CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If humans consider themselves superior because of our intelligence, we should then be intelligent enough to protect and respect the creatures we share this planet with. ECO not EGO.
Just to play devils advocate, I would have to say yes. Not only do they have rights, but they have the same responsibility to recognize the rights of others. As proof I will submit that animals have been prosecuted in courts of law in the past and I would argue that this practice, along with a recognition of animal rights, should continue today.
The problem with your statement is your implicit assumption that the only entities that should have rights to life are those that are cognizant of the needs/preferences of others. This not only invokes a moral rationale, but also begs the question.
I would prefer you give a sound argument (inductive or otherwise) as to why an animals right to life should be not equivalent to that of a humans.
Given your statement I feel as though this will come to a moral argument - ha, and I'm sure we both do not wish to be encumbered with such a debacle.
The reason that my statement seems to beg the question is because I am discussing an original view of rights as such. This view would hold that it is simply the nature of rights that one must be cognizant of them in order to have them.
Rights are a moral concept which is why I would use moral rationale. If I were to take your stance I would say that animal's rights are equivalent to humans in that they are both entirely subjective. And you are right, we have been down this rabbit hole before.
Humans are more valuable from a given perspective; human. If I were a flea I would hold flea life as my standard of value. I would argue that it is our ability to recognize human similarities in other animals which causes the desire to expand rights to encompass other animals. I should be clear that I believe we have moral obligations concerning our conduct toward animals, but calling these obligations rights would be incorrect according the philosophies of rights that I agree with.
Humans are a higher level of sentience and emotional intelligence and are able to reason. Therefore mistreating a human is more immoral than mistreating an animal. Animals deserve to be protected from cruelty but humans being protected from cruelty is more important.
Your point suggests that humans are the only species that have strong emotional responses to their surroundings. Human beings aren't even the most intelegant species on Earth. If they aren't as evelved in certain aspects of life they need time to evolve. Humans did not start off the exact same as they are now. In the past humans have done horrible things, as animals do, and not giving other animals the chance to evolve as we have is unnecessary and pointless. You are insinuating that humans deserve more, are untitled to more, but if you were part of another species you would believe they should be protected.
The debate here is not simply about the right to live or carry on as a species. Saying no doesn't mean I am justifying cruelty to animals. It simply means I am saying Animal rights are not equivalent (equivalent meaning equal in all aspects) to humans. So do you still think the answer is yes? Animals have all the same rights as humans? They do not, obviously by law, but should they? Really? Do they have the proper judgement or moral consciousness to properly exercise said rights? I think we both know the obvious answer here.
The philosophies that gave rise to the concept of rights required a being that could exercise rights. Animals can't do that. What animals can do is suffer. It is our recognition of this, and our expansive empathetic abilities, that has led to an understanding of moral responsibility toward animals concerning suffering. This understanding of responsibility is different from the concept of rights and should be understood separately in order to reduce confusion concerning the philosophies of moral rights.
You know what else animals can do? Fight. Even if humans created moral rights humans have the free will to make their own decisions, like for instance not hurting or killing animals. If a person couldn't do anything that a farm animal could would it be right to slaughter and eat them?
Animals can fight; what's that got to do with the topic? Your argument is that humans have free will; do animals? You will need to restate your last question, I don't know quite what you are asking.
If another species comes along thy is higher on the evolutionary tree you will still say humans deserve to be protected. Humans are biased to their species by nature. The want to protect themselves in imbedded in our instincts everything deserves to be protected no matter how evolved it is.
More evolved? Humans believe in things that don't exists, knowingly destroy themselves and are self-administering the criterion for intelligence- problem with this is my point, they don't fit their own criterion.
You eat meat right? I also believe you are religious, tell me how are creatures that practically commit suicide and extreme genocide without wanting to, but still knowingly, intelligent?
how are creatures that practically commit suicide and extreme genocide without wanting to, but still knowingly, intelligent?
By developing the intelligence to create advanced weaponry even though we have not surpassed all of our ancestral patterns - e.g. competition for shared resources.
Though I'll note that I wouldn't describe anything as "more evolved" since that is not a real/tenable measurement.
No animal, on record, knowing destroys themselves- by that I mean like a vulture intentionally infecting its prey, like humans intentionally destroy the entities that give life (trees etc.).
