On thursday 14/09/2016 i went for the usual Thinker's pub discussion hosted every two weeks by our very own MrAnony1, it was fun as usual..

Going straight to the topic of discussion as you may have well deducted from the heading of the thread.

Do animals have rights?

Let me define what Right is Going by the definition on Wikipedia encyclopedia we may define right as

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

Now the floor is open, it is an open discussion unrestricted to all.

Do you think animals should have or have rights?

If yes bring your reason and points - if no also bring your points

Let's discuss them

[N.B: You may present your argument from every angle whether scientific, philosophical, religious - all premises are welcome, these diverse pool of tapping ideas will make it more interesting and challenging.]

Let us also deal with each other more kindly as we engage in a free and peaceful battle of ideas using our words as Ammo.

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox, Hahn, Plaetton, Joshthefirst, Joseph1038 ..

well, I will try make this as simple as possible. let me start with this question.

Are animals intellectually inclined enough to be aware of human rights?



The case of grasscutters invading your cornfield comes to mind. How about a goat invading your pot of food? or a lion attacking a human.

If a python could come to my home and swallow two of my livestock, can it not swallow my 8 year old daughter?
I say 'NO' they are not aware of human rights. They can't distinguish between right and wrong.

I'll rather say we humans should treat them with respect. And when the dangerous ones get too close, we retire them.

in conclusion, I don't think animals should have rights. We as humans must only treat them with respect to ensure the balance of the ecosystem..

bqlekan:
check!

First seat huh brother? welcome lets hear your idea on it.. Do they, should they or Not?

No they dont

HardMirror:
No they dont

Why do you think they don't?

johnydon22:


Why do you think they don't?

Rights are man made. There is nothing like rights in nature. A lion would kill another lion if he sees the lion as a challenge to his pride (a group of lion is called "pride", a lion will kill and eat other animals that are palatable to it's palate it won't kill an elephant because the elephant has rights but because it can't.
Volcanos, earthquakes, tornadoes, lightening, wild fires, flood, don't operate by rights. Rights simply does not exist in nature.
The so called animal rights we humans chant and fight for are because of the benefits we derive from the animals not because they have rights. It is all about what we want or need.

Lalasticlala, seun, I think this is a good topic for discussion. Front page please

HardMirror:

Rights are man made. There is nothing like rights in nature.

Meaning naturally even humans don't have rights.

A lion will kill another lion if he sees the lion as a challenge to his pride (a group of lion is called "pride",

Almost every specie is territorial, humans more so - i mean check we even shared the planet among ourselves guarding our boarders jealously.

a lion will kill and eat other animals that are palatable to it's palate it won't kill an elephant not because the elephant has rights but because it can't.

This is a basic natural setting - competition, survival of the fittest even in a human society where there are rules and orders, this still thrives.

Volcanos, earthquakes, tonadoes, lightening, wild fires, flood, don't operate by rights. Rights simply does not exist in nature.
The so called animal rights we humans chant and fight for are because of the benefits we derive from the animals not because they have rights. It is all about what we want or need.

You argue because there is nothing like right as a natural agent therefore animals don't have it - this also means humans don't.

But since it is a human concept we therefore are extending the concept to all inhabitants of the planet, the nature argument not only takes away animal right, it takes away a human's as well.

johnydon22:


First seat huh brother? welcome lets hear your idea on it.. Do they, should they or Not?

discussed above

bqlekan:
well, I will try make this as simple as possible. let me start with this question.

Are animals intellectually inclined enough to be aware of human rights?



The case of grasscutters invading your cornfield comes to mind. How about a goat invading your pot of food? or a lion attacking a human.

If a python could come to my home and swallow two of my livestock, can it not swallow my 8 year old daughter?
I say 'NO' they are not aware of human rights. They can't distinguish between right and wrong.

I'll rather say we humans should treat them with respect. And when the dangerous ones get too close, we retire them.

Even humans can also exhibit the behaviours you listed above, vandalizing each other belongings, territorial encroachment or being mortal threats to each other - so?

johnydon22:


Meaning naturally even humans don't have rights.

Almost every specie is territorial, humans more so - i mean check we even shared the planet among ourselves guarding our boarders jealously.



This is a basic natural setting - competition, survival of the fittest even in a human society where there are rules and orders, this still thrives.



You argue because there is nothing like right as a natural agent therefore animals don't have it - this also means humans don't.

But since it is a human concept we therefore are extending the concept to all inhabitants of the planet, the nature argument not only takes away animal right, it takes away a human's as well.

Yes humans don't have rights. We created them because of what we stand to gain from our unity. Makes us all sleep with our two eyes closed.

johnydon22:


Even humans can also exhibit the behaviours you listed above, vandalizing each other belongings, territorial encroachment or being mortal threats to each other - so?

we humans can choose to be bad or good, animals can't, we have conscience, animals don't. You won't charge a python to court, will you?

animals behaviour is exactly like that of a mad man, you can't hold him responsible for his actions.

