Moral/religious discussion on 'animal rights' - human responsibilities

[Stand_watie]

What is your take on this? Don't be put off if you're irreligious, I'm interested in how you arrive at your perspective regardless. I'll prime the well with my own thoughts.

A) I don't believe animals do or should have rights. My own religious tradition leads me to prioritize death of animals based upon a principle of a requirement of good stewardship of the good things G-d has given us.

B) Oddly enough, a consideration I've come into thinking in recent years, is of my own observation and application of my own concience, and relies not on theology or logic at all - that I have a responsibility to conduct myself in a manner that causes the least pain as is reasonable while continuing with a normal life and adhering to "A". As an example - It's perfectly fine for me to hunt, eat meat, wear leather etc, but the method that I use to kill or retrieve an animal has to take into acount the animal's sentience. As such fishing for barracuda would be entirely different than fishing for  (I mean literally with a hook, I'm not saying I'm pro se against whaling) whales. Poisoning pest fire ants would be different than poisoning pest elephants.

C) My own observation of modern hunting and fishing methods compared with modern animal husbandry/commercial hunting-fishing suggests to me that end use consumer hunting/fishing is probably typically a better method of getting food than the grocery store if you're interested in meeting either "A" or "B" or both (although that's not practicable in much of the world).

[Sindawe]

Your views pretty closely parallel mine.  Animals don't have "Rights" as currently codified in western legal tradition for humans, but should have the protection from needless pain and suffering while being put to our uses.

[Perd Hapley]

I guess I agree with the original post.  I do, however, stand fully behind the right of the animal owner to dispose of his private property as he wishes.  Though I'd never do it, I have a right to enter my dog in a dog fight, torture it to death, or to rape it, and this should be recognized by law.  Yucky.

I must add that those are awful things to do to any animal, and I don't condone them.

[Tallpine]

Yeah, I pretty much agree with SW except for the religious part of it.  I figure that when I take a deer that I pretty much owe it as quick and painless a death as possible.

OTOH, I like most animals better than most people

[cosine]

I agree both with Stand_watie and fistful. They pretty much sum up my beliefs about this topic. However, if someone needlessly causes an animal great suffering, like how fistful described, I don't believe that there should be any repercussions administered by the government, but that person's gonna account for that in the next life.

[Iain]

Dunno, difficult to talk about animal rights, not a big fan of the concept, but I'm not sure that there should be no legal repercussions for horrendous abuse of an animal.

Just picked up a cookery book from Britain's own back to nature chef, he goes through the year month by month talking about what is in season and providing a few recipes. In the 'November' chapter he talks about game bird shooting, something he doesn't apologise for doing. He does however say that it is a crying shame that the way the (lucrative) sport is organised in this country means that a lot of shot birds go uneaten, sometimes just ploughed into the field. I don't like that attitude towards animals too much, if it's food someone should eat it.

On a side note, I made damson cheese from a recipe in his book. Tasty.

[Nightfall]

Animals have no capability to respect the rights of others. Even at the height of adulthood, they don't have minds capable of understanding the concept. Ergo, they don't have rights.

[Stand_watie]

Dunno, difficult to talk about animal rights, not a big fan of the concept, but I'm not sure that there should be no legal repercussions for horrendous abuse of an animal.

Just picked up a cookery book from Britain's own back to nature chef, he goes through the year month by month talking about what is in season and providing a few recipes. In the 'November' chapter he talks about game bird shooting, something he doesn't apologise for doing. He does however say that it is a crying shame that the way the (lucrative) sport is organised in this country means that a lot of shot birds go uneaten, sometimes just ploughed into the field. I don't like that attitude towards animals too much, if it's food someone should eat it..

Ian, an interesting historical note I think, is that a major cultural influence on your own country and mine (more mine I think, particularly since they make up the majority of my ancestors, and probably {but not definitely} not the majority of yours), were a group that influenced some of the first 'anti-animal-cruelty' laws in the history of the post renaissance developed western world (my trivia mind tells me that Judaism first developed it for the western world, but I can't recall a reference, other than that in the movie "Masada", where they claimed that orthodox Judaism prohibited causing unneccesary pain to animals), the Puritans.


