Why don't animals have rights?

[wilderness]

good thing you trained them to be nice

[liberty_student]

That is so awesome. Rights or not, I love dogs

@Saan

Growl, Growl, Tail wag Tail Wag, spin in circle, spin in cricle, woof, woof.

The right to dog biscuits

[Saan]

Uh oh. My dog just killed and ate a rabbit. I need candidates for Jury selection. Please give this questionare to all suitable canine candidates.

1. Are you a big dog or a little dog?

2. Are you purebred, or Mongrel.

3. Are you a carnivore, hebivore, or opportunivore?

4. Do you think rabbits are tasty?

5. Are you a rabbit chaser?

6. Do you also chase birds?

7. Please indicate your dog ethnicity?

8. Have you been sterilized?

9. Will you follow directions given by a magistrate, if he has dog biscuits?

10. Do you chase cats?

Please give this survey to your canine colleagues , and post the responses, Jury selection begins in 10 minutes.

Note: a dog jury is a jury of seven.

Your cooperation is appreciated. 1000 dog biscuit fine for failing to respond.

[wilderness]

good thing humans have the intellect to not live in a, yeah I’m goin’a say it[:P], dog-eat-dog-world:

we enjoy a little dog at our house. she is part russell terrier and part beagle. she’s definitely a wild one! we love her. she’s very nice and friendly, except once another huge dog came too close to her and our son and she actually went after this dog that was about ten times bigger than her. i never seen her do that before but hey, we’re all family here.

[I_Ryan]

@Esuric

Animals will have rights when they start to claim them.

If you seriously believe that the ‘right’ to not be enslaved and killed presupposes the ability to speak our language, you must also believe that I, as an individual who is completely unable to speak Polish but is able to speak English, would not violate the such ‘rights’ of an individual who is able to speak Polish but is not able to speak English if I were to enslave and then later kill that individual because that individual would “have rights” only “when they start to claim them” in a way which I am currently able to understand.

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

@Spideynw

If I kill someone, and no one finds out about it, the person does not have any rights. He or she is dead, and I got away with it.

No. The investigator of the crime will know that it was murder. The way the science of justice operates now a days it is undoubtedly rare that an investigation crew (includes autopsy performed by pathologist) will not be able to know if it was suicide or murder.

Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.

[liberty_student]

@Spideynw

Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.

I’m pretty sure you have already been marked for termination during the revolution phase. It’s just too risky letting someone with no concept of right and wrong loose. Plus, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it. [;)]

[alimentarius]

@ladyattis

Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don’t have any sense or capacity of self

How do you know?

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.

well the person that did it and died knew a life was killed. thus a right called life was violated. whether or not justice will be brought to the criminal is moot and has to do with a just investigation.

[wilderness]

it’s like these rumors I heard some years ago of individuals ejaculating their sperm into people’s sandwiches at fast food restaurants. And anybody that thinks that’s more sick than murder needs a head check.

[Saan]

@wilderness

except once another huge dog came too close to her and our son and she actually went after this dog that was about ten times bigger than her.

There’s a little Jack russell/chiuahaha [:S] that wanders around the neigborhood sometimes. He follows us on walks. He darts in and out of the pack making sneak attacks on the big dogs. The big dogs have yet to get in a good butt sniff.

@wilderness

i never seen her do that before but hey, we’re all family here.

She’s just returning the favor. ( free shelter, free food, free attention, free protection.) Good dog.

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

@Spideynw

Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.

well the person that did it and died knew a life was killed. thus a right called life was violated. whether or not justice will be brought to the criminal is moot and has to do with a just investigation.

Someone was murdered, yes. But a “right” is a “legal claim”. Legal claims cannot be “violated”.

[wilderness]

@Spideynw

Someone was murdered, yes. But a “right” is a “legal claim”. Legal claims cannot be “violated”.

I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to. A right is a principle and these principles are intellectual constructs of facts. Life is. Liberty is. Property is. They are facts and rights are descriptive of the kinds of principles I am referring to, in other words, descriptive of real objects conceptualized and delineated of this world. There is life. There is liberty. There is property. Conceptual boundaries can be drawn and define each of these. When a right is violated it IS a life, liberty, and property being violated. And whoever was being murdered was a living human being, had a life, felt, maybe had a blind first date to look forward to later, and was simply taking a walk looking forward to having such a dinner later in the evening. Now not only somebody’s office space will be vacant but a person who laughed and played is also gone. When I talk about rights - I am talking about that person. I am talking about their laughter, heart, breath, and touch.

