Should animals have rights?

[Risottia]

So some not-exactly-secular consideration was taken into account.

No its not the religious symbolism but the utility of the cow

That was true in the 1950's. But nowadays? There are more efficient ways of tilling a field than an ox-driven plough.
It would have made more sense to put that provision in an ordinary law, instead of in the Constitution. Meh!

Brazil and India has the highest number of cattle in the world, around 189 and 187 million respectively.

Yet Brazil slaughters cow and it doesn't look like their agriculture is suffering a lot from it.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Well what the fuck makes cow milk so special? There's literally no reason why people drink goat milk and cow milk but are disgusted by everything else.

Because that is what they do, drink cow, buffalo and sometimes goat milk ( i.e Gandhi did that)

So instead of making it illegal to slaughter cows, just have each one fulfill a quota of milk before it can be slaughtered. Or, you know, have separate dairy farms like the rest of the world.

[Risottia]

Because that is what they do, drink cow, buffalo and sometimes goat milk ( i.e Gandhi did that)

So instead of making it illegal to slaughter cows, just have each one fulfill a quota of milk before it can be slaughtered. Or, you know, have separate dairy farms like the rest of the world.

By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
India produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. India ranks 5th in the world in beef production, 7th in domestic consumption and 1st in exporting.[7]
Looks like that article isn't that binding after all.

[Manisdog]

So instead of making it illegal to slaughter cows, just have each one fulfill a quota of milk before it can be slaughtered. Or, you know, have separate dairy farms like the rest of the world.

By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
India produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. India ranks 5th in the world in beef production, 7th in domestic consumption and 1st in exporting.[7]
Looks like that article isn't that binding after all.

Since when did a directive principle of state policy be binding

[Eagalya]

First things first. Asking "Should X have rights?" implies that those rights are non-existent initially. It's a question of whether not a given right should be recognised in law.

I believe do believe that animals, many of them being sentient (but not necessarily sapient species, therefore not entitled to full rights), have the right to be free harm and suffering for simply convenience and profits.

[Union Of Canadorian Socialists Republic]

The concept of rights involves the mutual recognition of another's own rights. By giving species A, B, and C legal rights, they would be expected to respect the rights of eachother as we would theirs.

Would we be obligated to punish an organism of species A for harming species B?

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

The concept of rights involves the mutual recognition of another's own rights. By giving species A, B, and C legal rights, they would be expected to respect the rights of eachother as we would theirs.

Would we be obligated to punish species A for harming species B?

Only if species A is human. Basically, 'giving animals rights' means taking away people's rights, not giving animals any right.

[Eagalya]

The concept of rights involves the mutual recognition of another's own rights. By giving species A, B, and C legal rights, they would be expected to respect the rights of eachother as we would theirs.

Would we be obligated to punish an organism of species A for harming species B?

Likely not, as we are only talking about recognising the limited rights that species which are sentient but not sapient are entitled to. Species which are sentient but not sapient cannot really be held accountable for their own actions in most cases, but they can experience pain and suffering and as such as entitled to protection from such especially when it comes to being used simply for the convenience and profits of a sapient species (humans).

[Syndicapolis]

Ugh, why was I so late to the party on this thread? I'll just give my 2 cents anyway...

Maybe this is my Jain upbringing speaking for me (the vegetarianism is the only part of Jainism I haven't ditched) but I do think animals should be given basic rights. These rights are not inherent, because no rights are inherent and nothing, really, is inherent. I just think a being that consciously tries to do a certain thing - to live, for instance - should have the right to do so. While I agree that, as has already been mentioned, sentient beings shouldn't have as many rights as sapient beings since they don't have the same capacity for suffering, I also believe that what rights animals do have should not be infringed on by humans for humans' benefit, just as humans shouldn't infringe on the rights of other humans for their own benefit.

[Courlany]

Dear OP,

Humans are animals, are they not?

-Courlany

[Manisdog]

Ugh, why was I so late to the party on this thread? I'll just give my 2 cents anyway...

Maybe this is my Jain upbringing speaking for me (the vegetarianism is the only part of Jainism I haven't ditched) but I do think animals should be given basic rights. These rights are not inherent, because no rights are inherent and nothing, really, is inherent. I just think a being that consciously tries to do a certain thing - to live, for instance - should have the right to do so. While I agree that, as has already been mentioned, sentient beings shouldn't have as many rights as sapient beings since they don't have the same capacity for suffering, I also believe that what rights animals do have should not be infringed on by humans for humans' benefit, just as humans shouldn't infringe on the rights of other humans for their own benefit.

