Animal Rights?

[Ozme52]

I would say yes, it is acceptable. I believe that once we start claiming things are luxuries and then claiming they're unnecessary, and then claiming that we shouldn't have them... I believe it would become a slippery slope. A guitar would be a luxury for a starving refugee, but it's a necessity for someone who loves to play. Can we tell him he can't have his guitar because it means cutting down a tree?

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

[Saucie]

Only if you also believe in "plant rights" and feel it is cruel to harvest a tree... presuming it wasn't specifically planted to raise wood.

It really isn't an appropriate analogy.

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

[Ozme52]

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or politically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

[Ozme52]

Well, there are some who actually feel that strongly about cutting down trees. Granted, there aren't tons of them, but they do exist.

I could agree that it isn't the best analogy. But what do you think about the point I was arguing?

You were arguing the issue of the necessity of luxuries and who defines it. But you were arguing against my specific question to ID. I happen to agree with your point. (but not with using the guitar v. tree analogy. LOL)

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards mentioned in an interview I heard that if we accept the theory of evolution, there's nothing specific that sets all of humanity apart from animals. As research, (and time) progresses the known differences will be less and less.

This makes making different laws governing humans and animals impossible. Making special laws for humans gets stuck on purely superficial properties.

Animal Rights people seem to be more into which animals are the fluffiest and have the cutest eyes. Where is the organisation fighting for the rights of endangered insects? Bats? Sharks? Who cares about respecting the privacy of earth worms when they mate? And then where the difference between animals and microbes? Do we have to care about the "feelings" of bacteria.

We cannot empathise with a cat or a dolphin. We live in completely different perceptive realities. Their universe is different from ours. They love differently. When they come and rub up against us, we have no idea what it means to them. We have no idea how they suffer and why. We have no idea how they perceive pain. If they remember it and if it is traumatic for them.

Assuming humans alone have consciousness and saying our actions are guided by free will which makes us different, is making things way too easy for oneself. This is an extremely difficult subject right now.

Is the computer program:

If stimuli > 10
then computer = pain

...experiencing real pain? Is pain simply a information feedback system? Why should we care?

That said, I'm playing the hypocrite card. I just don't care enough about them... and lamb is so very tasty. As far as animal rights are concerned humanity has always been on the level of might makes right, and most people, (including me) seems to be cool about that. Maybe it'll change, maybe not? But I'm adamant about not giving up my fillet because some tree-huggers hypothetical theory on the feelings of animals. Maybe I'm just a negative Nancy? Maybe I'm just greedy and want to keep my tasty fishes? Maybe might gives right? Maybe?

[Moonraker]

I agree with you to some extent. Because I view rights as contracts (you agree not to murder, so you get the right to not be murdered, etc), I do not believe animals can have rights, because they can't knowingly accept the coordinating responsibility.

There are no inate rights. Historically almost all rights have been granted after a struggle of some form and rights can just as easily be taken away. Yes, it's impossible for animals to have rights since they cannot come to the bargaining table and consent to the "contract". It's possible I guess to appoint a body as their spokesperson with "power of attorney" as another poster implied. But we are going into murky legal waters and begging the question by what right does this group speak for animals. What next, the right of trees not to be cut?

This is why I prefer to approach the problem from the other side of the coin and agree with Ozme, that we should have the right to have a clean conscience and to pass onto our children a world with animals . We pay taxes for governments to pass the laws we want and create the society we want to live in.

It seems to me that there is a tendency to take a word, make it fashionable and then misuse the word in another context. Animal "rights" being the case in point. Democracy is another word that seems to be a recent fashion word. Maybe a simple thing like using different terminology could clear up much confusion regarding many issues.

Personally I can see no need for any cruelty to animals. I once read that the total cost of the space program over the first decade was less than what american women spent on cosmetics in any single year. If we can develop technology to put a man on the moon I can't see it as beyond our ability to make animal testing a thing of the past.

