human rights and animal rights [Archive]

Angry Young Man

14th March 2006, 17:35

Do Animal Rights intertwine with Human rights; and does that intertwine with Socialism?
I think people should believe in animal rights, but it would be absurd to support that but not human rights.
On part of animal rights, I have gone vegetarian; I just now need to do something for human rights like overthrowing the guards at Guantanamo! (It'll happen sooner or later!)

redstar2000

14th March 2006, 17:58

Once upon a time I found myself trapped at an anarchist conference serving only vegetarian meals...and with no transportation to get back to civilization and real food.

The low point was reached with something called vegetarian "lasagna"...so awful that, as hungry as I was, I could but put it on the floor and hope that no one would notice.

Well, a domestic cat was present and she noticed. Wandering over, she took a casual sniff at this culinary disaster...and began at once to vigorously scratch the floor in a fruitless effort to bury it! :lol:

Vegetarianism is not "political", it's an eating disorder! :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bloody_capitalist_sham

14th March 2006, 17:58

In my opinion, only humans should have rights.

We need to do tests on animals for science to be able to advance.

I wouldn't advocate cruelty without a purpous.

I dont think it will change that much under communism.

Human rights should be totally superior to animal rights.

I think mainly animal rights is an issue that hides real issues like class issues. at the end of the day, animals dont matter, people do!

YKTMX

14th March 2006, 18:25

I'm not convinced either way on the subject to be honest.

But here's a question for those who favour testing on animals:

If animals are so inferior that we can deliberately cause them harm with moral impunity, why is it that you also wish to "minimise" suffering?

Surely both these things are incompatible?

Either you think animals suffering is a non-issue morally, or you don't, surely.

Seems to me like a bit of the 'guilt of the oppressor'.

Reminds me of one of the explanations for the chambers at Auschwitz.

SS soldiers didn't like shooting Jews in the back of the head! It was too much for their middle class sensibilities. So just herd them into the chambers.

chimx

14th March 2006, 20:00

since when did we start believing in human rights?

the so-called rights of man ... are only the rights of the member of civil society, that is, of egoistic man, man separated from other men and from the community.

Liberty is thus the right to do and perform anything that does not harm others. The limits within which each can act without harming others is determined by law ... This is the liberty of man viewed as an isolated monad, with drawn into himself. ... liberty as a right of man is not based on the association of man with man but rather on the separation of man from man. It is the right of this separation, the right of the limited individual limited to himself. The practical application of the right of liberty is the right of property. ... the right of self-interest. .... It lets every man find in other men not the realisation but rather the limitation of his own freedom. ... Thus none of the so-called rights of man goes beyond the egoistic man, the man withdrawn into himself, his private interest and his private choice, and separated from the community as a member of civil society ... The only bond between men is natural necessity, need and private interest, the maintenance of their property and egoistic persons.
-karl marx

i'm interested in animal liberation and have been vegan for like 5 or 6 years, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my political ideals. i'm from montana--cattle country--and it pisses me off to see ranchers kick their horses, zap cattle at stockyards, etc. I'm empathetic to their pain and emotional distress despite the cognitive distinctions between species and it is frustrating to deal with people that are callous to this empathy--the kind of people that mention trivial and inconsequential anecdotes about how hippies suck at cooking lasagna.

Vinny Rafarino

14th March 2006, 20:41

Originally posted by chimx
I'm empathetic to their pain and emotional distress despite the cognitive distinctions between species and it is frustrating to deal with people that are callous to this empathy

Non-sentient species do not experience "emotional distress".

ÑóẊîöŉ

14th March 2006, 21:20

If animals are so inferior that we can deliberately cause them harm with moral impunity, why is it that you also wish to "minimise" suffering?

Because causing more harm than is necessary is sadism. The point of animal research is not to cause pain, but to measure the effects of certain substances/conditions on animals. It just so happens that having untested drugs administered can cause harmful effects and thus pain.

Surely both these things are incompatible?

Either you think animals suffering is a non-issue morally, or you don't, surely.

Useless black and white thinking. If causing pain to animals serves a useful social purpose, then it is moral. If it doesn't, it's sadism. I hope I don't have to explain why sadism is undesirable in a healthy human society.

Seems to me like a bit of the 'guilt of the oppressor'.

Reminds me of one of the explanations for the chambers at Auschwitz.

