What Gives You The Right.

[AVG-JOE]

You have the "right" to kill a human being if that human being , unprovoked, is attacking you or your loved ones.

Why? What gives you or me that right?

Actually...........it's in the Bible.

The original commandment wasn't "thou shalt not kill", it was actually written down as "thou shalt not MURDER".

If you kill someone who attacks you, it's considered self defense. They had the choice to choose to attack you or not, and if they did and lost their lives, it was their choice that made them do that.

However......................if you go and kill someone who isn't doing anything wrong, yet choose to kill them because your own mind says to do so, well..............that's murder.

You took the life of someone who was innocent and didn't deserve it.

If you kill someone who attacks you? You're defending your life and those around you. You didn't initiate the attack, they did.

So I can be like Dexter, feeling what it's like to take a human life, as long as my victim is not an innocent?

Are any of us truly innocent?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

Because they are expendable.

If expendability were a criteria, humans certainly fit. There are plenty of unproductive humans sapping resources on any given day.

What gives expendable humans the right to exist?

Correct.

I'm still wondering why people like Boehner, Cantor or McConnell are still walking around (as well as much of the Tea Party), because all they do is try to sap the resources of this country without giving anything back.

Sorry.................but most of what the Tea Party supports is greed, and that is the one cancer on the human race that has done the most damage.

Wanna talk about unproductive human beings? Shall we start with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity?

The only thing they seem to support or promote is hate and fear.

Isn't the human race (and those in your own circle) able to be beyond that?

Me personally? I support knowledge and courage.

 

[Spiderman]

There's a profound bond that exists between man and dog that does not exist between man and pig, except as bacon.

There will always be philosophical conundrums because all such matters are subjective. There is nothing wrong with killing any animal for food, but there is something grotesque about careless wholesale slaughter. Most people though have no clue when scarfing down a Quarter Pounder. Would they care? I can't imagine they would if a majority believes abortion is a matter of women's rights.

That's a rationalization.

People in some cultures still eat dogs.

I know people who have sworn off pork products after they got pygmy pigs as pets.

The only reason to eat meat is because you like to eat meat.

I'm not apologizing for eating meat because I like it.

If people want to be vegans good for them just quit it with the preaching.

Neither of which explains our right to kill some animals for food and others simply because they bother us...

Nor does it explain why the right to eliminate bothersome humans should be denied.

rights have nothing to do with eating or killing animals. I do not condone killing for sport but I have no problem with killing for food.

Rights are a human construct that animals don't have the capacity to understand.

So really rights are OK to use as a construct when talking of human interaction but I don't think it applies to human/ animal interaction

That's not to say I condone cruelty in fact I abhor cruelty of all types.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You're dancing very close to the answer, Spidey. Very close.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

We are predators, that puts us at the top of the food chain.

The very top

We learned that prey animals want to feel safe, so we put them in pens and guarded them from other predators while providing food and shelter.

and like a pack of wolves, if you come after any member of the pack, from the alpha to the omega we will descend upon you.


in odd news; chickens in cages are happier than free range chickens

 

[Esmeralda]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

It isn't a moral issue; it is an issue of reality. Might is right. The most powerful are at the top of the heap: that is reality. Humans have the most power, not physically but intellectually, along with the ability of language and opposable thumbs, so we rule, and we make the rules. As dogs and cats and other animals, like horses, are companion animals, they have more right to life than other animals. Those animals that we deem edible have a right to life only as we choose to eat or not eat them. Animals that are pests to the human species have no rights at all because we are in charge. If another power came along, say extraterrestrials, with more brains and able to rule us, our place in the hierarchy would descend to second instead of first.

 

[Jughead]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

Because they are expendable.

If expendability were a criteria, humans certainly fit. There are plenty of unproductive humans sapping resources on any given day.

What gives expendable humans the right to exist?

I guess at a time of war, those fighting for the other side become expendable. It's either them or us. Unproductive humans pose no threat to us, thus we can't morally decide that they are expendable as we by nature consider human life to be valuable.

 

[Sallow]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

"Rights" are a human construct.

And since we sit on top of the food chain..we assign them.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Because they are expendable.

If expendability were a criteria, humans certainly fit. There are plenty of unproductive humans sapping resources on any given day.

What gives expendable humans the right to exist?

I guess at a time of war, those fighting for the other side become expendable. It's either them or us. Unproductive humans pose no threat to us, thus we can't morally decide that they are expendable as we by nature consider human life to be valuable.

