Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Love your rabbit
Rabbits Online Forum

Help Support Rabbits Online Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Are you for animal rights or animal welfare?

  • Animal Rights

  • Animal Welfare

Results are only viewable after voting.
Daenerys wrote:
The rights you listed, fuzz16, are not the rights being discussed here as they are the rights every living thing has. Beyond that is when things change.
Click to expand...

I meant your dismissal of fuzz16s comment; sounded like you felt her comments didn't have a place here. I thought that her remarks added a lot to the conversation - rights have variable definitions outside of the context of the phrases of "animal rights" and "animal welfare".

I wasn't talking about me - politely disagree with me as much as you like, lol! :D
 
No I wasn't dismissing her comments because I didn't think they had a place here, I was saying that the rights she listed were not the ones I was talking about because those are rights that I view as being the basic rights of any living creature, ones that I feel I don't even need to discuss because they are so obviously attributed to all. To me, they're the basic rights of life. The rights I was discussing go beyond those basic rights to the kinds of rights you might see written in human law, for example the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, etc.
 
thank you, Autumn

and just to throw this out there by hopefully not offending anyone...in cases like Koko there are some humans who have a lower IQ than even that gorilla. Then should those humans have less rights also...
it shouldnt be about iq or what species of creature it is. we are not above anyone or anything out there...

someday we will be dead and cockroaches will be creating little cities. lol...
 
This is all debate on rights and intelligence..

A gorilla can't vote, or make an essay, or get a bachorlers degree. BUT she/he deserves the best life possible. I don't agree with taking animals from the wild, but there are tons that are already in captavity and they need to be given the best life known possible.

Animal rights/welfaare has come SO SO FAR since the 70's it is amazing. Enrichment wasn't HEARD of before hten.
 
Myia09 wrote:
A gorilla can't vote, or make an essay, or get a bachorlers degree. BUT she/he deserves the best life possible.
Click to expand...
Precisely! She still deserves the basic rights that all living things deserve, but she should not be given the rights we attribute to our own species specifically as she is still a gorilla.
 
I am totally more for animal welfare, but in my own opinion, believe that animal life has just has much value as human life. We are all animals, and I don't believe that any life is more special than another.

As for 'animals have the right to not be eaten', well...I don't have the right to not be eaten. I would rather not, but if a big old black bear marched up to me and thought I looked like a tasty meal, then I have no rights there. If it wants to eat me, it will eat me.

That leads me to another point- how can animals have rights, if they can't afford us those rights in return. If I don't eat a bear (I dunno why I keep using the example of a bear but you know), because I am respecting it's rights, who is to say it won't eat me?

However, I believe we don't know enough about animals, their intelligence, their minds, at all to even begin to decide whether they should have rights etc. Many years ago, black humans were thought of as no better than animals, with no intelligence or morales, and were forced into slavery for many years, just because we couldn't understand their language, and they looked different.

20 years before Koko changed the world's view of animal intellect, who would have thought a gorilla could learn sign language and communicate with humans, express her emotions etc. and show love and tenderness towards 'her' kitten?



I believe, imo, that all animals in our 'possession' (going against animal rights there- but any meat animals, any pets etc.) have the right to fresh and nutritional food, water, gentle and loving treatment, more than adequate space, any medications needed, and as happy and pain-free life as possible, full of social and mental stimulation.

I believe any person wanting to 'own' a pet, should have to pass some sort of test and have to obtain a license, contracting they will fulfill all of the above I mentioned, and have researched the animal properly, and know a required amount about diet, housing, ailments etc. etc.

I also am totally against any animal use in circuses. I am in two minds about zoos. On the one hand, I believe if the pens are more than big enough and the animals are able to simulate natural behaviours, living in the correct social groupings etc. etc. then they can be a good thing- would Okapis still be here without zoos? I don't think so, down to our destruction of their habitats. But then on the other hand are there really any enclosures big enough? Is it really possible to allow them to exhbit their natural wild behaviour?

