Should animals be treated as property?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by hug-a-tree, Sep 23, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    We test on them and wear them, assuming that they're objects/property.

    Do you feel that's wrong? Do you feel that you need to convince people otherwise?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Many animals are "property" because many farmers and ranchers own animals and they brand them to show who owns them.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    We also sell their babies, drink their milk and eat their meat.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dr Lou Natic Unnecessary Surgeon Registered Senior Member

  8. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    No, they should not. They should have as close to human rights as possible, although pandas will have more rights, and insects will have less simply because there are a shitload of them.
  9. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    The world will not be truly free until barnyard animals get the vote.

    Since most people eat meat, wouldn't it be worse if we did jot treatthem as property....then we'd be slaughtering and rendering animals we don't even own for mass consumption. Right now we treat animals as property but property with an innate right not to be treated in a pointlessly cruel manner. What would the better system be? (Warning: Any system that tells me not to eat meat, fails as a better system.)

    When the world invents synthetic meat that tastes exactly like the real thing, then we can let them roam free down the streets. Until then meat remains a food group.

    My dogs are all in favor of your plan though, and are looking forward to the day of the revolution, when I will be forced to renounce my ownership and they can live free, in the streets of Manhattan, until they starve or are killed by other dogs, because they have no owner to care for them.
  10. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    What about bees?
    Surely they should get more rights than wasps for example.
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Yes. Imagine doing the same thing to disabled human children, for example. Is there an important difference? (Note: difference based on membership of a particular species alone seems to be a morally insignificant basis for distinction. It's like racism.)

    Yes, to some extent. Even if people can't give up eating meat, for example, it would be better for all concerned if they could at least reduce their meat intake.

    The question is "should they be...", not "are they...". See?

    Have you ever considered ... er... not slaughtering and eating animals?

    And some say that eating meat is "pointlessly cruel".

    Why? Because your pleasure always takes precedence over the rights of others?

    You've never tried textured vegetable protein, have you? I bet you don't even realise it exists.

    They don't need an "owner". They might like a "guardian".

    You don't "own" your children, but they aren't wandering the streets, are they?
  12. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member

    They are part of nature.

    And since when do we give nature rights ?

    IMO, Start giving humans equal rights first, and then think about animals..
    One step at a time people
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Why one step at a time? Can't we multitask?
  14. Challenger78 Valued Senior Member


    Every time we do that, we end up having factions.
  15. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Yes. Considered, and rejected.

    Some do. I know a couple who fret over eating plants too, because they are also living creatures, but the alternative is to starve to death so they have taken to thanking their salads for the sacrifice they make. Some people also feed their cats and infants vegan diets and are surprised when they die of various nutrient deficiencies. I can see why people think it's cruel, but in my opinion it turns the notion of cruelty from a useful limiting prescription on human action, to sheer frivolousness, to use the term to describe behaviors that we and many other animals have been adapted to by evolution.

    The defining feature of animal life is that animals do not generate their own energy supply, we "steal" energy and nutrients we need from plants and other animals. So far, natures only method for do this is to consume at least part of the life forms from which we steal. Embrace it.

    Not just "my pleasure" as that is secondary. The pleasure and taste sensation that is consuming meat exists because nature bred the love of it into us. It helped our species survive.

    If people want to voluntarily restrict their food supply to *only* murdering plants, that's swell, but they are behaving unnaturally.

    Actually I have had it. I've had it in various chilis and once had it in a Hamburger Helper-esque casserole. I am a bit of a chili snob, I must admit, but on two occasions the "vegan" nature of the chili was unknown to me, and I could tell there was something wrong with the meat. Ideally a chili should have multiple meats (preferably with different textures) so that you can experience the interplay between the two flavors. Not only did the TVP chilis not have the subtlety, but my first guess was that the meat was somewhat past its expiration.

    The hamburger helper TVP concoction was best forgotten, though due to the horror of the experience it still lingers in my mind.

    TVP has its place, I'm sure. It's a taste I could get used to in some contexts, even in chilis (in combination with real meats), but it's not going to fool anyone with an even marginally adult palette into thinking it's real beef, pork, chicken, ham, etc. (well...I suppose they might be fooled, as I was, but they'd be fooled into thinking "man, something is sure off with this meat!").

    They don't need a "guardian" either, since they are very content to have an "owner." Why incur the expense of changing the system and limiting my rights vis a vis my pets, when the pets are quite literally incapable of understanding their enhanced "rights?" Besides, how can a true animal rights proponent cotton to pet "guardianship", if it is identical to pet ownership save in a highly theoretical sense?

    You have succeeded in convincing me that this notion is absolute theoretical nonsense if your point is that I still get to have iron fisted control over their lives, but my title will have been changed.

    So, what are the differences? Would I not be allowed to make my dogs work? (For example, as sled dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, therapy dogs, show dogs, etc.) Would I no longer be able to give them away if I decided I did not want them?

    Again, this is semantics. The only rights of "ownership" a guardian does not have with a ward are things like (i) the right to put them to work for the benefit of the Guardian, (ii) the right to sell the guardianship and (iii) under certain circumstances the ward can challenge a guardian's decisions in court. I think it's safe to say (iii) will never apply to a pet (assuming people on your side of the debate do not want to give them affirmative action admissions to law school). Taking away right (i) and (ii) just discourages dog "guardianship" which means more dogs get euthanized for failure to find a home. Congratulations. Taking away (i) further hurts the animal in most cases, because most dogs like to work.
  16. Gustav Banned Banned

    there is a transition period
    a generational one
    should i throw a city dweller into the wilderness and expect him to survive?
    the dogs will revert eventually
    they will hunt you!
  17. Gustav Banned Banned

    understand this
    if we are benign, all other species will benefit from a relationship with us
    we know shit
  18. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    This looks like an E.E. Cummings poem.
  19. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    If we're going to treat people better, we ought to treat all living beings better. I don't understand why you would think that we'd have to first be compassionate to humans then we can consider being caring to nonhumans. Why not just be compassionate for all life?
  20. hug-a-tree Live the life Registered Senior Member

    If a child is given human breast milk (as an infant, of course), there really is no problem with the parents raising their child vegan.

    These parents did not give their baby breast milk, which was a bad call.
  21. designationlocutus Registered Senior Member

    I think in an ideal world, animals (or any species) should be as free as Humans. But sadly we currently live in a world where it's survival of the fittest. If technology becomes sufficiently advanced to reproduce food without the sacrifice, then I would hope that all life can live in harmony.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member



    Animals are property, in the case of pets. In the case of non-pets, they are a part of the local fauna. I would happily irradiate your three-toed treefrog if it meant allowing me to be a bit lazier.
  23. lucifers angel same shit, differant day!! Registered Senior Member

    i dont wear make up tested on animals, i dont wear leather ot suede, i dont fox hunt,

    i ahve 2 cats called Synester and Loki, and they come and go has they please, they eat they go out all day and then come in when they are ready, and i dont think i own them
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page