Animal Rights

[The Executive]

I don't have much patience for PETA. They're hypocritical and serve no beneficial purpose to society.

Also, HyugaRicdeau's post is spot-on.

 

[yossarian22]

I think a lot of you are just taking for granted that animals should have "rights."
Animals can't have rights because for the most part they can't enter into social contract, and more importantly they can't be held responsible for the violation of the rights of others. You can't eat your cake and have it too. If they are to be given rights, then they have to to be able to be charged with violating others' rights.
So the only way to give animals rights is by proxy through humans, i.e. if you harm my pet cat, you've essentially violated its 'rights' because you've violated mine. If you harm a stray, you're not violating anyone's rights. I'm not saying it is good to mutilate wild animals, but it's simply a law that doesn't need to be there.

How are you defining rights?

edit:
A severely mentally ******** person, under your system, would have absolutely no rights (they can't enter a social contract and cannot be held responsible for the rights of others) and any laws protecting them are therefore unnecessary. Do you feel that we should have laws protecting them? If so, how are they different from animals and why should they be treated differently?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

How are you defining rights?

Without being extremely rigorous, a right is, the way I define it, a legal entitlement to someone that a certain action be free from the impedence of others. Equivalently it's a legal obligation on others not to impede that action. This is not the only definition possible.

edit:
A severely mentally ******** person, under your system, would have absolutely no rights (they can't enter a social contract and cannot be held responsible for the rights of others) and any laws protecting them are therefore unnecessary. Do you feel that we should have laws protecting them? If so, how are they different from animals and why should they be treated differently?

That's correct. They have rights by proxy of their caretakers, as I would have it. We should have laws protecting the caregivers' rights to protect them.

 

[yossarian22]

Without being extremely rigorous, a right is, the way I define it, a legal entitlement to someone that a certain action be free from the impedence of others. Equivalently it's a legal obligation on others not to impede that action. This is not the only definition possible.

Good enough for me

That's correct. They have rights by proxy of their caretakers, as I would have it. We should have laws protecting the caregivers' rights to protect them.

So, if there was no caretaker, we could do whatever we want with them?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

So, if there was no caretaker, we could do whatever we want with them?

Well, perhaps I should have said family/friends (to the extent that the individual in question is able to recognize and reciprocate friendship) as opposed to caretaker. But replace those in your question, and yes, you're correct, as unpleasant as that may sound. Unless it was somehow violating someone else's rights.

 

[Caturdayz]

Lets take it further than *******...

Do you eat babies?

I didn't think so

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

This is getting off topic.

Caturdayz, say something meaningful. Babies and the mentally ********, etc. are under protection by law because they are human. You're defending animals simply because they are animals, following the same train of thought. And now, you make the next step of equating animals with humans. Now, given you're a sick twisted animal-killer, you think that you can evade ALL responsibility by simply saying "At least I didn't kill as many as ___!" The only way you could justify equating humans with animals and simultaneously avoid responsibility of any kind is to equate both to rocks, dirt, etc. in which case you shouldn't have any moral qualm whatsoever.

Animals in general do not care for any other animal's rights except their own.
Therefore, if we should protect animals, shouldn't we also protect animals from themselves? I mean, shouldn't we open up self-help centers for lions, tigers, and bears? This isn't practical.

 

[Caturdayz]

This is getting off topic.

Caturdayz, say something meaningful. Babies and the mentally ********, etc. are under protection by law because they are human. You're defending animals simply because they are animals, following the same train of thought. And now, you make the next step of equating animals with humans. Now, given you're a sick twisted animal-killer, you think that you can evade ALL responsibility by simply saying "At least I didn't kill as many as ___!" The only way you could justify equating humans with animals and simultaneously avoid responsibility of any kind is to equate both to rocks, dirt, etc. in which case you shouldn't have any moral qualm whatsoever.

Animals in general do not care for any other animal's rights except their own.
Therefore, if we should protect animals, shouldn't we also protect animals from themselves? I mean, shouldn't we open up self-help centers for lions, tigers, and bears? This isn't practical.

Animal Rights does not mean 100 percent sheltering animals, that would be counter-productive. Animals should however have the right to live their own life free from confinement. Which is the basis of most animal right activists.

Also, babies and the mentally ******** are of no more value than a lets say a squirrel, why is it okay to eat one and not the other? They are all nearly mindless correct.

I understand the absurdity of what I am saying, I am a socialist, I am a believer in equality... I am just using it as an example because treating animals cruelly is just as absurd.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Lets take it further than *******...

Do you eat babies?

I didn't think so

No I don't. But many animals do. Why is it morally different? Animals kill their infants all the time when they can't support them. I think it's revolting and horrendous that someone human would eat their own baby, and I would never associate with someone that did; but I'd sooner allow that than ascribe rights to things by hand on an arbitrary basis to other things, and demean the entire notion of 'rights' in the process. Remember that a right is also a limitation on liberty. There is no such thing as a 'natural right;' all actions are allowed until we impose rights. I don't think rights are extended to infants except by proxy of their family, for reasons I've already explained. However I'm not set in stone about this point, because a severely ******** person will never be more than what he already is, whereas this is not so with an infant (though at the same time I disagree with the Catholic Church when it uses that argument about birth control). If an entire family is comfortable with eating a baby, then nobody's rights are being violated. Not to mention that it's insanely unlikely that anyone doesn't eat babies ONLY because it's illegal. The question is, when does someone acquire rights in their own right? This is something I don't have a 100% answer on, but at the very latest I would say age 2.

