OK. Fixed.
Well by that definition of “rights,” of course animals have no rights, because they can’t go to court, and even if they did we couldn’t understand them. But I think it’s pretty clear that people who support animal rights have a different definition in mind. Since definitions of “rights” seem to vary pretty widely, I think we could at least do such people the honor of asking how they define “rights” (and what they hope to achieve by defining “rights” in that way) before dismissing them.
Obviously, a definition that is completely arbitrary, meaning inconsistent, and as such, is worthless. Their definition boils down to, “I do not like it, so it should be illegal”. Well, what kind of society would one have if everything was illegal that people did not like?
Did they imply that? Anyway, it depends how you interpret “like” - you like your legal system, don’t you? However, if you in fact mean that they have a purely ad hoc legal system, then I agree that’s not satisfactory.
Usually when people argue about the structure of arguments, it’s because they don’t have a good way to argue against the initial claim.
Except most people don’t understand “banana” as having anything to do with rationality.
It isn’t animal charity, it’s empathy or empathic concern - though most people, like myself, consider both as synonymous.
And no, empathy is not a value, my description that those people who do not possess it would be, but the assertion that one lacks empathy - the ability to feel another creature’s pain - is completely descriptive.
So empathy does not mean the capacity to feel the pain of creatures? The Merriam-Webster’s definition, which I linked to above and you quoted, seems to believe so in the second paragraph.
Oh, ok. [8-)]
First, so value and ethnicity are now synonymous?
Second, neither empathy nor empathic concern are values. They are both the state of feeling another creature’s pain, with empathic concern being the combination of empathy and sympathy. It’s really not that hard to understand.
That doesn’t have anything to do with the argument.
It isn’t kindness to animals, it’s the ability to feel their pain. One would expect that when one feels pain, one would stop the activity or not carry through with it. None of that is a value.
What is a value is that people should have compassion and empathy and that if empathy is lacking, those people should not expect sympathy or deserve defense when they’re the subjects of the very torture they inflict upon other creatures.
Certainly comes across that way.
Well, now that we’ve had that established we can both return to our quarters. Me to my house and you to your fraternity. [8-)]
So you’re asking people to prove a negative - that the puppy didn’t want to be tortured?
And also, to your distinction between humans and animals on the basis of being “moral, rational agents,” animals of other species also demonstrate rationality and the existence of morality seems to be more a preference for subjective aesthetics than anything else - something animals certainly seem to possess.
What does it mean to say that a mentally retarded or insane person isn’t “fully human”? I think a lot of people would take great offense to such wording, so there must be a better way to explain this. I think they are fully human, that being a simple biological fact. I have to say I can’t believe that the lack of a capacity to learn or differentiate from right and wrong (two things that apply to animals) are prerequisites to being fully human. Or that the simple fact of being biologically human automatically gives you rights for no other reason. Or that learning capacity and distinction from right and wrong are prerequisites to having certain rights. Humans are animals too, the only fundamental differences are the mental capacities–but this doesn’t exist in some humans. Yet these humans are given a certain subset of rights–to me this sounds the same as the case with animals.
I agree with the first and second points in the above second paragraph. Not sure about the third. (A deer trial would be a funny comedy skit… [8-|]) But coming from my original point, I think an alternate way to explain it is: a society ultimately grants rights to things (again, not saying I know this as fact, it’s just a concept I thought of that I still can’t dispute).
Society doesn’t expect that deer restrain themselves in such a way, so while the deer doesn’t realize it (as a mentally retarded human wouldn’t), we don’t hold the deer responsible. Since we have few (if any) behavioral expectations for the deer, they also have few (if any) rights. Now on the other hand, society does have an expectation that a dog doesn’t chew someone’s face off. And while they don’t go into the US court system should they do so, they do go through the same sort of process. Investigation, trial, they’re judged, and sentenced, through a much abridged (and probably better functioning) “animal court system”. (lol that has a rather funny sound to it) And the same applies when animals do more minor wrongs, where they get punished or reprimanded.
Maybe it would help to ask the question, where should rights originate from? Is there a clear and indisputable answer to this? My best answer at the moment is that the consensus of moral values and expectations in a society should determine this.