As I understand it, bear-baiting, bull-baiting, and cockfighting were first banned in 17th century England and New England at the hands of the Puritans. Lord Thomas Macaulay cynically claimed "The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.. My understanding of the actual thinking behind the endorsement of the bans, wasn't that it gave pleasure to humans, but that it gave pleasure to humans in a manner that the Puritans found morally debasing (to gain pleasure from the pain of other beings) and generally unwholesome for society at large. I'm a libertarian in general, but I can't say I am opposed in principle (although I can most certainly find many manners in which I'd be opposed to them in current practice) to laws that protect animals from pointless pain. 'The devil is in the details' I guess is the cliche that best describes that thought of mine.

I find it amusingly ironic that you and I (who are probably worlds apart regarding systems and thought processes of coming to moral judgements) and you and I and the Puritans (who are definitely worlds apart regarding systems and thought processes of coming to moral judgements) all seem to have achieved the same conclusion here.

Regarding your comment on shot birds going uneaten, I can't agree more. It is horribly wasteful, of both the value of wild game (which you can see in spades by reading the thread on this board about the Texas dove season), and the value of a life, which even if small, still has a calculable value in my moral process. If you enjoy the sport of shooting birds, by all means enjoy - but don't waste them!

Matthew 10
Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

P.S. What is the name of "Britain's own back to nature chef"? I just had a thought that I think I should email to Ted Nugent's public affairs department - wouldn't it be a hoot to have a two part television special where Ted goes to England and learns some fancy cooking from him, and then he comes to Texas and learns some fancy shooting from Ted? I think since this fellow enjoys shooting and Ted enjoys cooking game, it would be a particularly good match.

[Iain]

I suspect you and I reach similar conclusions for very similar reasons. My extended family are farmers and farm workers, some of whom raise birds for shooting and I spent quite a bit of time on those farms as a kid. Formative moments regarding animals occurred on those farms - the friendly bullock that was gone when I returned, the starling that I shot with an air rifle and wished I hadn't. I was also raised in a charismatic Christian church.

The guy's name is Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall (couldn't be more English eh?), he really has contributed something to food in my opinion. He made a series where he bought an acre or two with a house and grew vegetables and raised chickens, and cooked with the results. That has now grown into several acres, quite a few animals, polytunnels, an orchard, and a small restaurant (most possible added value to your produce, especially if you are a famous chef). Obviously he makes money from books and TV too, but the contribution he has made has been to remind people of seasons and native foods, and back on topic, the link between the animal in the field and the steak on the plate.

Anyway, if these guys want to go out and shoot two dozen birds a day for sport that's fine, I have no objection to enjoying doing so. Plenty of people around who wouldn't mind a few free pheasants to feed their charges, as I believe happens with surplus venison both here and in the US.

[Art Eatman]

I generally fall in with the folks who deny that animals have rights, but believe people have responsibilities.

I'm in favor of penalties under law as to "abuse", although that word has become horribly cheapened in this era of political correctness and nannyism.  I'd punish the idiots who are often shown on TV shows such as the Animal Cops of the cable channel Animal Planet.  You have livestock or pets?  Feed 'em, water 'em, don't go to beating on them.  Act like a grownup.

I commonly spend a lot of time in finding a downed dove or quail.  I've never given up on finding one of them without having had a strong sense of regret.  I learned years ago to be rather finicky about where I'm willing to take a shot, so the bird doesn't fall in thick cover.

Biologicaly, I'm an omnnivore, so when people go to moralizing about eating meat and other such trivial anti-intellectuality, I get a serious case of the MEGOs.  Hey, my eyes are in front, with stereoptical vision:  I'm a predator.  A tool-using predator.  Hit a cow in the head with a hammer, have steaks.  Steak good.  Barbecue even better.

I grew up farming and ranching, hunting and fishing.  City folks' un-natural ideas bore me.  Having the right to an opinion does not create any obligation on my part to listen to drivel.

Art