Political Theory

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Ansury — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:36:24 GMT

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.

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.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

wilderness — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:17:03 GMT

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...

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Ansury — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 07:08:25 GMT

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.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

wilderness — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:57:10 GMT

Ansury:

wilderness:

Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now?

Well, obviously no,

and that's the distinction in a nutshell... natural rights of human nature are of human nature for various reasons, but this is one if not the one that all the other reasons are premised upon.

Ansury:

but neither can a (more than mildly) mentally disabled person, right?

and that's why they have guardians... a mentally disabled person may not realize a natural right and violate such a right without realizing their own actions, but it is wise and empathetic to have guardians helping such a person. Wouldn't want anybody to think wrongly about a person that may not appear to be mentally disabled in any way and such a person seeing a mentally disabled person wondering into their yard for example may lead the owner to get defensive and I would hope nobody would want that to happen. For all the owner may know, the invader might be a threat it gets testy and hopefully such a situation would resolve itself peacefully.

I'm not trying to make a mirror example here obviously a mentally disabled person is not a dog. Dogs are kept on a leash, especially ones that don't listen to their human companion, and this is also wise. The dog could chase another person down, threaten that person, even if the dog was friendly the other person might not know that or be fearful of dogs, etc... It could get unnecessarily messy.

Ansury:

I'm thinking back to this again: "I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights."

Natural rights are based on what is. Life, liberty, and property is. So these are boundaries that a person can intellectually apprehend instead of a constant push back or implosion of such quiddities of human nature. Since they are, then they have a real presence, a real force in the world (not violent force, I'm referring to force of presence). They are and thus being, these quiddities have a presence. They don't go away. Thus if they constantly are in a position to push back since they can't disappear but pressure can be applied upon them, then possibly tragic outcomes can happen. Since they can be intellectually apprehended, it minimizes conflict to go with these quiddities than to go against them constantly flaring up a violent outcome. Violations of these natural quiddities (life, liberty, and property) of human nature either can lead to suicide or somebody going postal (or war) - an implosion or explosion event. Of course we can realize the potential danger in a cougar and that is to know/apprehend the nature of a cougar. Yet the cougar can't intellectually apprehend as we can, as you note above. If they could, then that would be swell, but they can't. We on the other hand can realize the natures of things and can try to scientifically realize these natures and live accordingly.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Ansury — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:30:38 GMT

wilderness:

Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now?

Well, obviously no, but neither can a (more than mildly) mentally disabled person, right?

I'm thinking back to this again: "I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights."

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

wilderness — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:10:30 GMT

Ansury:

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.

2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.
7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.
8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.
9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.
10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life.
11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.

Arg, which definition?

I think the ones that fit closest to how I am defining it are #1, 4, 5, and 6. Basically something that is "accepted", an agreed upon "basis of conduct", a "requirement of right conduct", or "an adopted rule".

I can see each of those definitions being anchored in 9.

Ansury:

But the problem with these is that it can be argued that all four of these types of principles seem to also applicable to animals. In the example of a pet dog, a dog "accepts" that they aren't allowed to crap in the house and modify their behavior accordingly. It's a "requirement of right conduct" that they don't chew a visitor's face off, and so on. I admit that they may easily break many of these rules of behavior, which may cause them to lose their usual "rights" to freely roam in the house (or even continue living)--but I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights. (A mentally disabled person, or even an ignorant person, that is unaware of their rights doesn't automatically lose them, either.)

I know I might be going in circles here, I feel like I wrote something similar before! Sorry. lol

So you're asserting that rights are principles, but I suspect you're using a different definition(s) of principles. Hmm, this may be a harder explanation to find than you think.

Can a monkey intellectually apprehend, thus, realize, explain and discuss these principles as we are now?

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Ansury — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 02:01:51 GMT

wilderness:

Ansury:

Public discussion is fine, I think it's still on topic and the more brains involved, the better. It seems the "why" things should or should not have rights is the root of most of the rights controversy, and probably the root reason many people seem to disagree on the nature of rights. It's definitely the hardest part for me to get a handle on.

Do you know what a principle is? Or can you find out? It's a serious question that may lead into a good, easy explanation.

Well I guess I know the "laymans" definition, but let's see:

1. an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct: a person of good moral principles.
2. a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived: the principles of modern physics.
3. a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion: the principles of the Stoics.
4. principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management: to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5. guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct: a person of principle.
6. an adopted rule or method for application in action: a working principle for general use.
7. a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.
8. the method of formation, operation, or procedure exhibited in a given case: a community organized on the patriarchal principle.
9. a determining characteristic of something; essential quality.
10. an originating or actuating agency or force: growth is the principle of life.
11. an actuating agency in the mind or character, as an instinct, faculty, or natural tendency: the principles of human behavior.

Arg, which definition?

I think the ones that fit closest to how I am defining it are #1, 4, 5, and 6. Basically something that is "accepted", an agreed upon "basis of conduct", a "requirement of right conduct", or "an adopted rule".

But the problem with these is that it can be argued that all four of these types of principles seem to also applicable to animals. In the example of a pet dog, a dog "accepts" that they aren't allowed to crap in the house and modify their behavior accordingly. It's a "requirement of right conduct" that they don't chew a visitor's face off, and so on. I admit that they may easily break many of these rules of behavior, which may cause them to lose their usual "rights" to freely roam in the house (or even continue living)--but I'm not seeing why unawareness of the possible consequences or unawareness of their own rights causes them to lose those rights. (A mentally disabled person, or even an ignorant person, that is unaware of their rights doesn't automatically lose them, either.)

