Do they have the same rights that humans do; if not then to what extent?
Should animals be kept as pets?
Should wild animals be captured and put in Zoos or places like Sea World?"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
I think animals have the right to be treated decently. But i also think that there is a difference between domesticated animals that are bred for food or companionship and wild animals. I like to eat meat and likely will not stop eating meat but I do think that how the animals are prepared for consumption should be as human as possible.
I do not think that animals have the same rights as humans but then again I treat my pet dog and cats like humans basically. I don't think I would die for them like I would if they were my human children but I still love them.
I think that animals should be kept as pets not only for companionship but because humans have bred animals to be tame and by doing so have basically made it so they can't survive without human intervention. I mean in general I think if chihuahuas were released in the wild to fend for themselves they'd end up dead and eaten within a matter of days. So I think that some animals have become so totally dependent on humans that it would be impossible not to have pets
I do not think zoos that capture wild animals for display should exist. I think zoos should have animals that were injured or something and are being rehabilitated or that can not be released due to their injuries. If those animals have offspring while in captivity then the offspring could be kept because they have grown up in an environment where they rely completely on humans. For example the Killer whales at Sea world are kept in a tank barely large enough for them to turn around in and that is wrong but if an orca were to be run over by a boat (unlikely) and be severely wounded then it could live in a zoo. On a side note I am not sure whether or not I support the animals in the zoo being trained to perform tricks for us. I know that I wouldn't want to be put on display and be forced to perform stunts for some other species. But If I was a killer whale at sea world i'd totally go apeshit and eat my trainer lol.
Edited by Carnage on 04/27/2012 13:20:14
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
Carnage wrote:
Do you think that animals have rights?
To some extent yes, although I doubt an animal would ever take me to court over their rights. I think that it's more a case of our duty to act responsibly with respect to animals, and treat them in a way that we consider to be morally correct. I wouldn't say that animals have inherent rights, but many people see it as their obligation to treat animals 'fairly'. Exactly what this entails I cannot really express comprehensively, as it would tend to depend so much on the situation and the person.
Carnage wrote:
Do they have the same rights that humans do; if not then to what extent?
In theory they probably should; but in practice, no. I, like most other people, would value a human life over an animal's life. We've established ourselves as a powerful, almost king-like, species on this planet and I think we could fairly safely say that we're the most sophisticated species. This, in a way, has made us more inclined to associate rights to ourselves, since we rationalise what we consider to be good and bad, in a way that animals don't. I doubt that animals have such a system of rights for themselves - it wouldn't be effective in a survival-of-the-fittest climate - so we could deduce that animal's don't have rights. Nevertheless, I believe we should use our power as a species with consideration for our shared inhabitants of this planet, and respect them in a similar way to how we would respect one and another. Animals would have a right to live a natural life without unnecessary pain (human-inflicted), but I probably wouldn't give them the right to free speech.
Carnage wrote:
Should animals be kept as pets?
Personally, I don't think I would ever keep a pet: I'm not a great fan of animals as pets. In a way, it seems wrong to take animals out of their natural habitat, and exploit them for our own enjoyment. That said, most species of pets are already domestic species, so releasing them back into the wild would no doubt have a detrimental effect. Besides, pets can also help humans to live a better life - for example guide dogs can make a huge difference to a visually impaired person. A pet can be a much-needed companion for a lonely soul. I'm probably still against the use of animals as pets, since other humans can provide the same companionship, or aid.
Carnage wrote:
Should wild animals be captured and put in Zoos or places like Sea World?
No. It's like putting innocent civilians in a prison, we shouldn't take wild animals out of the environment that they're comfortable in and thrive in, just for a few laughs and giggles for tourists. Helping endangered species to repopulated by carefully breeding and then reintroducing them into the wild is a completely different matter, which should definitely be condoned. However, I don't think we should necessarily help injured animals in the wild - natural selection won't work if we interfere and animals could find themselves not suitably adapted for threats they might face in the future.
Carnage wrote:
Should wild animals be captured and put in Zoos or places like Sea World?
No. It's like putting innocent civilians in a prison, we shouldn't take wild animals out of the environment that they're comfortable in and thrive in, just for a few laughs and giggles for tourists. Helping endangered species to repopulated by carefully breeding and then reintroducing them into the wild is a completely different matter, which should definitely be condoned. However, I don't think we should necessarily help injured animals in the wild - natural selection won't work if we interfere and animals could find themselves not suitably adapted for threats they might face in the future.
I agree with most of the stuff you said except for the injury part I would say that if humans are the cause of the animal being hurt like running over it with a car or a dolphin gets hit by a boat propeller then I think that they should be rehabilitated, but I do agree that if an animal gets hurt by another animal that natural selection should be allowed to take its course.
