Animal Rights and Law School

[Hank Rearden]

I always get a kick out of how frequently I see vegetarians berating non-vegetarians for their moral decisions when it comes to what they eat. 99% of the time, if the tables were turned and someone else were berating them for their moral decisions when it comes to things like religion, abortion, gay marriage, et al., they would (rightfully) tell said person to take their morals and shove them.

The two situations are not similar at all.  Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights.  If that is the case, our eating them would infringe on the animals' rights, while gays marrying infringes on nobody's rights.  The question is of course, do animals have rights?  I obviously think they don't, but if someone thought they did, I could definitely see how they could be outraged by people eating them. 

[BrerAnansi]

I'm pretty sure that s/he just had a problem linking sources for the stats cited...but you guys can pretend otherwise for a cheap laugh...that works too...

animal lover.   

 

I will admit that I've made charges of speciesism--with a straight face--more than once.

Hank, don't apologize, (and definitely not to me)just save your seconds for worthier posts...

[hereshopin]

If someone want to claim that my decision to eat meat has a tangible negative impact on them, then they should pass a law banning it. Until then, tough *&^%, I'll exercise my ability to eat what I like.

So, even if it was demonstrated that eating meat had a tangible negative impact on some person/people, you wouldn't stop unless it was made illegal?

just checking.

If they can convince a majority of the population that the negative impact is so severe that laws should be passed to ban it, then yes. If not, then no. Think about it - everything has a tangible negative impact on somebody or thing. Becoming a vegetarian hurts the finances of cattle farmers, breeders, meat packing companies, supermarkets, etc etc. Should people feel obligated not to be vegetarians because of that? No, they have the ability to choose what they eat, just as I do.

[Thistle]

I always get a kick out of how frequently I see vegetarians berating non-vegetarians for their moral decisions when it comes to what they eat. 99% of the time, if the tables were turned and someone else were berating them for their moral decisions when it comes to things like religion, abortion, gay marriage, et al., they would (rightfully) tell said person to take their morals and shove them.

The two situations are not similar at all.  Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights.  If that is the case, our eating them would infringe on the animals' rights, while gays marrying infringes on nobody's rights.  The question is of course, do animals have rights?  I obviously think they don't, but if someone thought they did, I could definitely see how they could be outraged by people eating them. 

is it ok to eat gays, then?   

[Thistle]

is it ok to eat gays, then?   

"eat," yes.

nothing i like better than haunch of lesbian

[hereshopin]

I always get a kick out of how frequently I see vegetarians berating non-vegetarians for their moral decisions when it comes to what they eat. 99% of the time, if the tables were turned and someone else were berating them for their moral decisions when it comes to things like religion, abortion, gay marriage, et al., they would (rightfully) tell said person to take their morals and shove them.

The two situations are not similar at all.  Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights.  If that is the case, our eating them would infringe on the animals' rights, while gays marrying infringes on nobody's rights.  The question is of course, do animals have rights?  I obviously think they don't, but if someone thought they did, I could definitely see how they could be outraged by people eating them. 

How are they dissimilar? Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights, just like anti-abortion activists often claim that fetuses (fetii?) do indeed have rights. In both cases, killing them would theoretically infringe on that entities rights. I can definitely see how people are outraged in both cases, but that doesn't mean that either one of them is right.

[hereshopin]

is it ok to eat gays, then?   

"eat," yes.

nothing i like better than haunch of lesbian

put a little duck sauce on that and you've got a real treat

[paratactical]

I think it's a misnomer to get uppity about agribusiness and use that to draw the conclusion that no one should eat meat. PETA and other animal rights organizations could gain a lot in terms of humane solutions for coexistence if they worked with the small ranches, butchers and meatpacking companys that care about the land and their animals. I think the absolutist nature of these arguements greatly hinders any real progress that could be made in favor of animal's rights.

Just my $.02.

[yourlocalsuperhero]

I always get a kick out of how frequently I see vegetarians berating non-vegetarians for their moral decisions when it comes to what they eat. 99% of the time, if the tables were turned and someone else were berating them for their moral decisions when it comes to things like religion, abortion, gay marriage, et al., they would (rightfully) tell said person to take their morals and shove them.

The two situations are not similar at all.  Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights.  If that is the case, our eating them would infringe on the animals' rights, while gays marrying infringes on nobody's rights.  The question is of course, do animals have rights?  I obviously think they don't, but if someone thought they did, I could definitely see how they could be outraged by people eating them. 

How are they dissimilar? Animal activists often claim that animals do indeed have rights, just like anti-abortion activists often claim that fetuses (fetii?) do indeed have rights. In both cases, killing them would theoretically infringe on that entities rights. I can definitely see how people are outraged in both cases, but that doesn't mean that either one of them is right.

I hope you don’t feel berated … That’s just not the way to have an important conversation on what is right, on the morality of our actions.  My objective is to talk with mutual respect. 

I think it’s fair to say that rights are codified based on our understanding of similarity (a little simple, but good enough).  It took a while, but rights were finally extended to powerless people that didn’t have white skin, and later given to people without penises, because on all matters relevant to the establishment of personhood those with power finally accepted that the ‘other’ was similar.

So too, I think, with species.  Have you heard some of the remarkable nuanced social behavior or emotional intelligence that scientists are beginning to report?  Just because someone has four legs instead of two or a trunk instead of a nose does not mean that their interests to pursue their own ends should be completely restricted.  Worse is to have ones' entire life exploited and relegated to the task of accumulating wealth for another -- how can this not be a moral wrong?  Most terrible yet, as paratactical has correctly stated, lives in the factory, agbribusiness model of production are total, unmitigated misery.  Just because someone has a snout does not mean it is right to treat them as this industry does.

I believe that those who recognize these notions have an obligation to stop perpetuating the wrongs and, in fact, to actively dismantle them.

[Thistle]

If someone want to claim that my decision to eat meat has a tangible negative impact on them, then they should pass a law banning it. Until then, tough sh*t, I'll exercise my ability to eat what I like.

So, even if it was demonstrated that eating meat had a tangible negative impact on some person/people, you wouldn't stop unless it was made illegal?

just checking.

Smoking kills, we all know that, but its still leagal.. Hmm maybe I'll go have a smoke and ham sandwich!

is it smoked ham?