I know I might be going in circles here, I feel like I wrote something similar before! Sorry. lol

So you're asserting that rights are principles, but I suspect you're using a different definition(s) of principles. Hmm, this may be a harder explanation to find than you think.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

William — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:04:24 GMT

Other interesting thoughts:

While there is good logic for biological classification it is still arbitrary

Humans are probably more concerned with Genus than species (if neaderthals were around we would probably see them as equals and breed with them)

While humans have the most evolved rational brain we are also have the highest evolved empathatic brains, empathy has been evolved for a reason

Empathy is probably the driving force behind many "rational" laws and or daily actions. Empathy is not objectivly a spurious or useless trait

There may be a false division or diachotomy with empathy/rational thinking.

there would almost certainly always be something protecting some animals in various cultures (perhaps for example the Hindu culture) which may trancend pure property rights

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

William — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 17:25:09 GMT

My hunch is people tend to empathize with living thingsthat are closer to them.

We would care more about bacteria than a rock. Living vs non living. It is unremarkable if someone were to fly to Europa and find a rock, but if they found bacteria people would consider that the discovery of a life time.

We probably tend to sympathize more (perhaps almost exclusivly) with things with a vertabrae. I think even most of the animal rights activists stop at the Chordata phylum.

After that though I think it becomes a bit more interesting. While in general we would care about mammals and primates more (and if there were other homo genus' alive my hunch is they would be under human law) I think we also tend to value animals that serve a purpose for humans other than food (horse, dog, cat) and animals that tend to show greater intellect that we never hunted prolifically (probably because or intellect is the highest evolved trait in humans so we can have great empathy for the trait; in speed, stamina, etc we are unremarkable) such as dolphins.

I don't know of any formal studies but I don't think humans are unique to this type of empathy. People have probably seen those cute and fuzzy stories on the news about a gorilla raising a cat, etc.

But in the end, I think it is just empathy. I don't think the empathy is arbitrary with most people and there is probably actually some deep biological and even practicle reasons for the empathy (ex: horses were very useful to humans so we have been conditiond to respond negativly when seeing horse brutality).

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

William — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:56:10 GMT

OntologicalQuandary:

Good question.

My answer would be similar to someone else's answer given on the question: "If all humans have rights, why stop there? Why not argue that all animals have rights?" Someone answered that that is because humans have characteristics that animals do not such as free will and the ability to troll the internets.

Would the answer to your question then not be something along the lines of "because animals have characteristics that bacteria and plantae etc... do not have such as (insert biological terms here).

Also humans belong to the animalia kingdom, so why should humans have rights but not other biologically similar organisms? It seems to me more of a biological question than a philosophical one.

Humans have "rights" with humans. A lion does not care about human "rights". Lions have "rights" with lions. All species seem to have some type of social code to conduct with each other. There does seem to be more respect for life somewhat within ones own species, and almost a complete lack of concern for other species as a gereral rule of thumb. Hence why an ant colony isn't a dog eat dog free for all within the colony where every aunt marauders eachother, but if a termite was to enter; most likley all hell would break loose between ants and termites.

I think when rights are refered to it is with the implication and in the very definition that it is refering to human with human activity. To imply any type of civil relationship with other animals would require a different definiton (perhaps words such as domestication, conservation, etc).

Also, when the word "natural" (as in natural law)is used; there is no good argument one can make stating that humans naturaly give any other species equal footing. While there are cases for it in certain cultures, there is just very little precedent for that to work when looking at the whole of humanity.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:22:15 GMT

Wilmot of Rochester:
That's not really the description I think most people think of when they think morality, certainly not objective morality.

Most people don't take the time to think about what morality is or define it correctly.

Wilmot of Rochester:
I don't think too many people would define it as you do as an objective stance to live life. Just for the simple fact that many people have different goals in life and to say, "all men should strive to live" is quite a far jump from "all men should let other men live too."

Its not a single jump, but maybe a few steps away, but you must start from solid foundation. Many have taken the journey to find a secular objective ethic to live by, I don't know of anyone who has succeeded 100%. But in an existence debate I only had to prove that one objective moral rule exists and I've done so.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Wilmot of Rochester — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 20:37:09 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

What is subjective is goal choice, and what is objective is the way one should go about obtaining them. There are certain universal goals/wants and therefore objective morality. All men prefer life for example. All men prefer to act in the best of their capacities is another. From those two universal goals you can prescribe ways in which all men should act.

That's not really the description I think most people think of when they think morality, certainly not objective morality.

Most people would probably say something more along the lines of, "morality is how one should treat people or shouldn't treat people."

I don't think too many people would define it as you do as an objective stance to live life. Just for the simple fact that many people have different goals in life and to say, "all men should strive to live" is quite a far jump from "all men should let other men live too."

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:48:22 GMT

What is subjective is goal choice, and what is objective is the way one should go about obtaining them. There are certain universal goals/wants and therefore objective morality. All men prefer life for example. All men prefer to act in the best of their capacities is another. From those two universal goals you can prescribe ways in which all men should act.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

Wilmot of Rochester — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 23:10:53 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

are you saying its objectively true that there is no objective morality, or are you saying its just your opinion? If its true then prove it.

I'm saying I can't see why it's true and it's really on the part of the people that do believe in an objective morality to prove its existence.

Re: If ALL Animals Have Rights...

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:20:18 GMT

are you saying its objectively true that there is no objective morality, or are you saying its just your opinion? If its true then prove it.