answered question
3
Votes
Votes
11
Answers
Answers
M$3.60
Do you believe animals should have equal sentient and/or protective rights as well as not treated or sold as property ?
I'll try and be very frank with you all as I have always done.
A good friend of my family has a helper dog.
She is specially trained and tooled for caring for sick kids at the local children's hospital.
She's a 3 year old ?Bernies? Beagle i believe.
Ever since I was about 10/15 years old I never understood the point of selling pets or treating and labeling them as property.
Our family friend has diabetes and a terrible heart condition she was also attacked as a child by a pit bull . She's a real talker , she will go on and on about her dog all day long. Just this week we got into a long discussion about the nature of pets roles in society among other things. , She basically told me her dog wouldn't know its ass from its elbow if she wasn't trained.
Even more so lately than not I have come to the realization that our society is seriously in need of help mentally and emotionally .
I also believe we have come to the point of no return with understanding the complexities of animals and wild life.
Its my belief that any animal that shows an interrogative nature is sentient and should never be sold or labeled as property .
I believe that if you kill or incapacitate wildlife or similar in anyway the penalty should be just as sever as would a human crime.
What are your thoughts on this ? Am I crazy ?
Will animals one day have equal protective rights ?
A good friend of my family has a helper dog.
She is specially trained and tooled for caring for sick kids at the local children's hospital.
She's a 3 year old ?Bernies? Beagle i believe.
Ever since I was about 10/15 years old I never understood the point of selling pets or treating and labeling them as property.
Our family friend has diabetes and a terrible heart condition she was also attacked as a child by a pit bull . She's a real talker , she will go on and on about her dog all day long. Just this week we got into a long discussion about the nature of pets roles in society among other things. , She basically told me her dog wouldn't know its ass from its elbow if she wasn't trained.
Even more so lately than not I have come to the realization that our society is seriously in need of help mentally and emotionally .
I also believe we have come to the point of no return with understanding the complexities of animals and wild life.
Its my belief that any animal that shows an interrogative nature is sentient and should never be sold or labeled as property .
I believe that if you kill or incapacitate wildlife or similar in anyway the penalty should be just as sever as would a human crime.
What are your thoughts on this ? Am I crazy ?
Will animals one day have equal protective rights ?
voted interesting: bunnyphuphu M$0.25, buddawiggi M$0.25, jasoncalacanis M$0.10
|
Report
answers (11)
I think that this issue, while philosophically interesting, can't actually be put into practice. Even as pets become a larger more important part of people's lives, you begin to have disputes over ownership crop up. Property is a weird one because you really are just selling the psychological concept of "ownership." As with the cat above, pets can assert their right to run for it, as can dogs. Property and ownership simply makes it easier to adjudicate disputes over animals, not "subject" them anymore than they are by being a pet.
| Asker's rating: |
You are the only one to bring up a philosophical point. I appreciate that greatly.
Great answer.
Great answer.
voted helpful: xds
Not every animals but ya they should have some.
They also feel pain.And don't forget
Dog the best faithfull frnd of man is also a animal.
Afterall blood also flow in their nerves
They also feel pain.And don't forget
Dog the best faithfull frnd of man is also a animal.
Afterall blood also flow in their nerves
Short but eloquent. I think we also should some day further define and understand wildlife and pet anatomy. If not the basics should be a required coarse in more schools .
This gets tricky because where do you draw the line? What is the cut off point where any animals below this line are available to sell/buy and any above must be treated as sentient beings?
Just to play devils advocate..
Just who would decide what "interrogative nature" is? One might find that a pet snake shows this trait and another might feel the snake is just a mindless reptile. etc.
"Cats owe us no allegiance" Just a quote from my mother after our cat left and never came back one time.
I'm all for the rights of animals and have even been known to joke that bacteria and germs should have basic rights to life as the rest of us do
Just to play devils advocate..
Just who would decide what "interrogative nature" is? One might find that a pet snake shows this trait and another might feel the snake is just a mindless reptile. etc.
"Cats owe us no allegiance" Just a quote from my mother after our cat left and never came back one time.
I'm all for the rights of animals and have even been known to joke that bacteria and germs should have basic rights to life as the rest of us do
;o) ok I know A snake with a very interrogative nature LOL jk
In all seriousness,
I think if a creature has a brain then it has a interrogative nature.
But i completely see what you mean, ?where would you draw the line?.
In all seriousness,
I think if a creature has a brain then it has a interrogative nature.
But i completely see what you mean, ?where would you draw the line?.
I am from asia, and i have always like, love and admire animals basically for their sentient. I have 3 dogs, i live alone and they are not trained, yet they have these consciousness to just help me around the house.