Animal Rights does not mean 100 percent sheltering animals, that would be counter-productive. Animals should however have the right to live their own life free from confinement. Which is the basis of most animal right activists.

Also, babies and the mentally ******** are of no more value than a lets say a squirrel, why is it okay to eat one and not the other? They are all nearly mindless correct.

I understand the absurdity of what I am saying, I am a socialist, I am a believer in equality... I am just using it as an example because treating animals cruelly is just as absurd.

Again, why is it morally different for a human to kill an animal than it is for an animal to kill an animal? If you want to give animals rights, you can not go without punishing animals that violate the so-called rights of other animals. If animals are above the law, in that sense, they are also below having rights.

We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected. It is not out of some arbitrary "higher" sense of duty or doing what's "just right." If that were the case then people could make up whatever arbitrary definition of "duty," etc., that they wanted and demand that rights be defined to suit them. This is precisely what you and so-called animal rights activists are doing.

Of course all this is without mentioning the huge problem of determining which animals get what rights, which would again be simply an arbitrary basis.

And don't get me wrong I have 2 cats that I love and I'd beat the **** out of anyone that tried to hurt them, but I'm not naive enough to think they have rights in social contract. Or else they'd have to be prosecuted every time they brought home a mouse...or lizard, or bird, or baby rabbit, etc.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

If an entire family is comfortable with eating a baby, then nobody's rights are being violated.

We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected. It is not out of some arbitrary "higher" sense of duty or doing what's "just right." If that were the case then people could make up whatever arbitrary definition of "duty," etc., that they wanted and demand that rights be defined to suit them. This is precisely what you and so-called animal rights activists are doing.

1. W. T. F.

2. This doesn't take into account the motivation behind allowing rights, especially for ones who fight for rights that do not apply to themselves; and yes, people do demand rights that be defined to suit them, of every step of the political and social ladder.

Anyway, I simply do not equate animals with human beings. I think I've said this a lot alreaddy.

 

[yossarian22]

Well, perhaps I should have said family/friends (to the extent that the individual in question is able to recognize and reciprocate friendship) as opposed to caretaker. But replace those in your question, and yes, you're correct, as unpleasant as that may sound. Unless it was somehow violating someone else's rights.

At the very least, you are consistent, so kudos for that.
Orphans might not particularly enjoy your system, however.
They are not capable of entering a contract, so they should be afforded no rights?

Again, why is it morally different for a human to kill an animal than it is for an animal to kill an animal? If you want to give animals rights, you can not go without punishing animals that violate the so-called rights of other animals. If animals are above the law, in that sense, they are also below having rights.

this requires acceptance of the notion that all murder is equal in terms of morality.
How is premeditated murder equal to man slaughter? It's not in the slightest, so to suggest that animals murder each other is absurd. Animals kill each other out of pure necessity. Humans rarely do.

We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected. It is not out of some arbitrary "higher" sense of duty or doing what's "just right." If that were the case then people could make up whatever arbitrary definition of "duty," etc., that they wanted and demand that rights be defined to suit them. This is precisely what you and so-called animal rights activists are doing.

Are you freakin kidding me?
You just shot down the justification for the entire civil rights movement. How does a certain minority not having rights affect my rights in the slightest?

This is getting off topic.
Caturdayz, say something meaningful. Babies and the mentally ********, etc. are under protection by law because they are human.

Special pleading.
Why should we care that they are human? You wouldn't honestly consider a baby responsible for its actions, yet they are afforded rights. Why? Why should they be treated differently? (don't misconstrue this. I am in no way equating a baby with a dog). Your system is poor. Let's say we have hypothetical species <X> which has a mind that functions in the exact same way as us. Under your system, they are afforded no rights, which is absurd. Should they be afforded the same rights? Now, let's lower species X abilities a slight amount. Should they still be afforded rights?

You're defending animals simply because they are animals, following the same train of thought. And now, you make the next step of equating animals with humans. Now, given you're a sick twisted animal-killer, you think that you can evade ALL responsibility by simply saying "At least I didn't kill as many as ___!" The only way you could justify equating humans with animals and simultaneously avoid responsibility of any kind is to equate both to rocks, dirt, etc. in which case you shouldn't have any moral qualm whatsoever.

Failure to live up to idealism is hardly a valid argument against the ideal.
If Caturdayz had the option, he would probably would not kill any life at all. He can't live up to that ideal, but tries to at best he can.

Animals in general do not care for any other animal's rights except their own.

Irrelevant. The same can be said of most people.

Therefore, if we should protect animals, shouldn't we also protect animals from themselves? I mean, shouldn't we open up self-help centers for lions, tigers, and bears? This isn't practical.

Only if you grant them equal rights, which is idiotic. I see nothing wrong with a progressive rights system based on ability.

edit: Caturdayz, your incessant appeals to emotion are neither interesting nor particularly helpful to your case.

 

[Caturdayz]

edit: Caturdayz, your incessant appeals to emotion are neither interesting nor particularly helpful to your case.

Yea, I know people have no emotion...

 

[Caturdayz]

No I don't. But many animals do. Why is it morally different? Animals kill their infants all the time when they can't support them. I think it's revolting and horrendous that someone human would eat their own baby, and I would never associate with someone that did; but I'd sooner allow that than ascribe rights to things by hand on an arbitrary basis to other things, and demean the entire notion of 'rights' in the process. Remember that a right is also a limitation on liberty. There is no such thing as a 'natural right;' all actions are allowed until we impose rights. I don't think rights are extended to infants except by proxy of their family, for reasons I've already explained. However I'm not set in stone about this point, because a severely ******** person will never be more than what he already is, whereas this is not so with an infant (though at the same time I disagree with the Catholic Church when it uses that argument about birth control). If an entire family is comfortable with eating a baby, then nobody's rights are being violated. Not to mention that it's insanely unlikely that anyone doesn't eat babies ONLY because it's illegal. The question is, when does someone acquire rights in their own right? This is something I don't have a 100% answer on, but at the very latest I would say age 2.



