quote:

I'll reiterate: Morals would not exist if it weren't for our understanding of social consequence. Undesirable consequences are how we learn what is right and what is wrong. A lot of people think it's ok to sleep around, until they get infected with AIDS, then their morals are changed due to that consequence.

Consequences, the ones we have experienced and the ones we are warned of (such as going to hell), shape our morals.

You failed to answer my question directly. If you were able to get away with murder, no consequences whatsoever, would you do it?

People have to think carefully of the meanings they attach to certain words. People who do not fully understand the ideology of the animal rights movement always make the same ill-informed assertions. That when we are fighting for animal rights, we are pushing for non-human animals to have the SAME rights as humans. This is inaccurate and just another example of the human specieists out there. We don't believe that they should have the same rights as humans, but the basic rights of living an existence not based on what they can give or do for humans. Specieists always have the same arguments:


1.a) The Bible states humans shall have 'dominion' over animals:
If you want to take the Bible to support your position, then you will also have to agree with the belief that a wife must submit to her husband, homosexuals are immoral, one must not eat cloven-hoofed animals, rebellious sons must be taken to the center of town and stoned to death, the list continues. You cannot pick and choose between points in the Bible without being unfair and arbitrary. If there are any points or teachings in the Bible that you disagree with then you should be able to justify why that one teaching should not be accepted and the ones you agree with should. Because it is so easy for people to choose and pick what parts of the Bible they like and dislike, it reflects more on their own ideas of right and wrong regardless of what the Bible says. It might also show that most people think that the Bible is fallible.

b)what is intended by “Man shall have dominion over the animals” (paraphrased from Genesis 1:26) is open to interpretation. Maybe what it intended is not, “Do whatever you want to the animals, like torturing, eating, experiment on, etc”, but, “Since I made humans with more reason than the rest of the animals on earth, it will be up to you to see that they are well cared for - do not harm (or kill) them unless it is necessary.” So someone who likes this argument needs to tell you why they should interpret the argument in the former rather than the latter. If someone is basing it on the word, ‘dominion’ then there are many definitions in which I have yet to find one that signifies torture and cruelty. Parents have dominion over their children. Does this imply that children can be tortured and abused in order to eat them? I didn’t think so. You will find that some people who use this Christian argument also admit to not believing in God!

c) What about all those people who don’t follow the Bible and/or belong to other religious groups? Does that mean that other Holy Books such as the Book of Mormon, Qur’an, Taoist texts etc, are wrong? What about the Hindu religion that view cows as sacred?

d)For those meat eaterr, consider this:
First, it would appear that God wants us to eat only vegetables:

In Genesis 1:29, God says to Adam and Eve, “I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which [sic] is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be meat.”

It says that man shall have dominion over the animals, but it doesn’t say there that we shall have them for food, as it does fruit and vegetables.

Second, there are Biblical passages which actually say that we should care for animals: For example, we should help an ass get up if it falls down (Exodus 23:5), you must rest on the seventh day so that your ox and ass can rest too (Exodus 23:12 and Deuteronomy 5:14).

How about someone who believes that eggs are meant to be eaten and battery cages are fine: you must leave a mother bird and her eggs alone - you may take her brood, but you must leave the mother bird alone (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). For those who think that livestock are animals to be overworked or exploited, the just man takes care of his beast (Proverbs 12:10), look after them, if they are dependable, keep them (Sirach 7).

Therefore, it is unclear just what a defender of eating meat can take from the Bible.

For those who like to elevate their superioty based on the evolution, rational and moral arguments:

2. Evolution: ie The process of evolution has placed humans, the stronger, in a position to be able to use the weaker (non-human animals) for our eating and other uses

a)If the stronger are always able to use the weaker however they please simply because they are more powerful, then this argument opens up many other issues. This justifies child abuse, killing and/or putting infants, the disabled (both mentally or physical), the senile, comatose, etc. in nasty conditions etc., and suggests no principle that we can use to limit their pain and/or death(s). This type of view is an “anything goes” principle, which definitely should be questioned. How, for example, can we limit this “do anything” principle to only include non-human animals?


b)According to this argument, it should not be a problem if a human is killed and then eaten by a wild animal. If we base it on strength and adaptability, then it is perfectly acceptable that a White Pointer shark to attack and eat someone. Or a lion to devour someone in the savannah. However, in the case of the former it happens rarely and when it does happen, why the call to hunt and kill the creature that was only acting on it’s natural instincts?

c)If beings from another planet are stronger than us, according to this argument, we should have no moral problem with their wanting to eat us, how they would treat us, whether they would raise us to kill, abuse, etc.


