human rights?

E

EmptyForceOfChi

Banned
Banned
i am not a great supporter of morals and ethics, i think they are subjective and fickle. i want to address something that slightly bothers me.

why do we give rights to some living things and not others? how can this be justified properly by ethical people? we give more rights to some animals that others why is it so?

why does a human get more rights that any other animal?

why are we not allowed to beat up dogs or cats but we can kill insects? why doesent an insect get the same animal rights as anything else?


if we say there are millions of insects it doesent matter, then i can compare that to human population compared to say an endangered species, "its ok to kill a few humans there are billions of them left anyway"

is it really logical ethics and standards here? or is it that we dont want to kill cute animals, but ugly little things are ok to kill? how can you justify killing one life and not another?


peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
...why do we give rights to some living things and not others? how can this be justified properly by ethical people? we give more rights to some animals that others why is it so?

why does a human get more rights that any other animal?
Click to expand...

Your answer lies within your question ...odd as that might sound. If you read your questions, you keep using the word "give", which implies that someone or some thing actually hands out those "rights". That someone or something is, yep, you guessed it .....egotistical, self-centered, greedy humans!

So ...the answer is that "we" give rights as "we" see fit. Each human "gives" rights as to how emotional he is about specific things or animals. I like dogs, so naturally I "give" more rights to dogs than to cats. I like horses, but I eat cows, so I give more rights to horses than to cows.

And also please note ....those "human rights" or even "animal rights" for that matter, are NOT written down anywhere except in laws or rules ....which are subject to change by the very people who wrote them in the first place.

Also ..........HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BIG JOKE!!

Baron Max
 
We eat animals.

We wear animals.

We test on animals.

How do you figure that animals are treated better than people? This is just silly.
 
hug-a-tree said:
We eat animals.

We wear animals.

We test on animals.

How do you figure that animals are treated better than people? This is just silly.
Click to expand...

Well, we kill humans. We starve humans. We put humans in prison cells. We execute criminals. We cut them open to remove faulty parts. We cut them open to replace fautly parts. We test humans. We use humans as test subjects.

How do you figure humans are any different to any other animals? It's just silly.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Your answer lies within your question ...odd as that might sound. If you read your questions, you keep using the word "give", which implies that someone or some thing actually hands out those "rights". That someone or something is, yep, you guessed it .....egotistical, self-centered, greedy humans!

So ...the answer is that "we" give rights as "we" see fit. Each human "gives" rights as to how emotional he is about specific things or animals. I like dogs, so naturally I "give" more rights to dogs than to cats. I like horses, but I eat cows, so I give more rights to horses than to cows.

And also please note ....those "human rights" or even "animal rights" for that matter, are NOT written down anywhere except in laws or rules ....which are subject to change by the very people who wrote them in the first place.

Also ..........HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A BIG JOKE!!

Baron Max
Click to expand...


good reply, but if i were to ask the majority who uphold and agree to these man made laws, how would they in-turn justify with thier ethics and morals?


what kind of defence can they give to such laws being handed out?

peace.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
good reply, but if i were to ask the majority who uphold and agree to these man made laws, how would they in-turn justify with thier ethics and morals? what kind of defence can they give to such laws being handed out?
Click to expand...

Well, they can't justify it with any degree of logical or reasoning. Mostly they'll jsut say it's so, and that's it.

Most also won't admit to the rights being "handed out" ...that goes against their own selfish ideals of their own importance and their own ego. It's like trying to get people to admit that they're just one tiny, tiny life form on a huge planet ...they can't or won't accept that. Again, ...it's their own ego, their own self-centric ideals of self-importance.

Baron Max
 
Baron Max said:
Well, they can't justify it with any degree of logical or reasoning. Mostly they'll jsut say it's so, and that's it.

Most also won't admit to the rights being "handed out" ...that goes against their own selfish ideals of their own importance and their own ego. It's like trying to get people to admit that they're just one tiny, tiny life form on a huge planet ...they can't or won't accept that. Again, ...it's their own ego, their own self-centric ideals of self-importance.

Baron Max
Click to expand...

i think you have the same kind of reasoning about this as i do, i dont know exactly where i stand on the issue ofcourse like usualy, obviously there are alot of factors in play, but i would like to hear what justification people would give to this.


i would like to hear somebody with an opposite opinion to our own reply to this. because i cant from a neutral standpoint see how one can give out seperate rules for seperate life-forms. because at the end of the day we are not talking about the foodchain wich will have obvious outcomes, we are talking about what can and cannot be harmed.

peace.
 
