All animals deserve to die
The headline may overstate it slightly. What I mean is that animals have no right to life.
October 7, 2008
By Brett Turner
In my first blog entry, I criticized the Left for claiming health care as a fundamental right. I’d like to talk about another concept of rights, also concocted by the Left, and also flawed, that I was reminded of a few days ago by a sappy T.V. commercial: Animal rights.
Animals have no rights. At least they shouldn’t. I guess by law they do (some of them, like dogs and stuff, not ants or anything like that though). But I’m debating ideals, not legalities, so let’s talk about why no animal deserves rights.
I’ll address two different groups of bleeding-heart animal lovers: Those who think that it’s o.k. to eat animals, just not o.k. to abuse them, and those who think that humans are a plague on this earth and animals should get free health care.
Response to Group #1: (Partial rights for animals)
When I hear about the atrocities that KFC commits against innocent chickens, I get annoyed. From what I remember, the argument is that the chickens are packed too tightly into crates, and they peck each other’s eyes out in addition to becoming sickly. Now, many of the people who scream and cry about this “abuse” are perfectly fine with the fact that these chickens are about to be eaten. Killed and eaten. How’s that work? The chickens don’t have the right to life, but they do have a right not to be crowded?
Here’s a hypothetical to help illustrate my point.
Suppose that Camp A breeds/raises people to be bought and eaten by cannibals. Not only are these people imprisoned and living in utter squalor, they are continually abused by their captors. Many of the captive people are routinely raped and brutalized, and all face certain death.
Camp B also raises people to be bought and eaten by cannibals. But Camp B is way nice. It’s like a resort. People are fed well, treated politely, and even lied to about their fates to avoid the unpleasantness of fear and anxiety. When it’s time to die, Camp B does it painlessly; the poor saps never even realize what happened. Like the folks at Camp A, their carcasses are sold to cannibals and eaten.
Now, anyone who thinks that Camp B has some kind of moral high ground over Camp A needs to have their head screwed on properly. The only important fact in the hypothetical is this: Beings that we believe have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness are being held against their will and slaughtered. Who the hell cares about the method?
Response to Group #2 (Animals get full, human-like rights)
Drop dead; you’re of little, if any, value to society or to yourselves. Few of you will do anything more than smoke pot and hold a picket sign.
Just kidding. Well, half kidding anyway. At least the full-rights-for-animals position is more consistent than the first one. These hippies will agree with the logic of my Camp A/Camp B hypothetical, and use it to justify amnesty for chickens everywhere.
So, why should people have rights but animals should not? The answer is: Because we think we should. We know that we were born, we know that we are going to die, we grasp the concept of our own lives, and while we’re alive we wish to be treated a certain way. The first time a cow comes up to me and explains why it doesn’t want to be killed, I’ll never eat a cheeseburger again.
Animals do not know that they’re alive. You disagree, but that’s only because you’re stupid. Think about what I mean. No animal that we’ve ever heard of, other than a human, is really self-aware. They can’t grasp the concept of their own existence. They have no idea that they won’t be here some day. They can’t be depressed as they sit and contemplate their own mortality.
How do I know? Because if animals were capable of that kind of conceptual thought, it would be very apparent. Cows and chickens would lead Animal Farm-style rebellions all over the world, fighting for their well-deserved freedom. They would develop language.
No, none of them have developed language. So what your dog knows how to sit? Try teaching him to read. No, not even Koko the sign language gorilla knows a language. If gorillas can really grasp the concept of language, then let’s see Cocoa teach sign language to another gorilla. Let’s see that gorilla teach its offspring; let’s watch as the language increases in size and complexity and the collective body of knowledge among gorillas grows, until young gorillas possess facts and stories passed down by their ancestors through the generations.
Ha.
I think the closest someone could come to rebutting my argument is by saying this:
You’re right, animals don’t know they’re alive. Therefore, it’s o.k. to kill them and eat their carcasses. But animals do feel pain, so it is morally wrong to inflict suffering on them.
