I'd say mostly yes to some extent but they are different than to say humans. Are you talking about pets, farm animals, or wild animals?
Well for pets there are laws against cruelty and such as well as abuse, for wildlife they have in place hunting restrictions as well as disturbing the wild less, but not everybody follows them. And unfortunately for livestock so many of them are killed in inhumane ways, and are forced to live out their short years cramped together in filthy conditions, to me they have no rights whatsoever as they're bred to be slaughtered. I suppose there are the good farmers though, that give them plenty of food with lots of space so they can live happier up until they're killed. In a sense those are technically more about rules than rights though, but the problem is how do you give something that can't communicate in your language rights? It's a grey area and while it's easier to grant say an Android rights because they're able to learn and would be able to speak our language, animals unfortunately don't share that same fate. Now if there was technology that allowed you to ask an animal questions such as this that would be interesting, but I'm sure they wouldn't understand the concept though.
I come from a typical farm where killing animals for food was on a daily basis, and I was always taught to respect everything alive on the farm. Even killing would be done in the fastest possible way, so that an animal would not suffer. A different view as you can see
No. Why? They are not persons. For example, can animals be held accountable? Do we put animals on trial for crimes? If a pet cat kills a bird, do you call the police and have the cat arrested? They would laugh at you. Yes, if an animal causes harm to humans, it may be "put down," but it isn't a trial. There's no jury of 12 dogs summoned to decide the case, is there? Can animals make contracts? Can animals be sworn and give evidence? Can you sue an animal and recover damages? My point is that when you actually try to treat an animal like a person, it soon becomes absurd. None of this means that animals shouldn't be treated humanely. But animals do not possess rights. They are accorded protection, which is not the same thing.
Interesting views, people. Thank you @Septimus. So you are trying to say that non-human animals don't have consequences for what they do to other animals (most of the time), right? Yes, it's a very nice thing to see kindness like this. I respect that. But this is more like pity, right? What about rights? Do they have them? Should they be exploited?
No, animals don’t have our levels of rights, but we should also respect the sanctity of life and not kill simply to kill either, if there’s no benefit to it. I hunt now and then, but I mainly do feral animals that actually do harm to the environment, like camels.
The thinking I was taught is taken straight from the Bible. Humans are superior, but having their superiority, they are obliged to respect the world created by God. So, it's not a pity, but the right way of living, a law in a sense. I wouldn't call it having rights, though, if you know what I mean. It feels more like a hierarchy. You'd always choose a human over an animal. So, if a dog bites a child, its owner should be punished. Of course, there are some who would argue that the dog should be put down, and they would demand it for harming their child. Still, the guilt is surely on the human side for not keeping his animal from harming others. It's just one situation which can have many variations, but it should give you the gist.
Yes, animals do have rights. Some rights are just fundamental birthrights that transcend human law system. Such as rights to life and freedom. Unfortunately these rights are usually not officially recognized. And neither do most people care. By compassion? Dogs have some rights while cows and pigs usually don't. Why? Cos we empathize with them due to culture (tradition to keep them close as pets). Also small kids are entitled to fundamental human rights even tho they do not speak yet and even if their IQ might be lower than IQ of a cat. Same goes for some Mongolian dude who speaks in some local dialect nobody understands. But I bet he would still have same rights in USA as any other immigrant. So no, it has nothing to do with language. It has everything to do with culture and what (or who) we value and empathize with.
Rights deal with morals and morals deal with responsibility and accountability. Animals are incapable of immoral behavior therefore they have no need of rights. Anyone who believes animals have rights will also need to show what responsibility and accountability these animals are subject to because of said rights. What happens when one animal infringes on rights of another animal? How do we determine their intent was evil? How are they held accountable for their actions? How can morality be applied toward animals? This is the side that’s usually left out of the animal rights conversation becuase it exposes the ridiculous concept that animals have rights. Now this isn’t to say we as humans don’t have a moral obligation when it comes to how we treat animals, but saying I don’t have the right to do whatever I want to animals is not the same as saying animals have rights. I don’t have the right to torture my dog, just like I don’t have the right to say she crapped on my floor because she’s an evil bitch who likes to get her kicks out of making my life a crap fest.
I wouldn't say they don't have "consequences." A coyote might go after a dog, only to find more dogs go after the coyote, and the coyote gets chewed up. That's a consequence, I suppose. My point is that rights inhere in persons, and animals aren't persons, which I was illustrating.
Rather than language I should be saying morals, because that's what it's about. Even if that mongolian 'dude' can't speak English, he would still be tried in the U.S for whatever reason with a translator or something, only because he's human so how can an animal be up there? Reminds me of when I hear how in some cases a country would put an animal through court and end up sentencing it to death for killing something, it doesn't work that way and is a weird thing to do treating them like that. But I do think it's our responsibility to treat them fairly regardless, and I condemn needless cruetly and abuse some have to put up with. And I don't know what that cat analogy was even supposed to be, but okay.
I think all living things have right, even the dead. But each is different with the others. Human has right to make a living, to share opinion, to learn, to get married, to be protected by law and justice. Animals have right not to be tortured, disturbed. Trees have right to be concervancied. The dead have right to be buried properly. The ghosts have right to eat their ghostly food...
I agree, @Septimus, but most of the time this coyote-dog situation doesn't happen. Generally, a predator or an alpha male goes 'unpunished.' But, yes, I agree with the point that they are accorded protection and are treated respectfully, but not because they have rights, but because of a 'human moral obligation' of sorts.
Alright, I've got two more questions. It looks like the majority is in favour of animals not having rights. Is there anyway else who disagrees and can justify their convictions? A new question on animal testing. Yes or no? Good or bad? What I mean is, should we use animals in scientific experiments and/or commerciallly? Take each case as a separate one, if you can. Cheers again.
If it is useful for human life, then Yes it's good . But please , only do it on mouse, because I hate mouse.
