I love liberty!
I don't know if it was much of a clarification, but it gives me something to think about on those long days in the deer stand.
I've been a hunter for close to 40 years, the last 20+ years with the Mrs.
It is a blessing to enjoy the fruits of our labor in the field, and an alternative to regulated markets, (even though hunting is highly regulated.)
We've had a number of great hunting experiences over the years, and the hunt itself is just a small part of those experiences. Meeting others along the way and seeing and experiencing new things are a much larger part of it.
A couple of the hunts have been on game 'farms', for which we have been criticized by other hunters. Much of the controversy is over the 'fair chase' issue. This has often given me an opportunity to introduce other hunters to libertarian/Austrian concepts - especially subjective value, private v. public property, and the arbitrary nature of statute law. For 'canned' hunts or hunts on fenced preserved the issue is simple - if you don't think the hunt was 'fair', then don't shoot!
I have no problem with people who choose to assign rights to animals. They are free to protect animals. I think maybe many of them fail to recognize that hunters value life and animals as much as they do - maybe moreso. Hunters generally expend a lifetime of resources nurturing habitat and benefitting wildlife. The use of wildlife as a resource is only a small part of a lifetime committment.
I have searched for and am interested in sound arguments for animal rights. I just don't see it. Any enlightenment is welcome. That's one of the reasons I like to read the discussions here at the LVMI forums.
Sometimes I try to contribute but I am not formally trained. Just an avid 'studier" - never had much luck with 'teachers' trying to teach me anything. That seems to be a fairly common trait around here.
Mornin' spidey - I enjoy reading your contributions.
I don't want to start a whole new discussion on the thread about animal rights, so I wanted to address your question to you instead. You asked: Are animals potentially human?
My question for you is, how is that question relevant? Human eggs and sperm are potentially human, so does that mean human eggs and sperm have rights? And how is being human relevant to having rights? Would you agree that an alien species that is just as smart as humans could have rights as well? If so, then isn't it the intelligence that is relevant, and not the species?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think we both agree that intelligence, that is, rational thought, is the issue.
The only reason I commented about animals being potentially human is because of evolution.
If it were possible for man to evolve reason, what prevents other animals from also evolving reason.?
As you say, 'it is the intelligence that is important, not the species'.
My contention is that because of evolution, man was at one time an animal that was potentially human = the egg and sperm of the human animal had the genetic potential on an evolutionary scale to be the rational human.
On the rationally human scale, is it not possible for egg and sperm to be carrying the genetic potential for a higher level (or possibly lower level) of intelligence on the evolutionary scale? If that is true, then are not other animals also potentially rational? (and humans potential animals?)
I have brought this up before in the theoretical context of evolved reason vs. created or 'gifted' reason.
It is relevant because it demonstrates that ultimate ends influence reason and therefore influence what is both coneived and believed about reality. The origin of reason is relevant.