Should Animals Have Human Rights?

Should Animals Have Human Rights?

we talk about animal personhood so have you ever seen a kid torturing a small animal and think number one there's a future serial killer in number two what is the animal have the same rights that idea that's a very interesting question you can put it a different way are there animals out there that experience life in a way similar enough to ours that they deserve the same protections that humans receipt and it's not just an academic question and not just for navel-gazing there's actually a lot of people fighting for this right now 

problem is you can't just say sure animals deserve rights let's just calm all humans from now on which is why we're about to discuss some very arcane legal stuff let's start with the definition of a person a natural human person so philosophers have been grappling with this idea for millennia but we'll keep our definitions.

we'll see who the person is an individual with free well the sound of mine and certain inalienable rights like not having your face 

mashed because it's annoying to say the least end this definition of person extends to all human beings regardless of race creed gender sexual orientation and so on and so forth but you'll notice that this definition doesn't focus on things like physical attributes it focuses on things like mental attributes like the ability to think about 

abstract concepts to consider the future to learn from the past it doesn't say anything about having only two legs but again you can't just say all right animals or humans let's go forward that's where the other definition of person comes up this is called legal personhood it's the idea that you take the attributes of a person.

Their rights their responsibilities the legal attributes and but still it on something that is most decidedly not a person most frequently you run up against this with corporations who are able to enter into contracts and be sued and that kind of stuff they are considered under the law legal person so if it works for corporations why can't we just extend this to animals as well the basis of that concept is that some animals are intelligent enough an emotional enough that they experience life similar to that of a human child and as a result they deserve the same protection so human children receive like.

Not being abused or tortured the right to life the right to freedom things like that this site is been picking up steam in the last couple decades in nineteen ninety-two the country of Switzerland amended its constitution to change animals from things to beings I was a watershed moment in two thousand two Germany followed suit and in two thousand seven Spain's autonomous believe Eric islands 

decided to be still legal rights to great apes in the US the case was recently settled where Stephen wise t he director of the non human rights project sudi university in New York for the freedom of two chimpanzees and at first the case is going pretty well in his favor the judge ruled that the university needed to show why it was holding these two chimpanzees and actually use the term habeas corpus which to that point had only been applied to human beings 

the ruling was quickly reversed like the next day but the case is still considered a watershed moment in the non-human rights movement but this new concept of animal rights has its critics as well some people say okay if we did extend these same legal protections that humans have to animals like eight Sir cetaceans like dolphins are elephant Stan how do you also record than the same responsibilities that humans have to for example if one monkey killed and ate another monkey charge that monkey with murder and even if you do and you try and who makes up his jury of peers there's a lot of prickly legal questions that will be opened up but this does seem to be the way the animal rights movement is moving so expect to be working alongside a champ or a dolphin in the next few years.

Victor Hugo said there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come for Lana writes today is now the greatest social justice issue since the abolition of slavery there has been an undeclared war on animals since the beginning of time because the vulnerable because you can pick on them because they caught on themselves because they don't know what you're coming  forced me to watch a documentary called Earthlings and it's inside footage of 

factory farms you just see that you know I can't participate in that animals must be off the menu because tonight they are screaming in terror in the slaughterhouses in crates and cages all think about the consumption and how fast they have to mass-produce and you can't possibly put together in your head one healthy happy animal.

There is absolutely no trick to looking back on the great in just about time and condemning them we understand we got that the trick is to look at what we're doing today as if we were some point in the future looking back and figure out what the oppressions in the end justice is are we making today and to get them out of our lives they haven't attacked as they haven't done anything and yet we continue to attack them we continue to round them up imprisoned them strip them of everything and slow to them for what animals on not just on the species they are all the nations and we moved to them at our peril he smacked his drone on a menu peace is not just the absence of war it is the presence of justice.

My whole adult life I felt absolutely driven to try to convince people to consent to animals no matter what they're doing whether they're buying something to eat away there they got a dog in their house they need to think of what that animal is going through to put that animal in the equation.

 Should Animals Have Human Rights?

The axis of evil does not run through Iraq Iran or North Korea it runs throughout dining tables weapons of mass destruction are on knives and forks animals off the menu out of these torture chambers it solves our environmental water she made health problems and ends cruelty forever cool.

whether it's morally permissible to kill animals for food.

One thing I'm not gonna talk about is whether it's morally permissible to eat animals for food and also not content but whether it's okay morally okay to buy into molds for food but I want to talk about is whether it's morally permissible to kill animals for food in the first can we do to a lot of animals for food each year millions of picks are killed for food each year is that permissible over twenty million picks were killed last year for food is that morally permissible in particular is it morally permissible to kill pigs for food that we don't need to.

I'm not talking about a situation where you're all alone on a desert island and if you don't kill that pick your going to die contact with the situation we're in right now which is we don't have to kill picks D. we could all eat kale sandwiches but instead because they're delicious we kill millions of pigs each year is that more of a purpose that's what I want to talk.