Again, why is it morally different for a human to kill an animal than it is for an animal to kill an animal? If you want to give animals rights, you can not go without punishing animals that violate the so-called rights of other animals. If animals are above the law, in that sense, they are also below having rights.

We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected. It is not out of some arbitrary "higher" sense of duty or doing what's "just right." If that were the case then people could make up whatever arbitrary definition of "duty," etc., that they wanted and demand that rights be defined to suit them. This is precisely what you and so-called animal rights activists are doing.

Of course all this is without mentioning the huge problem of determining which animals get what rights, which would again be simply an arbitrary basis.

And don't get me wrong I have 2 cats that I love and I'd beat the **** out of anyone that tried to hurt them, but I'm not naive enough to think they have rights in social contract. Or else they'd have to be prosecuted every time they brought home a mouse...or lizard, or bird, or baby rabbit, etc.

Animals don't need protecting from other animals. They need protection from humans

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

Special pleading.
Why should we care that they are human? You wouldn't honestly consider a baby responsible for its actions, yet they are afforded rights. Why? Why should they be treated differently? (don't misconstrue this. I am in no way equating a baby with a dog). Your system is poor. Let's say we have hypothetical species <X> which has a mind that functions in the exact same way as us. Under your system, they are afforded no rights, which is absurd. Should they be afforded the same rights? Now, let's lower species X abilities a slight amount. Should they still be afforded rights?

Failure to live up to idealism is hardly a valid argument against the ideal.
If Caturdayz had the option, he would probably would not kill any life at all. He can't live up to that ideal, but tries to at best he can.

Irrelevant. The same can be said of most people.
QUOTE]

1. You're assuming I wrote the system(s). Wrong; I'm speaking of constitutions written by governing bodies, which apply to humans and animals alike; generally, humans are protected more than animals. You're also placing a non-existent problem in the situation that hasn't been addressed specifically because we havn't encountered a species a lot like our own. For now, it is, yes, humans.

2. When did I attack the ideal itself? I was attacking the belief that ideals can be lived up to, in this case, the belief that one can be incapable of harming another living thing while alive. Caturdayz for the first 80% of his posts has believed they can, and I find the issue to be somewhat abated. Additionally, if you'd have read any of the posts before becoming defensive of caturdayz, you'd know I believe that animals shouldn't be harmed beyond necessity. And yes, Caturdayz can chose to not harm any form of life at all. We've alreaddy discussed that option.

3. If it's irrelevant, you're either contradicting yourself or calling your own system poor according to your second paragraph. I don't see the point of you calling it irrelevant to begin with, since it was the introduction to the connected paragraph, in which you agreed with me in.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

2. This doesn't take into account the motivation behind allowing rights, especially for ones who fight for rights that do not apply to themselves; and yes, people do demand rights that be defined to suit them, of every step of the political and social ladder.

I don't understand how your first sentence applies. And as for your second, I meant that people could decide on their own abritrary sense or "higher duty" and demand others acquiesce to rights system based on that. This is to be avoided. I would agree with your second sentence if you mean that people demand that their rights as defined legally are guaranteed equal protection, not their OWN definition.

At the very least, you are consistent, so kudos for that.
Orphans might not particularly enjoy your system, however.

I think orphaning an unwanted child is 'worse' than aborting it, for what it's worth.

this requires acceptance of the notion that all murder is equal in terms of morality.
How is premeditated murder equal to man slaughter? It's not in the slightest, so to suggest that animals murder each other is absurd. Animals kill each other out of pure necessity. Humans rarely do.

I didn't say murder, I said kill. And it doesn't require that all murder is equal, only that when the circumstances are equal (or analogous), the response be equal (or analogous), so perhaps I should have said "all other things being equal" to clarify. And animals murder all the time, are you crazy? What do you think housecats do? I give my cats all the food and water they could want, and they still bring home half-dead mice, birds, rabbits, etc., and play around with them until -I- or someone else puts them out of their misery. Plus we aren't talking about humans killing humans, we're talking about humans killing animals.

Are you freakin kidding me?
You just shot down the justification for the entire civil rights movement. How does a certain minority not having rights affect my rights in the slightest?

I don't understand your question, or how it comes from what you quoted.

Special pleading.
Why should we care that they are human? You wouldn't honestly consider a baby responsible for its actions, yet they are afforded rights. Why? Why should they be treated differently? (don't misconstrue this. I am in no way equating a baby with a dog). Your system is poor. Let's say we have hypothetical species <X> which has a mind that functions in the exact same way as us. Under your system, they are afforded no rights, which is absurd. Should they be afforded the same rights? Now, let's lower species X abilities a slight amount. Should they still be afforded rights?

I am sympathetic to this argument, and is why I think entering social contract is a much better system. The only real issue is judging when that capability is present. And making sure machines that can simulate it are excluded.

I believe that animals shouldn't be harmed beyond necessity.

Nobody NEEDS to eat meat. It's perfectly possible to live without it. Do you then renounce meat? This can't be a reasonable criterion for rights, unless you mean 'should' based on your sensibilities as opposed to rights.