SS soldiers didn't like shooting Jews in the back of the head! It was too much for their middle class sensibilities. So just herd them into the chambers.

Nonsense. A bullet to the head is much more humane death than gassing.

Originally posted by Karl Marx
the so-called rights of man ... are only the rights of the member of civil society, that is, of egoistic man, man separated from other men and from the community.

Karl Marx is quite simply wrong in this case. Human rights are essential to a healthy human society - if there are no rights to respect, people can trample on each other's dignity with impunity. Not good.

chimx

14th March 2006, 21:54

Originally posted by Bill Shatner+Mar 14 2006, 08:44 PM--> (Bill Shatner @ Mar 14 2006, 08:44 PM)
chimx
I'm empathetic to their pain and emotional distress despite the cognitive distinctions between species and it is frustrating to deal with people that are callous to this empathy

Non-sentient species do not experience "emotional distress". [/b]
i agree 100%. but you are mixing sapient and sentient up. self-awareness and cognition skills are not a prerequisite to being sentient, just the ability to feel and perceive. every cow i have ever met is a sentient creature.

Vanguard1917

14th March 2006, 22:20

I think people should believe in animal rights, but it would be absurd to support that but not human rights.

Animals should not have 'rights'.

Animals do not have a value in and of themselves.

Their only value is their value to humanity.

'Cruelty' to animals should be judged on whether or not it brings humanity forward.

Kicking a dog in the face, for example, does do anything to bring humanity forward; using that dog to find a cure for a human disease does bring humanity forward.

We need a human-centred analyis of this question.

Noxion:

Karl Marx is quite simply wrong in this case. Human rights are essential to a healthy human society - if there are no rights to respect, people can trample on each other's dignity with impunity. Not good.

Marx was talking about human rights in civil, bourgeois society. It doesn't have anything to do with the subject of animal rights, and i'm not sure why that Marx passage was quoted here.

anomaly

14th March 2006, 22:23

Karl Marx is quite simply wrong in this case. Human rights are essential to a healthy human society - if there are no rights to respect, people can trample on each other's dignity with impunity. Not good.
However, what are human rights? Locke cited three basic 'rights': life, liberty, property. Do you agree with Johnny boy?
So-called human rights seem to be just a bourgeois tool of exploitation. This gives them some 'moral backing' for owning private property, and thus exploiting workers.

The practical application of the right of liberty is the right of property--Marx
I think Marx here is criticizing the bourgeois notion of 'human rights'.

I am skeptical of any concept of 'human rights'. Do reactionaries deserve a 'right' to liberty? To life? Does anyone deserve a 'right' to own private property, as Locke implies? Because the exception seems to break the rule here, I don't think I can say I believe in any 'human rights'.

Now, do I think communist society should be filled with liberty and life? Of course. But, any stated 'contract' of 'human rights' would neccesarily include all humans. And I reject the notion that all humans should have the same human rights, for the reasons stated above.

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor

15th March 2006, 00:33

I cannot see a reason why people should be denied the right to eat meat, but I am not sure on this. I am a vegetarian, and I am confident that vegetarianism is far superior to eating meat, and, even though I am not vegan, I believe veganism is superior to vegetarianism.

A vegetarian diet is healthier, more efficient for feeding large populations, and is easier to grow within smaller spaces. Because animals feel pain and can contribute to society in other ways - beauty, transportation, research, et cetera - I feel it is inefficient to consume the flesh of another living being. That being said, there may be a small amount of meat people are justified to eat - as a luxury - because animals, regardless of human intervention, are known to die. If the corpses were harvested after animals were used (and treated well) for other purposes, I wouldn't be that bad. Personally, I am used to not eating meat and would choose not to do so regardless.

The arguments for the right to eat meat do exist, but the arguments against vegetarianism as a choice are just idiotic. Also, the idea of oppressing things weaker than you is quite capitalist. If we are aloud to do this, there is no reason, by the same logic, not to kill people with poor intellects - many of them can't even take care of themselves like animals can. I am not streching here either - if that crosses your mind - because simply saying "humans are aware of their intelligence" does not justify applying different standards to animals. Rene Decartes "I think therefore I am" should not be appied here.

