Animal Rights Are all animals worthy of equal consideration?

[Second Summer]

Most people are opposed to unnecessary violence against certain types of animals, particularly companion animals. They react less strongly to violence against certain other types of animals, particularly so-called vermin. Is this as it should be, or are all animals worthy of equal consideration?

 

[Mischief]

Theoretically, all living creatures should be considered "worthy" of equal consideration. As a practical matter, that's simply not possible.

I tend to give more consideration to those animals who have (as far as I can tell) a greater capacity to suffer, emotionally and physically. For instance, I have no compunction about killing fleas, ticks, and other parasites that endanger the wellbeing of the animals in my care.

 

[Second Summer]

Yes, sometimes our interests are in direct conflict with those of certain animals, like the parasites you mentioned.

It's not practical for me to capture-and-release every bug that make its way into our house, so I tend to smack them dead with a newspaper. (I've noticed some species can often be shooed out the window, though.)

So, they are deserving / worthy of equal consideration, but it's too impractical.

 

[Tom L.]

I tend to give more consideration to an animal depending on how much evidence there is that s/he is sentient, and if s/he is herbivorous (or at least not prone to preying on other animals- I've known some cats who appeared to be unusually trustworthy in this regard, although I didn't leave them alone in the room with my hamster or gerbils when the rodents were enjoying their time out of their cages- I kept the door shut). I make an effort not to kill insects, but it just isn't possible to take as much care about this as it is for larger and more neurologically-developed animals. An all-or-nothing approach might not have so many gray areas or ambiguities, but I try not to throw anybody under the bus completely.

 

[SummerRain]

I don't think animal rights (or any rights) is about treating all animals equally, but about treating all animals according to their interests and needs. So that will differ for different animals. So, philosophically speaking, that's my answer really. An insect will have different interests to a dolphin, so you'll need to make different (and probably less complex) considerations for them.

But practically, animals interests will often conflict, and our resources are limited. I think that there are lots of considerations - an animals impact on the environment and ecosystem, our knowledge of an animals ability to feel, think and understand, etc, that might make you prioritise one animal over another. I don't like the idea, because the idea of grading animals on our own idea of how worthy they are of protection seems awful. But equally, it seems silly to prioritise a simple sea creature or insect who may well not feel pain or have any awareness over an animal that we know has sentience, intelligence and social skills (for example).

It's not practical for me to capture-and-release every bug that make its way into our house, so I tend to smack them dead with a newspaper. (I've noticed some species can often be shooed out the window, though.)

I'm sorry, but really? If animals are harmless, you can either leave them be, or put them out of the window. It's not a difficult thing to do. I really can't understanding killing insects just because they wandered into your home.

 

[Second Summer]

Oh I don't usually kill harmless bugs, at least not on purpose. In almost all cases I can get insects such as bees, wasps and bumble bees out alive. (Bumble bees often find their own way out if I just open the windows wide enough.) I always capture and release spiders, even though they creep me out. Flies are often less cooperative, but I do try to persuade them to leave peacefully at first. It's the less messy option as well. Mosquitoes I tend to eliminate, though. I figure their very existence is based upon exploitation of other species, they pose a direct threat to my and my family's health, and they are usually harder to catch than to swat.

Edit: Looks like I didn't phrase my previous post all that well!

 

[Clueless Git]

Two simple 'across the board' rules for me.

1. If it's not harming my body then I don't harm it's body.

2. If it's happy not to own people then people shouldn't own it

I have a special rule #3 for spiders, because I'm an arachnophobe, though ...

3. People don't live in spiders webs, spiders don't live in peoples houses.

 

[Clueless Git]

I always capture and release spiders, even though they creep me out.

Yeah, creepy buggas spiders are ... Six legs should be enough for anybody.

Flies are often less cooperative, but I do try to persuade them to leave peacefully at first.

 

[Tom L.]

I have a special rule #3 for spiders, because I'm an arachnophobe, though ...

3. People don't live in spiders webs, spiders don't live in peoples houses.

Once I was sort of dozing off on my living room floor, and I had the radio on, tuned to a classic rock station. "Boris The Spider" by The Who came on, and at that part where the singer sings "Bo-or-is The Spiii-derrrr" in a low, creepy voice, I woke with a start!

 

[beancounter]

Yes, with the exception of cockroaches. They are Devil spawn and should always be squashed on sight.

 

[prioritarian]

I believe that the intrinsic value of an organism or inanimate object is based on it's capacity to experience pain/pleasure and/or it's ability to indirectly affect the pain/pleasure of others. For example, since I attach value to biomes I can value some plants (e.g. old growth fir tree) more highly than some animals (a tree mite).

