Political Crossfire Forums

Demosthenes II · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 123

I’ll admit I haven’t fully thought this through, nor am I convinced that animals have rights, but I do think this is interesting. If an animal can be sentenced to die for an attack (e.g. domesticated dog bites or wild bear attacks);
wouldn’t that mean that the animals have a responsibility and a moral duty to not hurt or kill people if they can be held responsible for their actions? If animals are thought to have responsibilities, then clearly with responsibilities comes rights. Just thinking out loud, any ideas?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21589 Location: Minnesota

You basically summed up a major point agiasnt animal rights activists: animals are amoral creatures, how can they have rights? When you place animal rights on the same playing feild as man, you are not bringing an animal up (since they can never tell right from wrong) but bringing man down to the animals level, but man, unlike an animal, can never act like his true self. He must respect an animal's life above his own and his own children. And since A.D never respons, we'll just take it to mean he's conceded to this point and has gone back to eating a nice steak... I'm sure he cries at the same time... both out of sadness and happiness. Sadness that a stuipid cow had to die, happiness because its oh so divine. :-)

flower · Joined: 10 Apr 2004 Posts: 15

I don' t believe it is possible for animals to have morals because animals don' t have conciousness like people have. If a domestic animal bites it is in my view because of something in their past or in the genes they have no control over it, if a wild animal attracks it is because of their nature.

mitsi_mirage · Joined: 21 Jan 2004 Posts: 3193 Location: FRESNO, CA

Flower, that's why humans attempt to tame animals.. so they can put some sort of morals into them.

flower · Joined: 10 Apr 2004 Posts: 15

Good point but these morals are not something they feel concioussly they don' t now if is good or bad but just do it automatically.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21589 Location: Minnesota

mitsi_mirage wrote: Flower, that's why humans attempt to tame animals.. so they can put some sort of morals into them.

A dog will always be amoral. If it bites a small child, even while tamed, it is not evil nor good. It is just a dog. How can amoral creatures have the same rights as moral ones? They cannot without putting dogs over man.

mitsi_mirage · Joined: 21 Jan 2004 Posts: 3193 Location: FRESNO, CA

John Galt wrote: mitsi_mirage wrote: Flower, that's why humans attempt to tame animals.. so they can put some sort of morals into them.

A dog will always be amoral. If it bites a small child, even while tamed, it is not evil nor good. It is just a dog. How can amoral creatures have the same rights as moral ones? They cannot without putting dogs over man.

I think you understood my point. A dog is trained not to bite the child. Right? If it does bite the child, automatically the dog will be put to sleep. Right?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21589 Location: Minnesota

mitsi_mirage wrote: John Galt wrote: mitsi_mirage wrote: Flower, that's why humans attempt to tame animals.. so they can put some sort of morals into them.

A dog will always be amoral. If it bites a small child, even while tamed, it is not evil nor good. It is just a dog. How can amoral creatures have the same rights as moral ones? They cannot without putting dogs over man.

I think you understood my point. A dog is trained not to bite the child. Right? If it does bite the child, automatically the dog will be put to sleep. Right?

Well yes, and that's because a dog cannot distinguish right from wrong. They do not attack their masters since the master provides them with food and because of a dog's social structure in the wild (it is submissive to the strongest, which is the man who gives it food, and respects those that the masters forces it to). Anyway, a dog is amoral.

Kindred · Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:22 am Post subject:

John Galt wrote: You basically summed up a major point agiasnt animal rights activists: animals are amoral creatures, how can they have rights? When you place animal rights on the same playing feild as man, you are not bringing an animal up (since they can never tell right from wrong) but bringing man down to the animals level, but man, unlike an animal, can never act like his true self. He must respect an animal's life above his own and his own children. And since A.D never respons, we'll just take it to mean he's conceded to this point and has gone back to eating a nice steak... I'm sure he cries at the same time... both out of sadness and happiness. Sadness that a stuipid cow had to die, happiness because its oh so divine. :-)
I finished work today, for an exteeeeeded period. I will have time to finish my post, and rebut your meager points within the next weak, guarantee!

Demosthenes II, read the 'basic arguments' thread.

Demosthenes II · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 123

John Galt wrote: mitsi_mirage wrote: Flower, that's why humans attempt to tame animals.. so they can put some sort of morals into them.

A dog will always be amoral. If it bites a small child, even while tamed, it is not evil nor good. It is just a dog. How can amoral creatures have the same rights as moral ones? They cannot without putting dogs over man.

