Do animals have an intrinsic right to kill humans?

[MonkeyFunk]

Do sharks, lions, tigers, hippos, virii, dogs, et. al., have an intrinsic right to kill humans? Is the Great White who eats a diver morally deficient? Is smallpox evil?

Personally, I feel that rights don't enter into the equation. We are all animals, and animals do what they have to do to survive.

We have evolved as social animals and as a result, we do what we can to agree on what is acceptable behavior or non-acceptable behavior. But we're far from perfect agreement on the issue.

I also feel that attacking one another over such basic biological issues doesn't lead to any sort of consensus or compromise.

[Kiouni]

1. I wish i was a vegan

but i don't have the will power. I am hopeful about the future of lab grown meats though. This concept of growing edible meat in petri dishes and labs is an excellent solution to an ethical dilemma for millions of people and I would gladly pay more for my meat.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. What confounds many people about veganism

is that it's not even about meat - that's a basic tenet. It's about avoiding milk, honey, eggs, certain dyes, shellac, lanolin, gelatin, etc.

The notion that humans can live without using ANY animal products.


My personal feeling is that we should use what's available, doing as little harm as possible. Sheep grow wool... chickens lay eggs... bees make honey. I don't see any sin in using them.

I do eat meat. I try to keep the red meat to a minimum, but I do eat a lot of fowl. I'm thankful for the animals that lived and died for my diet. I also hope that my corpse can be eaten by vultures. The whole "circle of life" thing.

[twilight_sailing]

6. Why do you hate carrots?

Sorry, couldn't resist the joke.

But really, why is a vegetable's life worth less than an animal's life? Never understood it.

[aquart]

2. That would be my cat's opinion, yes. Mouse? Not so much.

[The Straight Story]

3. Might makes right, so they have the right kill, and we the right to kill em for doing it

then eating them :evilgrin:

[MonkeyFunk]

5. I've had a lot of cats, and they're

all one IQ point away from "rock". And they still manage to catch mice.

The mice better smarten up.

[Ikonoklast]

16. I, too, have a lot of cats, and the dumbest one is one IQ point

away from Evil Genius.

Don't buy the 'dumb cat' act. They are just lulling you into a false sense of security until the time for the overthrow of man.

[Jacobin]

7. Of course they do

We are meat, just like they are.

[Annces]

8. that sock puppet looks tasty n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

13. That's not a puppet

it's a sock-monkey. My grandma used to make them for me.

[Lance_Boyle]

9. 'virii' is not a word

and viruses are not animals. Nor are bacteria or fungi.

There are no "rights" where there is no ability of the beings involved to conceptualize "rights." There are no ethics in the ocean.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. It Used To Be A Word

When i first learned that bit of science (figure 6th grade or so) that was the plural of virus. When did that change and who changed it?
The Professor

[Lance_Boyle]

17. sorry, but no.

Viruses is the correct plural form of the word virus. "Virii" is a nonword.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plural_of_virus

http://homepages.tesco.net/J.deBoynePollard/FGA/plural-of-virus.html

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/latinlearning/f/virusplural.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/plural-of-virus

[MonkeyFunk]

12. of course it's a word

don't be silly.

[Lance_Boyle]

18. It is not a *cromulent* word

See my reply to the poster above. "Viruses" is the correct pluralization of "virus."

[izzybeans]

11. We differ from animals with our ability to reason about morals and manners. And we differ

from each other in our reasoning about morals and manners. Rights are not intrinsically universal, they must be made/won/constructed within the constraints of a context (perhaps recognizing our position within society and nature-as if they were distinct).

If we talk about our right to hunt and fish we must recognize the limits (or boundaries) of constraining and enabling this type of behavior. Are universal bans on hunting and fishing possible? No. Why? Because "we differ from each other in our reasoning about morals and manners." There is one thing that anti-choice/abortion people and radical "animal rights groups" have in common and that is they do not recognize this fact: "we differ from each other in our reasoning about morals and manners." It is a hallmark of fundamentalisms of every sort.

Should hunting be an unrestricted right? No. Because there are contextual (natural?) limits to hunting. Given our ability to reason we can recognize those limitations so long as we continue to recognize that our ability to reason takes us in different directions.

If there is a debate to be had we can focus on what form our reasoning should take on subjects like hunting, fishing, pollution, etc. We know what happens when pure economic reason is used, we slash and burn our way through nature. We are fully capable of utilizing other forms of reasoning on this issue. We just need to establish the types of rights that allow for a certain degree of freedom between the brick walls of diverse styles of reasoning and nature.

We will never find some transcendent morality or set of rights that does not have a history. Transcendence is a property of forgetting that history and disregarding that "we differ from each other in our reasoning about morals and manners."

[MilesColtrane]

14. Check out "The Road" by Cormac McCarthy

It's his latest book and it deals with some of the issues you are interested in.

He's a great writer, but I've got to warn you that this novel hits you with what appears to be unbelievable bleakness.

It's set in a time after an unspecified catastrophe has broken down the veneer of human civilization.

The main characters are a man and his young son.

The ethics and primacy of survival, what it means to be a human being, and our obligation towards the idea of a civilized society are the main themes it deals with.

[xultar]

15. Yes.