[Red Barn]

Humans are superior precisely because they are able to overcome the "necessity of survival" and make moral decisions. The fact that the non-human animals you wish to enfranchise are excused from considering the rights of other animals will always make them less qualified to be moral agents.

You know, this idea is less and less accepted among animal behaviorists, and there's a growing body of evidence suggesting that animals do, indeed, possess species-specific forms of morality - exactly as humans do.

And why shouldn't they? Surely human morality is simply a variant on a planet-wide set of instinctual codes that support group survival? Other than religious teaching, I can't really think of a single reason to suppose otherwise.

Most of the research data on this topic is fairly dry, but the book Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals, by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, is very light, and quite enthralling. A person with an interest in these ideas might well enjoy it:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books ... 07651.html

Luckily, this book doesn't romanticize animals - and that's certainly a plus.

No herbivore, I believe would attack another living being.

I've owned and trained horses all my life, and I've seen them attack dogs, cats, calves, deer, human beings and other horses, and all for reasons no better and no worse than the reasons humans attack each other, and attack other species. I've seen horses make great sacrifices for their herd-mates and their own humans, and then turn around and beat the shit out of a strange horse or a human child because they were not "one of us." They can be cowardly or brave, loving or indifferent, just like anybody else.

I think about these things a great deal, actually, and I've come to believe that animals are moral in exactly the same self-serving, species-defensive way that human beings are, and that's why I respect, but don't sentimentalize them. I believe them to be as good as I am, but not better.

That being said, I would cheerfully blow the head off any living creature, human or otherwise, fixing to harm my beasts.

[Sceptic]

I assume by "living being" you mean other "non-human animal." I am not sold on your assertion, as there are examples of herbivores killing other animals (e.g. a wild elephant trampling someone). But I am not sure what this point is bringing to the table — herbivores can indirectly lead to the decline of other species through interspecies competition and competitive resource exclusion.

Any living being, human or non-human. Yes, what I had meant was that there are at least some species of herbivore which demonstrate no purposeful (i.e. no mammal can help destroying bacteria, for example) violation of the rights of those other animals (both human and non-human).

Then, of course there are those species that need to disregard other species life for their own survival. Again, they are at no more fault than two humans competing for scarce resources on an island.

I do not accept your collectivism, for it is simply non-sensical to consider the group as a whole with no recognition of the fact that its individuals may differ. In the case of those termites that do not ruin your woodwork, you simply could not do without destroying them, for regards to your own personal health and wellbeing.

Your original post seemed to suggest those as "lifeboat scenarios" wherein a human has no choice but to say, eat a rabbit, to keep from starving. But should humans willingly hurt themselves (e.g. decrease protein intake, damage culture and ways of life) and work against their own species for a species that would happily devour another animal?

To an extent, yes. (I'd point out that we can actually maximise protein intake through the most religiously vegan lifestyles - kidney beans, lentils and so forth - in fact we can actually maximise lifestyle).

That 'extent' is determined by whether or not, in sacrificing ourselves we sacrifice other human lives.

For example, transport is necessary for economy, economy is necessary for productivity, productivity is necessary for food production. So we need transport to overcome poverty.

For this reason, I would not argue that humans should not drive their car for fear of harming another species (e.g. insects) for the reason that they may actually endanger human lives doing this.

It has nothing to do with their own trivial satisfaction, of course.

Also, how dire does a lifeboat situation have to be?

I take a different stance, rather than 'how necessary is it to kill', and enforce legislation protecting rights from this perspective, we can consider 'how unnecessary is it to kill'. For example, I am fairly sure that small boys do not need to torture their neighbours pet dog for the sheer fun of it; this can be outlawed with relative ease.

These judgements can only come from the moral compass of a human being. A tiger would just eat you. He or she wouldn't bother to weigh the consequences.

A tiger does not have the rational capacity to weigh these consequences, so his moral responsibility is, of course, diminished. We do.

[ThePublicOpinions]

If animals should have rights shouldn't plants have rights too?

[Genghis Khan]

Nobody benefits when we sling around words like "torture" without meeting the actual definition.

I see. So you think I'm overstating my point? Well... let's examine.

