Animal rights? Should I feel sorry for my Kebab?

[CryoDragoon]

After being inspired by Exobyte's thread Humans vs Animals, a question that's been spooking through my mind for a while rose up again. I think it's a very complicated and interesting topic, so I'm expecting a lot of milage out of this discussion. ^^ Here's the rub: 1) What is the value of an animal (let's just say a pig or something). 2) In relation to the value of the animal, what would its concrete animal rights be? Would it be morally justified to kill them and eat them? In other words: convince me to become, or not to become a vegetarian or even a vegan... Feel free to elaborate as much as you want. Wanna discuss human value and human rights? Go right ahead. Wanna discuss systems of ethics? Go right ahead. I don't mind the topic being expanded for the sake of justifying the original question of "what are an animal's rights?" READY? FIGHT!!

[Photolysis]

Unless you grow your own food organically, you're still causing suffering (harvesting many crops causes countless mice, voles, shrews, and so on to be maimed or killed in the machinery). Therefore anyone who becomes a vegan/vegetarian for moral reasons and fails to grow their own food becomes a hypocrite. When it comes to animal rights, I have no problem with using animals as food, though I feel that they should be treated as humanely as possible. I find battery farming to be extremely unethical, for instance. Animals should be able to roam around as much as is practically possible, be free from pain (as much as possible), and be killed in a humane manner.

[Invader]

The argument isn't so much that it's immoral to eat other animals (as we are designed to do this naturally, we are omnivores), but that it's immoral to harvest them in the mass factory setting under current conditions. Giving a chicken no more than a square foot of space it's entire life, clipping part of it's beak off, and giving it growth hormones that cause it's boost in weight to cripple their legs permanently IS cruelty. The only standard under which it is not cruelty is if you believe that cruelty can only be caused to sentient beings. You have to understand though, animals experience pain in much the same way we do. They are capable of emotion. A moment of pain from the hunters gun is only momentary, and an otherwise unintentional side effect of the kill. A lifetime of suffering under conditions that we create for the animal being raised in factories is not quite the same. There is no inherent value of life, unless you believe that its rarity within our immediate proximity of the universe makes it so. That doesn't mean, however, that you need to cause unnecessary pain to creatures that can't defend themselves. There are better ways of raising animals for food.

[Kael Seoras]

I couldn't have said it better than you two guys.

[Odd_Nonposter]

I couldn't have said it better than you two guys. +1 There could be a "minimum square footage per <animal> law on the books for farms with greater than X amount of animals, but there might be a few issues with that. If a shepherd, for example, gets a yield (in terms of lambs/ewe) that is WAY larger than he expected, he might not have room for the animals because of that law and would have to get rid of many lambs before they had become mature enough to sell. And some animal modification is necessary. For example, most male farm animals are castrated if they are not supposed to be breeding stock, and for good reason. You do not want to eat buck, bull, or boar meat. Seriously, we accidentally got a package of boar bacon and it stunk up the house when it was cooked. And as any livestock farmer will know, uncastrated animals will fight, often until death. It would have been better to cut the balls off of the animal when it was young rather than have a 1500lb carcass on your hands.

[LucidFlanders]

I can't really say anything, because i'm a hypocrite. I wont wanna kill pets, but things like chickens, pigs, cows, etc i eat. Humans are overrated anyway. If you're gonna kill an animal, do it fast. You should die if you love making them suffer, although i am just as bad because i eat them knowing they suffered. When i go to Swiss Chalet (i go every Sunday), i say "man, this chicken used to be alive, and now look at it...it's in my stomach".

[CryoDragoon]

Yes, I get the idea of the humane treatment of animals, and I'm all for that, but why kill them in the first place? Doesn't an animal have some kind of value for being alive? In the same trend, it's a generally accepted notion that humans have some kind of value in being alive. That's why it's illegal to go out, buy a gun and shoot somebody. "Well, it's just one momentary moment of pain" one might say, but wouldn't we still think of it as unethical? We would, and that's what spining my mind sometimes. Why do humans get all these nice priveleges, like laws protecting them from being killed and stuff, but not animals? Why are animals lower value that us in that respect? What are the concrete differences that make this an 'ethical' thing. (do note that when I say 'animals', I don't think there is some kind of intrinsic difference between humans and animals... So just read it as 'the other animals') You have to understand though, animals experience pain in much the same way we do. They are capable of emotion. Well, yeah. But isn't the entire idea of 'suffering' that one is aware of its own pain. An animal might 'just react' to pain and 'emotions' in the way that their brains and bodies are programmed, but they aren't aware, self reflectively, that they're receiving the pain. That's something that's been spooking through my mind also. They can't think "Hey, I'm experiencing pain. That sucks." The only thing they can think is "Pain is being experienced." And then react to that by a pre-programmed thing in their brain. In that way, suffering is impossible for an animal. So why would we still want to give them a humane treatment? In that same line, if we do give them the presupposition that they do have real human emotions, suffering and self-awareness, then why kill them? Don't they then have the same human rights protecting them from harm and death by killing?

