DescentBB

There are two basic questions/angles that I think the animal rights discussion comes down to:

1. Should all living things be extended the same right to life and liberty that's considered the norm for people?

If yes: Then how can you justify interfering with anything's life cycle in order to feed/protect yourself?
If no: By what other standard should we judge between correct and incorrect action toward other living things?

2. Should we be held to a higher standard than the rest of nature?

Nature's a nasty, unforgiving place out there... In the long run, every species is essentially looking out for themselves... so should we as people follow that model, or call ourselves to a different standard and why?

My problem with PETA and most vegan ideas: They try to say that yes, animals should have the right to life and liberty but they ignore plants. I don't quite understand why. Plants are living things that respond to stimuli just as much as animals - so why differentiate between the two? The answer is necessity. You have to eat something... so you have to draw a line somewhere and say that it's okay to eat some things but not others. So, if you tell me that you don't want to eat animals because they're cute and you don't want to contribute to the killing of X and Y, I'll give you that. If you tell me that you're a vegan because you think it's morally (philosophically?) wrong to eat other living things, I'll call you a hypocrite for drawing the line at "animals" and ignoring plant life & cellular life.

snoopy wrote: 1. Should all living things be extended the same right to life and liberty that's considered the norm for people?

Should they? Yes, just as all people should have the same right to life and liberty. Is it possible that all creatures, human and animal, will get these rights? Not with our current technology.

2. Should we be held to a higher standard than the rest of nature?

To some degree, we're expected to use reason. We can't just put a bear and a gator in a cage for entertainment. However, if I'm naked and lost in the jungle, I will be killing things.

Their fantasies in turning the world into vegetarians, if it ever was a reality, would mean many farm animals would go near extinction. Demand is why so many domestic animals exist. PETA misses that completely.

I think we already do the best we can without groups like PETA; everyone is a superhero to animals. I can't tell you how many kittens, turtles, puppies, lizards, frogs, and spiders (they have feelings too) I've saved or tried to save. I'm sure most of you are the same.

Would germs also be accorded those same rights?

For every one of you Isaac, there is a complete opposite. I'm not a member of PETA, nor will I ever be. I understand how we've bred these animals for our consumption. I get that part of it, I only hope that these animals are treated humanely at all times because they give their lives for our benefit.

People that mistreat animals? Screw them. Owning an animal is a choice, if you think it's ok to beat an animal, maybe you shouldn't get one. Don't like that a dog poo'd on your floor? Don't expect it to hold it for ten hours while you're at work. I've never understood how people can be dicks to animals. Makes no sense.

I actually have some good feedback for this topic. It's a little long, but this is not as easy subject.

Believe it or not, the Buddhists have the most interesting take on animal rights and vegetarianism. The Buddhist angle relates to the suffering of living beings. The goal of Buddhism is to continually reduce suffering in the world.

Before explaining my position on animal rights, there are some ideas that need clarification from the Buddhist perspective: consciousness, pain, and suffering.

No one knows the nature of consciousness. As we learn more about the universe it appears consciousness may be woven into the fabric of reality. We see living things down to the most basic structures exhibit self-preservation. (Link to a cool article on slime molds.) Some speculate that consciousness arises from complexity, and the universe counter-intuitively moves towards complexity in some cases (violates entropy? I don't know enough about it).

Pain is a physical response to stimuli. When you stub your toe on the table leg, you feel it. However, suffering is a psychological response to the world around you. You can experience pain without suffering, and suffering without physical pain. Here, humans are unique in that we are the only creatures capable of meta-cognition, which allows us to deal with suffering in ways other creatures cannot. However, it may not be long before we discover animals are capable of meta-cognition too.

Regarding plants, animals, and all living beings (all conscious), the Buddhists look at whether suffering occurs. It's a given that both plants and animals respond to physical harm (pain). But it is not clear which plants and animals are suffering. Higher level organisms like humans, dogs, cats, basically most larger animals, are capable of understanding their surroundings and problem-solving. It's not too far a stretch to think they are capable of suffering. Ever yelled at your dog? Dogs are definitely capable of the higher-level thinking required for things like happiness, anger, and suffering to occur. Does a honeybee suffer? We can't be sure. Does a plant suffer? Seems unlikely without a brain, but again, we can't be sure.

So the Buddhist approach is to refrain from causing harm to animals to reduce the suffering of all living beings. If we later find out that plants suffer, then the Buddhists will have to eat something else. (Believe it or not, the Dalai Lama is heavily into neuroscience and learning about the nature of suffering from a scientific perspective.)

I've practiced vegetarianism for over a decade, not for moral reasons, but because I feel healthier when I eat less meat. I'm also not a prick about it. If you want to eat meat, knock your socks off. I actually do eat meat occasionally and have been slowly working more into my diet to match my workout at the gym, haha. When my vegetarian friends say "omg you are eating meat" I'm like "find me a Christian that doesn't sin!" o;-)

There is also another non-moral reason for adopting a vegetarian lifestyle: it is better for the planet. Years ago when I was in college I heard a teacher say something about vegetarianism and thermodynamics. I never paid it too much attention so I can't make any claim about the science behind it. And of course, there are innumerable health benefits from reducing the amount of meat you eat.

So, in my worldview I avoid killing animals (including insects, I remove them alive from my house). I don't keep animals as pets, though I am open to unique relationships between man and animal, ones that arise naturally through circumstance. I don't go to zoos. And while our species has benefited greatly from science animals, the whole thing makes me uncomfortable. But again, even though I won't mistreat animals, I can't stop you from doing it -- though I would ask you to think about it.

