Wait a second, Wasn't there a constitution or something that declared rights for animals in animal farm?
First define "natural rights."Originally Posted by Rael
It depends on how you define natural rights. Yes, if by natural rights, you mean rights that are derived from our being made in the image of God, no, if by natural rights, you mean rights that are derived from our being made in the image of a warm spot in the ocean.
If rights come from impersonal nature (as is understood from a non-theistic interpretation of "natural rights"), then why should governments be compelled to uphold those rights, especially if they can control nature and destroy its resources?
Also, given the evolution paradigm of understanding life shared by many members here, are rights constant by nature, or are they something which evolve as our brains supposedly evolve to understand them?
"Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45
"May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul
There are no real such things as rights per se. Humans are in the same boat as animals. Hell, they are animals. All humans and other animals can do, as biological organisms, is attempt to carve out their niche in the world as long as they live.
Humans can try to convince each other that there are certain things they shouldn't do to each other and call these things "rights" but that doesn't mean that these rights are any kind of real thing. Peer pressure tends to enforce this notion that there are certain boundaries that you should not cross with other people and the idea is propagated.
Animals aren't going to bother with these illusions, but some intelligent social animals do have a social structure and seem to follow certain guidelines that would appear to be some sort of "rights" as recognized by their fellows. But, these social structures are pretty much entirely within each species.
Then there are certain cross-species relationships that humans have developed, basically I mean domestication of other animals.
Humans (and perhaps some other animals) have developed this emotion called empathy. Basically, we wouldn't want other beings to suffer as we would not want to suffer. Humans can convince other humans that there are certain things that they shouldn't do to other species because we wouldn't want these things done to us. They can call these things "animal rights."
"Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." - Henry David Thoreau
I know what the definition of natural rights is. The fact of the matter is I do not believe Natural rights exist; it is a human concept.You're confusing the definition of natural rights with the definition of legal rights here. Legal rights are rights (or even non-rights) recognized and protected by the justice system. Natural rights simply define the equal respect we deserve from each other and which others owe us by virtue of our _________ (insert whatever qualities you want here, such as "free will," "human dignity," or "self-ownership").
This is my view as well, which is kind of funny, considering neither of us have articulated our opinions on what kind of rights animals have.It's easy for us to define the rights of humans with respect to other humans, because we're the highest-order, most intelligent species we know of. We know that humans think, act, and have hopes and dreams for the future. In my opinion, our human rights of life, liberty, and property - with respect to each other - derive from our equal self-ownership. My life is my own, just as yours is your own, and neither of us are "better" than the other in the sense that we deserve to take full or partial ownership of any other person.
As humans, we generally desire respect from each other, and we're intelligent enough to know and understand this and come up with reasons why. The idea of natural rights and self-ownership becomes a lot hazier when we start talking about animals, though. In many ways, animals are sentient enough to possess some of the same traits that give our own lives and self-ownership meaning...but in many other ways, they are not. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and we don't even know if they have hopes and dreams for the future...but we do know they feel love, affection, fear, and pain, they have complex social interactions, and they're actually smart enough that they can construct and use tools. Bonobos are farther from us genetically, but in many ways they might be smarter than us, since they've already figured out that settling tribal disputes with sex contests is quite preferable to settling them with brutal violence.
So...do animals have natural rights with respect to each other? With respect to other animals of the same species, I believe that animals probably have the same kind of rights that we do, stemming from self-ownership with respect to other members of their species. I mean, even if you're Chimpanzee Ed and your neighbor is Chimpanzee Bob, you don't want him taking it upon himself to kill you. After all, Bob can do with his life as he pleases, but your life is your own...and you'll fight to protect it, too. Interestingly, tribal animals do form societies where they they have some primitive and instinctual notion of rights, and as I mentioned, bonobos might just be more sophisticated than we are with respect to their governance.
