Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

[Cain]

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

It's kind of a key issue.

It has been addressed. You're just not very discerning.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

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.

No, I'm arguing for a social contract. Obviously the contract is not mutual in dictatorships, but rather enforced through violence. In democracy, you always have some proportional ability to influence society, both through voting and activism.

Your line of reasoning seems to be leading to some sort of Objectivist or Libertarian stance. There's nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking, but those rely even more on just-so assertions on what's right and wrong (initiation of force, etc).

It would probably be TOLERATED when discussing gay rights... But no one would be very interested in discussing it, and it's not a very common stance there. If it were, it would pose a serious problem to those of us in favour of gay rights, and we ought to do our best to change the public mind.

 

[Manopolus]

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:


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".

Noted that you see no greater correlation of this topic to nature than issues of homosexuality and capitalism.

If you can't see the question of what we eat and how we treat animals as being more closely related to biology/nature, than I don't see how we can have any kind of rational discussion. The link you made between my own arguments and those others is nothing more than an attempt at guilt by association.

Please note, I have no problem with people deciding they are vegan/vegitarian. However, I do have a huge problem with such people trying to convince the world that everyone else should follow suit. Take your offense at the naturalistic argument against homosexuality, for instance, to this extreme and I guess everyone should be gay. Again, the association does not fit.

 

[Cain]

No, I'm arguing for a social contract. Obviously the contract is not mutual in dictatorships, but rather enforced through violence. In democracy, you always have some proportional ability to influence society, both through voting and activism.

All laws are enforced through violence. Max Weber famously defines government as an institution with a monopoly on violence. Besides, a democracy does not equal truth. You're confusing just institutions with just laws.

Your line of reasoning seems to be leading to some sort of Objectivist or Libertarian stance. There's nothing wrong with that, strictly speaking, but those rely even more on just-so assertions on what's right and wrong (initiation of force, etc).

I'm guessing you mean some form of natural rights, in which case you're mistaken.

It would probably be TOLERATED when discussing gay rights... But no one would be very interested in discussing it, and it's not a very common stance there. If it were, it would pose a serious problem to those of us in favour of gay rights, and we ought to do our best to change the public mind.

Do you see how you have a pick-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps challenge here? If you regard a country some imaginary country as a democracy, or meeting the minimum requirements of some social contract, or whatever, then how would it replace laws prosecuting homosexuals with laws treating them as equals?

The apologists for the homosexual agenda will undoubtedly argue that gays and lesbians are being denied their rights, and the conservatives would simply point out that "you have the rights we say you have." Arguments for gay rights often critically hinge on the notion that sexual orientation is morally non-significant, but the hoi polloi merely needs to say that they consider it important.

This social contract nonsense is just more meta-ethical smoke and mirrors so as to weasel out of core arguments. It's always worth noting that this something that happens most often -- by far -- in threads regarding the exploitation of animals. If we were talking about the stoning of an apostate in a Muslim country, or forcing a woman to marry her rapist, then it would be a circle-jerk about the illiberal morons overseas.

 

[Complexity]

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.

I never entered into a 'societal contract'.

 

[Dessi]

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.

My modus operandi is rarely to change anyone's fundamental axioms, but to encourage people to aspire to live in a manner consistent with their own values, whatever they are. I believe people's ethics are already inclusive to animal rights by extension of their ethics concerning human rights.

 

[Manopolus]

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.

Eh? Yeah, I've used that argument before, as well.... though perhaps in a different way: "Cows don't go around granting rights to humans, so what makes you think we should reciprocate?"

I've been in this argument before, in other words.

I'm not sure where you think we disagree?

 

[Dessi]

Noted that you see no greater correlation of this topic to nature than issues of homosexuality and capitalism.

If you can't see the question of what we eat and how we treat animals as being more closely related to biology/nature, than I don't see how we can have any kind of rational discussion. The link you made between my own arguments and those others is nothing more than an attempt at guilt by association.