They let me know if there are stranger roaming around the compound where live by barking, They tease and play with me when they see me feeling down. They jump up my bed to wake me up when i am over sleeping. So they do lots of things to help me not get depress. I must say that they are caring and sensitive.
Our government are starting to get conscious and are creating law to protect animals. Anybody who does NOT enjoy having pet around the house is definitely missing something. Although just like humans, there are also some terrible and wild animals that we should stay away from.
I will always defend helpless animals when i see them being abused.
you are not alone, and certainly not crazy.
They let me know if there are stranger roaming around the compound where live by barking, They tease and play with me when they see me feeling down. They jump up my bed to wake me up when i am over sleeping. So they do lots of things to help me not get depress. I must say that they are caring and sensitive.
Our government are starting to get conscious and are creating law to protect animals. Anybody who does NOT enjoy having pet around the house is definitely missing something. Although just like humans, there are also some terrible and wild animals that we should stay away from.
I will always defend helpless animals when i see them being abused.
you are not alone, and certainly not crazy.
source(s):
Own experience
Own experience
voted helpful: xds
I appreciate your candor, thank you for your answer.
Yes we should ALL come to the defense of helpless creatures of this earth.
Who are we not to make this planet better.
Yes we should ALL come to the defense of helpless creatures of this earth.
Who are we not to make this planet better.
I disagree with some of your views. Animals are a source of food for many people. Cows can be inquisitive simply because they are curious about what you might bring them to eat. Perhaps you're a vegetarian?
Animals are also beasts of burden. Perhaps less so in the US, but all over the world they are still being bred, bought, and sold to assist us in transporting large amounts of goods that we may not have been able to do without them. They may also be pulling farming equipment to be able to sow the seeds that will feed a village.
Since most animals cannot communicate with humans in any complex manner (i.e. beyond simple gestures or behavior patterns), I find it difficult to treat them the same as I would a human. I like to eat meat, and if we grant livestock the same protective rights as we grant ourselves, then I will be paying a lot of money for black market meat.
That being said, perhaps our existing animal rights laws in the US are inadequate - but I do not believe in equality.
Animals are also beasts of burden. Perhaps less so in the US, but all over the world they are still being bred, bought, and sold to assist us in transporting large amounts of goods that we may not have been able to do without them. They may also be pulling farming equipment to be able to sow the seeds that will feed a village.
Since most animals cannot communicate with humans in any complex manner (i.e. beyond simple gestures or behavior patterns), I find it difficult to treat them the same as I would a human. I like to eat meat, and if we grant livestock the same protective rights as we grant ourselves, then I will be paying a lot of money for black market meat.
That being said, perhaps our existing animal rights laws in the US are inadequate - but I do not believe in equality.
voted helpful: psynopsis
Yes another issue that wouldn't immediately come to mind.
I don't completely agree with your view that animals are "beasts of burden".
Native Americans would honor their food by making sure no part of the creature was waisted.
Also what would be the unofficial policy if we found cows on another earth like or habitable planet?
..Something more to wonder about.
I see where you are coming from here traditionally cows are to be eaten among the traditional other many animals that roam the earth.
Where should restrictions end .
I don't completely agree with your view that animals are "beasts of burden".
Native Americans would honor their food by making sure no part of the creature was waisted.
Also what would be the unofficial policy if we found cows on another earth like or habitable planet?
..Something more to wonder about.
I see where you are coming from here traditionally cows are to be eaten among the traditional other many animals that roam the earth.
Where should restrictions end .
PS: BTW I'm not completely apprised of the animal rights laws in the US (im canadian), but i would imagine they are very similar to canadas if not more stringent.
Well, I hear you say you don't agree that animals are beasts of burden, but they certainly are when you look at other countries like Mexico, many in South America, Africa, and countries all over the world. A beast of burden performs tasks that would normally take more humans than the effort is worth. So I really don't see where you disagree. What would you consider a pair of oxen pulling a plow in rural South America?
Can't argue with that, however I could also see where wildlife from different countries each have a special idiosyncrasy that only people from that area might understand.
Jared Diamond claimed in Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies
that the ability to domesticate animals for agriculture was the single element that separated societies that dominated from societies that conquered. An interesting read.
that the ability to domesticate animals for agriculture was the single element that separated societies that dominated from societies that conquered. An interesting read.
We can't give other animals full human rights; but, they deserve a lot more.
There are no easy, fast lines to draw here any more than there are in other aspects of ethics. You have some rules of thumb and then you study each case.
The main problems in doing this are overcoming human greed, ignorance, and self-centeredness. These are made worse by unthinking adherence to tradition and by equally bad literal adherence to the convenient interpretation of holy books.
Scientifically, every time someone has guessed and adopted some simple notion that humans are unique because they do this or that, eventually some animal or other has been shown to be able to do it too. The idea that we are so unique and far above other animals is the first one that should be unlearned.