As the initial “D” stands for in PDA those are for defense.
I brought this up earlier, but you seemed to shrug it off for more precision, but I was mistaken and you seem to have shrugged off what I said cause you didn’t understand it.
(1) Does any animal understand natural rights of humans? (2) Natural rights are of human nature not animal nature. Natural rights are “of” a person, but if you, as a person, apply them to animals that would mean you are trying to (A) apply a right “for” somebody in this case an animal (B) that’s a category error of natural rights.
I’ve made this challenge before. If somebody can come up with an animal right that doesn’t violate any natural rights of humans, and that animal right is a right, meaning, it is universal in application without violated any other rights, then let me know.
Of course animal rights are absurd cause it perverts the very meaning of rights - they are “of” a person. Yet somebody that says they are for animal rights has already perverted the meaning of a right cause they are stating their preference prescribing a definition “for” an animal. Natural rights of humans are “of”, not “for”. I don’t think you understand the meanings of the words “of” and “for”.
looks good to me…
Animals can’t intellectualize. They do not abstract universal principles and definitions such as rights from their very own nature let alone the nature of other objects.
They are not fully human and thus why they are called “retarded” or “insane”.
my computer dictionary:
retardverb |riˈtärd| [ trans. ] delay or hold back in terms of progress, development, or accomplishment
insane |inˈsān|adjectivein a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill
retard is a delay or held back from what? - complete human development.
insane is a state of mind preventing what? - normal perception, etc… that is human.
Humans are distinct from animals. Animals are distinct from plants. Plants are distinct from rocks. Ask yourself: In what ways are these distinct?
Humans can intellectually abstract universal definitions - rights - of human nature and if we can know a universal definition, thus, a right of an animal which by universal such a definition can not violate other known universal definitions and principles, then go for it and provide a universal right of an animal. But that universal abstraction that you would do violates the integrity of a “right” in the first place cause you as a human are abstracting a right of another species and genus of animals whereas natural rights of humans are intellectualized by humans, of human nature.
Humans are potentially human if such humans are not fully actualization their existential understanding and thus judgement of right and wrong. Animals are not potentially humans. Since retarded or insane people are potential humans, then their rights are advocated by other humans in a guardianship role. This potentiality of human is discoverable in DNA.
Not sure about what in particular in the third. [:)]
Natural rights are of the individual. The individual(s) profess these rights to each other and that professing and any application can be understood as coming from society.
I’ve repeated for over a week that rights are “of” and not “for” a person, but I can see, not just you, that the definitions of “of” and “for” are not well understood - no offense. [:)]
If animals have rights, then humans could not exists. We could not eat animals and we could not disturb the habitat of any animal. We couldn’t clear a small forest to build a farm, we couldn’t pick nuts from a tree because the tree already been homesteaded by squirrels, we couldn’t walk an inch without making sure that we didn’t step on an ant or a spider, we couldn’t domestic an animal, and so on. If animal rights exist, then humans cannot exist. We can’t make any contracts with the animals since we can’t understand each other, and our very existence is a violation of the rights of other animals.
I hate to be picky, but do we need to utilize the term ‘retard’? It is a rather insulting term for individuals who did not choose to be born with this ‘condition.’
yeap[:)]
What’s wrong with the definition and thus concept of retard? I gave a dictionary definition. These are medically notable as well.
I am not saying that I have a better conception of rights. In fact I am skeptical that a useful conception of rights (outside the legal sense) exists. I understand what you mean by rights being inherently “of” a person, not being assigned “for” a person, but I wanted to know how you hope to benefit by defining rights in that way.
I don’t think you understand that not everyone defines rights in that way. I don’t necessarily object to your definition myself, but many do - and that is my point.
I often repeat myself here, but that’s ok I guess.
Natural rights are of the person and universal in application being an individual based premise of the individual - thus teleologically individual. Natural rights are teleological which simply points out their “ofness”. They are unbiased and don’t inhibit each person from achieving their just happiness. It’s about the potential of being human and how actualizing who each person potentially is, thus, to discover and experience the open-ended journey called life as a human in this universe.
Who are these “many”?