I recently posted this on another forum *. Are there rights (for those human or non-human) in the first place? Maybe, maybe not. If we assume that the categorical imperative is true, at least not morally consistent human rights do not extend to all moral agents. The rights can be derived from the application of the law of the categorical imperative, normative justification derived from reason. Can animals have rights? The animals are worthy of moral consideration on the basis that they may experience. However, rights do not take precedence over the rights of animals, life in extreme scenarios boat as if two lives are in conflict should shape and as a member of the human race more empathy with the animal life nonhuman. In addition, the non-humans can not contribute to the moral universe of the utility on the same stage. But these extreme rescue scenarios are rare, with the exception perhaps of microorganisms, insects, and (optionally) the plant life. The question of suffering in these cases is questionable in any case (that these organizations suffer?). In both cases, the survival of man can not continue without the destruction of these organisms, with the possible exception of insect life (if the destruction of the natural habitat - which is necessary - immediately suspend the possibility of life of these organizations). Coma man and the animal does not suffer from this, but shows a clear preference for the potential of future life, so that their interests must always be taken into account in terms of profit potential contribution to the moral universe. (This is useful because singer Peter preferences in terms of potential profit preferred). Human beings have the same rights, then, but the rule only in terms of preferences utility. * Please note that this is a kind of myth that Kantian ethics is the opposite of utilitarianism, in fact, the categorical imperative is based on the assumption of treating others as ends, This can only be done by the same consideration (eg, placing you in the role of moral agent is to try). The main difference is that the utilitarian can not put people before use, but this charge could apply to Kantian ethics as well. * Arguments to non-human animals are not equal moral value because they lack qualities such as intelligent design, self-awareness and expression of abstract concepts (eg, through the natural language) and are therefore excluded from the community lack of moral integrity, since some non-human animals do not have these qualities (eg, children and adults with mental disabilities ends). Without doubt, this is not necessarily true that some animals do not have these qualities anyway. Some non-human animals do not show such respect for other rights of non-human animals, but for one thing, not every individual species as a whole (in particular, animals many / most animals Pets like dogs and cats show that rape). In addition, non-human animals are required by survival necessity to demonstrate the violation of other rights of non-human animals. It can be shown, therefore, that non-human animals are moral worth effect, but human life is to prevail in extreme situations lifeboat. Agricultural production and meat: some animals, such as birds and fish, would be subject to death by predators in the wild (chicken, fox), anyway. In fact, free-range can indeed provide a much longer and happier life for these animals. So I'm not against the chain of agriculture or consumption of meat from these animals. I am against other farming methods, however, do not treat animals with such decency. I do not know if other animals such as cows, pigs and others, could be under attack in the wild by predators, or if your lifestyle is improved methods of breeding in the wild . The author of this itself is not vegetarian. Blood Sports: clearly not necessary for sports like bullfighting. Pet: comes with the need for livestock, production of fur coats, could simply be the case that ensure nothing remains of the animal is wasted, in fact, more ethical to allow the chain be subjected to biodegradation. On the other hand, allowing this practice also allows the animal to bear its own individual brands of the world. Of course, in reality, the fur industry does not engage in such practices ingenious, but there is no reason to believe that this could never be the case. The scientific experiment: this is a typical case of a boat as if life, as described above. Therefore, in the case of a disastrous human disease, it is legitimate to be vital in animal medicine. Preferably, it should be the case that this animal is not subjected to more pain than is absolutely necessary. This pain can be reduced, for example, first try drugs (non-life) plant life and microscopic clusters of cells, may be the first stage embryos. In fact, this is already the law, and represents the typical scientific conduct. Second, non-human animals should receive anesthesia to minimize pain, provided it does not interfere too much with the scientific research. However, too often, it is true that scientific experimentation provides no or very little benefit to the human race. Such undue experimentation should be banned without cause. ------------------------------------------ The issue of animal rights not respecting simply a matter of lifestyle and respect for the other individual values (normative relativism), if the animals have moral character, then this is a very serious problem that requires legal attention. Human Desire trivial, as the lust of the flesh must be set aside, which would not be used as justification to violate another human being, for example.
ARE ANIMAL RIGHTS IMPORTANT
Yes, of course, animals defend important.I want to be tortured, and hung pushed even if you did nothing wrong? Animals do not understand these things, but have emotins and feelings can also feel hunger, thirst, loneliness and pain.Most when animal tests are not relevant to us! An experience that I know has been tested on rabbits, trying to find a cure for the race, tested hundreds of drugs in them, only 30 remaining died.When worked and tested in humans worked 3.
