Should Animals Have Human Rights?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 04. 2016
- In theory, all human beings have a certain set of inalienable rights simply by virtue of being self-aware, of having the ability to consider abstract concepts. Nowadays an increasing number of scientists, legislators and global institutions are asking whether higher-order animals qualify for the same legal protections.
Learn more at HowStuffWorks.com:
now.howstuffworks.com/2016/01/...
Share on Facebook: goo.gl/rmA1sN
Share on Twitter: goo.gl/wGolTk
Subscribe: goo.gl/ZYI7Gt
Visit our site: www.brainstuffshow.com
SOURCES:
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/nyr...
www.reuters.com/article/us-spa...
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/w...
usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/w...
edition.cnn.com/2014/12/23/wor...
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/27/mag...
www.nytimes.com/2013/12/03/sci...
now.howstuffworks.com/2016/01/...
people.howstuffworks.com/perso...
www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/
www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/opi...
aldf.org/blog/advancing-the-la...
www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~ko...
blogs.scientificamerican.com/p...
www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/...
www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/nyr...
edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/eur... - Věda a technologie
Dog: *steals other dogs bone*
Police: BOOK EM *handcuffs dog*
Police: you have the right to remain silent
Dog: I want my lawyer
It'd be funny if his lawyer was a cat in a suit.
as far as I know, certain animals can be represented by a lawyer and do have legal rights
@@inserthere6387 yes especially those corrupt animals in the govt.
Please recognize the difference between animal welfare and animal rights before writing them off as one in the same. If you support animal rights, you are arguing that humans shouldn't use animals for their own benefit - even in circumstances where it is humane, where there is interdependence between species, and it is for the greater good -
that includes the very concept of owning pets. Instead, consider yourself a supporter of animal welfare, advocating for the well being of animals rather than their complete separation from humans like animal rights intends.
Not all animal rights theories advocate for this separation, there are also theories that say they have a right on citizenship and should have the freedom to choose whether they want to be in close contact with us or not. Will Kymlicka and Sue Donaldson wrote a very interesting paper about it. You can also find a video version on youtube
Why should you use a living thing for ur own benefit? Would you like anybody to use you for their benefit?
@@Adventurer-te8fl @Adventurer7789
WE SHOULD USE A LIVING THING FOR OUR OWN BENEFIT BECAUSE IT MAKES OUR LIFE EASIER AND HAPPIER. A LIVING WAS USED TO CREATE TECHNOLOGY, PLASTIC, VEHICLES, ETC. THAT LIVING THING IS WHAT HUMANS REFER TO AS LIVESTOCK.
@@Adventurer-te8fl Because it makes my life better, and no, I wouldn't like that. But I would do it to an animal.
@@corbinius. it’s morally incorrect
Breaking News : Lion sentenced to life in prison without parole for killing innocent antelopes.
hahaahha
For me that is a NO-BRAINER... :-D
OK doesn't have to be human rights but animal rights suits fine.
You hit on something pretty big when you said the experience life in a way that human children experience it, so they should have [some] of the same rights human children have. I think all living things have in some sense a right to life, a right not to be tortured, etc. Life is a precious thing, and we should be very hesitant to extinguish it except in order to survive or to protect ourselves. When it comes to ideas like freedom, it's a little harder to attribute those things to animals, because we wouldn't attribute them necessarily to children, but we do have a responsibility to care for any animal we capture. If we cannot provide an environment conducive to maintaining its well-being, then we should not keep it captive.
Don't kill bugs then.
I think this point, animal rights activists say “their not ours to use” even though we feed and care for a horse, and in return the horse does heavy lifting.
Nobody has a RIGHT to life. That's a made up thing. What do you think you are? A god? You don't have a right to live, i don't have a right to live. You also don't have a right to get water.
Dumb comment😂
They wouldn't care for our rights tho would they?
If animals have rights, we must also hold them them to the same laws and social responsibility. But because they can't possibly comprehend these, talking about animal rights, is futile.
No we don't. Affording them such rights would confer basic claims to things such as a right to life, the right to not be tortured/exploited unnecessarily, among other things. We do not hold many human beings to the same laws/social responsibilities as others (i.e. the marginal cases, like baby infants and the severely mentally disabled), and yet, despite this, these people still have rights, like us. The point here is that the claim (having rights means you're held to the same laws/social responsibilities) is not true.
@@TheAster3 the thing is animals murder eachother.
@@aperson626 That's irrelevant.
This is a false dilemma fallacy. Ur saying that the only 2 options are: no rights or all human rights. But u can go somewhere in between. There are certain rights that can be given to animals, such as freedom from abuse and bullying, and certain ones that wouldn’t be realistic to give.
Can you make a video on why do we get chills or goosebumps
hey guys have you noticed that your source links do not work? Most of them show 404 this page does not exist.
I can't answer the question because it comes down to a question of morals but you did kind of clear up the thinking behind Citizens United for me.👍
incredible, great video, we must share and spread the message, from Colombia.
They deserve the rights to life and not being abused as we do but they don’t deserve human societal rights. They’re not humans. There’s no high level communication it doesn’t work.
isoll cg …nope…
isoll cg I’m sorry did you just make a height joke?
"There's no high level communication..." This is the kind of presumptive bias that fuels humanity's justification for doing whatever we want to other sensitive things that're less powerful than us--including other groups of humans.
@@aiahzohar5636 …bruh… okay buddy.
@@liamcolotti6824 Huh??
I love animals but the title says: "Should Animals Have Human Rights?"
Say that again, but slowly.
Agree, though they definitely need the same, or equivalent rights under their own class. Cetaceans for example qualify as a person, but not a human.
@@bandname pay taxes first
@@bandname we encounter cetaceans so rarely that we may as well not bother. Fuck SeaWorld though.
All the sources in the description lead to pages that are not found, just saying.
youre right- what the heck
can i please use this video for my school project? please reply before may 30th 2019
Hod did the project go
well thats been a while
What is the intro song name? And where (minutes:seconds) is the clip taken from the song?:))
+ProGangstaShit The intro music is from Bach's St. Matthew Passion, Part Two. Here's a direct link to the section of it:
czcams.com/video/YAox7O4o9vc/video.htmlm35s
+BrainStuff - HowStuffWorks thanks!!
