Human and Animal rights...the same thing?

[Dessi]

Unfortunately, animal rights does affect people because it strongly suggests our appetites do not trump their lives.

You mean I can't kill people because I happen to enjoy their succulent, savory, mouthgasm-inducing flavors?

Well there goes my whole Thanksgiving...

 

[Robrob]

Well, to treat an animal poorly demonstrates a lack of ability to grant rights to others. Thus while the animal may not be able to reciprocate your kind treatment it is good practice and demonstrates your own right to be treated well to other humans.

Animal cruelty is a classic precursor to serial murder, etc...

Cats, dogs and several other "pet class" animals are special cases in my mind. We have breed into them an ability to understand a certain rudimentary set of obligations. Thus since they are capable of accepting greater amounts of responsibility they are due greater rights.

They are on "our team."

Thus the idea of torturing a cat or dog is far more heinous in our minds than the idea of torturing a chicken or even a cow.

There seems to be a pretty clear distinction between the "classic" pet animals and food animals. Other than the occasional "exotic" exception, food animals as pets is a pretty unusual.

 

[Dessi]

If you take 5 human beings, you, I, President Obama, David Cameron and a severely retarded individual, you have a group (humans) which contains two sub-groups. The first sub group is made up of the first four individuals, and we are the "rational humans", the later sub group, the retarded individual, is "non rational human". However, if you took 5 cows, or dogs, or sheep, they would all be non rational, because the group "cows" or "dogs" is iherently incapable of being rational.

Cows and dogs have no rights because they're inherently incapable of rationality. But severely retarded do have rights, no matter that they are inherently incapable of being rational. You don't even have to be an animal rights activist to see the glaring contradiction.

In other words, a severely retarded human, being a non rational individual, is a major aberration from the norm for the group "humans". Since the group "humans" is, barring very rare examples, "rational" all members of the group are treated the same as all other members of the group.

Your argument suggests that people inherit the attributes of their general population, not because they actually have that attribute, but because others do. Do you know what sort of implications that has?

- Just try stealing a car and arguing with the judge that, although you yourself did in fact commit a crime, the general population does not and is innocent of all crimes; being part of the population, you must have the same attribute, so you're as innocent as anyone else -- try it, let me know how it works out.

- What if you're wrongfully convicted of a crime and you're sitting in prison. Evidence comes up that exonerates you. Well, being a member of the prison population as you are, and seeing how on average prisoners really are guilty of the crimes they're accused of, you are in fact guilty regardless of evidence for your innocence. No going home early for you.

- Take a college philosophy course, failing the class, and arguing that you should be allowed to pass because, although you really did fail it, on average people pass, so you should get a passing grade too. Whether the professor laughs right there on the spot or on your way out the door is anyone's guess.

No, people don't actually inherit the attributes of their surrounding population. Controversial as it may sound, people have only the attributes that they actually have. Seems to me that, from your own example, a severely mentally retarded human or infant is no better or worse off non-rational humans.

I really have to agree with Cain on this one: the rationalization to fit humans who are "inherently incapable of rationality" into your framework requires some pretty heavy mental gymnastics. I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it. It seems you could do two things here, both of which fit nicely into your ethical system: you could deny that mentally retarded humans have rights which, or you could conclude that organisms inherently incapable of rationality do have rights for other reasons (maybe because they can suffer, and that much alone is worth considering). You may find the first option unappealing because its obviously repugnant, and the second option unappealing because its inclusive to animal rights. Pick your poison.

 

[Complexity]

Individuals can't enforce rights and if the rights can't be enforced then you don't have them.

Individuals can choose to participate or not in the societies which confer the rights, individuals can choose to treat other individuals in accordance to a different set of rights if they wish - but where it conflicts with society they will typically end up suffering for it.

If you don't believe me, try retracting your neighbour's property rights over his car or other possessions.

As for animals, there is no benefit to affording animal's rights (other than some self satisfaction for those who get that from affording animals rights) and that's why they generally don't have many of them.

Nonsense.

What you are referring to is mere thuggery.

(I really wanted to say 'flummery', but the Nero Wolfe reference might be lost on some)

 

[MarkCorrigan]

That is probably the single worst analogy I've ever seen in the past 8 years I've been in this debate. Really, think about it: people inherit the attributes of their general population, not because they actually have that attribute, but because others do. Do you know what sort of implications that has?

