Should Animals Have Human Rights? (Pokémon + Speciesism) - 8-Bit Philosophy

Fluffy McFlufferson, Pussy Meowsalot,
Turtle Turtleson, and Muffin head. In 2014, Americans spent over $56 billion
dollars on their beloved pets. But how can we reconcile this affinity with
the horrific ways in which animals are often treated? Thinkers like Rene Descartes have argued that
since animal lack consciousness, they are essentially machines, and thus do not have
moral status. A less extreme view is that animals are conscious, but their cor sentience
is so fleeting that things don’t matter to them like they do to us. But to Australian philosopher Peter Singer,
drawing moral boundaries based on species characteristics is utterly arbitrary. In his
book Animal Liberation, Singer argues that we suffer from a form of “speciesism.”
In other words, since there is a belief that animals don’t share the level of consciousness
that humans exhibit, they don’t deserve to be given similar moral consideration. Granted, it’s reasonable to suggest that animals
and humans should not share the same rights — the right to vote, for instance,
would be wasted on a Pikachu. But is it not also wasted on people who are incapable of
making rational choices? Yet, we don’t consider those individuals as altogether different
from the rest of us. Clearly, we are inconsistent
with our application of speciesism. To Singer, the principle of equality shouldn’t
be based solely on consciousness or intelligence. What’s most important is the capacity for
a being to experience pain and suffering. Recognizing animals’ capacity to suffer is as
much a moral characteristic as recognizing our own. According to at least one philosophical theory,
moral actions are those that increase pleasures and decrease pains. Initially known as hedonism,
and later popularized by Jeremy Bentham as utilitarianism, this philosophy holds that
the only intrinsically good thing is pleasure, and the only intrinsically bad thing is pain. Hence, inflicting pain — whether it be against
humans OR animals — is wrong. For Singer, the capacity to suffer is the characteristic
that qualifies any living thing to moral consideration, because pain is something that both animals
and humans alike try to avoid. Think about it like this: a stone has no interest
in avoiding being kicked, but a dog does — and therefore, deserves moral treatment. So dearest viewer, ask yourself: would you
still eat bacon if it came from Pikachus?

Author Since: Mar 11, 2019

  1. A stone has no interest in avoiding being kicked, where as a dog does…

    So how about about a sedated dog or a human is it okay to kick them? And how about a dead human? Is moral to kick that body?

    The problem is with this black and white morality…

    There is no such thing as universal morality or rights, it is the level importance that "humans" associate with a particular object that determines right or wrong… And with out humans, right or wrong doesn't matter…

    There is no such thing as an automatic "deserve" for animals, it's the nature of association with humans that determines the life and privileges to those animals…

    Humans > pets > farm animals > pests

    There is no moral equality… Not all lives are equal and pain is not supposed to be the scale to determine rights…

  2. Peter Singer is a utilitarian. For a deonthological approach I recommend Tom Regan. And for intersectional approaches I recommend Breeze Harper, Carol J. Adams, Aph Ko and Syl Ko.

    Also, just a reminder: humans are animals too. We'd do well to delete that divide. It's more useful to distinguish between human animals and non-human animals.

  3. Humans need to place themselves with equal value among the rest of the animal kingdom and respect each other's needs of survival. It's perfectly fine to eat another animal so long as we don't go witch hunting them when they turn around and do the same or similar thing such as shark attacks. You should defend yourself by all means but when a beast wins we should accept it as apart of nature.

    Also, I'd eat almost anything so long as I don't have to eat it's organs, so I'd chow on a pikachu.

  4. The thing in 2018 I find that people don't understand is that we are omnivorous and we eat meat and surely not our own

  5. Honestly yea I think bacon that's from a electric mouse would taste better and if force ash to watch

  6. Morality is subjective, take decisions based on science. Should we really care about other animals? Probably not, we only care about animals with qualities we like, we have to take care of our own and our own species first so we can reproduce, after that we start caring about others because certain animals can provide us with food, clothing, protection, company, etc…

  7. no, they should have animal rights, because thats how words work. (save it for the semantics dome, e.b. white)

    No but really, as an animal rights activist, it saddens me that people can inflict pain and suffering upon small defenseless creatures. I get that not everyone can go vegan, but the fact that people shoot animals for fun when they dont need to (im talking about rich fuckers that could eat literally anything else) disgusts me.