Haven't heard much from PETA for a while, then suddenly these batshit flash games. Sounds like the death cry of a dying animal to be honest. Or maybe it's what they need to do these days to attract publicity (ANY publicity).
As far as i can tell from these flashes, PETA = Westboro Church. Irrational extremist nutjobs. Not a good way to form a judgement on the respective ideology, but perhaps an insightful reveal into the ugly underlying motivations and conflicts that are at play within the moderates they left behind.

I'm somewhat with Snoopy on this: Nature is cruel and horrible. Watch any cat catch and then play with it's prey, tearing it apart slowly and letting it squirm around for entertainment, drawing death out for as long as it's still fun. Psychopathic. Nature certainly does not hold the high ground when it comes to ethics, no way.

I worry that the Bhuddist tradition is based on the self-serving concept of "karma", ie: "if i help to encourage the cessation of cycles of violence and suffering, then in my future lives i'll have less of a chance of suffering myself at the hands of others". ie: it's ultimately based on concepts of supernatural eternal souls, which is thus cause to balk at any insights gained.
It does seem practical though.

As far as i'm concerned, i don't like to cause suffering to others because that's what is ingrained in me as a member of a highly social species. Empathy, Altruism, it's all just inheritance, it's not indicative of any righteousness. No notions of ultimate meaning or cosmic sources. All this philosophising about why we SHOULD do this or that, doesn't hold much sway really, it's all ultimately just justifying what we WANT to do. If it were really difficult for me to be altruistic, if i didn't WANT to do it - i doubt i'd do it.
Don't justify it with religion, it's just clinging to whatever ideology makes you personally feel that the universe was made for you. There's some psychopath out there torturing animals with a spurious religious justification for how he is too, he thinks your religion is just as dumb as you think his religion is :-/

snoopy wrote:There are two basic questions/angles that I think the animal rights discussion comes down to:

1. Should all living things be extended the same right to life and liberty that's considered the norm for people?

If yes: Then how can you justify interfering with anything's life cycle in order to feed/protect yourself?
If no: By what other standard should we judge between correct and incorrect action toward other living things?

We don't have the same moral responsibilities toward animals that we do to other people, but we still have some. If you examine why it is wrong to harm other people, I believe you'll find that these reasons apply at least partially to many animals.

snoopy wrote:2. Should we be held to a higher standard than the rest of nature?

Nature's a nasty, unforgiving place out there... In the long run, every species is essentially looking out for themselves... so should we as people follow that model, or call ourselves to a different standard and why?

We are held to a different standard than other animals because we have the unique capacity to make moral decisions.

snoopy wrote:My problem with PETA and most vegan ideas: They try to say that yes, animals should have the right to life and liberty but they ignore plants. I don't quite understand why. Plants are living things that respond to stimuli just as much as animals - so why differentiate between the two? The answer is necessity. You have to eat something... so you have to draw a line somewhere and say that it's okay to eat some things but not others. So, if you tell me that you don't want to eat animals because they're cute and you don't want to contribute to the killing of X and Y, I'll give you that. If you tell me that you're a vegan because you think it's morally (philosophically?) wrong to eat other living things, I'll call you a hypocrite for drawing the line at "animals" and ignoring plant life & cellular life.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with eating animals if it's done humanely. I certainly do it. But we shouldn't be unnecessarily violent toward animals, and we certainly shouldn't torture them. And I'm not alone in this--just take a look at your state's laws for what your local lawmakers think about it.

Is it hypocritical to ignore plants? Well, how would one go about torturing a plant? I think that plants lack the necessary mental apparatus to be torturable. I think that our moral obligations toward other species is largely a function of how self-aware they are, so there is no hypocrisy in my viewpoint.

roid wrote:I worry that the Bhuddist tradition is based on the self-serving concept of "karma", ie: "if i help to encourage the cessation of cycles of violence and suffering, then in my future lives i'll have less of a chance of suffering myself at the hands of others". ie: it's ultimately based on concepts of supernatural eternal souls, which is thus cause to balk at any insights gained.

It depends; not all Buddhists believe in the supernatural portion. Like any religious or philosophical idea, there's a lot of variation in its belief. Most moral philosophies focus on how actions impact others, but my take on karma is that it focuses instead on how our actions impact ourselves. For instance, being unnecessarily violent toward animals won't cultivate a character of compassion that is necessary for happiness in life.

Jeff250 wrote:

roid wrote:I worry that the Bhuddist tradition is based on the self-serving concept of "karma"

It depends; not all Buddhists believe in the supernatural portion.

^ This. Karma and reincarnation is a cultural byproduct of India and Hinduism, where Buddhism originated. The supernatural, religious aspects of Buddhism are just as idiotic as every other religion. However, unlike other religions, Buddhism has a distinct, well developed philosophy behind it which can and should be appreciated without metaphysical nonsense. (also, saying that Buddhism is "self-serving" is rather humorous once you learn more about it, haha)

On Topic: I've never paid attention to PETA. However, if in their extremism they force a dialogue (like this one), then that isn't so bad. I'm sure some people reading this will think differently about animals, or think inwardly. That's a good thing.

The thing about PETA: they are not about animal rights. The number of strays they put down pretty much says that.

If you could stuff all of humanity into a glass dome with no animals, and no way for them to get in or humans to get out, they would have achieved the logical goal that their actions suggest.

But PETA are straight up attention whores. They are the best PR firm in history. They can do the most disgusting PR campaigns, and people will still throw money at them, because they only advertise the side of PETA that get the animal lovers going, while keeping on the down-low that they think that there is no way for humans to act ethically with animals.

I pay no mind to PETA whatsoever….

I think we can all agree that torture/abuse is wrong, so the remaining question is only about the right to life.

I personally believe that all life has a right to live, it’s more or less a fundamental concept, than a “rights” issue for me.

The proper question then becomes…do “you” have the right to take a life…and I believe that the answer is yes…conditionally.