This question is directed towards those who say that all animals have rights, but anyone is welcome to respond.
If all animals have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all eukaryota have rights? Why can't fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata have rights?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
My question to those who believe in animal rights is: Since animals have rights, will you put lions on trial for murder?
Political Atheists Blog
Daniel:If all animals have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all eukaryota have rights? Why can't fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata have rights?
Because humans have characteristics that other animals do not such as free will, the ability to communicate, and to troll internet forums.
It depends on what each person's reasons are for assigning animals rights (or for enforcing/exercising inherent rights).For instance, if Person A assigns all animals rights because seeing any animal needlessly harmed affects Person A's sense of empathy, then it's perfectly logical for that person to exclude fungi if Person A does not feel empathy for fungi when they are needlessly harmed.A right implies a raison d'être. Every person who adopts a right must have a reason why they find that right appealing. They must have reasons why they feel that right is worth enforcing.If their reasons center on their sense of empathy, which I assume is true of most animal rights advocates, then your question is more relevantly (for them) stated as,
"If you feel empathy for all animals, why stop there? Why not feel empathy for all eukaryota? Why don't you feel empathy for fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata?"
Why anarchy fails
Torsten: Daniel:If all animals have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all eukaryota have rights? Why can't fungi, amoebozoa, plantae, chromalveolata, rhizaria, and excavata have rights? How is this one for an equivalent argument: "If all humans have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all animals have rights? "
Torsten:How is this one for an equivalent argument: "If all humans have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all animals have rights? "
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
AJ:A right implies a raison d'être. Every person who adopts a right must have a reason why they find that right appealing. They must have reasons why they feel that right is worth enforcing.
krazy kaju: My question to those who believe in animal rights is: Since animals have rights, will you put lions on trial for murder?
Depends on the reason why the person wishes to enforce animal rights. If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion - even in the wild - then logically that person may indeed wish that they could put lions on trial, although they may see the practical infeasibility of that. A believer in animal rights may be more nuanced as well, perhaps deciding that we should for practical reasons leave non-humans to fight amongst themselves, but should enforce laws against needless human cruelty to animals.
In other words, the fact that animal rights seems to lead to absurd situations is more a problem with the notion of rights (or the peculiarity of each person's reason for adopting said rights) than with the idea of whether animals have (or should have) them or not.
AJ:In other words, the fact that animal rights seems to lead to absurd situations is more a problem with the notion of rights
Juan: AJ:A right implies a raison d'être. Every person who adopts a right must have a reason why they find that right appealing. They must have reasons why they feel that right is worth enforcing. So ? What new information do you think you are providing ?
No new information, just pointing out something that the OP, from the way it's phrased, appears to have forgotten. In particular, the point of contention appears to be...
Juan:Yes, animal rights advocates 'feel' that their nonsense is right. Also, they feel no empathy for humans who are not willing to follow their orders.
...that their sense of empathy is screwed up. In other words, we are acting as if the point of contention is about the more complex concept of rights, when it's really just the simpler concept of sense of empathy.
Juan:People like Rochester don't mind using violence against humans who don't share their touchy-feely ideas about dogs.
Yeah, so you're saying their sense of empathy is distorted, that they really should feel more empathy toward humans than animals. I prefer to phrase it this way because the point of contention now is crystal clear, and Rochester can now argue why his sense of empathy is or is not messed up, or alternatively he can try to argue that it doesn't matter because it's all up to the individual. But at least this way the argument is down to simpler concepts that invite less misunderstanding.
AJ: krazy kaju: My question to those who believe in animal rights is: Since animals have rights, will you put lions on trial for murder? Depends on the reason why the person wishes to enforce animal rights. If the person's sense of empathy really is severely offended by every single act of coercion - even in the wild - then logically that person may indeed wish that they could put lions on trial, although they may see the practical infeasibility of that. A believer in animal rights may be more nuanced as well, perhaps deciding that we should for practical reasons leave non-humans to fight amongst themselves, but should enforce laws against needless human cruelty to animals. In other words, the fact that animal rights seems to lead to absurd situations is more a problem with the notion of rights (or the peculiarity of each person's reason for adopting said rights) than with the idea of whether animals have (or should have) them or not.
Juan: AJ:In other words, the fact that animal rights seems to lead to absurd situations is more a problem with the notion of rights uh oh. So you think that IDIOTS misusing a system proves the system is absurd ?
I think anyone building an argument around ill-defined (or unagreed-upon) concepts will invite absurd conclusions.
Daniel:Are you saying that rights are based on "feelings"?
I'm saying some people do in fact use feelings to determine whether to believe in or adopt rights.
AJ: Daniel:Are you saying that rights are based on "feelings"? I'm saying some people do in fact use feelings to determine whether to believe in or adopt rights.
True, many people believe in nonsense based on feelings.