Caturdayz:

Why can't you address our arguments instead of spouting canned phrases that are devoid of real substance? I think you're being unfair to us because you "just think it's so obvious." Humans are animals. Why are we all of a sudden not allowed to do what happens between other species of animals millions of times every day? Please answer the other points first, because your response was non sequitur and I don't want the line of questioning at hand to be derailed.

 

[Eriatarka]

Humans are animals. Why are we all of a sudden not allowed to do what happens between other species of animals millions of times every day?

The thing about that is, animals kill because of instinct, and it is necessary for them to survive. We however, have evolved beyond being mere animals. You can define an animal however you like, but I believe for the purposes of this arguement, our position as a species able to think and question our actions draws a clear line between us and all other species on Earth, which as a general rule are all bound by instinct and are incapable of complex thought like we are.

Refering to us as animals does not mean we have the automatic right to jump back into that chain of animal-kill-animal, we don't need to kill animals to survive anymore, we can reason and think and see it's not necessary. I for one think this gives us an obligation to step out of the cycle.

 

[yossarian22]

1. You're assuming I wrote the system(s). Wrong; I'm speaking of constitutions written by governing bodies, which apply to humans and animals alike; generally, humans are protected more than animals. You're also placing a non-existent problem in the situation that hasn't been addressed specifically because we havn't encountered a species a lot like our own. For now, it is, yes, humans.

2. When did I attack the ideal itself? I was attacking the belief that ideals can be lived up to, in this case, the belief that one can be incapable of harming another living thing while alive. Caturdayz for the first 80% of his posts has believed they can, and I find the issue to be somewhat abated.

Wait, he actually claimed to be free from all responsibility? I might have missed it, but all I have hear Caturdayz claim was that he was less guilty than corporations.

3. If it's irrelevant, you're either contradicting yourself or calling your own system poor according to your second paragraph. I don't see the point of you calling it irrelevant to begin with, since it was the introduction to the connected paragraph, in which you agreed with me in.
Additionally, if you'd have read any of the posts before becoming defensive of caturdayzyou'd know I believe that animals shouldn't be harmed beyond necessity.

And yes, Caturdayz can chose to not harm any form of life at all. We've alreaddy discussed that option.
[/quote]
A system is either robust or it isn't. Yours (yes, I stick with saying yours, as you appear to be supporting it) is not. I therefore reject your system.

Your system does not appear to afford them rights at all, on the grounds that they are not human. That is a problem. Babies also do not have equal rights as a person, yet they are still afforded some. Why can it not be the same for animals. If you feel that animals should be afforded some rights, then I apologize as I must have misunderstood your posts.

I fail to see how I contradict myself.

I didn't say murder, I said kill. And it doesn't require that all murder is equal, only that when the circumstances are equal (or analogous), the response be equal (or analogous), so perhaps I should have said "all other things being equal" to clarify. And animals murder all the time, are you crazy? What do you think housecats do? I give my cats all the food and water they could want, and they still bring home half-dead mice, birds, rabbits, etc., and play around with them until -I- or someone else puts them out of their misery.

Fair enough, but the concept remains the same
True, they should be punished so they realize that it is wrong to do that, but animals shouldn't be considered equally punished. They should be held to a different standard, but they should still have a standard. I differ from Caturdayz in this regard (I am not for equal rights for animals. That is idiotic)
Humans accidentally kill animals, but occasionally do it for plain malice. There should be (and are) laws protecting animals from wanton malice.

The quote
We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected. It is not out of some arbitrary "higher" sense of duty or doing what's "just right." If that were the case then people could make up whatever arbitrary definition of "duty," etc., that they wanted and demand that rights be defined to suit them. This is precisely what you and so-called animal rights activists are doing.

I take issue with that statement.

I figure that not all rights should be dependent on signing a social contract.

Caturdayz, please, either make an actual point or stop talking.

 

[Dr. James Rustles]

I feel the need to have an arbitrary system, yes; many people would want to be able to bend atleast a few laws to fit their wants/needs. However, my circular desires happen to be a democratic system, so I think it works out in someway. However, I rarely do something I feel is wrong; if this breaches the social contract, so be it, I'll be passive about my arrest.... maybe. Once again, I may be explaining myself poorly.

I do think children and animals be afforded some rights (for what reasons, it is hard to say, I am sympathetic) and that they should not be held as responsible for their actions as the full definition of an adult human. Also, I think that both humans and animals should have laws protecting them from wanton malice.

I also feel that some rights are independent of a social contract, such as the basic human rights (I realise this is a broad term.)

The progressive rights system based on ability seems to work fine, yossarian. However, I think under such system it would be hard to barter for equal (even basic) rights if we encounter a race more superior than our own.

INCOHERENT POST.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The thing about that is, animals kill because of instinct, and it is necessary for them to survive. We however, have evolved beyond being mere animals. You can define an animal however you like, but I believe for the purposes of this arguement, our position as a species able to think and question our actions draws a clear line between us and all other species on Earth, which as a general rule are all bound by instinct and are incapable of complex thought like we are.

Well, that, to me, is all the more reason why it's no use to give animals rights.

Refering to us as animals does not mean we have the automatic right to jump back into that chain of animal-kill-animal, we don't need to kill animals to survive anymore, we can reason and think and see it's not necessary. I for one think this gives us an obligation to step out of the cycle.

An obligation to whom? To ourselves? We only have an obligation (though I wouldn't call it that) if it is necessarily beneficial to humans.

Fair enough, but the concept remains the same. True, they should be punished so they realize that it is wrong to do that, but animals shouldn't be considered equally punished.

Well I guess that's where I differ from you. I don't consider what they are doing 'wrong,' so I see no need to punish them.