What I do believe though, is animal welfare is a huge issue, which needs to be addressed in all aspects- pet industry, meat industry, fur, clothing, animal working industry etc. The horrific documentaries I've watched about horses being used to pull carts in other countries where it's most definately animal cruelty....just terrible.

Jen
 
jcottonl02 wrote:
However, I believe we don't know enough about animals, their intelligence, their minds, at all to even begin to decide whether they should have rights etc. Many years ago, black humans were thought of as no better than animals, with no intelligence or morales, and were forced into slavery for many years, just because we couldn't understand their language, and they looked different.
Click to expand...
That is so very very true... tells you how much the general perspective has changed in only the last 150 years.

What will happen in the next 150?...


 
Daenerys wrote:
The rights I was discussing go beyond those basic rights to the kinds of rights you might see written in human law, for example the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, the right to vote, etc.
Click to expand...

In reality, very few people, even among animal rights activists truly believe non-human animals should be given legal rights such as you are describing. This is a ridiculous idea that has been seized upon by anti-animal rights people to try to make pro-animal rights people look like a bunch of loonies, and thus discredit the entire movement. Many anti-rights people have a financial motive for persuading people that chickens really are fine living in a cage so small they can't turn around, or that corn is a perfectly natural and healthy thing for cows to eat.
 
While I don't necessarly agree with many of the high-profile tactics that PETA engages in, it is very telling that they officially endorse The Body Shop as a cruelty-free company, even though they are owned by L'Oreal, which is notorious for animal testing. If PETA were really standing up for animal rights in the way a lot of PETA-bashers say they are, they would not endorse The Body Shop, and would certainly not endorse companies such as Burt's Bees, which is owned by Clorox (also tests on animals) AND uses animal-derived ingredients in it's products.
I no longer shop at the Body Shop, or Burt's Bees, etc., because of the animal-testing policies of their parent companies, but I am not exactly radical in my views of animal-rights.

Arguing against non-human animals being able to vote is sort of a moot point, as only humans can conform to human laws. Anyway, voting isn't even a "right," there are humans in countries around the world who aren't allowed to vote.

Also, for food-related things, I take my cues from the likes of Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle. As far as I know, both of them eat meat, and neither has a financial interest in getting me to eat food from one source rather than another. (Evidence to the contrary is welcome.) Both are quick to point out the failings of the organic food industry, as well as the conventional. I will never take guidance from anyone in the food industry, as they have too much financial motivation in telling me what they want me to hear. (Sorry, Missy, nothing personal.) People who take what food-industry spokesmen tell them to heart end up believing things like Wonder bread being good for you.
 
I ran across the article:
http://www.all-creatures.org/stories/a-koko.html
Indicates that she can quantify a sensation, and attribute to it a number within the natural number system. She also understands occupations, and can interpret, then re-enact the future process of extraction. Finally, she makes an request for extraction using ASL.

Wow!
*******

The other thing to point out is that very few things that we do as humans are classified as inalienable rights. Essays and bachelor degrees, and driving cars are not rights. The right to bear arms is strictly an american thing.

Here is a link to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
This is to be applied around the entire world.

The sections regarding court would not count with regards to animals, as it has already been determined by the majority of judicial systems that animals lack moral agency.
The only difference is that animals have been acquitted of moral culpability - therefore, can't be tried by courts for their crimes. Thus, animals are protected by the courts.

Just take a peek through, and see how limited our rights truly are.
The scope of human actual rights is so limited, that they can be applied to animals quite easily.