Just try stealing a car and arguing with the judge that, although you yourself did in fact commit a crime, the general population does not and is innocent of all crimes; being part of the population, you must have the same attribute, so you're as innocent as anyone else -- try it, let me know how it works out.

What if you're wrongfully convicted of a crime and you're sitting in prison. Evidence comes up that exonerates you. Well, being a member of the prison population as you are, and seeing how on average prisoners really are guilty of the crimes they're accused of, you are in fact guilty regardless of evidence for your innocence. No going home early for you.

Take a college philosophy course, failing the class, and arguing that you should be allowed to pass because, although you really did fail it, on average people pass, so you should get a passing grade too.

No, people don't actually inherit the attributes of their surrounding population, they have only the attributes that they actually have.

First of all, behaviour =/= intellectual/rational/moral capacity of a species.

I like that you insult my analogy then fire back with analogies that are far far worse than mine could possibly have been.

In my analogy the five individuals have an umbrella which defines our potential intellectual, rational and sensational capacities, which is that of our species. This categorically does not include behaviour. Whilst the retarded person does not meet the highest points of these criteria, they are a member of a group (species) that can potentially do this. On the other hand, stealing a car, being wrongfully convicted of a crime or failing a philosophy course are actions or behaviours. These are not covered because they require the individual to actually do something. They aren't innate.

Perhaps I am explaining myself badly. I haven't claimed, nor will I ever claim, that one person inherits the attributes of their species. What I am saying is that since humans as a species have the capacity to be "rational" the group "humans" is on the whole a rational group. That an individual cannot or does not think is not excuse for their behaviour, nor does my argument make it so unless you take it on a ridiculous slippery slope.

I am a member of a species which, assuming there is no severe incident which results in brain damage or genetic issues, would produce a being far more capable than the most intelligent dog ever could be. That, in my mind, puts me in a species group considerably "higher" on the rational scale than the dog species.


Maybe it's because I'm tired, sick, and I struggle to express myself properly anyway, but put in it's most simple form my point is that a generic human being has the capacity to be a rational being, an intellectual being and a moral being. A dog does not. Whilst not all humans will or can become great thinkers or leaders, no dogs can. It is not that I attribute the highest potential or even the average to any member of a species as you seem to suggest with your frankly insulting attempts at counter-analogies that totally missed my point, but that as a species humans are capable of granting rights, whereas dogs cannot. You don't have to be a brilliant human to grant rights and responsibilities. Not even the most intelligent and able dog can do so, nor would they understand the concepts.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

No, people don't actually inherit the attributes of their surrounding population. Controversial as it may sound, people have only the attributes that they actually have. Seems to me that, from your own example, a severely mentally retarded human or infant is no better or worse off non-rational humans.

I really have to agree with Cain on this one: the rationalization to fit humans who are "inherently incapable" of rationality into your framework requires some pretty heavy mental gymnastics. I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't buy it. It seems you could do two things here, both of which fit nicely into your ethical system: you could deny that mentally retarded humans have rights which, or you could conclude that organisms inherently incapable of rationality do have rights for other reasons (maybe cause they can suffer, and that much alone is worth considering). You may find the first option unappealing because its obviously repugnant, and the second option unappealing because its inclusive to animal rights. Pick your poison.

Addressing this last point again and also your edit.

I find it amazing that you think that my system both requires mental gymnastics to operate or that it could result in the stripping of rights from a mentally retarded person.

In terms of right to life and associated rights, in my framework all humans have the same rights to life, freedom from abuse and freedom from torture etc.

All humans are classed as being equal in my framework. Humans as a set are the most intelligent, rational and able species on the planet. Because we are the only species sufficiently able cognitively to grant rights, we should apply them across the board within our species. As repugnant as the idea of different species having different levels of rights might seem to you, I assure you that when it comes to the rights to life and freedom from abuses, I believe that across each level, the rights should be applied equally. I see no reason why a particularly stupid dog should be given any less of a right to life than a particularly intelligent one, but at the same time, I don't see a problem with an animal on the "level" of the dog being eaten.

Yes, I did just say I have no problems eating dog. I have not done so, and have no pressing desire to go and try some, but I might do if I were given the option.

In terms of the idea of animal rights being "poison", figure of speech or not to me, I assure you that I am a supporter of animal rights. I believe that cruelty to animals is a serious offence and should be punished far more severely than it is now, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that humans as a species are in many ways intellectually and ethically superior to other animals.