You're absolutely right its guilt by association. If you think appeals to nature are valid, then you legitimize arguments against homosexuality and every other use the fallacy. In no other context would the fallacy EVER be a credible argument for or against anything, especially not on a critical thinking message board.

Take your offense at the naturalistic argument against homosexuality, for instance, to this extreme and I guess everyone should be gay. Again, the association does not fit.

Ummmm... what?

 

[TubbaBlubba]

All laws are enforced through violence. Max Weber famously defines government as an institution with a monopoly on violence. Besides, a democracy does not equal truth. You're confusing just institutions with just laws.

Yes, but in a democracy, the majority will, by the definition of democracy, with the exception of some very fringe cases, have agreed to follow the rules of that society, either implicitly or explicitly. In a despotic country, it is often very easy for a minority to enforce their views onto the majority.

I'm guessing you mean some form of natural rights, in which case you're mistaken.

Okay, that's just what it sounded like to me.

}Do you see how you have a pick-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps challenge here? If you regard a country some imaginary country as a democracy, or meeting the minimum requirements of some social contract, or whatever, then how would it replace laws prosecuting homosexuals with laws treating them as equals?

I'm not sure what you are saying here. A country would replace laws by whatever juridical means they have, and there would also be a, usually much slower, change in the minds of people. Both are important, probably the latter moreso than the former, but it depends on the country.

The apologists for the homosexual agenda will undoubtedly argue that gays and lesbians are being denied their rights, and the conservatives would simply point out that "you have the rights we say you have." Arguments for gay rights often critically hinge on the notion that sexual orientation is morally non-significant, but the hoi polloi merely needs to say that they consider it important.

Yes, which is why you need to change the minds of people, and not just the written law.

If we were talking about the stoning of an apostate in a Muslim country, or forcing a woman to marry her rapist, then it would be a circle-jerk about the illiberal morons overseas.

Name a democracy where this occurs.

I never entered into a 'societal contract'.

You do, implicitly, every time you interact with people. Whenever you buy something, whenever you communicate, and so on, you adhere to both written and unwritten rules, probably without thinking of it.

Unless you live in no-man's-land, generate all of your power by yourself, and somehow have constructed all of the internet infrastructure you use without any help... But is that very likely?

My modus operandi is rarely to change anyone's fundamental axioms, but to encourage people to aspire to live in a manner consistent with their own values, whatever they are. I believe people's ethics are already inclusive to animal rights by extension of their ethics concerning human rights.

It depends on your exact definition of "animal rights". If it's "animals should have the same rights as humans" then... Well, no. We don't kill people for food. We do kill animals for food.

 

[Manopolus]

You're absolutely right its guilt by association. If you think appeals to nature are valid, then you legitimize arguments against homosexuality and every other use the fallacy. In no other context would the fallacy EVER be a credible argument for or against anything, especially not on a critical thinking message board.

If you insist on having a rational discussion, then stick to rational arguments without retreating to obvious fallacies.


Ummmm... what?

*sigh*

An "appeal to nature" is not a fallacy (and, perhaps not truly an "appeal to nature") when the question posed is directly associated with nature to begin with. I suppose my answer has more to do with practicality than idealism, but I think ethics should generally be practical. I don't think that destroying yourself for some ill advised ideal is generally all that admirable. That's exactly what we would be doing if we were to grant animals the same rights as humans outside of the modern technological context. I'm not sure it's even practical inside the modern technological context.

Oh, and please note: I only studied philosophy for like one semester (and that was in 1993)... I don't think that disqualifies me from having a reasonable opinion on the subject, however. Your crude and arrogant posturing is rather unwelcome.

 

[Complexity]

You do, implicitly, every time you interact with people.

Nonsense.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Nonsense.

And let me guess, you also get nothing in return from society.

 

[Complexity]

And let me guess, you also get nothing in return from society.

I have had more taken from me under threat of force by your society than I have benefitted from, however inadvertantly.

In addition, your society has injured me and interferred in my life.