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Ph ... trait2.jpg
http://www.prijatelji-zivotinja.hr/data ... 2_4837.jpg
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... VitLbk0M8A
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak ... 4606_n.jpg
http://blogs.standard.net/wp-content/up ... monkey.jpg

---------------------------------------

Product testing is commonly performed on animals to measure the levels of skin irritancy, eye tissue damage, and toxicity caused by various substances used in the manufacture of cosmetics. In the Draize test, caustic substances are placed in the eyes of conscious rabbits to evaluate damage to sensitive eye tissues. This is extremely painful for the rabbits, who often scream when the substances are applied and sometimes break their necks or backs trying to escape the restraints.

Lethal Dosage (LD) tests are used to determine the amount of a substance that will kill a predetermined ratio of animals. For example, in the LD50 test, subjects are forced to ingest poisonous substances (through stomach tubes, vapor spray inhalers or injection) until half of them die. Common reactions to LD tests include convulsions, vomiting, paralysis and bleeding from the eyes, nose, mouth or rectum.

The makers of Herbal Essences are about to force shampoo down his throat to see what happens to its organs. Even if the cat lives through the process, they are going to have to kill it to see which organs it could have damaged.

----------------------------

Don't tell me what's the right thing to say or what terms I need to use. Torture is torture. Humans are torturing animals all the time. If any of these procedures were done on a member of your family without his consent, you would break into the facility, kill everyone and free him.

[GreenThumb]

No herbivore, I believe would attack another living being.

They do it all the time. Some of the most dangerous animals on Earth are herbivores. For example rhinos and hippos.

If you don't think an herbivore would attack another living being then I'd hate to see you play Bull Poker. You might win but your medical bills would be more than the pot.

[Sceptic]

^I didn't mean all herbivores.

If animals should have rights shouldn't plants have rights too?

For one thing it is unlikely that plants have the capacity to suffer (I did actually say this in the OP - I also argued that this was the defining characteristic of those who may possess moral rights). For another, in extreme lifeboat scenarios where two lives cannot simultaneously exist, such as two men on an island competing for natural resources, it is legitimate for one life to take precedence over another (I said this also, in the OP). In fact, it is precisely for this reason that these rights can never be absolute. The existence of plant 'life' is such a case.

[Tachyon]

I dont mean to ignore the rest of your post, you make some good points, but...

If any of these procedures were done on a member of your family without his consent, you would break into the facility, kill everyone and free him.

Are you saying that researchers are breaking into peoples homes, kidnapping family pets, and torturing them? Cause that is what this analogy is saying. I'm not sure what your exact position is, are you 100% against all animal testing? Or do you believe that there are circumstances that justify it.

[Genghis Khan]

I'm not sure what your exact position is, are you 100% against all animal testing?

If the human race wants medical and cosmetic advancements, then humans are the ones that need to sacrifice for it.

If you put out an ad that says: "People needed for risky medical experiments", I guarantee you that out of every 10,000 people that see the ad, at least 3 or 4 will agree to the testing, aware of the risks involved, if there is ample monetary reward.

It won't be forced. You won't have to drag anybody off the street, and the results will be more accurate, since you're doing it on humans.

Besides, there's also this:

As one would imagine, in today's technologically advanced world, in which science has made monstrous steps in many promising directions, that many alternatives would exist to animal testing. This assumption is absolutely true. Many alternatives exist to the use of live animals in research (vivisection). Here are some alternatives to animals currently used:

"Synthetic skin," called Corrositex
Computer modeling
Improved statistical design
The Murine Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA)

http://www.geari.org/alternatives-to-an ... sting.html

[Tachyon]

If the human race wants medical and cosmetic advancements, then humans are the ones that need to sacrifice for it.

If you put out an ad that says: "People needed for risky medical experiments", I guarantee you that out of every 10,000 people that see the ad, at least 3 or 4 will agree to the testing, aware of the risks involved, if there is ample monetary reward.

It won't be forced. You won't have to drag anybody off the street, and the results will be more accurate, since you're doing it on humans.

That didnt really answer my question. Do you believe that there is absolutely no situation where animal testing is acceptable?

[myrmeleo]

I do not accept your collectivism, for it is simply non-sensical to consider the group as a whole with no recognition of the fact that its individuals may differ. In the case of those termites that do not ruin your woodwork, you simply could not do without destroying them, for regards to your own personal health and wellbeing.

Why is it nonsensical? The species-level distinction appears perfectly reasonable and is an accepted standard for many areas of dealing with nonhuman animals. If you asked someone whether a cockroach was a pest, they would say yes. It would be unreasonable for them to say, "well, I knew one cockroach that had limited brain function, so that one was good." From a practical perspective it is near impossible to deal with individual organisms.

