Another animal rights topic

[Tmy]

I'm not sure if this is a serious comment from you or what but, assuming that it is, do you agree that animals should have protections as you describe them?

If so, why do you think they are entitled to these protections?

On what basis do you limit those protections (so that they don't include protection from being eaten, for instance)?

Graham

Hmmm this is tough. Where do you draw the line. I say that good looking animals be given protections. That way we can protect the cute bunnies and puppies, but at the same time we can poison rats and tear up the throats of fish.

 

[BillyTK]

OK, now I understand what you're saying I just don't full understand the why of it.

Why distinguish between rights and protections - what is the purpose of this distinction?

Do "protections" automatically involve a lesser degree of obligation than rights (ie if a person is a moral patient rather than a moral agent, are they entitled to less consideration)?

Or are the privilages imparted by rights and protections are the same and it's only the subject that's different?

Graham

Some more examples; I, as a moral actor, am able to foresee the consequences of my actions, because I understand the difference between right and wrong. So if I steal something, I know that I'm depriving someone else of that item, which in this instance is wrong, and I know that I can be held accountable for my actions on the basis that I know the act I'm committing is wrong. On the other hand, when my cat Jasper walked in carrying a joint of pork, there was no point in doing anything (other than cutting the joint up and getting the cats to dispose of the evidence) because he couldn't understand the consequences of his actions for others, and he couldn't understand the distinction between right and wrong; which is why he falls under the category of moral patient.

Here's another example; I can consent to work because I can weigh the potential disadvantages of the job against the potential rewards of doing that job, but in law we recognise that a child can't—she might not appreciate that regardless of how many lollipops she gets, cleaning out a nuclear reactor has implications for her health, as an extreme example—which is why (well, part of the reason) we have legal restraints on the hours and conditions of children's employment.

So a moral patient is someone who is unable to manage their rights, and therefore needs to have someone who is morally capable to manage their rights for them (this is the point of making such a distinction). A moral patient deserves no less consideration than a moral actor, and maybe even more so, because of the complexities of appointing someone as a guardian for that person; for instance, to ensure that the appointed guardian is actually acting in the best interests of their ward, and not using their ward to further their own interests.

 

[Graham]

Some more examples; I, as a moral actor, am able to foresee the consequences of my actions, because I understand the difference between right and wrong. So if I steal something, I know that I'm depriving someone else of that item, which in this instance is wrong, and I know that I can be held accountable for my actions on the basis that I know the act I'm committing is wrong. On the other hand, when my cat Jasper walked in carrying a joint of pork, there was no point in doing anything (other than cutting the joint up and getting the cats to dispose of the evidence) because he couldn't understand the consequences of his actions for others, and he couldn't understand the distinction between right and wrong; which is why he falls under the category of moral patient.

Here's another example; I can consent to work because I can weigh the potential disadvantages of the job against the potential rewards of doing that job, but in law we recognise that a child can't—she might not appreciate that regardless of how many lollipops she gets, cleaning out a nuclear reactor has implications for her health, as an extreme example—which is why (well, part of the reason) we have legal restraints on the hours and conditions of children's employment.

So a moral patient is someone who is unable to manage their rights, and therefore needs to have someone who is morally capable to manage their rights for them (this is the point of making such a distinction). A moral patient deserves no less consideration than a moral actor, and maybe even more so, because of the complexities of appointing someone as a guardian for that person; for instance, to ensure that the appointed guardian is actually acting in the best interests of their ward, and not using their ward to further their own interests.

So the difference is in how their rights are are respected and who is responsible for seeing that they are respected?

Returning to you and your cats then, your cats have the same rights as you but it's up to you to see that your rights are respected (as the moral actor concerned) but also up to you to see that their rights are respected (since they are only moral patients)?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't see that this says anything about the rights that should be allowed to animals, ie whether they should be equivalent to or less than those allowed to humans.

Graham

 

[BillyTK]

So the difference is in how their rights are are respected and who is responsible for seeing that they are respected?

Returning to you and your cats then, your cats have the same rights as you but it's up to you to see that your rights are respected (as the moral actor concerned) but also up to you to see that their rights are respected (since they are only moral patients)?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, I don't see that this says anything about the rights that should be allowed to animals, ie whether they should be equivalent to or less than those allowed to humans.