Again, I think that as a species humans are higher up than cows, even if you conclude that a seriously low functioning human is on the same level as a cow. Call it naturalistic, call it tribalistic, call it whatever you want, but do not assume or imply that I think all human behaviours are the same.

I was hoping for a spirited but open and friendly discussion with you, because despite what you may think of me, I have a lot of respect for you as a poster and I have a lot of respect for your opinions, even those I disagree with. I am more than willing to change my opinions on nigh on every topic, and you can rest assured that even though I eat meat, I do my best to see that what I purchase and consume is ethically reared. However, I have been somewhat disappointed with what I perceive as a hostile and condescending tone in your reply to me. Even if you disagree with my opinions, and even if I was saying what you think I was, I do not feel the attitude that I read was necessary. If I have misconstrued your attitudes, implications or meanings, or have been uncivil, aggressive, condescending or hostile to you I apologise, as I do not mean to be.

 

[Earthborn]

I seem to remember an interesting blurb on a species of burrowing wasp in a book by Richard Dawkins.

I think you are referring to the way Ammophila Pubescens cares for its young, which is something Dawkins wrote about.

Its like moving the dial back on a clothes washer, the machine doesn't care that its washed the same clothes, it just goes through cycle all over again.

It is not so different from behaviours by other "higher" animals, because its behaviour is much more complex and not so rigid and mechanical as you seem to think it is, and "higher" animals also display such behaviour cycles they don't easily deviate from.

Regarding whether insects feel pain, they certainly don't behave as if they do.

That's not very good evidence, since most animals try to hide their pain as much as they can. Clearly showing that one is sick or injured is often a good way of getting eaten, which is why animals (including humans) are often reluctant to do so.

 

[Cain]

First of all, behaviour =/= intellectual/rational/moral capacity of a species.

But it's a terrible argument. For example, the anti same-sex marriage crowd claims that marriage is about family, children. Putting aside whether or not that's true, their opponents predictably ask if sterile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry. Are you saying that the forces of darkness have a credible counter-counter argument if they instructed us to consider five straight couples, all but one capable of reproduction? So the reasoning goes that since MOST straight couples can procreate -- an important, if not driving natural biological function blah blah blah -- we can tolerate marginal cases of straight couples who are incapable of breeding. However, when it comes to homosexual couples, no matter where or how hard you look, you will NEVER find one capable of creating their own offspring. Even Mary needed God-the-Father.

White privilege and male privilege are bad, but human privilege is somehow acceptable.

Because we are the only species sufficiently able cognitively to grant rights, we should apply them across the board within our species.

Non sequitur.

I see no reason why a particularly stupid dog should be given any less of a right to life than a particularly intelligent one

I don't either. Golden retrievers are still not even close to moral agency. However, I think people who live with three sigma golden retrievers and senile pugs, will tolerate certain behaviors in the latter whereas the former would get scolded "bad dog."

I believe that cruelty to animals is a serious offence and should be punished far more severely than it is now, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that humans as a species are in many ways intellectually and ethically superior to other animals.

Agreed on intellectual superiority. Ethical superiority is an apples to NAMBLA comparison because animals are not really moral agents.

Again, I think that as a species humans are higher up than cows, even if you conclude that a seriously low functioning human is on the same level as a cow.

"Higher up"? In biological terms, ants are probably more successful than humans, and will be around long after we're gone.

 

[Dessi]

Because we are the only species sufficiently able cognitively to grant rights, we should apply them across the board within our species.

Or you could say:

1) Because only a subset of our species are sufficiently able to cognitively grant rights, those rights apply only to the members who really do have that sufficient cognitive ability.

2) Because vertebrates are the only class of organisms sufficiently able to cognitively grant rights, those rights apply across the board within all vertebrates.

Both arguments are equally non-sequitor, both are the same argument with the same level of justification. I can understand why you'd reject widening the classification to vertebrates, but its not clear why you'd reject narrowing the classification to humans with a certain mental level -- namely because we really are interested in cognition when we classify people for rights.

Nothing justifies the transition between cognition and species membership, except that its just very convenient, it avoids reducing a whole class of mentally impaired humans to animals. If its acceptable to make non-sequitor transitions because they're convenient, well then the second argument (widening to vertebrates) suddenly becomes many times more appealing.

Ack. Three ways of grouping people together, none of them more preferable than others.

Its also not clear why potential capacities have any relevance whatsoever. As in, why would an infant be in the class of humans who are cognitively able to grant rights? Because they are inherently capable of doing so? They certainly are not. Could they do so if we waited long enough? Well sure -- do they have certain rights because they're potential rational persons then?