I would say that admitting animals have no right to life or freedom puts the ceiling for whatever “rights” they do have pretty damn low. “It isn’t very nice to torture puppies for no reason” is probably the strongest statement you can objectively make.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
wow.
alrighty then....
If your logic is holds - then it is morally okay to eat, torture, kill and human babies. Right? Because I can guarantee that no infants have sauntered up to you lately and discussed any concepts they may have of being alive. Oh, and humans with mental disabilities. And of course people in comas -- just unplug them and start eating. Furthermore, if intelligence is what you suggest we use for determining which living creatures should be tortured and eaten then you my friend are invited over for dinner at my place...hmmm I wonder if you taste like chicken.
Actually, if you visit Koko.org, the gorilla's keepers are reasonably sure that she WOULD teach her offspring to sign. She already has experience "teaching" gorilla dolls and assisting a fellow gorilla who isn't as proficient in the language.
...Just saying. :-)
I'm starting to like Brett...
PS
mparis, He is obviously talking about conceptual thought, not an unqualified version of the word intelligence. Some like you might claim that computers are intelligent, in fact they can do some things better and more efficient than humans, but they are not self-aware, they possess no capacity for conceptual thought, just like animals. Babies/Disabled people/coma patients have the capacity of conceptual thought, they are just not proficient at it. The difference is with the possession of a capacity, potential or actual. As an example an adult human that is sleeping still possesses the capacity of self-awareness or conceptual thought or reason, he/she is just not utilizing this capacity at the moment. With conceptual thought comes self-awareness without it self-awareness is not possible. Animals have no capacity to think conceptually. They are not self-aware, nor do they have the potential to become so.
i do love myself some fried chicken - t-bone steaks, salmon, lobster, catfish, and bacon
i really like that you directly insult your readers. thanks for calling me stupid, but i like to think otherwise that is, in fact, you that is ignorant and blindly unaware of the world around you.
what kind of humanistic ideal are you trying push? animals think conceptually in their own way. animals use their self-awareness to find food, shelter, create relationships, everything that humans do as well. if by self-awareness you mean conscious knowledge of one's own feelings and motives, then yes, animals are self-aware. they know when they are hungry (they beg for food or go and get their own), they know when they are depressed or sad (often when their mate dies, an animal refuses to eat and often passes as well), they know when they are about to die (many domesticated animals crave more attention immediately prior to death or will visit quiet areas of the home repeatedly before dying). what about the birds and other animals that sense a storm arriving and leave to find better shelter? that isn't self-awareness to you?
just because an animal cannot speak to you directly in english and inform you that they do not want to die does not mean that they are not communicating their desires to you. if you come at an animal with a knife and start stabbing it, i believe it'll begin to cry out in pain and subsequently will cry at you to stop (in whatever language that animal can express). it is also known that language is not necessary for mental thought. so just because an animal isn't speaking your language, it means that it isn't thinking? animals have their own way of communicating among each other and among other species, as well.
and as far as the treatment of animals goes before their killing for us to eat, just because they're going to die anyways doesn't mean it's ok to just make their short lives as miserable as possible. i totally think it's fine to eat animals and all that; it's part of human nature, but it's not human nature to completely torture a leaving organism before eating it. a lot of animals in nature attempt to kill their prey as quickly and painlessly as possible and that's the way it should be done.
don't forget that humans are just as much animals. just because our thought processes may be more advanced doesn't mean we are not in essence mammals and are subject to a lot of the same things as any other animal. you're just full of yourself and think that humans are far superior than any other creature on earth, for which you are wrong. also you're condescending and patronizing attitude doesn't really help to make any of your claims worth listening to. oh and before you go around making such ridiculous claims, why don't you try backing them up? instead of telling your audience to "drop dead" you should research your points and use reliable sources to back your absurd theories.