No, they are not, are an indulgence of personal perference, but that's all, and no matter how hard you try not to become an animal, which may have "seemed tortured and hanged, even if you did nothing wrong, "but not an animal is why.:
1.3 billion people worldwide depend on animals as a source of food and income effectively and efficiently. Poor people or animals? 800 million people go to bed hungry every day, grazing animals like cows are our only way to turn the fiber into usagable energy. Hungry people or animals? Millions of people are still deprived of rights activists animal rights grant of the Foundation the same rights to animals. Rights of people or animals? Billions are invested in livestock related infostructure. Pharmaceuticals can be produced (or produced in sufficient quantities) with animals. Sick people or animals? The animals can not understand the concept of rights because they have no morals. Animals can not defend their rights if granted by humans. Animals do not have the ability to maintain the rights collectively with humans. Animals can not keep their own rights. The animals can not charge a fee or indicate a desire for them. Countless animals are killed every day for food or play with other animals every day, humans are no different. Only humans are affected by animal rights as human beings are governed by law. The concept of being a heartless person is relative if the dogs have taught me love to be expelled and it was the right thing to do would be to do it now. The rights of non-human animals have no way but man it hurts. What if an animal he loved being hurt, humans have BDSM and we can assume that some animals do too. How can a person decide animals? If the rights of all animals and all carnivores should be closed by cannibalism. To what extent is something that is considered an animal? It is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide. What should be the rights of animals, which are obviously different, there different laws for each species? To what extent? How can we say that it is better for them? It is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide. I think people who are hungry and poor will be slaughtered before they let you do what you want with their livestock. People are judged by how they treat other people, not animals, and that only people can comment on their morality
No, they are not, are an indulgence of personal perference, but that's all, and no matter how hard you try not to become an animal, which may have "seemed tortured and hanged, even if you did nothing wrong, "but not an animal is why.:
1.3 billion people worldwide depend on animals as a source of food and income effectively and efficiently. Poor people or animals? 800 million people go to bed hungry every day, grazing animals like cows are our only way to turn the fiber into usagable energy. Hungry people or animals? Millions of people are still deprived of rights activists animal rights grant of the Foundation the same rights to animals. Rights of people or animals? Billions are invested in livestock related infostructure. Pharmaceuticals can be produced (or produced in sufficient quantities) with animals. Sick people or animals? The animals can not understand the concept of rights because they have no morals. Animals can not defend their rights if granted by humans. Animals do not have the ability to maintain the rights collectively with humans. Animals can not keep their own rights. The animals can not charge a fee or indicate a desire for them. Countless animals are killed every day for food or play with other animals every day, humans are no different. Only humans are affected by animal rights as human beings are governed by law. The concept of being a heartless person is relative if the dogs have taught me love to be expelled and it was the right thing to do would be to do it now. The rights of non-human animals have no way but man it hurts. What if an animal he loved being hurt, humans have BDSM and we can assume that some animals do too. How can a person decide animals? If the rights of all animals and all carnivores should be closed by cannibalism. To what extent is something that is considered an animal? It is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide. What should be the rights of animals, which are obviously different, there different laws for each species? To what extent? How can we say that it is better for them? It is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide. I think people who are hungry and poor will be slaughtered before they let you do what you want with their livestock. People are judged by how they treat other people, not animals, and that only people can comment on their morality
WHY ARE PEOPLE AGAINST ANIMAL RIGHTS
Some people are against animal rights because those people are crule heartless people. they only care about animals that can talk the way we talk. and the only animal that talks the way we do are humans. those people only care about humans. they know that animals cannot talk so they are all for people hurting animals. People who are against animal rights are cruel, heartless people.
Nicly done with your argument above, however its all emotional appeal, no logic. This is my counter argument with logic.
1.3 billion people worldwide depend on animals as a profitable and efficient source of food and income. Poor people or animals?800 million people go to bed hungry everyday, grazing animals such as cows are our only way of converting fiber into usagable energy. Hungry people or animals?Millions of people are still deprived of their basic rights and animal rights activists wish to extend those same rights to animals. Rights for people or animals?Trillions are invested in livestock related infostructure.Some pharmaceuticals can only be produced (or produced in sufficient quantities) with animals. Sick people or animals?Animals cannot understand the concept of rights as they have no morality.Animals cannot defend their right if granted by humans.Animals do not have the capacity to corporately maintain rights with humans.Animals cannot follow rights themselves.Animals cannot ask for rights or indicate a desire for them.Countless animals everyday are slaughtered for food or fun by other animals everyday, humans are no different.Only humans will be affected by animal rights as only humans will obey the law.The concept of being a heartless person is relative, if i was taught dogs liked being kicked and that it was the right thing to do i would be doing it right now.Animals rights do not benefit humans in any way, rather it harms humans.What if an animal loved to be hurt, humans have BDSM and it can be assumed that some animals also do. How can a person decide for the animal?If full animal rights were granted then all carnivores will have to be locked up for cannibalism.To what extent is something considered an animal? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.What should the rights be for an animal, they obviously are different, should there be different laws for each species? To what extent? How can we tell its the best for them? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.I believe most hungry and poor people will shoot you first before they let you do what you want with their cattle.People are judged on how they treat others, not animals as only other people can comment on your morality.
Nicly done with your argument above, however its all emotional appeal, no logic. This is my counter argument with logic.
1.3 billion people worldwide depend on animals as a profitable and efficient source of food and income. Poor people or animals?800 million people go to bed hungry everyday, grazing animals such as cows are our only way of converting fiber into usagable energy. Hungry people or animals?Millions of people are still deprived of their basic rights and animal rights activists wish to extend those same rights to animals. Rights for people or animals?Trillions are invested in livestock related infostructure.Some pharmaceuticals can only be produced (or produced in sufficient quantities) with animals. Sick people or animals?Animals cannot understand the concept of rights as they have no morality.Animals cannot defend their right if granted by humans.Animals do not have the capacity to corporately maintain rights with humans.Animals cannot follow rights themselves.Animals cannot ask for rights or indicate a desire for them.Countless animals everyday are slaughtered for food or fun by other animals everyday, humans are no different.Only humans will be affected by animal rights as only humans will obey the law.The concept of being a heartless person is relative, if i was taught dogs liked being kicked and that it was the right thing to do i would be doing it right now.Animals rights do not benefit humans in any way, rather it harms humans.What if an animal loved to be hurt, humans have BDSM and it can be assumed that some animals also do. How can a person decide for the animal?If full animal rights were granted then all carnivores will have to be locked up for cannibalism.To what extent is something considered an animal? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.What should the rights be for an animal, they obviously are different, should there be different laws for each species? To what extent? How can we tell its the best for them? This is a matter of opinion that only humans can decide on.I believe most hungry and poor people will shoot you first before they let you do what you want with their cattle.People are judged on how they treat others, not animals as only other people can comment on your morality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)