cyrielo:
so to be clear are you really asking why do humans have the right to live and animals don't?

Nope nature kills us all with or without rights and we also kill ourselves - so not about our rights to live.

It's about rights to basic considerations and treatments.

bqlekan:

Are animals intellectually inclined enough to be aware of human rights?

Good question!



Ill say No.

From the christian point of view, we can find in Genesis how man must treat animals. In Genesis 1 God established the relationship between man and animal. In later verses, God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth. Man is to take care of and use the earth. Man is to have the authority over all that was created. This means that man is to assume the control and protection of all that God had created. Animals are to be used by men for our needs.

Animals were not used as food up till Genesis chapter 9. However, God now included certain animals in the diet of mankind and repeats His command in verse two to watch over these animals.


Man is the caretaker of the earth according to the Bible and as such should protect as much as possible animals from sickness, diseases and extinction, use the animals for his needs, keep them from harming humans and protect them from abuse.

They should

I for like become vegan, but for this country /economy.. No way..

winner01:
Good question!



Ill say No.

From the christian point of view, we can find in Genesis how man must treat animals. In Genesis 1 God established the relationship between man and animal. In later verses, God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth. Man is to take care of and use the earth. Man is to have the authority over all that was created. This means that man is to assume the control and protection of all that God had created. Animals are to be used by men for our needs.

Animals were not used as food up till Genesis chapter 9. However, God now included certain animals in the diet of mankind and repeats His command in verse two to watch over these animals.


Man is the caretaker of the earth according to the Bible and as such should protect as much as possible animals from sickness, diseases and extinction, use the animals for his needs, keep them from harming humans and protect them from abuse.

you are right, which is why I said we should respect and care for them so as to maintain the balance in the ecosystem.

if rights mean caring for them, then we can say they deserve it.

johnydon22:


We could say this in some basic sense towards some domesticated animals like Dogs.



Far, we are chauvnistic about our own kind, most animals are - most mammals do not eat their offsprings or their own kind



Is there any more to the definition of basic rights baba?

Yes.
In your opening post, you made reference to legal , social and ethical as a definition of rights.

It's funny. Just yesterday, my little nephew asked me to help him kill a fly. I refused and went to lengths to explain to him that even though flies are a nuisance, they deserve to live and fend for themselves just like humans do. I suggested we pursue the fly towards the door so that it can fly out.
He found it amusing that I chose not to kill the fly. But I am happy that I have given him something to talk about and also think about.

Therefore, awareness is what is needed, not an animal charter of Rights.

johnydon22:


So "Right" must be a mutual agreement before it is effective?

Only if you want the other party to reciprocate that right and privilege, else it does not have to be mutual. E.g. If I decide that strangers have a right to visit my house and take anything they want, it does not mean I have a right to go to their house and do the same. It become mutual if we agree. Same for animals. You give a snake right to live, does the snake reciprocate by not biting u? No, it does not recognize the right you gave it.

plaetton:

I completely agree.

Rights are social contracts that we negotiate with ourselves for mutual benefits.

What I've been saying. I don't know if johnydon is not getting it. Rights don't exist in nature. It simply does not exist

johnydon22:


We could say this in some basic sense towards some domesticated animals like Dogs.



Far, we are chauvnistic about our own kind, most animals are - most mammals do not eat their offsprings or their own kind



Is there any more to the definition of basic rights baba?

The human species does not care for their offspring because of the rights the child has. We do it because it is obligation to the growth of our society, the society created rights for children so the society can be stronger and safer. As a nigerian you are not alive for yourself alone, you are alive for your nation, so you must take care of the child else the society will purnish you. You also do it because of love for your offspring, we love recreating our genes, you care for the child out of affection, not because it has a right.

winner01:
Good question!



Ill say No.

From the christian point of view, we can find in Genesis how man must treat animals. In Genesis 1 God established the relationship between man and animal. In later verses, God gives to man authority over all that was created on earth. Man is to take care of and use the earth. Man is to have the authority over all that was created. This means that man is to assume the control and protection of all that God had created. Animals are to be used by men for our needs.

Animals were not used as food up till Genesis chapter 9. However, God now included certain animals in the diet of mankind and repeats His command in verse two to watch over these animals.