The interesting question as it pertains to us is, do animals have natural rights with respect to us? That is a hard question. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." We may not be equal in individual talents or qualities, but we are equal in the sense that we all possess the same general range of sentience. We love, we laugh, we cry, we bleed, we create things, we think in abstractions, we have hopes and dreams, etc. Furthermore, in the event that some of us are "better" enough than others to justify taking partial ownership over the life of another, there's no way to objectively verify and demonstrate who is superior overall and/or by how much anyway, especially to the standard of proof that stripping someone of their liberty should demand! Any roughly equal lifeforms would deserve roughly equal consideration to what we should give to each other, and they would be equally self-owning with respect to us...but the less sentient that animals get, the less that rule applies. There are no other animals - not even chimps - who reach the level of sentience that we are at...but some are close enough that I'd be very hesitant treating them with anything other than respect and care.
I think our emotions can help to guide us here. Our emotions help let us know which animals "feel" close enough that they deserve respect, and they help let us get an instinctual feel for what kind of respect each animal may deserve from us. Our emotions aren't perfect indicators of course, and some people's emotions give them some really off-the-wall readings that place the value of a mosquito on par with the value of a human.
The bottom line of this post, though - the point I really want to make - is this:
Our sentience, free will, capabilities, hopes, dreams, etc. contribute to our equal human dignity. Our rights - with respect to what we deserve from each other - derive from that equal human dignity and equal self-ownership with respect to each other. Simply put, because we are each equally dignified, or at least roughly so, we deserve to be free from the tyranny of another or by many others. Animals are markedly less dignified and sentient than we are, so it stands to reason that they do not necessarily deserve equal self-ownership with respect to human beings...it follows that we can justify at least some level of ownership over them and/or use them for our purposes. However, various animals are still dignified enough and close enough to us in terms of behavior and characteristics that we cannot justify entire, 100%, absolute ownership over them (see "sadistic animal torture")...and that's why we have these conversations about what kind of treatment of animals is morally acceptable.
Because the individual enforcement of natural rights is a bloody affair. Civilization exists so that people don't have to hurt or kill people to defend their rights, but rather allow the government to take care of justice through court of law and implied force. That is what separates civilized peoples from barbarians and animals.
Animals have natural rights, it's just that humans are not compelled to recognize them because animals are too weak and stupid to defend them in such a way as to FORCE us to recognize them. They might get some rights recognized through human social contracts, but that is entirely up to humans.
A natural right (as opposed to a right granted by social contract or a divine right), is one that when violated consistently results in violence. Attack most animals, and they will fight back. Force of arms is the source of natural rights. This is opposed to rights granted by a social contract, which finds it's source in the government (and its implied use of force), and divine right, which finds it's source in God and the wrath of God (whether by plagues or other means of divine retribution, or threat of imprisonment within Hell).
Awesome post.
+1
No, I am a person. More specifically, I am a mind. This did not used to be a revolutionary statementThen you must be mineral or vegetable?.
“If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis
The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.
If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.
I said neither have natural rights. I think all rights are derived from the ability to appreciate certain things such as shelter, food, love, life, and result of hard work. But when people stop appreciating these things is when you start losing them. When humans, as a collective, can prove they value their liberty enough to fight and protect it then I'll change my mind.
Mind you, I'm thinking of current status. I think we all DESERVE natural rights, but right now, I think humans don't appreciate them enough to actually want to have and keep them which is why the majority let them slip away without noticing or caring.
Its like a cycle, it isn't until they lose them that they start to appreciate them again and eventually and hopefully sometime soon we'll see an overwhelming number of people finally get sick of it and start to do something about it.
States declaring their sovereignty recently is just one example that people are starting to get sick of losing their freedoms.
I'm extremely suspicious of this post's intent.
OP, can you please provide some level of assurance that you are not affiliate with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the publics willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms?
As great of an actor as I claim myself to be, I have no idea whether or not you're serious.
I hope it's a joke
Lol at RP forums being a representation of the public. If only.
“If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis
The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.
If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.
I hereby declare that I am not affiliated with with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the public's willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms.
2 people answered that only animals have natural rights. How did you reach that conclusion? And what does that mean for humans?
They're probably putting humans in the animal category?
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
The people that said both sound like a much of deranged PETA people. Animals are a natural resource for the use of man, but not the abuse of man. The only right they have is to be treated as humanly as possible as they become my next hamburger. We are the ones who won the race to the top of the food chain, so it is quit nataral for us to subdue them for our purposes.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover
Assuming this is how it is, if I am the only one in society who values liberty, the right of liverty is not mine until everyone agrees it should be.When humans, as a collective, can prove they value their liberty enough to fight and protect it then I'll change my mind.