Graham

You're quite right in that this doesn't say anything about what rights/protections should be granted to animals, as the main purpose was to broadly illustrate the difference between moral actors and patients, and rights and protections. This doesn't mean that all people and animals who have rights should have the same rights—it might be a fun pun to arm bears, but it would be pointless to do so—although we can sketch a broad set of rights which would apply to everyone/thing to do with general welfare; avoiding causing harm to others as much as is reasonably possible (I'm adding the caution "reasonably possible" to note that some harm maybe necessary to prevent a greater harm; for instance my cats protest loudly when put into their cat carriers and taken to the vets, but the benefits of such a visit far outweighs any harm they suffer from the visit).

 

[varwoche]

My cats are definitely Libertarians; no doubts about it!

I hear there are a lot of mice in Grafton.

 

[BillyTK]

I hear there are a lot of mice in Grafton.

Libertarian mice, or communist ones?

 

[Flame]

What gives me the right to decide whether or not the wasp that has been terrorising me (IMO) should live?
What makes it ok for me to decide that the little flipper should be trapped under glass and die?
From what I can see, I don't have the right.
I'm bigger than him, so I can squash him - End of story.

What I'm trying to understand is whether I feel comfortable with doing just that - Squashing him because he's annoying me and I'm bigger than him.
I don't think I do feel comfortable with that.

I think I have a respect for life itself.
Not for any reason that I can articulate, I just value it. I just do.

The only time that I feel the need to compare the value of life is when it comes to my kin/friends. I will protect the happiness and health of my own above others.


Toni

 

[DanishDynamite]

My take on the matter: fundamental principle (kind of tautological I admit); we should/have rights because we can conceive of those rights (this commits the fallacy of stating the bloody obvious, in that if we couldn't conceive of rights, we wouldn't be having this conversation). Next, we can/should have rights not simply because of the Golden Rule of "Do unto others..." (colleagues may wish to consider the consequences of how literally a masochist might choose to interpret that rule), but in terms of the self-interest which benefits from mutual dependence; no (person) is an island and all that.

My cats don't have rights (not being cognitively capable enough to manage such rights) but have protections which I am obliged to respect as a result of the duty of care I undertook when I agreed to look after them. This status prevents me from intentionally causing harm to other cats in the neighbourhood, other than the minimum necessary to protect my cats and my property (and occasionally to ensure the safety of these other cats).

Slugs which eat my plants get no such protections.

Great topic by the way

I'm curious why you allocate any importance to whether or not those accorded certain rights are able to understand that they have these rights? Does a brain damaged human forfeit any human rights he doesn't understand?

 

[Graham]

I'm curious why you allocate any importance to whether or not those accorded certain rights are able to understand that they have these rights? Does a brain damaged human forfeit any human rights he doesn't understand?

Bump - I don't understand this either.

Graham

 

[zenith-nadir]

I'm curious why you allocate any importance to whether or not those accorded certain rights are able to understand that they have these rights? Does a brain damaged human forfeit any human rights he doesn't understand?

Originally posted by Graham
I don't understand this either.

An animal is not a brain-damaged human. A brain-damaged human is can be represented by another human in a court of law. Can you see a dog or a cat sitting at the plantiffs bench with it's lawyer barking advice to his client? Since we cannot speak dog, (except for the folks at Bowlingual, ), I fear the dog could not be defended fairly. As far as I know Koko the gorilla is the only functioning communicator from the animal kingdom but I don't think even she could understand her legal rights should she be given any.

Animals should have "protections" under the law, but not rights. Or are animals gonna start suing humans for contraventions of their rights?...which ironically they cannot conceptualize anyway...

 

[Kerberos]

My cats are definitely Libertarians; no doubts about it!

Are they, In my experience cats seem to have trouble, with the part, about not having any right to make others pay for their food.

 

[Graham]

An animal is not a brain-damaged human. A brain-damaged human is can be represented by another human in a court of law. Can you see a dog or a cat sitting at the plantiffs bench with it's lawyer barking advice to his client? Since we cannot speak dog, (except for the folks at Bowlingual, ), I fear the dog could not be defended fairly. As far as I know Koko the gorilla is the only functioning communicator from the animal kingdom but I don't think even she could understand her legal rights should she be given any.

Animals should have "protections" under the law, but not rights. Or are animals gonna start suing humans for contraventions of their rights?...which ironically they cannot conceptualize anyway...

If the brain-damaged human can't understand what's going on and doesn't know that he has rights, how is he any different fromt he animal?

How can we know what he wants or doesn't want any better than we know what the animal wants?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Tmy, if you think animals are entitled to protections under the law, why do you think so and on what basis do you limit them?