Judge a person's character not by how they treat those of power equal to or greater than their own, but rather how they treat the weak, the defenceless, whose suffering will go without consequence.
Right and wrong are intellectual concepts subjective to the individual. That I believe it is wrong to kill animals out of want rather than necessity is an opinion. That we cause living feeling creatures suffering that we would never wish to feel ourselves, and that if we were forced to feel what it was like to be our victims we could never harm them; that is not an opinion, but an objective fact.
There are no good and bad people; just people. People whose actions make others around feel good or bad around them. Whether a person's actions are right or wrong is a point that can be argued. Whether or not somebodies actions make others feel good or bad is a measurably objective statement about the state of a biological organism's neurobiology, which cannot be aurgued.
There are good and bad people and feeling good and bad is real, it is not possible to measure currently because our technology is still primitive, no matter what scientists and the general population believe.
While philosophically speaking, it is hard to reach what is objectively right and wrong, humans do have what is societally right and wrong (universally accepted belief by society). And this should apply to when humans abuse animals too.
first of all, we kill them out of a need (sort of) to feed our population. Second of all, animals dont care if their actions make others feel bad. If they experienced it themselves they probably still would kill them since they dont just naturally have empathy or care about other species' pain. they only care about survival. and their are animals that kill and cause harm out of want. Like for example, dolphins, or chimps.
The right to vote? Nah.
The right to drive? Why should they.
The right to live and to not be someone else's property? Of course.
This comment got a bit longer than I wanted it to, but does that 'right to live' also apply to the horse I just witnessed eating a baby chicken after having eaten a bucketful of hay? (it's a common occurrence on farms apparently, try googling it). Or the lion that killed his new mate's cubs because they were not his own after having killed their father? (also a common occurrence within the animal kingdom).
The whole idea of 'rights' is a human concept. So is the concept of 'morals', and the two are intertwined. As a human being, your rights are determined by your actions, which are guided largely by your sense of morality. See what happens if you forego your morals / the morals of society. Take a look at what happens to violent assailants, rapists or murderers. You'll find that their rights are stripped from them the moment they are found guilty (in fact, you lose some of your rights even as a suspect). In other words, rights are not absolute. They are determined by your morals (or lack thereof) simply put.
Here's the problem: animals do not have morals - certainly not on the same level as humans. Most species do not even understand empathy. (they are able to feel emotions though, like respect, love and fear and of course pain, which puts them above insects). But they do not have morals to live by. Therefore they cannot have rights, at least not on the same level as human beings can, the same way a creature without wings cannot fly (unless it's intelligent enough to devise and utilize artificial wings, like humans have done).
Simply put, humans are on a whole different level compared to the rest of the animal world (that's why we dominate Earth to the degree that we do). Non-human animals are simply too simple-minded (in terms of intelligence) to understand the concept of morality. As a human being, you understand that if you kill your neighbor's son, his family will be very likely to seek revenge on you (not to mention how the rest of society would treat you). This will usually deter you from killing him even if you dislike him or even have a dispute with him, and vice versa. It is this mutual understanding and self-restraint towards a stranger that earns the two of you your right to live freely. You are trusted to not kill each other, and you both understand this (on some level at least). Animals are not capable of this level of thinking, which is why fighting and killing are so common in the animal kingdom. Morals are essentially a combination of emotions and intelligence. You understand the consequences your actions will have for complete strangers and you can predict their response. You can even put yourself in their place via theoretical thinking. Animals cannot do this. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be treated with respect though.
@@MNAHN-T.GOF-NN wow! That reply was well written..
Man... What are you?
Of course not. Animals are tools.
@@MNAHN-T.GOF-NN That is a very well-written response. However, I take an issue with your argument.
The principle your argument has to assume in order to hold true is that if a being does not possess a high degree of intelligence, and consequently, is unable to reciprocate morals, that being does not deserve rights.
An obvious consequence of this argument is that human beings that do not possess intelligence to a degree greater than a non-human animal (cognitively disabled individuals for instance) should not receive rights. Do you truly believe that it should be permissible to treat them like we do farm animals today?
@@chickenflavor9880 facts
You’re so funny. You made me studying for my test so much fun
They should be protected to the extent that they can feel. Like children, they do not have full rights, but they should be protected from the harmful actions of humans.
@@ademi457 you think it's okay not to punish a human for torturing a dog?
@@BhlackBishop You think a dog should go to jail for attacking a human?
All Lives Matter means to me every living kind has right to live in peace :)
@@anthonyj.s.7266 A dog gets euthanised for attacking a human...
@@anthonyj.s.7266 That depends on if the human wants to press charges. Also, dogs can be educated, because many babies can sometimes just do a tiny punch or smth to ppl because they hadn’t been educated on the moral values, same thing applies here.
Animals aren't humans, but humans are animals.
The topic of the video is very interesting, we must all think about animals and defend their rights, from Colombia
It all depends on the scenario. I feel that certain animals we can kill for food, provided it's the right time and place. We can use animals for sports and entertainment if we can do it in such a manner that they are satisfied and they are given time off. Animals are not people, nor are they objects. The issue is having so many people and so much greed.
People are animals though. We kill animals bcuz we need to do that for survival. It’s the simplicity of the food chain. They do that to each other as well. But we have no right to use them for entertainment purposes
One cannot have a right without responsibilities. My responsibility are to pay taxes, and not harm anybody in society, thats how I get rights. If you can have an agreement with another animal to do so as well as an average human, then they gain their rights.
Thank you
Animals do deserve more rights. I think that since most animals have the intelligence and emotions / mental capacity of human children, that they should receive rights that human children do. No more slaughter houses or hunting (or killing animals at all for that matter), no more Zoos or circus animals, harsher sentences for animal cruelty, no more animal testing, and acceptable standards need to be set for the care and well being of pets. However we can not expect animals to have the same legal responsibilities as people because first off, they don't speak our languages so how can we even tell them what they're expected to do, and secondly, like children, they don't understand our way of life well enough to be expected to conform to our views. However they still have complex emotions and social behaviors, as well as the ability to suffer and feel pain, so they should be protected under our laws. If we did half the things we did to animals to human children people would be appalled. We need to show animals the same level of respect we show our own species.