Man is the caretaker of the earth according to the Bible and as such should protect as much as possible animals from sickness, diseases and extinction, use the animals for his needs, keep them from harming humans and protect them from abuse.

Ok. Glad you said from christian poin of view. Else you would have had to explain why rights keeps evolving. Eg on slavery and women rights, even children rights, rights of foreigners etc except you want to say God keeps changing his mind on what rights to uphold.
Rights are totally man made. No animal, plant or natural phenomenon exhibits rights. Even the rights humans exhibit is out of empathy and self preservation. I know if I give you some rights, then I can also demand some rights. I hate homosexuality, but I think they have a right to that life if they want to they should just respect my own choices too. It's all based on what we stand to gain in the end

I believe that to some extent animals should have rights. Obviously we can kill them for sustenance, or when they become a nuisance to the environment or for other purposes because human rights always trump animal rights, but we should do this as humanely and as painlessly as possible.

But we aren't to misuse them for violence or perverted purposes.

This is because (depending on the class) animals feel pain and even emotions at varying levels. So, we should take these into consideration and treat them reasonably.

Right has been defined as the ethical principles of freedom or entitlement is not a natural agent but an artificial one.

Right was artificially made by man due to their views on life and the meaning they gave to it. Animals will start having right only when they too start creating it artificially or by simply been entitled to one by human extension.

Right to me is unnatural and man-made.

johnydon22:
On thursday 14/09/2016 i went for the usual Thinker's pub discussion hosted every two weeks by our very own MrAnony1, it was fun as usual..

Going straight to the topic of discussion as you may have well deducted from the heading of the thread.

Do animals have rights?

Let me define what Right is Going by the definition on Wikipedia encyclopedia we may define right as

Rights are legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement

Now the floor is open, it is an open discussion unrestricted to all.

Do you think animals should have or have rights?

If yes bring your reason and points - if no also bring your points

Let's discuss them

[N.B: You may present your argument from every angle whether scientific, philosophical, religious - all premises are welcome, these diverse pool of tapping ideas will make it more interesting and challenging.]

Let us also deal with each other more kindly as we engage in a free and peaceful battle of ideas using our words as Ammo.

Cc. LoJ, Seun, Dorox, Hahn, Plaetton, Joshthefirst, Joseph1038 ..

..... do u hold ur meeting in Lagos

bqlekan:


we humans can choose to be bad or good, animals can't, we have conscience, animals don't. You won't charge a python to court, will you?

animals behaviour is exactly like that of a mad man, you can't hold him responsible for his actions.

I disagree. Awhile you cannot hold a certifiably insane man responsible for his actions the activities of a python would should not be classified as mad or concienceless.

Example a python enters a hen house and swallows some chickens. The python does not recognise ownership of the hen house or chickens. It is governed by the simple rule of when i am hungry, I eat.

The same cannot be said of a thief who knows the hen belongs to someone else and still takes it.

I believe that the right of an animal so to speak from the human community is to recognise that the set of laws governing them are different from ours.

That been said what really is animal right. How to kill a goat? When to kill a goat? Why kill a goat?

The goat has to die to feed me that's not cruelty it nature just as a lion would equally eat me if it had the chance.

plaetton:


Without even thinking too much it, I would say animals should not have tights, for the simple reason that " legal , social and ethical" mean nothing whatsoever in the animal behavior or kingdom.

Going as far would greatly undermine and distort the great importance of animals in our food chain.

Logically, to say that animals deserve our definition of legal rights would be tantamount to saying that we should also hold animals accountable according to our legal, social and ethical norms.

What animals deserve is more compassion. We should not kill animals for sport. We should be careful and considerate when we encroach upon their habitats.

Oh but they do in thier own way. The only reason this is up for discourse is because as apex of the food chain you get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

The rights as we speak of doesn't change a thing for the animal.because it doesn't operate on the same level as you.

It's a kill or be killed world for them. They live they have the right to live, when they die they have lost the right to live.

The only rights animals deserve is to be cooked/fried/grilled/smokes/bbqd etc properly with the right amount of spice.

And a bottle of chilled orijin.