Well, here Il assume the opposite standpoint:
We have become the most intelligent being on the planet, we are the only ones capable of thinking in terms of ethics, and we have the strongest emotionms of all species.
single celled organisms and those without any 'brains' whatsoever have no mental abilities, feel no pain, have no social abilities. They are basically complex chemical reactions. Nothing wrong with electrolising water, nothing wrong with killing an amoeba.
An insect has a decentralized nerveous system, so the neurons that tell it to eat, are in the stomach, etc... thus cockroaches can live for a while without a head (and can many other bugs i think) So, we kill them freely because they have no real ability to suffer, nor do they have social abilities, kiling a spider doesnt affect any other spiders. That aside, one cant enforce rules against killing these tiny creature, just think of the amount of time and money wasted on human trials and try applying that to the number of spiders you could have even accidentaly stepped on! (too impracticle to have formal ethics in these areas) Of course, that means individuals are free to do as they please ethicaly with said small creatures. (dont like killing the bug, you can grab some paper and shove it outside.)

Dogs, cats, etc... and larger mammals have a higher intellectual ability, and such can feel pain, they clearly semonstrate they do (err.. wouldnt recommend testing this though :p ) (insects may twitch but thats just a muscle spasm, like a centepedes leg still moves after it breaks off)
So we dont torture larger animals in this way. However they are less develloped socialy and so, we can kill them if need be for food (if done quikly, no torture, everything is fine) or say if your pitbull goes berserk,, killing it is fine, as it is in self defence (suffering is already happening) and the dog wont be truly missed by another dog (nowhere near the level ahuman would be)
So this is what I say; for smaller animals, lack of true mental abilities and obviouse immpossibilites of enforcing any laws against killing them means no formal ethics can be spared for them (individuals are free to apply their own ethics on them)
For larger animals, they are not as mentaly adept at humans, and thus do not have the same moral equality, however do not deserve unneeded suffering. And ultimatly, it comes down to what makes a Human feel bad (we make the rules). And if you think about it an order of suffering if you witness the death of something would look like this (from greatest to least amount of suffering)
Human > pet dog > a ladybug > Some amoeba you killed by chlorinating your pool

-Andrew
 
Last edited:
andbna said:
Well, here Il assume the opposite standpoint:
We have become the most intelligent being on the planet, we are the only ones capable of thinking in terms of ethics, and we have the strongest emotionms of all species.
single celled organisms and those without any 'brains' whatsoever have no mental abilities, feel no pain, have no social abilities. They are basically complex chemical reactions. Nothing wrong with electrolising water, nothing wrong with killing an amoeba.
An insect has a decentralized nerveous system, so the neurons that tell it to eat, are in the stomach, etc... thus cockroaches can live for a while without a head (and can many other bugs i think) So, we kill them freely because they have no real ability to suffer, nor do they have social abilities, kiling a spider doesnt affect any other spiders. That aside, one cant enforce rules against killing these tiny creature, just think of the amount of time and money wasted on human trials and try applying that to the number of spiders you could have even accidentaly stepped on! (too impracticle to have formal ethics in these areas) Of course, that means individuals are free to do as they please ethicaly with said small creatures. (dont like killing the bug, you can grab some paper and shove it outside.)

Dogs, cats, etc... and larger mammals have a higher intellectual ability, and such can feel pain, they clearly semonstrate they do (err.. wouldnt recommend testing this though :p ) (insects may twitch but thats just a muscle spasm, like a centepedes leg still moves after it breaks off)
So we dont torture larger animals in this way. However they are less develloped socialy and so, we can kill them if need be for food (if done quikly, no torture, everything is fine) or say if your pitbull goes berserk,, killing it is fine, as it is in self defence (suffering is already happening) and the dog wont be truly missed by another dog (nowhere near the level ahuman would be)
So this is what I say; for smaller animals, lack of true mental abilities and obviouse immpossibilites of enforcing any laws against killing them means no formal ethics can be spared for them (individuals are free to apply their own ethics on them)
For larger animals, they are not as mentaly adept at humans, and thus do not have the same moral equality, however do not deserve unneeded suffering. And ultimatly, it comes down to what makes a Human feel bad (we make the rules). And if you think about it an order of suffering if you witness the death of something would look like this (from greatest to least amount of suffering)
Human > pet dog > a ladybug > Some amoeba you killed by chlorinating your pool

-Andrew
Click to expand...



thats a good response. i agree with alot of it actualy it makes sense. but what you said does not apply to all areas, because fish can feel pain and we are allowed to kill fish freely, and i can go up to a fish and punch it untill it dies and do it for sport if i like, but i cannot do that to a dog or cat.

also i know that people say all insects do not feel pain, but i have come across many people who see an insect that is badly fucked up and say "kill it and put it out of its misery" if it feels no pain it would have no misery,

i can also go up to a pigeon and kick its head in freely for fun and not get arrested, but i cant go up to a human and kick his ass or i will go to jail,


a bird can feel as much pain as a human and can suffer just the same, but i am allowed to inflict pain on animals that are not protected by the law, like birds, and fish, and im sure plenty of other animals (they are just off the top of my head)


peace.
 
