should Animals/Pets have some kind of rights like humans ?

Answer 1

I am going to try and make that happen

Answer 2

Should animals/pets have the some kind of rights like humans? Well - do animals have souls? Do they have a spirit? Can they reflective on the past of wrongs and rights? Do they have the same kind of intelligence as humans? Who is able to take of the other more - animals or humans? My cat cannot take care of me- of going to the store, cleaning the house - go to work and so forth. I believe that animals were made on a lower level of intelligence than humans and it was the humans responsbility to dominate the animal world. Humans have been given the responsbility to be good to all animals and to make sure that the animal poulation would not be extinct. Animals have the right to live and to be healthy and to be treated with kindness especially domesticated animals. Wildlife deserves life and to live at peace with the other animals without the interference of humans. Humans should not have the right to abuse animals in terms of hurting them physically or depriving them of food-water/shelter/ and care. But to treat animals the same as humans would not be right.

Answer 3

Depends on what kind of animal you're talking about. No animal deserves to be beaten or tortured, but as far as being killed?

Food animals should be killed as painlessly as possible. That's the humane thing to do.

If you've ever had an encounter with a possum, raccoon, or a rat that's large enough to throw a HOUSE at you, you should know why people kill them. I certainly don't think that those animals should be afforded the right to get into your trash and wreck your home. If you give them a choice, it's not like they're going to be able to obey rules. They just wouldn't understand them.

If you're mean to an animal, though, you don't have a heart. Shooting one (and killing it quickly) may not seem nice, but that insures survival of the human species by feeding the steadily growing populous.

Answer 4

Yes. As a culture, we have a fairly perverse view about this, largely because of the fiction of "the soul".

In fact we have essentially the same moral responsibilities towards any being that has experiences, which undoubtedly includes cats and dogs and in fact probably all mammals, and very likely quite a few non-mammalian animals (but not plants, rocks and the like). There is a serious problem with any moral system that denies that, particularly when it invents things like "souls" to justify poorly thought-through biases towards humans (and worse, towards things like fertilized eggs, embryos and stem cells).

As a thought experiment, imagine a lab in which there were animals (cats, dogs, birds, etc.) in cages along one wall, and various human embryos, stem cells, fertilized eggs in various test tubes along another wall. Imagine that the lab has caught fire, and you can go in and save something in there, but know that you might not have the opportunity to go back in for what you don't rescue the first time.

Now, it seems utterly clear to me that if you choose to "rescue" the stem cells, embryos, and fertilized eggs rather than the cats and dogs and birds, you have a seriously perverse morality. If you were to express such a morality, I wouldn't let you take care of my kids, and I'd do whatever I could to keep you from having an influence on the moral upbringing of children in general. But it seems to me that the antiabortion movement preaches exactly that perverse morality, and I would not be at all surprised to learn that antiabortion leaders see this exactly the other way around. It seems to be an inevitable conclusion to draw from their claim that those things - stem cells, fertilized eggs, embryos - ARE human beings.

In fact, if they honestly believe that, then imagine this slightly changed scenario: Imagine the same lab, except that there are no cats or dogs or birds, and instead there are adult human beings in there who need rescue. If you really believe the antiabortionists' line about those various things along the other wall really being human beings, then you might choose to rescue the stem cells (for example) rather than the adult human beings. Now, if that doesn't strike you as a morally perverse conclusion, you've got a lot to learn about morality - yet it's a natural conclusion to draw from the expressed antiabortionist stance on these things.

Answer 5

Should they have rights? Sure shouldnt you? They are alive they have feelings. They can feel pain. Pets should have the right to a healthy and safe home. Animal abuse is a federal offense.

Answer 6

No. They should not be put on the same plane as Humans.

However, neither should they be abused. The plane of existence for Humans should include that base undersanding that to cause unnecessary pain in any creature is not a good thing.

Answer 7

I believe pets should have the right to not be abused--which they already do. I also believe they have a right to proper care. If someone takes on the responsibility of having a pet, they should take on the responsibility of taking care of them properly. (I guess they already have this right too, as people's pets can be taken away due to neglect.)

Answer 8

i wouldn't give animals the same rights humans have, since animals can't think for themselves or walk into a store and buy they're own food when they feel hungry. but when it comes to humans killing animals for no reason, then yes.

Answer 9

Of course animals should have SOME rights. They should be protected from torture and cruelty. But they are not people and should not be afforded all the rights people have. There are some wackos out there who think animals and people are the same.

Answer 10

Animals do have some rights that are protected by laws.

Answer 11

Kind of a "Loaded" question. In many country's what we would consider "Pet's" others consider food. So bringing pets up to the same status as humans would be difficult at best.

But, let it be known, you shoot my dog I shoot you. ;-)