Man, I stopped reading "animals" comment after like two sentences. Booooring.
I love reading this blog. Wittier than anything else on the Kansan website. I also really enjoy reading the comments of the poor, indignant liberals who for some reason, keep coming back for more! I mean, you know what you are going to get with Brett from the tone of his last few entries. Keep it up.
This is a university newspaper?
This is a university student?
I knew our edumacation system was slipping, but this blog/rant seems incredibly stupid.
If I were to write a piece like this, at least I would have researched who Koko the gorilla was and not just babbled Cocoa. Besides being a ten year vegan, I did graduate work in psychology, and There Have been chimpanzees who learned sign language and taught it to their children and fellow chimps.
Apes have learned and passed on numerous behaviors, as observed in the lab and the wild, except for the primate named Brett who wrote this article. I doubt he has anything to contribute to the gene pool.
I have been an advocate for animals for several decades and I am pretty well read. I know what I am talking about when I advocate rights for animals. Animals have the basic right not to be exploited for profit by humans. Animals have the basic right to be left alone in the world.
And for your information, Brett, I am not a hippie, nor have I smoked pot for several decades, I am a National Park Service Ranger, a concerned citizen of the U.S. and a vegan advocate for animal rights and environmental reasons.
Brett, I suggest if Kansas offers a basic philosophy class or a course in ethics, you enroll.
-Greg Lawson aka vegetexan@aol.com, national park service ranger, President of the Vegetarian Society of El Paso
I'm personally shocked that a "vegan advocate" disagrees with Brett, and one from El Paso at that.
Greg, I suggest if Texas offers a basic course in "not being a nut-job vegan" you enroll, and get at least a 'C' for Christ's sake.
I will say that it is comforting to know that you "know what you are talking about when [you] advocate rights for animals." Well then, the matter is settled.
I know my opinion holds little weight because I'm not president or even a member of a "society" whose existence is based on my choice of entree, but I think your claims of chimps/apes passing information through generations is ludicrous.
Favorite Vegan Joke...
Why does vegan cheese taste bad?
It hasn't been tested on mice.
and this...
"""The Times of India reports Oxford University “scientists have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain-with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage.”""
Now I know that correlation is not causation, but it's a funny story nonetheless.
"I think your claims of chimps/apes passing information through generations is ludicrous."
Gee, all it takes is a little googling, IronFistClad
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1838,Washoe-the-sign-language-chimp-dies,CNN
"Washoe, a female chimpanzee said to be the first non-human to acquire human language...
Washoe also taught sign language to three younger chimps who remain at the institute, Central Washington spokeswoman Becky Watson said. They are Tatu, 31, Loulis, 29, and Dar, 31."
Not that they use it to communicate with each other. I mean, you could teach them to shoot a gun too, are they going to go out and bag a tiger?
TexMex,
Gee all it takes is a little reading of the article you linked to.
"""although critics contended Washoe and some other primates learned to imitate sign language, but did not develop true language skills."""
and...
"""But there was controversy over whether the chimp was really using ASL. Among those who doubted chimps could use language were MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and Harvard scientist Steven Pinker.
Chomsky contended that the neural requirements for language developed in humans after the evolutionary split between humans and primates. Pinker argued that primates simply learn to perform certain acts in order to receive rewards, and do not acquire true language."""
There seems to be conflicting reports on whether or not the monkeys are actually using language. It appears to some as just monkey-see-monkey-do. It never says anything about the chimps using sign language to communicate with each other, or using sign language to tell other chimps about their lives, hopes, dreams, or history.
Monkey-See-Monkey-Do
Is this anything new???
Pantheon:
Exactly.
I love me some fried chicken.
"Now, anyone who thinks that Camp B has some kind of moral high ground over Camp A needs to have their head screwed on properly. The only important fact in the hypothetical is this: Beings that we believe have a right to life and the pursuit of happiness are being held against their will and slaughtered. Who the hell cares about the method?"
