[001]
TrevMUN
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
-->\'\'\
to:
-->\\\'\\\'\\\"I\\\'d really like to know where it says that part of the definition of \\\"animal rights\\\" is the belief that having a pet is no different than having a slave. \\\"\\\'\\\'
It was there originally as a link to Wikipedia on Animal Rights. Madrugada cut it out as part of his attempt to make the article \\\"more informational\\\" and \\\"less biased.\\\" (Ironic, don\\\'t you think?)
You can read the article [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Rights here]]. I\\\'ll copy some of the highlights for you:
\\\'\\\'\\\"Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly.\\\"\\\'\\\'
\\\'\\\'\\\"Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the \\\'\\\'\\\'animal welfare\\\'\\\'\\\' position.\\\"\\\'\\\'
-->\\\'\\\'\\\"That\\\'s one description of the way that an \\\"animal welfare\\\" viewpoint would conflict with an \\\"animal rights\\\" viewpoint. That\\\'s pretty different from, \\\"if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves,\\\" isn\\\'t it? \\\"\\\'\\\'
If people are going to accuse the description of the three different schools of animal welfare/rights as \\\"inaccurate\\\" because someone removed the links describing various movements\\\' philosophies, then I may well just restore those links.
It was there originally as a link to Wikipedia on Animal Rights. Madrugada cut it out as part of his attempt to make the article \\\"more informational\\\" and \\\"less biased.\\\" (Ironic, don\\\'t you think?)
You can read the article [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Rights here]]. I\\\'ll copy some of the highlights for you:
\\\'\\\'\\\"Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions, but agree that animals should be viewed as non-human persons and members of the moral community, and should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment. They argue that human beings should stop seeing other sentient beings as property—not even as property to be treated kindly.\\\"\\\'\\\'
\\\'\\\'\\\"Critics argue that animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and for that reason cannot be regarded as possessors of rights, a position summed up by the philosopher Roger Scruton, who writes that only humans have duties and therefore only humans have rights. A parallel argument is that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals as resources so long there is no unnecessary suffering, a view known as the \\\'\\\'\\\'animal welfare\\\'\\\'\\\' position.\\\"\\\'\\\'
-->\\\'\\\'\\\"That\\\'s one description of the way that an \\\"animal welfare\\\" viewpoint would conflict with an \\\"animal rights\\\" viewpoint. That\\\'s pretty different from, \\\"if you believe in animal rights, you believe pets are the equivalent of slaves,\\\" isn\\\'t it? \\\"\\\'\\\'
If people are going to accuse the description of the three different schools of animal welfare/rights as \\\"inaccurate\\\" because someone removed the links describing various movements\\\' philosophies, then I may well just restore those links.
