Agree or disagree: the number one problem with the way people approach the animals rights debate is this?

They talk about humans and animals like we're somehow two separate things, but we're not; humans are animals.

  • Agree
    Vote A
  • Disagree
    Vote B
Select age and gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy
"Farm animals are not capable of choosing not to slaughter you, that is the essential difference. They are not choosing." yeah no kidding lol, it's kind of hard for an individual (human or not) to "choose not" to do anything to anyone in the outside world when they're pent up in factory farms. Yet if you took the time to actually see a cow on a farm sanctuary I'm sure the two of you would get along just fine ;)


Most Helpful Girl

  • Yes agreed. We are a type of animal just like a dog is a type of animal


Most Helpful Guy

  • The number one problem is they can't distinguish moral relationships from sympathy.

    Sympathy is an emotional reaction like disgust or attraction, it has no moral significance. You can be disgusted by a person who is morally exemplary if they are hideously ugly or have bad hygiene. You can be attracted to a person who is a moral monster.

    Moral relations are a kind of contract. We can only have moral relations with creatures who are capable of making moral decisions similar to our own. In practice that is other humans. Morality is a two way street, you are only obliged to treat another person morally as long as they do the same to you. If they break the moral compact (such as by criminal behavior) you can justly deal with them by whatever means necessary. You can certainly extend moral protection to creatures not capable of returning it but there is no obligation to do so.

    • Morality as we know it is
      A. well documented to occur in non-human animals
      B. Known to extend across the species "barrier"

    • Show All
    • No, animals do not have principles, they have only conditioned responses. You are projecting motives onto them they do not possess. Harming an animal that is incapable of having a moral relationship with you is neither a moral nor an immoral act.

      Christians were concerned with the slaughter of Christians but they weren't too upset by heathens killing each other off en masse and they were quite happy to do some slaughtering themselves of people with whom they did not share a moral relation. Other peoples were just the same. It is only since the Enlightenment in the West that there has been an attempt to form something like a universal moral relationship for all mankind.

      It's been interesting to put this all into words but now is my bedtime. Cheers.

    • Yes as I explained before, animals do have moral principles and these moral principles are what drives their (and our) conditioned responses and animals have been shown to have both sympathy and reciprocity (i. e they meet both of our criteria for what counts as a "moral relationship). And I'm not projecting motives onto them that they don't have because as I stated before, the worlds leading neuroscientists proclaimed that there are nonhuman animals that have conscious experiences like we do and they feel these impulses the same way that we do. Indeed there are animals such as clams, jellyfish and sponges who are incapable of having a moral relationship with us wouldn't be right or wrong but pretty much every bird or mammal (and possibly cephalopod) could have a "moral relationship" with us. But seeing as how you are arguing that whether or not genocide is morally wrong is somehow subjective, I think you've said all you need to about your views on morality, goodnight =)

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 1

  • Animals are just like humans. They have feelings.


What Guys Said 3

  • Not true at all. If you had to choose between saving the life of a human being or a chicken any decent person would pick the chicken. And don't say this scenario will never happen because it happens all the time in medicine. Many medical products come from dead animal parts like insulin for diabetics.
    We always choose that a human is more valuable than an animal. It's not the same in this debate. It would never be okay to put a collar on a human and lock them up in your backyard.

    • Well that's not entirely true: Many people I know said that they value the life of their dog more than just about every human on the planet, But that's not the main question: the main question is a human's culinary satisfaction more important than the life of an animal.

    • Show All
    • Nobody cares what 3/4 of a million people think, so you're never going to get anywhere.

    • We're not omnivores nor do we have any traits in common with omnivores that omnivores already share in common with herbivores and meat production has peaked in 2007 and has been declining ever since so we are getting somewhere ;)

  • agree, I believe in treating animals humanly

  • The day humans can start growing meat off trees, I'll have no problems with animal-rights nonsense.

    • #facepalm this is exactly what I was talking about.

      humans are animals so if animal rights are nonsense then so are human rights.

    • Show All
    • "Of course they are nonsense! There's no such thing as human rights! It's all a bill of temporary privileges." so you have no problem with genocide, slavery etc... Do you not think that people should be entitled to some security from these crimes? LOL typical.

    • None whatsoever. I also mean every word I type on GaG in all sincerity.

Loading... ;