Should Animals Bred For Food Have No Rights?

[cronus]

Unlike a pet cat or pet dog this sheep is bred for the table. Does it matter how it dies? So long as it doesn't effect the taste?

[Svartalf]

Animals have no more rights than humans grant them..

[Tero]

Animals have few rights. For example, only migratory birds have limited rights. Crows and jays, pah.

[Rum]

The idea of rights is surely based upon the level of compassion and/or empathy one might have for the animals concerned. That has grown over the decades certainly in this country and (for example) vegetarianism is now mainstream and there are quite a few animal rights movements.

If I see a truck full of sheep or cattle on their way to the slaughterhouse, which I do from time to time as there is a big livestock market here, I certainly feel compassion and at least some empathy at the thought of the fear they may well be experiencing now and (no matter what some say) the terror as they are corralled into their place of slaughter. I am as a result more or less vegetation (i.e. I avoid the stuff unless I have no alternative).

So yes they do - to me anyway - though how you codify that I'm not sure. We are not going to all go veggie overnight after all. Enforcing 'humane' slaughter rules, which are pretty much ignored very often seems a little ironic in some ways though I suppose that would be better than nothing.

[Tero]

Eat fish, cold bastards. Whack them on the head, then fry.

[klr]

I wonder if the OP was prompted by the BBC Horizon programs during the week on meat eating and meat production.

One point not made was that animals bred for food (or whatever) do not necessarily displace wild animals. There are a many times more domestic land mammals than wild:



From: http://www.xkcd.com/1338/

Of course, on average, domestic animals are likely to be much bigger and heavier than wild animals, so the disparity in numbers is unlikely to be as great as with biomass. All, the same, it seems there wouldn't be anywhere near the same number of land mammals alive at any given time, if we humans were not intensively farming them.

In the wild, a painful and often premature and/or violent death is the norm for most animals. The mortality rate amongst the young is often extremely high, and not just from predation. It would be interesting to compare similar wild v. domestic animals in this respect.

[JimC]

I think there are simply 2 important issues:

1. Their environmental conditions when alive; caged chickens and sow-stalls, for example, belong in the past. As far as possible, their living conditions should allow freedom to move around, etc.
2. A quick, humane death when the time comes.

[klr]

I think there are simply 2 important issues:

1. Their environmental conditions when alive; caged chickens and sow-stalls, for example, belong in the past. As far as possible, their living conditions should allow freedom to move around, etc.
2. A quick, humane death when the time comes.

One of the surprising points about some (and I stress some) intensive farming methods is that they seem to be not only more environmentally friendly than "traditional" methods*, but that the conditions can be quite humane. It depends of course on the needs of the animal. The BBC program that I referred to earlier showed chickens milling about on a large and well-lit warehouse floor, with low lane markers dividing up the floor space. It was something like this, but with a lower density of chickens:



That's just chickens of course ...

*Lower carbon footprint per unit of meat output.

[JimC]

In Oz, we call those "barn-raised" chickens, and they are certainly a step up from caged chickens, but we always buy certified free-range eggs and chickens.

[DaveDodo007]

How often has the might is right argument been scoffed at when the religious use it but we accepted the worse Nazi camp guard defense when human taste buds are being satiated. If you are not a vegan then you have no morals or compassion.

[JimC]

You can prise my steak from my cold dead hands...

[MiM]

Carrots can feel things too, and you eat them alive

The domesticated animals have been hugely successful as species, as can be seen from KLR's graph, exactly because they have been domesticated. None of those animals would even exist without the utility they give to humans. This leads to a conclusion that all kind of demands of a "happy life" or "freedom" for such animals is utter bollocks. On the other hand I believe that as humans we have an obligation to not initiate any unnecessary pain or misery anywhere, with emphasis on unnecessary.

[PsychoSerenity]

The domesticated animals have been hugely successful as species, as can be seen from KLR's graph, exactly because they have been domesticated. None of those animals would even exist without the utility they give to humans. This leads to a conclusion that all kind of demands of a "happy life" or "freedom" for such animals is utter bollocks.

I don't think you can say just on the basis of success defined in terms of numbers of a species, that the welfare of any individual is therefore not relevant. I don't accept that existing, regardless of conditions, is necessarily better than not existing. I'd say it is necessary at least to ensure the conditions of their lives are better than they would be in the wild. I do think a lot of welfare oriented farming methods are more than able to achieve this.

[tattuchu]

Animals have a right to be on my bread. In a sandwich.

[Strontium Dog]

Animal rights are inconsistent with animals being bred for food. If you've made the decision to eat an animal, you've lowered its status to that of a potato. Would anyone argue for potato rights? Of course not. It's absurd.