And while we're at it, let's broaden the topic of animal cruelty. If somebody burned your home and crops you'd find that pretty cruel. So what about man encroaching on animal habitat and food supplies. And the converse of course, what about your right to defend yourslef from animals eating your crops and living in your home. I mention this one because it is often used by fox hunters in my country, ah the foxes eat the chickens so we have to chase after them in our finery on horses to kill them and smear their blood over out childrens faces.

[Moonraker]

oops posted same post twice. Trigger happy. How to delete a post I wonder?

[TomOfSweden]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

[Moonraker]

One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize.

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

[Thorne]

Good point. I usually think about furs in terms of trapping, which I don't care for... but farm-raised. Yeah. It's the same as eating meat.


Edit: And then this question popped into my mind...

So... What if you raise the dog specifically to be fought? Then why not for entertainment. Where do you draw the line? What defines cruel and unnecessary?

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

[_ID_]

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

I don't think we can prevent animals exercising their natural rights, unless we put them in unnatural situations, like zoos or experimental laboratories. We can affect how wild animals behave, for example, many wild animals will avoid urban areas, so their "right to roam" is affected, but they will still roam freely elsewhere. Isn't this reflected in nature where wilderbeast will avoid a watering hole if lions are already drinking there?

In unnatural situations, animals are completely at our mercy, and we have a moral duty to treat them with all due consideration. It is true that there is no "natural right" not to be tortured or to be experimented upon, but we are under legal obligations (in most jurisidicitions) not to cause unnecessary suffering. Our legal duties give rise to quasi-legal rights for animals, although any poor creature whose rights are abused cannot enforce them in the Courts, and it is up to other people to prevent such mistreatment happening, if they are so inclined.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

TYWD

[Saucie]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or poticically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

[Ozme52]

LOL it is so funny. on a forum for people into bdsm you have everybody agree that laws and rights and ethics is just something you can agree on or not. when we discussed this in school almost everyone, even the teacher, and _ALL_ of the girls were certain that stuff like human rights and so are something that is beyond human decisions. (which i thought sounded pretty stupid, but i didn't say anything, sadly). but it makes sense that this idea isnt so popular here...

That's theology in disguise. The belief that humans are somehow endowed with something special that innately separates us from animals. Well, we don't even have a monopoly on intelligence nor emotions. We just have enough intellegence to delude ourselves that we are innately special and enough emotions to be happily content with our delusion. LOL

But don't kid yourself. There's not all that much unanimity here. Just a particularly vocal bunch of us who are willing to discuss human foibles.

[Ozme52]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

60 billion by 2050? Is that a typo or... where did you see that statistic?

Regardless, I'll only quibble a bit about the part I highlighted. That's correct, but it's not like every bit of land where we grow grass, hay, alfalfa, and other pasture products is suited for growing human consumable crops.

And even those that are so suited, are far more productive if you rotate the types of crops you grow. So pasture products will be grown regardless and we'll graze and/of feed animals regardless.

Lastly, we're born of omnivores and are at our healthiest with a mixed diet. So I think meat will always be with us... or at least for a very long time... maybe until, as you suggest, we can vat-grow it.

The rest, I'm on board with you and have no issues with medical experimentation... and as you say, most experimenters are as humane as possible in the execution of their tasks.

[Ozme52]

Animals raised for their fur or meat are, we would hope, killed as humanely as possible, not made to suffer through long hours of vicious biting and clawing.
But if you are going to stop raising animals for entertainment, what about race horses? They are bred for one purpose, so humans can gamble and be entertained. Even worse, what about circus animals? There are many animals which are treated poorly, if not inhumanely, by mankind. This doesn't necessarily imply that they should have "rights." It only underscores man's inhumanity.

I happen to agree. I don't care much for horse racing for a number of issues. This is about where you draw the line. How to know what the animal would "do" if it had a choice. We anthropomorphize a lot... say that horses love to run. That's bullshit of course. They're bred to run... originally from predators. What about using dogs to help us hunt? Is it mutilation to spay and neuter dogs and cats? There are so many nuances and issues that the topic can easily snowball.

