Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

[Complexity]

Thing is, Dessi... We decide the rights of people. Most people are comfortable with the idea that all humans, including infants and retards, have the same rights.

Haven't most of us gotten past the use of this term?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Haven't most of us gotten past the use of this term?

Shrug, it was used earlier in the thread. I generally don't get very worked up about terminology.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I think this is probably the first straw man ever presented against animal rights. Straw Adam.

It seems as though it does not matter how many times this non-argument is created, we always go back to Straw Adam. There's no higher order response to feasibility, "ought-implying-can."

It would be nice if you could point out exactly where I was mistaken in my view of your position. It would help both further my own understanding and this discussion.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If someone takes you out to the African jungle somewhere, strips you naked, and just leaves, you will understand.

In nature, animals are not our friends or pets. They are the competition.

As are other humans. In this framework, do they similarly not have rights?

Man is not a dog, nor is he a sheep. The human social instinct is in a state of malfunction when we include other animals in its function.

No, it is merely a happy accident, like many of our emotions. There is no "malfunction" because evolution is without purpose.

You would not argue with this when it comes to bestiality (at least, I HOPE you aren't into sex with animals)... so why would you when it comes to extending other human social conduct to members of a different species? In Darwinian terms, we don't often do such because it is not helpful to our own survival.

I don't understand any of this, but you'll find that such reductionist Darwinian philosophy has been on the decline. Mostly because it BS philosophy that has nothing to do with random mutations and natural selection.

Many species have a social instinct. There are even a few that can be tricked into extending that instinct towards humans, given the right upbringing. However, the pride of lions you meet while running around naked in Africa is not likely to take you in as one of their own. I'd say that there's a 99 percent chance or so that they would rather kill you and eat you. Nature is pretty harsh when you don't have all the little perks and comforts that human society has given us.

And... ? Actually, this is common to humans as well.

As technology advances and humans grow softer and more helpless outside of its protection, we seem to want to forget who we are and what got us to this point. In some cases, a greater amount of civility towards our fellow man, as well as towards animals is beneficial. We now appear to have the luxury of being able to eat without killing and not sacrifice nutrition... or so I'm told. I'm not sure I even believe that, but I'll let that point slide, for now.

Joy. Actually, I've read philosophical debates going back over two thousand years about vegetarianism. So it is not some modern, isolated fantasy. The Jains were famous for using a broom to sweep insect out of their path so as not to step on them. An, of course, there are quite a few regions even today where depending on meat eating is counter-productive to long-term survival.

...but what happens when society fails? Can YOU provide a properly nutritious meal (including protein needed for growth, strength, and brain development) for yourself and your children in a world with no supermarkets? Furthermore, can you do so without resorting to violence against other species? I think not. A belly full of meat will give you a lot more energy than whatever edible roots and berries you might be able to scavenge in any location, at any season. Have we really come so far that we can put our own arrogant ideals over biology? Stuff happens, and although I don't foresee an immediate regression to hunter-gatherer times, our technology and skills are compiled one on top of another. If you take out one -rather major- thing that has made us what we are... such as eating meat, and the industry that has grown around it, who knows what else it will take down? This isn't a minor change, but a complete overhaul of society we're talking about here if you were to have your way, and who knows where it would lead us? Perhaps the attempt itself would destroy everything we humans have built.

We are what we are, and what we are is a species of omnivores with a strong lean towards the carnivorous. Why, pray tell, should we be so ashamed of the reality of ourselves that we deny ourselves the right to be what we biologically are? To do so is dangerous when living in an unpredictable world... even if it seems a good thing to do at the time.

Okay, I have no clue how any of this relates to rights. And I doubt veg*ns are ashamed of their digestive system.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You are of course free to try to convince all of us into wanting human-like rights for animals... but don't delude yourself into thinking that you're sitting on some real morality, while that of ours is somehow flawed. It isn't. All moral frameworks are entirely arbitrary - most of us choose one that works in tandem with our nature and is practical for society as a whole.

I'd argue that that is not really a moral system if you have to buy into it for it to be true. Otherwise we live in a world without wrongdoers . Like, what's the point of even debating?

 

[slingblade]

If someone takes you out to the African jungle somewhere, strips you naked, and just leaves, you will understand.

In nature, animals are not our friends or pets. They are the competition. We have largely won that competition through technology, and get a bonus through animal husbandry. Eating meat is just the spoils of victory.

Man is not a dog, nor is he a sheep. The human social instinct is in a state of malfunction when we include other animals in its function. You would not argue with this when it comes to bestiality (at least, I HOPE you aren't into sex with animals)... so why would you when it comes to extending other human social conduct to members of a different species? In Darwinian terms, we don't often do such because it is not helpful to our own survival.

Many species have a social instinct. There are even a few that can be tricked into extending that instinct towards humans, given the right upbringing. However, the pride of lions you meet while running around naked in Africa is not likely to take you in as one of their own. I'd say that there's a 99 percent chance or so that they would rather kill you and eat you. Nature is pretty harsh when you don't have all the little perks and comforts that human society has given us.