 

[beancounter]

I believe that the intrinsic value of an organism or inanimate object is based on it's capacity to experience pain/pleasure and/or it's ability to indirectly affect the pain/pleasure of others. For example, since I attach value to biomes I can value some plants (e.g. old growth fir tree) more highly than some animals (a tree mite).

I believe the value of an animal is based soley on it's intrinsic right to exist, regardless of it's level of awareness or ability to feel pain.

 

[prioritarian]

I believe the value of an animal is based soley on it's intrinsic right to exist, regardless of it's level of awareness or ability to feel pain.

i think this can be someone's theoretical position but in practice i've never met someone who lives that way. for example, few of us sleep on synthetic sheets and wash our bedding daily to avoid mite death. and let's not even discuss the indirect ways we cause pain and death. in practice, human beings need to constantly make "value" trade offs to survive (and even increase their happiness). i think rational assessment of the capacity to suffer (direct and indirect) is a pretty good way to make those trade offs!

 

[beancounter]

i think this can be someone's theoretical position but in practice i've never met someone who lives that way. for example, few of us sleep on synthetic sheets and wash our bedding daily to avoid mite death. and let's not even discuss the indirect ways we cause pain and death. in practice, human beings need to constantly make "value" trade offs to survive (and even increase their happiness). i think rational assessment of the capacity to suffer (direct and indirect) is a pretty good way to make those trade offs!

I was strictly talking about intentional harm. Unintentional/indirect l harm is virtually impossible.

 

[prioritarian]

Unintentional/indirect l harm is virtually impossible.

Direct harm is typically easier to avoid but I personally try not to distinguish between indirect vs direct. The animals don't care what our "intent" is...

 

[flyingsnail]

I'm not even sure how one could, in principle, give all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration". For example plant agricultural is intimately linked with both the killing and use of insects, we must kill pest insects, we must use insects to pollinate, we use insects as pesticides and so on. And such things are by no means indirect, when you're spraying crops with pesticides, when you're raising bees to pollinate, etc you're not accidentally killing and/or exploiting insects....its an active part of the operation. Its only "indirect" in the sense that when you purchase the items at the grocery store you're not killing something directly, but the same could be said for animal based products.

We have no choice but to decide which animals are worthy of rights and which are not, the only alternative would seem to be starvation.

 

[Second Summer]

I'm not even sure how one could, in principle, give all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration". For example plant agricultural is intimately linked with both the killing and use of insects, we must kill pest insects, we must use insects to pollinate, we use insects as pesticides and so on. And such things are by no means indirect, when you're spraying crops with pesticides, when you're raising bees to pollinate, etc you're not accidentally killing and/or exploiting insects....its an active part of the operation. Its only "indirect" in the sense that when you purchase the items at the grocery store you're not killing something directly, but the same could be said for animal based products.

We have no choice but to decide which animals are worthy of rights and which are not, the only alternative would seem to be starvation.

It might not be practical or even possible for us at this point to give certain animals much consideration, but that doesn't mean they're not worthy of equal, or at least more, consideration. What is practical and possible regarding food production depends on the kind of technology available to us. We might soon be seeing a major change in how we grow vegetables, fruit, berries and similar as the operations are moved indoors into giant "factory farms" where growing conditions can be better controlled. That will lead to less dependence on pesticides, I would think, and lots of other changes as well.

 

[Clueless Git]

I'm not even sure how one could, in principle, give all members of the animal kingdom "equal consideration".

If the consideration is "to do the least harm necessary to maintain our own survival" then what is the difficulty with giving all members of the animal kingdom equal consideration?

 

[Clueless Git]

I believe the value of an animal is based soley on it's intrinsic right to exist, regardless of it's level of awareness or ability to feel pain.

I'd add to that.

It is the value we place on others, irregardless of their true value, that gives us our true value.

It's soley that which gives humans any valid claim to have any higher value than the lowest valued of all animals.

 

[prioritarian]

It might not be practical or even possible for us at this point to give certain animals much consideration, but that doesn't mean they're not worthy of equal, or at least more, consideration.

Except that most major animal groupings do not have nervous systems (prorifera, cnidarians, ctenophore, echinodermata). Only a single animal grouping (bilateria) has a nervous system and even among this grouping there are some animals without an intact nervous system. (Taxonomy is dynamic so I am purposefully avoiding using terms, such as, phyla or class.)

File:Metazoan Phylogenetic Tree.png - Wikimedia Commons

There is no evidence that a sponge, jelly fish, or sea squirt have more capability to suffer or be exploited than a potato plant. Why are many of these animals worthy of more consideration than plants or fungi?