Why? What makes human life valuable? Aren't the rest of you just competition for me to overcome or die trying?

I would venture that both history and current events would disagree. If human life were truly valuable, especially to the rest of humanity, wouldn't there be a greater emphasis on seeing that each and every individual was given the necessary tools to lead productive and fulfilling lives?

 

[AquaAthena]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

Killing is more of a freedom than a right. May we all use it thoughtfully and for the betterment of our lives and society, in general. What is needed to kill, is the will to kill...

 

[AVG-JOE]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

Killing is more of a freedom than a right. May we all use it thoughtfully and for the betterment of our lives and society, in general. What is needed to kill, is the will to kill...

So... what is it that establishes and/or guarantees that freedom?

Freedom isn't free, ya know.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

As usual there's two ways of considering right and wrong, religious and non-religious. Non-religious will be based on whatever laws govern the action under discussion. And religious will depend on what religion you're using.

My personal opinion is everything has an equal right to exist and flourish. Do cockroaches? Absolutely. It's not for us to second-guess Nature or doubt they serve a useful purpose. Just as prairie dogs burrow allowing oxygen to penetrate the soil keeping it healthy enough for farming, cockroaches too may serve some useful purpose we're not immediately aware of. Arbitraily wiping things out because we don't like them may be wiping ourselves out eliminating something evolution has seen fit to evolve along side our own species.

In the case of domesticated animals we use for food, it's different since they're not a natural animal being left to it's role within an ecosystem, it's farming. And with how well-managed farms and livestock often are, there's no chance of the species in question going extinct. That'd be counter-productive to the point of farming. But is killing those animals raised for food ethical or moral? No. Termination of any life is immoral and unethical, but it's a necessary evil. It's even more immoral to let people starve. Of course, you could save far more people by using the grains and veggies used to raise livestock and feed the poeple that instead of the animals. Ratio's like 12 pounds of grains n veggies to raise 1 pound of beef. Immorality of that is clear.

Fact is, all animals have a right to exist once they do exist. People are simply another kind of animal on this planet. We don't exist as some exception to the rules because we think we're all that and a bag of chips. But at the same time, most every animal lives by inflicting death on others. Big fish eat little fish and so on. And we're part of the food chain too. See it very clearly when ever a foolish person swims in the ocean and something takes a bite out of them. A shark doesn't care if you're religious and believe you're favored by G-d. You're just a snack.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

From a spiritual point of view if a person relinquished themselves to God and laid down their rights to do His will instead of their own then it would be impossible for them to kill anything. Or to eat something that offended someone else. People are not like any other animal on the earth because people are a trichotomy ( spirit, soul & body ) made in the image of God whereas animals are a dichotomy. As to the shark theory, there are survivors who would beg to differ with you on Gods ability to intervene in a dire circumstance, Delta.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

And what about the ones who don't survive? Were they unloved by G-d then? Problem with that sort of arguement is it invites asking about all the people who die in accidents. Did G-d not love the ones who didn't survive if He loved the ones who did?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Since history has shown that all the gods of man are piss-poor defenders of the right to exist, the answer of course is the Rule of Law.


Murder of a man or woman being a punishable offense, and murder of a cockroach being o.k., is simply something that We, The People of any given community agree on, by will or by force.

Can a society be imagined where the agreements are different? Of course!

Read a history book that includes a credible story of slavery and you'll know exactly what I mean. And American history proves that the words on paper mean a whole lot less than the current interpretation by those who control the military. The US Constitution clearly outlawed slavery from the get-go, yet the politics of the 18th and 19th Centuries obviously enforced a compromised interpretation.


The reality on the ground is that the right of a man or woman to exist is given and defended by current community agreement of enforcement, nothing more and nothing less.

So is the right to dispose of life-forms deemed to be pests, and right to use and abuse life-forms deemed to be property.



For good or ill, history shows that there is no judgement beyond the mind of the Monkey with the biggest stick.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

Choose your commanders wisely, kids.

 

[koshergrl]

If expendability were a criteria, humans certainly fit. There are plenty of unproductive humans sapping resources on any given day.

What gives expendable humans the right to exist?

I guess at a time of war, those fighting for the other side become expendable. It's either them or us. Unproductive humans pose no threat to us, thus we can't morally decide that they are expendable as we by nature consider human life to be valuable.

Why? What makes human life valuable? Aren't the rest of you just competition for me to overcome or die trying?

