Animal Rights (1 Viewer)

[Trebla]

i think adequete healthcare is one of those basics like education that there should be universal access to independent of socioeconomic circumstance as it's a basic human right, not a privilege

The question is whether the same principle applies to animals.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Re: The p00n thread

The question is whether the same principle applies to animals.

Hmm do vets value an animals life to the same level as an human life? (speciesism )

 

[brent012]

Re: The p00n thread

Hmm do vets value an animals life to the same level as an human life? (speciesism )

Tbh, i'd say it helps that people get litigious when it comes to human lives in comparison to their dogs.

 

[Kiraken]

Re: The p00n thread

The question is whether the same principle applies to animals.

i believe they do, not necessarily the exact same rights (the right to education for example, would be difficult to apply to animals) but other rights such as the right not to be killed arbitrarily or tortured etc. definitely do apply. In terms of veterinary care, to me that's a strange issue simply because it's a resource primarily used by domesticated animals, do they have the right to receive special care that wild animals may not?

 

[Trebla]

Re: The p00n thread

i believe they do, not necessarily the exact same rights (the right to education for example, would be difficult to apply to animals) but other rights such as the right not to be killed arbitrarily or tortured etc. definitely do apply. In terms of veterinary care, to me that's a strange issue simply because it's a resource primarily used by domesticated animals, do they have the right to receive special care that wild animals may not?

Here's an interesting thought. The issue of adequate healthcare and right to not be killed/tortured being available to all animals. Do you think this should apply to EVERY animal? (ie does this also apply to amphibians, reptiles, fishes and insects?)

 

[Arcorn]

Re: The p00n thread

i believe they do, not necessarily the exact same rights (the right to education for example, would be difficult to apply to animals) but other rights such as the right not to be killed arbitrarily or tortured etc. definitely do apply. In terms of veterinary care, to me that's a strange issue simply because it's a resource primarily used by domesticated animals, do they have the right to receive special care that wild animals may not?

You're talking about positive rights. Positive rights aren't natural rights and require you placing obligation upon someone else. I don't have a right to education, but I have the ability to go out and acquire it in exchange for money(or another good or service. Money is just a medium to have a common value and speed up the barter system.) Natural rights are the ones that we are born with and don't require placing obligations upon other people, such as free speech, right to your own body, right to your property and the right to pursue happiness and liberty without infringing on someone else's rights.

 

[enoilgam]

I have moved these posts into NCAP as I think this is worthy of further discussion outside of Non-School.

 

[Frostbitten]

Re: The p00n thread

Hmm do vets value an animals life to the same level as an human life? (speciesism )

A lot of them don't, vets from my experience and from what I have heard from others tend to be more careless with treatments + diagnosis and less determined to find out what the actual issue of the animal is. I suppose they know that they can perform their job shit and still get the same pay because of the trust the public attaches to them. I suppose it can be summarised into give humans such an opportunity you are bound to get forms of corruption. In contrast the reason why we wouldn't see this issue as commonly in doctors is most likely for the reason that they are quite susceptible to legal action is they mess up. My opinion anyway, a decently informed one I would imagine as well.

 

[Emily Howard]

rights fo animals bred fo human consumption? /care

 

[lochnessmonsta]

Do you think some animals are homosexuals? Or are humans the only ones that can experience that?

Just instantly thought about gay rights and stuff

 

[Emily Howard]

Do you think some animals are homosexuals? Or are humans the only ones that can experience that?

Just instantly thought about gay rights and stuff

lol

dere are homo animals

lyk penguins, flamingos etc dat spend dere entire lyfs wit oneanotha

 

[CM07]

Re: The p00n thread

A lot of them don't, vets from my experience and from what I have heard from others tend to be more careless with treatments + diagnosis and less determined to find out what the actual issue of the animal is. I suppose they know that they can perform their job shit and still get the same pay because of the trust the public attaches to them. I suppose it can be summarised into give humans such an opportunity you are bound to get forms of corruption. In contrast the reason why we wouldn't see this issue as commonly in doctors is most likely for the reason that they are quite susceptible to legal action is they mess up. My opinion anyway, a decently informed one I would imagine as well.