Daniel: AJ: Daniel:Are you saying that rights are based on "feelings"? I'm saying some people do in fact use feelings to determine whether to believe in or adopt rights. True, many people believe in nonsense based on feelings.
Do not your senses of empathy and justice figure into how appealing you find your own conception of rights?
Why should it? Anyway, we are going off topic.
I'm not saying it should, just asking. And I think this is very core of the topic you originally raised in the OP.
AJ: I'm not saying it should, just asking. And I think this is very core of the topic you originally raised in the OP.
Do you maintain that all animals have rights? If so, please explain.
No, I don't really subscribe to the notion of "rights" as a useful concept*, but many people do, and I believe we are speaking about them.
*Besides in the purely legal sense
Warning: nerd alert.That reminds me of this one StarGate SG1 episode, "Pretense". For those of you who don't know StarGate, there are certain beings called Goa'uld, larva-like parasites, which take unwilling humanoids as hosts. They then use these humanoids to act and communicate, forcing their will unto them.In "Pretense", there's an alien trial on whether a Goa'uld, Klorel, or an original host, Skarra, has the higher claim to the body. Here are some transcripts:Skarra: I was born to this body. Free of the demon Klorel. He stole my body. On Abydos [his home planet], I would have married, had children, grown old, and died. But the Goa'uld took more than my body. He stole my life.Goa'uld lawyer: Tell me, did the people of Abydos hunt?Skarra: Yes.Goa'uld lawyer: Do you also eat the flesh of humans?
Skarra: No! Never!Goa'uld lawyer: Then you make judgment that animals have a lesser value than humans. [...] but you keep them to do your will. And you kill them to survive. [...] As we do with humans. When we have the need. If a human has the right to take an animal's body as he pleases because he is a superior being, so does a Goa'uld. And by that argument alone, the Goa'uld has priority.
Jack O'Neill: Humans are self-aware. Animals aren't.Goa'uld lawyer: Animals are not, because you deem them not to be. Just as we deem humans not to be....
This episode reminded me a lot of the whole natural rights debate. So much depends on perspective.
Sphairon:Goa'uld lawyer: Animals are not, because you deem them not to be. Just as we deem humans not to be.
Ah but what are these humans doing in front of the Goa'uld? Like O'Neil and Carter. They are not Goa'uld but capable of rational deduction. It is not as if humans have so blindly deemed aliens unable to be self-aware like the Goa'uld have.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Very nice reference! The source of an idea does not determine its validity; we may learn much from this as a thought experiment.
Whether this is relevant to each reader depends on how they define rights and what appeals to them about their definition. Since this matter is highly splintered still on this forum, some will find this example illuminating and some won't.
AJ: Sphairon:Goa'uld lawyer: Animals are not, because you deem them not to be. Just as we deem humans not to be. Very nice reference! The source of an idea does not determine its validity; we may learn much from this as a thought experiment. Whether this is relevant to each reader depends on how they define rights and what appeals to them about their definition. Since this matter is highly splintered still on this forum, some will find this example illuminating and some won't.
So how do you define "rights"?
Sphairon:Warning: nerd alert.
Full marks for Stargate reference. Very well done.
Daniel:So how do you define "rights"?
I'm not convinced rights are a useful concept beyond their legal usage. I remain open to convincing if anyone is so inclined.
Juan:evasion much eh ?
No, I'm not a legal positivist (sorry I missed your question earlier).
And if you mean about rights, I do not adopt a rights system, but many people here do - my point in all this posting is to understand their conceptions of rights and what they hope to accomplish by adopting such rights systems. If you'd like to know what I think, as I said before, I am not convinced rights can even be usefully defined, but others seem to be and I am interested in knowing why.
Damn, I cant believe nobody said it until now...oh well, here I go then.
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
That is nonsense.
Daniel: That is nonsense.
http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Farm-Centennial-George-Orwell/dp/0452284244/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1248587592&sr=8-1
Well, it seems as if no one is stepping up to my challange. I suppose it was worth the try.
AJ:I am not convinced rights can even be usefully defined,
I don't really subscribe to the notion of "rights" as a useful concept*...*Besides in the purely legal sense
Juan:So you do subscribe to rights 'in the purely legal sense' ? Or am I misreading you ?
I wasn't entirely clear. To be clearer, I wouldn't be surprised if rights have could be usefully defined for legal purposes, but I would be somewhat surprised if they could be usefully defined in the "natural rights" sense. At least, I have not yet seen a convincing conception of rights. I'm all ears if there is one out there.
No. Rights are not something that are given, they are something that arise from nature. In order to be fully logically consistent, a defender of animal rights must argue for the creation of kangaroo courts, literally. All rights stem from the right to life, making the right to life the most important right. If animal rights activists do not wish to enforce the right to life, they are fools. If they do wish to enforce the right to life, they are fools.
Juan:Nice trolling, yes.
Indeed, my post was quite relevant. And anyone will agree, if he just spents some effort to reflect on what has been said here.