They should be held to a different standard, but they should still have a standard. I differ from Caturdayz in this regard (I am not for equal rights for animals. That is idiotic)
Humans accidentally kill animals, but occasionally do it for plain malice. There should be (and are) laws protecting animals from wanton malice.

Let me put it to you (or anyone else) this way. How does it benefit humans to draw up 'rights' for animals (other than by proxy like I've said), setting aside "offending someone else's sensibilities" which is not a basis to ascribe rights to something. If it doesn't benefit humans, then it's pointless to do it, and can only cheapen the notion of 'rights.'

The quote
We protect the rights of others because we want our own rights to be protected.
I take issue with that statement.

I see now. But why is that? Isn't that the meaning of social contract to begin with?

I figure that not all rights should be dependent on signing a social contract.

What else should they be contingent upon (not said rhetorically, I honestly want your opinion)? It might be reasonable to make a case for -potential- to "sign" a social contract and avoid the unpleasant baby scenario, but I have problems with that because it seems to me that's the same argument that fundies use against birth control, with which I disagree.

(Not directed at anyone in particular): In any case, if someone truly believes that they should not (or minimally) harm any animal life, they should go join the Jain ascetics; otherwise it's a hypocritical existence. You have to draw that (arbitrary) line somewhere. I've drawn mine and made a case for it.

 

[Caturdayz]

Ok let me set the record straight.

I am not for animals being equal to humans.

I simply want animals to have the right to live their lives without the interference of humans, excluding domesticated pets.

And if need be trying to bolster the population of endangered species.

Maybe I was throwing around the word "equal" to much, but that is not what I meant.

 

[yossarian22]

I feel the need to have an arbitrary system, yes; many people would want to be able to bend atleast a few laws to fit their wants/needs. However, my circular desires happen to be a democratic system, so I think it works out in someway. However, I rarely do something I feel is wrong; if this breaches the social contract, so be it, I'll be passive about my arrest.... maybe. Once again, I may be explaining myself poorly.

The problem with a democratic system of rights is the problem with democracy: tyranny of the majority. Rights should definitely not be totally democratic.

I do think children and animals be afforded some rights (for what reasons, it is hard to say, I am sympathetic) and that they should not be held as responsible for their actions as the full definition of an adult human. Also, I think that both humans and animals should have laws protecting them from wanton malice.
I also feel that some rights are independent of a social contract, such as the basic human rights (I realise this is a broad term.)
The progressive rights system based on ability seems to work fine, yossarian. However, I think under such system it would be hard to barter for equal (even basic) rights if we encounter a race more superior than our own.

So we are basically in agreement about everything save for the system that installs said rights. And, ideally, rights are given out based off of comprehension, so we would not be able to fully understand what 'equal rights' we were requesting.

An obligation to whom? To ourselves? We only have an obligation (though I wouldn't call it that) if it is necessarily beneficial to humans.

And how are you defining benefit?
You are using value to determine whether or not we should do something, and value is purely subjective

Well I guess that's where I differ from you. I don't consider what they are doing 'wrong,' so I see no need to punish them.

Fair enough

Let me put it to you (or anyone else) this way. How does it benefit humans to draw up 'rights' for animals (other than by proxy like I've said), setting aside "offending someone else's sensibilities" which is not a basis to ascribe rights to something. If it doesn't benefit humans, then it's pointless to do it, and can only cheapen the notion of 'rights.'

I see now. But why is that? Isn't that the meaning of social contract to begin with?

A social contract is willingly signing away our rights in exchange for something. Be it defense, food, whatever, we willingly sacrifice our rights in exchange for something. You can never give somebody a right, or it is not a right; it is a privilege.

And the major problem with your system is the arbitrary use of human. Instead of going broader, I am going to go narrower. Why should I care what happens to <arbitrary race X>? How does granting X the rights I have benefit me or my group at all? Hell, free labor is nice, so it could be beneficial to enslave X. Unless you can provide a rigid definition of benefit, I do not see a way for your system to retain consistency. Then there is the problem with the seemingly arbitrary choice of "human". Sure, we are all human, but I can certainly differentiate between us.

What else should they be contingent upon (not said rhetorically, I honestly want your opinion)?

Ideally, they should be contingent on ability to comprehend said rights.

It might be reasonable to make a case for -potential- to "sign" a social contract and avoid the unpleasant baby scenario, but I have problems with that because it seems to me that's the same argument that fundies use against birth control, with which I disagree.

Potential creates some other nasty problems, so I agree that it is not a solution.

(Not directed at anyone in particular): In any case, if someone truly believes that they should not (or minimally) harm any animal life, they should go join the Jain ascetics; otherwise it's a hypocritical existence. You have to draw that (arbitrary) line somewhere. I've drawn mine and made a case for it.

I am not an absolutist; I don't consider an amoeba equivalent to, say, a dog. If life is sentient, we should attempt to minimize suffering to it. Sentience, at least to me, is not an arbitrary line, as can a non-sentient animal actually suffer?

Ok let me set the record straight.
I am not for animals being equal to humans.

Great, then what level of rights should they be afforded?

I simply want animals to have the right to live their lives without the interference of humans, excluding domesticated pets.

That is an impossibility unless you are using some archaic definition of animal. Won't somebody please think about the amoebas?

Maybe I was throwing around the word "equal" to much, but that is not what I meant.

Then could you clarify your position?

 

[Caturdayz]

My position is that humans have no right to play with the lives of other creatures.

 

[yossarian22]

My position is that humans have no right to play with the lives of other creatures.