Ah another jain just like me

[Twilight Imperium]

(the vegetarianism is the only part of Jainism I haven't ditched)

Ah another jain just like me

might wanna read again m8

[The Great Nation of Dan]

Ugh, why was I so late to the party on this thread? I'll just give my 2 cents anyway...

Maybe this is my Jain upbringing speaking for me (the vegetarianism is the only part of Jainism I haven't ditched) but I do think animals should be given basic rights. These rights are not inherent, because no rights are inherent and nothing, really, is inherent. I just think a being that consciously tries to do a certain thing - to live, for instance - should have the right to do so. While I agree that, as has already been mentioned, sentient beings shouldn't have as many rights as sapient beings since they don't have the same capacity for suffering, I also believe that what rights animals do have should not be infringed on by humans for humans' benefit, just as humans shouldn't infringe on the rights of other humans for their own benefit.

Maybe this is my fascist upringing speaking for me (it's different from nazism and stalinism both of which I haven't ditched) but I do think animals/humans shouldn't be given basic rights. There are no rights that are inherent. I believe that a human/animal/being that lives not matter what kind should have as much rights as another. As all things have proven to have the same or similar capacity for emotion and suffering. I believe that what rights animals/humans/beings/sentient creatures should all be infringed for the benefit of everyone. Freedom kills and has no real benefit.

[New Socialist South Africa]

The concept of rights involves the mutual recognition of another's own rights. By giving species A, B, and C legal rights, they would be expected to respect the rights of eachother as we would theirs.

Would we be obligated to punish an organism of species A for harming species B?

That isn't how rights end up working often. For example we, by which I mean many people and many governments, recognise the rights of humans incapable of recognising anthers rights, such as severely mentally handicapped people, infants and people in comas.

Rights are ultimately a social construct that we dish out to those we feel deserve them on a whim, that is why it is so easy for authoritarian governments and regimes, as well as lawbreakers to breach them when they have the power to do so. Rights often have the concept of the mutual recognition of another's own rights in liberal societies, but that is merely because the creators of those rights decided that it would be a feature.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

just about every female land mammal can make milk, actually.

Yeah. And they don't go on about it all the time either. "Oooh, squeeze me before I burst, oooh!"

God, this is actually creepy, maybe perverted.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

I don't believe in vegetarianism for ethical reasons.

If I had to work, buy and cook myself, I'd likely try vegan to the core of my heart, but I don't think I will ever fully refuse animal products as long as they are useful/delicious and someone gave me them for free.

I think torture, breakage of family groups who develop bonds and other unnecessary suffering of animals should be totally avoided, though.

[New Stinkonia]

Regardless the vast majority of animals bred like this are killed humanely,

No, they're not.

And they're not raised in humane conditions.

Cram an impossible number of animals together in a factory farm, crudely cut their tusks, horns or beaks so they won't be able to kill each other in response to the overpopulation, and then claim it's not your fault because economic considerations force you to do it that way? Okay, that's where things get interesting because it means society is going to have to weigh what its morality is worth against having cheap wings, eggs, beef etc.

Exactly.

Although on this issue I'm pretty sure the pursuit of undisturbed comfort and the greed it feeds will win over any 'morality'.

And it seems to me like the main reason most people are against human rights abuses is ultimately to protect themselves from a similar fate. It's in a human's best interest to elevate the human species to a level that should be respected, while an animal is just there for convenience; because they are human, not "animal". There is a long history of people inflicting suffering for profit and convenience on other people. A trend which continues to this day.

You know what the problem is with animal rights?

If we had animal rights as well as human rights, medical science would come to a standstill.

How are we supposed to manufacture drugs, medicines, cures for diseases, etc., if we are not allowed to experiment or cause harm to animals?

If there's a disease rampantly wiping out the Earth's population, if we're not allowed to experiment on human subjects, then damn well take in the piggies and start injecting shit.

As for the dilemma of making animals suffer in food production, well, I suppose it's fair to decrease their suffering a bit. However, my previous point stands:

Animal experimentation, in any and all capacities, as long as it advances science or medicine, should always be legal.

Nobody said we should ban all scientific research.

If scientific research can help humanity truthfully advance, it should be the priority. With that said, it's not like discretion can't be used even when using animal testing for research. If we're going to be honest about trying to prevent animal cruelty, we shouldn't give a blanket pass to any and all animal testing that any crackpot feels like doing. If it can be done without animals, it should be done without animals.

Animals kill each other for food all the time, that's nature, all people did was streamline the process.

Along with the greater capacity to kill animals, we're supposed to have a capacity for empathy that animals lack. We're not off the hook simply because animals do it, too.