I dislike the way that you are acting as an apologist for your beastly 'society'. I've been dealing with this issue for the past forty years and do not wish to relive tedious and unfruitful discussions. I do not plan on interacting with you on this subject in the future.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I dislike the way that you are acting as an apologist for your beastly 'society'. I've been dealing with this issue for the past forty years and do not wish to relive tedious and unfruitful discussions. I do not plan on interacting with you on this subject in the future.

That is your choice to make.

 

[Dessi]

An "appeal to nature" is not a fallacy (and, perhaps not truly an "appeal to nature") when the question posed is directly associated with nature to begin with.

Yes, it certainly can be fallacious when appeals to nature are associated to nature in the first place.

It took decades to for society to move past social darwinism. The prevailing wisdom in the 1870s viewed humans as essentially another animal (correct), that natural selection and survival of the fittest shapes human populations (correct), that survival of the fittest and competition are a natural state of affairs in nature (correct) and should be applied social policy (wtf?). People took survival of the fittest as not only descriptive, but prescriptive, and used it to justify laissez-faire capitalism. Later it became connected to scientific racism, eugenics, fascism. What went wrong? Well, I'd say the interpretation of survival of the fittest as a prescriptive rule to guide social policy for a start.

In just about any discussion on homosexuality, someone will eventually remark on whether homosexuality is found in nature, whether animals can be exclusively attracted to members of the same sex, or that might even say "even goats know that a peepee goes inside a weewee". The correct response here isn't "here are a list of species where homosexuality is obsereved", but instead, that there's no inherent connection between something being "unnatural" and "wrong". I've never seen any other animals build skyscrapers, but that's not a rational criticism of human behavior, is it? If not, then what difference does it make whether non-human animals are homosexual? At the same time, some animals like lions are quite content to kill members of their own species, does that mean I can do the same thing? If not, then what does it matter that some behaviors or natural or not, what does that have to do with being ethical?

If you're making an argument that humans evolved to be omnivores, you need to explain what connection that has to animal rights. Additionally, you need to be prepared to handle obvious counter-arguments, like the fact that humans have been killing other humans for at least as long as they've been omnivores, tribalism is as much a part of our "nature" as being an omnivore.

I don't think that destroying yourself for some ill advised ideal is generally all that admirable.

That's a very presumptuous thing to say. In what sense is supporting animal rights "destroying yourself" or ill advised?

Oh, and please note: I only studied philosophy for like one semester... I don't think that disqualifies me from having a reasonable opinion on the subject, however. Your crude and arrogant posturing is rather unwelcome.

My apologies. I don't mean to be a bitch. I'm very much interested in your opinion whether you're a first-semester philosophy student or a phd.

 

[slingblade]

Eh? Yeah, I've used that argument before, as well.... though perhaps in a different way: "Cows don't go around granting rights to humans, so what makes you think we should reciprocate?"

I've been in this argument before, in other words.

I'm not sure where you think we disagree?

I'm not saying we do disagree. All I meant was that I didn't get my answer--not necessarily from you.







Do we not know of any rights animals hold amongst themselves?
Is that the problem?

 

[Cain]

Yes, but in a democracy, the majority will, by the definition of democracy, with the exception of some very fringe cases, have agreed to follow the rules of that society, either implicitly or explicitly. In a despotic country, it is often very easy for a minority to enforce their views onto the majority... Name a democracy where this occurs.

This is not a well-considered answer. It's not difficult to imagine an Islamic country where stoning people for apostasy is popular. I recall surveys from Egypt and Pakistan where support was over 80%. What percentage of people in those countries are in favor of gay marriage?

You want to have a different discussion -- whether or not one should follow laws created by a just government. Socrates choosing to drink the hemlock. But that's not the sort of discussion here.

Yes, which is why you need to change the minds of people, and not just the written law.

No kidding. That's what's going on now -- changing peoples' minds.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

I'm not particularly interested in convincing people, though. I'm simply interested in what is actually right.

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?