Great clarification....
That is just the bloated equivalent of "harming animals is bad", which is ridiculously ambiguous. So we have no right to do something, but can we do it anyways? Should it be a right in the legal sense? What do you mean by 'play with the lives of other animals'? I don't consider systematic elimination playing in the slightest, so is that permissible? And what is the line that defines creature? Is a dog a creature? What about a mosquito? What about a jellyfish? An amoeba? A virus? A complicated molecule?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The problem with a democratic system of rights is the problem with democracy: tyranny of the majority. Rights should definitely not be totally democratic.

Agree. You don't need laws to protect popular (majority) actions. You need them to protect unpopular ones. Not to mention that the 'majority' is not homogeneous, and local majority will often differ from global majority, and you get into all sorts of problems about defining boundaries and things like that.

An example of this happened in California in 2000. A law was proposed which would ban raising horses for meat, and it unfortunately passed in the majority popular vote, just because people figured "why not," "it won't affect me," etc. The tyranny of the majority reigned.

And how are you defining benefit?
You are using value to determine whether or not we should do something, and value is purely subjective

Yes it is definitely subjective. "Benefit" is whatever makes people happy, with a couple contingencies. As I would have it, there is really one fundamental right from which all others stem, which is the right to pursue happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness as far as you like as long as it doesn't interfere with others' pursuit. In following with that, no law should be drawn up to "defend sensibilities," like animal rights, because if we did, then any person could arbitrarily decide that he was being offended by something and that his rights were violated because of that, and so argue to restrict the rights of others to maintain his personal sense of satisfaction. Animal rights is just such a construct. No action that doesn't impede someone's progress to happiness, i.e. the right to gain, keep, use, and dispose of material values, and the freedom of thought, should be abridged. Thankfully our Founding Fathers in America realized that there is no such thing as a right not to be offended by something.

You may ask "why happiness?" The answer is that (I believe) perceived gain in happiness is the motivation for ALL actions, whether we are aware of it or not (or even if we are mistaken about what will make us happy).

A social contract is willingly signing away our rights in exchange for something. Be it defense, food, whatever, we willingly sacrifice our rights in exchange for something. You can never give somebody a right, or it is not a right; it is a privilege.

I wouldn't saying it's signing away RIGHTS, but liberties. A right has the necessary 'negative obligation' converse side to it. Ultimately rights mean nothing if they can't be enforced. I understand your point but I'm still not sure what exactly about my statement you disagree with.

And the major problem with your system is the arbitrary use of human. Instead of going broader, I am going to go narrower. Why should I care what happens to <arbitrary race X>? How does granting X the rights I have benefit me or my group at all? Hell, free labor is nice, so it could be beneficial to enslave X. Unless you can provide a rigid definition of benefit, I do not see a way for your system to retain consistency. Then there is the problem with the seemingly arbitrary choice of "human". Sure, we are all human, but I can certainly differentiate between us.

Hold on. I never said that rights should be granted only to humans. But humans are the ones drawing up the rights; that is the only reason I used 'humans' in that sentence. Whenever I say "someone's" rights, I'm referring to anyone from the set of entities that we confer rights upon. It may or may not end up being limited to humans, or necessarily including all humans. I can discuss the nature of rights without necessarily naming every beneficiary of them.

Now, if you want to talk about what rights we would give to other intelligent races, that's a different topic and we should stick to animals. Domesticated/stock/etc animals are practically "enslaved" by humans as it is, though I definitely think that is the wrong word to use, I just use it to respond directly to your comment.

Ideally, they should be contingent on ability to comprehend said rights.

I see problems with this. There are probably thousands of esoteric "rights" guaranteed to us in arcane law books or court precedents, which few of us will ever consider in their entirety. But our ignorance of them is no reason to be deprived of them, as ignorance of the law is no way to excuse yourself from transgressing it.

That is an impossibility unless you are using some archaic definition of animal. Won't somebody please think about the amoebas?

I have seen animal rights propaganda to defend silkworms. Dead serious.

 

[Caturdayz]

Great clarification....
That is just the bloated equivalent of "harming animals is bad", which is ridiculously ambiguous. So we have no right to do something, but can we do it anyways? Should it be a right in the legal sense? What do you mean by 'play with the lives of other animals'? I don't consider systematic elimination playing in the slightest, so is that permissible? And what is the line that defines creature? Is a dog a creature? What about a mosquito? What about a jellyfish? An amoeba? A virus? A complicated molecule?

Any conscious being, by my definition is a creature. That would range from man to mosquito, however that would leave out amoeba, viruses and complicated molecules...

Play with the lives of other animals mean leave them alone, let them do their own thing. Let them live the way they were intended to by nature.

I am sorry but "it tastes good" is just not a good enough argument for meat.

I am sorry but "its more expensive" is just not a good enough reason for animal testing.

and I am sorry that I feel compassion for something other than myself.

 

[ComradeSAL]

What makes you think a mosquito is conscious?

 

[yossarian22]

Any conscious being, by my definition is a creature. That would range from man to mosquito, however that would leave out amoeba, viruses and complicated molecules...

Unfortunately, it is **** near impossible to nail down a definition of conscious that applies universally. There is a sub-branch of philosophy devoted to that particular problem, so consciousness is not satisfactory. Perhaps you mean sentience, but that would exclude the insects, which function more or less like machines.

Play with the lives of other animals mean leave them alone, let them do their own thing. Let them live the way they were intended to by nature.

Naturalistic fallacy

I am sorry but "it tastes good" is just not a good enough argument for meat.
I am sorry but "its more expensive" is just not a good enough reason for animal testing.

