it means animal rights are a meaningless construct based on culture and emotions.

Thoughts?

All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

So it is immoral for me to crush an ant that it is no my doughnut? Must I pluck it off my doughnut careful, carry it outside, then set it free?

Is it immoral for animals to kill other animals?

If it is immoral to kill an animal, then why are we designed as omnivores? That would mean we are naturally ordered towards eating both meat and veggies, so it obviously wouldn't be acting against natural law.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 1:19:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/2/2014 7:52:29 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/2/2014 6:47:41 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/2/2014 5:33:16 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/1/2014 9:23:52 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/1/2014 1:50:47 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 4/30/2014 12:44:49 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:13:04 AM, Smithereens wrote:


All animals should have the right to live, but obviously even the Christians don't think so. Pft

Of what relevance is this to my beliefs? I am a staunch supporter of animal rights. This discussion is for people to challenge their views, not for people like you to hold your nose up in the air. If you aren't going to participate in this discussion then there really is no reason for you to be here.

First of all learn the definition of participate. You asked if a higher order off animals deserve rights and I responded by saying all animals have a right to life,
This contention will require some sort of proof.


You want proof that animals have a right to life? How about you try to prove why you and your family have a right to life in a civilized society and I'll tell why animals should have a right also.
I see you're getting emotional. But I'll take the bait. Me and my family don't have the right to life in a civilized society any more than anyone else does. Since everyone else wants to live together in harmony, they will destroy those who attempt to fight the views of the group.

Ok then, IF you are sticking around I'll give you a response,

I don't think it was an emotional response, I was actually being serious, Why do you think you and your family should derseve to live? or have a right to life? You say people wish to live together in harmony, and will destroy those who attempt to fight the group. as if it is itself only based on an emotional response from the group. "We enjoy this emotional feeling of living in harmony" And anybody who attempts to unsettle this unwritten law we will destroy.

No,no, no, It isn't at all like that. The fact is you have a right to life based on moral and ethical laws, If a personal was to kill you or you brother, will the killer be sentenced because he upset those who have a desire to live in harmony? is the crime against the deceased? or those who remain? The crime is against the deceased. The act or killing is wrong because they have deprived somebody of their life, which is why everything should have a natural right to live.

It's funny, because in your post you mention a higher order of animals. As if to say that some are more sentient, that others and more conscious. Humans are considered to be the highest form of life, in the sense that they have the best ability's to comprend their existence and understand their surrondings, They also contemplate and that is why they can also be the most civilized of all the animals. The fact that we are a higher species in the sense that we are apart from the other animals gives a duty to become more civilized. We can not expect the animals to understand what being civilized is, because they are a lower species. What sepreates us from them is our ability to use our " minds" over our senses. An animal is led by it's senses, it follows a very ridgid pattern of behaviour through life, basically doing whatever it's senses demand, and does little to deviate from such behaviour. But the human is fully conscious and has the ability to think and not become a slave to his senses like the lower species of animal. Therfore our duty as civilized people is not to live on the platform of animal life where we just let our senses rule us, but to elevate above the platform of the senses and onto the platform of a civilized society, where life is respected and people do as you say life in harmony.

I responed to this post because you mentionedan higher order of beings having a rights. Iwant to give my defintion of a higher order of being, A Higher order of being is a being that is "more sentient" whereby it's senses are developed and it has the abilty to sense things, like it's existence, it's surroundings, and also it's ability to feel pain and to sense it's own death. A lower order of being would be something like a plant, that has no central nervous system and feels little to no pain,but there are more sentient and less sentient animals also, I believe Cows are more sentient that Chickens.

Anyway there are many many arguemtns to stop killing animals,one is the law of Karma. every action causes a re-action and the karma takes place. Another is that there is no need to eat meat " in a civilized society" this myth is busted by the Shaolin monks who display super human strentgh and they are vegetarian by requirement. another is a spiritual arguement that the wise man see's the same spirit in all living beings. and then there is the scientific arguement. Wherby even Einstein declares,

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." "Albert Einstein

If we want to live like the other animals then we can remain on the dull level of being led by our senses or we can try to rise above that and become more civilized.


but by the Christian standards, they don't.
Humans have responsibility for animals. The bible however, which technically should be 100% of christian doctrine is silent on the issues of animal rights as with most things. It does say however that it is ok to eat meat, but not such that it would offend anyone who doesn't believe so.

