PDA

View Full Version : Absurdity of "animal rights"



Sarabi
Jul 18th, 2009, 09:12 PM
Here is a link to an article on an "animal rights library": http://www.animal-rights-library.com/authors-m/curtin.htm

In the article, the author very deliberately starts out by saying she is a "contextual moral vegetarian" as opposed to an animal rights vegetarian. Time after time, when I come across lists of links to articles on "animal rights," this is the kind of unrelated stuff that comes up.


Why? :confused:

Does this happen with other subjects? Is animal rights not yet considered a legitimate topic of study?

That article is interesting. However, it is not about rights. If they want an all-encompassing website, should they really call it an animal rights library? Look at the rest of the website, and you get Singer and other philosophers who have said nothing specifically about "animal rights."

Jiffy
Jul 26th, 2009, 07:13 AM
From a purely semantic viewpoint I have always found the term 'Animal rights' less than ideal, particularly if you subscribe to the notion that you cannot have rights without responsibilities. Clearly non-human animals cannot have moral or other responsibilities. Maybe one day someone will come up with a workable alternative to 'animal rights'.

Just my ill linformed two penn'orth anyway.

Sarabi
Jul 26th, 2009, 07:18 AM
From a purely semantic viewpoint I have always found the term 'Animal rights' less than ideal, particularly if you subscribe to the notion that you cannot have rights without responsibilities. Clearly non-human animals cannot have moral or other responsibilities. Maybe one day someone will come up with a workable alternative to 'animal rights'.

Just my ill linformed two penn'orth anyway.
I don't agree whatsoever, and I don't subscribe to this view of rights. Human babies have rights. What "responsibilities" do they have?

Jiffy
Jul 26th, 2009, 07:52 AM
I think this is going to be a circular argument which will boil down to pettifogging analysis of the terms in question.

Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical or dismissive towards the concept of AR, just being devil's advocate in pointing out the possible pitfalls of the term 'animal rights'. Surely we should be talking about human responsibilities rather than rights which animals don't have the conceptual apparatus to grasp or exercise.

Sarabi
Jul 26th, 2009, 08:37 AM
I think this is going to be a circular argument which will boil down to pettifogging analysis of the terms in question.

Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical or dismissive towards the concept of AR, just being devil's advocate in pointing out the possible pitfalls of the term 'animal rights'. Surely we should be talking about human responsibilities rather than rights which animals don't have the conceptual apparatus to grasp or exercise.
I really don't see what you're talking about. "I wasn't being dismissive towards AR... just pointing out possible pitfalls" YET "Surely we should be talking about... rather than rights." :dizzy:

Kate1978
Jul 26th, 2009, 10:08 AM
Just to be clear, I wasn't being critical or dismissive towards the concept of AR, just being devil's advocate in pointing out the possible pitfalls of the term 'animal rights'. Surely we should be talking about human responsibilities rather than rights which animals don't have the conceptual apparatus to grasp or exercise.

I have to say that I do have a problem with the term "animal rights". I feel that it has become hijacked by a vociferous minority who use it to justify criminal damage and violent acts. This damages the work of those who work hard in peaceful and creative ways to raise the general public's awareness of the plight of farmed animals. In the mainstream media, the phrase "animal rights extremist" trips off the tongue far too easily when describing activists. :rolleyes:

My choice not to use animals for food, clothing or entertainment is due to the fact that I feel that killing and abusing animals is morally wrong, not because of an intellectual argument that states animals have rights.

To return to Jiffy's original point: can we apply the language of choice, responsibility, rights, morals etc to animals? I would say that animals have interests (to live their lives free from abuse and slaughter). Is that the same thing as rights or are we differing on semantics? :dizzy:

puca
Jul 26th, 2009, 12:08 PM
I have to say that I do have a problem with the term "animal rights". I feel that it has become hijacked by a vociferous minority who use it to justify criminal damage and violent acts. This damages the work of those who work hard in peaceful and creative ways to raise the general public's awareness of the plight of farmed animals. In the mainstream media, the phrase "animal rights extremist" trips off the tongue far too easily when describing activists. :rolleyes:
Do you have this view about feminism too?

Just wondering because often, when some people have issues with feminism, it tends to be with the interpretation of misandry and not taking in to account that feminism is a huge area of intellectual thought.

Obviously not saying you do. :)

The word "extremist" is highly political too. Like you get Muslim extremists, but not Christian extremists apparently...

I agree with you on people using animal rights to justify violence, or criminal acts, but this has been done for many liberation movements, just not documented by history because of political bias... BUT the violent people in the animal rights movement do put people off and damage the cause. Totally. And the media will focus on it... Just like at the G20 protests there were one or two people kicking in RBS and all the journalists flocked there.:mad:

I think at least.

I believe in rights for all living creatures, rather than seperating human and animal rights. I don't claim to be an intellectual or anything... Far from it. But I figure that as no creature likes to suffer, then suffer cannot be a positive thing.

I don't understand why there should be heirarchy, philosophically or any intelligent arguments as to why people are above our four legged, feathered and scaled friends. Whenever I have seen it argued, it seems to have been done from an ethnocentric and culturally biased perspective, or at least one which could be used in a way to uphold cultural imperialism.

So that's just my view... I should probably read more philosophy on it as I'm a bit daft at that area. :o have read some Peter Singer though, it's a start.

Kate1978
Jul 26th, 2009, 02:09 PM
Do you have this view about feminism too?

Just wondering because often, when some people have issues with feminism, it tends to be with the interpretation of misandry and not taking in to account that feminism is a huge area of intellectual thought.

Interesting point. I think the mass media tend to latch onto the extreme version of anything out of the mainstream and paint that as the full picture. I also think that feminism has become a dirty word due to the the misunderstanding that you highlight above. :smile:


I believe in rights for all living creatures, rather than seperating human and animal rights. I don't claim to be an intellectual or anything... Far from it. But I figure that as no creature likes to suffer, then suffer cannot be a positive thing.

For sure. I guess the point I was making was more that the issue for me is that we humans possess the faculties for making responsible choices should exercise those. I'm not denying that animals have interests (rights if you will) not to be mistreated just as people do. It's just the political nature of the term encompasses activities which I feel uncomfortable with.

Returning to Sarabi's original post, I think that animal rights is a growing area of serious study, but is up against it in a speciesist culture. I am still educating myself on the subject, finding Gary Francione particularly interesting.