I care about the method. I want my meats raised in a healthy environment. I don't care what their mood is, but cattle that are raised in the proper conditions produce higher quality meats with less fat, free range chickens don't have to be hopped up on steroids and antibiotics to stay alive can ensure that our medicines will remain effective. I think the way we raise animals isn't exactly the best or healthiest way to do it, but I sure do love meat.
Sure, raising cows, pigs, chickens, and sheep for eating isn't exactly the most efficient way to feed people, but people were made to eat meat. Just like dogs. Just like kitties. Just like bears. People evolved to eat meat.
Turner's a very ignorant person when he says that animals lack awareness and intelligence. Field research has proven that elephants, dolphins and primates are aware and self aware (see Marc Beckoff's book "Minding Animals"). Also see http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13860?DCMP=NLC-nlet...
a link to an article on "Six 'Uniquely Human' Traits Now Found in Animals" (culture, tool use, emotions, personality, morality, mind reading). A final example from the Salt lake Tribune (Feb. 9, 2001)
" Studies: We're Not the Only Smart Animals" begins with "Animals are smarter than most people think."
Just because you like the idea that animals are unfeeling nothings so that you can justify using and abusing them doesn't make it so. You'd be better off giving up your membership in the Church of Self Idolatry and thinking much less of yourself and much more of other beings.
Tricia,
There are far far more "studies" that contradict your cited "studies" than agree with them. Instead of citing "studies" one should study this topic and come to a conclusion on their own. Calling someone ignorant because they don't agree with you or your "studies" is ignorant with regards to the scientific method. The scientific method dictates that one should not accept conclusions of "studies", but critically analyze said studies and ponder variables not accounted for, possible conclusion affecting pre-study motivations to make the results "fit" the hypothesis, and other factors that could affect the outcome of said study. Brett has weighed the evidence on both sides and has come to a conclusion, perhaps you have done the same, perhaps not. Regardless, a blog comment field is hardly the forum for debating complicated scientific endeavors. What's the best that could happen? We get into a "My expert can beat up your expert cat-fight?" That's why my comments thus far have predominately poked obvious holes in what others have said (in a lighthearted fashion), with regard to texmex not reading the article he linked to.
Also, I see that you and several others have registered with the Kansan solely to respond to Brett's blog. Just find that funny.
Mr. Texas Ranger:
You’re right about the spelling of Koko. I should be more careful next time. I’ve corrected it, and I’m giving you the credit for it. Unfortunately, as of yet, that’s the only change that you’ve persuaded me to make. That’s because you spend more time boasting about your credentials than you do trying to rebut my article. You’re a vegan, you’ve done graduate work, you’re a Texas Ranger or something, you know what you’re talking about, bla bla bla.
Whatever. The only two relevant (but unsubstantiated) arguments you make are that chimps and Koko know a language, and that animals do have rights.
So, some biased, vegan zoologist says he has trained a monkey to talk, and you offer that up as sole evidence for your claim? Like IronFistClad said, there are plenty of so-called experts who don’t think that Koko really talks. But that’s not my evidence. My evidence is that primates in their natural habitat don’t develop language. Where’s the writing on the cave walls? The philosophy? The religion? The point is an animal that doesn’t know it’s alive has no use for philosophy. Any species capable of conceptual thought (humans only, for now) will develop language on their own, in the wild. And what exactly were you trying to convince me of? That I can’t barbecue Koko or a handful of chimps, but the rest of the world’s animals are o.k. for eating?
I know you don’t think that. I know you think animals have rights, but you don’t even try to offer an argument for that claim. For someone who so condescendingly told me to take a philosophy course, I would have expected you to know how an argument works.
You can try again if you want. Anything in the article you can disprove will be corrected.
In the illustrious words of Bill Murray in Stripes,
"Nobody cried when old yeller got shot? I'm sure."
Share your 2¢
(Requires free registration.)