HardMirror:

Yes humans don't have rights. We created them because of what we stand to gain from our unity. Makes us all sleep with our two eyes closed.

which means since we created the concept of "Rights" it means the limits it goes is exactly the limits we set for it?

Therefore why then would you agree we humans have rights and other species don't or shouldn't?

johnydon22:


which means since we created the concept of "Rights" it means the limits it goes is exactly the limits we set for it?

Therefore why then would you agree we humans have rights and other species don't or shouldn't?

Exactly
I never agreed that humans have rights. Humans don't have rights. Where is the rights? There are only agreed rights.
We create rights for ourselves.

bqlekan:


we humans can choose to be bad or good, animals can't, we have conscience, animals don't. You won't charge a python to court, will you?

for you to say this - i believe you never intimately studied chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, dolphins - many other species show a very high degree of moral steer even more than most humans do.

animals behaviour is exactly like that of a mad man, you can't hold him responsible for his actions.

Ok since a mad man cannot be held responsible for his action - do you by any chance means that excludes him from the idea of basic "Human rights?"

bqlekan:


we humans can choose to be bad or good, animals can't, we have conscience, animals don't. You won't charge a python to court, will you?

animals behaviour is exactly like that of a mad man, you can't hold him responsible for his actions.

Exactly. Even towards each other as humans, we discuss and negotiate rights and privileges. We create rights. Rights don't exist naturally.

@johnydon22...it depends to the extent..
Social and animals in a pack live by rules of their ''society''..
Well i think animals should be accorded basic rights..like in killing of animals..except those animals are disturbing our existence(survival advantages) then they shouldnt be killed...
The major issue is that their ''habitat'' increasingly differs from ours....

HardMirror:

Exactly
I never agreed that humans have rights. Humans don't have rights. Where is the rights? There are only agreed rights.
We create rights for ourselves.

So "Right" must be a mutual agreement before it is effective?

raphieMontella:
@johnydon22...it depends to the extent..
Social and animals in a pack live by rules of their ''society''..
Well i think animals should be accorded basic rights..like in killing of animals..except those animals are disturbing our existence(survival advantages) then they shouldnt be killed...
The major issue is that their ''habitat'' increasingly differs from ours....

I'm inclined to ask what you mean by "Disturbing our existence"?

johnydon22:
On thursday 14/09/2016 i went for the usual Thinker's pub discussion hosted every two weeks by our very own MrAnony1, it was fun as usual..

Going straight to the topic of discussion as you may have well deducted from the heading of the thread.

Do animals have rights?

Let me define what Right is Going by the definition on Wikipedia encyclopedia we may define right as

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

Now the floor is open, it is an open discussion unrestricted to all.

Do you think animals should have or have rights?

If yes bring your reason and points - if no also bring your points

Let's discuss them

[N.B: You may present your argument from every angle whether scientific, philosophical, religious - all premises are welcome, these diverse pool of tapping ideas will make it more interesting and challenging.]

Let us also deal with each other more kindly as we engage in a free and peaceful battle of ideas using our words as Ammo.

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox, Hahn, Plaetton, Joshthefirst, Joseph1038 ..

Without even thinking too much it, I would say animals should not have tights, for the simple reason that " legal , social and ethical" mean nothing whatsoever in the animal behavior or kingdom.

Going as far would greatly undermine and distort the great importance of animals in our food chain.

Logically, to say that animals deserve our definition of legal rights would be tantamount to saying that we should also hold animals accountable according to our legal, social and ethical norms.

What animals deserve is more compassion. We should not kill animals for sport. We should be careful and considerate when we encroach upon their habitats.

HardMirror:

Exactly. Even towards each other as humans, we discuss and negotiate rights and privileges. We create rights. Rights don't exist naturally.

Even "Good and bad" "ethics" are all human concepts - does this mean they cease to be effective?

HardMirror:

Exactly
I never agreed that humans have rights. Humans don't have rights. Where is the rights? There are only agreed rights.
We create rights for ourselves.

I completely agree.

Rights are social contracts that we negotiate with ourselves for mutual benefits.

johnydon22:


I'm inclined to ask what you mean by "Disturbing our existence"?

er you know na...i'm a poultry rearer
and i discover a python is running rampage on my chickens...i'll need to do something about it..
And the most important and natural law...
As source of our food..(not in an extent that leads to their extinctionn)

johnydon22:


which means since we created the concept of "Rights" it means the limits it goes is exactly the limits we set for it?

Therefore why then would you agree we humans have rights and other species don't or shouldn't?

