Call | Animal rights
Not only people, but also of other species, have sajūtošas beings - individuals who are diverse perception of the world, taking care of yourself and the babies, avoid suffering and strives for pleasant feelings. They are not things that should be used as a property. In fact, today we have no justifiable reason for them to use in any way.
Shaking off the film from the mind of prejudice caused by the apathetic, habit of inertia resident company and ceases to engage mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and fathers in slavery and exploitation. No matter what species the body composed of the living entity - sajūtošo beings prone to save his life and freedom is what we have to respect.
If you do not want to "jump into" Veganism at once, at the beginning try to live as a vegan a couple of days a week or select first vegan meal only once a day. At the same time learn more about the vegan lifestyle, research product alternatives, and after a while you start to have to live like a "full-time" vegan! Good luck!
in some sense "a mockery of common sense and logic"? or you can also justify this statement?
"There is a human obligation not to treat animals with evil." Bad things can also avoid silly without evil intent. for example, a child who pulls cats tail, hardly do it in bad faith. rather it is our duty not to harm their own or other species beings without a serious reason.
I as substantiation of the previous commentator place. The right consists of contractual arrangements beverage heater and contracts may be concluded only intelligent beings. Animals can not communicate with people, they can not announce its own right. Human rights are rooted in the same human nature, people are able to make informed decisions, to set targets, to explore beverage heater the world around them and so on. Has the right, because he they can rationally identify. No other living entity known to be one of us can not rationally judge consciously make decisions to engage līgunattiecībās. Eventually dzīvmieki themselves for some reason fails to comply with other species 'right' (and human rights). For if the animals are so important to their right to come and report them to us :) All of this animal rights ideology actually cilvēknīdēju idea. The fact that the person in the course of its development has learned to transform nature and to use its resources for their well-being, it shows an indisputable superiority over animals. The man is not evil just because using other living beings for their own purposes, just like the wolf is not evil because it ate the lamb. The wolf ate the lamb, because that is dragged nature. Just like a man consumed by animals and use them in their economic activities, because that is his nature. And there is no worse crime than to try to change human nature (of the last century history it perfectly illustrates).
Hello and thank you for the versatile comment! I chose five statements with which I agree and least explained why: 1 "The right consists of contractual arrangements and contracts may be concluded only intelligent beings' social contract argument is strong. However, we are the rights and protection to those who are not reasonable and therefore not able to "enter beverage heater into contracts" (infants, people with severe mental retardation, etc.). beverage heater Why should a similar principle would not apply to other species sajūtošu beings? I believe that all species beverage heater of beings that can suffer, due to freedom from suffering for no good reason - regardless of the kind of political ideology within the accepted social contract theories. This is a direct obligation against beverage heater specific individuals and not to his "owner" or anything else. Also, when we, say, killed an animal rage and regret, guilt but does not arise from the mere fact that we have crossed an agreement, but rather directly in relation to being killed. More on this topic from animal rights supporters positions can read here (in English.) And also T.Rīgena article (in Latvian. Val.).
2 "dzīvmieki themselves for some reason fails to comply with other species of animal" rights "" Like children or crazy tend to ignore them. But they are not moral agents - "moral entity" and "moral agent" do not overlap. In addition, in a way, even animals "concludes the contract" - at least to his own. Eg. How often the dogs or cats attacking people living beverage heater at home?
3 "animal rights ideology actually cilvēknīdēju idea" It's either there are noisy expression. Well-known animal rights advocates are all as one notes that the idea of animal rights is as an extension of human rights in addition. They go hand in hand, and even allows you to become more aware of social injustice starpcilvēku relations. Animal rights advocates should join as against speciesism, as well as racism, sexism, etc., Because beverage heater they are all forms of injustice.
