Guardian: All beings that feel pain deserve human rights.

[shockra]

All beings that feel pain deserve human rights

Equality of the species is the logical conclusion of post-Darwin morality

Richard Ryder
Saturday August 6, 2005
The Guardian

The word speciesism came to me while I was lying in a bath in Oxford some 35 years ago. It was like racism or sexism - a prejudice based upon morally irrelevant physical differences. Since Darwin we have known we are human animals related to all the other animals through evolution; how, then, can we justify our almost total oppression of all the other species? All animal species can suffer pain and distress. Animals scream and writhe like us; their nervous systems are similar and contain the same biochemicals that we know are associated with the experience of pain in ourselves.

Our concern for the pain and distress of others should be extended to any "painient" - pain-feeling - being regardless of his or her sex, class, race, religion, nationality or species. Indeed, if aliens from outer space turn out to be painient, or if we ever manufacture machines who are painient, then we must widen the moral circle to include them. Painience is the only convincing basis for attributing rights or, indeed, interests to others.

<snip>

Basically, it boils down to cold logic. If we are going to care about the suffering of other humans then logically we should care about the suffering of non-humans too. It is the heartless exploiter of animals, not the animal protectionist, who is being irrational, showing a sentimental tendency to put his own species on a pedestal. We all, thank goodness, feel a natural spark of sympathy for the sufferings of others. We need to catch that spark and fan it into a fire of rational and universal compassion.

All of this has implications, of course. If we gradually bring non-humans into the same moral and legal circle as ourselves then we will not be able to exploit them as our slaves. Much progress has been made with sensible new European legislation in recent decades, but there is still a very long way to go. Some international recognition of the moral status of animals is long overdue. There are various conservation treaties, but nothing at UN level, for example, that recognises the rights, interests or welfare of the animals themselves. That must, and I believe will, change.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1543755,00.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. I'll put it this way, my birds are my budies

and they are fully family members, with a place at the dinner table

[tocqueville]

2. absolutely right

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

3. I wholly agree, this is logical.

[WCGreen]

4. Does this mean that Bush is not classified as having rights...

That guy feels nothing....

[Gay Green]

11. Actually he feels pain

His own, not anybody else's. Has anybody checked the WH beer, wine and liquor bills lately?

[WCGreen]

26. Brother.....

I guess that is just that you are a green party dude....

[beam me up scottie]

5. I've always believed this.

In 1789, Jeremy Bentham wrote:
The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week, or even of a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?

From Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, Chapter 17
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bentham/bnthPML18.html#Chapter XVII, Of the Limits of the Penal Branch of Jurisprudence

[OneBlueSky]

6. absolutely . . . n/t

.

[smbolisnch]

7. Excellent article! Kick!

:kick:

[G_j]

8. agree

perhaps this is why religious dogma putting humans 'above' the rest of 'creation' has contributed to so much destruction and cruelty.

I firmly believe those who practice "compassion" only toward humans do not have a clue about real compassion.

[shockra]

9. Religious dogma.

There's a great book on that subject called Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy. Written by Matthew Scully who's a former Bush speechwriter. Ain't that a kick in the head.

[pitohui]

10. you will pry my fried chicken from my cold dead hands

it's nutball stuff like this that makes people laugh at the left

animals should be treated w. kindness but they cannot have human rights, we must eat

[Maru Kitteh]

14. That's fine, and I'm sure we will

You know the animals get you back by killing you with camplyobachter, stroke, cancer, heart disease and more.

We must eat, but we certainly DO NOT NEED to eat animals. Want of flesh is proving to be a very destructive habit for our planet, as well as ourselves.

How much animal waste has polluted your county and it's precious fresh water systems? You can find out here..... http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/aw/

[pitohui]

16. threatening people w. death for not eating as you do

sure way to win friends and influence people...not

the fringe element is killing us

[Maru Kitteh]

18. That's quite a jump Q, and thanks for the mellodrama

But I was just pointing out the facts, and they are facts. Bummer if you can't deal with that or don't like it, but there it is.

[smoogatz]

39. Christ on a cracker.

Here come the vegetarians to tell the rest of us how to live. Thanks SO much for reminding us how morally superior you are. Enjoy your belgian endive--I think I'll have the pork chops, extra thick, and just a tad pink on the inside. Mmm-mm!

[smbolisnch]

45. You do not NEED meat.

You want it. Don't confuse the two.

[quinnox]

12. Stupid

Though I'm sure PETA will go nuts over an article like this.