Does anybody actually use that argument in seriousness?
Although admittedly many theistic positions against animals rights are dressed up versions of "it tastes good"....

and I am sorry that I feel compassion for something other than myself.

Appeal to emotion.
I have yet to see a single post from you in this thread that did not contain some sort of logical fallacy embedded in it.

Yes it is definitely subjective. "Benefit" is whatever makes people happy, with a couple contingencies. As I would have it, there is really one fundamental right from which all others stem, which is the right to pursue happiness. You have the right to pursue happiness as far as you like as long as it doesn't interfere with others' pursuit. In following with that, no law should be drawn up to "defend sensibilities," like animal rights, because if we did, then any person could arbitrarily decide that he was being offended by something and that his rights were violated because of that, and so argue to restrict the rights of others to maintain his personal sense of satisfaction. Animal rights is just such a construct. No action that doesn't impede someone's progress to happiness, i.e. the right to gain, keep, use, and dispose of material values, and the freedom of thought, should be abridged. Thankfully our Founding Fathers in America realized that there is no such thing as a right not to be offended by something.

And here is where we branch off. Many animals are certainly capable of having happiness as an emotion. It may be a crude emotion, yet it is still present. So, why shouldn't we give these animals limited rights? They have a limited perception of happiness, but it is present nonetheless.

You may ask "why happiness?" The answer is that (I believe) perceived gain in happiness is the motivation for ALL actions, whether we are aware of it or not (or even if we are mistaken about what will make us happy).

Works for me

I wouldn't saying it's signing away RIGHTS, but liberties. A right has the necessary 'negative obligation' converse side to it. Ultimately rights mean nothing if they can't be enforced. I understand your point but I'm still not sure what exactly about my statement you disagree with.

Its mostly an issue of semantics, but I feel it is an extremely important one. We can't give somebody a right. A right is unalienable. To me, a liberty is a fairly empty term. Our laws can be said to restrict our liberties, but our liberties are ultimately dependent on our rights.

What is your definition of liberty, and how is it different from a right?

Hold on. I never said that rights should be granted only to humans. But humans are the ones drawing up the rights; that is the only reason I used 'humans' in that sentence. Whenever I say "someone's" rights, I'm referring to anyone from the set of entities that we confer rights upon. It may or may not end up being limited to humans, or necessarily including all humans. I can discuss the nature of rights without necessarily naming every beneficiary of them.

Ah, I misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that. So, you are not against conferring animals some rights?
If so, I see little reason for us to debate other than how exactly these rights should be conferred, which is a much broader ttopic.

I see problems with this. There are probably thousands of esoteric "rights" guaranteed to us in arcane law books or court precedents, which few of us will ever consider in their entirety. But our ignorance of them is no reason to be deprived of them, as ignorance of the law is no way to excuse yourself from transgressing it.

Ah, but we can still comprehend the law. That we are not aware of it is fairly irrelevant. There is a large difference between being able to understand a law and being aware of a law.

I have seen animal rights propaganda to defend silkworms. Dead serious.

It is a shame that organizations such as PETA and Greenpeace have dragged the name of environmentalism through the mud.
Anybody else hear about people at an environmentalist rally signing a petition to ban water?

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Any conscious being, by my definition is a creature. That would range from man to mosquito, however that would leave out amoeba, viruses and complicated molecules...

If you truly believe this then you should move to India and live with the Jain ascetics. If you don't then you're guilty of your own "it tastes good" and "it's more expensive" arguments. You won't give up your modern lifestyle to suit your ideals.

Play with the lives of other animals mean leave them alone, let them do their own thing. Let them live the way they were intended to by nature.

Nature isn't an entity. Plus what do you say to someone that thinks that humans were intended by nature to manipulate it to their will?

I am sorry but "it tastes good" is just not a good enough argument for meat.

I am sorry but "its more expensive" is just not a good enough reason for animal testing.

and I am sorry that I feel compassion for something other than myself.

Strawman. Nobody's ever used those as arguments, and if they did they're ********, so you haven't really said anything.

And here is where we branch off. Many animals are certainly capable of having happiness as an emotion. It may be a crude emotion, yet it is still present. So, why shouldn't we give these animals limited rights? They have a limited perception of happiness, but it is present nonetheless.

I don't see why being able to show something that humans perceive as happiness should be a criterion. A severely mentally ******** person or someone in a permanently vegetative state would have fewer rights than a cat based on this. Unless you find that agreeable.

Its mostly an issue of semantics, but I feel it is an extremely important one. We can't give somebody a right. A right is unalienable. To me, a liberty is a fairly empty term. Our laws can be said to restrict our liberties, but our liberties are ultimately dependent on our rights.

What is your definition of liberty, and how is it different from a right?

A right is a social construct. A liberty is the manifest freedom to do something. Again these are my personal definitions (though they are really not exhaustive definitions). I don't like to say that "without social contract, all rights exist" because some are necessarily contradictory, so I use "liberty" instead. Though I am flexible in terms if other think that different words are better suited to these concepts.

Ah, I misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that. So, you are not against conferring animals some rights?
If so, I see little reason for us to debate other than how exactly these rights should be conferred, which is a much broader ttopic.

To the degree that they can understand and participate in social construct. Which I don't really believe is much more than nil, if at all. As I've said already I don't believe what my cat does to mice is "wrong." If it is, then it should have to be prosecuted/punished in the same way that animal rights would have those animal testers punished, let alone that animal testing ostensibly serves a useful purpose.

Ah, but we can still comprehend the law. That we are not aware of it is fairly irrelevant. There is a large difference between being able to understand a law and being aware of a law.

