[muserskiy]

What is y'alls take on it? Why do we have the right to kill cows? If aliens came to earth with an intelligence as "superior" to ours in the same magnitude as ours to other animals, would they have the right to kill us?

[Phred]

What is y'alls take on it? Why do we have the right to kill cows? If aliens came to earth with an intelligence as "superior" to ours in the same magnitude as ours to other animals, would they have the right to kill us?

"Rights" is a null concept when applied to the interactions between species. Does a lion have the right to kill a gazelle? Does a virus have the right to kill a bacterium? The answer to those questions is neither yes nor no - it is a pointless question.


Phred

[Oxymoron]

Might always makes right in this world.

[Baff]

Cow = food for humans in this world.

[Goldberk]

I think that some ways we treat animals diminishes us as a species, it's not about natural rights but about the master mindset we are forced to adopt in order to justify the mass enslavement and genocide of other species.

[Lagrange]

I think that some ways we treat animals diminishes us as a species, it's not about natural rights but about the master mindset we are forced to adopt in order to justify the mass enslavement and genocide of other species.

This is beyond absurd. I understand there are anti-human undercurrents in the vegan movement, but "enslavement" and "genocide" -- really? Are you going to diminish the suffering of millions of humans throughout history who have toiled as slaves or who have lost their lives in senseless ethnic violence by comparing their plight to that of cows and pigs at the slaughterhouse?

That's just disgusting.

[Goldberk]

Why is it absurd? We do enslave other species, now it may not be as bad as crimes against human groups, but it does in a way define our psychology, we master and comodify nature through our relations with livestock.

[Lagrange]

Why is it absurd? We do enslave other species, now it may not be as bad as crimes against human groups, but it does in a way define our psychology, we master and comodify nature through our relations with livestock.

What a twisted worldview. The idea that our relationship with non-sentient animals is in any way comparable to how we treat fellow human beings is morally repugnant. It's the kind of ideology that leads to anti-science sentiment and actions and the rejection of the primacy of human life. Once you no longer hold the "antropocentric" idea that human life is the most valuable, all kinds of atrocities or abuses are justifiable.

[Quantum]

What is y'alls take on it? Why do we have the right to kill cows? If aliens came to earth with an intelligence as "superior" to ours in the same magnitude as ours to other animals, would they have the right to kill us?

Rights are a social construct and are not inherent. We can kill cows because we can and no higher animal can stop us from doing so. If aliens came to Earth, they have every right to enslave and eat us.

That doesn't preclude us from supporting animal welfare and humane treatment, which mutually benefits humans as well as the animals, in the form of high-quality meat and improved health.

[Godstud]

Animals do not have rights. We may grant them some measure of human empathy and compassion, but that's about where it ends.

[Baff]

My animals have whatever rights I grant them.

If you want to grant animals some rights, buy some.

[Someone5]

This is beyond absurd. I understand there are anti-human undercurrents in the vegan movement, but "enslavement" and "genocide" -- really? Are you going to diminish the suffering of millions of humans throughout history who have toiled as slaves or who have lost their lives in senseless ethnic violence by comparing their plight to that of cows and pigs at the slaughterhouse?

It's a comparison that was actually made by former slaves; and one that long predates the vegan movement. It's not really an absurd comparison at all, nor one that "diminishes" the plight of any slave. Using human slavery as an example of something horrible--then pointing out that how we treat farm animals is similarly horrible--does not "diminish" slavery. It's holding human slavery up as an example of something very horrible.

That's just disgusting.

Your sophistry is more-so.

[Someone5]

What a twisted worldview. The idea that our relationship with non-sentient animals is in any way comparable to how we treat fellow human beings is morally repugnant. It's the kind of ideology that leads to anti-science sentiment and actions and the rejection of the primacy of human life. Once you no longer hold the "antropocentric" idea that human life is the most valuable, all kinds of atrocities or abuses are justifiable.