First, whether or not my own actions are actually moral doesn't tell me anything about what is moral.
Second, to answer the question, for pretty much the same reason that I don't spend my time worrying about rape victims in Somalia.
Third, I'm not suggesting that morality requires a purely utilitarian framework, but rather that it requires some non-subjective starting point, otherwise its simply meaningless.

 

[Roboramma]

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

It's kind of a key issue.

I don't see it as such: imagine a group of children. One of them torments the others from a position of power. (maybe physical or social, whatever). In this playground society those being tormented are lacking in certain "rights", yet this tells us nothing about the way that the bully ought to behave. And while in this case it may be possible for adults to find out about and discourage that behavior, I don't see how our ability to do something about it or not changes whether or not the behavior is to be viewed as moral.

To put it simply: how they treat each other has nothing to do with how we should treat them. But my own thoughts on this subject are mostly geared toward wanting to "be a good person", ie. I'd like to make moral choises in my life. As such, I look at things from the perspective of "what should I do in this situation?". And from that perspective I don't really see why what others are doing has much bearing on that.

Similarly if I am leaving my apartment building a someone with a bicycle is leaving behind me I'll take time to hold the door for him. If I found out that he stole 500 RMB from his best friend last week I'll still hold the door, because I don't see what that has to do with me, unless I think that by failing to hold the door I can offer some sort of disincentive for future negative behavior on his part (or have some other net positive result).

Just as a real world example of my thought processes.

 

[Dessi]

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

It's kind of a key issue.

Its a red herring. Whether animals would develop ethical systems in isolation of humans has no connection to whether the principles regarding the ethical treatment to humans are logically inclusive to animals. See here:

Thus, I must again ask: what rights do non-human animals have, that haven't first been granted (or denied) by humans?

In case it isn't apparent, I am advocating that humans are appropriate for determining and upholding animal rights, as humans are the only ones who determine and uphold them, and always have been.

Fair enough. Humans are moral agent and can discover rules relevant to the ethical treatment of humans. Seems uncontroversial enough.

Of course, a more interesting question here is why those rules relevant to the ethical treatment of humans stop at the level of humans. Sure you can say that "humans make the rules", but that's not the end of the story: any given rule has some underlying moral principle. Not everyone agrees on the same set of principles, not everyone agrees that all principles are as good as others, not all principles are logically consistent.

If you've ever been involved in a discussion on homosexuality, you have discussions of this sort all the time. Some guy objecting to homosexuality might say its "unnatural", so his underlying moral principle is that unnatural things are morally wrong -- its easy enough to settle on a definition of "unnatural", such as being manmade or not found in nature, and show that the person accepts many unnatural things as perfectly acceptable, like skyscrapers (manmade), or show that the "unnatural" thing is found in nature, like homosexuality in many species of animals. If you can do that much, you've shown that the general principle underlying the objection to homosexuality is short-sighted, inconsistent, irrational, or just plain bad.

Now, I have discussions of this sort whenever I talk to people about animal rights. Initially, before jumping on the vegan train, I was very much against animal rights but did not like the arguments being used against it. In pretty much all cases, the arguments invoke some obvious fallacy or leave a hole open which logically excludes non-rational humans.

(Case in point: If you've been on this forum or the Internet Infidels forum long enough, you've seen fundies argue that evolution implies social darwinism, atheists shoot it down by saying "survival of the fittest is descriptive, not prescriptive"; in a discussion of animal rights, the very same atheists argue in favor of eating animals because, well, we're animals, survival of the fittest and all that jazz.)

You can see why that's problematic, right? Even if humans make the rules, the principles that they have are inclusive to non-human animals anyway. Arguments against animal rights have nasty consequences such as excluding a whole class of humans, justifying might makes right, legitimizing racism, resulting in consequences that almost everyone finds repugnant.

Animal rights and human rights aren't different things, they aren't even complimentary, they're the exact same thing. Animal rights are simply a logical extension of the moral and principles that everyone already accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.