For example, transport is necessary for economy, economy is necessary for productivity, productivity is necessary for food production. So we need transport to overcome poverty.

This example seems a lot wider than a "lifeboat" scenario. Surely, if we wanted to harm the least amount of non-human animals as possible, we could change our lifestyles?

[Genghis Khan]

Do you believe that there is absolutely no situation where animal testing is acceptable?

I think, as many scientists do, that we're advanced enough now that whatever good animal testing has done in the past, can now be achieved via other methods.

So I don't think we need it anymore. It is not a prerequisite for achieving favorable results for curing diseases.

[GreenThumb]

I think the more substantive argument against eating animals is this:

A carnivore's teeth are long, sharp and pointed. These are tools that are useful for the task of piercing into flesh. Omnivore's (meat and plant eaters) teeth are similar to that of carnivores. Man's, as well as other herbivore's teeth are not pointed, but flat edged. These are useful tools for biting, crushing and grinding.

A carnivore's jaws move up and down with minimal sideways motion. The jaw motion of an omnivore is similar. These are tools that are useful for the tasks of shearing, ripping and tearing flesh and swallowing it whole. Omnivores swallow their food whole and/or with simple crushing. Man's, as well as other herbivore's jaws cannot shear, but have good side to side and back to front motion. These are tools that are useful for extensive chewing, crushing and grinding of grains and other high fiber foods.

A carnivore or omnivore's saliva does not contain digestive enzymes. Man's, as well as other herbivore's saliva is alkaline, containing carbohydrate digestive enzymes.

A carnivore's or omnivore's small intestine is three to six times the length of its trunk. This is a tool designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. Man's, as well as other herbivore's small intestines are 10 to 12 times the length of their body, and winds itself back and forth in random directions.

The problem with that argument is that all the things you bolded are demonstrably false. Human teeth are not flat, our jaws move nothing like an herbivore's and our small intestines are definitely nowhere near 10 times as long as our body.

The article you linked to is absolutely ridiculous.

[Genghis Khan]

Human teeth are not flat

Mine are. Humans only have the two corner "fangs", designed to crush hard fruit, like apples.

our jaws move nothing like an herbivore's

Mine do.

small intestines are definitely nowhere near 10 times as long as our body.

I'm sorry. The mistake in the article is that it said "small" when it was supposed to say "intestinal tract", which includes the large intestines as well. The whole tract is about 7.5 meters in men on average. Could be as short as 5 and as long as 10. Cats (Domestic cats all the way to lions) have a very short tract. In dogs, the intestines are about 2.5-3 times the length of the body.

Plus, the formation is somewhat different. Our intestines are designed to absorb nutrients from plants. Theirs is more designed to push through large chunks of meat.

And, ask yourself this - Why does a cow (a clear herbivore) have 4 different compartments in one stomach?

[Sceptic]

Why is it nonsensical? The species-level distinction appears perfectly reasonable and is an accepted standard for many areas of dealing with nonhuman animals. If you asked someone whether a cockroach was a pest, they would say yes. It would be unreasonable for them to say, "well, I knew one cockroach that had limited brain function, so that one was good." From a practical perspective it is near impossible to deal with individual organisms.

The need for methodological individualism is presupposed by intelligent design, for these beings have a fundamentally different variety of needs, interests and abilities; they are not a homogenous entity and to treat them as though they were is nonsensical. But intelligent design, as Red Barn has suggested with her reference to animal behaviourial psychologists, is not in fact exclusive to human animals. The properties of moral compass is clearly demonstrated by entire flocks of birds, dolphins, primeapes and large quantities of mammal species who all form societal orders, hierarchies, mutual aid, compassion and other essentially humanistic qualities. Inter- and intra-species differences are expansively great. Yes, we demonstrate these properties to a greater extent than any other species.

Why is violating the principles of methodological individualism nonsensical? Because it treats individuals as though they share collective responsibility for courses of action they never participated in and treats them as though they demonstrate the exact same qualities and attributes as the remainder of their 'group'. Can they survive without the group? No, of course not, but that is irrelevant.

The only species I would not apply this property to is micro-organisms, arthropods and plant life. And it can even be demonstrated that some of these species can demonstrate the essentially humanistic capacity to suffer, in which case they are not worth any lesser moral consideration; they merely constitute one of those extreme lifeboat situations again in which case we would be literally sacrificing our own lives by saving there's - which defeats the whole purpose of the categorical imperative which is to create favourable circumstances for other moral agents as though you were in their shoes. It is meaningless to do this if it means literally sacrificing your life.