[Invader]

Well, yeah. But isn't the entire idea of 'suffering' that one is aware of its own pain. An animal might 'just react' to pain and 'emotions' in the way that their brains and bodies are programmed, but they aren't aware, self reflectively, that they're receiving the pain. ... They can't think "Hey, I'm experiencing pain. That sucks." "Hey, I'm experiencing pain" is an organized conceptual thought, and you are equating that to experience. Those are two entirely separate things, and are not analogous to each other. Self awareness, according to current trends, is dependent on the ability to internalize a language so that one can think 'organized conceptual thoughts'. The awareness of things like pain, though, require nothing more than your sensory inputs and a conscious mind. An organized thought also comes after the fact, and is used to convey information. I am also surprised that you do not include plant life into your question. Do you not consider them life? I mean, by the your assumption that "other animals" don't actually experience pain (and considering it's 'common sense' for industrialized folk to believe that plants also do not feel pain), why not include them? In the end, I am only opposed to the inhumane treatment. The reason I am not opposed to the actual harvest of other creatures for sustenance is because we are dependent on it for survival, much the same way a wolf is dependent on it's prey, or the filter feeders of the ocean dependent on the microscopic organisms they take in. It's the "circle of life", as it were. If all species of the food chain continue to flourish, what threat to life is there? It would appear to me that life as a whole (across all species) is doing pretty well. As a last note: To deem life as worthless would be the kind of mindset I'd expect of one who wishes to plunge other species into extinction totally. Life can be valued and consumed at the same time, assuming of course that the rate of consumption does not threaten the other species's existence.

[Alric]

If you kill a person, they have friends and family who will miss them. Your not causing pain to the person who is dead(their dead so can't feel pain anymore), but to everyone they know who will be hurt by the loss. If you kill a pet the same thing is true. Which is why its illegal to kill people's pets. If you torture an animal, and people see it then it makes them feel bad, because its so horrible. Which is why you can't torture your own animals. You kill an animal to eat, no one feels any loss for it. No one knew it.

[Good as Gold]

As the dominant life form on the planet Earth, we have the power to eat any animal we please. If any other (meat eating) animal were on the top of the food chain, they would eat them too.

[Specialis Sapientia]

Well, yeah. But isn't the entire idea of 'suffering' that one is aware of its own pain. An animal might 'just react' to pain and 'emotions' in the way that their brains and bodies are programmed, but they aren't aware, self reflectively, that they're receiving the pain. That's something that's been spooking through my mind also. They can't think "Hey, I'm experiencing pain. That sucks." The only thing they can think is "Pain is being experienced." And then react to that by a pre-programmed thing in their brain. In that way, suffering is impossible for an animal. So why would we still want to give them a humane treatment? In that same line, if we do give them the presupposition that they do have real human emotions, suffering and self-awareness, then why kill them? Don't they then have the same human rights protecting them from harm and death by killing? Ugh, animals which we consider livestock are certainly aware of pain, there is no greater difference in the pain percieved if I torture you or a pig. You also "react" to to pain and emotion just like an animal, your body and brain is programmed like theirs too, you are in fact an animal Suffering is indeed possible for an animal, they have consciousness too, and to a degree self-awareness, just because we might be better at reflecting on a sensation, does not change that we experience the sensation.

[Alric]

Its clear that animals can learn from pain, as they avoid stuff that hurts. So clearly they feel the pain and they remember it.

[RedfishBluefish]

If you kill a person, they have friends and family who will miss them. Your not causing pain to the person who is dead(their dead so can't feel pain anymore), but to everyone they know who will be hurt by the loss. If you kill a pet the same thing is true. Which is why its illegal to kill people's pets. If you torture an animal, and people see it then it makes them feel bad, because its so horrible. Which is why you can't torture your own animals. You kill an animal to eat, no one feels any loss for it. No one knew it. So you can kill a person who is alone, and who no-one even knows the existence of? Even if they might enjoy such a life (eg. a hermit)?

[Sandform]

I afford animals every right to eat me if they get the chance, thus I afford myself the same right to eat them. Human beings excluded, human animals may not eat me. As it is with pets, pets are considered property, so, just like I wouldn't steal from another person's fridge, I wouldn't steal their pet and eat it too. I do, however, afford the right to animals to the right not to feel pain before death, which at the moment most live stock animals do not have.