3. The A-moral stance: “Non-human animals are a-moral beings. Non-human animals cannot question their actions like humans can, and this is what makes humans special. If beings cannot question how they live, then they have no intrinsic worth or rights. Therefore, we should be able to use them however we please”

a)Non-human animals are not the only beings who cannot question how they live or act: fetuses, infants, comatose, senile, or severely retarded persons cannot as well. Based on this argument how can we still reasonably claim that these beings have intrinsic worth or rights? If the response is, “because they have value to other humans,” one can reply with questions like, “What about human beings that no one cares about, or those that want to die because their life isn’t or can’t be meaningful anymore (suicide, euthanasia)?”

b)If other humans do care about how animals are treated, what then? For example, what about pets that people care about, and what about vegetarian humans who are concerned about non-human animals - doesn’t this concern give these animals some form of moral worth?

c)It’s ironic that one would argue that humans are moral beings and can question what they do, and argue from there that we have a good reason to treat non-human animals poorly and kill them because they lack this power. If we are so moralistic and feel that this sets us apart from non-human animals, then shouldn’t we use this as a moral responsibility towards other beings?

d)Non-human animals are moral beings, from the standpoint that they can suffer. One does not even have to argue that non-human animals (or even human animals) have any rights at all - one just needs the facts that we cause them to suffer in the process, and that this suffering is not necessary.

4. The Intelligence/Rationality stance: “Humans are more intelligent and more rational than animals. These characteristics give use the right or opportunity to be able to use animals."

a)There are also unintelligent, irrational humans - how can we exclude these beings from poor treatment/death without being arbitrary?

b) If we are more intelligent and rational then non-human animals, then (1) we have more of a burden to behave rightly (as detailed in The A-moral Argument), we’re “moral” beings, and (2) having the capacity for rationality comes to having good reasons to do something, not having (m)any reasons against doing something, and acting on those things for which there are good reasons to do or not to do. We are bound by these characteristics to act rightly than non-humans are. Unfortunately (from the meat-eater’s perspective), we’re burdened with rationality and intelligence, whereas lions are not, and can eat without questioning.

Food for thought.....

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:
So you would murder people if there were no cosequences? That's sad.

I'll reiterate: Morals would not exist if it weren't for our understanding of social consequence. Undesirable consequences are how we learn what is right and what is wrong. A lot of people think it's ok to sleep around, until they get infected with AIDS, then their morals are changed due to that consequence.

Consequences, the ones we have experienced and the ones we are warned of (such as going to hell), shape our morals.

So you would murder people if there were no cosequences? That's sad.

quote:

Originally posted by Bushsupporter:

quote:

Every little thing we humans do is driven by our animal wants and needs. Everything.

What a sad, sad life you must lead thinking that you are just some animal.

People have an understanding of right and wrong. The may be things I could do that might help me survive (stealing, murder, ets.) but I don't because I have an understanding of right and wrong. Not because of consequences but because of morality. Animals don't posess morality as we do. They are driven by consequences.

We are driven by consequences too. Most people don't hurt each other, because of the consequence of possible jail time. You don't put your hand on a hot stove, because of the consequence of severe pain. The whole reason we have morals in the first place is because of our awareness of social consequence.

quote:

Every little thing we humans do is driven by our animal wants and needs. Everything.

What a sad, sad life you must lead thinking that you are just some animal.

People have an understanding of right and wrong. The may be things I could do that might help me survive (stealing, murder, ets.) but I don't because I have an understanding of right and wrong. Not because of consequences but because of morality. Animals don't posess morality as we do. They are driven by consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by kibukun:
Animals never have, never will, and never should, have rights. Rights should never be given to something that doesn't have the mental capability to respect the rights of others. Why do you think we limit the rights of felons?

Felons do bad things when our society tells them not to. Animals have different societal "norms".

quote:

Make sure you know the meaning of a word before using it.

Likewise buddy boy. We don't know if an animal is sentient if it can't speak to us. However, if all the people who have met Koko heard you say that, they'd laugh at your childish ignorance.

quote:

Humans are the only sentient creatures on Earth. Animals follow instinct and are driven only by the desire to live. They eat, sleep and reproduce.

So do we. Every little thing we humans do is driven by our animal wants and needs. Everything.