"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." - J. Edgar Hoover
Given that this is a forum that supposedly support the ideas of libertarianism as represented by Ron Paul, I'm more than a little surprised that my post garnered this reaction.... when, instead, it would have been more appropriate to post this reaction to the OP's post.
Then why did you start a thread that is diametrically opposed to all current libertarian teachings?
Sorry, not a PETA member. I eat many animals. And they have the "natural" (or universal) right to try to eat me.
Reply to krazy kaju:
Quote:
Your entire argument is founded upon illogic.
Reply:
So humans do not act?
- You apparently did not understand the nature of my argument. That's my fault, for making assumptions about language that you do not share.
Quote:
All ethical systems require value-judgements.
Reply:
Do they? What is your proof?
- This is the crux of our argument. What is morality? That clearest definition I could give is: Morality is a code of action. Humans act, as you state so profoundly, and because humans act we need morality. We need morality because humans aren't computers - to weigh the pragmatic pros and cons of every action would tax us beyond our intellectual capacity. Morality provides a basis for action that we can refer to. It helps us choose. By what basis? On the basis of "good" or "evil," and the way we define "good" and "evil" depends on our particular values.
Quote:
Choices require value-judgements, or they're simply arbitrary. Free-will requires value-judgements.
Reply:
So? How does this prove that ethical systems require value judgments?
- Because morality is a code that helps us choose our actions, and all chocies require value-judgements, therefore morality requires value-judgements. Morality is an ethical system defining "good" and "evil." Now I'm just reiterating.
Quote:
Human beings are value-seeking creatures.
Reply:
So? How does this effect an ethical system? Are there objective values?
- Because an ethical system is one that defines "good" and "evil," it isn't a question of our value-seeking nature "effecting" our ethics, but rather of our ethics being directly derived from our nature as value-seeking creatures.
The 2nd question is much more interesting, and in short I believe that YES there are objective values. We can logically deduce that all humans, as biological organisms, are essentially driven toward the same biological end: self-preservation. We can also say that "your own life" is a value because without life you cannot value anything. It is the basis for making any sort of value-judgement. So, I have touched upon one objective value, and there are others that are more debatable but I won't get into it.
Quote:
By saying that the self-owned human who engages in an act of unprovoked violence against another self-owned human is "denying their own self-ownership" you are implying something that defeats your entire argument: That someone can choose not to own themselves, or to defeat the recognition of their self-ownership from a societal standpoint. For this to be a negative would mean the self-owner values his self-owned status.
Reply:
The logical extension of your argument is that one cannot lease out one's property, cannot sell one's fruit of labor, and cannot work for a wage, because in all of these cases, the action-originator is selling or renting out a part of his
self ownership. This, however, is a false argument. It is clear that if you own yourself, you are able to decide what to do with yourself. This includes contracting out your self ownership and the immediate consequences of your self ownership, whether explicitly (in the form of contracts) or implicitly (via estoppel).
- I fail to see how any of this is a logical extension of what I said... I also fail to see the relevance of your response to the quoted section. I said that self-ownership requires choice, which requires morality, which requires value judgements. You imply from that argument that I don't think people can work for a wage? Confusing.
Quote:
Free-will is obvious, but this does not automatically lead to the concept of self-ownership. Its a choice.
Having a fee will necessarily leads us to the concept of self ownership. You cannot have a free will unless you have your own thoughts that are completely separate from outside influences. That implies self ownership.
- If one chooses not to think for themselves, what does that imply? Certainly not that freewill doesn't exist, because they still have made a choice (thank you Neil Peart) - but definitely that they have abdicated the responsibilities of self-ownership. In the fullest sense, nobody has their own thoughts that are completely separate from outside influences, but I still know what you meant.
Quote:
To choose not to own yourself is, of course, self-destructive and illogical - but human beings have the unique capacity to engage in self-destructive behavior by choice.