LOL, it even got a comment about terrorists and prisoner interrogations. (Not a laughing matter.... just that it occured in this thread.)

[Ozme52]

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

[Ozme52]

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

If it's a natural right as you suggest and the animal cannot be condemned... then isn't it hypocritical to say it would be wise to destroy it?

Rights are a human construct. And we only have to agree to what the rules are to be. Animals have no natural rights... only those rights we humans wish to confer on them.

If you disagree, then in accordance to your example, a man who kills an animal in self-defence should not be condemned but should likewise be destroyed none the less.

Therefore, the rest of your post regarding natural rights and unnatural situations fails (in my eyes) because I believe it's based on an incorrect premise.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Off topic... the comment you didn't read is whether or not abortion is a luxury... which is also off topic in an animal rights conversation. (But that's up to Saucie... it's her thread.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

I'm not sure if that's the point Tom was trying to make... but I'm not sure it wasn't either. Tom?

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

On this I agree. Animals react to pain as we do, we don't like pain, and therefore it is reasonable for us to empathize and wish to avoid causing animals unnecessary pain... which is why (here I go) we, humans, get to decide on what rights we wish to confer on animals.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

No. The guy with the shotgun was going against the law (at the time) and was being unethical. Those who owned slaves were 100% ethical within the belief system at that time. We believe today that those beliefs were wrong. Our ethics have changed. They are malleable based on knowledge, culture, and beliefs.

And yes, the Emancipation Proclomation was ethical... and if not for the civil war, if it had been passed beforehand, compensation to "property" owners, (i.e., slave owners,) would have been part of the new law. It was or had been under discussion in Congress. Owning slaves, prior to the civil war was considered ethical in the south.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

I think you're arguing what is and isn't ethical... and I'm arguing about the defintion of ethics.

(Though I admit I raised the question 'was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical' in the prior post... but that was in response to your previous post.... the threads or the conversation grow fuzzy in my mind. lol)

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

It's significant if you believe in innate 'animal rights' as opposed to whether any rights they have are at our descretion.

I went back and looked at your intial question.

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I don't think we can get to the question "should have rights" until we agree whether or not they have innate rights... and that's what the thread is churning over.

[_ID_]

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I would agree, but I am still going to use them for these purposes.

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

That's what makes intelligent debate so cool. We can understand each other, but disagree.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

I'm not an an ant-abortion camper, just one that believes it should be out of necessity not as a substitute for a Trojan.

[Aadenn]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

Saucie, what exactly do you mean by property rights? This raises an interesting question of territorial domain and animal preservation. Do you think mankind has the "right" to dominate the ecosystem and push endangered animal species into extinction through habitat destruction?

Is there such a thing as a 'right to more land?' or a 'right to develop land?' I come back to your definition of a right as being a contract. If this is indeed a 'right' of corporations or individuals, then what is their responsibility that goes along with that right? What is the contract? And who decides? and when does that decision come under the global flag of "animal rights" or is it semantically more appropriate to refer to it as environmental policy?

I dont think "animal rights" should include that kind of restriction, but I also think an individual's property rights (in my mind the right to own land) should come with the responsibility of not doing excessive damage to the ecosystem.

[TomOfSweden]

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

It's not justifying cruelty. It's acknowledging that it is a cruel activity, but chose to look away when it suits us. As I do. There is no way to justify torture, but we can accept it. We can accept that we just don't care enough about the animals. That we don't empathize enough with them.

People who try to justify animal experimentation on some moral grounds are the worst hypocrites of all in this issue. Those to who try to devalue animals worth, at the same time elevating ours. It's like a bully on a playground. Nobody can stop the bully from taking the sweets from the smaller kid. From that reaching the conclusion that it is right for the bully to take the sweets is just offensive.