They don't have the mental capacity of human children. I do respect your opinion of saying that they don't have legal responsibilities. However, i do think that as long as humans live, there will be hunting; not everyone likes to eat plants, as our human instinct is to eat meat ( to kill). Children do have the sense of wrong and right at age 5; they are capable of choosing right or wrong. I feel that animal testing is for knowledge, but i do understand your point. Of course, we can't just not kill or harm any animal, otherwise there will be more animals then needed. For instance, we need wool from sheep for your favorite cotton shirt. (I know sheering exists, but it still will cause the animal fright). I do feel that zoos, with the right kind of people, are beneficial to our better understanding of animals. However, i respect your opinion.
Very nice editing if you look closely you can see his hairstyle changing in every scene
Another way that isn't addressed in the video is consider law as the set of rules given by the humans, for humans... so even if animals don't have rights per se, we can agree and gave us the rules to actively protects them... this already works but the set of rules we gave to us are pretty weak normally restricted to not hurt animals, but we can increase the prohibitions to humans and even establish active duties, bot because animals have rights as we do, but because the human kind considers that we don't have the right to hurt them
The discussion if we as humans are animals isn't relevant, the thing is that we can consider law as a human creation that we can modify as we agree to do so. The idea can be law of humans over humans to protect "non humans" (it doesn't matter if humans are animals or not, that i think we are just another kind of animal...)
(sorry if i made any english mistake, it would be much easier to explain my point in my native language and i lack the knowledge of the correct terminology in english)
Interesting video, we really have to take care of them and act to achieve a change immediately, from Colombia.
I always thought as a kid, if dogs could talk, they'd understand they were pets, and they'd want equality.
+Angel Martinez They're quite happy to be pets, you're putting human emotions on to them, they don't actually feel these things. The most complex emotion the have is loyalty to their owner.
@@ashleyashleym2969 we are just a source of food to them.
@@ashleyashleym2969 Not sure it's loyalty to their owner or just pack mentality & they view the owner as the pack leader.
@@ashleyashleym2969 U don’t know that. The pets could’ve been loyal because of survival instincts. When taken to an owner’s home, the only source of food in this environment is what the owner can provide them. Thus, they need to remain loyal in order to survive, but u don’t know if they actually want to do that, or if they want to be released in the wild where they can roam free. By your logic, you might as well say children are happy to be kidnapped when the kidnapper provided care for them, even when the kidnapping is wrong in the first place.
If u want true affection with dogs, then u wouldn’t be trapping it inside your house.
Bruh he said as a kid
Cheetah, yes that Cheetah, or at least one of the ones used in the movies and TV lives in retirement one street over from us here in Palm Springs. As coincidence would have it, yesterday we attended a documentary here in Palm Springs that featured our neighbor. Myself, my husband, and our neighbors are also in the film. It was filmed about 2 years ago and has finally made it to the USA documentary festivals here. It's called "See No Evil" by Nederland Films, Jos De Putter was the writer, director, and producer. The film documents the retirement status of 3 chimps, one a NASA test subject, crippled during those tests.
Yes
Your Latin is bad haha. nice video!
thank you
Don't know about human rights but they definitely deserve the right to be free from exploitation, abuse and suffering done by humans. No life regardless of its form, level of hierarchy or any form of classification or distinction deserves to be wronged in any way for the good of something or anything else.
Yes, we should definitely stop using animals or certain viruses to help eradicate dangerous diseases because all forms of life deserve rights. How un ethical
@@ademi457 And why do animals do to deserve rights? The majority can only benefit us by giving up their lives or freedom, the only ones we should even start to consider are working dogs & cats.
"No life regardless of its form, level of hierarchy or any form of classification or distinction deserves to be wronged in any way for the good of something or anything else."
Going by your statement, you are also against eating vegetables and fruits.
Nope, right are only for human, not animal
@@Fodkfmdjdmdkf lmao you think something that doesnt benefit you dossnt deserve the right to live? Youre a hypocrit
Shouldn't we be asking this question to Whitney Wisconsin? #Leafyisking
+Uber Megustador yup
Yes, when they start paying taxes.
@@davidmacdonald625 U r Asian stop it
Most non workers don't pay tax
@@davidmacdonald625 nah, they pay indirect tax when they spend the money they earned, you uneducated moron, learn VAT dumbass, LMAO
@@davidmacdonald625they vote or go to the rallies. That will do the work
Before I watched the video, I thought I would hate it, but I don't. I'd say you handled this controversial topic really well. :)
+Felix P. ^___^ Thank you!
No you absolutely did not u basically said that creatures on a lower level of consciousness than us should be pained
@@waterisgood665 so what
@@hasinijayanetti4967 yee ye man sorry that was from 8 months ago when I thought humans would care about morals. I was an idiot so just ignore it
@@waterisgood665 thanks morals are stupid
What are eye boogers?
+Rehan Chowdhury We've got a video on that right here: czcams.com/video/3H1BRZpuFwM/video.html
+BrainStuff - HowStuffWorks lol sorry I was just seeing what would happen if I said that.
+Rehan Chowdhury :P I figured, but I always error on the side of straightforward around here.
Respecting Animal Rights is something that must be based on the respect of Human Rights. As reasonable more intelligent beings, the reason we even bother with Animal Rights is because we can sympathize with other animals. If I beat a dog to death, and posted that video on the internet, I will be in big trouble, not for the suffering of the animal, but more the emotional stress I brought to other people on the internet. It's important to make this distinction because it essentially sets up a set of moral values that suits our society. We can't close all butcheries whether you like it or not, because HUMANS will be upset if that happened, not because of the suffering of animals, so I'm infinitely annoyed when animal activists keep making their point that animals can feel fear and pain, and that they are no different than humans, and therefore deserve the same rights. They're kind to animals, but might beat up the owner to free the animals which violates the first priciple which is human rights come first. Human Rights are put on a higher level than Animal Rights. Animals aren't held culpable for any crime precisely because of this principle. Until animals can fulfill human duties, they can only have sub-par rights as humans. That being said, animal rights is worth fighting for, because people feel disturbed by the unecessary torture of animals, but anything beyond that, which includes destroying other people's property, etc. should be punished.
