If you are interested in this issue, you might look into Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing." It was a law review article that became a book. Reed, out of Idaho, also did "Should Rivers Have Running." Corporations, estates and other non-human entities have standing and representatives in court. I can't remember all their arguments, but they might give you some ideas.

Personally, I think it is okay to kill and eat animals in the same way that wolves kill and eat animals. However, the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey in such a way that we hone their edge (and lose, more often than not) at the same time that they hone our edge (when we don't stack the deck with domestication and long range weaponry). We used to have to work for our food.

Animals are "innocent" vs us in the same way a deer is "innocent" vs a cougar.

In the end, though, we are what we eat. There simply are not enough wild animals to feed 7 billion people and so, we eat fat, stupid, lazy, bawling, shit-smeared, fly-covered animals that stand around, face-to-asshole, breathing filthy air (flatulence), on three feet of their own shit, drinking putrid water and eating rotten corn silage. So there's that. You simply cannot have an upside down food pyramid with apex predators at the top and everything else at the bottom.

However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties? — Shawn

An apocalypse.

If you are interested in this issue, you might look into Christopher Stone's "Should Trees Have Standing." — James Riley

I was going to mention Stone's essay, but you beat me to it. It's a bit broader issue than @Shawn brought up. It deals with the rights of the environment as a whole rather than domesticated animals. I think the two issues are closely related.

Relevant to that, in the US, the federal government acts as a Natural Resources Trustee representing the interests of the environment. This program runs parallel to other federal and state environmental laws and regulations and sometimes involves requirements for mitigation or repair of environmental damage.

Personally, I think it is okay to kill and eat animals in the same way that wolves kill and eat animals. However, the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey in such a way that we hone their edge (and lose, more often than not) at the same time that they hone our edge (when we don't stack the deck with domestication and long range weaponry). — James Riley

I can't agree more. I saw a documentary about the modern way of fishing and damned captain Iglo, so invitingly asking us to purchase the fish he caught in his small fishing boat, on which children are having a good time. If you know the grim reality behind this white-bearded fellow, you would throw him over his own board at the spot. The real boats are huge floating factories, scraping over the bottoms of the seas, to collect as much fish as possible and killing many non-wanted fish, like about a hundred million sharks. How different from the fishermen on the sea around my small island, in small boats.

In the same documentary (I forgot the name) someone sad, very wisely, that all creatures on Earth are traveling on spaceship Earth and that all forms of life are like natural engineers to keep the planet habitable for one another. So I think it would be good to show respect for nature.

However, since an animal cannot advocate for itself, what can a person do to represent an animal? — Shawn

Our increasingly inhumane treatment of animals and indeed virtually every other life on Earth is a direct result of our evergrowing population that has to have its needs met. That's where I would start. The conclusion that 7,9 billion humans is quite enough.

Rights should only be accorded to beings to whom the concept is meaningful. But this is not to say that all beings should not be treated humanely.

Our increasingly inhumane treatment of animals and indeed virtually every other life on Earth is a direct result of our evergrowing population that has to have its needs met. That's where I would start. The conclusion that 7,9 billion humans is quite enough. — Tzeentch

Funny enough, I wanted to ask the question here if there is overpopulation. I just read that 50 000 BC there were only one million people living on Earth. That's 7000 times as much, these days. Quite a lot. I think there is no mammal in nature living in such a quantity. Though it seems we push each other of the planet, there is actually a lot of room! I think nature can provide for all, but there is not much nature left anymore, although this might be a too narrow vision. In the birthyear of the holy savior, a billion people walked the Earth. More or less. I can't see a very big difference with 7 billion. All pee in the year zero could be fed without a too great impact on nature. For every person back then, an area of a quarter squared kilometer could be assigned. That is about 1/30 of a squared kilometer in our time. That is about 3 hectares or 7.5 acres. The problem not lies in the increase of people, but in the disproportional growth of products, which is way out of hand. Nature can provide for all. The modern trend of global development, in the service of the capital, is turning increasingly vicious to the face of nature. It's material development that is to fear, not an increasing population. Nature, including all life in it, is basically innocent. But it can show us a mad face one day.

Dogs are not as innocent as thought. They can act. Fooling us (me) to believe they have a painfull leg. But on second thought, that's pretty innocent.