Hmmm never truely pondered this. When I was 19 or so I was at my friends house who's parents were theosophical society members. They had this ULTRA buddist type guy there who was perusing the Library(I called it an occult library - including a hand-transcribed book of the dead). Well 3 of us and this passive buddist were at the doorway getting ready to leave and a hungry bitch mosquito was all over us. We are all squatting and saying "kill that sonofabitch". He was all like "oh nononono" it has a right to live like you.

Anyway he captured the bug and let it go outside. I remember thinking that is fucked up....but now I guess I can see the point. Morality all or nothing, quite an investment.
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
thats a good response. i agree with alot of it actualy it makes sense. but what you said does not apply to all areas, because fish can feel pain and we are allowed to kill fish freely, and i can go up to a fish and punch it untill it dies and do it for sport if i like, but i cannot do that to a dog or cat.

also i know that people say all insects do not feel pain, but i have come across many people who see an insect that is badly fucked up and say "kill it and put it out of its misery" if it feels no pain it would have no misery,

i can also go up to a pigeon and kick its head in freely for fun and not get arrested, but i cant go up to a human and kick his ass or i will go to jail,


a bird can feel as much pain as a human and can suffer just the same, but i am allowed to inflict pain on animals that are not protected by the law, like birds, and fish, and im sure plenty of other animals (they are just off the top of my head)


peace.
Click to expand...

thats becuase fish are not cute and furry
 
Baron Max said:
Well, we kill humans. We starve humans. We put humans in prison cells. We execute criminals. We cut them open to remove faulty parts. We cut them open to replace fautly parts. We test humans. We use humans as test subjects.

How do you figure humans are any different to any other animals? It's just silly.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
The majority of the population is much more careful with humans...
 
EmptyForceOfChi said:
thats a good response. i agree with alot of it actualy it makes sense. but what you said does not apply to all areas, because fish can feel pain and we are allowed to kill fish freely, and i can go up to a fish and punch it untill it dies and do it for sport if i like, but i cannot do that to a dog or cat.
Click to expand...
People own dogs and cats.


If you go to a farmer's cow or chicken and kill it, you get in trouble too. If they don't belong to anyone, then you are ok. Do you see the difference?
;)
 
Humans have rights because we are important to each other. I'm very significant to my wife, for instance. Not only in an emotional stand point, but also on a financial one. Hence why we have life insurance.

We must care for one another because we are interdependent. That's why human rights are important. And of course, if we want something good for us, we should always desire it likewise to everyone else. How would you feel if someone would, for no reason, desire you to suffer, or not care about you in any way?
 
Also

Everyone has something unique to contribute to society. And all the living beins also have something unique to contribute to the whole ecosystem.
 
nietzschefan said:
Hmmm never truely pondered this. When I was 19 or so I was at my friends house who's parents were theosophical society members. They had this ULTRA buddist type guy there who was perusing the Library(I called it an occult library - including a hand-transcribed book of the dead). Well 3 of us and this passive buddist were at the doorway getting ready to leave and a hungry bitch mosquito was all over us. We are all squatting and saying "kill that sonofabitch". He was all like "oh nononono" it has a right to live like you.

Anyway he captured the bug and let it go outside. I remember thinking that is fucked up....but now I guess I can see the point. Morality all or nothing, quite an investment.
Click to expand...

thats how i am, i only kill something or hurt something if it posses a threat to me, i dont kill bugs.


peace.
 
TruthSeeker said:
People own dogs and cats.


If you go to a farmer's cow or chicken and kill it, you get in trouble too. If they don't belong to anyone, then you are ok. Do you see the difference?
;)
Click to expand...


thats not the entire truth to it. yes we are not allowed to harm other peoples stuff, (stuff including life-forms) but i am not allowed to harm certain wild animals either, because they are protected. like the swan is not allowed to be harmed, because the queen likes them alot. (true fact), and i am not allowed to harm a wild hedgehod because there is a law protecting them,


it still counts as animal cruelty if i beat up a stray cat or dog, you can get arrested for it, but you cant get arrested for beating up a stray fish or pigeon.


peace.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Humans have rights because we are important to each other.
Click to expand...

Grass is important to cattle and horses ...so does grass have rights?

TruthSeeker said:
We must care for one another because we are interdependent. That's why human rights are important.
Click to expand...

Everything in nature is interdependent on something else. How does that equate to "rights"?

As I see it, all you're doing is "saying" something, but not making any logical arguments at all. Is that becuase you're like most humans ....egotistical and greedy?

Baron Max
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top