@bolded In reality neither humans nor other species have right naturally. As already stated above right is a concept by humans to control our actions, maintain sanity, orderliness etc. As we (humans) have been able to maintain those behaviors to a great extent we then say we have established rights for ourselves. As regards other species we believe they don't have right because they do not exhibit those behaviors to a great extent.

johnydon22:


for you to say this - i believe you never intimately studied chimpanzees, dogs, elephants, dolphins - many other species show a very high degree of moral steer even more than most humans do.

I think I do watch a little bit of Natgeo, the animals mentioned above can't engage in intellectual discussion. Yes, some animals may exhibit a bit of moral intelligence. but how stable are they? I've seen cases where some of these animals attack tourists, I've seen a dog attack it's owner. I think rights should only apply to the morally and psychologically stable.

Ok since a mad man cannot be held responsible for his action - do you by any chance means that excludes him from the idea of basic "Human rights?"

basically, a mad man cannot choose his rights, he can't fight for it. you think he can? try provide a shelter for him. if you succeeded in doing that, then you have to chain him, render him immobile, else you will find him on the streets again(that is violation of his right isn't it?).

like I said earlier, Human rights should only apply to the morally an psychologically stable. A mad man can be partially excluded. I said partially because he is also human.

plaetton:


Without even thinking too much it, I would say animals should not have tights, for the simple reason that " legal , social and ethical" mean nothing whatsoever in the animal behavior or kingdom.

Going as far would greatly undermine and distort the great importance of animals in our food chain.

Logically, to say that animals deserve our definition of legal rights would be tantamount to saying that we should also hold animals accountable according to our legal, social and ethical norms.

What animals deserve is more compassion. We should not kill animals for sport. We should be careful and considerate when we encroach upon their habitats.

very good argument you have presented sir - permit me to approach this from a very subtle angle.

Children

Our Children have rights at least basic rights even though we cannot subject them to our legal jurisdiction on several matters regarding ethics and norms.

So can't one per say argue that just like we accord our children these basic rights like right to live, freedom, religion, thoughts and so on, can't we also accord other animals the basic rights within the reach of their behaviourial potential or existential needs - as we know humans threaten their very existence.

something like rights to freedom [the zoos are to be taken down]

right to live [except their is need for consumption the natural order takes it course]

right to protection from sexual exploitation

etc.

We can't negotiate with our food.

The entire food chain would be irreparably distorted, and therefore threaten our survival in the long run.

cyrielo:

@bolded In reality neither humans nor other species have right naturally. As already stated above right is a concept by humans to control our actions, maintain sanity, orderliness etc. As we (humans) have been able to maintain those behaviors to a great extent we then say we have established rights for ourselves. As regards other species we believe they don't have right because they do not exhibit those behaviors to a great extent.

Ok so basically "Right" is limited to behaviourial abilities and not by virtue of existence?

johnydon22:


very good argument you have presented sir - permit me to approach this from a very subtle angle.

Children

Our Children have rights at least basic rights even though we cannot subject them to our legal jurisdiction on several matters regarding ethics and norms.

So can't one per say argue that just like we accord our children these basic rights like right to live, freedom, religion, thoughts and so on, can't we also accord other animals the basic rights within the reach of their behaviourial potential or existential needs - as we know humans threaten their very existence.

something like rights to freedom [the zoos are to be taken down]

right to live [except their is need for consumption the natural order takes it course]

right to protection from sexual exploitation

etc.

Rights don't exist in a vacuum.
There is a constant feedback loop existing between rights and RESPONSIBILITIES.

From birth , we start molding our children after ourselves, our norms ethics. We start assigning tiny incremental responsibilities to them as they grow and mature.
Even todlers are held to certain degrees of responsibilities.
And of course, our children are far from being our food source.

I totally agree that we should be more aware of our negative influence in the survival of other species, and should take proactive legislative actions to preserve and protect wildlife from environmental threats and possible extinction.
If that is what you mean by "rights", then yes, it is commonsensical.

plaetton:

Rights don't exist in a vacuum.
There is a constant feedback loop existing between rights and RESPONSIBILITIES.

From birth , we start molding our children after ourselves, our norms ethics. We start assigning tiny incremental responsibilities to them as they grow and mature.
Even todlers are held to certain degrees of responsibilities.

We could say this in some basic sense towards some domesticated animals like Dogs.

And of course, our children are far from being our food source.

Far, we are chauvnistic about our own kind, most animals are - most mammals do not eat their offsprings or their own kind

I totally agree that we should be more aware of our negative influence in the survival of other species, and should take proactive legislative actions to preserve and protect wildlife from environmental threats and possible extinction.
If that is what you mean by "rights", then yes, it is commonsensical.

Is there any more to the definition of basic rights baba?

johnydon22:


Ok so basically "Right" is limited to behaviourial abilities and not by virtue of existence?

so to be clear are you really asking why do humans have the right to live and animals don't?