Animal Rights Community Online

[sunkanrags]

 Tell me what you want, what you really really want...

[animalrightsmalta]

The right to life, and the right to self-determination are fundamental in my animal rights campaigning. Even if an animal is killed without any suffering at all, to deny the animal freedom and life is a rights violation and is not acceptable. After all, we find it wrong to kill humans painlessly. The same should apply to all animals.

[sledogmomma]

Once again Malta...you so easily answered with the same feeling I have.
I think that being a creature of this earth should be just that.
Animals and Human should live with out needing to have a reason other than to just be...Without having to " serve" a purpose beyond the pursuit of ones life.

[Dave_81]

I posted this response somewhere else, but since it seems to fit sunkanrags's question quite well, I thought it'd be worth posting it here too.

Rights theory strictly prohibits treating animals as means to our ends. So the simple answer to your question is, no, we should never drink cows' milk or eat chickens' eggs, irrespective of how well or badly the animals are treated. Like humans, all animals have a fundamental right to respectful treatment -- a right to be treated in ways that respect their inherent value -- and this right precludes their being treated as means to our ends, since to treat animals as means to our ends is to treat them as though their value were reducible to the usefulness they have for us – or, in other words, to treat them as though they had no inherent value – i.e. no value over and above the utility they have for us as "resources".

The easiest way to grasp this point is to imagine that humans were in the same position as the cows and the chickens. So, would it be okay to farm humans as long as we treated them okay? Of course, the answer is no. It wouldn't be acceptable because we wouldn’t be treating the humans in ways that respect their inherent value; rather we'd be treating them as though they had no value over and above the usefulness they have "for us" – in other words, we'd we would be treating them as though they were our "resources" -- our slaves.

Now, logically, the situation with the cows and chickens is no different. Since animals have rights -- the most important of which is the fundamental right be treated in ways that respect their inherent value --it is therefore utterly illegitimate to use their eggs and milk, since this would involve treating them as though they were our resources -- as though their value was reducible to the usefulness they have for us -- when in fact they (like us) are inherently valuable (by which I mean their value exceeds the use they have for us as resources).

Although welfarists would think that it's okay to use an animal as a resource as long as it was treated well, rightists should never think that it's okay to disrespect an animal's inherent value and to treat it as though its value didn't exceed the usefulness it has for us as a mere resource. Animals’ lives mean much more than this. Their lives matter to them irrespective of whether they matter to anyone else and regardless of whether they are useful to anyone else as resources. This is what their abstract right to respectful treatment recognises – that they are sensitive, intelligent beings whose lives matter to them regardless of whether they are useful to us as resources – and that we should never, ever forget or disregard this fact about animals even if they are useful to us in some way. To treat animals as our resources is to violate their fundamental right to be treated in ways that befit the fact that they are sensitive and intelligent beings and that things matter to them irrespective of whether they matter to anyone else.

Now we reflexively treat humans in ways that respect the fact that they are inherently valuable. You don't, for example, need to be reminded not to treat humans as though they were your resources. And since animals also have this fundamental right, we should treat animals in the exact same way. It should be as unthinkable to treat an animal as though it were a resource as it is to treat a human as though he/she were a resource, since they are both equally inherently valuable. Welfarists (however enlightened) violate animals' rights not to be treated as though they were others' resources. To treat them in this way is to profoundly violate their right to respectful treatment -- that is, their right to be treated in ways that at all times recognise that they are sensitive, intelligent beings who have inherent value -- a value that most certainly isn't reducible to how useful they are to humans as resources. To treat them like this is to profoundly misunderstand what types of beings animals are -- to misunderstand how important they are. As I said, we should be as horrified at the thought of treating an animal as a resource as we are at the thought of treating another human as a resource.

