Animal rights

[Moontanman]

well at first it'll be difficult but lets say its the year 2300 and they've mastered all the problems surrounding it and it tastes the same and gives the same energy, if people couldn't accept it then that would be unfair don't you think? why wouldn't they accept it?

 

 

So far you have yet to explain why this is desirable, why is it bad to kill and eat something? Why is the life of a year old animal more important than a 300 year old tree? Why is it bad to kill and eat living things, only if they are animal?

 

Why should so much effort be put into artificial meat when real meat on the hoof is so much easier and tastier?

 

I have no problem killing something for food, neither do Lions or my dog or the shrew in my backyard. Everything on the earth lives by the death of something else, even plants need the excrement and rotting bodies of animals to grow no to mention the CO2 animals give off. We all live off something else, why is it so important to eat only plants and not animals?

 

WHY?

[Marat]

One of the cruelest ways humans kill animals is by reducing their hunting grounds by building homes and highways, which forces many of them to die a horrible death by slow starvation. So if animals really had rights, we would not only have to stop eating meat and wearing leather -- the obvious things which harm animals -- but we would also have to cease building cities and driving cars. Essentially, since our very existence displaces and kills them (how many mice are slaughtered for every highway built? how many die from lack of hunting grounds because 6 billion humans take up so much space?), we would have to die out as a species to ensure that we would not harm animals, which is what we ought to do if they really have rights.

 

But the reductio ad absurdem of the whole ridiculous animal rights movement goes further. We would also have to intervene in nature to prevent unnecessary animal suffering, which would mean we would have to have patrols to ensure that cats were not 'playing' with and thus torturing mice before eating them. Killer sharks do the same sort of thing with smaller sea creatures like otters, so we would need an otter rescue patrol to spare them from these wrongs.

 

Generally, rights state reciprocal relationships (Wesley Hohfeld: Every right imposes a duty on someone else to respect that right; and every duty creates a right in someone to have that duty obeyed.) But since animals could only be the beneficiaries of rights but could never accept duties to respect anyone else's rights, the whole necessarily reciprocal system of rights and duties could never apply to animals.

[Horza2002]

As I've said before on here, everything that lives must gets its nutrients from somwehre else....death is an intergral part of the natural cycle. It is impossible not to intervene with other animals lives...at the simplest level, we need the same land that they do...as well as food, water, habitate, etc.