4 "Man is evil only because it is used by other living beings for their own purposes," I'm not saying that evil, but simply do not comply with well-established principle - nothing
Not only people, but also of other species, have sajūtošas beings - individuals who are diverse perception of the world, taking care of yourself and the babies, avoid suffering and strives for pleasant feelings. They are not things that should be used as a property. In fact, today we have no justifiable reason for them to use in any way.
Shaking off the film from the mind of prejudice caused by the apathetic, habit of inertia resident company and ceases to engage mothers, sons, daughters, brothers and fathers in slavery and exploitation. No matter what species the body composed of the living entity - sajūtošo beings prone to save his life and freedom is what we have to respect.
If you do not want to "jump into" Veganism at once, at the beginning try to live as a vegan a couple of days a week or select first vegan meal only once a day. At the same time learn more about the vegan lifestyle, research product alternatives, and after a while you start to have to live like a "full-time" vegan! Good luck!
in some sense "a mockery of common sense and logic"? or you can also justify this statement?
"There is a human obligation not to treat animals with evil." Bad things can also avoid silly without evil intent. for example, a child who pulls cats tail, hardly do it in bad faith. rather it is our duty not to harm their own or other species beings without a serious reason.
I as substantiation of the previous commentator place. The right consists of contractual arrangements beverage heater and contracts may be concluded only intelligent beings. Animals can not communicate with people, they can not announce its own right. Human rights are rooted in the same human nature, people are able to make informed decisions, to set targets, to explore beverage heater the world around them and so on. Has the right, because he they can rationally identify. No other living entity known to be one of us can not rationally judge consciously make decisions to engage līgunattiecībās. Eventually dzīvmieki themselves for some reason fails to comply with other species 'right' (and human rights). For if the animals are so important to their right to come and report them to us :) All of this animal rights ideology actually cilvēknīdēju idea. The fact that the person in the course of its development has learned to transform nature and to use its resources for their well-being, it shows an indisputable superiority over animals. The man is not evil just because using other living beings for their own purposes, just like the wolf is not evil because it ate the lamb. The wolf ate the lamb, because that is dragged nature. Just like a man consumed by animals and use them in their economic activities, because that is his nature. And there is no worse crime than to try to change human nature (of the last century history it perfectly illustrates).
Hello and thank you for the versatile comment! I chose five statements with which I agree and least explained why: 1 "The right consists of contractual arrangements and contracts may be concluded only intelligent beings' social contract argument is strong. However, we are the rights and protection to those who are not reasonable and therefore not able to "enter beverage heater into contracts" (infants, people with severe mental retardation, etc.). beverage heater Why should a similar principle would not apply to other species sajūtošu beings? I believe that all species beverage heater of beings that can suffer, due to freedom from suffering for no good reason - regardless of the kind of political ideology within the accepted social contract theories. This is a direct obligation against beverage heater specific individuals and not to his "owner" or anything else. Also, when we, say, killed an animal rage and regret, guilt but does not arise from the mere fact that we have crossed an agreement, but rather directly in relation to being killed. More on this topic from animal rights supporters positions can read here (in English.) And also T.Rīgena article (in Latvian. Val.).
2 "dzīvmieki themselves for some reason fails to comply with other species of animal" rights "" Like children or crazy tend to ignore them. But they are not moral agents - "moral entity" and "moral agent" do not overlap. In addition, in a way, even animals "concludes the contract" - at least to his own. Eg. How often the dogs or cats attacking people living beverage heater at home?
3 "animal rights ideology actually cilvēknīdēju idea" It's either there are noisy expression. Well-known animal rights advocates are all as one notes that the idea of animal rights is as an extension of human rights in addition. They go hand in hand, and even allows you to become more aware of social injustice starpcilvēku relations. Animal rights advocates should join as against speciesism, as well as racism, sexism, etc., Because beverage heater they are all forms of injustice.
4 "Man is evil only because it is used by other living beings for their own purposes," I'm not saying that evil, but simply do not comply with well-established principle - nothing
No comments:
Post a Comment