Surely Bush and Obama thought they, if we go by their words, were and are being empathetic in their warring escapades and military empire around the world. They both were being empathetic and thus doing what is good for the people in their wire-tapping, gitmo, universal health care, abortion issues, racial issues, cap-n-trade global change issues, and all the other un-Constitutional and anti-natural rights issues for it’s all because they are here to help the people - they are being empathetic and desire to merely help. Can’t you people get it? They are here to help you - lol - they have big hearts… [:P]
Edit: I started another thread on empathy to not detract from the main point of this thread.
If and only if they define rights as arising from nature and they believe they are obligated to enforce those rights. Both assume something about the views of the person in question.
My full quote was, “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.”
If Bush and Obama are truly motivated by their sense of empathy to do those things, then they are not being illogical. But they can of course lie, and what is a good idea for one person is not necessarily good for another. For Bush and Obama, personally, those actions were their attempts to gain the most personal benefit (in the broadest sense) out of the situation they felt they were in. Those actions were not to the world’s benefit, sure, but that doesn’t change that fact.
In other words, I’m not stating anything novel or shocking here, just pointing out that people forget that every action anyone ever does cannot but be that very action that they deem at that moment to be most likely to bring them the greatest personal benefit (in the broadest sense, including indirectly, spiritually, etc.). Even the deontologist follows deontology so as to gain the greatest personal benefit, so he is only interested in consequences in the very broadest sense. People are forgetting that quite often.
OK, but I’d like to point out that your assertions are tantamount to quite a strong statement: “Anyone who doesn’t define a particular word in this particular way is mentally feral or a baby.”
Yes you misread me. You made a statement about education that I stated a general outcome of extreme-ill education. As I stated, not about rights, but about education in general.
I don’t think animals have rights, but I would die defending them from other humans. Such as if I saw someone about to club a seal, I would gladly trade myself. Similarly if I saw someone hitting their dog, I would violate nap. The only reason this problem exists is that we can’t freely associate, because if we could people that feel like me could band together.
I didn’t mean to imply I would calmly trade, I would try to intervene up to and including my life.
Even when it came down to humans it would be a case by case basis. I can’t in general say that killing animals is bad and I can’t in general say its good. I would take issue with someone killing for sport or massacre.
Doesn’t an animal rights activist contradict himself by simultaneously stating that there is
1 no distinction between animals and humans (animals should have the same rights as humans) and
2 a distinction between animals and humans, because animals do not have to respect the rights of other animals (no lions on trial for murder)
If there’s no distinction and animals deserve rights, the government should force them to respect each other’s rights just as it does with people. Carnivores, I’m assuming, will get the death penalty, and we’ll all have to be vegetarians.
If there is, however, a distinction, and animals for some reason are exempt from having to respect rights, well then why on earth should they have them?
Contradictions like this are evidence of irrationality–as if I need to say that in reference to animal rights advocates.
Typically they lean towards a blanket “no harm” position. But harm isn’t always bad. Animals kill each other all the time in order to survive, to say they have rights is a contradiction.
It all depends on the definition of rights, which people appear not to agree upon much. I made a poll about this a while ago and got 100% disagreement on the defitition.