I would venture that both history and current events would disagree. If human life were truly valuable, especially to the rest of humanity, wouldn't there be a greater emphasis on seeing that each and every individual was given the necessary tools to lead productive and fulfilling lives?

Typical progressive. Life is worth nothing, humans have zero value, everything is relative, bla bla bla.

If you can't wrap your tiny warped brain around the fact that humans are special by the very nature of their being...at least to US, and certainly to all the animals and space and time we affect...then this conversation is meaningless.

You don't think humans are special. Good for you. We are special...first and foremost because we are created in the image of God...but even if you don't believe in God, you have to acknowledge our superiority in EVERY aspect, over EVERY other being on the face of the earth that ever has been or will be. Our superiority is so far off the charts that it is apparently to all but the most brainwashed, brain dead and soulless dolt that it isn't just a matter of evolution. There's a spark that we have (it is the divine) that is particular to us, alone.

We are special because we talk, we walk upright, we are spiritual, we communicate in MYRIAD different ways and over vast distances. We are special because we understand (well most of us..not you...) the difference between good and evil, right and wrong...and we can (again, most of us, obviously not you, if you truly subscribe to the extremist views you hold on this board) act in a way that CONFLICTS with our nature and our impulses in order to abide by our perception of right and wrong.

Animals (except those influenced by humans) very rarely act contrary to their basic animal urges. Animals on this planet are subject to our desires, and they are subject to our desires because we are superior to them in every way.

The fact that you don't get that says more about your basic nature than it does about anything else.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I never said humans weren't special. On the contrary, the thesis of this thread is asking what gives us the right to exist, and I have posited that power among humans, be it monarchial, or some version of rule of law is the sole supplier of that right to exist. If you think that you are protected in your right to exist simply because of your language, Sentient nature and bipedal mode of locomotion, you're naive.

And if knowledge of good and evil were a criteria for the right to exist or of human value, evil would not be nearly so successful as it has been.

Go ahead and point to a power base in history, charged with ruling over more than a small village, that treated the humans under their sphere of influence as anything more valuable than their ability to perform labor.

Even in the enlightened world of today's corporate commerce, human resources are strictly a bottom line issue and value is based on productivity alone.

The reason religion looks to the after-life for its final judgement of fairness is because everyone knows that judgement on earth has ALWAYS been in the hands of whatever human(s) control the strongest military.

From Alexander the Thug to the European Monarchies, might makes (and denies) rights. It wasn't until the French and American Revolutions that people started to create their own rights by community agreement, enforced by a community fed military, and still the conservative politics of the day was able to hold on to slavery and other abuses.


As stated, God is a piss-poor defender of human rights and value, and I defy you to prove otherwise using hard, historical examples.

 

[koshergrl]

Like I said, you can't wrap your brain around it. You don't even comprehend how limited your scope is.

 

[Flopper]

Why is killing a human very wrong, killing a dog sort of wrong, and killing cows, pigs and insects done with impunity and on an industrial scale?

​

Do cockroachs, as a species, have a right to exist?

Do humans, as a species, have a right to exist?​

What gives you the right to exist?

Humans are at the top of the food chain, most brain-developed (well, some ) so they get to make the rules, killing them is wrong. Killing a dog? They are cuddly, friendly, mans-best-friend to kill them is just whack. Killing cows and pigs isn't wrong because charcoal! Insects -- they don't make for good barbque ... not enough meat.

So the human right to exist is based on the ability to defend it?

Do we have the right to wipe out the lowly cockroach simply because we can?

What about humans who can't defend their right to exist from other humans? Do those smarter or more advanced humans then have the right to wipe out their lesser brethren, simply because they can?

Are there any moral obligations at play?

Cro-Magnons lived for thousands of years in Europe until they were systematically wiped out by the Homo Sapiens who replaced them... should their descendants have any moral regrets?

Why would humans be higher on the food chain than rats? Which one is more willing to eat the other?

I have a different take. Rights are determined by society and will vary considerable with different cultures. Protection comes from laws which may or may not be based on rights. Humans pass laws to protect what they consider precious. We pass laws to protect dogs, cat, bald eagles, condors, etc because these are what we value. The life of a cow or pig is typically only valued as food by most people.

With that said, animal cruelty laws and the endangered species act provides protection for many life forms that most humans have little interest in protecting. However, we do recognize that even creatures that we have little use for are valuable to the environment which we do value.