They only serve as a consumption to satisfy their palates, and this is justified by the worlds most dominant religion. I suppose you can call humans a higher order of animal, so I guess we should argue for the right to kill innocent animals and consume their flesh. An act that it totally un-necessary in a civilized world, but wait, I forgot the Christian world is aiming for a highly civilized society, so nothing to worry about here. as I said Pft

I'm disappearing (temporarily) from DDO again, but I wish to entertain you to an argument against limited human rights for higher order animals. I do want to make it clear before hand however that I support animal rights in full.

Let's first ask before that argument however: "Why do humans have rights?" You already know the many different answers people have to this, such as stating that rights are fundamental to our lives as they have intrinsic value; we have rights because we fight for them, etc. But whatever logical reason we can create as an explanation for the existence of the rights that we have, this same reason is not true of higher order animals, nor can any reason be found for the existence of rights of animals independent of the will of humans objectively. No animal appears to be concerned about the wellbeing of their prey. They in turn, appear to be of no consequence to their predators. Who are we to label this cycle as ethically wrong? Humans want to live a virtuous and morally upright life. Animals do not. Humans respect, value and treasure life. Animals do not. Given these inherent differences, where is the logic in the statement that higher order animals deserve limited human rights?

Some could even question the ethical consistency of applying a human construct to animals where that human construct does not allow other human ideas and actions to be inflicted upon that animal except for itself. If it be true that it is inconsistent, then granting animals rights is ethically wrong.



I prefer to discuss this with someone who is going to participate in the discussion and not just wander of down the road after I put in the effort to dismantle their argument.
So long as you want to argue, I'll hang around.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2014 4:16:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't think it was an emotional response, I was actually being serious, Why do you think you and your family should derseve to live? or have a right to life? You say people wish to live together in harmony, and will destroy those who attempt to fight the group. as if it is itself only based on an emotional response from the group. "We enjoy this emotional feeling of living in harmony" And anybody who attempts to unsettle this unwritten law we will destroy.
The fundamental question can be answered a few ways, and so I will. Firstly, I reject the premise that rights exist objectively. I don't have the right to live any more than anyone else does. Do I deserve to live? This question is simply nonsensical. Do atoms deserve to exist? It just doesn't make sense. The other way this question is popularly answered is that life has intrinsic value so far as we can demonstrate it. If one human has rights, then it would need to be consistently applied. All humans have rights, or no humans have rights. If all humans have rights, then do all animals have rights? To claim this, one would need to somehow prove that the lives of animals also have intrinsic value. By the argument that I am representing, this is not actually possible. It cannot be shown that animals have a right to life any more than they grant it to themselves. Given that animals kill animals with no hesitation, to say that it is wrong for a human to kill an animal is to inadvertently prove that humans are fundamentally different to animals. This would in fact undermine your entire case, since the existence of a difference between humans and animals would establish that human life has intrinsic value. If this be the case, then it is not wrong to kill animals who do not have an intrinsically valuable life. Either way, the argument that animals do not have a right to freedom from harm will collapse.

No,no, no, It isn't at all like that. The fact is you have a right to life based on moral and ethical laws, If a personal was to kill you or you brother, will the killer be sentenced because he upset those who have a desire to live in harmony? is the crime against the deceased? or those who remain? The crime is against the deceased. The act or killing is wrong because they have deprived somebody of their life, which is why everything should have a natural right to live.
Laws are not a fundamental reason that explains the existence of ethics. The country I live in had a law just over a hundred years ago that did not recognise black people as human or grant them human rights. Does this mean that black people do not have rights? By your logic, if the law is the decider of what is and isn't right, then yes, those laws were correct. The Flaw with your argument then is by begging the question. You argue that The act of killing is wrong because they have deprived someone of life, then you conclude that everything should have a natural right to live. The conclusion does not follow at all. You must demonstrate why depriving someone of their life is wrong, then you must demonstrate why animals have this right too. Furthermore, we can apply your logic to mean simply that depriving anything of their life in general is morally abhorred. This means killing a plant is morally bad, stepping on an ant is morally bad. The logic breaks down completely in application.