So, what, should everyone have to pass a civics test before they are deemed to have rights other than by proxy of their parents/guardians/friends/family? And still, doesn't the problem of potential bear? Furthermore, surely some right could exist that would practically require formal education to truly comprehend. Or you could even say that only those who can actually have a debate such as this -truly- comprehend the law. I mean you have to draw some arbitrary line of what conprehension means.

Anybody else hear about people at an environmentalist rally signing a petition to ban water?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide

 

[The Executive]

Anybody else hear about people at an environmentalist rally signing a petition to ban water?

Yep. Called it 'dihydrogen monoxide' (don't know if -oxide is the correct suffix) and people voted to ban it en masse. Prime example of why pure democracy can be flat-out dangerous, especially in the hands of people who act without rational forethought.

Edit: Correct suffix. www.dhmo.org.

 

[Deleted member]

I am sorry but "it tastes good" is just not a good enough argument for meat.

Are you crazy?

..Bacon?

 

[The Executive]

Are you crazy?

..Bacon?

I would argue so.

From a logical perspective, depriving yourself of meat means that you will have to look harder and possibly pay more for food since you are narrowing your possible choices by a considerable margin.

From a culinary standpoint, you're committing suicide, plain and simple. There's only so much that can be done with only vegetables...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Regarding the democracy thing, there should be some kind of criteria for when a democratic vote is the appropriate course of action. I'm sure most people would have problems with an intellectual elite cabal making every single policy decision. This is getting off topic though, so to remain closer to the one at hand let me say:

Raw beef carpaccio is ****ing amazing.

Just throwing that out there.

 

[The Executive]

I looked that stuff up, and it actually looks really appealing. My culinary side has died somewhat since moving to the Deep South, but that made it rise up again.

 

[Deleted member]

Hmm. I think people think I was joking.

Well, I was, to a certain extent, but I was being serious as well.

We're omnivorous, we eat meat and plants. It's just what we do. We basically eat anything. (re - 2 girls 1 cup)

To say that it's wrong to eat animals is preposterous. They were meant to be in my stomach. They are oh-so jolly inside there. They are welcome anytime.

To this day, I've never heard a good argument for going vegetarian. And don't get me started on vegans.

 

[yossarian22]

I don't see why being able to show something that humans perceive as happiness should be a criterion. A severely mentally ******** person or someone in a permanently vegetative state would have fewer rights than a cat based on this. Unless you find that agreeable.

We can throw out a severely mentally ******** person provided they are still capable of thought. We are going off of the premise that all actions are made to increase happiness, correct? So we will just deal with the person in the vegetative state. They once were able to comprehend rights, so those rights should extend to them up until the point in time where it is apparent that they will never return to that state of comprehension.
Otherwise, we can fall back onto rights by proxy.

A right is a social construct. A liberty is the manifest freedom to do something. Again these are my personal definitions (though they are really not exhaustive definitions). I don't like to say that "without social contract, all rights exist" because some are necessarily contradictory, so I use "liberty" instead. Though I am flexible in terms if other think that different words are better suited to these concepts.

My own definition is fairly hazy. I am not even sure if freedom is a coherent concept, so how about we use the libertarian system?

To the degree that they can understand and participate in social construct. Which I don't really believe is much more than nil, if at all. As I've said already I don't believe what my cat does to mice is "wrong." If it is, then it should have to be prosecuted/punished in the same way that animal rights would have those animal testers punished, let alone that animal testing ostensibly serves a useful purpose.

Not everything morally wrong is illegal. Anyhow, if something has fewer basic rights, it can't be held as responsible as somebody with more basic rights. A cat cannot truly comprehend right and wrong.

So, what, should everyone have to pass a civics test before they are deemed to have rights other than by proxy of their parents/guardians/friends/family? And still, doesn't the problem of potential bear? Furthermore, surely some right could exist that would practically require formal education to truly comprehend. Or you could even say that only those who can actually have a debate such as this -truly- comprehend the law. I mean you have to draw some arbitrary line of what conprehension means.

Well, we admittedly have a similar system. Certain rights are restricted until you reach a certain age. As a consequence of this, children are not held as fully responsible for their actions. We use age as of now, which is admittedly arbitrary, but fairly effective.

Comprehension is only potential, so civics tests are unneeded. Anybody who is capable of functioning in modern society independently is capable of grasping the concept of rights.

And did we really need to mention 2 girls 1 cup?

 

[Deleted member]

Yes. Yes we did.

 

[Caturdayz]

I am pretty much done with this board and do not really want to revive it. Just one more response to delorted....

To this day, I've never heard a good argument for going vegetarian. And don't get me started on vegans.

The ONLY argument AGAINST vegetarianism is taste apart from that there is no logical reason to not be a vegetarian, if not a vegan. You can say protein! Well I can say beans. You can say we're omnivores! I can say we are characteristically herbivorous, however I would agree we adapted to omnivorousness back in the days of hunters and gatherers. You can say god zapped em here for us! I am atheist. The list really goes on and on. Pesticides and the question of whether or not plants constitute conscious beings are two of the more common ones...

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Even if I accept any or all of that, it has no bearing on animals having rights. You can say we are "characteristically herbivorous" (whatever that means) all you like but nobody cares unless you cite evidence. Stop evading everyone else's arguments with your own empty challenges.

 

[Deleted member]

Caturdayz, you're forgetting that animals like to be eaten. It's their life goal

 

[Caturdayz]

Humans= Animals

So do humans like getting eaten?

and characteristically herbivorous means we have characteristics of an herbivore 0_0