I titled the thread using “welfare” instead of “rights”, because I didn’t want people to just get caught up in the whole “Only humans have rights” thing, but in either case the sentiment is the same.

With that said, what are your thoughts about concerns surrounding animal welfare and what do you think society should do (if anything) to change our interactions with animals? This includes animals in relation to: food, entertainment, sport (hunting/fishing/wrangling/riding), clothing, scientific research (cosmetic and medical), and consumer goods. I’m sure there are other categories as well, but these are just the ones that come to mind. There’s so much that falls under this topic, that I’ll just briefly mention two so as to get the thread started.

Something to think about is if you don’t particularly care about animal welfare from an intrinsic standpoint, do you feel that other factors are important enough for humans to care about our use of animals? For example, one might not have any moral qualms with eating animals, but can still care about the issue and feel something should be done because of the impact animal-based agriculture has on the environment (which in turn affects humans).

Entertainment:

Animals are found throughout entertainment in numerous different ways, so it’s impossible to bring up every iteration, but there are notable examples that I feel represent a good portion of this topic.

Perhaps one of the most well-known and recent example includes Sea Worlds orca shows which has generated ire from animal rights activists for decades, but really saw a forceful push after the release of the documentary “Blackfish”. In wake of the outrage, Sea World has actually made the move to phase out their orca shows and their orca breeding and captivity programs, with the decision being:



http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/17/seaworld-orcas-killer-whales/81900498/

It’s not just Sea World who uses animals as part of entertainment, as animals are used in circuses, bull riding events, and racing (dogs and horses) all across the country. To a certain extent, it could be said that horse-drawn carriages fall under the category of entertainment as well.

Should we continue to use animals as forms of entertainment as-is, or should we stop the practice outright? Perhaps there’s a middle-ground where so long as certain conditions are met, you’re okay with it?

Food:

Whether one has an ethical opposition to eating meat and animal byproducts or not doesn’t change the fact that there are definite environmental impacts to animal-based agriculture. It’s the motivation for some of the leading causes of deforestation, which is soybean production and cattle ranching, and the vast majority of soy is used for animal feed. Deforestation, other than being an inherent issue to the destruction of biodiversity, is one of the top two leading factors of ocean acidification, as deforestation leads to a greater amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Beyond C02, animal-based agriculture is also one the major players in both methane and nitrous oxide, which as greenhouse gases, have a warming potential far higher than C02.

Concerning the ethics of how we should treat other animals, we ought not to harm living and feelings beings when such is unnecessary for our survival and even our enjoyment.

Concerning the ethics of how we should treat other human beings, we ought not to continue mass animal farming as it currently is when such is threatening to the well-being of all of us on this planet.

Concerning the ideal of a healthy society, we ought to restrict the production and consumption of meat and dairy when our current levels of such are detrimental to our health.

Animal welfare is a lost cause. In some cases we defend animal rights with vigilance, in other cases we turn a blind eye to the feelings of animals without even thinking about it.

In the end, we all want to be SJWs, but we also think the feelings of animals are insignificant.

Fox gets tortured in the manufacturing of a fur coat? Horrible.
Bulls being tortured in Spanish bullfighting? Horrible, though most people don't care.
Killing spiders and mice around the house because they are a minor bother to us? Nobody cares.
Chicken are tortured by keeping them in way too small sheds? Some people care, most don't.
Cows are tortured by keeping them in way too small shelters? Nobody cares.
Geese are force-fed so that their livers will make tastier fois gras? An animal rights activist gets a heart attack every time this happens.

Etc etc etc. The list is completely paradoxical and does not make sense.



In the end, that's logical too. Instinctively we're programmed to only care about our own species, and to prey on other animals for our own survival and entertainment. This is something we'll never be able to stop, no matter how vigilant animal rights activists get.

This post was edited by howtodisappearcompletely on Apr 13 2016 01:25am

got dayum speciests

What it generally comes down to is that most people condemn behavior that harms animals that is also not socially productive. So horrible conditions and inevitable death for farmed animals is okay because of the production of food, as opposed to the torture of an animal for the sake of inflicting pain isn't socially productive.



These are offensive.



This is defensive.



What doesn't make sense? Vegans, animal rights activists, etc. condemn everything from the first category. The average person might not because they see some as socially productive (and conflating that with necessary or even beneficial) and some as not.



We can and do act in ways that are contrary to our "programming", if one accepts the idea that such even exists outside of social construction.

Can you elaborate on the "offensive" vs "defensive" thing?

The list is paradoxical, by the way. It's true that we keep cows in sheds because we need their milk and meat. Their milk and meat doesn't get better from being crammed into tiny sheds by the thousands, though. That's purely because of financial reasons. This type of torture in not necessary for our survival. Additionally, there's no real explanation as to why some of the "offensive" things are widely accepted and others are condemned by animal rights activists.

You're right when you say we don't always do what we're programmed to do. That doesn't really matter though; most of our gut feelings concerning what's right & wrong have some roots in our instincts.

I think the way non-human animals are treated by humans is the greatest moral grievance on Earth by far and that producing healthy, tasty, cheap in vitro meat and banning factory farming should be our number one priority.

Non-human animals deserve at least similar if not the same moral treatment as humans, in regards to inflicting suffering on them.

Zoos, animal parks, etc. are not really the most significant concern until factory farming and eventually the exploitation of animals in mass quantities for palate pleasure in general is abolished, though attempts to abolish other causes of animal suffering are of course worthwhile. The focus should be on factory farming which is the #1 source of suffering in the world and the worst moral offense that has ever existed.

For the sake of this thread, you can stop referring to them as "non-human animals". I don't think anyone in here is idiotic enough to claim that humans aren't animals.

I am specifically referring to non-human animals, by your own admission if I used the term animals it would include humans.

The worst moral offense that has ever existed is slavery.