It's funny, because in your post you mention a higher order of animals. As if to say that some are more sentient, that others and more conscious. Humans are considered to be the highest form of life, in the sense that they have the best ability's to comprend their existence and understand their surrondings, They also contemplate and that is why they can also be the most civilized of all the animals. The fact that we are a higher species in the sense that we are apart from the other animals gives a duty to become more civilized. We can not expect the animals to understand what being civilized is, because they are a lower species. What sepreates us from them is our ability to use our " minds" over our senses. An animal is led by it's senses, it follows a very ridgid pattern of behaviour through life, basically doing whatever it's senses demand, and does little to deviate from such behaviour. But the human is fully conscious and has the ability to think and not become a slave to his senses like the lower species of animal. Therfore our duty as civilized people is not to live on the platform of animal life where we just let our senses rule us, but to elevate above the platform of the senses and onto the platform of a civilized society, where life is respected and people do as you say life in harmony.
It does not follow that since we are capable of using our minds, that we are obliged to use our minds. It's like saying that we have the ability to use creativity to wreak mass destruction, therefore we are obliged to wreak mass destruction creatively. I challenge your argument as to why humans are separate from animals. For the sake of argument I grant that we are not controlled by biology alone whereas animals are. Given that this is the case, my first argument I used applies. We have rights, biological matter does not.


I responed to this post because you mentionedan higher order of beings having a rights. Iwant to give my defintion of a higher order of being, A Higher order of being is a being that is "more sentient" whereby it's senses are developed and it has the abilty to sense things, like it's existence, it's surroundings, and also it's ability to feel pain and to sense it's own death. A lower order of being would be something like a plant, that has no central nervous system and feels little to no pain,but there are more sentient and less sentient animals also, I believe Cows are more sentient that Chickens.
The definition is incorrect in stating that organisms can be 'more' sentient. A thing is either sentient, or it isn't. Ants respond to pain as do monkeys. The criterion you apply therefore is faulty. It can be argued that animals display different levels of intelligence and capability to manipulate their environment, however this does not equate to a basis for rights. If one animal is more capable than another intelligence wise this means nothing. So far as we can tell, all animals and insects respond to pain but only humans are known to consciously experience it. As you believe, everything else are just clumps of biological matter.


Anyway there are many many arguemtns to stop killing animals,one is the law of Karma. every action causes a re-action and the karma takes place. Another is that there is no need to eat meat " in a civilized society" this myth is busted by the Shaolin monks who display super human strentgh and they are vegetarian by requirement. another is a spiritual arguement that the wise man see's the same spirit in all living beings. and then there is the scientific arguement. Wherby even Einstein declares,
I don't see a reason to accept any of these beliefs.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." "Albert Einstein

If we want to live like the other animals then we can remain on the dull level of being led by our senses or we can try to rise above that and become more civilized.
Again granting that we are not led by our senses, I can point out that killing animals is not an uncivilised behaviour. The reason being because the definition of those behaviours which are civilised are in fact subjective.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 1:02:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/3/2014 4:16:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:
answered is that life has intrinsic value so far as we can demonstrate it. If one human has rights, then it would need to be consistently applied. All humans have rights, or no humans have rights. If all humans have rights, then do all animals have rights? To claim this, one would need to somehow prove that the lives of animals also have intrinsic value. By the argument that I am representing, this is not actually possible. It cannot be shown that animals have a right to life any more than they grant it to themselves. Given that animals kill animals with no hesitation, to say that it is wrong for a human to kill an animal is to inadvertently prove that humans are fundamentally different to animals. This would in fact undermine your entire case, since the existence of a difference between humans and animals would establish that human life has intrinsic value. If this be the case, then it is not wrong to kill animals who do not have an intrinsically valuable life. Either way, the argument that animals do not have a right to freedom from harm will collapse.