In terms of the idea of animal rights being "poison", figure of speech or not to me, I assure you that I am a supporter of animal rights. I believe that cruelty to animals is a serious offence and should be punished far more severely than it is now, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that humans as a species are in many ways intellectually and ethically superior to other animals.

They very well may be. The problem is the connection between being "ethically superior" and slaughtering animals for food. You obviously agree that dogs should be spared obvious cruelty, even when inflicted by the obviously superior humans, so perhaps superiority isn't a free license to be cruel to inferior animals even if we enjoy doing so, especially when such cruelty can be easily avoided. Ok, well then how do we fit slaughtering animals into this systems? The cruelty caused to them in the process is easily avoidable, the benefit we get at their expense is a few nice flavors -- seems like a hideous trade off.

If you're against unnecessary animal cruelty, you should be automatically against using them for food. How could you rationalize doing anything else?

I was hoping for a spirited but open and friendly discussion with you, because despite what you may think of me, I have a lot of respect for you as a poster and I have a lot of respect for your opinions, even those I disagree with. I am more than willing to change my opinions on nigh on every topic, and you can rest assured that even though I eat meat, I do my best to see that what I purchase and consume is ethically reared. However, I have been somewhat disappointed with what I perceive as a hostile and condescending tone in your reply to me. Even if you disagree with my opinions, and even if I was saying what you think I was, I do not feel the attitude that I read was necessary. If I have misconstrued your attitudes, implications or meanings, or have been uncivil, aggressive, condescending or hostile to you I apologise, as I do not mean to be.

Animal rights is a very hot button issue for me and I'm already kind of an egomaniacal bitch. My apologies for being rude.

 

[Complexity]

This type of discussion can drive me to distraction.

It seldom accomplishes anything and seems so unnecessary.

Given that I think that 'rights' are imagined rather than real and only have meaning within the context of an individual, I'll skip over the 'rights' issue and get to the meat of the matter.

I want to be the kind of person who respects all life deeply and would rather do harm to myself than to another. I don't want to distinguish between how I would treat people and the other animals, but if I did, I would probably treat most of the other animals better than I would treat most of the people.

It isn't simply animals, of course - I'd rather be around a tree, flower, body of water, or mountain that most of the people I've encountered.

As to what I eat, I'm oscillating between some form of vegetarianism and the position described in Alan Watt's essay, "Murder in the Kitchen". Sentence from the latter:

“The very least I can do for a creature that has died for me is to honor it, not with an empty ritual, but by cooking it to perfection and relishing it to the full.”

I don't need to explain or justify my aspirations or behavior.

I'm far from the person I want to be, but the journey is all.

(just to demonstrate how far from that person I am, I am well aware that my position is very philosophic-buddhisty and enjoy the fact that this would drive yrreg crazy)

 

[PhantomWolf]

Seems to me that there is a confusion in some as to morality and rights.

Rights are socital constructs. Without some form of society, there are no rights. Animals do not have a social construct capable of demanding and creating rights for the individual members and until they do, then they have no rights.

That doesn't mean that humans should do whatever they please to animals, morally we are still obiged to treat them well and to avoid inflicting pain onto them wherever possible. However these are two entirely different things.

There is good reason for this. Let's say that we give chimps the right to life. Now if one chimp kills another, the first chimp has violated the second's right, and so would require punishment equivalent to if a human had done it. This obviously would lead to the stupidity of prosecution of animals for doing things that for them are a natural part of life. It makes no sense.

 

[Dessi]

That doesn't mean that humans should do whatever they please to animals, morally we are still obiged to treat them well and to avoid inflicting pain onto them wherever possible. However these are two entirely different things.

There is good reason for this. Let's say that we give chimps the right to life. Now if one chimp kills another, the first chimp has violated the second's right, and so would require punishment equivalent to if a human had done it. This obviously would lead to the stupidity of prosecution of animals for doing things that for them are a natural part of life. It makes no sense.

There's a good reason why infants and children don't have a right to life, because if one of them did something to harm another or something socially unacceptable like taking their clothes off in public, we'd obviously have to prosecute them for doing things which are a normal part of their life. Makes no sense.

 

[Resume]

I just went off the healthy wagon and had a double cheeseburger. I guess I'm out.

 

[Complexity]

Seems to me that there is a confusion in some as to morality and rights.

