[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, I've said that humans have a duty not to cause undue suffering. That is not only not the same thing as animals having rights, it is part of the central point of my argument against such a thing, as animals have no such duty towards each other due to not being morally aware.

But animal death is undue suffering. Meat is not a necessity of human life.

Wanting something that is not a necessity is not immoral. It's not necessary to eat potatoes, either - does this mean that eating potatoes is immoral? Obviously not, so the immorality cannot lie in necessity.

I didn't say wanting something that is not a necessity is immoral. However, causing unnecessary death is.

No, I'm saying that by merely existing every human on the planet necessarily kills, and the degree of killing is all we are arguing over.

Or the intent of killing is what we are arguing over. We harm people all the time as well.

No, under my definition a HUMAN throwing a cat in a microwave is immoral, but not because the cat has any intrinsic rights, but because the human knows that causing gratuitous suffering is wrong.

Even ceding your definition and application of rights is correct, I still hold that killing animals for food is unnecessary.

You are confusing having morals with not having them, and it's rather difficult to understand how that confusion can arise considering I specifically gave examples to the contrary, not to mention that conclusion not making any sense.

I misread the last sentence of your previous statement.

This is entirely and completely incorrect in all ways and fashions through the history of this and any other universe containing humans.

You live in a building that animals were killed to erect; you eat food that animals were killed in the making of; you drink water that is purged of organisms before you drink it, sent from a reservoir that killed animals in its creation. Every product you use has undoubtedly killed more animals somewhere along its production, from the beetles that die when trees are felled for paper to the rodents that died in the building of the factory that made the monitor you are reading this on.

So it depends on what view of animal rights you abide by. Which I know you abide that they have none. Some animal rights philosophers say that only animals with cognitive abilities are afforded rights. For instance all 1 yr old. mammals have rights.

Just a few paragraphs back you said the fox's right to live by killing superseded the rabbit's right to life, so which is it? Either the tiger has a right to kill and the human does not, or maybe... just maybe, the idea of the tiger having a "right" is what is the problem.

Your confused. The rabbit has every chance to defend itself and run. The fox has the right to consume the rabbit by eating it for survival and the rabbit has a right to life so it is allowed to defend itself or run. Same goes for the tiger and the human. The human has a right to defend itself, but I don't believe he has the right to kill the tiger unnecessarily. The two statements don't contradict each other.

Again, I'm not giving cows any kind of rights, I am stressing the role of human responsibilities. You think I am giving out "rights" because you are stuck on the concept that animals have them, but I assure you that I have no such opinion and the continual misunderstanding of the difference between animal rights and human responsibilities is exactly what I am arguing against.

I keep handing out rights to animals because I believe they have them.
Your problem with all of this is you state your philosophy as fact. I don't know if you have read Roger Scruton but you are using his exact arguments. There are reasons these people are called philosophers. Because they all have a different philosophy of life. I understand you believe in this "theory" however it isn't fact, others are allowed to disagree with you.