Even so, I'm still all for animal experimentation. I'm a greedy crud who'd rather not suffer later in my life from debilitating diseases I'm genetically inclined for. Better them than me.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme

To deal with the wolf question (which is entirley contrived, by the way): no it's not hypocritical to kill the wolf, it's an act of self-defence on the part of man: man has the same natural rights as animals, and the right of self-defence is one of them. If another wolf perceived that this man was a threat to its existence, it would be justified in attacking him and killing him ... and so on ad infinitum. However, in the real world, this would be a ridiculous scenario; a consequence of pursuing logic to the nth degree. If you are trying to make me say that the legal system is bound to condemn a human being to death being for killing an animal, you have a long wait. Natural rights as I use the term (your 2nd definition, remember) fall outside any legal system.

I agree that moral and legal rights are invented by men, but these are not the "rights" I called natural rights earlier. Those rights are, to use your words, ones that are in "the nature of animals"; they are instinctive - inate. These are the rights that all living creatures take to themselves and which no-one can take away, save, perhaps, by imprisoning them. Rights may not have been the best word to use, "freedoms" might have been better. "Abilities" might be even better. Check a thesaurus for other possibiliities.

Better minds than mine have used rights in the sense I have used it, so I don't intend to apologise.

I maintain, therefore, that animals have the natural rights of self-defence, to hunt (or graze), and to roam freely. (This is not a definitive list, but indicative only.) These rights are not given by anyone. Animals can be given legal rights if the law makers wish to do so, but animals will never know they have them, and cannot enforce them.

The legislature can also impose duties and obligations on humans which benefit animals, and gives them quasi-legal rights. People would be expected to know what those laws are (ignorantia legis non excusat), and to break them would be a criminal act. The appropriate law-enforcement agencies would then take action.

I believe my earlier posts stand.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

OK: but I was merely repeating the words you offered.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

Yes, I agree man will ultimatley have the last word (or, in this example, make the last killing), because he is cleverer. But as for your comments about rights, see below

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.

I do say they have rights, which I concede might be better called something else. When I use the term natural rights, I do not mean artificial rights dreamt up by man which are decided upon by courts of law and are enforced by police forces, I just mean the ability to do something. In fact, it's so obvious that animals have these abilities, it was stupid of me to mention them, and it has led to false arguments being raised about whether animals defend themselves, hunt and roam with our permission or consent, which plainly they do not.

Natural rights are not conferred by anyone, they just exist wherever any form of life exists (maybe not at the microbial level, I don't know: can microbes protect themselves?). And they don't have to be written down - for two reasons: in nature, one does not care about the natural rights of others, one merely exercises one's own; and there are many instances of even human laws being unwritten -

England & Wales have no written constitution, nor does anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

In common-law jurisdicitions such as the USA, one has to test the law to find out what it is. It's probably the same under codified legal systems too, but I don't know.

There are very few "moral codes" that have been written down (and those that have been all differ!).

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.

Maybe, but we're not so far apart when it comes to legal rights: animals' legal rights are man-made and depend upon whether man decides to uphold them. The animal has no say in the matter.

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

[Ozme52]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.

I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately

All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

[TomOfSweden]

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.


All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

That's right, animal behaviour: their (and our) natural right.

I don't believe animals should have any legal rights because it would be pointless. I do believe mankind should be forced by law to observe certain standards of behaviour towards them, however, which gives animals "reflected" legal rights, if you like. I expect we would be in broad agreement what those should be.

Yes: ALL animals. If a mosquito is squashed for biting you, or because it is a malaria risk, that's one thing, and we can kill it for our own self-protection; but if its proboscis, wings and legs are torn off while it lives, for idle amusement, that's quite another.

One should have compassion for any living thing one is able to empathise with.


Quote: by Tom:

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

I stated a belief: I believe that ...

But where a formal jurisdicition imposes laws, or where convention applies a moral code to protect animals, then it is to those laws and conventions I allude. I am not questioning their validity.

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Couldn't resist

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/def...0-33632480a66d

[ThisYouWillDo]

Lol