No,no, no, It isn't at all like that. The fact is you have a right to life based on moral and ethical laws, If a personal was to kill you or you brother, will the killer be sentenced because he upset those who have a desire to live in harmony? is the crime against the deceased? or those who remain? The crime is against the deceased. The act or killing is wrong because they have deprived somebody of their life, which is why everything should have a natural right to live.
Laws are not a fundamental reason that explains the existence of ethics. The country I live in had a law just over a hundred years ago that did not recognise black people as human or grant them human rights. Does this mean that black people do not have rights? By your logic, if the law is the decider of what is and isn't right, then yes, those laws were correct. The Flaw with your argument then is by begging the question. You argue that The act of killing is wrong because they have deprived someone of life, then you conclude that everything should have a natural right to live. The conclusion does not follow at all. You must demonstrate why depriving someone of their life is wrong, then you must demonstrate why animals have this right too. Furthermore, we can apply your logic to mean simply that depriving anything of their life in general is morally abhorred. This means killing a plant is morally bad, stepping on an ant is morally bad. The logic breaks down completely in application.

It's funny, because in your post you mention a higher order of animals. As if to say that some are more sentient, that others and more conscious. Humans are considered to be the highest form of life, in the sense that they have the best ability's to comprend their existence and understand their surrondings, They also contemplate and that is why they can also be the most civilized of all the animals. The fact that we are a higher species in the sense that we are apart from the other animals gives a duty to become more civilized. We can not expect the animals to understand what being civilized is, because they are a lower species. What sepreates us from them is our ability to use our " minds" over our senses. An animal is led by it's senses, it follows a very ridgid pattern of behaviour through life, basically doing whatever it's senses demand, and does little to deviate from such behaviour. But the human is fully conscious and has the ability to think and not become a slave to his senses like the lower species of animal. Therfore our duty as civilized people is not to live on the platform of animal life where we just let our senses rule us, but to elevate above the platform of the senses and onto the platform of a civilized society, where life is respected and people do as you say life in harmony.
It does not follow that since we are capable of using our minds, that we are obliged to use our minds. It's like saying that we have the ability to use creativity to wreak mass destruction, therefore we are obliged to wreak mass destruction creatively. I challenge your argument as to why humans are separate from animals. For the sake of argument I grant that we are not controlled by biology alone whereas animals are. Given that this is the case, my first argument I used applies. We have rights, biological matter does not.


I responed to this post because you mentionedan higher order of beings having a rights. Iwant to give my defintion of a higher order of being, A Higher order of being is a being that is "more sentient" whereby it's senses are developed and it has the abilty to sense things, like it's existence, it's surroundings, and also it's ability to feel pain and to sense it's own death. A lower order of being would be something like a plant, that has no central nervous system and feels little to no pain,but there are more sentient and less sentient animals also, I believe Cows are more sentient that Chickens.
The definition is incorrect in stating that organisms can be 'more' sentient. A thing is either sentient, or it isn't. Ants respond to pain as do monkeys. The criterion you apply therefore is faulty. It can be argued that animals display different levels of intelligence and capability to manipulate their environment, however this does not equate to a basis for rights. If one animal is more capable than another intelligence wise this means nothing. So far as we can tell, all animals and insects respond to pain but only humans are known to consciously experience it. As you believe, everything else are just clumps of biological matter.


Anyway there are many many arguemtns to stop killing animals,one is the law of Karma. every action causes a re-action and the karma takes place. Another is that there is no need to eat meat " in a civilized society" this myth is busted by the Shaolin monks who display super human strentgh and they are vegetarian by requirement. another is a spiritual arguement that the wise man see's the same spirit in all living beings. and then there is the scientific arguement. Wherby even Einstein declares,
I don't see a reason to accept any of these beliefs.

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." "Albert Einstein

If we want to live like the other animals then we can remain on the dull level of being led by our senses or we can try to rise above that and become more civilized.
Again granting that we are not led by our senses, I can point out that killing animals is not an uncivilised behaviour. The reason being because the definition of those behaviours which are civilised are in fact subjective.