Chrysalis

15th March 2006, 01:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 05:38 PM
I think people should believe in animal rights, but it would be absurd to support that but not human rights.
I think you have framed your response reasonably. So far, the field of psychology has made some connection between the act of cruelty to animals and human behavior, a very strong point. Trying to argue for animal protection is like a balancing act: there must be somewhere in the theory the benefit for human beings, either morally, ethically, or pragmatically, or no one would listen. It seems the intrinsicalists have the most difficult time on this subject. So, we can only hope to influence ethical behavior by saying something similar to what the psychologists say.

Edit: Whether we call it human rights/animal rights is not the issue of my point.

ÑóẊîöŉ

15th March 2006, 01:17

However, what are human rights? Locke cited three basic 'rights': life, liberty, property. Do you agree with Johnny boy?
So-called human rights seem to be just a bourgeois tool of exploitation. This gives them some 'moral backing' for owning private property, and thus exploiting workers.

Aah, the poisoning the well fallacy.

I wasn't aware that human rights were dictated by this "Locke" person. I always thought they were the products of whatever human society was existant at the time they were made. In class society, the right to property exists because without it, class society would not function. Obviously, human rights in a classless society would be slightly different, but not by much - the goal would still be a functioning and healthy society.

--Marx
I think Marx here is criticizing the bourgeois notion of 'human rights'.

Then why doesn't he say so?

I am skeptical of any concept of 'human rights'. Do reactionaries deserve a 'right' to liberty? To life? Does anyone deserve a 'right' to own private property, as Locke implies? Because the exception seems to break the rule here, I don't think I can say I believe in any 'human rights'.

Obviously, when someone commits a crime they lose certain rights depending on the nature and severity of the crime in question.
For example, why should a murderer have the right to life if they do not respect other people's right to life?

Now, do I think communist society should be filled with liberty and life? Of course. But, any stated 'contract' of 'human rights' would neccesarily include all humans. And I reject the notion that all humans should have the same human rights, for the reasons stated above.

Don't forget that part and parcel of any social contract is that you abide by that society's rules. Breaking those rules means you forfeit your rights as society sees fit.

anomaly

15th March 2006, 02:34

I wasn't aware that human rights were dictated by this "Locke" person. I always thought they were the products of whatever human society was existant at the time they were made.
They aren't 'dictated' by him, but he, along with Rousseau, are the most famous when it comes to this concept of 'human rights'.

In class society, the right to property exists because without it, class society would not function
That is my point. Any 'human rights' are made and maintained by the ruling class to suit their interests. If we revolted today, comrade, we'd be in direct violation of bourgeois human rights. But should we care? No. So if you are to have such things as 'human rights', we should wait until after the revolution. Otherwise any 'human rights' only hurt us (as communists).

Then why doesn't he say so?
It is implied, as he speaks of the bourgeois 'right to property'.

Delirium

15th March 2006, 17:04

I believe in the concept of human rights, nobody should be raped, tortured, or starved. And nobody should be killed, confined, or forced to migrate without reason. That seems (to me) to be a pretty basic foundation for rational society.

Now if you say that everone has the right to private property, and it is in there right to use this capital to exploit others i would have to disagree strongly.

I think that most of us agree as such a thing as human rights, just that they are not the same 'human rights" of bourgeoisie philiosphers.

As for animals, that is tricky. There are obviously unacceptable things that are done to animals that should not happen. Such as incrediably cramped living conditions, de-beaking, inhumane killings. Animals do not exist to serve humans, but at the same time a human life is more valuable than a chicken's life.

I was raised a vegetarian until age 8, and now i largely only to eat meat i kill with my own hands.

nickdlc

16th March 2006, 01:17

Then why doesn't he say so?

It is implied, as he speaks of the bourgeois 'right to property'.

Not to mention chimx doesn't even add a link to the source so that we can put the quote in context!

This may be the first instance of obvious anarchist slandering that i've come across on this board.

anomaly

16th March 2006, 01:32

Anarchist slandering? Hardly. He just copy/pasted a bit of Marx. It's rather easy to 'put the quote in context', because Marx here is criticizing the 'human right' to property, an obvious bourgeois right.

Hegemonicretribution

16th March 2006, 12:03

Moved to Philosophy.

This seems to be discussing ethics and rights rather than theory. Someone is free to move it back of course.

I was raised a vegetarian until age 8, and now i largely only to eat meat i kill with my own hands.

This is something I agree with. I think that people should be involved at some point in preparing and killing animals if they wish to eat them. For the sake of practicality I do buy meat in, but I remain prepared to kill and prepare it myself.