I think humans need human rights more. Saudi Arabia are head of the United Nations human rights council. (It's true, fact check it). The world we live in.
Animals need to be treated with respect. It's not so much a right but an obligation on our part. We cannot think we can harm them for pleasure or for poaching just because they don't have legal "rights".
Native Americans killed animals and lived off of them. They used every ounce down to the bone literally, and with gratitude. They killed them, but yet were still able to respect their "rights" in my opinion. We can still do that today.
People today a seem to more focused on their rights rather than their obligation to do their part to serve their fellow man.
In don't believe animals should have human rights but they should be given much better treatment in the wild as well as in captivity. I think everything that feels pain should be treated more humane. As one wise man once said: "I see humans but no humanity"
Sorry to rant on....
I think the observations we can make when looking at a new born baby are interesting in this debate. (and I hope everyone can just look at these points for what they are - just a thought process).
It does appear that self awareness in humans is something that develops with time. We are born without it and then their comes a time when we are absolutely convinced we possess it
If you inflict pain on a new born baby then you see all the motor responses that are pre-programmed into the babies brain. The larinx vibrates to warn of danger and attract the mother/father/defender... Interestingly enough when the pain is removed, the baby quickly returns to a state of calm and could quickly laugh if entertained with a funny face. This shows the on/off nature of mechanisms at this early unconscious state, (a bit like a bag over the eagles head - day/night thing), in which in an unconscious animal their is no true understanding of time and place and certainly no imagination to ponder the future of another needle approaching!
The animal reactions may be there when nerves are triggered but it could be argued that in this unconscious state their is no emotional suffering that goes with the conditioned reflexes. The vibrating larix does not give rise to any emotional suffering. I can assume that because that baby was me and I have no recollection of any suffering to "myself" at this time. "I" was not there at this time. "I" did not exist. Their was no conscious being there at this time to "suffer"
It is not a question of memory because when I am 90 I will certainly be able to recall events when i was a small child. Memory no doubt is also a big part of the self conscious state as is brain "computing power"
It does seem that we are all born unconscious and that self awareness takes time to develop in the human as it may well do to some degree in other higher order animals. It is probably the case though that in most of the animal kingdom, self awareness never develops and the animal continues through it's life in an unconscious state unaware of it's own existence as I was in the first few years of life.. A fox may well never truly know it is not a rabbit.
He said similar.
The key to this debate is to understand what it is to be self aware. Most animal rights activists make the fundamental mistake of starting their arguments with the assumption that animal suffering and human suffering are one and the same thing. It is highly likely that they are not The animal rights debate is a philosophical debate on the nature of self awareness. Most debates on this subject are flawed because they do not start at this more fundamental level.
An interesting point would be to determine if self awareness has degrees, (analogue), or whether it can only be there or not, (digital). A sliding scale seems more likely from simple observations but this could also imply that suffering can vary from human to human with the same "input" or even that there could be a higher level of suffering that humans are physically and/or mentally unable to experience due to their particular levels of self awareness either as individuals or as a species.
Another mistake that is made is to "humanize" animals. We see an animal act in a certain way and equate it directly to the human equivalent. Why does our larinx vibrate when we feel pain, (screaming)? why does our nose not turn blue? We never look at a person with a very blue nose and say "oh dear! that person is really suffering"!! Nature could have gone down that route but off course other animals respond better to sound waves and are made aware of the danger around them more quickly. You could be next to another animal with a blue nose but if you are not looking at the nose at the time then you have no idea of the danger around you. Vibrating larinx's also lead to being "startled" a state where the neck muscles tense, the eyes open wide, etc, etc - the best way to gather more information about the danger around you communicated to you by the vibrating larinx, (not the blue nose). In an unconscious animal the vibrating larinx and the tense neck muscles and open eyes are an unconscious mechanism of data gathering. There is no emotion, there is no suffering. In a self aware human there is also the data gathering but their is also suffering and emotion. We must not transpose the latter to the animal. It is meaningless.
I have no recollection of being born or indeed anything about the first years of life. Why is that? Maybe it was because that which I now know to be "me" was not there. I had not formed yet. I was also an unconscious animal at this time. If you had stuck a needle in me or subjected me to any form of pain then yes, the larinx would have vibrated due to my millions of years of animal evolution but nobody would have suffered. I know this because that baby was me and I have no recollection of anything.
“It is highly likely they aren’t”
Starting there, u make the fundamental mistake of having the rest of your arguments be based on the premise that your assumption is correct, because u don’t even know animal and human suffering are the same or not, since “highly likely” is just a subjective term
I think, that working with dolfins can be funny)))
If animals become "humans" then who should be given the right to govern them? How would we regulate their territories and rights across various borders? It all seems to speculative to actually take place. Perhaps animal right should stick to being animal rights (intended for humans to follow).
Giving animals rights does not mean they become “humans”. Ur treating like this is either 0 or 1. U can give some rights, but not all. For example, it wouldn’t make sense to talk about unemployment benefits when it comes to animals. But freedom from violence is something animals should have from humans.
@@Adventurer-te8fl The video was in regards to giving animals “human rights,” so I was expanding on it in a way that would encapsulate governing bodies, territories, and representation. Some animals are smart enough to understand “right” from “wrong.” Who’s to say they couldn’t follow their own paths one day?
Heyo doing this for homework best class ever
Yes, I believe that animals should have the same rights as small children. They cannot be charged for murder, but they do deserve to be fed, and taken care of.
No that’s dumb
@@CEOofAutism in what way is that dumb
@@totwinkelassistent if an animal kills my friends or somthin lord knows I’m ending it’s life
@@totwinkelassistent animals that are adults will die
@@CEOofAutism uhm- okay.. i think were not on the same page here? most animals, adult or not, have the mind of a child
and-- do you know the sealand incident with the whale killing the trainer? would you kill it? it has been inprisoned for its whole life in a concrete tank, yet you would end its life because its adult-----
I think some animals should just not be locked up, but human rights...that's something else.
