# Do animals have moral rights too? A vegetarian take ...



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hey Guys

Here is an article I reviewed recently from one of the MSN Forums I monitor.... It is an interesting spin on animal rights made by a vegetarian. This is the kind of rhetoric that the opposition would use to end all hunting. I felt it was important to share to show what sportsmen are up against in the future. It would be wise to understand how they will try and use the law to change the legal definition of animal rights in order to further their goals.

Ryan

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Right For All
by Professor Gary Francione

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opi ... 825205.100

[The magazine takes letters at:
http://www.newscientist.com/contactpers ... pient=lett]

One right for all; We treat animals how we used to treat human
slaves. What possible justification is there for that, asks Gary
Francione

---

Do animals have moral rights? What kind of legal status should we
afford them? This debate has become hugely confused. Some animal
rights campaigners maintain that we should allow animals the same
rights enjoyed by humans. That is, of course, absurd. There are many
human rights that simply have no application to non-humans.

I would like to propose something a little different: that a sensible
and coherent theory of animal rights should focus on just one right
for animals.

That is the right not to be treated as the property of humans.

Let me explain why this makes sense. At present, animals are
commodities that we own in the same way that we own automobiles or
furniture. Like these inanimate forms of property, animals have only
the value that we choose to give them. Any moral or other interest an
animal has represents an economic cost that we can choose to ignore.

We have laws that supposedly regulate our treatment of our animal
property, and prohibit the infliction of "unnecessary" suffering.
These laws require that we balance the interests of humans and
animals in order to ensure that animals are treated "humanely". It
is, however, a fallacy to suppose that we can balance human
interests, which are protected by claims of right in general and
of a right to own property in particular, against the interests of
animals which, as property, exist only as a means to the ends of
humans. The animal in question is always a "pet" or a "laboratory
animal" or a "game animal" or a "food animal" or a "circus animal" or
some other form of animal property that exists solely for our use. We
prohibit animal suffering only when it has no economic benefit. The
balance is unbalanced from the outset.

There are parallels here with the institution of human slavery. While
we tolerate varying degrees of human exploitation, we no longer
regard it as legitimate to treat anyone, irrespective of their
particular characteristics, as the property of others. In a world
deeply divided on many moral issues, one of the few norms steadfastly
endorsed by the international community is the prohibition of human
slavery. Some forms of slavery are worse than others, yet we prohibit
all of them - however "humane" - because they more or less allow
the fundamental interests of slaves to be ignored if it provides a
benefit to slave owners. We recognize all humans as having a basic
right not to be treated as the property of others.

Is there a morally sound reason not to extend this single right - the
right not to be treated as property - to animals? Or to ask the
question another way, why do we deem it acceptable to eat animals,
hunt them, confine and display them in circuses and zoos, use them in
experiments or rodeos, or otherwise treat them in ways in which we
would never think it appropriate to treat any human irrespective of
how "humane" we were being?

The response that animals lack some special characteristic that is
possessed solely by humans not only flies in the face of the theory
of evolution, but is completely irrelevant to whether it is morally
permissible to treat non-humans as commodities - just as differences
among humans would not serve to justify treating some as slaves. Also
of no use is the response that it is acceptable for humans to exploit
non-humans because it is "traditional" or "natural" to do so. This
merely states a conclusion and does not constitute an argument.

The bottom line is that we cannot justify human domination of
non-humans except by appeal to religious superstition focused on the
supposed spiritual superiority of humans. [Such statements have the
potential to divide groups of people and they are, I believe, very
counterproductive in terms of promoting vegetarianism and better
conditions for animals. I believe in seeking common ground and not
making divisive statements. The reality is that Judaism has many very
powerful teachings on compassion to animals. If these teachings were
followed, there would be far less mistreatment of animal. Since
people are created in God's image, we should imitate God's positive
traits of compassion, justice, and sharing. That people were given
dominion means that we should be responsible stewards. Only human
beings can make choices re our diets and we have the capacity to make
changes that can be very positive or negative for the future of
humanity.] Our "conflicts" with animals are mostly of our own doing.
We bring billions of sentient animals into the world in order to kill
them for reasons that are often trivial. We then seek to understand
the nature of our moral obligations to these animals. But by bringing
these animals into existence for reasons that we would never consider
appropriate for humans, we have already decided that animals are
outside the scope of our moral community altogether.

Accepting that animals have this one right does not entail letting
cows, chickens, pigs and dogs run free in the streets. We have
brought these animals into existence and they depend on us for their
survival. We should care for those currently in existence, but we
should stop causing more to come into being to serve as our
resources. We would thereby eliminate any supposed conflicts we
have with animals. We may still have conflicts with wild animals, and
we would have to address hard questions about how to apply equal
consideration to humans and animals in those circumstances.

Recognizing animal rights really means accepting that we have a duty
not to treat sentient non-humans as resources. The interesting
question is not whether the cow should be able to sue the farmer for
cruel treatment, but why the cow is there in the first place.

Gary Francione is professor of law and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach
Distinguished Scholar of Law and Philosophy at Rutgers University
School of Law, New Jersey


----------



## Field Hunter (Mar 4, 2002)

I'd say that animals have the moral right to be served up medium-rare on a bed of wild rice!


