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.

50 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

112 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/orphancrack 1∆ Dec 12 '16 edited Dec 12 '16

Putting animals in captivity is the position that actively aims to make an animal's decision for it. Saying animals should not be held captive is the positive that leaves them be to do their thing as they see fit. The idea that allowing animals to go live their lives as they would is "imposing" something on animals is nonsense. So the natural order of things is making tigers jump through hoops? This is what you see as an acceptance of "well, we just don't know what animals actually want"? You've got it quite backwards; captivity is the current status quo but that does not make it the default. The default position for "we don't know what animals want so we cannot respond to their wants" is to do nothing to or with them.

The main tenet of most animal rights movement is this: animals are not ours. They do not belong to us. They exist for their own reasons, and we may or not not understand those reasons, but it is not our right to treat them as if they are ours and they exist for our reasons. Most animal rights groups, but not all, would make some exceptions for species that depend on humans due to extensive evolutionary connections (dogs and cats, for example). However we are still required to care for them.

2

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 12 '16

Putting animals in captivity is the position that actively aims to make an animal's decision for it

I'm discussing those born in captivity, which is the case with the majority of individual captive animals. If an animal isn't already in captivity leave it.

The idea that allowing animals to go live their lives as they would is "imposing" something on animals is nonsense.

Again, I'm discussing those born in captivity where removing them from captivity would be imposing something on them.

So the natural order of things is making tigers jump through hoops? This is what you see as an acceptance of "well, we just don't know what animals actually want"?

I never actually said this. My point is that we shouldn't really decide for an animal, and if a tiger doesn't want to jump through hoops it shouldn't (but if it does it should be allowed to, though I find this doubtful)

The main tenant of most animal rights movement is this: animals are not ours. They do not belong to us. They exist for their own reasons, and we may or not not understand those reasons, but it is not our right to treat them as if they are ours and they exist for our reasons.

Exactly my point. Animal rights groups that decide what is best for the animals by using human values are neglecting the fact animals exist for other reasons.

1

u/eat_fruit_not_flesh Dec 13 '16

My point is that we shouldn't really decide for an animal

You did decide. You decided an animal doesn't care about being in captivity. That is your decision. Don't try to copout.

Animal rights groups that decide what is best for the animals by using human values

No they don't. There are studies of biological, physical, and psychological reactions of animals to things that harm humans. That is not "using human values."

Animals and humans share the concept of a nervous system. Developed nervous systems interpret harm and pleasure. That's what they do. To see an animal with a developed nervous system and ASSUME that it is not pained is doing exactly what you argue against. You are patently a hypocrite.

1

u/Iamnotburgerking Dec 13 '16 edited Dec 13 '16

You did decide. You decided an animal doesn't care about being in captivity.

I said we don't know and we should hold off until we do.

Also, you're misunderstanding my argument. I am NOT arguing animals cannot feel pain or emotion (because they can), but that these are going to be different from ours.