I will agree with most of your points in this video. I agree that animals shouldn't be abused and do deserve rights, but I disagree that they deserve the same rights as humans. This is because they don't possess the Imago Dei, which is the religious definition of human. You can hate me all you want for bringing that up, but that's my reasoning. However, I would argue that you don't have to be _Homo sapien sapiens_ to possess the Imago Dei, but it is true that we are the only species on this planet that does possess the Imago Dei and we *are* the only animals on this planet to ever possess the Imago Dei. If _H. s. sapiens_ really did hybrid with other hominids then yes the offspring (provided they survived/lived and were viable) would possess the Imago Dei. So yes if it is true that _H. s. sapiens_ and _H. neanderthalensis_ did interbreed and produce offspring (provided they survived/lived and were viable) then yes the offspring would possess the Imago Dei. This does not mean that _H. neanderthalensis_ possessed the Imago Dei, just that the hypothetical offspring it may have had with _H. s. sapiens_ did possess the Imago Dei. I am all for giving non-human animals rights, but I am not for giving them the same rights as humans. I hope that citing a religious reason for not giving them legal personhood makes sense. It makes sense to me and that is what matters. I am correct in my reasoning.
Also I want to continue eating meat, so that's part of my motivation here. I also know that giving animals human rights would make it next to impossible for humans to continue to eating meat. It would also make the farming and hunting industries go down in flames. So since I don't want tons of people to lose their livelihood I am gonna have to say: no animals do not deserve human rights. I also don't want us to have to consider things like having to arrest animals for behaving like animals and doing what comes natural to them. Humans are not the only animals that eat meat! I want the food chain and the circle of life to not be harmed by legal decisions. I also don't want tons of people to lose their livelihoods over something this trivial. Yes animals do deserve more rights then they have, but they do not deserve the same rights as humans. So there!!
Yes, corporations do deserve legal personhood, because they are made and operated by humans. It is not like a dolphin can make and operate a corporation, or any other non-human animal for that matter. So that was simple. That was easy, Staples.
In conclusion, yes non-human animals do deserve rights and yes they don't deserve to be abused, but they do not deserve the same rights as humans. My reasoning may not be scientific, but it is just as valid. I hope this makes sense. It makes sense to me and that is what matters here. I want the farming and hunting industries to continue. I want to continue eating meat. I want animals to be able to continue being animals. I don't want the food chain and the circle of life to be harmed by legal decisions. This is the reasoning I will stick with. Yes, animals do deserve more rights then they have, but they do not deserve the same rights as humans. Yes, corporations do deserve legal personhood. So there!!
I don't think non-human animal rights advocacy is about having a Chimp, or a Dolphin working along side of you. I do believe that we do not have the right to cause indescribable horror on non-human animals just because we like the way they taste, or because their skins keep us warm, or how they can entertain us etc. They experience pain the same way human animals do.
Yes, tho giving animals rights doesn’t mean every single possible human right, such as things like unemployment compensation. It’s things like the right to be free from human violence and abuse, and stuff like that.
We're long past the time when we could reasonably justify treating animals with inhumanity. For example, it's obvious pigs are at least as smart as dogs yet people lose their absolute shit when they hear about another culture eating dogs while posting bacon memes. The main problem is that it is significantly easier to not think about it and maintain the status quo.
It's not all bad though, people's reaction to Blackfish has forced Sea World to stop it's whale shows. I at least have hope that we aren't getting worse, even if we are progressing too slowly for my tastes.
+Eric Loesch I predict a future (hopefully not too far away) human society will successfully evolve away from a life built entirely on consuming non-Human animals, mainly based on a non-Human animal's inability to argue for its' own right to exist.
Surely in a dystopian world, healthy Human life can coexist without destruction of other forms of life, but like you mention, this is largely fuelled by people's reaction when they are exposed to things like Blackfish. I also think it's largely to do with 'when' or 'if' this exposure then causes someone to either choose to 'turn a blind eye' and continue life without action, or to react against the said exposure and make active changes in their life.
morality is consistent and always stays the same though
@@chrisjoshua69420 Wrong. Morality never stays the same, our sense of morality evolves. It used to be moral for children to work in dusty coal factories for 16 hours a day to "help their families".
The question is semantically invalid. You can't say "should". They either do or they don't. So they only proper question is "Do animals have rights?". The original question is like asking "should 1 be 2?" or "Should yellow be red?". It is grammatically correct, but semantically invalid. Immutable things can't have a "should" for their attributes, they are derived by the identity of what the thing is. Animals either have rights or they don't and they do not have rights.
All animals should have the right to be themselves and have the right to live the way they choose.
I think that is not possible because at some point we shall need that beef so we shall have murder a cow e.t.c just to get that beef.
Animals can never have rights if we still eat there flesh as food.
@Etiang bashir Edrine Emojel they have started to grow it in a lab. Might be able to cross pollinate a tomato plant with a cow. Beef tamatoes 🍅 :)
They have feelings so they should have rights
Why dont we ask them and find out?
Because eventually, babies will answer :)
+Kathryn Mercier if you give a baby a couple of years, it will answer . give any non-human all the time in the world, and it will die before it can effectively answer on its own free will.
+Kathryn Mercier Steven Hawking can communicate just fine, and he's paralyzed. put any animal in the same technology Hawking uses and any animal won't communicate.
***** how do we know that animals remember pain?
@@CplDabu909 because eventually babies will answer, I agree. Adult animals, the smart ones like dogs cats dolphin and great apes, have consciousness of a 1-4 year old baby. But they still sentient being, can feel pain and trying to stop us from torturing them. If someone abuse a 3 year old kid, that kid has no ability to use their rights and freedom but he's definitely trying to stop someone who abuse him.
Whist human rights have many complex issues...the main most important "right" animals should be granted is the right to live FREE of ownership by humans.
