I think I understand what you're saying about principles and rights, but I don't like the conclusion very much.
Maybe I'm just ignorant or closed minded, but I can't accept that it is okay to mutilate an animal for the heck of it, simply because they do not have human rights. Here we go back to my original thought process again, but I still think a society's moral code can be used to justify granting certain protections (yes I'm switching from rights to protections) to certain animals.
Perhaps this is just a personal weak point of mine, but I'm actually okay with the use of force to protect some animals, even though I realize this is all subjective. And this is saying a lot since in general the only other justifiable use of force I can think of is defensive. I suppose I'm also including "defense of selected animals" in that defensive force justification.
Ansury: I think I understand what you're saying about principles and rights, but I don't like the conclusion very much.
from a certain angle I understand... it's why Buddha said all life is suffering... as Daniel pointed out, by our very presence we violate other animals and plants, etc... But I think it's rather humbling and instead of pondering on the sadness of our presence to turn that around and find the joys is helpful.
Ansury: Maybe I'm just ignorant or closed minded, but I can't accept that it is okay to mutilate an animal for the heck of it, simply because they do not have human rights. Here we go back to my original thought process again, but I still think a society's moral code can be used to justify granting certain protections (yes I'm switching from rights to protections) to certain animals.
I understand. my only argument all along has been that the natural rights of humans are categorically different than any potential animal rights. I said this somewhere in this thread that animals can have rights, but those rights would have to be defined totally different as to not confuse them with the natural rights of humans. And then how animals could have rights without violating natural human rights... I think mutilating an animal is wrong, but also the point of a culture anchored in natural law is to not run to the law to solve every issue. It's like how lots of people run to big brother, nanny government to solve all their problems currently. There are other means of, without having to rely on the law and that doesn't violate the law, in order to address bad ethics, even those as serious as this. There's a paradigm shift in how we relate with nature and handle our problems. More and more I see this handling being one of a mature and responsible way. It's similar to the stories that come out of England before the Age of Reason (Age of Enlightenment) activities in the 1700's. It has been observed and discussed from that time period that before the curiosity of reason permeated the culture and the people entered coffee cafes, taverns, and chocolate cafes and such to discuss and scientifically experiment all these new and exciting ideas circulating thus giving that era it's name - it was written that the adults were more childlike playing in the streets. It was a generalized comment from that time period.
Ansury: Perhaps this is just a personal weak point of mine, but I'm actually okay with the use of force to protect some animals, even though I realize this is all subjective. And this is saying a lot since in general the only other justifiable use of force I can think of is defensive. I suppose I'm also including "defense of selected animals" in that defensive force justification.
I know what you're saying. I would only suggest you weigh the application of this reasoning in comparison to any potential loses and downside that might occur. All life is suffering and we can't save the world. We can't stop somebody from mutilating an animal, the same as we can't stop any one human from becoming a criminal, but we definitely can prevent it from happening again from those particular individuals without violating natural law if we wanted to and thus not lose anything.
or you could become a Jain... they sweep in front of themselves with a broom so as to not step on insects and some don't eat rooted plants cause they are considered alive and thus eat what only falls off of trees, etc... Some go as far as eventually not eating at all and eventually letting themselves die as they sit without moving anymore so they don't hurt anything and eventually they simply expire. They've been around in India for a very long time. Buddha met them, so, they have a long history.
there's so much more I need to learn...
wilderness: 1) I said this somewhere in this thread that animals can have rights, but those rights would have to be defined totally different as to not confuse them with the natural rights of humans. 2) I would only suggest you weigh the application of this reasoning in comparison to any potential loses and downside that might occur. 3) We can't stop somebody from mutilating an animal, the same as we can't stop any one human from becoming a criminal, but we definitely can prevent it from happening again from those particular individuals without violating natural law if we wanted to and thus not lose anything.
1) I said this somewhere in this thread that animals can have rights, but those rights would have to be defined totally different as to not confuse them with the natural rights of humans.
2) I would only suggest you weigh the application of this reasoning in comparison to any potential loses and downside that might occur.
3) We can't stop somebody from mutilating an animal, the same as we can't stop any one human from becoming a criminal, but we definitely can prevent it from happening again from those particular individuals without violating natural law if we wanted to and thus not lose anything.
I think we've found some common ground here. I can agree with #1 above, and I guess I've been trying to make the point that some form of punishment (as I think implied in #3) should not be totally off limits as a rule. Probably the main reason I don't mind the use of force in this application is because in our current society, it's hard to imagine other solutions.
But also in response to #1 above, I think I was always defining these animal "rights" in a different way. Going back to the words of the founders, if human rights are "from God" (natural human rights, as in not given, but inherent), I do think it's at least reasonable for humans to grant protections, or "rights" (in a different "given" sense, rather than a natural one) to animals should they decide to. The concept of being "humane" is a valuable one to me.
I'm definitely well aware of #2 above, as preventing such things from ever happening stinks of government interventionism and nanny state/"utopic" thinking.