  8. I don't think I agree with the concept that pain is intrinsicly bad and that pleasure is intrinsicly good. Because certain pain that is exibited on other individuals can be constructive and assist them in finding a more fulfilling life. While pleasure can be destructive like a drug addicts relentless pursuit of the pleasure drugs provide him but ultimately leaves himself impoverished of any ability to fell pleasure from anything else.

  9. What is the rational basis for choosing ability to feel pain as a criteria for a being to have rights? If you were able to give a really rational basis for this pain stuff answer my next question. Is it okay to eat animals if we genetically modify them to be congenitally insensitive to pain?

    If you were unable to answer let me help you. Your mirror neurons help you to feel empathy for other beings. It is easier to feel empathy for beings that are similar to you. That is why it is easier to feel empathy for animals more than plants or it is easier to feel empathy for certain animals more than others. There are microscopic animals that you kill with every handwash, every pill you take, even the pills you take has to be tested on animals because it is the best option.

    If utilitarianism is the answer, it is obvious that we prioritize our utility more than other beings's. Yes it is sad to kill some plants or animals for utility, but we have to eat. So it might be better to try not to waste than do a "should we kill plants or animals" kinda stupid argument which has no logical basis. (Last part is to vegetarians and vegans)

  10. It's not about animals rights vs human rights. It's about deepness of consciousness. No one who can't bear responsibility for their actions should be allowed to express opinion or at least their opinion taken into account.

  11. Okay, so you asked whether animals should have human rights, then argued merely that they deserve moral treatment. They are two different arguments.

    A dog should not be kicked. Neither should it have a natural right to vote, petition the government, carry a firearm, own property, or be tried within our judicial system.

  12. In order to properly decide wether you want to treat animals good or bad, you need to know this: and watch this: Then decide, please, be brave, don't take and hold forever all what you was given. Would you have hold, for instance, slaverism if you were a person in 17th Century? If you hold this bad treatment of eating animals needlessly, well, you would presumably held slaverism as good. Go, be brave and read and watch the two documents I've attached and do something admirable with your life going out of violent world's bubble.

  13. Okay so what if aliens came to earth and killing humans, can we say that they were wrong? Does the idea of right or wrong of human applied to them?

  14. If you killed a human being without causing it any pain and if it was somebody whose death would not cause emotional pain in others, it would still be murder, because you are taking its' future away. So, everything that can imagine the future should have a right to live.

    Most animals have complex emotional worlds and the emotional pain they feel is as real as that of a human being.

    Finally, not all living creatures experience pain, some don't have a nervous system But all of those that have sensual organs can experience fear.

    Therefore we should put animals in three categories, each with different rights:

    Category A should have all the rights that human beings have, except the ones that require language. That should include all great apes, as well as wales, dolphins and elephants.

    Category B should have the right to be protected from all physical pain, the right to company of other species members, the right to not be separated from its young, the avoidance of all unnecessary stress, as well as a protection against passively letting harm happen, that would include a right to food, drink, shelter and medical treartment. This category should contain all mamals, as well as the most smartest spineless, like oktopi.

    Category C includes all others that have sensual ogans, which means it excludes only single-cell organisms and, maybe or maybe not, plants. These have a roght to be protecte from unnecessary stress.

  15. Don't scroll down, it is an endless wasteland of vegans, PETA, and sociopaths attempting to communicate with them.

  16. Animals. Dust. Men. Dust. Children. Dust. Such is life beneath the sun. But when some claim there is life beyond the sun… the dirt seekers freak out

  17. I don't think pain matters as much as the seeming threat of being ended. I think the fear that one might come to not, or ought not to, exist at all is at the core of things. I think all of what we call true pain derives from these two. And if it doesn't derive from these two, it isn't really pain but, rather, something feigned.

  18. Human morality is arbitrary, with a twist of pragmatism. It is in no way some divine set of rules that apply universally. This applies to our attitude towards animals. We do not eat humans because this would break down society pretty fast. Some of us do not eat dogs because we create a bond with them and project human qualities onto them. It may seem arrogant, but we are the undisputed rulers of the food chain, and we set boundaries wherever we see fit. I say this: draw the line wherever you feel like it, knowing that if you are disruptive, you will be sanctioned by society.

Related Post