Do animals have rights/should their suffering be taken into account? Why/why not?

Question

PLEASE PLEASE provide good justification for your answer. Don't say "YES PETA RULES" or "NO MEAT IS DELICIOUS."

The argument for the "yes" answer goes as follows:

Most people say human suffering is bad, but animal suffering isn't. However, to justify this distinction you have to explain why animals are different in a way that denies them rights. If you say that animals are dumb/irrational/etc, you risk categorizing some humans as such (braindead people, infants, retarded people).

I'm looking for a "no" argument...or another yes argument...either way.

Answer 1

I think animal suffering is unnecessary, cruel and unjust.

Even though they are not people, they are alive, have a life and have feelings.

If you are a pet owner (dog, cat, or another animal), you will realize that what I have written above is true.

However, I believe all animals have rights - not just our dogs and cats. These animals that we eat (chicken, cow (beef), lamb, etc.) These animals also have a right to live - they also have feelings. I don't base anything on the amount of intelligence an animal has - I only base it on the fundamental right to life, which I think all animals have.

Answer 2

We have duties towards animals, which virtually amount to entailing veganism, among other things, in most circumstances that someone in the contemporary West is currently likely to encounter. The issue here is of consciousness and the extent to which that entails suffering, and that should be taken into account.

However, i would take issue with the concept of rights. Rights depend on the notion of the legitimacy of government, which is invalid. Most people have not entered into a freely chosen agreement to obey the law, and there is no way of opting out of living permanently in an area under the political control of a state without means unavailable to most individuals (e.g. the open ocean, Antarctica or outer space), so they have no absolute obligation to obey the law as such, although they do have an obligation to obey the moral principles behind some or most laws and not to do things liable to cause harm to others through, for instance, incarceration making it impossible for them to support their dependents. The concept of rights is purely legal and therefore has no legitimacy. Duties, on the other hand, are obligations arising from the moral nature of humanity. There may also be an issue of a possibly non-moral agent possessing a right.

Answer 3

In the cruel production environments that our economy encourages because profits are the bottom line, I would say that stressed animals get diseases easier and that in turn can lead to lower production or worse, diseases that can cross over to humans.

In the future meat chunks and other products may be grown in tanks since it is more profitable then providing a paddock for a animal to feed in and I am sure we will all eat it because it costs less regardless of the gasps of horror I might hear at this suggestion.

If you need some simple proof: break open a free range egg and a production egg that have been on the shelf for a short period. The free range tend to hold better and have more color and a better shell (unless color has somehow been added to the battery hen) We buy it not because we know the suffering the chicken goes through (we can not look at our money and see this) be buy battery chicken eggs because they are cheap.

Answer 4

I'm not sold on the 'Animal Rights' thing

HOWEVER:
Every animal or human we hurt degrades us. It shows our lake or love and care.

Every animal that we wipe out because of greed and stupidity is our loss of beauty.

Take two very simple example: song birds are now under threat. How will the world be without them?

The Suffolk Horse (Suffolk punch) is now rearer that the giant pander. How will we show our children the first heavy working breed and one which helped make Britain great.

Answer 5

Animals are not humans -therefore do not have rights
when it comes to being my dinner

I am opposed to testing new products - just for the sake of testing - on any animal

Let them use a congressman from Washington DC

Dogs have masters
Cats have STAFF