The same is, incidentally, true in reverse. If you hold the primacy of one group of beings as a fundamental moral truth, you can justify any sort of atrocity or abuse against anyone who's not a part of that group. You say humans have primacy; there are many groups throughout history who have narrowed that somewhat and enacted horrible crimes because of it.

There is no moral wrong in saying that all things deserve fair consideration; to say that livestock ought to be given respect just as humans are given respect. Saying that comparing animals and humans is horrifying only makes sense if you already hold the belief that animals ought to be treated poorly.

Animal rights are an interesting problem, and something right-libertarians do not even bother to competently address.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

If we didn't eat cows chickens pigs etc. They would probably be extinct by now.

[Someone5]

If we didn't eat cows chickens pigs etc. They would probably be extinct by now.

Possibly, but what does that have to do with this discussion? Going back to the space alien slaver hypothetical... I'm not sure I would like or appreciate the alien argument that slavery for humans is totally fine, simply because we'd have probably killed ourselves if they hadn't enslaved us first.

[Lagrange]

If you hold the primacy of one group of beings as a fundamental moral truth, you can justify any sort of atrocity or abuse against anyone who's not a part of that group.

How do you define a "being"? Any living organism? Humans (along with our closest relatives and dolphins) are the only sentient beings on this earth. The idea that the needs of sentient sentient beings hold precedence over non-sentients is reasonable. I cannot imagine why anyone would support of a moral system that treats the torture of a dog and the torture of a human as equivalent. I think that special treatment of sentient beings makes sense on both a moral and scientific level. For what it's worth, I support great ape personhood.

You say humans have primacy; there are many groups throughout history who have narrowed that somewhat and enacted horrible crimes because of it.

So now animal cruelty is being elevated to the level of genocide as well, as if the contrived comparisons to slavery weren't enough?

It's very unsettling to know that there are people out there who value the lives of their fellow humans as much as they do the lives of animals. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place (animal cruelty is wrong and there are major issues with the meat industry and possibly with meat-eating in general) the extreme to which you carry out your argument (that we should be concerned about the suffering of animals) is frankly scary.

[Someone5]

How do you define a "being"?

Your question is not a relevant response to my statement. My statement was just as true if we limit it to humans as if we expand it to include any living thing. The moral principle remains the same no matter how wide you define "being."

Any living organism?

Probably not.

Humans (along with our closest relatives and dolphins) are the only sentient beings on this earth.

Again, this does not constitute any sort of meaningful response to the question about animal rights. Sentience may not be a requirement to grant certain rights; the ability to feel pain, for example, might constitute a sufficient neurological justification to grant rights that prevent mistreatment, if you truly need such a justification.

The idea that the needs of sentient sentient beings hold precedence over non-sentients is reasonable.

How is that reasonable?

I cannot imagine why anyone would support of a moral system that treats the torture of a dog and the torture of a human as equivalent.

Because that person is ethically consistent.

I think that special treatment of sentient beings makes sense on both a moral and scientific level. For what it's worth, I support great ape personhood.

I'm glad you recognize that your argument is a case of special pleading.

I don't have time this morning to get into the other question, I will later this afternoon.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

Possibly, but what does that have to do with this discussion? Going back to the space alien slaver hypothetical... I'm not sure I would like or appreciate the alien argument that slavery for humans is totally fine, simply because we'd have probably killed ourselves if they hadn't enslaved us first.

Just giving an opinion from a practical point of view.

[Godstud]

Because that person is ethically consistent.

No. That person has a few screws loose if they think a dog is equal to a human. There is more to ethical consistency that making absurd comparisons.

[Soix]

We may grant them some measure of human empathy and compassion, but that's about where it ends.

I agree with this and I wouldn't want to see any individual beat any animal.

If aliens came to earth with an intelligence as "superior" to ours in the same magnitude as ours to other animals, would they have the right to kill us?

This is, however, a very interesting hypothetical - like War of the Worlds.