I don't know which vets you've been around but vets aren't exactly well paid and most take the long trek there only because they are actually passionate about animals. During work experience two years ago, a family of stray cats were dumped outside the vet clinic and they all ended up getting sick from the sun because someone didn't pay a small sum of money and spay their animal. The vet ended up euthanising the whole litter whilst saying "i'm so sorry, it'll be over soon, i'm so sorry" and god damn it everyone was emotional. Why? Because nobody would take responsibility and pay the bill. Those were lives that deserved living just like any other human but nope, gone.

I know for a fact that many people refuse to pay the medical fees involved with pets, and choose to euthanise them instead but if in the situation of a human life people most definitely would pay to save another human life. Unfortunately humans are selfish and our lives are just valued above animals. Such is life.

 

[Lolsmith]

On topic though I sympathise with animal rights. I don't agree that the utility derived from animals does not outweigh either their capacity to suffer or the suffering they endure to provide humanity with it. That being said, there needs to be a balance. Animals should be treated as humanely as possible, but there is no cheap way to painlessly slaughter an animal.

 

[Frostbitten]

Re: The p00n thread

I don't know which vets you've been around but vets aren't exactly well paid and most take the long trek there only because they are actually passionate about animals. During work experience two years ago, a family of stray cats were dumped outside the vet clinic and they all ended up getting sick from the sun because someone didn't pay a small sum of money and spay their animal. The vet ended up euthanising the whole litter whilst saying "i'm so sorry, it'll be over soon, i'm so sorry" and god damn it everyone was emotional. Why? Because nobody would take responsibility and pay the bill. Those were lives that deserved living just like any other human but nope, gone.

I know for a fact that many people refuse to pay the medical fees involved with pets, and choose to euthanise them instead but if in the situation of a human life people most definitely would pay to save another human life. Unfortunately humans are selfish and our lives are just valued above animals. Such is life.

I said "A lot of them" because I know there are those out there which sincerely care. But I have heard so many times of vet carelessness and scammy behaviour to get as much money as possible for their services. This often means they go about unnecessary testing so they can rack up the vet bills, but of course this is only a section of the vet community. However I do hear this more often than vets being very useful and sincere.

 

[Trebla]

Do you think some animals are homosexuals? Or are humans the only ones that can experience that?

Just instantly thought about gay rights and stuff

Pretty sure I read somewhere that homosexuality can and does exist in animal populations.

 

[bhsrepresent]

healthcare and education aren't 'rights' - and if they are provided via a system of coercion (i.e. take from one give to another) then they violate the most crucial right of all - freedom.

 

[Graney]

Why is freedom more crucial than access to clean water, sanitation, and basic medical care?

 

[bhsrepresent]

Why is freedom more crucial than access to clean water, sanitation, and basic medical care?

Freedom is the basis of civilization. It is what gives humanity its moral and social basis: Without freedom, even if we have all material outcomes met (which won't happen because with no liberty humanity cannot flourish), what moral ground do we have? Is it not our autonomous nature that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom; our ability to express unique and vibrant identities?

Besides, the right of self-determination ALLOWS individuals to access opportunities to gain clean water, sanitation and health care: These are things that if humans are free, humans will produce, and will do so better than if they are forced.

Philosophically, I'd argue for freedom by asking a simple question:

Do you OWN yourself? If you do (Which I hope you think you do), is it morally justifiable for me to violate your property to provide for another? Is it right for me coerce you without your consent in order to do what I deem desirable?

Most importantly though, historically, state coercion to create positive freedoms has only lead to tyranny. Bit by bit, basic freedom is violated for the public good - and with this, poverty increases and standard of living ultimately declines. So yeah, freedom is more important to state provision of certain goods.

 

[Graney]

I can point you to thousands of civilisations with varying levels of freedom. I am not aware of any civilisations that have ever existed with the level of freedom that you insist is the bare minimum required for a "civilisation", and certainly not any modern nation states. Therefore, no civilisations exist?

No civilisation can flourish and prosper without clean water. Clean water > freedom, checkmate atheists.

Do you OWN yourself?

I'm not sure what it would mean to own yourself? Ownership relates to possession of inanimate objects, those objects can't have obligations or moral bearing upon them.

is it morally justifiable for me to violate your property to provide for another?