[G_j]

23. what is?

being aware that animals too can suffer?
Thinking animals don't suffer is 'stupid', not giving a shit is cruelty.

Why is it that many cold blooded murderers have in common torture of animals as children?

[Maru Kitteh]

13. Couldn't possibly agree more.

I'm horrified now when I consider the idea that rotting animal flesh, otherwise known as meat, ever passed my lips.

:puke:

[teknomanzer]

15. In the past...

people had reverence for the animals they killed for food. They had an understanding of the sacrifice of the living creature in order to sustain life. The animal wasn't just another product on a shelf, but part of the divinity of the natural world, a significant piece of the cycle of life of which we are all a part of. Yes - animals suffer just as all living beings suffer, and there is nothing that can justify needless cruelty. But it can be argued that almost all living beings are life takers.

What is missing in our society is an understanding of the sacrifice of the living being which in turn sustains our being. The killing of the animal is not itself the crime - it is the ignorance of the nature of being and becoming that is the crime. Therefore it is necessary to give reverence to that which is the source of all being which has provided that which sustains your life. You vegetarians who cruelly pluck the root from the ground, the fruit from it tree or vine, or consume the seed of a potential being, are no better than a butcher if you do not give reverence to the source.

Even an atheist should appreciate the dynamics that brought food to his table.

[pitohui]

17. the true vegan cannot honor the carnivore

if we gave animals the same rights as humans, we would be obligated to wipe out all animals that live on flesh

the big cats would have to be extinct

the birds of prey

the swallow and swift that feed on insects

many animals cannot live on plant food alone, to give their prey equal rights with humans means we are obligated to execute these species by denying them food

it is sad our society has an element that hates and fears mother nature, they would snatch the food from my plate and the food from the eagle's claw, yet call themselves my moral superior

[Maru Kitteh]

19. Unless you are a vegan you can't pretend to speak for any - and even

then only one. You certainly do not and cannot speak for me. I find the "logic" of your assumptions beyond ridicule.

People much smarter than yourself and me have devoted some time to this.

~ " Nothing will benifit human health and increase the chances of survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstien ~

~ "I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way
of a whole human being." Abraham Lincoln


As for your assertion that Vegans would have all carniverous/omniverous species terminated, that's got to be one of the dumbest things I've seen anyone write here on DU. Really. You're number one. :thumbsup:

[pitohui]

20. i believe it is a human right not to be eaten

do you disagree?

we are obligated to protect ourselves and other humans from those who would eat us, be they hannibal lector or a grizzly bear

if other animals had this same very basic human right -- the right not to be eaten -- we would be obligating ourselves to protect them from being eaten

just as hannibal lector or the grizzly bear must be stopped from consuming grand-dad, eagle must be stopped from consuming the harmless bambi

agreed?

or may we both agree now that the concept of human rights being the same as animal rights is completely ridiculous for the thinking person

albert einstein and abe lincoln were no doubt very gifted in their area of expertise, but they are not nutritionists nor are they competent to decide what my body needs to survive

out of context quotes from random people do not justify the claim that animal rights should be the same as human rights

that's nut stuff, and you know it

[teknomanzer]

24. I have often wondered...

how many people would continue to eat meat if they had to raise and slaughter the animals themselves. Its all too easy to take a tidy plastic package off the shelf. It leave one with almost no impression that it once was part of a living being.

[pitohui]

35. everyone living prior to 1900 or so

not to mention well into the 20th century

my grandparents on my dad's side raised, killed, and ate their own chickens, they are not cold people or terrible human beings

even today a decent % of the population hunts or raises and kills at least a small part of their diet

ninnies are not ninnies because they raised and slaughtered their own meat, quite the opposite, they are ninnies because they were brought up w. the very modern lie that mother nature loves you and life was meant to be painless

[Maru Kitteh]

22. teknomanzer, in large part I agree with you

Although I still maintain a diet free of animal products is better for both people and the environment, I have much more respect for those who regard animal life with a degree of reverance at the dinner table than those who debase it or give it no consideration at all.

[teknomanzer]

28. There are many ethical considerations...

to take into account in regards to eating meat that are apart from the animal suffering at the time of its slaughter. The industry that provides us with the neatly plastic packages of flesh uses methods raising the animals that would no doubt cause uneasiness in the majority of consumers out there. There are also environmental considerations to take into account with the processing, and disposal of byproducts. Aso one of the greatest considerations is inefficient use of farmland required to feed animals; land that could be converted to feed more people.