Graham

 

[Graham]

A passage I came across reading up on this topic:

The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor. It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?

Benthem, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, ch. XVII.

 

[BillyTK]

I'm curious why you allocate any importance to whether or not those accorded certain rights are able to understand that they have these rights?

I use cognitive criteria as an example because it gives a more material basis to argue for who/what can have rights and protections than the premise of self-evident truths which is somehow inextricably, but untestably bound up with being human. I find the latter unsatisfactory because from that basis, the principles regarding the status and treatment of women and gays presented by Christianity and Islam are no less true than the those stated in the US Declaration of Independence. We should find the principles of the US Declaration infinitely preferable to the ones found in the Bible or the Khoran, but that doesn't constitute a moral argument as to why it's better.

Does a brain damaged human forfeit any human rights he doesn't understand?

No, he doesn't forfeit any right he doesn't understand, but he will require someone to act as an advocate for those rights on his behalf, which is why I'd use the distinction of moral patient (as opposed to moral actor) in this instance, who has protections rather than rights (I've explained these distinctions previously in this thread). One of the principles I've described is that integral to rights is the idea of the sgnificance of consent in the management of those rights. For instance, if I go to the dentist or into hospital I give my consent—sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly—to suspend my right not to be harmed so that the dentist or surgeon can treat me. I can equally refuse to give my consent and not receive treatment, and understand that the consequence of my actions—in this instance the pain I will continue to suffer because of lack of treatment, and the possibility of incapacitation and even death—will be my responsibility. But what if we're dealing with someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand the consequences of neither having treatment or not having treatment? Can it be said that they can give or withold their consent in any meaningful way?

Another example; it's recognised in law that children are not (yet) fully constituted moral beings, because they're unable to fully understand or appreciate the consequences of their actions, and so are unable to give or withold consent. This, of course, is not to say that from a developmental point of view that there's a set age when they suddenly are fully capable of appreciating the consequences of their actions; I remember a case of a teenager who refused treatment for a life-threatening condition on the basis that the treatment was painful and had no guarentee of success anyway; in the end a number of tests were used to assess his capacity to withold consent for treatment, and in this instance it was agreed he had that capacity and his right was upheld... but I digress. Let's imagine a 6-year old child, who has protections rather than rights. Let's now imagine an adult who has the cognitive and emotional development of a 6-year old; is that adult's autonomy (by which I mean to say, their ability to give consent) any lesser or greater than the 6-year old child? Let's now imagine an ape, lviving in a zoo, and the ape has been demonstrated to also have the capacities of a 6-year old child. What are the significant moral distinctions between the three? Would it be any less cruel to keep the child or adult in a zoo than it would be to keep the ape there, for instance?

 

[BillyTK]

Are they, In my experience cats seem to have trouble, with the part, about not having any right to make others pay for their food.

But my cats don't force me to pay for their food at gun point ; they're quiet happy with the arrangement that I do this voluntarily.

 

[Kerberos]

But my cats don't force me to pay for their food at gun point ; they're quiet happy with the arrangement that I do this voluntarily.

I'm sure they are, but try not feeding them volountarilly and see what happens.

Edited to add: And they might not like the part about non-initiation of violence either, at least not if it applies to mice. DD

 

[BillyTK]

I'm sure they are, but try not feeding them volountarilly and see what happens.

Edited to add: And they might not like the part about non-initiation of violence either, at least not if it applies to mice. DD

Even if I stop feeding them, they still won't come after me with guns. And the mice initiated force in the first place by coming into my house uninvited, stealing my food and pooing and weeing in places that they shouldn't do

 

[Kerberos]

Even if I stop feeding them, they still won't come after me with guns. And the mice initiated force in the first place by coming into my house uninvited, stealing my food and pooing and weeing in places that they shouldn't do

No but they might scratch you or your furniture, and in my experience cats have no problems initiating force against mice outside of the house/garden and even with doing so on other people property *gasp*, so I mantain my position that cats are very selective libertarians. So there!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Rights only exist as our ability to percieve them..

Having perceived them, we attain them based on our power to take them, or the good will of those in power to grant them.

Our ability to determine if non-humans have the ability to perceive rights asside, non-humans must attain them ( rights ) in the same manner that humans do.

 

[Graham]

. . . non-humans must attain them ( rights ) in the same manner that humans do.

Through the good will of those in power to grant them?