Animal Ethics and Rights

[Tinkerbell668]

For a better treatment of animals or animal rights, the utilitarian or the deontological approach?
I would love to hear others opinions on this!! thanks

[pjkeeley]

Nice try, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

[JPhillips]

Depends on who you are trying to convince. A utilitarian or deontologist.

[ape]

[wanabe]

Why not share some of your own thoughts first Tinkerbell668, you did start the thread after all.

Do you know what those words mean("utilitarian"/"deontological")?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have a thread for this already, this thread should be moved there.
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Tinkerbell668]

Ape! thank you so much for your insight very refreshing, that was beautiful

I do believe that as human beings it is our moral obligation to treat animals as an extension of ourselves.
It is my wish to see human beings label themselves as a MEMBER of the land community, not the MASTER, as Leopolds ethic implies. Once we are able to identify ourselves as a part of the land we may see ourselves on the same level as animals, thus encouraging us to act morally towards them, and we begin to act in ways that will in turn benefit each member including animals
Now couldnt that be classified as utilitarian? the greatest good for the greatest number..
But then I look into such instances of indigenous tribes, natives etc. They only take from the land what they need, never exploiting it. ( I'm interested to see how this relationship would be in their eyes?)
Deontology pushes for the Right over the Good, so is it right for these tribes to hunt for meat and fur etc for their survival? I believe so because, again, they do not exploit these resources, they only take what they need, giving (plants, water,insects, animals) the right to live on and to remain existing (as they should)
I find it to be a thin line between Deo and Util, its hard to side and completely understand the validity of each when it comes to animal rights and treatment Thats why I'd like to hear it in other words from anothers point of view.
Thanks to those who respond unbiased!

[wanabe]

In general, deontology is how I would side, since you do not cite a specific case of animal ethics. Why go with what works; when you could do what works best(generally)?

The question remains what is right? We gain right from what has worked or seems to work from the past, or our logic/reasoning skills. It may be that the two are intertwined, I think they are. Choosing one over the other must happen from a practical stand point but we should reassess our decision often to see if it's working as planned.

For the large majority of the population there is no choice, exploit or die. Is this right, no. We have more or less reached a point of no return, long ago. However with the encouragement of negative population(one child per couple) growth we could begin to diminish our exploitation.
_________________
Anything is possible; nothing is as it seems.Transcend feeble language by communicating through Direct Perception.I am attempting to transcend 'right and wrong', please help me."What you don't understand you can make mean anything."-Chuck Palahniuk

[Tinkerbell668]

Thank you so much wanabe.
I understand what you are saying and it's helped put things into perspective. The ugly truth is indeed that these days most of us have no choice but to exploit or suffer, so it has become our right
I find the 1 child per family theory very intriguing!
Thanks again!

[ape]

[Tinkerbell668]

Wow!
Thank you so much Ape, your feedback has inspired me greatly. Your wording and the passion I can just feel from reading each sentence has directed me towards a clearer path! I couldn't agree more with what you have to say
Extremely helpful

[Martin Ekdahl]

I think we always have to look at the act itself when we interact with humans and animals. I don't eat meat. That is a decision of free will, based on what I know about health, the treatment of animals and the environmental consequenses of the meat industry.

When I commit this act (of not eating meat) I feel good about myself. I cannot predict exactly how this will benefit (or even harm) the world as a whole, so I don't do it as an utilitarian effort but as a deontological act. It may even be selfish, just as giving money to a beggar without really caring about what he or she will spend the money on. But I do it anyway, because my ethics would make me sleep badly, knowing that I put harm on other beings by eating meat.

So, I simply cannot see a world where all our actions are based on utilitarianistic predictions, because we don't have all the facts about how our actions affect others at the end of the line. And because we are individuals, acting out of our own perspectives only.
_________________
"The meaning with life must be to do something meaningful with your life".

[reflected_light]

"The ugly truth is indeed that these days most of us have no choice but to exploit or suffer, so it has become our right"

Tinkerbell, it is and never will be our 'right' to exploit.
Suffering is like the very matter we are made of, it cannot be destroyed, only...relocated, re-organized.
Our lack of suffering is anothers abundance of suffering, it is a balance like all other facets of life.
If we truly care about our world and it's myriad of inhabitants then we will not shy away from our share of the suffering.

Love doesn't solve problems, animals don't care to be loved by us, and if you don't agree with me just go to your local zoo and hug a polar bear.
It's respect that they need from us, not love.

[Martin Ekdahl]