As technology advances and humans grow softer and more helpless outside of its protection, we seem to want to forget who we are and what got us to this point. In some cases, a greater amount of civility towards our fellow man, as well as towards animals is beneficial. We now appear to have the luxury of being able to eat without killing and not sacrifice nutrition... or so I'm told. I'm not sure I even believe that, but I'll let that point slide, for now.

...but what happens when society fails? Can YOU provide a properly nutritious meal (including protein needed for growth, strength, and brain development) for yourself and your children in a world with no supermarkets? Furthermore, can you do so without resorting to violence against other species? I think not. A belly full of meat will give you a lot more energy than whatever edible roots and berries you might be able to scavenge in any location, at any season. Have we really come so far that we can put our own arrogant ideals over biology? Stuff happens, and although I don't foresee an immediate regression to hunter-gatherer times, our technology and skills are compiled one on top of another. If you take out one -rather major- thing that has made us what we are... such as eating meat, and the industry that has grown around it, who knows what else it will take down? This isn't a minor change, but a complete overhaul of society we're talking about here if you were to have your way, and who knows where it would lead us? Perhaps the attempt itself would destroy everything we humans have built.

We are what we are, and what we are is a species of omnivores with a strong lean towards the carnivorous. Why, pray tell, should we be so ashamed of the reality of ourselves that we deny ourselves the right to be what we biologically are? To do so is dangerous when living in an unpredictable world... even if it seems a good thing to do at the time.

Cool, except that answer is just riddled with humanity.

What rights do animals have amongst each other?
Pretend we humans have never existed.
Give me the concepts of animal rights, as conceived by animals.

For every item in the list, please explain how you know.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I'd argue that that is not really a moral system if you have to buy into it for it to be true. Otherwise we live in a world without wrongdoers . Like, what's the point of even debating?

The good news are that we can agree that one system is good, and that you have to go through certain hurdles to change it, and that we can all agree to follow it even if we don't agree to it to the letter.

In a sense there is some objective morality because most of us share a similar sense of empathy. Of course, in that sense you could argue that a psychopath is not really doing anything wrong, because he can't feel empathy. Still, it's a trivial distinction as we're still better off as a society by punishing him (by our subjective definition of 'better off').

 

[Complexity]

The good news are that we can agree that one system is good, and that you have to go through certain hurdles to change it, and that we can all agree to follow it even if we don't agree to it to the letter.

No good news.

I don't agree with what you have said.

 

[Cain]

It would be nice if you could point out exactly where I was mistaken in my view of your position. It would help both further my own understanding and this discussion.

Much of the "rights" talk needlessly obscures matters. It's better to first look at the interests of animals and to decide if those interests are significant or trivial. If we determine certain non-human interests are significant -- as our society has in the case of cruelty and abuse -- then animals should be backed by the power of the state. No animal has an interest in driving or voting. We can and do lock animals up if they pose an unreasonable danger to a community (one where the victims are often, but not necessarily, human).

If animals do not have rights, then I should be allowed to have dog-fights in my backyard. No gambling. We compete for bragging rights.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Complexity: Bad for you. But as long as you don't interfere in the affairs of others, I don't think anyone cares.

If animals do not have rights, then I should be allowed to have dog-fights in my backyard. No gambling. We compete for bragging rights.

Yeah, but a lot of people don't like that. Part of your societal contract includes that you shouldn't do things a lot of people don't like, unless they're part of a certain set of very limited rights. So you better don't, or law enforcement will come after you.

 

[Roboramma]

In a sense there is some objective morality because most of us share a similar sense of empathy. Of course, in that sense you could argue that a psychopath is not really doing anything wrong, because he can't feel empathy. Still, it's a trivial distinction as we're still better off as a society by punishing him (by our subjective definition of 'better off').

See the bolded bit.

Your philosophy doesn't even admit that there is objectively such a thing as "better off". Whereas I can, at least, say that a being is better off if it considers itself to be so.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

See the bolded bit.

Your philosophy doesn't even admit that there is objectively such a thing as "better off". Whereas I can, at least, say that a being is better off if it considers itself to be so.

Yeah, but that's still a subjective definition. If you're going to apply that universally to all creatures, you are unlikely to convince many people.

You also run into problems such as, why aren't you making sure animals aren't killed by other animals or by accident in the forest?

 

[Cain]

Yeah, but a lot of people don't like that. Part of your societal contract includes that you shouldn't do things a lot of people don't like, unless they're part of a certain set of very limited rights. So you better don't, or law enforcement will come after you.

And according to that reasoning a society could prosecute people for engaging in homosexual behavior, burning their country's sacred flag, or praying to the wrong made-up deity.

 

[Cain]

In a sense there is some objective morality because most of us share a similar sense of empathy.

I don't like the word "because" here.

Bob Wright discusses this with the philosopher Peter Singer, who I believe makes the same criticism: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/39410?in=28:16&out=40:59

 

[TubbaBlubba]

And according to that reasoning a society could prosecute people for engaging in homosexual behavior, burning their country's sacred flag, or praying to the wrong made-up deity.