So here you admit that one can deny one's own self ownership? This contradicts your statement that one cannot deny one's own self ownership.
- I never made that statement that you can't deny self-ownership. Part of my argument is predicated upon the assertion that you CAN deny self-ownership - e.g., that it isn't an absolute. Now you're just sounding confused, and you're confusing me!
Self-ownership is a choice, and choices require values - if you still don't get this, I don't know how else to explain it.
The rest of this was redundant or confused. If we agree at least that self-ownership is a choice, that's great. If self-ownership is a choice, and all choices require value-judgements, and your concept of a "right" is predicated upon self-ownership, then your concept of a "right" is based upon a value-judgement.
Last edited by Xenophage; 02-19-2009 at 12:18 PM.
bump
Are you bumping it because a third of the people who participated in this poll have brain damage?
Just gonna say, a decade later I am especially proud of my posts in this thread.
In New Zealand:
The Coastguard is a Charity
Air Traffic Control is a private company run on user fees
The DMV is a private non-profit
Rescue helicopters and ambulances are operated by charities and are plastered with corporate logos
The agriculture industry has zero subsidies
5% of the national vote, gets you 5 seats in Parliament
A tax return has 4 fields
Business licenses aren't a thing
Prostitution is legal
We have a constitutional right to refuse any type of medical care
I think this is the first I've seen of this thread.
Do animals have natural rights? Absolutely yes. After all, what is a right? It is a valid CLAIM and nothing more. "Right" and "claim" are 100% synonymous. It is clear that animals, most of them anyway, claim their lives as their own as evidenced by their will to preserve themselves from destruction and other harms. They are, therefore, asserting their claims upon their own lives whenever they go about the business of survival, whether it be eating, procreating, or defending life, limb, territory, or other property from violation at the hands of another.
Anyone doubting this is welcome to visit my home where I will be more than happy to show you how Millie, our large and fearlessly badass Rhodesian, and Luna, our similarly badass West Virginia red dog behave when either Oliver, Hercules, or Ralph come anywhere near their food at dindin-time. Moreso do the sparks fly at cookie-time.
Therefore, in accord with the proper definition of "right", animals most definitely do assert their claims.
The difference between humans and other animals species is that as matters of survival, humans choose not to fully respect the rights of animals because we eat them, put them to work, wear them as clothing, and consume them in other ways. Were we to respect the rights of animals as we pretend to respect one another, eating would likely become problematic with all the men of the planet becoming docile soy-boy-sissies from the lack of animal protein in the diet.
Survival pretty well demands that some of us eat meat, which in turn requires us to disregard the valid claims of animals in many cases and circumstances.
That we choose to disregard the rights of animals, it does not follow that those rights do not exist. The case for animal rights is prima facie axiomatic and apodictic. We disregard those claims because we are the apex predators, need (and desire) to eat animals, and therefore do so as a practical matter at the very least. Otherwise, we would not be the current apex species, but rather a race of likely very short hominids, scurrying about eating berries and twigs, and sleeping in trees to avoid the apex predators whose interests compel them to disregard OUR valid claims to life.
This ain't rocket surgery.
Last edited by osan; 10-18-2018 at 06:59 AM.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
I was with you for the first few paragraphs, until you got to the part about needing to eat animals because of protein. There is protein in tons of plant-based foods, and you can get everything you need nutritionally from a whole food plant-based diet. Apart from someone who is starving on a desert island, there is absolutely no need to eat dead animals in this day and age. Especially in a country like the US, where there are tons of options.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
You can't get everything you need from plants and some of the things you can get only come from obscure plants that couldn't be used to feed all of humanity.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Yes you can.
Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.
https://jandonline.org/article/S2212...192-3/fulltext
The Mayo Clinic
A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.
Harvard Medical School
Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.
Dietitians of Canada
A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.
British Dietetic Association
Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.
The British National Health Service
With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.
The Dietitians Association of Australia
Vegan diets differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.
I can post more, if you want. Plus, there are lots of people who have been either vegan or vegetarian their whole life, and are super healthy and smash all the lies that we've been sold, such as the idea that meat and dairy is necessary.
Last edited by lilymc; 10-17-2018 at 09:58 PM.
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us