Rights are socital constructs. Without some form of society, there are no rights.

I differ from you in that I don't recognize society as a granter of rights. I reserve that for individual. I never ceded that to society.

I don't look to society (i.e. any plurality or majority) for any guidance on morality, I don't seek a foundation for my moral system, and I don't need permission for my existence, my thoughts, or my actions.

 

[slingblade]

There's a good reason why infants and children don't have a right to life, because if one of them did something to harm another or something socially unacceptable like taking their clothes off in public, we'd obviously have to prosecute them for doing things which are a normal part of their life. Makes no sense.

Until you realize that children grow out of that stage and can actually be taught to think critically, whereas the chimp never will and never can be.

 

[Kay]

I differ from you in that I don't recognize society as a granter of rights. I reserve that for individual. I never ceded that to society.

I don't look to society (i.e. any plurality or majority) for any guidance on morality, I don't seek a foundation for my moral system, and I don't need permission for my existence, my thoughts, or my actions.

And what happens when the moralities which society ( ie. the government) follows and yours collide? Society wins.

It's the social contract, Civics 101. You have, in fact, conceded certain rights to society, and this cannot be disputed. Society, or government through their process determine what rights you do or do not have, and works to maintain the ones you have.

A black man in the South in 1850 may in fact believe that he has the right not to be a slave. That doesn't matter. Until society determines otherwise, he's still a slave, and there is still a right to own slaves.

 

[PhantomWolf]

There's a good reason why infants and children don't have a right to life, because if one of them did something to harm another or something socially unacceptable like taking their clothes off in public, we'd obviously have to prosecute them for doing things which are a normal part of their life. Makes no sense.

Except that children and infants are part of human society and when something is a right, it is for all human society, not just part of it. Chimps and other animals are not part of human society and as such do not fall under the same umberella.

I'd also note that should a child seriously injure or kill, they certainly will be prosecuted, and have been. Infants are extremely unlikely to do serious harm to anyone else deliberately as they lack the strength and coordination to do it. Taking clothes off isn't a very serious offense, if an offence at all in some places, even for adults.

Your arguement is full of straw.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I differ from you in that I don't recognize society as a granter of rights. I reserve that for individual. I never ceded that to society.

Except that if you live in a society, you do. Society determines what you have the right to do, and what you don't have the right to do. Rights can not be determined and protected by an individual because rights occur only when we interact with others and mutually determine where the lines on acceptable behaviour and action are. It then requires society to enforce and protect those rights, or they are worthless.

I don't look to society (i.e. any plurality or majority) for any guidance on morality, I don't seek a foundation for my moral system

You are confusing rights and morals, they are not the same thing. Rights are the ability to take an action without fear of retrubution. Morals are doing things that bring about good for others. There are rights that quite immoral, but are still a right.

and I don't need permission for my existence, my thoughts, or my actions.

Now you are confusing the ability to exercise your rights for the rights themselves. The entire thing about a right is that you need no permission to exercise it and get no retribution for doing so. The reason for this is that society has already determined that every individual in that society can freely do those things.

 

[Complexity]

And what happens when the moralities which society ( ie. the government) follows and yours collide? Society wins.

It's the social contract, Civics 101. You have, in fact, conceded certain rights to society, and this cannot be disputed. Society, or government through their process determine what rights you do or do not have, and works to maintain the ones you have.

A black man in the South in 1850 may in fact believe that he has the right not to be a slave. That doesn't matter. Until society determines otherwise, he's still a slave, and there is still a right to own slaves.

Nonsense.

I never ceded anything.

I do not subscribe to a social contract.

I do my best to keep apart from your society and to conduct my life as I please away from its prying eyes.

When it comes to conflict, your society will undoubtedly win (in its opinion).

I do what I can to undermind those aspects of your society, so it may do less harm in the future.

Makes me want to watch Fahrenheit 451 again.

 

[AlBell]

Are we saying rights and morals are the same things? I'm not sure but in any case your example doesn't quite work for me because regardless of whether my friend knows I robbed them or not, they would know they had been robbed. And if robbing people when they don't know anything about it becomes commonplace then I'm going to get robbed when I don't know anything about it.

I don't want to live in a society where it's ok to rob me if i don't see you do it. So I don't rob people. And society reciprocates more or less.

Good luck getting goat or fox society to reciprocate.

Especially if you live in a rural area and have birdfeeders out and/or feed an outdoor cat(s).