Do Animals have Rights?
Do animals have the same amount of rights that humans do? Do they have rights at all? Do they have more rights than us?
Should speciesism be treated similarly to racisim?
Yes
Side Score: 34
|
 |
No
Side Score: 26
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
2
points
2
points
animals are not equal with humans. But they have rights. I don't think they should be in pain while we kill them. I know, that if other animals kill them, they will be in pain, but those animals don't have a conscience. We have, and thats why I think we should kill an animal with manners. I don't think it makes any sence to use them to test products. Thats not what they're for. Side: Yes
Of course! What gives a human more "right" over an animal. HUmans are animals anyway! The only reason people think this is because humans are more intelligent than other animals. If there was a person with mental issues, you wouldn't kill him/off because of their stupidity, because he/she is a "person." With "Feelings." Well, animals have feelings too. Side: Yes
2
points
What gives a human more "right" over an animal. The fact that humans came up with the concept of rights, and not animals, gives a human more rights. The only reason people think this is because humans are more intelligent than other animals. Yes, because we're the only ones intelligent enough to come up with rights. If there was a person with mental issues, you wouldn't kill him/off because of their stupidity, because he/she is a "person That's not the point. The retarded person belongs to a species that came up with rights, and is thus protected by these. The animal however, is not, and is thus not entitled to any rights. Whether they should or not is irrelevant, the bottom line is that they don't. Side: No
2
points
Yes. Animals do not have as much power in society as humans; however, they definitely have the right to life. They are important and sometimes influential in civilization. None should die for no reason; there should be a reason and purpose to the death of an animal. Side: Yes
Of course they do. Every living creature has rights. They have rights to the environment, rights to live, rights to be treated with respect. I'm not saying that we should bow down and worship them, although many of them wouldn't understand seeing as they react on instinct, but we should show them the respect they deserve as another living creature who shares our environment Side: Yes
2
points
2
points
2
points
2
points
2
points
Animals have rights since they belong to a society run by intelligent lifeforms . Thus everything must be judged equitably thus if such things are used then such things must be taken cared of. For an example, evolution did not choose the human race as the dominant specie but still gave man an ample mind to think and form a society but are subject to slavery by a stronger and smarter race, for an example an ape civilization. Thus it would only be fair that lower class organisms have rights since its rulers have subsequent advantages over them. Side: Yes
1
point
People often snicker at the phrase "animal rights" and imagine some elaborate straw man scenario with animals voting and running for office. To me, animal rights means the right to live their lives for their own purposes (rather than for human profit, pleasure or convenience), free to carry out their full range of species-specific behaviors, with minimal human interference. And yes, I support that. Side: Yes
|
5
points
I think that animals have rights up to the stage when people begin to say that I can no longer have a sausage. When it gets to that stage too many lines are being crossed. Animals are like people that are on a machine to keep them alive (they are not aware of the things around them as much, and they have very little conscious intelligence), and people always tend to unplug those machines. However animals can make me happy if I get to eat them. I don't see why animals should have more rights than us - we are the dominant species. They should have less rights than us because I believe that there is nothing wrong with making an animal into Sunday Roast whereas making a human into Sunday Roast would ask some particularly huge questions. Side: No
But animals feel the same way. If an animal wants to eat, it will eat. Why is it that if I kill a deer, the other deer won't hunt me down, but if a wolf kills a human, every human in that area will kill evey wolf they see. I say if we are allowed to eat animals, then they can eat us to. Now, some of you may argue and come across the table with, then let the animal eat you or your family JayTek. I'm not saying that I wouldn't feel horrible if that happened, because I would, but what I am saying is that this is the way of life. An animal shouldn't be slaughtered for demonstrating natural instincts, therefore animals should have rights. Side: Yes
Why is it that ... but if a wolf kills a human, every human will kill every wolf..." Well, if I killed a deer (as you mentioned), I would not expect another deer to attack humans because of this. Why not? Because the intelligence of such creatures is so minimal it wouldn't make such a significant change anyway. However if a wolf attacked a human then what is to stop it doing the same in the future? Our natural instincts take a defensive stance in this position and will immediately attack the wolves. "It is the way of life" Correct, and that is why we may attack other animals to defend ourselves. "An animal shouldn't be slaughtered for demonstrating neutral instincts" So does that mean that if the wolf attacked someone the story should just be discarded because of the natural instincts displayed? No. If someone attacked another person because of what their instincts told them then that does not mean they should get away with it. They would be imprisoned in my country, and because of demonstrating those natural instincts that person would have few rights at all. So after taking this into consideration, I wonder if you think that animals have more rights than humans. Because you have voiced opinions of how displaying natural instincts is fine. Side: No
1
point
Animals have rights to a certain extent, but in order to possess rights one must also possess responsibilities. For example, I have the right to protection from violence, and the responsibility to not cause any violence. Animals don't have the responsibility to not eat other animals, threfore they don't have the right to not get eaten by us. Side: No
Um... children aren't obligated to a lot of things. Does that mean wrongs should be done to them? I don't think that's why they should be eaten. It isn't their fault if they must eat other animals to survive. It's sure as hell less of a big deal than someone whose life is as complex as a human being killed and eaten, though. By that logic, we should be able to do whatever we want to psychopaths because they don't have the ability to empathize and cannot understand why us other people have "morals" or think anything is "wrong" (true story bro, deny it if you want, it doesn't change anything). Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
rights are objective i look at rights like traffic if i am carring on lawfully and respecting the rights of others i am in the right of way say purchasing a bag of weed or buying a gun and some one punches me in the face i have the right to beat the dog shit out of them and to clarify rights in the i describe them are rights not priveleges given by a govenment but a persons right to be free as long as the dont other Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
I don't think they have the exact same rights as humans but there is no way anyone can argue that animals shouldn't have any rights at all. Animals suffer just like humans do. Why should humans be delivered from suffering and animals shouldn't? However, a human life is made of more things than an animal's life, which is why I said that they shouldn't have the exact same rights. Side: No
0
points
They sure as hell have the rights to not be tortured for no reason. But when it comes to needing them for sustenance and for other products, they do not have the rights of humans up until they are an endangered species. Once they're endangered, of course, we should protect them from extinction. So the basic outline is, don't do anything completely unnecessarily sadist to them. But our instincts to eat them and use their parts is not unnecessarily sadist, it's simply instinctual for us as hunter-gatherers, and therefore is not wrong. Side: No
|
