Should cattle and other animals used for food have rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I would argue that kosher and ha’lal slaughter methods are more humane than some modern methods (bolt, electrocution etc.)

Slitting the throat of any animal, if done right, would cause minimal pain as the animal would start to bleed out and be unconscious in seconds.

I’ll be honest, I’m not that concerned with campaigning for animal welfare. Yes, animals should be treated well, but there are a long list of more worthy things that we need to devote out time to over this issue.

In Ireland it’s a non-issue anyway. Farmers here will naturally take care of their animals as they are their livelihood. But farmers will also shoot foxes on their land, cull wild animals or sick cattle, or break a chicken’s neck to have meat for dinner. That’s not a problem in my opinion. It’s just part of country life.
The big emphasis there is on “if done right”. I have seen persuasive arguments in favor of the method, but there is a lot more that can and does go wrong. Otherwise, I agree with you. It’s much the same in the Southeastern US.
 
Yes. Animals have a right not to be abused.

I think slaughterhouses sometimes abuse them.
 
We need another and a wiser and perhaps a more mystical concept of animals. Remote from universal nature, and living by complicated artifice, man in civilization surveys the creature through the glass of his knowledge and sees thereby a feather magnified and the whole image in distortion.
We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therein we err, and greatly err.
For the animal shall not be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear.
They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth. The Outermost House
God gave rights to all His creation. I will be judged by how I use or abuse those He gave me.
 
Well said!

Animals do not have rights. They cannot have rights, and point is moot besides, because animals have no way of enforcing their rights if they had them. “Rights” is a term bandied about nowadays and I think inappropriately. I believe the way the question ought to be asked is, "Do we have duties or moral obligations in regards to animals?"This is the way the debate should be framed.

However, is the way slaughter houses today function more or less humane than the way it was done in the Old Testament when millions of animals were slain as sacrifices?
 
We do not eat them alive. There are abusive behavior or negligence of some people but they are not a system. May atheism or other religions come with a different perspective than the Christian one? Possible if they decide wrong from right by what the laic law says.
I remember a while ago reading about some liberals who went and got hired in farms on purpose to accuse people of abusing animals. One complained against a farmer who hit a cow and also killed mice arround the house…
 
“Right” is really a term which is part of human juridical system- so, unless animals are part of that system, it does not seem to apply.

But, in a moral sense, animals should not be inflicted with any more pain than is unavoidable.

Not only from the point of view of the treatment of animals, but from an economic (and health) point of view, I believe we should eat less meat and more grain. It takes quite a few acres of farmland to raise a single beast- and a much, much larger quantity of nutrition could be produced by using the land to grow grain.

Of course, there is a lot of land that’s too arid for anything but grazing cattle.

Anyway, I’m suspect that if a biologist (otherwise unacquainted with the human species) examined us, he would probably conclude that (like other large primates), we are essentially designed to be herbivores. Strong evidence for this is that a human being (without artificial weaponry) would have virtually now chance of catching and killing an antelope (or even a sheep!), like a true carnivore. We don’t have the teeth, claws, speed or strength…
 
Well said!

Animals do not have rights. They cannot have rights, and point is moot besides, because animals have no way of enforcing their rights if they had them. “Rights” is a term bandied about nowadays and I think inappropriately. I believe the way the question ought to be asked is, "Do we have duties or moral obligations in regards to animals?"This is the way the debate should be framed.

However, is the way slaughter houses today function more or less humane than the way it was done in the Old Testament when millions of animals were slain as sacrifices?
I don’t know what the human population was during Old Testament times, much less the number of animals that were used for food and for sacrifice, but you’ve phrased the whole thing correctly. Some are yelling “rights” without thinking it through.

Ed
 
“Right” is really a term which is part of human juridical system- so, unless animals are part of that system, it does not seem to apply.

But, in a moral sense, animals should not be inflicted with any more pain than is unavoidable.

Not only from the point of view of the treatment of animals, but from an economic (and health) point of view, I believe we should eat less meat and more grain. It takes quite a few acres of farmland to raise a single beast- and a much, much larger quantity of nutrition could be produced by using the land to grow grain.

Of course, there is a lot of land that’s too arid for anything but grazing cattle.

Anyway, I’m suspect that if a biologist (otherwise unacquainted with the human species) examined us, he would probably conclude that (like other large primates), we are essentially designed to be herbivores. Strong evidence for this is that a human being (without artificial weaponry) would have virtually now chance of catching and killing an antelope (or even a sheep!), like a true carnivore. We don’t have the teeth, claws, speed or strength…
About 1/3 of the U.S. is grassland that won’t grow anything else successfully. That’s true of the rest of the world too. People can’t digest grass sufficiently to stay alive on it. Without ruminants that can digest grass effectively, 1/3 of the earth would produce nothing in the way of food. Ruminants produce tons of high-quality protein from something we can’t eat.