Animals never have, never will, and never should, have rights. Rights should never be given to something that doesn't have the mental capability to respect the rights of others. Why do you think we limit the rights of felons?

quote:

It's not that they are superior, but that they are equal, as are all creatures in this world. We originated from the same Thing, we all have sentience, and we all deserve to live and be free.

Make sure you know the meaning of a word before using it.

Humans are the only sentient creatures on Earth. Animals follow instinct and are driven only by the desire to live. They eat, sleep and reproduce.

Do not confuse childish cartoons with reality.

I am a Christain vegiterian. Yes, I do believe that God put animals on the earth for the use of man, and that that includes eating them. I just don't want to.
I do believe that animals have rights, even though they are not equal to human's rights. They do deserve to be treated fairly. Nothing in the bible disagrees with that.
We are not treating animals or the environment the way God planned, he told us to take care of them, not destroy them.

quote:

that animals are superior to human beings.

It's not that they are superior, but that they are equal, as are all creatures in this world. We originated from the same Thing, we all have sentience, and we all deserve to live and be free.

quote:

Animals often treat each other with no respect

It's easy to see how someone could interperet this, but it's simply not true. Take wolves for example. They are an incredibly tight and close-knit community (within pack members) who fiercely defend their family, loves, children, wards and territory. They are intelligent, cunning and merciful, and the only way they wouldn't show respect is if you ignored the rules set down by nature that every animal should and does know.

Another misconception, that evolution states man evolved from apes. But what if evolution and creationism coexisted? Perhaps the Source either set evolution in motion, knowing where it would go and guiding it along its course, or that each seven day was not a "day" in our time (since some of them passed when there was no sun!), but thousands or millions of years for the Source to further embellish this world?

The Bible also states that the Elohim created man in their image, and then Yahweh created man in his, but we kindly ignore that fact.

quote:

Why not treat them animally? Because that would mean killing them.

I do take personal offense to that. The word Humane is over-rated. You must either have a low opinion of animals, or not know sh!t about them to believe this.

Err, this is getting long, but just one more thing.

Animals don't need to "adapt" to the rising threat of man. They understand their part in this world. They understand that to exist here is to live, thrive, breed and die. Humans have something else driving them. Humans have the intelligence to dream, to aspire, to wish, to long. We are incomplete. We need something in our life. We see adaption and change as the only way to live, but perhaps, just perhaps, some people (animals) are content with life as it is with them?

UHG! We're trying to help animals in bad situations. Our main front is on animals used for food.
you brought up the subject that animal rights takes jobs. Two words take that out of the picture:
Factory Farming

do you know how many jobs would bemade if we got out of factory farming in America? if we actually touched food before we ate it? If we had to make more cloth and wood buildings for animals instead of factory-made metal crates? we can stuff 10,000 chickens in a shed with only 2 workers working on each one. Do you know how it would be if we needed workers and vets to treat the chickens? MILLIONS just in the US!
ask me any questions and I'll be glad to answer
ligar_z@yahoo.com

Chaos I have to agree animals do not have rights, in fact we don't naturally have rights either. Rights are a product of society. I also agree that wether you want to be biblical about it or not. We are the stewards of this planet so we need to take good care of it, including our other, lesser companions.

quote:

How would you like it if the lab rats took over the world and took away all of your rights???

they won't because even if they are intelligent you could kill them with a quick stomp, and then of course we have guns so no matter how many there are of these hyper-intelligent rodents rest assuered they won't be taking over the world. Hell humans have been trying and failing at world domination for centuries so rats sure as hell won't be.

next attempt at an argument? and maybe use a better metaphor this time

Okay, first, you said that animals can't think rationally.. How do you know? They may jst be at a lower pace at developing their mind reasoning.
Humans took a long time to envent tools, even longer to discover fire, and it took a GREAT deal of time to get to where we are today.

What if animals get to where we are and decide to wipe us out because of how we are treating them now? Did you ever think of that?

Also, have you ever really gotten to know an animal such as a primate, dog, or groups of animals? Primates act just like we do. Dogs will, in a sence (not like us or primates per se), act like a group of humans...They have their different play styles, and have other dogs they don't like and some they like more.

You're saying that treating animals humanely is the only right they should have? What if treating them humanely ends up wiping them out?? Animals do need thier rights, Just like us!!!!!!!!!
How would you like it if the lab rats took over the world and took away all of your rights???