Animals are ment to be Eaten That's How nature designed it.. Humans are Animals too Children die Of mosquito bite Every year Which other animals fight for their Right? Go and watch animal planet and understand the Animal kingdom i was watching a documentary this snake climbed a tree entered into the nest and eat the baby bird their Are u saying this birds don't have Right to live to? The lioness hunts for it preys do u say those animals it hunts to eat don't have right to live to? #NoLifesmatter We should stop pretending The universe don't give a Fu*k about u. But the Good question for the Theist should be Why should god create animals & plant that we have to feed on other life forms to survive? Doesn't that look disgusting to a God? Watching baby birds get eaten by a Snake?

Doubles

Such an anthropocentric view here

Animals have their own rights. Snake kills hen, it thinks it is its right to do so.

armadeo:


I disagree. Awhile you cannot hold a certifiably insane man responsible for his actions the activities of a python would should not be classified as mad or concienceless.

Example a python enters a hen house and swallows some chickens. The python does not recognise ownership of the hen house or chickens. It is governed by the simple rule of when i am hungry, I eat.

The same cannot be said of a thief who knows the hen belongs to someone else and still takes it.

Does a mad man recognise ownership of a property? what about human rights? I've seen mad men steal food on the roadside. so, I say no difference between a python stealing my eggs and a mad man stealing my food. Both have no conscience and can't be held accountable. Rights shouldn't apply to both

I believe that the right of an animal so to speak from the human community is to recognise that the set of laws governing them are different from ours.

That been said what really is animal right. How to kill a goat? When to kill a goat? Why kill a goat?

Laws? you mean we are the ones to define their rights? Even though we don't know them too well. We can't even communicate properly with them. What if our so called animal rights are actually an abuse to them? Who knows?

we were able to define our rights because we can communicate with each other. A specie should and cannot lay down laws/obligations for different sets of species.

The goat has to die to feed me that's not cruelty it nature just as a lion would equally eat me if it had the chance.

The python has to die for two reasons
1) to feed me
2) for killing my livestock.

that is not cruelty, it is nature, it is the fight for survival. No rights can exist between Human and Animals.

shey Oga lalasticlala go church today nii? this thread deseve do now

jeff1993:
..... do u hold ur meeting in Lagos

Enugu

HCpaul:
Right has been defined as the ethical principles of freedom or entitlement is not a natural agent but an artificial one.

Right was artificially made by man due to their views on life and the meaning they gave to it. Animals will start having right only when they too start creating it artificially or by simply been entitled to one by human extension.

Right to me is unnatural and man-made.

If you study about a chimpanzee society or even Lion prides, Wolf parks you will see that in some sense they exist ethical behaviours and order exhibited in such setting that can be likened to our construct of rights [not necessary legal charters as that of humans] but of considerations

armadeo:


I disagree. Awhile you cannot hold a certifiably insane man responsible for his actions the activities of a python would should not be classified as mad or concienceless.

Example a python enters a hen house and swallows some chickens. The python does not recognise ownership of the hen house or chickens. It is governed by the simple rule of when i am hungry, I eat.

The same cannot be said of a thief who knows the hen belongs to someone else and still takes it.

I believe that the right of an animal so to speak from the human community is to recognise that the set of laws governing them are different from ours.

That been said what really is animal right. How to kill a goat? When to kill a goat? Why kill a goat?

The goat has to die to feed me that's not cruelty it nature just as a lion would equally eat me if it had the chance.

You have some good points - so we could say in terms of the "Food web" every specie is caught in that cruel net but aside that we should have considerations towards every specie?

armadeo:


Oh but they do in thier own way. The only reason this is up for discourse is because as apex of the food chain you get to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

The rights as we speak of doesn't change a thing for the animal.because it doesn't operate on the same level as you.

It's a kill or be killed world for them. They live they have the right to live, when they die they have lost the right to live.

It still is a kill or be killed world for us if we are intergrated into the wilds with other wild beasts - our only advantage lies in our intellect.

EyeHateGod:
Animals are ment to be Eaten That's How nature designed it.. Humans are Animals too Children die Of mosquito bite Every year Which other animals fight for their Right? Go and watch animal planet and understand the Animal kingdom i was watching a documentary this snake climbed a tree entered into the nest and eat the baby bird their Are u saying this birds don't have Right to live to? The lioness hunts for it preys do u say those animals it hunts to eat don't have right to live to? #NoLifesmatter We should stop pretending The universe don't give a Fu*k about u.

I do not think this really is about the "Food web" that is a natural setting therefore paramount - we are looking at levels after the essential need for food like right to protection from sexual abuse, right to freedom and so on.