There are no easy, fast lines to draw here any more than there are in other aspects of ethics. You have some rules of thumb and then you study each case.
The main problems in doing this are overcoming human greed, ignorance, and self-centeredness. These are made worse by unthinking adherence to tradition and by equally bad literal adherence to the convenient interpretation of holy books.
Scientifically, every time someone has guessed and adopted some simple notion that humans are unique because they do this or that, eventually some animal or other has been shown to be able to do it too. The idea that we are so unique and far above other animals is the first one that should be unlearned.
hello, my only comment is something I've learned over the years. If a person didn't want to "have kids", yet wanted a companion, I used to think it would be good to have a companion animal. Nowadays, I've seen so many people take poor care of their pet animals. I'd suggest to these kind of people to "get a pet rock"... (seriously). I take better care of my pet bunny rabbits than some people do of their children. Yes, their is a vast array of behaviors.
@ earlier Blah , You're*
@krsstel
Pets can make excellent companions I agree, My step grandfather who had a doxen for over 15 years had many fond memories of the dog, once the dog died however I believe a part of him died as well. He became very ill shortly after his dogs death and past away a year later. Infact everyone around him was affected by this dogs death.
....I guess some pets are simply irreplaceable.
However I guess even using the word pet is used to loosely.
PPPS: Interestingly enough the word "doxen" isn't in the Google Chrome dictionary by default. ^.-
@krsstel
Pets can make excellent companions I agree, My step grandfather who had a doxen for over 15 years had many fond memories of the dog, once the dog died however I believe a part of him died as well. He became very ill shortly after his dogs death and past away a year later. Infact everyone around him was affected by this dogs death.
....I guess some pets are simply irreplaceable.
However I guess even using the word pet is used to loosely.
PPPS: Interestingly enough the word "doxen" isn't in the Google Chrome dictionary by default. ^.-
Mother nature is brutal. Animals kill other animals for food, and defense of the pack. So, I think the best way to keep them safe is to own them. If its your dog, you have an incentive to take care of him.
Its the incentive thats the problem, my incentives and another humans incentive might be completely different.
What do you mean?
It's hard to convey but i'll give it a shot.
A instinct of a specific tribe in a specific area would teach their offspring to eat and hunt deer at one time. It's then their incentive to hunt and kill deer.
Now lets say for arguments sake instead of deer we replaced them with dogs. And then with cats.
The incentive itself is a paradoxical divide. We hunt and kill other animals partially because this is what we are taught to do at one time or another in human history.
PS:
It then I guess became deer's incentive to fear humans.
A instinct of a specific tribe in a specific area would teach their offspring to eat and hunt deer at one time. It's then their incentive to hunt and kill deer.
Now lets say for arguments sake instead of deer we replaced them with dogs. And then with cats.
The incentive itself is a paradoxical divide. We hunt and kill other animals partially because this is what we are taught to do at one time or another in human history.
PS:
It then I guess became deer's incentive to fear humans.
In a word, no. I like animals, but do not hold them equal to humans. I do not believe there are any animals that have intelligence much greater than that of human child, and this would be for the most intelligent animals out there. We are the top species on this planet for a reason. Just as a tiger kills a gazelle, we kill and eat animals, and when we want sell them around. I have no problem with it.
Though I will add one more thought - perhaps our higher intelligence gives us a responsibility to create an advanced ethical structure that less developed animals could not conceive of. Perhaps.
Though I will add one more thought - perhaps our higher intelligence gives us a responsibility to create an advanced ethical structure that less developed animals could not conceive of. Perhaps.
Yes perhaps our own intelligence teaches us many things.
While I firmly believe that animals under human care should be treated humanely, I have several problems with the idea of granting animals "equal rights."
First, animals in the wild have no rights at all, except to the extent that they are protected from human activity by human-made laws. Non-human species can and do compete with and/or prey upon each other without compassion or mercy. An animal being cared for by humans in an appropriate environment (and this is a critical part of "humane" treatment) will probably lead a longer and less stressful life than its wild counterparts. You can call it "adoption" instead of "ownership" if you prefer, but the fact remains that people are choosing to take on the expenses of caring for animals, and the animals become dependent on their caregivers.
In a broader sense, entire species have been domesticated by humans and are dependent on us for their very existence. They have been bred for thousands of years to behave well under human control, and giving up ownership would only condemn many of them to a rapid extinction by predation.
A comparatively small, but highly publicized, group of captive animals consists of those used for medical and scientific research. The unfortunate truth is that there is no replacement for live animals when it comes to certain types of testing. While high-school biology classes can dissect virtual frogs instead of real ones, we still know too little to accurately model all of the complex biochemical, genetic, and environmental factors that may affect the toxicity of an experimental drug, or the long-term durability of a new type of artificial hip. Until we know enough about how humans function, from the molecular level on up, to build a comprehensive computer model, animal research will continue to be the only viable alternative. If animals have absolute rights, no animal research is possible, and the amount of human suffering may be greater as a result.