----------



## yellar (Nov 26, 2004)

Blah Blah Blah ,why don't those animals just start sending in their absentee ballots or making it to the polls on time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

So do those plants he/she eats have rights also???

I love these people who think animals should have rights....yet they don't hesitate to swat a fly with a flyswatter. :eyeroll:


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

They actually have the same laws that we have that being the laws of man and the laws of nature. As far as moral rights? Morality is only for humans and some are a little on the short end. There is nothing more beautiful than the laws of nature at work nor is there anything that is more cruel than the laws of nature at work.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

You know I think the writer of that artical "Professor Gary Francione" has a point, he could further enhance that point buy tearing down his house and give the land back to the animals that were their in the first place! Imagine the nests of baby squirrels and rabbits that were crushed under fallen trees just to make a home for the proffesor and his family "he should be ashamed"!!!
This is what happens to people who see only what they want to see. :eyeroll:
Either that or he is tring to get with some tree hugging hottie in the next classroom! :lol:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Maybe we should round-up all the Animals that eat other animals and lock them up for not being nice.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Tunnel vision.


----------



## alsatian (Dec 9, 2005)

No, animals do not have "rights."

Man was given dominion over all of creation by God. If you believe in the God of the Bible, that is the end of the line of ethical reasoning.

If this is not the source of your ethical reasoning, then you have to establish what IS the source of your ethics. Immanual Kant, in the Metaphysics of Morals, discusses ethics independently of the Bible, but bases his ethics on human beings. The statement he makes is that you must never treat a human being as a means but only as an ends captures this basing of ethics on human beings.

I have NEVER heard a reasoned ethics statement -- meaning starting from first principles -- that accords RIGHTS to animals. It is preposterous on its face, and it doesn't take much to deflate this idiocy.

I don't lose a lot of sleep worrying about stupid things people are prone to believe in. I grant that these people may mightily affect the world I live in, but I can't change that and won't spend my time attempting to do so. I can only hope that their supreme foolishness will lead to them eating something that kills them before their foolishness spreads to others or the accumulation of their votes reaches critical mass and enact deleterious public policy.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

alsatian , Thump that Bible


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Two crows at 80 yards and one armadillo at 110 yards recieved last Rites from my 17HMR this morning. Does that count.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I say we should give animals the same rights they give each other...

I think thats the right to eat or be eaten, if Im not mistaken.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

Lets go all the way and be just like an animal and eat the babies first.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

MMMMMMmmmmmm

Veal with a side of suckling pig.... yeah buddy


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Man was given dominion over all of creation by God. If you believe in the God of the Bible, that is the end of the line of ethical reasoning.


I've come to the conclusion that those who say they "believe in God" can use this as an excuse to do about any cruel thing they want to do.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Thats ok, I have found that those who dont believe in a God lack the moral compass to comprehend such matters anyway.


----------



## Remington 7400 (Dec 14, 2005)

Theres a place for all God's creatures........Right next to the Potatoes and Gravy!


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Thats ok, I have found that those who dont believe in a God lack the moral compass to comprehend such matters anyway.


See what I mean?


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

Ethics smethics. Pass the pork roast and gravy you atheist vegan. God is great. Amen.
Burl


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Thats ok, I have found that those who dont believe in a God lack the moral compass to comprehend such matters anyway.


I've also found out that those who say they "believe in God" also like to parot the talking points of the right wing talk shows, too.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jack's brat

Get over the emotion (mostly hatred) and post something with some substance. Like why you feel the way you do. What evidence do you have. You throw around the Christian thing without data. Statistics also says that everyone who eats pickles dies -----------------------eventually.

So back to the point Jack, are you against hunting? Are you for animal rights? Do you think only Christians hunt? What is it your trying to make a point of on this thread?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Ohhh two different remarks on the same quoted line. I touched a nerve!


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Get over the emotion (mostly hatred) and post something with some substance. Like why you feel the way you do. What evidence do you have. You throw around the Christian thing without data. Statistics also says that everyone who eats pickles dies -----------------------eventually.


I'm sorry if I appeared "emotional", I'm not. I don't hate anyone. I'll leave that part up to those so-called chriastians. But I am concerned about my country and the dirrection Bush and these so-called christians are taking it.



> So back to the point Jack, are you against hunting? Are you for animal rights? Do you think only Christians hunt? What is it your trying to make a point of on this thread?


No, I'm not against hunting. Spent my childhood in the woods with a rifle. Still Got one, just don't use it much any more. Got a trailer on a lake lot and a boat and a lifetime fishing license I plan to use as soon as the wheather warms up a little. That'll take my mind of Bush, I hope.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, good, now what are those directions you think are wrong?

Also, what is the cause of the bitter thoughts towards christians?


----------



## Draker16 (Nov 23, 2004)

Jacksbrat doesn't like Christians because he blames God for not giving him a brain.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I'm perrty sure that Militant_Tiger and jacksbrat are the SAME person! :eyeroll:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Google search jacksbrat and Militant_Tiger :rollin:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No they are not. Did you see Militant Tiger's posts on the Love Pub? Wow. They are causing problems on other conservative sites, and on christian sites. I wonder if it is coincidental or if they are our jacksbrat and militant tiger. Thanks for the heads up. I am speachless reading some of those posts.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

He has a lot of energy, to bad it's not used in a constructive manor. :eyeroll:


----------