Do you think a farmer would consider wolves that kill his sheep innocent? The rights of wolves end where our human individual/community/social interest (security, wellbeing, etc.) starts.
We have created species that exist just to satisfy our needs, we'll never give them any right that goes against our own human interests.

If you tell me that we can afford feeding people and at the same time decreasing animal suffering, I don't think anyone will disagree as much as you keep our standard of living.
Our current technological means can allow us to do that and we're moving into this direction already.
But let's be honest.. and cynic (sorry), if the with-care-treated meat costs you double than the other one and we have to give up going on holidays because of that... would you do it?
Animals will become more innocent as we get to afford them to be.

Yes, we've been strip mining the oceans for so long, they can't handle it. Sad. In the U.S. we long ago banned commercial exploitation of wildlife on land. I don't understand why ocean fish aren't considered wildlife. We thought the Carrier Pidgeon could never go extinct either. Commercial use of fish for the food of 7 billion just won't cut it. And lots of it ends up in pet food and whatnot. Jeesh!

the way we do it lacks respect, grace, gratitude and a personal relationship with the prey — James Riley

The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me.

The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me. — Artemis

I know, right? We've separated ourselves so far from the natural order of things that many cannot even fathom the notion. It's like trying to explain sight to one who has never seen. Most even say grace before eating, rather than living in grace with what they eat.

If you are sincerely interested in seeing, then I suggest you take up the hunt. Nothing will help you see better than becoming that which you seek.

(Side bar for those who actually try: The more primitive you can be, and the farther you go from that which separates us from the natural order of things, the better. Also, the longer you can go, the better.)

P.S. For those who don't want to put in the work, an interesting read is "Meditations on Hunting" by Jose Ortega yGasset.

I know, right? We've separated ourselves so far from the natural order of things that many cannot even fathom the notion. It's like trying to explain sight to one who has never seen.

If you are sincerely interested in seeing, then I suggest you take up the hunt. Nothing will help you see better than becoming that which you seek. — James Riley

No thank you.

Same way I don't need to become a serial killer or rapist in order to see through those things.

No thank you.

Same way I don't need to become a serial killer or rapist in order to see through those things. — Artemis

Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store.

Another sickness brought on by our distance from who we are is the illogical conflation of disparate things, like hunting and serial killers. It's sad to watch the blind stumble around so. They actually think food comes from the grocery store. — James Riley

Well, have fun with your strawpersons anyway.

Well, have fun with your strawpersons anyway. — Artemis

There are no straw persons here. Let me try to help you: Would you equate a deer to a serial killer? Personally, I would not. The deer is what you must become when you hunt it. Otherwise, you will not succeed.

Likewise when you are being hunted: you must become the predator to avoid becoming lunch. That is what the deer does. Put yourself in the other.

Having left off of the ability to do this is what creates your blindness. I think it does more to create serial killers than anything else. Preoccupation with us.

The deer is what you must become when you hunt it. Otherwise, you will not succeed. — James Riley

This is nonsensical. Deer don't hunt. If you became a deer, you would eat leaves and leave all the other deer alone.

This is nonsensical. Deer don't hunt. If you became a deer, you would eat leaves and leave all the other deer alone. — Artemis

Have you ever watched a deer watch for you? He/she is becoming you. Have you ever watched a cougar hunt a deer? He/she must become the deer.

A very simple example is the head movement. Sometimes it does indeed go into the vegetation for a bite, but other times, many times, it is a feint, trying to catch the cat in an unbalanced mid step. Other times, staring into one distant spot, trying to pick up movement with peripheral vision. This is only successful when, not only thinking like, but becoming that which wants to kill you.

Likewise the cat: stepping ever so carefully, eyes locked just through the prey (for you don't want to look *at* the prey; their sixth sense will give you away), trying to figure if that next placement of the head into the vegetation is for real, or just a feint. Only the cat that becomes the deer will know when to step.

Watch jaws of that deer grind. Watch when they stop grinding and just stare. Eyes don't see as well when jaws move. But those ears, that nose. You must become the moment. Immerse yourself in All.

Then, who knows first when the gig is up? Then the chase is on. The one who better became the other is the one that lives to eat another day.

They love each other. It's sad so many people don't know this love. This lack of knowing this love, this blindness, it makes us sicker. Some even become serial killers.

This doesn't in any way, shape, or form address what I said.

