TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Should we allow animals to have rights?

Should animals have rights?
If so, what kind of rights should they have and why?
(Please be specific)

If not, why not?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Nov 3 2011: Animals should have rights.

    I will refute the justification of killing animals for food as my argument, because that is widely regarded as acceptable.

    I believe many people feel that we are justified in killing animals for food in the same way that Savannah predators are justified in killing their prey. This is false. We, unlike Savannah predators, are now technologically advanced enough to build a system whereby we can acquire essential nutrients without the murdering of other sentient beings. If you are not satisfied with eating high-protein vegetarian food, we still have no excuse for not financing research of meat synthesis.

    If one argues that we are justified in killing animals because they do not have the semblance of death that human beings possess, they are ignoring the fact that almost all animals still have a semblance of pain. The manner in which we confine and slaughter animals is surely recognized by the animals themselves.

    Furthermore, to argue that a semblance of death, or a heightened intelligence, is the reason that we can kill animals I ask - why do we not simply kill off all the humans that do not have a semblance of death or a heightened intelligence, such as people in persistent vegetative states?

    Society's real reason behind not killing humans, I believe, but having no problem killing other animals, is because even humans who are less intelligent than us are still 'our kind'. We rationalize our killing of animals and sparing of less 'useful' humans as 'humanitarian', when in actual fact, this is just glorified Speciesism.

    Why have *we* made the rules? Why have we ordained ourselves to be above the rest, simply because we have the power to do so? If these are our actions, why do we vilify discrimination on a racial level?

    How can we justify speciesism, but vilify racism?

    We need to lower and then eliminate the extermination of sentient beings for food, and, obviously, for other purposes.
    • Nov 3 2011: "I ask - why do we not simply kill off all the humans that do not have a semblance of death or a heightened intelligence, such as people in persistent vegetative states?"

      Because that is murder, and murder is wrong.

      It has nothing to do with intelligence or semblance of death.

      It has everything to do with humans being on the top. At this moment there is no animal species that could stop us humans from eating them. No cow can stop the farmer from shooting it, no dog in china can stop its owner from cooking it up to feed his family, no duck can stop a duck hunter from shooting it and eating if for thanksgiving.

      "The manner in which we confine and slaughter animals is surely recognized by the animals themselves. "
      Then why doesn't every cow (on a particular farm of a thousand of them) revolt all at the same time and escape from the fear of pain and ultimately death?

      Humans do that quite often. The holocaust is a perfect example. instead of just walking willingly into a gas chamber some Jews made an escape or made a way for others to escape or even postponed their judgement from the Nazi's and evaded death through the red army freeing them.

      "Why have *we* made the rules?"
      Cause God made us on top. Adam was created to govern the earth and the animals. Man is on top and will continue to be the dominant beings on this earth until the end.
      • thumb
        Nov 3 2011: I was beginning to think that you simply had a few holes in your logic until your last answer.

        God? Come on, man.

        Don't bring the rule of religion - something that no one agrees on - into this talk.

        Talk only from the perspective of someone who would like to see the world become a better place.

        I would have no trouble refuting all your points with arguments I have already explicitly stated above, but I am not going to put the effort in for someone who cites the bible in a debate.

        Re-read my entire argument, and maybe you'll be able to prove yourself wrong after doing so.
        • Nov 4 2011: That's your response.....? Don't cite the bible...

          Why can't we base our answers on facts instead of random assumptions and opinions.
          Whether you believe the Bible is true or not your opinion is still not a fact or credible at all in this discussion. I thought perhaps you might take liking to the bible and wouldn't mind the Bible's opinion. I believe the Bible is true so I cite it.

          You might believe that (well whatever you believe in) is true so that is where you get your information from. I get mine from the Bible.

          Don't forget I posted this question and if you don't like what you see you don't have to post.
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2011: For some reason it won't let me reply to your recent post, so I'll reply to your first.

        I apologize.

        I shouldn't have criticized the Bible.

        Instead, I should have said, since we disagree about its credibility we cannot have this debate.
      • thumb
        Nov 4 2011: But from the bible, you are correct.

        Animals have no rights and humans are wholly entitled to subjugate them in any way we please.
        • Nov 4 2011: Thanks Nick.

          It's just opinions. I could never persuade you to believe the bible is true and that man is in control of animals.
          That is not my goal either. I was just giving my thoughts and opinions based on what I believe.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.