If we take the nature argument to its conclusion, it should be fine if I beat you up and then rape your girlfriend. Why not? It happens in nature all the time.

[New Stinkonia]

Dear OP,

Humans are animals, are they not?

-Courlany

The implication is layman's terms, there are humans and then there are animals.

[The Confederacy of Nationalism]

Regardless the vast majority of animals bred like this are killed humanely,

No, they're not.

And they're not raised in humane conditions.

Cram an impossible number of animals together in a factory farm, crudely cut their tusks, horns or beaks so they won't be able to kill each other in response to the overpopulation, and then claim it's not your fault because economic considerations force you to do it that way? Okay, that's where things get interesting because it means society is going to have to weigh what its morality is worth against having cheap wings, eggs, beef etc.

Exactly.

Although on this issue I'm pretty sure the pursuit of undisturbed comfort and the greed it feeds will win over any 'morality'.

And it seems to me like the main reason most people are against human rights abuses is ultimately to protect themselves from a similar fate. It's in a human's best interest to elevate the human species to a level that should be respected, while an animal is just there for convenience; because they are human, not "animal". There is a long history of people inflicting suffering for profit and convenience on other people. A trend which continues to this day.

You know what the problem is with animal rights?

If we had animal rights as well as human rights, medical science would come to a standstill.

How are we supposed to manufacture drugs, medicines, cures for diseases, etc., if we are not allowed to experiment or cause harm to animals?

If there's a disease rampantly wiping out the Earth's population, if we're not allowed to experiment on human subjects, then damn well take in the piggies and start injecting shit.

As for the dilemma of making animals suffer in food production, well, I suppose it's fair to decrease their suffering a bit. However, my previous point stands:

Animal experimentation, in any and all capacities, as long as it advances science or medicine, should always be legal.

Nobody said we should ban all scientific research.

If scientific research can help humanity truthfully advance, it should be the priority. With that said, it's not like discretion can't be used even when using animal testing for research. If we're going to be honest about trying to prevent animal cruelty, we shouldn't give a blanket pass to any and all animal testing that any crackpot feels like doing. If it can be done without animals, it should be done without animals.

Animals kill each other for food all the time, that's nature, all people did was streamline the process.

Along with the greater capacity to kill animals, we're supposed to have a capacity for empathy that animals lack. We're not off the hook simply because animals do it, too.

If we take the nature argument to its conclusion, it should be fine if I beat you up and then rape your girlfriend. Why not? It happens in nature all the time.

1. Aha, empathy is no match for efficiency
2. Be my guest, you can beat me and rape my girlfriend if you please, but the state then has every right to imprison you.

[The Emerald Legion]

Animals are animals. They are incapable of understanding, and thus, of no importance to human society save as raw materials. Those that can be trained to fill useful roles? By all means, grant them rights fitting to their station. That a cow has the capacity to suffer is worth nothing, and of no consequence to it's ultimate role.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Tamoi's worldview is a lot different than mine, but I don't see what's the big deal about raising animals without medicine. It's not like the animals would have medical care if they were in the wild.

Yes and their lives are unpleasant in the wild. While I don't think that the use of antibiotics like in factory farming (where the animals are just constantly given antibiotics, leading to the development of resistance), it's still good to treat an ill animal in one's care (especially because some animals develop shit that can cross species barriers).

Even if Tamoi and the goats get sick, it's not likely to spread. They're in a part of Maine where nobody else lives.

[United facist States of America]

Animals are animals. They are incapable of understanding, and thus, of no importance to human society save as raw materials. Those that can be trained to fill useful roles? By all means, grant them rights fitting to their station. That a cow has the capacity to suffer is worth nothing, and of no consequence to it's ultimate role.

So creatures who can go to war, use computers, use tools and build complicated structures can't understand anything?

[Napkiraly]

What I am saying is that I'm more important than your dog.

Not really. I'd save my dog over most of the people I know.

[Eagalya]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30571577

In case anyone missed it. Seems a court in Argentina has recognised the limited rights of non-human animals, in this case an orangutan. It appears that she is now to be given her freedom from the Buenos Aires Zoo and transferred to a primate sanctuary in Brazil.

[Risottia]

By the way:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_slaughter_in_India
India produced 3.643 million metric tons of beef in 2012, of which 1.963 million metric tons was consumed domestically and 1.680 million metric tons was exported. India ranks 5th in the world in beef production, 7th in domestic consumption and 1st in exporting.[7]
Looks like that article isn't that binding after all.

Since when did a directive principle of state policy be binding

Dunno, usually the articles of a Constitution tend to be rather on the binding side of it.