This doesn't in any way, shape, or form address what I said. — Artemis

It does. But you don't see it. That's unfortunate. But not unusual.

It does. But you don't see it. That's unfortunate. But not unusual. — James Riley

Okie dokie.

Rights should only be accorded to beings to whom the concept is meaningful. But this is not to say that all beings should not be treated humanely. — Wayfarer

I think rights are primarily about the one who grants those rights rather than the beneficiary. When I say that someone or something has a right, I mean that I have made a commitment to treat them in a certain way. When they said "All men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." they meant that they, the signers of the Declaration, made a commitment supported by a pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." That's what a right is, a declaration of commitment.

When I say that someone or something has a right, I mean that I have made a commitment to treat them in a certain way. — T Clark

Yes, rights are conferred, but they also need to be exercised by a subject in order for the idea to be meaningful.

What brought this up for me was a protest reported on the news some years back, about a proposal to cull great white sharks in Western Australia, following several fatalities. One of the protestors was holding this sign:



I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights.

However, if we cannot argue with the consumer of pork or beef, then what are we to do about this issue between interested parties? — Shawn

Not produce pork or beef, nor do anything that would support their production.

I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights. — Wayfarer

Indeed. The focus should be on the behavior of humans, and not on the supposed inherent value and nature of animals, or the rights of animals.
In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people.

people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people. — baker

:100:

In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people. — baker

Yes, that's the point of the OP. Although when advocating for an animal (which isn't unusual) people tend to level their intelligence to our own.

Although one may mount the argument that being altruistic isn't a common assumption of humanity.

Yes, that's the point of the OP. Although when advocating for an animal (which isn't unusual) people tend to level their intelligence to our own. — Shawn

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification. Ie. the case is made that some being or object has inherent value because of which people should treat this being or object well. With this, the contrast is also held in place: It's because some being or object does not have inherent value that we do not have to treat them well.
"It's okay to eat fish because they don't have any feelings."

The "black lives matter" is another such an externalizing lines of reasoning that is doomed to ineffectiveness. It's saying "Black people are worthy people, too." Clearly, as history has shown, there has been a lot of disagreement as to the inherent value of people depending on their race, sex, socioeconomic status. Such externalizing lines of reasoning do not have much persuasive power.

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled.

The problem with these kinds of arguments is that they externalize the justification. — baker

I don't see anything wrong with that, do you?

In other words, such externalizing lines of reasoning shift the focus of moral justification outside, on the object; they are based on the evaluation of the inherent value or nature. At the same time, this evaluation itself is a matter of debate and far from settled. — baker

What kind of debate? I'm not sure I'm following the issue of externalizing the issue to blame or justification in comparison with any framework to operate with, which seems necessary to even begin discussing animal rights...

Animals have rights. But only American animals. It's in the Charter of Animal Rights in the Canadian Constitution. If the right of an animal gets violated, the animal can take the offender to court. Supreme court, if the offence is of criminal nature, and civil court, if the offence is of tort law or contract law.

The reason we don't hear much about cases of animal rights violations in courts, is that animals can't afford lawyers. Mostly their only liquid asset is their pelt or hyde, and that is an unmitigable possession of the animal.

In other words, people should treat animals well because to do otherwise would reflect badly on the people. — baker

I really don't think this is meaningful idea. A case can be made for not culling sharks but I don't think it can be grounded in the idea that a shark has rights. — Wayfarer

There is indeed something more to be said about this point. There's an unsettling thing in saying, in order for animals to be treated with respect they must pass the "have rights" test. Rights, as T Clark said, are a declaration of commitment, but created by humans nonetheless.

Likewise, treating animals with respect because it would reflect badly on us if we don't is also an unsatisfying, to say the least, notion. It bothers me.

We are looking at this issue for the sake of our interest only.

Treat animals with respect like us because they, too, have a will to live. This has been demonstrated by many studies on animals. And you don't even have to turn to researchers to know this. If you live with animals, you'll know this!

A will to live includes trying to escape from entrapment, from a predator, hiding their younglings from predators and other dangers, getting food for sustenance, play games for entertainment, and rest. Why else would they secure these basic needs -- shelter, food, protection? It's all nature, you say? Okay, humans are delusional if they think that the "free will" they believe they have are all created by "civilization". We think our will is different from animal will? No it isn't.