What I meant by genocide is the mass deforestation/pollution/etc. that will lead to inhospitable or a disatified environment for not only themselves (hence why I said suicide) but for their family kids (future grandkids and family) and others. They can prevent this (to the extent of human caused phenomena) but knowingly and intentionally choose not to...? That is not intelligent- and this fits the criterion of a multitude of psychological disorders.
LOL. And you expect people to believe you study zoology. Many animals eat their young especially the male species. Many animals fight to the death. If you put two and farms together they will completely destroy each other. What a joke.
You are again invoking someone else as a validator for a point. Develop some intellectuality and back up your assertions with reasoning of your own.
Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.
As I requested before, refrain from interposing on my arguments given that half of the time you do not make any sense- which is likely due to you understanding or a lack thereof. And you wait for someone to dispute me, then you add on so you can have a sense of security (or up-votes). Funny thing is, most times your security fails and consequently so do you (as in this case, and more recent cases).
Furthermore, he was just as wrong as you, though he understood my point quite well. He is just pretending there is not a distinction between knowingly destroying yourself, and doing so unknowingly. The animals that commit suicide aren't thinking "gee I hate my life," like humans.
Again changing what you meant to win the argument. Same old same old.
What does that mean? Superstition is superstition - the "extent" is a function of cognitive capacity. So the nuanced nature of our belief systems inures to the greater mental ability being that of humans. Humans are not only capable of animalistic superstition, but we also have the ability to overcome those superstitions.
No animal, on record, knowing destroys themselves
Animals have committed suicide, eaten their young, eaten other members of their species and social group, eaten all of the resources (vegetation, prey, etc.) of an area leading to mass death and even extinction of their species.
I think we are starting to tangent away from the rights discussion towards a debate that we have largely already had. I've already mentioned that I think "more evolved" is not a good articulation of my opinion on the matter - maybe you could respond to my post on the topic instead.
My key point was knowingly. You are the only one in conflict with scientist when you say that humans understanding evolution any why it would be disadvantageous t destroy their young, is equivalent to an animals understanding.
Also when you say 'suicide' pretending as if an animal is thinking 'I hate my life' like a human would think. The rhetorical strategies doesn't help your argument. Please be honest when you cannot hold a position instead of backing it up with rhetoric.
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??
There are, of course, many instances of animals that take actions which kills themselves - usually to preserve their kin (their own genes, or their colony, etc.), but also sometimes out of sadness.
Please site these instances that are depicted in such a way in which you have described.
To try to say they have to have the same level of knowing is to try to create an impossible comparison (your own rhetorical strategy).
It's perfectly reasonable to presume that the animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics, at least enough to know the tactic one should take in order to kill itself (sort of like certain birds flinging themselves off of cliffs). Jumping off of a cliff to kill yourself requires that you know fundamental physics, and in an animals head (reasonably presuming) when faced with such obstacles they instinctually think "danger danger!"
So in the event that they just jump intentionally it would be more plausible to postulate something other than [the animal] thinking "I am tired of this life, It's best I just end it".
Now, can you say how any of this relates to what rights animals and humans do or should have??
It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly, as in, they have the ability to understand the outcome of a suicidal action- and I would love to see an exemplar cited elaborately.
animals are not too much informed about the laws of physics
Which confirms my assertion that you're only trying to establish an impossible comparison.
It was you who falsely asserted that animals destroy themselves knowingly
Actually, you were the one that initiated the discussion by asserting the opposite: "Humans believe in things that don't exists, knowingly destroy themselves and are self-administering the criterion for intelligence"
So, I'll ask again, how is the discussion of whether a human more knowingly commits suicide relevant to the discussion of what rights exist?
The unfortunate truth is that might makes rights. You can do anything that you are not stopped from doing. Humans have a lot more power to enforce our will than animals collectively. Therefore, even if we were to decide to take it upon ourselves to treat non-human animals the same as humans, it would be done through our delegation not their power and human rights would retain intrinsic primacy.
If all the animals on Earth combined attacked humans then people would die. So many animals on Earth have more strength then humans, and some have poison. We are tragically unmatched to deal with an event like the one you are suggesting. Humans are weak creatures and we have weapons that are ineffective aginsts certain animals. Might doesn't make rights, typically men are the physically stronger gender you argument suggusts that women, being physically weaker than most men, should not have the same rights.