Whether or not animals actively use a certain right at this point in time doesn't matter - many people do not choose to exercise their right to vote, yet they still hold all of their human rights ;)

(Yep, the right to vote has been ratified in the Declaration... however, some countries continue to act in violation of this right)
 
Well, animal rights activists like PETA seem to think that domesticated animals have the right to be free. Do you agree with such thinking? Does a house cat have the right to live like a wild animal when it has been a domesticated species for so long? Does livestock have the right to be set free to take care of itself? Do animals that have spent their entire life in captivity have this right? Because people like PETA seems to think so, to the point of releasing such animals out into the cold winter atmosphere so they can starve and freeze to death. Animals like livestock and domesticated pets do not have what it takes to live out in the wild on their own. We have created them to be like this. Therefore I believe that these animals do not have such rights as freedom to choose for themselves. Animals act on instinct, and their instinct is not always enough to keep them alive, especially when their instinct has been influenced by so many long years of domestication. I believe that domesticated animals only have the right to be subjected to our care, and that we have an obligation to their welfare, to take care of them to the best of our abilities and give them the life that they deserve, that every living thing deserves. A life free of abuse, fear, hunger, thirst, a life full of love and happiness. However, wild animals do not get that sort of life. But wild animals have, in my opinion, the right to live as they do without our interference so they do not become so handicapped like the domesticated species we have created. Nothing more.
 
If the judgement of the animal was at the stage where it could accept the consequences of it's decision, knowing full well all of the potential ramifications, then yes, I would think that would be suitable.

However, we are currently not capable of discerning their mental capacity, nor able to communicate fully and completely with animals on this subject. We safeguard underaged humans - when they are fully developed to understand and make a personal decision, we permit them to do so.

PETA is taking that decision from these creatures. They cannot communicate to the domestic animals what will happen to them, nor ask their permission. It is the same as turning a human child out of the home to fend for itself on the street. They simply do what they like to the creature, without consultation. As we cannot accurately judge mental capacity and understanding, it isn't fair to remove them from human protection.
I think PETA's actions in this capacity are reprehensible.

I am bringing up these ideas and perspectives because they are a part of the future; our knowledge will only grow, leaving us with a more complex situation as time goes on. That is why I think it is important to look at this concept from every possible angle :)

Animal rights and subsequent welfare are very theoretically close together (though not in the current form espoused by the far ends of the spectrum)... I don't see them as mutually exclusive viewpoints.

(Very interesting conversation by the way... thanks for bringing it up :) )
 
Another thing I would like to point out is that I think wild and domesticated animals are so different that I do believe that they should be treated differently when it comes to stuff like welfare and rights...I pretty much showed that in my last post, summed up as follows: "Domesticated animals have the right to be provided with the best care by humans with much consideration for their welfare. Wild animals have the right to be left alone to live their own lives."

Therefore I think it only right that we consider them as completely different from each other when it comes to deciding what rights/welfare should be attributed to them, yes? They live such different lives, and we involve ourselves as much as possible in the care and welfare of the domestic, but we should be involved as little as possible in the care and welfare of the wild animals. Domestics should be first in line for any rights animals may be given, because they are so closely involved in our own lives. We as a species are in contact with them every single minute of every single day, using them as food, clothing, medicine, companionship...it seems only fair they get first consideration.

But then there is also the fact that the wild animals are sometimes just as affected by our lives. For example, the species that are on the road to extinction because of how the human population is expanding so rapidly in size and taking over more of the habitats they occupy. Its impossible to think of us doing anything that might limit our growth, though, as even we live by the instinct to preserve our own species over the others. Could you imagine any sort of human population growth limitation that could be employed without basically going against human rights? So how would one deal with this as far as human vs. animal rights?
 
I hate to be in a position to be defending PETA. As I have previosly stated, I do not agree with some of their tactics. (Though Ingrid Newkirk has stated that she does outrageous things for the reason of getting attention. Everyone on reality tv does outrageous thing for the purpose of getting attention.). However, I don't believe the PETA members that support releasing pets into the wild represent the organization as a whole, or it's official policies. They use the phrase "animal liberation" in their slogan, but also remember the phrase "Women's liberation," which has a figurative meaning.

If someone can direct me to reputable information proving otherwise, I would appreciate it.
 
So many good questions :)

Found this resource online... they have lots of pro, con, and maybe arguments. I thought that all perspectives had a lot of great points :)
http://www.opposingviews.com/questions/should-animals-have-the-same-rights-as-people

The wild animal population issues with extirpation in favour of human developments is troublesome.Thankfully, there are some ways to legally protect portions of the environment, and some neat technological innovations.