If you disagree, then no point in going any further with this discussion.

[Spideynw]

@liberty student

@Spideynw

Again, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it, and no one will be able to bring a legal claim against me for it.

I’m pretty sure you have already been marked for termination during the revolution phase. It’s just too risky letting someone with no concept of right and wrong loose. Plus, if no one finds out I did it, then I will not get punished for it.

Where in my statement did I make a judgment about whether or not the action was right or wrong?

[Spideynw]

@wilderness

I know that is your argument and I disagree with it. It has lead to inconsistencies not only in this thread but in other threads that I object to.

How is that?

[zefreak]

@wilderness

@zefreak

This is obviously not the usage of “right” we are interested in.

Whoever “we” are - the borg? The natural rights interest is in the way Spideynw put this. of course as a skeptic you’ll not be able to affirm any knowledge either way - whether you or I is right or wrong. you’ll contradict yourself by trying to apply any conviction of knowledge on this subject.

Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn’t this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?

[zefreak]

@wilderness

@alimentarius

Potential, so what?

They are human. And animals can’t claim. Can’t petition. Can’t recognize rights. They are learned. Of course custom may also instill what rights are as when I was in kindergarden I was taught what “mine and thine” is. Animals can’t rationalize what “mine and thine” is. It’s the difference between bruteness and reasonableness. And potential isn’t a “so what”.

What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the “potential” for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.

[wilderness]

@zefreak

Are you daft? He is equivocating morality and legality. Isn’t this exactly what a natural rights advocate like yourself would reject?

this is old. read the rest of the thread

[wilderness]

@zefreak

What about animals that are clearly territorial? More importantly, all animals have the “potential” for self-awareness, and there is evidence that many do have varying degrees of consciousness, including empathy.

old already answered this, but you are a skeptic of the intellect so I can’t readily respond to you anyway. and I’m not going to teach you.

but I’ll let you know. everything you said - HAS nothing to do with what I’m saying. Some animals might have it - so what? And a rock has the potential of being a rocket scientist too - yeah someday. This is why discussing with a skeptic is to vacate logic. Aristotle and Kant were right about this. I’ll stick to science than get stuck talking with a sophist.

[zefreak]

@ladyattis

@zefreak

Still an arbitrary distinction. Of course, assuming the distinction is accurate, you would be incorrect to state the other creatures are purely reflective, unconscious beings. There is ample evidence that some degree of consciousness is to be found in many species; consciousness is not binary.

How so? Consider the comparison of say a rock to an apple tree. Can one say that the rock and the apple tree have exclusive traits? If so, then the claim of arbitrariness of the comparison is invalid. Lets take the basic idea of self. Self literally means an awareness of one’s thought(s). Most animals, especially physically simpler ones like insects, don’t have any sense or capacity of self. Thus, the hyphenated term, self-ownership, isn’t applicable. It would be like applying the definition of a fruit tree to the rock in the apple tree rock example. Now, this doesn’t mean there aren’t animals with self-consciousness. I believe certain dogs, ravens (corvids in general), the great apes, and a couple other species seem to have exhibited for scientific examination self-consciousness. But equally, I would state that rights in this case cannot be solely demarcated on self-consciousness. A child has self-consciousness, but does that child have rights similar to an adult? Most would say no, and the reasoning is simple: rights follow from obligations, in that rights are either afforded or awarded for the [continued] fulfillment of obligations presented by others (I have the right to a paycheck from UPS because I fulfill the obligations in terms for working them and etc). Rights in this context cannot be assumed to have a naturalistic origin, unless one assumes that some where along the way social interactions have a metaphysical bent to them. shrugs Thus, I would conclude rights cannot be assumed as in born to the person or animal or agent, thus the entire animal rights argument can be defeated right there by recognizing others ‘give’ rights (giving in terms of allowing or affording) to others.

I think it is an invalid comparison, but it’s not worth arguing. Your concept of rights is not Rothbardian, nor natural, and therefor outside of the scope of this argument.