Kay17:


But they are not summarily executed which a right they enjoy

Yes, bcause their violation of my rights didn't include murder

I SEE AND i LIKE. . . . AND I WISH I WASN'T SO CHOKED UP WITH WORK. Anyway Godspeed. Lemme just follow the thread.

MrAnony1:
I SEE AND i LIKE. . . . AND I WISH I WASN'T SO CHOKED UP WITH WORK. Anyway Godspeed. Lemme just follow the thread.

Baba welcome

In the Tribunal of Wolves, the Hen is always found (very) guilty.

I believe that Animals have rights, it's because of this silly notion that we are higher than other animals we don't treat them with respect/view them as a species with rights . First of all, what exactly do you define has rights? The rights you speak of who invented them? is not humans? is then right to ask if animals should have rights that are designed by humans who are also battling with the idea of which rights is which?

Secondly, Let say we are talking about the rights we know for humans applied to animals. Aren't we also animals ? Mammals to be precise? if You say animals don't have rights, I'm sorry to say you don't has well. The fact that they aren't as intelligent as we are and tend to be violent to their own kind or even we as humans is no guarantee to why they shouldn't have rights. We have human beings who are not has logical has an average human and they still have this "rights" we speak of.

If we understand that animals are like us, they do think for themselves. Just stay and live with this dangerous species for a year and understand how they think and you will realise that there really is no much difference between us human and them animals.

*drops mic*
cc:johnydon22

Shortly after I first joined this forum, I said that there should be a philosophy forum. The response was, "huh? what is that?"

It is a shame that philosophical discussions are still being subsumed under religion.

Now, there are two questions in this thread.

1. Do animals have rights?

2. Should animals have rights?

In answering the question, "do animals have rights?" we have to specify a jurisdiction. Surely, by "rights", we mean "privileges" (protections) above and beyond what nature automatically confers, otherwise the question becomes vacuous (of course, each animal has the rights nature automatically confers upon it -- e.g by means of flight, a bird has some right to escape danger).

Some jurisdictions confer more rights on animals than others, and those rights may vary from animal to animal. In the religious tradition of Jainism, for example, even insects and bugs have rights. One is supposed to do ones utmost to minimize harm to all living things, to the point of carrying a broom around to sweep the bugs away from the destruction of ones footfall. In other jurisdictions, blood sport is celebrated as entertainment.

The question, "should animals have rights?" is a critique of the jurisdictions. What are the merits and demerits of those rights, or absence of those rights, in the various jurisdictions?

No boundaries in this world are ever fully respected, whether they are geographical, ideological, religious, spiritual, social etc. People and ideas will permeate all boundaries and systems will evolve. People will migrate. Ideas will cross-fertilize. Traditions will intermingle. Folk will intermarry. It can be resisted but not stopped. Some philosophies even say that we are all essentially one, and that boundaries are illusory.

It is not possible for us to have one rule for animals and another rule for humans, and expect such boundary to be absolutely respected. The professor who tortures a monkey to test a drug will find a similar reason to torture a human he considers inferior or impaired. He need only convince himself that his choice is a "last resort", or even that he is working for the wider benefit of all.

A demerit of not recognizing rights for animals is that it represents a more general and fundamental compromise on rights of all beings, including humans. "Animal" becomes a euphemism for the threshold at which "self-interest" overcomes sense of group identity. Just as we can exclude animals from our circle of privilege, so we can exclude mammals, then races, tribes, neighbours, and even next of kin.

HardMirror:

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

if we all are reasonable enough here we should understand dat Rights were created for purpose of achieving moderacy in every thing. Animals do not have matured minds like man does. So it doesnt matter if we created rights or not but what matters is knowing ur limits to these right which definately animals dont understand