This example seems a lot wider than a "lifeboat" scenario. Surely, if we wanted to harm the least amount of non-human animals as possible, we could change our lifestyles?

We ought to change our lifestyles, if it were a mere question of, lets say satisfying our quest for stuffing our bellies with delicious meat.

We ought not change our lifestyles, if it were a moral dilemna of not saving the lives of those greater animal species, specifically human animals, who can demonstrate a huge capcity to suffer, who can demonstrate very specific intelligent design and preference for future life and who, with their many skills and abilities can help save the lives of many, many others, in favour of, lets say, not squashing a bug.

Yes, I would prefer to drive my car (well, actually I don't drive yet - insurance is too expensive) and boost the economy than risk squashing bugs. I would rather wipe out an entire natural habitat, by constructing lets say a giant solar panal, if it were to save many more natural habitats in this world and deliver clean, cheap and efficient energy to impoverished African villages.

I suppose you could say I have adopted the 'middle ground' between 'animals? Screw them.' and 'I'm a vegan, let's hug trees.'

[GreenThumb]

^I didn't mean all herbivores.

Which ones did you mean? Could you give us some specific examples?

[Eran]

Someone without any land does not have property either — are his or her rights non-existent?

So if I don't own anything, I have no rights whatsoever?

As anybody familiar with libertarian use of "property" could tell you, every person owns their own body. There is no such thing as a normal person without property.

The only way for a person to lose property in their own body is through criminal activities. Criminals indeed have many fewer rights.

Did he? I find the idea that rights are accredited to those species with the capability to suffer a more rational derivation since, for one thing this binds together most all living species, including those humans with no rational capacity to 'petition' for property rights (i.e. those with severe mental incapacities as well as infants), as Rothbard put it so eloquently.

I think there is confusion between "rights" and similar concepts such as "morally-valid claims", between "right violations" and "moral harms", etc.

When Crusoe first appears on his desert island, he has no "rights". More accurately, the concept of "rights" is irrelevant for his life. This is true regardless of how many non-human living creatures he shares the island with. Bears and wolves on the one hand, chicken and goats on the other, have no use for "rights".

That is emphatically not the same as saying the Crusoe is ethically permitted to do what he will on his island.

With Friday arriving in the island, everything changes. It now becomes sensible to discuss what the respective rights of Crusoe and Friday are. Both, for example, have exclusive rights in their own bodies. Crusoe may have created property rights in those parts of the island that he transformed with his labour. Please note that either party's rights may be recognized and respected, or go unrecognized and violated by the other party.

Homeless people cannot sue or have people sue on their behalf. Unless someone is in it for the money, in which case I would be happy to sue on behalf of certain species of animals.

Homeless people ought to be able to sue. People sue on their behalf regularly. Homeless people have the same rights as any other person. That those rights are more likely to be violated by their own government (as well as by private criminals) is a completely different matter.

But that doesn't in any way mean that animals have no ethical significance. I personally, and, I believe, most people do believe that certain ways of treating animals are unethical and ought to be avoided.

...but not enforced.

No. There are many ethical or moral principles I (and most members of society) believe in, but which, imo, ought not be enforced. Keeping (non-contractual) promises, helping the weak, being nice to people, not cheating on your spouse, caring for your children and for your parents, etc. are all morally required (as a matter of general rule, and allowing for exceptions, of course). Yet none of them ought to be legally enforced (i.e. enforced using force).

If we accept the principle that moral values (necessarily heterogeneous) ought to be legally enforced, we will find ourselves going back to Puritan sentiments over the role of the state in society. I don't think either of us wants that.

[Sceptic]

...

I think it is important not to get to immersed in semantics, here. I think that you can agree with me that the concept of rights, as in those protected by the law in a society is an arbitrary construct with practical implications, for these practices do not highlight principles of natural justice or morality. Lets not derive an 'ought' from an 'is' and argue that it is the case these rights ought to be protected because they are protected by law. Instead, let us simply take it for granted that rights ought to belong to those moral agents, or more generally any living creature.

For otherwise, the principles defining who may and may not have rights are entirely arbitrary - artificial, man made construct.

In essence I am arguing that animals have legitimate moral claims that ought to be translated into law, otherwise we do not have an ethically consistent doctrine.