Yes, unless that would violate some agreement, e.g. a constitution protecting rights like life.


Your point being?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't like the word "because" here.

Bob Wright discusses this with the philosopher Peter Singer, who I believe makes the same criticism: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/39410?in=28:16&out=40:59

I partly agree with Singer in that video.

My position is basically that the reason we can even have a discussion on morals is because most of us have roughly the same moral "axioms" (e.g. most good for the most people), and it is still possible to point out if a moral position is correctly or incorrectly derived from there.

Animal rights activists, in my view, seek to change some fundamental axioms, and they're going to have a hell of a hard time doing that unless they manage to convince people on a very emotional level.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And according to that reasoning a society could prosecute people for engaging in homosexual behavior, burning their country's sacred flag, or praying to the wrong made-up deity.

Um... some of them do...

 

[Dessi]

We are what we are, and what we are is a species of omnivores with a strong lean towards the carnivorous. Why, pray tell, should we be so ashamed of the reality of ourselves that we deny ourselves the right to be what we biologically are? To do so is dangerous when living in an unpredictable world... even if it seems a good thing to do at the time.

Nothing like an appeal to nature. I've been in scientific and skeptical discussions for years, and routinely I've seen the appeal to nature argument to shot to hell and back. It comes up over and over and over in a variety of masks:

"Homosexuality is not natural as it is not used for reproduction, therefore it is immoral and homosexuals are bad."

"Transgender surgery is wrong an unnatural, gender is determined by biology."

"Vaccines are dangerous, natural remedies are better." Radiofreethinker skewers a version of this.

"The natural world is characterized by competition; animals struggle against each other for ownership of limited natural resources. Capitalism, the competitive struggle for ownership of capital, is simply an inevitable part of human nature. It's how the natural world works."

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?" 1 Cor 11:3-15

"Survival of the fittest implies that "might makes right" is a proper guide to behavior. / Darwinism leads to social Darwinism, the policy that the weak should be allowed to fail and die.

The Unabomber Manifesto is an appeal to nature which rejects technology entirely.

Skepchicks shredding another variant of the naturalistic fallacy in response to fears of processed food, or homogenized milk in particular.

How many of those arguments are familiar to you? At least one or two, right? I hope its obvious why appeals to nature are fallacious: the terms "natural" and "unnatural" are loaded terms, in that they have connotations with "good" and "bad" respectively. "Natural" and "good" are not in fact synonyms, there's no necessary connection between them at all:

Natural and bad: Hemlock, tornados, tsunamis, malaria, the state of nature itself are all found in nature..
Natural and good: Wood, water, light, oxygen, and cannabis are all found in nature.
Unnatural and good: Plastics, skyscrapers, organ transplants, Ladytron, and transistors are quite manmade.
Unnatural and bad: Water boarding, pipe bombs, asbestos, thalidomide, and smog are also manmade.

Its not exactly clear what you find so persuasive about appeals to nature when applied to eating meat as opposed to equivalent arguments that are applied to homosexuality. Regardless of the obvious fallacious implications, appeals to nature are no more friendly to animal rights than they are to human rights. See here:

evolution not a noramative moral theory. Even if it were, its certainly not a human rights moral theory, since its wholly consistent with evolution to compete with members of your own species. We are equally justified by evolution cooperating with our own neighbors as we are enslaving him and harvesting his property and organs for our own use. On a grander scale, slavery and ethnic nationalism can be defended by the very same "biologically determined imperatives" to maximize the survival of ourselves and immediate population. Of course, no one takes those arguments for social darwinism seriously because because evolution is not a moral theory -- its descriptive, not prescriptive.

The same appeal to nature justifies killing animals as much as killing humans. That's kind of the point of this thread: animal rights and human rights are two sides of the same coin. Arguments against one are arguments against the other, arguments for one are arguments for the other. As soon as we concede that we ought to treat humans with any respect at all, rather than compete against them for our own advantage, we've already "denied what we biologically are." If you can understand that much, then you can understand that the phrase "humans are omnivores" has absolutely nothing to do with how we justify our diet. If we can minimize the harm that we cause, we should do that much.

I can understand why people fall back on appeals to nature -- because they're so damn convenient and easy -- but in all seriousness, this is the JREF, its a site for skepticism and critical thinking. You don't have to be an animal rights activist to spot the immediate error in the statement "humans should eat meat because that's what they do".

 

[slingblade]

No answer yet as to the rights animals have amongst themselves?

It's kind of a key issue.

 

[Cain]

Yes, unless that would violate some agreement, e.g. a constitution protecting rights like life.

Your point being?

We're not interpreting a constitution though; this is not some Talmudic exercise, and this sort of nonsense would not be taken seriously for one second (on this forum) if we were talking about gay rights.

What's you're essentially arguing for is not unlike divine command theory, and somewhat related to cultural relativism. I suppose we could just call it Government Command Theory.

PhantomWolf:

Um... some of them do...

And just because they do it does not make it right.