If everything is based on a subjective belief then it's impossible to falsify anything concerning morality, but I don't believe that's true, if a country didn't consider black people human beings, then it is because it wasn't civilized enough at the time, it was on the same level of thinking as animals. But is there a country in todays civilized world who believes that? The answer is no. Why? because as we have become more civilized. Also for your argument to work, that nobody has a right to life, based only on your subjective belief, then try murdering a person and see if you can escape the justice system .Your argument is based on the level of thinking of animals, that everything is just subjective and what we wish to be law is the law, Without taking into account that real objective morals do exist and we realize they do when we stop thinking like animals and them raise our level of thinking to civilized human beings.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 5:26:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 1:02:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:16:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:

If we want to live like the other animals then we can remain on the dull level of being led by our senses or we can try to rise above that and become more civilized.
Again granting that we are not led by our senses, I can point out that killing animals is not an uncivilised behaviour. The reason being because the definition of those behaviours which are civilised are in fact subjective.


If everything is based on a subjective belief then it's impossible to falsify anything concerning morality, but I don't believe that's true, if a country didn't consider black people human beings, then it is because it wasn't civilized enough at the time, it was on the same level of thinking as animals. But is there a country in todays civilized world who believes that? The answer is no. Why? because as we have become more civilized. Also for your argument to work, that nobody has a right to life, based only on your subjective belief, then try murdering a person and see if you can escape the justice system .Your argument is based on the level of thinking of animals, that everything is just subjective and what we wish to be law is the law, Without taking into account that real objective morals do exist and we realize they do when we stop thinking like animals and them raise our level of thinking to civilized human beings.

Nobody reasonably believes that everything is subjective. While proposing this argument I will posit however that it is logically necessary to believe that morality is subjective if and only if humans are not different to animals. If we are not different to animals then ethics are a meaningless concept, and speaking of murder as right or wrong is nonsensical. You must therefore find a way to argue that humans are fundamentally different to animals, and thus can justify the application of an objective system of ethics unto everything that deserves it. Now, I need to attack a specific argument you made: 'But is there a country in todays civilized world who believes that? The answer is no. Why? because as we have become more civilized.' The reasoning used to create the conclusion is flawed as it does not follow from its premises, furthermore, as I will demonstrate, this argument contradicts your own case. You argue that there is no country who believes that nowadays that murder is ok, you state this is the case because we have become more civilized. Now if you admit that morality has changed because humans have become more civilized, then you are admitting that morality by its nature is subject to change. This form of morality is either subjective or relative, and in either case is not the objective morality you must argue for in order to grant rights to animals. you can conceptualize the error in the argument by thinking that what we are doing nowadays, many of the things we believe in, if not all, are morally wrong, but we will find that out when we are more civilized. One could even say that allow animals to live is only permitted nowadays because we are uncivilized, compared to how we will be in a thousand years time. The argument is also flawed in making the assumption that morality changes according to the level of civilization exhibited by the society. This point is exactly what is assumed by your argument and must be true in order for it to work. I have already demonstrated that this argument relies on subjective morality to be true in order to work, so I will demonstrate why this argument is false to begin with. Morality, or more specifically in this context -Ethics, has had no observable change over human history. Cultural differences such as etiquette and morals are different, but the underlying principles have remained constant. For example, at no point in human history or by any human society has murder being accepted as anything but a vile atrocity to be punished. Given this, the argument you present that morals depend on culture is refuted as it relies on subjective ethical systems and false assumptions. Secondly, as I have already shown that you must demonstrate the necessity to prove that humans are fundamentally superior to animals in order to claim that we can give them rights, I will give a preemptive rebuttal as to why this would not help your argument. If humans were in fact superior to animals, then the abuse and mistreatment of animals could not be argued to be morally wrong, given that superiority. I will also raise the point again that if it is argued that it is wrong to hurt an animal regardless of us being superior, then it also must be true that it is morally wrong to impose the human construct of ethical rights and wrong upon animals who do not respect this system. Humans respect, value and treasure life, animals don't. It therefore cannot be stated that a human ethical system can be applied to animals consistently.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 5:56:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 5:26:13 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 5/4/2014 1:02:12 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 5/3/2014 4:16:45 AM, Smithereens wrote:

If we want to live like the other animals then we can remain on the dull level of being led by our senses or we can try to rise above that and become more civilized.
Again granting that we are not led by our senses, I can point out that killing animals is not an uncivilised behaviour. The reason being because the definition of those behaviours which are civilised are in fact subjective.