As a side note, an argument has been made that there is already enough food available to feed those that go hungry, however opening the floodgates on foodstuffs may cause a drop in market prices which would undercut profits.

I assert however that our society's ignorance of where the food comes from and how it got to us is the underlying cause of the existance of such practices and the resulting effects. That ignorance is a lack of understanding of ones place in the whole cycle which when fully understood would produce that reverence that I spoke of.

[geek tragedy]

21. Does this mean I shouldn't swat flies around my apartment?

Nuts.

[G_j]

25. why do people insist on ridiculing

any and every mention of animal suffering?

[nosmokes]

30. it assuages their guilt for eating meat that is polluting

our planet as well as themselves. at the very least get the hell away from commercially raised grocery store product and beef that has been feedlotted, for your own health if nothing else. unless you enjoy eating an animal that was forced to stand in it's ownshit and that of 100's of other head of cattle for a few days and then tracked that shit straight into the slaughterhouse and continued to carry it into your kitchen.

[geek tragedy]

31. It's not any and every mention of animal suffering.

It's the notion that "a rat equals a boy equals a small child."

[smoogatz]

40. They're not.

They're ridiculing the notion that every being that feels pain--including bugs and rats, presumably--should have rights identical to those we're still trying to gain for people.

[KnowerOfLogic]

27. He's right, of course, but the truth can be inconvenient and unwelcome,

and so it will be denied until the day when denying it becomes more inconvenient and unwelcome than accepting it. god speed that day, i say.

[Just Me]

29. We haven't even mastered the discipline of human rights for human beings.

Until we sufficiently mature to advance and protect such rights for ourselves, the rest of our world will suffer. IOW we're so dysfunctional that, unless we heal ourselves, we will continue project destruction on the rest of the natural world.

[La Coliniere]

32. Just finished reading

"A Language Older Than Words" by Derrick Jensen. I've often felt all living organisms on the planet are connected in ways that we have long forgotten. Read Jensen's book. You will cry, shudder, and reassess all your human assumptions about your relationship with the Earth and all living things.
Like the great Gary Snyder, I also believe that all elements of the biosphere need representation in congress.
Do you have any doubt that a hemlock or birch could make any less intelligent decisions than most of the corporatists who claim to represent "We the People".

33. animal rights

I am definitely on that band wagon. Killing animals is unnecessary anymore. Other foods can suffice and plentifully. I think we will eventually become mainly vegetarians, and we are the people at the beginning of that phase. When you kill, you are taking not only a living being, but a spirit and part of the whole. I saw a documentary on this village trying to capture a man-eating giant alligator (which is ok with me). Anyway, they used cut up cow carcasses to attract the alligator, these hippo type animals all gathered around the cow carcasses to mourn the animal, even though it was in pieces. It just points out to me how their is natural feeling in nature, and to kill animals is violating these feelings, though we are numb to it. :grouphug:

[pitohui]

37. hippoes gathered around to eat the animal

have you, like, seen actual hippoes in the wild

i have and many

in theory they are vegetarian

in practice, the hippo kills more men than any other mammal and must be watched for just as we watch for Grizzly Bear in north america

the hippoes weren't mourning their fellow vegetarian, the fallen cow boo hoo, they were elbowing the crocs out of the way to get their share of the feast

41. hippos

They weren't hippos, they were like hippos. I don't now the actual species. And they weren't eating. They all gathered around the dead meat for about 10 minutes and then went on their way, like a ritual.

[smoogatz]

34. Even eggplants have aversion response.

Bedbugs, cockroaches, fleas and mosquitos all react to injury. Rats are highly sophisticated, warm-blooded creatures that scream and flop around like crazy when caught in a trap. Should all these unglamorous varmints be granted "human rights"? If so--which ones?

[riverrunner]

36. Does this mean I can't fly fish anymore?

Does a trout get human rights?

[pitohui]

38. apparently

a trout has spirit

it battles for its life

it can feel pain

[Fescue4u]

42. Including Plants?

There is evidence that plants feel pain.

If I cut my lawn, am I a war criminal?



Define pain

[yewberry]

43. No, there really isn't.

Plants lack a central nervous system.

Plants are sessile, so neither a pain response nor a flight response would be advantageous.

Pain: bodily suffering or distress.

[smbolisnch]

44. No, your yard will be fine.

And I am sure you weren't seriously suggesting that the two, plants and animals, feel the same?

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

46. kick!

Great article.

[Technowitch]

47. Locking

This has become a flamewar.

-Technowitch
DU Moderator