I’m not sure a biologist would declare us to be exclusive herbivores. We can’t farm successfully without tools any more than we can hunt successfully without them. So I don’t know that means anything. Of all the animals, our digestive tracts are most similar to those of pigs. Pigs are omnivorous. They eat meat and vegetation and can digest both. So do we. The digestive systems of bears are not as close, but they’re sufficiently similar that bears are also omnivorous. So, indeed, are some apes.

We just have an advantage in that we can make tools that enable us to be more than opportunistic gatherers when it comes to both meat and vegetation.
 
I think the Kentucky Derby is degrading to horses.

We should just let them vote for a winner. Or give all the horses a garland for participation and let them take a trotting show-lap around the grounds.

I also think we should prosecute coyotes for the varmints they kill.
 
“Right” is really a term which is part of human juridical system- so, unless animals are part of that system, it does not seem to apply.
Are you suggesting that human rights are created by governments, and don’t exist in the absence of governments?
we are essentially designed to be herbivores. Strong evidence for this is that a human being (without artificial weaponry) would have virtually no chance of catching and killing an antelope (or even a sheep!), like a true carnivore. We don’t have the teeth, claws, speed or strength…
Are human beings designed to be anarchists with no governments? A code of law and a government administration designed to enforce the law may be as artificial as a bow and arrow for hunting animals.
 
I viewed a disturbing film yesterday about how cattle are treated in the slaughter houses. It’s something that is intentionally hidden from the public’s eyes. I understand that there are laws forbidding the filming of the horrors that take place in slaughterhouses. I understand that the world has a large population that needs to eat, but it seemed clear to me that there are more humane ways to slaughter animals than that currently used in slaughterhouses. Such suffering! Do these animals deserve better treatment?
I think yes, in as far as is reasonable, animals should be reared in good conditions and slaughtered with minimal trauma.

Mass production of cheap meat is the reason for what you see in those movies. I believe the US has less regulation in that regard than some other countries so it might be worse in the US than elsewhere.

But yeah we need to eat. You could eat organic if you can afford it, or free range chicken, or do 1 vegetarian day a week. If everyone did that it would make a difference (especially to the environment: cattle farming is terrible for the environment).

I’m not a vegan or vegetarian BTW; not trying to push an agenda 😉
 
I think yes, in as far as is reasonable, animals should be reared in good conditions and slaughtered with minimal trauma.

Mass production of cheap meat is the reason for what you see in those movies. I believe the US has less regulation in that regard than some other countries so it might be worse in the US than elsewhere.

But yeah we need to eat. You could eat organic if you can afford it, or free range chicken, or do 1 vegetarian day a week. If everyone did that it would make a difference (especially to the environment: cattle farming is terrible for the environment).

I’m not a vegan or vegetarian BTW; not trying to push an agenda 😉
I see cattle waggons driving past, filled with bellowing cattle, herded from their fields to be taken to be killed. The stress is incalculable, and from then on, to seeing the cow in front of them being killed. The stench of blood. terrifies all animals.
 
“No one wants to see how the hot dog get’s made.”

But seriously, I’d encourage people from the ground up to care about the food that they eat. That said, depending on the other concerns on someone’s mind how their food was raised might be low priority. When one is struggling that a chicken or cow was raised well before being killed isn’t a concern; you’d just be happy to have food on the table.
 
What if our Heavenly Master said that we humans should have no rights? Christ had the love for us to come down from Heaven to suffer and die so that we may be saved. Shouldn’t we also have the love and decency to prevent the unnecessary cruelty of animals?

God gave us dominion over animals, it’s true, but I believe He also placed the love and feelings in my heart to speak up against the unnecessary cruelty of animals.
There are no rights that we can demand from God. Any rights we have now seems to be pretty much a man made concoction which seems to change over the centuries. Rise of democracy certainly created this concept of “rights” . Previously under empires and king rule, the commoner didn’t have much right over anything. Who know what “rights” mean in the 30th century. May be cows can vote then.
 
There are no rights that we can demand from God. Any rights we have now seems to be pretty much a man made concoction which seems to change over the centuries. Rise of democracy certainly created this concept of “rights” . Previously under empires and king rule, the commoner didn’t have much right over anything. Who know what “rights” mean in the 30th century. May be cows can vote then.
True! We have no rights we can demand from God.

God does give us rights we have in respect to other humans. For example, we have a right to life which means no one else can take it from us. This is what the preamble of the U.S. constitution has in mind when it says that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. This means that since these rights come from God, no man nor government can take them away. These rights exist prior to government. Note that this indicates that government does *not *create rights, only God does. Princes, kings, and governments can only recognize our rights, not grant them. (Government can grant privileges which are sometimes confused with rights. Rights and privileges aren’t the same thing.)

So, do animals have rights? No, because that is not the proper way to frame the question. The question should be, do we humans have duties in respect to animals?
 