I wonder then if the onus doesn't fall on us as humans to moderate our growth so as not to cause the extinction of others. We would have to govern our actions with our moral responsibility to preserve the rights of the wild animals. So many facets to this discussion.


*** You are entirely right Beth, I should not have made a generalized comment about PETA members - not all hold the same convictions. My apologies!

ETA: I personally think this article strikes the right balance. Enshrines basic animal rights in law, but uses welfare concepts as the everyday tool. I think this would likely be the most workable solution.
http://www.animalfreedom.org/english/opinion/animalrights.html

This is also a neat article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/rights/rights_1.shtml
 
[align=left]PETA sweeps many things under their rug to hide from most members, they need to generalize and tone things down and sugar coat things so they keep getting support. They have strong connections to terrorist groups who do things like arson, in fact a large portion of their money has gone to court fees defending these people who break into labs and burn it down after setting everything free. The number one thing is to take all their ads with a grain of salt, they are masters of manipulation and will shock anyone into sending them money, most memebers do not know their true motives. And yes I believe Ingrid herself was quoted to have said they aim for the total liberation of animals, and not figuritivly.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MblfdR459Rk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MblfdR459Rk[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY[/ame] - language warning on this one, but has some great clips. Newkirk says herself she sees animals as slaves.

http://www.petakillsanimals.com/


On the opposite side of the wild animal topic, how about those species that have simply thrived in our urban settings to the point of causing problems? Deer in many places are feeding so well in fields once that is gone in the winter they are all starving. Coyotes are moving into populated areas and taking pets and livestock. Rodents spread disease. How far does the right to live go when it infringes on our lives, and when often due to us their populations getting out of control to the point where they are suffering too? Its all about balance. We cannot restrict outselves, however since we have taken the step above everything else we have taken the responsibility of the world around us that is affected by us, and not always is that to let everything live and run free, it would be nearly catastrophic for them and for us.

For those that are domesticated, as said by The Little Prince -

"But if you tame me, then we shall meet each other,
To me, you will be unique in all the world...
To you, I shall be unique in all the world...
You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed"[/align]
 
No worries, Autumn. I do not condone the "rescue" of pets/domestic animals and releasing them into the wild. I have been under the impression that these acts are more isolated, and more in line with the ALF than with PETA. I would certainly re-evaluate my thoughts, if there were evidence proving me wrong. I will be checking those links when i get home.
I have a co-worker who is involved with PETA in a minor way, and she is one of the sweetest people I've ever met. She has two pets, and has asked to learn more about pet rabbits.

Anyway. I think anyone interested in animal intelligence and such should also read more about Alex the parrot. http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html

I also HIGHLY recommend listening to RadioLab, which is an excellent science podcast. Lots of great info, presented in a smart and entertaining way. A couple episodes relate to this discussion: The full-length show Animal Minds, and it's related "shorts," The Shy Baboon, Fu Manchu, and Lucy (which is an excellent example of why domestic animals should NOT be released into the wild). The episode The New Normal starts out with an interesting story about a baboon troop that drastically changed behavior, and ends with a really interesting bit about evolutionary biology. (The middle story is good, too, but not relevant to this discussion.). http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/
 
TwistedSerpent wrote:
[align=left]For those that are domesticated, as said by The Little Prince -

"But if you tame me, then we shall meet each other,
To me, you will be unique in all the world...
To you, I shall be unique in all the world...
You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed"[/align]
Click to expand...
Great quote :)

Thanks for the links, Beth :) I look forward to reading them!
 
TwistedSerpent, you should know that petakillsanimals.com is owned/administered by Richard Berman and the Center for Consumer Freedom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_consumer_freedom
They are a paid lobbyist organization that also runs websites defending big tobacco, claiming there is no mercury found in fish, sun exposure will not give you cancer, etc. They are paid to publish the things they publish, and are NOT a reputable source for ANYTHING. You are claiming that PETA are masters of manipulation, butit seems that Richard Bermanand his organization is manipulating people into believing that.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top