[CryoDragoon]

Are we really omnivores? Something interesting I just found... Conclude whatever you want & discuss: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_humans..._or_herbivores http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm (ignore the 'out there' stuff, just focus on the scientific messages) Also: I'm reading "Animals in Translation" right now, a book written by animal scientist Temple Grandin, to learn a bit more about how animals perceive the world, how their emotions work, etc. Until now, I can really suggest it to you... It's fun to read and serious brainfood. Here's some links: http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.in.translation.html http://www.grandin.com/inc/animals.i....excerpts.html Also: To everyone saying roughly this: " As the dominant life form on the planet Earth, we have the power to eat any animal we please. If any other (meat eating) animal were on the top of the food chain, they would eat them too." (no offense to original poster) Have you ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy? It's a problem coined by the philosopher Hume, I believe. The general gist of which is this: Though something might be the factual case in nature, this doesn't mean it is the morally right thing to do. We cannot say what we 'ought' to do, from what factually 'is'. (this is why it's also called the is/ought-problem) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem Any comments on this particular little thing? OH! P.S.!!! "As a last note: To deem life as worthless would be the kind of mindset I'd expect of one who wishes to plunge other species into extinction totally. Life can be valued and consumed at the same time, assuming of course that the rate of consumption does not threaten the other species's existence." I almost forgot: just wanted to ask you this: Why doesn't the individual hold the same right as the species? Why does the species, an abstract thing without feelings, get more rights (i.e. right for survival), than the individual, which is a concrete thing which can feel and think?

[Sandform]

Here's some links: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_humans..._or_herbivores http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm As a species who make up for our shortcomings with technology, we do not require the same physical build as other omnivores or carnivores to eat. For example, when was the last time you used your teeth to rip off a piece of meat from an animal's dead(or dieing) carcass?

[DrunkenArse]

Any claim that humans are herbivores is offbase. Modern hunter-gather cultures gain 60% of calories from animal sources. vitamin B12 is only available from animal sources as far as I know.. It's true that spirulina contains it but it has not yet been proven that it is bioavailable. Red meat is bad in excess but fish and fowl are great.

[TheSunGod]

There are definitely health risks associated with eating meat, because it might be high in cholesterol saturated fat and other things associated with gorging. In moderation there is nothing wrong with it. I think that if you didn't eat it you would probably feel great and if someone doesn't like the taste of a burger I would recommend this but personally I love it. I don't think that there is anything such as morality when it comes to eating meat. Is there anything such as morality at all? We exist, we die. We eat to survive. Whatever we can eat to sustain us is fair game. This is possibly an old thread just thought I'd throw in my two cents.

[RedfishBluefish]

It's easy to say that, but then you have to justify why we can't eat people as well. What is the real difference that makes it wrong to go out and kill and eat someone you meet on the street?

[Sandform]

Redfish, you already know the answer to that. It comes down to what you and the society you are a part of value. Usually values promote progress, safety, and discourage things that are undesirable for what they promote. For some societies eating human flesh is acceptable, but for others it is not. If we value all of human progress, then of course eating humans is reprehensible, however, if we only value the progress of our small unit, meaning we are in competition with other nets of humans, then eating them becomes acceptable. In modern society nations have learned to cooperate, so eating humans is discouraged. Still, values are also sometimes arbitrary, created solely because we desire rules to follow.

[TheSunGod]

Well said sand.

[Posquant]

It is comforting but dishonest to discount pain in animals because they can't complain in your language. Human suffering is no more real. There is a post-quantum ethics of information, which says that pain is pollution, that it eventually can and should be. Even the "state of nature", death by disease rather than predation, will be in play. http://www.hedweb.com/abolitionist-project/index.html Some very cutting edge ideas there on HedWeb, stated of the art. For myself, I don't mind the idea of serving as someone's food. But I would like to be a Kobe Cow, next time around - massages, beer, milk ... and a quick clean death. And give me a bit of ambient electronica, along with the Mozart. PQ

[DrunkenArse]

It is comforting but dishonest to discount pain in animals because they can't complain in your language. Human suffering is no more real. I surely see a lot of this around. I find it sort of disturbing. Related is the belief that a human life is intrinsically more valuable then a life of some other animal. I suppose that one could make the argument that it is because humans have more consciousness but an elephant could then make the argument that elephant lives are more valuable because they have more mass. Say what we want, predation exists in nature and we, as part of nature, eat what is best for us. I do think that if I am fortunate enough to live to the end of my healthy years, that I will feed myself to a large cat.

[Posquant]

Like I say. To be a tasty treat may be meet. And pain is pollution. So, depends who's watching Nat Geo, these days. Elephant brain makes yours look like a peanut. Whales too. Huge brains. Harpoons. Wha? F^&* that. I saw lions hunting elephants. Specialists. But it took time. Big animal. Slow kill, big brain. Lights cameras action. We're on candid camera. We're broadcasting now, ya' know. Doh! Pain is pollution. So disjunction between ability to cause and sense is ... suspect. I'm just advocating the clean kill ... tha's all. PQ

[TheSunGod]

Yes a clean kill is respectful. I mean when we die, we're dead and we won't remember the pain. But that conscious moment of suffering should be lessened. Ethics and morals are not surprisingly a completely subjective construct of the human mind. People create them so as to explain their position, even going so far as to hope someone else will agree and fall in line.