If all the animals on Earth combined attacked humans then people would die.
Yet animals do not have the wherewithal to plan or carry out such a coordinated attack - so that is irrelevant, no?
Might doesn't make rights
There are no natural rights. To the extent that any rights exist, it is through the collective will/ability to enforce them.
typically men are the physically stronger gender you argument suggusts that women, being physically weaker than most men, should not have the same rights.
A) This has been the history of such "rights" and is still the case in much of the world.
B) It does not say what should be the case, only what is the case.
Okay I feel like I must clarify my previous statement. I read in a comment about how humans could take on all the animals on earth I was providing a hypothetical situation to combat that statement. Right are not something you would typically find in nature, at least not to the human scale, but even if a species doesn't have the current ability to understand the concept of rights, something even some humans struggle with, that does not mean they shouldn't have them. Think of an infant or young child, they typically don't understand the idea of rights until they are explained, does that mean thy should not have rights such as right to food, right to safety, or the right to continue living? No. I know physical power isn't the only power in the world but it is a strong one, police are sometimes required to use physical force to restrain a person or group. I am trying to pose a theoretical situation that both should and should not be taken literally.
Okay I feel like I must clarify my previous statement.
Indeed - thanks for the clarification.
I read in a comment about how humans could take on all the animals on earth I was providing a hypothetical situation to combat that statement.
That was either someone else's comment or a misreading of mine. I was discussing reality, not a very far-fetched hypothetical.
even if a species doesn't have the current ability to understand the concept of rights, something even some humans struggle with, that does not mean they shouldn't have them.
My post said nothing about rights being determined by the "ability to understand the concept of rights".
I am trying to pose a theoretical situation that both should and should not be taken literally.
Not sure what you are saying here. I think you might be intending to ask whether we should treat animals equally rather than whether their rights are equal.
you do know we humans are the superior race on the planet?? we may not be able to out strength, swim, poison or jump all species but we can out smart any of them, and you say we have weapons that are ineffective against certain animals??? I reckon an RPG would kill pretty much any animal or a nuclear bomb? or C4 I could go on all night!!
Even God said animals do not have equal rights compared to humans.
Genesis 1:26 (NIV) says "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
This verse is basically saying that mankind has more power over the animals, and therefore, more rights.
I find your dogma disturbing. You sound like a stoicist as most religious folks are. I suppose having such a bigoted in the name of religion is better than being a hateful nincompoop, but still no real debate can exist between a strict religious individual and a sceptic, my reason is better then your dogma so....ha ha!
The general consensus is that Humans have more rights than animals.
This is especially evident through the practice of animal testing. While there are minorities who oppose the practice, most would agree that animal testing is a necessary practice.
The majority is stupid. people treated the slaves poorly because they could not stand up for themselves and they treat animals the same way this is why democracy does not work the people base there opinion on dogma and emotional bias.
Well considering were the superior species on the planet and we dictate the rules on rights, I would say no! because animals are perceived as a lower form of intelligence and significance.
We are at the top of the food chain and animals are on the menu, so its impossible for them to have the same rights as us until there no longer a food source?
Its funny the more intelligent the animal is the less likely we are to eat it i.e. dolphin, the more dumber the animal the more likely we are to eat it and treat it in a certain way i.e. chicken.
Of course its not the same. You think animals should be given council accomodation when they are homeless? Medical cover? And which animals would this extend to? Ants for example? Or only the cuddly kind of animal. Silly liberal logic.
Here's the big question- Are rights in fact objective, and measurable? Or are they social constructs primarily tied to government?
I believe they are the latter. That tells a lot about what rights are- rights only exist if you, or someone acting on your behalf (primarily governments) has the capability to enforce the protection of said rights.
So, working from there- in most developed countries animals do have rights that are protected by governments and their law enforcement officers. For the most part, though, they are decidedly inferior to the rights granted to humans; I'm not aware of any society that holds animals to have equal rights to humans. Individuals and organizations of individuals certainly can, but I'm not aware of any of these who actually have the capability to enforce the protection of animal rights on any kind of scale.
Consider for a moment: Do individuals living in countries controlled by Sharia law have the right to free practice of religion? It would appear not. If one believes that these individuals do have rights that are being violated, from where do those rights originate? Why is a society who believes in individual right to religious expression objectively right, and why is a society who does not believe in this objectively wrong?