Just because you are fully capable of torturing a dog, does it mean you should? Can't it also suffer like you do? Just because you can rape a goat, does it mean you should?

these are the areas of consideration.

Don't you think we should be considerate of other species we share this planet with since as you have said the universe doesn't give a F about anybody - so it doesn't hurt if we give an F about everybody by ourselves.

wiegraf:
Such an anthropocentric view here

Animals have their own rights. Snake kills hen, it thinks it is its right to do so.

I doubt. Humans have eaten humans in dare situations
Like this 1972 plane crash survivors who had to feed on eachother not because they thought it was their right, but nothing else to eat. Snakes don't feed on chickens because it thinks it's its right but because that is what it can feed on.
Some tribes apologize animals they kill before eating them. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217141/I-eat-piece-friend-survive-Torment-1972-Andes-plane-crash-survivor-haunted-ordeal-40-years-later.html

bqlekan:



Does a mad man recognise ownership of a property? what about human rights? I've seen mad men steal food on the roadside. so, I say no difference between a python stealing my eggs and a mad man stealing my food. Both have no conscience and can't be held accountable. Rights shouldn't apply to both

I think to some degrees most mad people know when they are wrong ... That is why most of them i have seen and know rather beg than take. if not they could just walk into any store oblivious of it's ownership just like a python would in a poultry.

Laws? you mean we are the ones to define their rights? Even though we don't know them too well. We can't even communicate properly with them. What if our so called animal rights are actually an abuse to them? Who knows?

I think the so called "rights" interprets sorely on the way we should treat them on varying degrees of circumstances.

we were able to define our rights because we can communicate with each other. A specie should and cannot lay down laws/obligations for different sets of species.

Just because a dog is unable to "Know" the "human" law that gives it protection from rape by men who practise bestiality doesn't mean it shouldn't be given such protection - NO?

The python has to die for two reasons
1) to feed me
2) for killing my livestock.

that is not cruelty, it is nature, it is the fight for survival. No rights can exist between Human and Animals.

3) trying to kill me.

I agree, It's just "you" adhering to the natural setting of survival of the fittest.... But killing a python just for sport without cause, need or use is irrational to me.

HardMirror:

I doubt. Humans have eaten humans in dare situations
Like this 1972 plane crash survivors who had to feed on eachother not because they thought it was their right, but nothing else to eat. Snakes don't feed on chickens because it thinks it's its right but because that is what it can feed on.
Some tribes apologize animals they kill before eating them. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2217141/I-eat-piece-friend-survive-Torment-1972-Andes-plane-crash-survivor-haunted-ordeal-40-years-later.html

exactly - survival is i think the number one innate drive of every specie, its a competitiv setting. You do what you have to in order to survive .

Animals do not and should not have any rights, firstly because my bible says so and because wetin them wan use the rights do?

raphieMontella:
@johnydon22...it depends to the extent..
Social and animals in a pack live by rules of their ''society''..
Well i think animals should be accorded basic rights..like in killing of animals..except those animals are disturbing our existence(survival advantages) then they shouldnt be killed...
The major issue is that their ''habitat'' increasingly differs from ours....

Are you a vegetarian?

I can only vouch for the rights of intelligent animals like dogs.

When Animals are given rights, we are indirectly elevating them to the status of human beings, which will pose a restriction on how we use them.

To me, it is more of injustice to treat unequal things equally...

Maybe sometimes in future, animals will evolve enough to formulate their own rights... As Right, for now is an intellectual property of Man.

All we need is sustainable usage, not rights.

ValentineMary:
I believe animals should be given rights.

First of all the privilege of right is a very important need for survival. We have developed so much in a short period of time because of certain rights we have. If there was no right then we live by Darwian natural selection (survival of the fittest) which many agree is a very sorry way to live. But with the establishment of rights, our society has gone pass that level of survival to the intellectual level of survival (the most intelligent survive).

So I believe animals should also have this right to make their existence more enjoyable. Because humans have made this false ego that they are special and this require better treatment. But all that might end when we realise we are just star dust.

Oh..... What do you mean? Aren't we Special? Tryna equate us with animals? Isn't there a wide gulf, huh? A remarkable difference?

Lemme ask you, what differentiates us from the beasts?