Finally, how do you define "interrogative nature"? Bacteria have chemoreceptors with which they analyze their environment, and they can modify their behavior based on this information. In a real sense, it's in their nature to interrogate their surroundings, and this is true of *all* life.
For better or worse, humans have become the only species on earth capable of both protecting and exterminating all other species. Ideally, having this much power should also convey a sense of responsibility. We should use this power wisely and humanely; but because we are its sole wielders I think that if a "line" regarding animal rights is drawn anywhere, it should acknowledge this distinction.
First, animals in the wild have no rights at all, except to the extent that they are protected from human activity by human-made laws. Non-human species can and do compete with and/or prey upon each other without compassion or mercy. An animal being cared for by humans in an appropriate environment (and this is a critical part of "humane" treatment) will probably lead a longer and less stressful life than its wild counterparts. You can call it "adoption" instead of "ownership" if you prefer, but the fact remains that people are choosing to take on the expenses of caring for animals, and the animals become dependent on their caregivers.
In a broader sense, entire species have been domesticated by humans and are dependent on us for their very existence. They have been bred for thousands of years to behave well under human control, and giving up ownership would only condemn many of them to a rapid extinction by predation.
A comparatively small, but highly publicized, group of captive animals consists of those used for medical and scientific research. The unfortunate truth is that there is no replacement for live animals when it comes to certain types of testing. While high-school biology classes can dissect virtual frogs instead of real ones, we still know too little to accurately model all of the complex biochemical, genetic, and environmental factors that may affect the toxicity of an experimental drug, or the long-term durability of a new type of artificial hip. Until we know enough about how humans function, from the molecular level on up, to build a comprehensive computer model, animal research will continue to be the only viable alternative. If animals have absolute rights, no animal research is possible, and the amount of human suffering may be greater as a result.
Finally, how do you define "interrogative nature"? Bacteria have chemoreceptors with which they analyze their environment, and they can modify their behavior based on this information. In a real sense, it's in their nature to interrogate their surroundings, and this is true of *all* life.
For better or worse, humans have become the only species on earth capable of both protecting and exterminating all other species. Ideally, having this much power should also convey a sense of responsibility. We should use this power wisely and humanely; but because we are its sole wielders I think that if a "line" regarding animal rights is drawn anywhere, it should acknowledge this distinction.
voted helpful: xds, buddawiggi
@badaspie
First nice to meet you.
Just perusing your answer you bring some interesting ideas and facts to the table. Thank you & thank you for your answer.
I think that any creature that shows any sign of both a learning capability as well as Inquisition might define that loosely.
But of coarse I have only just perused your answer.
First nice to meet you.
Just perusing your answer you bring some interesting ideas and facts to the table. Thank you & thank you for your answer.
I think that any creature that shows any sign of both a learning capability as well as Inquisition might define that loosely.
But of coarse I have only just perused your answer.
Yes, I agree with you all that animals are living beings. They have their rights, which most countries have established. (animal cruelty laws, retirement for old working animals and such..) However, as being treated as property and being sold I think we DO have the right to such things. Animals are sentient in a way, they perceive pain and pleasure but they are not rational beings.
We were made superior than them, and so become their master and they our slaves. I use the term 'slave' here to better explain what I mean. I'm not trying to refer to the the 'whip and forced labor' type of slave, just that we take care of them like we do our property with care. God wrote this himself in the Bible.
We were made superior than them, and so become their master and they our slaves. I use the term 'slave' here to better explain what I mean. I'm not trying to refer to the the 'whip and forced labor' type of slave, just that we take care of them like we do our property with care. God wrote this himself in the Bible.
Thank you for your answer psynopsis i can respect what you are saying, The entire question however is based on the sale and branded property of animals.
That being said. I hope your god and my god can be friends ;o)
That being said. I hope your god and my god can be friends ;o)
Perhaps their the same! :D Sorry, if I misinterpreted the question!
Yes, I do, particularly the other Great Apes.
The Great Ape project is working towards such a declaration.
The Great Ape project is working towards such a declaration.
voted helpful: xds
While I appreciate your answer I don't appreciate a plug for a particular single organization. Thank you for your answer, welcome to mahalo. Please excursive more discretion in the future.
That being said +1.
That being said +1.
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
(As to the idea of "badge of ownership")
Unfortunately historical philosophy or just philosophy in general isn't my strong suite, thats actually my fathers area of expertise and i'm sure he would be disagreeing with me somewhere for SOMETHING within this entire question =P ugh
Anyways thanks for the answer.