I would never argue that animals have the same rights as humans – they are inferior creatures with inferior minds. But I would argue that they have some rights, such as the right to live, unless their death goes to a good cause. Good causes would include the better health of humans, from animal testing to steak. Bad causes would include sick trainers who force dogs to fight for entertainment and hunting – the merciless slaughter of inferior beings for entertainment.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21589 Location: Minnesota

Well, I would not argue that a sick sadist who enjoys torturing animals is not wrong for doing so, on the contrary, he is. Why? Because he has morals and having an animal suffer inordinate pain for no good reason would go agianst morals. Of course, A.D and his cronies (;-)) may pounce on me for that, but a quick death with my rifle into a deer and then having venison for months and not having to buy much more other meat for myself is a good cause.

I don't torture animals.

Demosthenes II · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 123

John Galt wrote: Well, I would not argue that a sick sadist who enjoys torturing animals is not wrong for doing so, on the contrary, he is. Why? Because he has morals and having an animal suffer inordinate pain for no good reason would go agianst morals. Of course, A.D and his cronies (;-)) may pounce on me for that, but a quick death with my rifle into a deer and then having venison for months and not having to buy much more other meat for myself is a good cause.

I don't torture animals.

If people eat the meat after hunting, then I agree, hunting is for a good cause. I would only have a problem if people hunt for the sport of it -- it is just purely wasteful and cruel. How can we say we are beings of morals when we kill other creatures just for fun? To my knowledge, no other creature does this in the wild. Makes you wonder who the intelligent species are.

Mac · Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 741 Location: USA

Demosthenes II wrote: John Galt wrote: Well, I would not argue that a sick sadist who enjoys torturing animals is not wrong for doing so, on the contrary, he is. Why? Because he has morals and having an animal suffer inordinate pain for no good reason would go agianst morals. Of course, A.D and his cronies (;-)) may pounce on me for that, but a quick death with my rifle into a deer and then having venison for months and not having to buy much more other meat for myself is a good cause.

I don't torture animals.

If people eat the meat after hunting, then I agree, hunting is for a good cause. I would only have a problem if people hunt for the sport of it -- it is just purely wasteful and cruel. How can we say we are beings of morals when we kill other creatures just for fun? To my knowledge, no other creature does this in the wild. Makes you wonder who the intelligent species are.

People wouldn't hunt for sport in the wild either...hunting is in our instincts and sport hunting satisfies that instinctual urge.

My dog hunts for sport...he kills many rabbits and possums just for the fun of it.

DEFCON 1 · Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 7:53 pm Post subject:

Try buying him a chew toy and getting him laid. It worked for me.

Mac · Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 741 Location: USA

DEFCON 1 wrote: Try buying him a chew toy and getting him laid. It worked for me.
LOL

Demosthenes II · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 123

Mac: "People wouldn't hunt for sport in the wild either...hunting is in our instincts and sport hunting satisfies that instinctual urge."

People aren’t born with the knowledge of playing basketball; its not instinctual, nor is hunting.

Mac: "My dog hunts for sport...he kills many rabbits and possums just for the fun of it."

Your dogs were trained to hunt; not instinctual to hunt for enjoyment.

DEFCON 1 · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 2:59 pm Post subject:

Demosthenes II wrote: Mac: "People wouldn't hunt for sport in the wild either...hunting is in our instincts and sport hunting satisfies that instinctual urge."

People aren’t born with the knowledge of playing basketball; its not instinctual, nor is hunting.

Mac: "My dog hunts for sport...he kills many rabbits and possums just for the fun of it."

Your dogs were trained to hunt; not instinctual to hunt for enjoyment.

People don't eat basketballs and dogs don't need to be trained to hunt for food. They are trained by humans to bring it back and not eat it. They are trained to enter the water when it is 39 degrees when all they would really rather do is lick their balls.

Demosthenes II · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 123

Defcon 1: “People don't eat basketballs and dogs don't need to be trained to hunt for food.”

Me: Exactly, not for food, for enjoyment. Read my posts entirely to avoid looking stupid.

Defcon 1: “They are trained by humans to bring it back and not eat it.”

Me: And if the people don’t eat is, its wasteful, thus not a good cause, thus a violation of even the most basic right of life that any creature has. Great, now I sound like all these super libs. Living things have a right to live, unless their death if for a good cause. Anyone ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?

DEFCON 1 · Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:28 pm Post subject:

I read a lot about Hitler. He was a vegetarian. :lol:

Mac · Joined: 18 Mar 2004 Posts: 741 Location: USA

My dog has never had any training at all. Hunting is an instinct...It may require some sort of learning to be able to do it successfully but if there as no instinct to hunt, we either would have all died or evolve into herbivores.

Most hunters, even sport hunters or trophy hunters eat the meat or use the products of their prey in some way.