God does give us rights we have in respect to other humans.
I think you may have to reframe this statement. When God gave us the Commandments, he didn’t establish rights, he established a list of things you can’t do. There is a difference. One establish a prohibition, the other give you an entitlement. In fact he permits life to be taken away under certain provisos.
For example, we have a right to life which means no one else can take it from us.
Not true. Fetuses are dumped like garbage daily. The fetus owner seemingly has more right over her body than the fetus has a right to his/her life. Since this is allowed by the US Constitution, would you say these rights came from God or humans? Those who commit certain crimes can be legally killed. Can you yourself take away that right by committing suicide? Something to ponder.
This is what the preamble of the U.S. constitution has in mind when it says that our Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights. This means that since these rights come from God, no man nor government can take them away.
That’s what I said. These are man-made proclamations. God didn’t proclaim these, a group of rebel guys against their mother country agreed that it should be so, and it was so. Not very different from a group of terrorists that say their right was given by God to take away the lives of infidels/fight against established governments with the aim to start a new country. We have to be careful when proclaiming stuff in the name of God when He actually didn’t say it.
These rights exist prior to government. Note that this indicates that government does *not *create rights, only God does. Princes, kings, and governments can only recognize our rights, not grant them. (Government can grant privileges which are sometimes confused with rights. Rights and privileges aren’t the same thing.)
Only recently and depending on which government. At one time, kings, emperors, rajas etc had absolute power over their subjects. I think North Korea is still very close to that model today. Communist countries used to be very close to that model too. The state or king or dictator owns you, period. The government does create rights. If the law didn’t say so, we got nothing. If the constitution didn’t say so, you got no right to a lot of stuff. And these are man-made. A person declaring “these are God-given rights” is really confused what God actually said and didn’t say. Slavery existed not too long ago. Discrimination in various forms still exist today. Democracy wasn’t a God given right. There was no democracy during ancient biblical times except for the pagan Greek I believe.
 
I think you may have to reframe this statement. When God gave us the Commandments, he didn’t establish rights, he established a list of things you can’t do. There is a difference. One establish a prohibition, the other give you an entitlement. In fact he permits life to be taken away under certain provisos.
If you accept that the 5th commandment is of divine origin, and you properly understand the scope of that commandment (which does not forbid or condemn every act which kills), then I think it reasonable to conclude that our creator conferred upon the “innocent” a right not to be slain.

When one comes to belong to a society with law-making capacity, one may discover that one lives under a regime which does not recognise the divine prohibitions (or “rights”) as you understood them to be. That would seem to be where we are today.

And of course the reverse may be true to. I have come across persons who are convinced that the right to bear arms (seemingly with no particular restrictions) is also of divine origin.
The fetus owner seemingly has more right over her body than the fetus has a right to his/her life. Since this is allowed by the US Constitution, would you say these rights came from God or humans?
By “owner” I presume you mean mother? This juxtaposition is of course man-made.
Those who commit certain crimes can be legally killed. Can you yourself take away that right by committing suicide? Something to ponder.
Capital punishment does not fall within the scope of that which the 5th commandment forbids.
 
If you accept that the 5th commandment is of divine origin, and you properly understand the scope of that commandment (which does not forbid or condemn every act which kills), then I think it reasonable to conclude that our creator conferred upon the “innocent” a right not to be slain.
Of course the 5th commandment is divine. But it nowhere forbids the state from killing if a citizen were to break a particular law. In some countries death penalty is imposed for drug trafficking above a certain limit. In some countries probably in the past, but perhaps still in some countries, sedition, being a traitor, may get the death penalty. Slave owners could get away with killing their slaves previously. That couldn’t be a God given right. Or was it?
When one comes to belong to a society with law-making capacity, one may discover that one lives under a regime which does not recognise the divine prohibitions (or “rights”) as you understood them to be. That would seem to be where we are today.
I am of the view that many so-call rights are self declared in the name of God. Adultery under Mosaic law was death by stoning. Most constitutions do not impose any penalties for that. Wasn’t that a God given prohibition? Or was that a right? First commandment, many constitutions guarantee you freedom from God.
And of course the reverse may be true to. I have come across persons who are convinced that the right to bear arms (seemingly with no particular restrictions) is also of divine origin.
There are weirder ones I can imagine.
By “owner” I presume you mean mother? This juxtaposition is of course man-made.
And hence proclamations of divine rights should be ignored. But what if one were to say that it is a God given right to do as I please with my body. God gave me this brain/mind to have that liberty to decide for my self what is best for me. yada yada. How would you rebut that? I can see God’s name being bandied around in many situations but hardly backed up by Scriptures nor Tradition but by improper inference.
Capital punishment does not fall within the scope of that which the 5th commandment forbids.
But there are many that argue for abolishment of capital punishment quoting precisely that commandment. Vatican included.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top