Let's talk about a different question first is it morally permissible to kill people for food and again I'm not talking about a situation like the Donner party or situations where people crash land on a deserted island and if they don't eat each other they're going to die I mean would it be permissible for you to keep some stranger in your house in kill that stranger for food rather than you to kill sandwich.

We have to talk about that question for very long that is an easy answer no it is morally impermissible to kill people for food you don't need to eat so let me ask you this if it is permissible to kill pigs for fruit but not permissible to kill people for fruit there must be some difference between pigs in people that explains why it's permissible to kill the pig but not the person.

So what's the difference here's an idea the pig is a pick this is a person so this difference I think is supposed to be a difference in genetic make the type of DNA to pick that's different from our genetic makeup so is that the kind of difference that explains why it's morally permissible to kill pick but not morally permissible to kill us let me ask you this.

The trial took place call to serve ma'am if you want to see an episode you should skip this part of the video because I'm gonna give away something very important in the trial as an episode to serve man aliens come to earth and to make a long story short their farming us for food is that morally permissible I think you know it's not permissible for needy people for food I don't need now there's a permissible for aliens detox then imagine the alien says but don't you see a  different sort of creature then we are we have totally different genetic makeups that do not seem like a very good chance the aliens give.

One thing you might say yes I see that we have different genetic make but I'm still kind of think you should kill but it might say that we if we say it's permissible for security because your pick and we're people.

But maybe what you're getting at when you say pigs a pig the person the person is people are special because well for one thing work quite a bit smaller than tics which isn't to say exert dummies exit pretty smart people just smart okay one thing you might ask is why does that make it okay to kill the pick but that's not what I want to ask because well I think you are smarter than a pick your watcher philosophy video not everyone is smart to pick, in fact, we all know some creatures some people even probably not smarter than pigs is it okay even those people no.

That's not a hard question now one reason it might be you shouldn't eat people who have mental lots of pics we care about those people it might be that my brother has the mental after the pick it would be wrong to kill him for food because I care about well yes you two things about this.

First one is caring about my brother make a difference if the reason it's wrong to kill might severely mentally handicapped brother for food is because I care about and then what you're saying is the reason it's wrong doesn't have to do with my brother so much it has to do with me and that does not seem correct seems like there's something about what you're doing to my brother when you kill them for food subjection it has nothing to do with what you're doing to me by Mr different question what if no one cared about my brother one of my brother with the mental ever take work home.

No one cared about him no one even knew about would it be permissible to kill him for food then I don't think so I still think this is not a hard question what we're looking for is a difference between people and picks but explains what's morally permissible to kill pigs for food but not permissible to kill people and we've tried some differences out the different species that doesn't really seem to explain people are smarter in general and picks that doesn't seem to explain it either we care about people don't care about picks that don't seem to explain it either what's.

Something people say sometimes when you talk about this the big would do it to us put a person with a pick the big might eventually each person does that show it's morally permissible for the person to pick.

Ask a different question have you ever been punched by a very small child I have do you think it was permissible for me to punch the child back reasoning he did it to me therefore it's permissible for me to do it to him I think that would not be very good reason it would be wrong to punch the child even though the child would do it to me in fact I think the child, if the child is young enough, doesn't do anything wrong if it doesn't to me the child is not the kind of thing that does anything right or wrong but still we might do wrong to it last.

Where the top of the food chain yeah where we live in places where we can watch philosophy videos obviously we lived in the ocean would be the top the fiction Laurie are the top the future.

There was no morally permissible for us to take advantage of that and kill whatever you want for free It might be that we're in a position to do various things to other animals because with the top of the food chain but that doesn't mean it's morally permissible first.

I'm a very smart person I'm constantly dealing with people who are much bigger than our dealer much stronger than I am he could count me to a pulp there easily one engine they did my server you shouldn't have done that I was morally wrong and they say but don't you see I'm stronger than you that's terrible reason, of course, are stronger than me want to know is why was okay for them to express their strength in that way similarly it might be that were above the pagan food check as you get ready to kill the pig needed the pick might say why are you kidding me we just say we can we have control over you.

That does not seem like a very good hands sometimes people say something related which is that's just the way nature it's that's what's morally permissible but it's natural to do all sorts of things that are morally wrong if you're listening to this video I'm getting really frustrated it's natural to want to punch me it might be natural to punch but that doesn't mean you should do what so I am perplexed I started off asking.

Whether it's okay to kill picks for food dance that question asked first a very easy question whether it's okay to kill people for free that's an easy question dancers no and then ask what's the difference between people and picks such stacked it's permissible to kill pigs for food even though it's not permissible to kill people and I've gone through a bunch of differences none of them seem like they do the work that's required none of them seem like they explain why it's okay to kill pigs for but it's not okay to kill people for free so I hope you help me figure out the answer for deciding it's morally wrong to kill picks for food.

Also Read:- Essay on My Favorite animal

That's my prediction so what do you think your animals deserve the same rights as you do corporations.

Let us know in the comments section below.