The argument that only those who have the ability to make such moral claims is not ethically consistent for otherwise it applies only to those conscientious humans. It may not apply to an infant, for example, though as Rothbard argues, the infant has the potential to argue for these claims in the future, you may as well be arguing that dogs claim the right to life because they can bark at this stage - for the argument has been adjusted from those who make moral claims to those with the potential to make moral claims. Furthermore, Rothbard cannot consistently defend the 'rights' of a man burdened with severe autism or simple lack of conscientiousness.

Let me be crystal clear: the burden of proof lies on the opposition here to justify why rights ought to be extended into the human domain but not the animal domain.

Homeless people ought to be able to sue. People sue on their behalf regularly. Homeless people have the same rights as any other person. That those rights are more likely to be violated by their own government (as well as by private criminals) is a completely different matter.

The point was that human beings, like non-human animals, are not always capacitated to defend themselves. It does not mean that they should not have their rights respected, or that the defence ought not defend them. Even if no-one is willing to defend them, it still does not mean they are not worth moral consideration.

You haven't given a consistent reason why animal rights should not be protected by law.

If we accept the principle that moral values (necessarily heterogeneous) ought to be legally enforced, we will find ourselves going back to Puritan sentiments over the role of the state in society. I don't think either of us wants that

It is perfect duties, not imperfect duties, as defined in the laws of the Categorical imperative, that are enforced, purely because imperfect duties of moral agents to themselves and other moral agents, such as 'charity' can never be completely fulfilled, but perfect duties, such as 'don't murder' can indeed be fulfilled perfectly.

No. There are many ethical or moral principles I (and most members of society) believe in, but which, imo, ought not be enforced. Keeping (non-contractual) promises, helping the weak, being nice to people, not cheating on your spouse, caring for your children and for your parents, etc. are all morally required (as a matter of general rule, and allowing for exceptions, of course). Yet none of them ought to be legally enforced (i.e. enforced using force).

I don't know that those are 'moral' principles less so than societal niceties.

My point, as I highlighted in the OP, is that if animals have a valid moral claim, then protecting their liberties and securities is a matter of legal enforcment, not personal values or lifestyle, for animals are thinking, living beings with the capacity to suffer.

Unless, of course you merely believe that respecting the rights of my fellow humans is a personal value; if I violate these 'rights', the burden is not upon you to pass judgement or intervene. Of course, that in itself is a value, a moral principle. And this, of course, is the problem with the most extreme form of normative relativism, unless you provide boundaries for moral judgement/intolerance provided by reason, in which case we can only accept that it is rational to protect animal rights.

[GreenThumb]

Mine are. Humans only have the two corner "fangs", designed to crush hard fruit, like apples.

No your teeth are not flat like an herbivore's teeth. Our canines and bicuspids have obviously evolved to tear meat. We use our incisors to cut into apples and our molars to grind them up.

Mine do.

So you chew your food like this? I'd bet you don't get many second dinner dates if you do that

I'm sorry. The mistake in the article is that it said "small" when it was supposed to say "intestinal tract", which includes the large intestines as well. The whole tract is about 7.5 meters in men on average. Could be as short as 5 and as long as 10. Cats (Domestic cats all the way to lions) have a very short tract. In dogs, the intestines are about 2.5-3 times the length of the body.

Plus, the formation is somewhat different. Our intestines are designed to absorb nutrients from plants. Theirs is more designed to push through large chunks of meat.

There is a lot more wrong with the article than that. The article you linked to is simply ridiculous. Our digestive tract is typical of an omnivore, not a cat and not a cow.

And, ask yourself this - Why does a cow (a clear herbivore) have 4 different compartments in one stomach?

Perhaps you should be asking yourself why humans don't have 4 compartments in their stomach like herbivore ruminants do.

Humans evolved as omnivores just like our closest related species like chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos and baboons. If you want to delve into comparitive anatomy why not compare humans to the great apes?

[Sceptic]

Which ones did you mean? Could you give us some specific examples?

Does it truly matter? Hedgehogs, rabbits, chickens, maybe sparrows (unless, perhaps, you count worms as capacitated to suffer), etc.

In any case, animals that do harm other animal species have no real choice in the matter - it is to enhance their survival. On top of that, they do not have the rational decision making capacity that we do to deliberate moral action.

[Nunt]

Its not because we don't have the ability to eat rocks, that it would be wrong to eat rocks. Same goes for animals. Even if we are not made for eating animals, this doesn't make it wrong if we do. If animals have as few rights as a rocks, then it doesnt matter. Our (in)ability to eat animals does not take their rights away should they have any. So the important issue is not whether we can eat them, but whether or not animals have rights.