If everything is based on a subjective belief then it's impossible to falsify anything concerning morality, but I don't believe that's true, if a country didn't consider black people human beings, then it is because it wasn't civilized enough at the time, it was on the same level of thinking as animals. But is there a country in todays civilized world who believes that? The answer is no. Why? because as we have become more civilized. Also for your argument to work, that nobody has a right to life, based only on your subjective belief, then try murdering a person and see if you can escape the justice system .Your argument is based on the level of thinking of animals, that everything is just subjective and what we wish to be law is the law, Without taking into account that real objective morals do exist and we realize they do when we stop thinking like animals and them raise our level of thinking to civilized human beings.

Nobody reasonably believes that everything is subjective. While proposing this argument I will posit however that it is logically necessary to believe that morality is subjective if and only if humans are not different to animals. If we are not different to animals then ethics are a meaningless concept, and speaking of murder as right or wrong is nonsensical. You must therefore find a way to argue that humans are fundamentally different to animals, and thus can justify the application of an objective system of ethics unto everything that deserves it. Now, I need to attack a specific argument you made: 'But is there a country in todays civilized world who believes that? The answer is no. Why? because as we have become more civilized.' The reasoning used to create the conclusion is flawed as it does not follow from its premises, furthermore, as I will demonstrate, this argument contradicts your own case. You argue that there is no country who believes that nowadays that murder is ok, you state this is the case because we have become more civilized. Now if you admit that morality has changed because humans have become more civilized, then you are admitting that morality by its nature is subject to change. This form of morality is either subjective or relative, and in either case is not the objective morality you must argue for in order to grant rights to animals. you can conceptualize the error in the argument by thinking that what we are doing nowadays, many of the things we believe in, if not all, are morally wrong, but we will find that out when we are more civilized. One could even say that allow animals to live is only permitted nowadays because we are uncivilized, compared to how we will be in a thousand years time. The argument is also flawed in making the assumption that morality changes according to the level of civilization exhibited by the society.

No, I am not arguing that morality changes I am stating that the more civilized we become that objective morals become more apparent. It was always wrong to consider black people non-humans, not that it has become right by popular opinion. but that our consciousness has developed enough to understand that in a civilized world, Black people are non-different to other humans regardless of their colour

This point is exactly what is assumed by your argument and must be true in order for it to work. I have already demonstrated that this argument relies on subjective morality to be true in order to work, so I will demonstrate why this argument is false to begin with. Morality, or more specifically in this context -Ethics, has had no observable change over human history. Cultural differences such as etiquette and morals are different, but the underlying principles have remained constant. For example, at no point in human history or by any human society has murder being accepted as anything but a vile atrocity to be punished. Given this, the argument you present that morals depend on culture is refuted as it relies on subjective ethical systems and false assumptions.

Secondly, as I have already shown that you must demonstrate the necessity to prove that humans are fundamentally superior to animals in order to claim that we can give them rights,

Again you are thinking on the level of an animal, by your own admittance here is no difference. But I claim there is a difference, even in your post you declare a higher order of being, Is their any other entity we know of that can be as productive or destructive to the planet than humans? I don't think so, we are different due to our abilities and mostly our consciousness is more developed in understand our existence and also our environment. We can knock heads all day about this, but the evidence is clear.

I will give a preemptive rebuttal as to why this would not help your argument. If humans were in fact superior to animals, then the abuse and mistreatment of animals could not be argued to be morally wrong, given that superiority.

So we also have humans who hold superior positions to other humans, does that make killing the lesser inferior humans right? No.

I will also raise the point again that if it is argued that it is wrong to hurt an animal regardless of us being superior, then it also must be true that it is morally wrong to impose the human construct of ethical rights and wrong upon animals who do not respect this system.

We are not imposing it as such, we are just holding the higher moral ground by refusing to kill them for their flesh simply for consumption purposes. The reasons why animals do not hold to such a system is because they are animals, and unless we elevate our thinking to be above them, then we remain on the same level of thinking as the beasts.

Humans respect, value and treasure life, animals don't. It therefore cannot be stated that a human ethical system can be applied to animals consistently.

Yes it can, by humans who have a more developed way of thinking, not to animals, you can not police animals, if that is what you are implying. because obviously they are not able to comprehend us because they are less developed.