|
28 May 08 - 05:29 PM (#2351401) Subject: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Mrrzy There are three existing threads on Animal Rights, but they are all old and none are on point, so I'm starting a new one (put animal rights in the Filter and select All to see those). What is the current thinking on this issue? My new job uses mutant mice, and I am wondering what others think. I know what *I* think, but I'm wondering about y'all. Hope this is a good discussion! |
|
29 May 08 - 04:58 PM (#2352392) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: GUEST,mg It is OK with me if it is for important research. I want the environmentalists to get with the animal people and figure out why they can put cat litter and cat poop in the garbage. What a recipe for disaster..likewise baby diapers and medical waste. And any stray animals should be rounded up and either adopted or put to sleep. We can not walk safely here for the morons who let their dogs loose. mg |
|
29 May 08 - 05:02 PM (#2352397) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: *Laura* I think if people want to test chemicals and medicines and things they should do it on human volunteers. The animals don't benefit from nice shampoo so why should it get tested on them? And ban battery chicken farming.... the eggs taste rubbish anyway. That's animal welfare isn't it? Animal rights is different... like... horses in circuses and things. I think as long as the animals are HAPPY and healthy then it's ok.... |
|
29 May 08 - 05:37 PM (#2352442) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: GUEST,meself "And any stray animals should be rounded up and either adopted or put to sleep." Put to sleep? I say round'm up and put'm to work, like the rest of us. That'll teach'm. |
|
29 May 08 - 05:57 PM (#2352462) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Sorcha I'll be posting here, AFTER I think about this....I am not going off half cocked. There are many considerations on this. |
|
29 May 08 - 06:34 PM (#2352498) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Stilly River Sage One of them is to not automatically lump animal rights activists with environmentalists. A lot of environmentalists consider the animal rights folks to be the lunatic fringe. There are more occasions now-a-days when they work together, or are at least talking, but while there are some issues in common, a very large number are not. I'll give you some chapter and verse if you want it. Look up Eugene Hargrove and J. Baird Callicott for numerous essays on these subjects. SRS |
|
30 May 08 - 08:51 AM (#2352901) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Mrrzy OK, quick overview: Animal Rights = No Animal Research, usually. Animal Welfare = be kind to your research animals, as I understand it. The issue of strays is separate but germane. |
|
30 May 08 - 09:21 AM (#2352924) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Mrrzy This article from Slate is about animal rights and the environmental issue: blicky. |
|
30 May 08 - 10:10 AM (#2352958) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Stilly River Sage Mrrz, that doesn't work. "Animal Rights" is problematic to begin with. Animals don't have rights. Persons have rights, but personhood can't be conveyed onto non-human entities in order to convey rights. The only non-human person-type entity to also have rights are corporations. (And that's an odd evolution there, cooked up by rich people to protect their assets.) SRS |
|
30 May 08 - 10:51 AM (#2352989) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Mrrzy Hmm, it worked for me, did you mean the blicky? You can find it at Slate.com, or did you mean the argument? Also, why can't animals have rights? Rights are determined by human consensus, so why can't we all agree that they do? Just asking, not arguing. (I also think that many human "rights" are actually privileges...) |
|
30 May 08 - 11:59 AM (#2353042) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Stilly River Sage The link worked, the premise of "animal rights" is what doesn't work. This statement was at your link, and helps illustrate my point: Do the folks who respond to [Sierra Club] polar bear cub campaigns understand that species preservation can be cruel—and that saving the environment has little to do with animal rights? I don't recognize this author's name, but I haven't read much environmental philosophy lately. I'll have to look him up, see if he has been dabbling in theory. You asked Rights are determined by human consensus, so why can't we all agree that they do? I think you can see the flaw in this idea by simply looking at the question. We won't agree and you probably could never codify this to the extent you suggest. And frankly, if you are issuing rights to animals along the lines of those granted to children or adults with diminished capacity, then you get into the emotions of their caretakers who would "speak for the animals" in a manner that doesn't fit the way rights might actually have been intended. Cultures vary, what is important varies. Some cultures have dogs as pets, others have them as dinner. Animal cruelty laws are different than animal rights laws, but those are laws regarding the treatment of chattel, property. The fact that protections for horses pulling carriages came into existence before the laws regarding the treatment of children is an interesting illustration in the history of the expansion of human rights under the guise of animal cruelty. SRS |
|
30 May 08 - 02:35 PM (#2353177) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Mrrzy Indeed, SRS. I didn't mean to imply that I thought we could all agree - about anything - ! But if the state in which I live (being in the US) legislates an animal right, does that not convey to them that right? I agree that they don't automatically come with rights... but then again, I don't think humans automatically come with rights, either. |
|
30 May 08 - 03:09 PM (#2353211) Subject: RE: BS: Animal Rights vs. Animal Welfare From: Stilly River Sage It probably doesn't actually legislate "rights" to animals. What state, and what particular right do you have in mind? Humans sometimes don't understand they had rights until they're taken away. There are many places that don't seem to have the communal ethos that would eliminate discrimination or assault or even slavery. When you start looking at Human Rights you have a huge subject in itself. I think trying to equate animal rights alongside human would result in a naturally bifurcated argument. They simply wouldn't stick together very well. SRS |