In eating meat I am fully aware of the impact of this decision, and I make it honestly. I would suggest that it is a good idea for all those that eat meat to kill an animal themselves at some point. If someone cannot do this, then I see vegetarianism as a very viable option, when someone can do this I see no reason for them not to eat meat. People that will not kill, but eat meat are essentially self deceiving.

Testing on animals if of course a whole other argument.

Mariam

16th March 2006, 16:20

Well...we are living in a world that hardly respects HUMAN RIGHTS, so being a vegetarain wont change a thing, there are pepole around the globe ready to kill each other as if they are animals.
maybe it's much better to kill animal- mainly to eat-rather than killing other innocent people.
Idont mind fighting for animal rights as long as i have my own.

chimx

17th March 2006, 00:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 01:20 AM

Then why doesn't he say so?

It is implied, as he speaks of the bourgeois 'right to property'.

Not to mention chimx doesn't even add a link to the source so that we can put the quote in context!

This may be the first instance of obvious anarchist slandering that i've come across on this board.
lolerskates.

the quote is from on the jewish question i believe. you can go read it yoursel if you want. personally i enjoy marxism a great deal and would never purposefully slander either marx or engels. i remain an anarchist for my own reasons--what i see as are limitations.

redstar2000

17th March 2006, 22:42

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
I am a vegetarian, and I am confident that vegetarianism is far superior to eating meat, and, even though I am not vegan, I believe veganism is superior to vegetarianism.

That captures the "appeal" rather well; you are invited to take a "morally superior" position by mortifying the flesh (yours)!

Giving up pleasure has long been a "recipe" for "spiritual development", "moral growth", "enlightenment", and a certain way to get on "Heaven's A-list".

It's absurd, of course...like all such positions. But some people do find it appealing.

Why they find it appealing is a tough question.

Do they think, in the backs of their minds, that they are in some sense "unworthy" of pleasurable experiences? Or that human pleasure "offends the gods" who will, in due course, visit retribution on them? Or perhaps there's a "cosmic scoreboard" up in the sky somewhere that records each pleasurable experience and generates a painful experience to "balance it off"?

Class society does do its best to teach us in many ways that "we are shit"...and perhaps giving up various pleasures is a way that some people can tell themselves that they are "less shit" than others.

But the whole concept, in my view, is utterly wacko!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Fidelbrand

18th March 2006, 04:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 02:01 AM
Vegetarianism is not "political", it's an eating disorder! :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Redstar2000, that comment was a bit authoritarian in nature.
I am a little carnivore, but I respect and don't care if people do/go vegetarian~
"Eating disorder" is a little far-fetched.
:unsure:

Xanthus

18th March 2006, 06:18

This is a tricky question and one which I haven't found a satisfactory answer to.

On one hand, yes animals (mammals anyway) are every bit as sentient as any human.

On the other hand, it is the nature of all carnivores and omnivores to exploit other animals in whatever way they need to in order to make their own lives easier, and provide tasty meals.

Yet at the same time, it seems that humans do take this a tiny bit overboard.

But then again, how could we expect humans, when such populous omnivores, and with so much capasity to exploit, to do anything else but take it overboard. It is afterall the nature of every meat-eating animal to exploit any other animal which can't defend it's self.

... and so it goes in my head.

I had at one point, in my younger years, and before becoming so conciously a materialist, been a vegitarian because of some of the points above... however...

As a materialist now, I see very clearly that more animals are harvested then are consumed because each individual farm or ranch will always try to produce as much meat to sell as possible for the sake of profit, and the distributers will continue to dump as much meat as they need to in order to maintain a profitable supply/demand ratio.

So, within capitalism, vegitarianism is 100% pointless. It doesn't help any animals at all, and robs us humans of some damn tasty food.

Now, under socialism, where supply is built to meet demand, and not exceed it for reasons of greed... I would have to think very hard about the question again... and I would hope that we will build far more humane farming conditions.

atheist_anarchist

10th December 2008, 00:09

Animal rights is cool but not eating meat I personally don't consider animal rights. I think its natural and good to eat meat, though the large excess' of meat pumped with hormones is bad. The real problem with animal rights is the animal rights organizations, especially PETA and ALF. They seem to think that animals are some how more important than humans and would rather have some Ethiopian kid starve to death than eat a Gazelle.