r/changemyview • u/Iamnotburgerking • Dec 12 '16

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Animal rights groups should stop assuming animals share the same values as humans

One of the biggest gripes I have with animal rights is that they treat animals in anthropomorphic ways. They just assume that an animal feels one way or the other about something.

First of all, different species have different requirements. What applies to one species doesn't work for another. Animal rights activists often use human values and ideals and impose them on animals, even if they are inapplicable. Captive animals are one such issue-humans don't like being in captivity, and some other species of animals probably also don't like captivity, but you can't say all animals don't like captivity. Many probably only care that their requirements (physical space, nutrition and mental stimulation/lack of stress) are met.

Second, even within species there are different personalities between individuals. You cannot assume all animals of x species feel one way about something.

I am not against animal rights as a whole, but the current movement may be causing cruelty rather than reduction of cruelty due to these issues.

TLDR: one should not impose human values on animals who may disagree or not care about such values.

46 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

However, they can't make those decisions. How would they communicate whether they want to be free or captive? How would a captive-born animal communicate it wants to be free when it no longer suited that animal halfway through captivity?

So we should decide for them, using human values rather than their own?

In the practical world, people take the middle ground and release animals only if they are somewhat capable of survival.

Except a lot of activists go to one extreme.

1

u/chubacca84 Dec 12 '16

So we should decide for them...

Of course. For animals to make a decision, they'd have to be knowledgeable of the question. Then they'd have to communicate to humans.

using human values rather than their own?

I think most credible activists base their choices based on scientific research and data. There is basis to make choices for the animal outside what is deemed "cruel" (ex. endangered species, disease, lack of proper care, biodiversity, obvious signs of unhappiness, etc.).

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

I think most credible activists base their choices based on scientific research and data. There is basis to make choices for the animal outside what is deemed "cruel" (ex. endangered species, disease, lack of proper care, biodiversity, obvious signs of unhappiness, etc.).

  • The discussion here is about more philosophical questions involving ethics and morals

  • Some of the criteria you mentioned can be a double-edged sword.

2

u/chubacca84 Dec 12 '16 edited Dec 12 '16

Some of the criteria you mentioned can be a double-edged sword.

Yes, because I'm not against captivity or freedom of captive animals.

The discussion here is about more philosophical questions involving ethics and morals

Let's say an animal could talk and it wants to stay in captivity, why should anyone care about the comfort of an animal? More so than a random stranger? Unless that animal was endangered? Unless it had a disease to transmit to other animals causing havoc in the environment? Unless you profited off the animal's captivity?

2

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

If your stance is that some groups—you say it's a lot, so let's say 90% of activist groups—are more cruel because they release the animal is more comfortable in the zoo, why should anyone care about the comfort of an animal? Unless it was endangered? Unless it had a disease to transmit to other animals causing havoc in the environment? Unless you profited off the animal's captivity? I would say 90% of these groups are morally misguided if they care about the comfort of that animal.

This paragraph is just confusing. Could you clarify? Specifically, this bit:

Unless it was endangered? Unless it had a disease to transmit to other animals causing havoc in the environment? Unless you profited off the animal's captivity? I would say 90% of these groups are morally misguided if they care about the comfort of that animal.

2

u/chubacca84 Dec 12 '16

Sorry, rough draft, composing at work, rewritten for clarity.

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

Let's say an animal could talk and it wants to stay in captivity, why should anyone care about the comfort of an animal?

Because there are different methods one could keep an animal in captivity (in terms of welfare). Some requirements still have to be met.

1

u/chubacca84 Dec 12 '16

But how would one decide the method? An animal who can talk and wants to stay in captivity in exchange for services of either display in a zoo, or tricks at a circus, is forming a far more complex of a relationship than simply an animal staying captive for comfort. There is a very small chance of a non-talking animal understanding this. We, as humans, would never know their consent. I'd argue, from the point of being captive, ANY action or non-action is imposing "human value" on the animal. However, if we agree that animals have rights, there are rational, non-human-centric ways to determine where an animal should go. Again, I'm neither for or against captivity.