This is the popular moral basis of our society, and one I agree with, in appropriate circumstances. The common libertarian response is "would it be okay if I personally walked up and stole your wallet, as long I insisted I was going to give some of your money to the poor and needy?"

The difference between taxation and a benevolent mugger, is that taxation is organised, predictable, and accountable. This is very important. I would suggest to you that the desire for fairness, justice, and order, is a stronger desire in human beings, than the desire for absolute freedom.

Most importantly though, historically, state coercion to create positive freedoms has only lead to tyranny. Bit by bit, basic freedom is violated for the public good - and with this, poverty increases and standard of living ultimately declines.

The state providing substantial welfare services through taxation has a history of only around 150 years (if we define this as the beginning of the public health movement), and I wouldn't say has led to substantial tyrrany in Australia or New Zealand etc. Globally, tyranny and a low level of public services are positively correlated.

 

[bhsrepresent]

I can point you to thousands of civilisations with varying levels of freedom. I am not aware of any civilisations that have ever existed with the level of freedom that you insist is the bare minimum required for a "civilisation", and certainly not any modern nation states. Therefore, no civilisations exist?

You've misunderstood my point. ALL civilizations that have flourished and had genuinely positive social and economic outcomes have been driven by a system based on the free market and freedom. Why do you think western civilization in particular has surpassed all other nations in the past 200 years and doubled life expectancy? We are at a point of human progress previously never seen. Science, technology, social progress, they are founded and always will be, on individual liberty. You think Einstein would have formulated relativity if he was some bureaucrat working for the government? You think China would have lifted 500+ million out of poverty and grown at 10% for 3 decades if it had not been for liberal economic policy?

And certainly, I'm not advocating anarchy and ABSOLUTE freedom - I believe in the rule of law and I think very small government would work best. But generally, as government starts to get bigger and bigger, things get worse and worse (in terms of both civil liberty and social outcome).

I'm not sure what it would mean to own yourself? Ownership relates to possession of inanimate objects, those objects can't have obligations or moral bearing upon them.

The question is simple: are you free? If so, if you believe in the notion of free will, you inherently OWN yourself. The state doesn't own you; you are in conscious possession of your moral and social bearings and responsibilities. Free will is a matter of property. If what you're saying is true, rape, murder and theft are justifiable as they don't necessarily impinge on another person's autonomy.

The difference between taxation and a benevolent mugger, is that taxation is organised, predictable, and accountable. This is very important. I would suggest to you that the desire for fairness, justice, and order, is a stronger desire in human beings, than the desire for absolute freedom.

Philosophically though, there is no difference. It is a matter of force - taxation IS theft. Its, 'pay x amount of your income, that you earnt' or there's a gun to your head and a jail cell waiting to be filled. And in terms of achieving fairness, justice and order, the reality is that government and authoritarian forms of collectivism are NOT the way to achieve this. The way to achieve fairness and truly eradicate poverty is through empowering INDIVIDUALS; not by feeding the collective. This is why affirmative action has not worked and never will.

The state providing substantial welfare services through taxation has a history of only around 150 years (if we define this as the beginning of the public health movement), and I wouldn't say has led to substantial tyrrany in Australia or New Zealand etc. Globally, tyranny and a low level of public services are positively correlated.

Last year the federal government attempted to enact laws that effectively made insulting someone illegal - if that's not a sign of tyranny, I don't know what is. They also wanted to legislate against media autonomy (which would have effectively undermined freedom of expression).

Point is, tyranny is gradual. When statism prevails, bit by bit, tax by tax, law by law, civil liberties are revoked. It wasn't until his mid way through the Nazi regime that Hitler introduced the Enabling Act that effectively eliminated political opposition. History teaches us that when government begins to grow and does so unopposed, the 'road to serfdom' is inevitable: Fascism, communism, socialism (which are all funnily interlinked), the regimes that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, they are all inevitable products of growing government.

And again, I don't propose anarcho-capitalism - no government - Rather I think a needs basis SMALL government that provides a baseline for those who genuinely cannot fend for themselves is ideal. But even then, with a free market I think the better off would be more charitable and individuals would have the capacity to help their fellow human beings - except this time, there's no gun to their head and prison cell waiting if they decide not to.