So although this may not be strictly correct, the abstract right to respectful treatment that animals have can be construed as a way of recognising and a way of enjoining us never to forget that animals have inherent value -- i.e. that they are sensitive and intelligent beings and that things matter to them (e.g. the way they are treated, whether they have room to run and play, whether they are kept in stimulating and enriching environments) irrepsective of whether they matter to anyone else. And since this right absolutely prohibits treating animals in ways that ignore the fact that they are sensitive and intelligent beings, it is also a recognition of how important they are -- that to treat animals cruelly and to violate their rights is a great crime, since they are sensitive and intelligent beings (not mere resources, as arrogant and ignorant humans suppose) who are capable of deep suffering and anguish.

Hence to eat chickens' eggs and to drink cows' milk is to profoundly violate their right to respectful treatment, since you are using them as though the animals concerned were your resources. They aren't our resources -- in exactly the same way that humans aren't our resources.

[Ante Bozanich]

Property Status Disrespect Rights Violation Exploitation Abuse Cruelty Suffering Death = Wrong

[Carrot]

[animalrightsmalta]

[Dave_81]

The property status of animals is the thing that enables animals to be exploited in the first place. That we see animals as mere resources (i.e. as property) -- in other words, that we take them to have no value over and above the usefulness they have for us -- is the thing that allows us to be so cruel to them. After all, we if didn't see them as property/resources, but rather as conscious individuals with feelings and emotions, we wouldn't be able to exploit them so horrendously and systematically. In order to end institutionalized animal exploitation, then, we need to teach people to see animals, not as resources that have no value over and above the functions they perform for us, but rather as conscious and inherently valuable individuals who have inner mental lives of their own, in the same way we do. So the property status of animals -- the view that they are merely valuable as resources-- is he thing we desperately need to change, since it's what enables people to exploit animals so ruthlessly and with a clear conscience.

[Ante Bozanich]

[Carrot]

So my cats are property and they are suffering ? everyone here who has pets, nearly all of you I'd like to bet, yours are suffering and your being cruel to them because they are your property ? all of my friends who have " property pets " are inflicting great suffering on their animal friends ? all of my friends friends that have pets are being cruel to animals because they are property ? I would have faith in my friends not to have friends that would do anything to harm any animal and nore would I.
Do you think it's just AR people that have pet property that treat their pets well ? it's only non AR people that should be labelled as cruel because of property status ?

Their are different types of property,you cannot compair a living animal property to a car, you cannot be cruel to a car, there are laws to protect animals, I would be with you to say there not good enough, you can beat your car and smash it to bits, do that to a animal and you are breaking the law.
It's not as black and white to just say property status for animals is cruel.It is however black and white to say cruel people are cruel.

[sunkanrags]

[Ante Bozanich]

[animalrightsmalta]

[Carrot]

Votes are closer than I thought they would be.

I won't comment to much futher on this as I get the picture.

[Dave_81]

The point is that we shouldn't bring any animals into the world if they are going to have property status, because that would be to treat them in a way that disrespects their inherent value -- it would be to treat them as though their value were reducible to the usefulness they have for us as resources. Animals who are considered pieces of property are really slaves; and institutional animal exploitation is really animal slavery. On the other hand, we should obviously help all those animals currently in existence who have property status. What we shouldn't do is to bring any more of them into the world, since that would be to treat them disrespectfully.

Pets are also illegitimate on rights theory, since pets are our property -- and to buy an animal is to treat him/her in a way that disrespects his/her inherent value -- it's to purchase a slave. To sell pets is disrespectful because (amongst other things) it asserts that they have no value over and above the money they can make for the people who sell them; and this is to treat them in a way that disregards their inherent value -- i.e. the fact that their value exceeds the (monetary) value they have for others. It is a profound moral wrong to sell animals.

So a radical consequence of AR theory is that pets are illegitimate. Rather we should have as little contact with animals as possible, since if AR means anything, it means (as Lee Hall says) that animals have the right to be left alone; to live in accordance with their own desires and wants, free from human interference. We recognise that it's a profound moral wrong to buy and sell humans. AR theory simply asks us to apply those principles to our relationship with animals.