"Hey guys, I just bought this thing called a sight ward...so it's GG." - MasterA in League of Legends
Do they have the same rights that humans do; if not then to what extent?
Yes
Should animals be kept as pets?
Depends on what type of animal, if it domesticated then yes, if not, then no, unless its an orphan or injured or something...
Example: an orphaned tiger kitten, or a wounded deer. Obviously, these would be temporary pets and later returned to their habitats.
Should wild animals be captured and put in Zoos or places like Sea World
Yes, most would like at zoos and places like them as a bad thing, when in fact, they are better for them.
1. They are refuges for endangered species.
2. They increase animal awareness, people will want to keep the animals alive.
3. They provide invaluable research on animals, research that can be used to help animals in the wild.
4. It is a great way for others to learn about animals and the types of enviornments they live in.
Edited by Sarge on 04/27/2012 16:45:34
I think I agree with you, Carnage. If a human injured an animal, it's on their conscience so they should do something to help it. If they don't I guess others could help out, but we shouldn't be injuring animals in the first place!
I think that the less impact we have on other species, the better. If that means not interfering with an animal when it could help them, then so be it.
Sarge wrote:
Yes, most would like at zoos and places like them as a bad thing, when in fact, they are better for them.
1. They are refuges for endangered species.
2. They increase animal awareness, people will want to keep the animals alive.
3. They provide invaluable research on animals, research that can be used to help animals in the wild.
4. It is a great way for others to learn about animals and the types of enviornments they live in.
I disagree - I don't think that keeping an animal in captivity is 'better' for it.
1) Yes, there are some endangered species undergoing re-population procedures, but many animals in the zoo are simply there for people to take photographs with. It's of course vital that we try to conserve the amazing diversity of species on this planet, but by no means should be take advantage of this for entertaining kids. Wild animals belong in the wild.
2) Quite the contrary, I think it encourages the perception of animals as objects, like paintings for us to look at. If people are given a decent eduction, they should be well aware of the existence of animals and the importance of biodiversity to ecosystems.
3) Research done on animals in captivity can only be useful to a certain extent. Animals will behave very differently to how they would in the wild, and won't face any of the dangers of the wild. Besides, we shouldn't need to interfere with animals in the wild anyway.
4) I presume you mean for humans to learn about animals. You'd probably learn a lot more reading a textbook or researching on the internet. You'd learn f*** all about the environment that they live in, because I can assure you, for example that giraffes don't live in cages.
ninja wrote:
I think I agree with you, Carnage. If a human injured an animal, it's on their conscience so they should do something to help it. If they don't I guess others could help out, but we shouldn't be injuring animals in the first place!
I think that the less impact we have on other species, the better. If that means not interfering with an animal when it could help them, then so be it.
Sarge wrote:
Yes, most would like at zoos and places like them as a bad thing, when in fact, they are better for them.
1. They are refuges for endangered species.
2. They increase animal awareness, people will want to keep the animals alive.
3. They provide invaluable research on animals, research that can be used to help animals in the wild.
4. It is a great way for others to learn about animals and the types of enviornments they live in.
I disagree - I don't think that keeping an animal in captivity is 'better' for it.
1) Yes, there are some endangered species undergoing re-population procedures, but many animals in the zoo are simply there for people to take photographs with. It's of course vital that we try to conserve the amazing diversity of species on this planet, but by no means should be take advantage of this for entertaining kids. Wild animals belong in the wild.
2) Quite the contrary, I think it encourages the perception of animals as objects, like paintings for us to look at. If people are given a decent eduction, they should be well aware of the existence of animals and the importance of biodiversity to ecosystems.
3) Research done on animals in captivity can only be useful to a certain extent. Animals will behave very differently to how they would in the wild, and won't face any of the dangers of the wild. Besides, we shouldn't need to interfere with animals in the wild anyway.
4) I presume you mean for humans to learn about animals. You'd probably learn a lot more reading a textbook or researching on the internet. You'd learn f*** all about the environment that they live in, because I can assure you, for example that giraffes don't live in cages.
1. Its sole purpose is not for entertainment, it has more than one function.
2. I disagree, well, at least partly. Yes, im sure that some will take it like that, but not everyone. Obviously people, especially children, will not want the animals to die, or may want to work with animals in their life.
3. Well, yes, research in the wild would be more fruitful, but its not as though research in captivity is useless.
4. Yes i do. Yes, a book or article specificly designed for that animal would give more information, but zoos do inform nontheless. Yes, the animals are kept in a cage with no type of simulated habitat whatsoever... -_-