Other issues such as "self defence" and pest control issues of human protecting their lives and environment would be the next issues regarding the "right to life" of any such animals posting threats to humans in the human environment. However the worst abuse of animals all stems from the fact humans are allowed to "own" non human animals. This means we can kill them if we please for whatever reasons.
We forcibly breed unnatural species of animals that we then make dependant on us as no longer part of any natural ecosystem.
Those breeds should cease...humans forcing animals to reproduce...which stems from the 1st problem of "owning" animals like property.
I do not agree with "speciesism" favouring SOME species like apes who happen to seem more "human like" than other animals. SENTIENCE should be the only criteria.
Humans should not interfere with non human species behaviours and morals that we humans cannot understand or necessarily share.
Animal Ownership. Are most or just a minority of vegans against this or not ? is a valid question ....if anyone wants to reply yes or no or any other comments on this simple question. Domesticated animals...are not natural. Not vegan. Whether farm bred by humans species or pet species.
After reading and watching various youtube talks on Veganism....having originally seen the mantra of PETA which clearly states "Animals are NOT OURS" for use entertainment food etc purposes...and read the Gary Francione Abolitionist Vegan writings also in tandem with this view that even PETS were not an ethical situation as they were "owned" prisoners of humans not living natural lives at all.
I then was alarmed to see many "vegans" promoting the continuation of animals as "pets" and seeing animals therefore as things to "use" for our companionship needs etc as desirable.
My view..is that historically animals whether for food or transport etc "uses" had uses...some easy to keep species then when technology replaced the need for their "uses" were turned into "Pets" and others like shire and transport mainly horse breeds naturally went extinct. Real wild horse species bearing no resemblance to their original wild natural ancestors anymore than a modern human designed species farm pig bred for meat resembles physically a wild boar.
Our "pet" dogs and cat breeds are also unnatural human designed breeds. None of the human designed animal breeds can now live naturally in any ecosystem in the wild they are dependant on humans and there is no space or ecosystem that they belong in out there. Therefore the extinction of these human created species is natural and desirable as part of the goal of a vegan world. Leaving only REAL natural species o wildlife.what is even left of them now wolves lions elephants hedgehogs etc are down to minimal numbers.
The animals humans own and keep ..are all prisoners. Whether petted on their heads when chosen to live unnaturally in our homes having their testicles cut off as "pets" to never have families naturally etc of their own and be forced to behave as humans require behaviourally to fit in with our unnatural life we want from a non human animal, or a human bred "farm animal" intended to be killed for food. The only difference in STATUS of a farm animal owned by humans and a PET animal owned by humans...is their TREATMENT. Their status is exactly the same...they are prisoners...used by us and lead unnatural lives. Owned legally by us, unlike as i said protected against ownership REAL wild animal species..some not all. I look forward to the day we accept ALL ownership of any animals is accepted as unethical, and therefore possible due to public opinion changing, to be made ILLEGAL. So long as we continue to promote the idea that is GOOD and ethically RIGHT to keep PET prisoners...we cannot at the same time say we should not own and do as we please with animals we choose to TREAT differently by killing them.
Owning animals...is not vegan. Owning pets is not vegan even if we justify keeping and "treating" some of them as well as WE think necessary and think saving "rescue" abandoned by previously owners of those pet animals is ethically better than destroying them...which half are always anyway....because pet ownership is seen as a human RIGHT so that will always continue, so long as humans think "owning" animals is ok.
Because animals are "property" except some protected REAL wild animal species that it is illegal to "own" therefore THOSE are really free and safe from human "ownership" as "pets" we can destroy them when they serve no purpose. Which is the case for every single pet dog or cat owned. We can just destroy them if it suits us. Only cessation of pet ownership itself and allowing animals to be natural species free of human ownership will the enormous numbers of DEATHS of hundreds of millions per year of PET abandons cease.
I share this video which discusses some of these issues well.
Eisel Mazard known as A Bas Le Ciel on youtube
DOMESTIFICATION OF ANIMALS title.
I end saying I agree that Captive animals are NOT companion animals. We may like to use that term, like fur babies...never recognising that they are ADULT mature animals not kids ...who in the human or other animal world when grown up, adult are FREE to make their own lives and decisions.
There is nothing NATURAL about an animal of another species like a human feeding another adult animal. We do this because we OWN them and they are our prisoners and we cannot set them free to live naturally as they were human created unnatural species that should go extinct to be ethical by ceasing to adulate pet ownership as ethically right for any animal.
Vegans should promote, encourage cessation of pet ownership. Recognise pets are unnatural prisoners of humans and should go extinct like the human created unnatural farm frankenstein breeds.
czcams.com/video/CHTNMYBiTic/video.html
Animals should have rights, at least sentient animals, to not be tortured, to be housed humanely (there needs to be a better word for this) and treated with some respect even if we plan to eat them. Obviously not human rights (the legal aspects of this are pretty funny) such as due process, and as mentioned habeus corpus.
I think what this video might start is a dialog of treating animals we kill with some respect as we kill and eat them. Is that what you are trying to say?
Great!!! Agreed
well, first, one must define those terms that are used to define what a person is.
Free will? Well fuck, no one has got a solid, provable definition so far, so you're screwed there.
A sound mind? Meaning a mind like others of its kind? Or what?
Inalienable rights? Rights that can't be taken away....which is purely legal. So, if you don't live in a country with Inalienable rights, you aren't a person. Sounds like a bad idea if you think people should be afforded human rights....also, this definition is kinda circular, in that if you can't be a person, you don't have inalienable rights...but you don't have inalienable rights, you aren't a person.
Meaning? Can you prove that we act "beyond instinct".?
Perhaps that's the intent...but we've got no way to decide what does or doesn't "act beyond instinct", and thus it's completely useless for helping us find what a person is. Same with the other parts of what makes a person, save for the inalienable rights...which I explain its own problems above.
Thats not really a scientific question. More like an ethical one. but still josh you re the best in this channel :)
Animals should have animals rights which are dictated by natural laws , not human rights , because they are not humans. We can not give them right to vote but rather right to live in peace , in healthy environment . We should not keep them in captivity, experiment on them , or eat them .
Depending on the intelligence of the animal maybe.. But to corporations, HELL NO!
Animals maybe. Corporations? Hell no.
Corporate personhood is bad. It's what allows them in part to fund political candidates. Obviously more money means more advertisement and usually more votes. Since a corporation's only objective is to make a profit, they only fund candidates off of whom they would make money. Thus, if corporations fund political candidates (which they do), you can expect those candidates to favor corporations.
In other words, corporate personhood leads to politicians ignoring the will of the people in favor of corporations when views conflict, which is a horrible system.
I've seen humans who are worst than animals. I am not saying that animals should have the right of a human,but they need more rights!
+Uber Megustador Humans are animals.......
+Uber Megustador
humans are in the family animalia.
No
+Uber Megustador says who?
science? Humans are mammals...primates...we are just highly intelligent animals...some of us at least :/
Humans are not like other animals, so we should obviously not have all the same rights, but in the sense that our human rights give us freedom, and protect us from suffering and death, I don't see why other animals, who have similar needs, shouldn't also have 'human' rights. It gets a bit trickier when you put the inevitable violence of nature into the equation, though. Maybe freedom should be the main focus.
I think we should give "human" rights to homo sapien sapiens and call it quits. We can't judge an animal and then decide how much freedom and or responsibility it should have instead we should have some basic guidelines, eg do not purposely kill it, do not torture it, feed it, ensure that it is not in constant pain etc
I think that when you beat up and kill animals that shouldn’t be used for food like dogs cats etc, is abuse but when someone kills a cow pig chicken etc to eat is not abuse and its rather more a sacrfice for humans to live
It is abuse. These animals are treated cruelly on an industrial scale, and their exploitation is inextricably tied down to the fact that there is demand for their flesh, a product of consumption. The benefits derived from this product are obtainable via alternative plant-based means, and yet the abuse continues - so, in effect, it's unnecessary.
By your own criterion *["beating up/killing X that shouldn't be used for food is abuse"],* you'd be committed to the conclusion that the exploitation/slaughter of cows is abuse as these animals are not required for slaughter, like dogs, in order to have a meal because of viable alternatives on the market.
Wtf are you waffling about
If animals experience pain and stress the should not be tortured
Like fish suffocating and freezing in a fisherman’s boat or chickens in an egg factory
It is not right to cause anyone pain. Animals can feel pain and they have emotions. It's not right to act like we own the world and treat them like they mean nothing. Even if the only way to cure people of something really bad was to experiment on animals it would be wrong and i would never do. It's just sick to hurt anyone. Animals are not the same species as us but that doesn't we should treat them like they are less. It's just like how some cultures are different and have different languages or look different, that doesn't mean they aren't worth the same as you. That doesn't mean that they don't matter or that they don't have feelings and a mind of their own. We have no idea what really goes on in an animals mind so it's not right to say they have no mind of their own.
lol but they are not smart so wdym they are not worth the same humans should be treated better than animals but animals should still be treated good
@@walterthebullterrier9633 humans are constantly abusing and murdering animals, but you think it's not as bad as if a human was experiencing this because they are smarter? If we were smarter than we would know not to do these barbaric things
@@westter8164 r u saying humans r not smart??????if animals were smarter they would know how to avoid murdering
@@walterthebullterrier9633 animals are smarter than humans in some aspects and humans are smarter than animals in other aspects
@@walterthebullterrier9633 and some animals have to murder to survive, carnivores cant just become herbivores like humans, or omnivores, can
they should have the same rihgts
Could have chosen a better title. Animals should have some rights but not human rights per se. It would obviously be absurd to give a chicken the right to vote.
Putting aside the issue of ecosystem, and looking things purely from a moral standpoint... the first question we need to answer is are we just trying to prevent suffering of animals at our hands... or do we also have a moral obligation to also be their caretakers? In a perfect world of infinite resources we would give free health care to even to mosquitos but that clearly isn't an option in the world we currently live in. So the way we should approach animal rights is what can we afford to give to animals at any given moment. It boils down to specific species and economic pragmatism of the times.
Using this rationale... investing billions in mosquito hospitals is a no go at this time. However, we don't need meat to survive today. It would actually be cheaper, healthier, far better for the environment and even better for the economy if we eventually banned human consumption of meat entirely. That would match the economic standard also necessary to justify a right. Not only would it be the ethical thing to do but also economically beneficial for us to do it.
The only ones that would complain are the sort of people that used to complain that eating puppies and kittens was perfectly fine or that it was imposing on their freedom not to be able bash baby seals for the frivolous purpose of fashion.
Suggesting a bunch of legal responsibilities for animals doesn't make sense when we compare them to human children because human children aren't deemed legally responsible for their actions and still require care givers for safety & stability (meaning keeping your dog as a pet on a leash still makes sense so they aren't running loose getting hit by cars). If a child kills we don't put it up on murder charges to face a jury of other children so saying we should do that with animals doesn't make sense.
I think it’s more about freedom from certain immoralities than holding someone accountable for something. For example, animals have the right to be free from human violence and abuse.
Animals are just animals.
Can we just all agree to be nice to animals? Unless they are trying to kill you then it's ok to kill them, or food, animals are made to be eaten as well,
Hi ! Please share :
"Mandatory sleeping pills for animals before slaughter ! End Animal suffering !" And spread it as much as possible. Thank you :)
No, thats silly. And also impossible.
Just the fact that we're capable of understanding that we're different than animals shows us that we're different than animals, animals aren't self-aware like we are. Animal rights to animals, human rights to humans. The two rights can be similar but it doesn't have to be one homogenous thing.
Or you could simply make this easier by accepting moral rights, such as a right to life, a claimant that non-humans and humans can both have. This would include many less-able human being, such as the marginal case humans beings (babies, mentally enfeebled, hermits and feral children etc.) - these beings are not self-aware like rational agents, but it does not entail the notion that their claim to a right to life is dwindled as a consequent.
Just like the various personhoods for humans, animals will probably get it when the economics no longer depend on it. Popular morality follows economic advantage.
No they shouldn't
I think if a monkey killed another monkey of course the monkeys couldn’t testify, or be a jury so we would have to use humans, but i feel like the humans would be biased against the monkeys, and not take it seriously so they would not say it is a monkey, and just say it is a human, and if a monkey does something bad to a human it would be the same drill, but if a human sued a monkey of course the monkey does not have money so i think he would have to pay with an alternative, but if a monkey sued a human the monkey of course would not appreciate money so the human would probably use the equivalent money to but a bunch of food, and stuff like that, but you might be asking how does a monkey sue a human because it cannot actually talk after all well i think the monkey should have a human lawyer who always takes on the case, but how do we know he is taking it seriously and is not biased well i think he would have to go to a special school, or take a special test to become a monkey lawyer, and he could only become a monkey lawyer if he went to that special school to study special monkey law, and to be a lawyer of a human he would have to go to normal law school
Like if you agree
Yas
Yes respect
R.I.P. Harambe
They do not need to be treated like humans cause they're not. The question in my opinion should be if we should keep treating them as if they were the worst criminals on earth, you know keeping them locked up in zoo's, using them for entertainment in circuses and sea worlds and not to mention the over 56 billion animals we kill just for food each year when we don't need too (in fact we would be even better off without as meat, dairy and processed foods are the main causes of the worlds biggest killers in form of diseases). We need to wake up this world and do better with the information that we are so privileged to have
HUMANS ARE ANIMALS
HUMANS ARE ANIMALS
HUMANS ARE ANIMALS
+dxmakina yes, but it doesn't matter to this point... at least if you agree with the ius positivism... humans as specie made law, we have the law because we made it, not because we are animals. Nevertheless we can give protection to animals using our laws, we can set and enforce prohibitions to humans to harm animals (we have a bit of that) and we can even establissh active duties to humans. Law of humans over humans to protect "non humans"
dxmakina Humans are Aliens idiot, my friend on Planet DES-528 said so.
1 = a number
2 = a number
2 = 1 ?
So... Humans = Animals?
Animals ARE NOT Humans
Animals ARE NOT Humans
Animals ARE NOT Humans
@@vincenttom3851 ok animals are not dolphins
animals are not chimpanzees
You can literally say that about every single animal
The animal rights was about the way human beings are touting with nature and not about what goes on in the wild. We need to judge the actions of other humans against the animals and not how animals are with each other.
Boogers is such an insanely American word.
Finally, non-human animal rights.
1:06
If a person must have a sound mind, would that make the mentally ill or deceased inhuman? And when you're dead, people are allowed to experiment on your body - would protection from such treatment be considered an inalienable right? Not trying to be aggressive - I'm still developing my opinion on animal rights, so this is purely inquisitive.
if you dead ur not a human ur a corpse
Agreed, lots of kids with Down syndrome are still “a person”.
Pet keeping is bad human behavior. Let animals live their life in their own race in their own free space (not zoo) !
no
Wonder when will the animals are going to have their own justice system?
Never likely
They deserve rights, but I don't think they have to be the same rights as humans. I feel like the argument is being presented as all or nothing. We don't always have to look to the existing standards, create new standards, for example The Animal Bill of Rights.
Should They? Not the exact same rights. Like a snake killing a mouse and going to jail is like eating food and going to jail. Animals deserve the rights they deserve and what they most likely will accept. EX:
Dog Rights
Cat Rights
Cow Rights
Pig Rights
Chicken Rights
Horse Rights
Rabbit Rights
Bunny Rights
Each animal will have a fair right, they will deserve to be treated nice and have the right to eat what they eat.
Ex:
Dogs have the right to be treated nicely and not be abandoned. If the dog bites someone and its not like on purpose or the one they bit is literally has a hole and bleeding, that dog doesn't deserve being executed. Only if they kill someone or someone's dog or cat.
Chicken Rights:
Chickens deserve to be raised humanely before being eaten. And if feathers are needed we will need an invention to cut the feather off without even touching the chicken's skin.
(Alot of people probably disagree on this)
I think Furries are enough Thank you.
"If furries don't wanna be humans, then they don't deserve human rights" *insert random historical guy*
Isnt is just common sense as humans are a species of animals? My mate Ali here is no different from a chimp only difference is I would trust a chimp over him to not screw me for personal gains.
You forgot to say what animals are similar to humans from the prospective of thinking like us and be like us and we can't charge monkey for murder because he doesn't have the capability to know what it is murder and there are birds who have the intelligence of five years old human child then what then kids don't know in that age what good and wrong they are just learning and if we give animals rights that means we can't eat them which the majority of people in our world today eat animals
The stupid title is going to take away from whatever point that you make in the video. consider changing it now.
+Mark Anthony It's the question that we're investigating the scientific and legal responses to in this episode.
BrainStuff - HowStuffWorks yea but as I stated regardless of that the title sounds stupid imagine if it was should humans have animal rights or should adults have child rights. It sounds stupid because the first group is not a part of the second group so why would they have its rights Also and this is the Internet some people will come just to dislike.
+Mark Anthony Thanks for your opinion! The team will take it into consideration.
+Mark Anthony As I interpret the video, the question is about changing animal rights to match those of humans. Seems pretty straight forward.
+Holobrine +Mark Anthony I thought this was posted on april the 1st
I don’t understand why people think that human lives are more important than animal lives. People are fighting for black lives, what about ALL lives? When people and animals are on planes, if it goes down we have a 95% chance of survival compared to the animals which have a 0% chance of survival. The animals should be with their owners so they at least have a chance. And fires, firemen go after the PEOPLE and THEN the animals. What about them at the same time? Is it because we’re different species? If it is, that’s speciesism and should not be tolerated. Everyone loves their pets as much as human beings. We still grieve of the loss of a pet the same we we grieve over the loss of a family member or friend. Why don’t animals get rights to? That’s only my opinion. Do you agree with me? Let me know
Agreed. Speciesism is just as bad as racism.
complicated, humans are animals too.... maybe all 2000000000 species get there own set of rights? Or maybe take away human rights and we can all live.like proper animals again, or be happy with the way things are, I think the system works pretty good..... but nothings perfect