We agree that rights and obligations are interrelated. You see that relation as being the two sides of the same coin..
My point of view is that this cannot be true because rights and obligations belong to the human domain. We may feel obliged or may feel entitled to something by our conscience or by reasoning without another person/being involved.
Response: But this reply of yours just begs the question, as it is the existence of animal rights that is at issue. You seem to think that rights are by definition entities only humans can possess, but you have not given any arguments in support of this view. But perhaps we ought to take a different approach here... Suppose, hypothetically, that we encountered an alien species. Suppose the members of this alien species could communicate with us, reason about the world, engage in artistic endeavor, etc. In short, suppose that these aliens had a rich mental like just like humans. Would you be prepared to say that these aliens have rights we must respect (e.g., that they have a right not to be tortured by us for fun)? If you think that these hypothetical aliens have rights, then rights cannot be entities that belong solely to humans, because ex hypothesi these creatures are not human. So, in virtue of what do these aliens have rights? It must be that they share something in common with humans, and that this shared property (perhaps the capacity to suffer, perhaps the capacity to reason...) is the foundation for the possession of rights. So, here is my question to you: What is this shared property?
Although there is often a relation between the rights of one person (or group of persons) and the obligation of the other person (or group of persons) I cannot see why this should be the case in every situation.
Indeed, rights and obligations are intertwined. We may argue that we have the right AND the obligation to work. But does my obligation to work give anyone else a special right? I would not think so.
Response: I think there is some confusion here. You say you have an obligation to work. Suppose, hypothetically, that you were to quit working. Would you have wronged anybody (yourself included, because we can have obligations to ourselves) by quitting. If you would not have wronged anybody, then I think you would be incorrect in claiming that you had an actual obligation to work. If, on the other hand, you would be wronging somebody by not working, then it seems you would incorrect in claiming that no right attends the obligation to work. Can you give me one example where somebody has a right and nobody else has a moral obligation to respect that right? Can you give me one example where somebody has a moral obligation, and nobody else has a right corresponding to that obligation? For instance, I borrow ten dollars from you and promise to pay you back tomorrow. What has happened by my making such a promise. Not only do you now have the right to be paid back, but I have the obligation to do so. Obligations and rights come in pairs, as I said before. If you think that we have an obligation to treat animals with respect, then they have a right to be treated with respect.
In my opinion all beings that belong to the family of human race have rights and obligations. But there are many variations. Children have mainly rights and little obligations. The same counts for sick, disabled and old people. Other people, like criminals have lost some rights. In my opinion includes a civilized culture all their members in the best possible way in the distribution of rights and obligations.
Response: I don't see how this follows from your previous claim that "The rights [children] have got they normally pay back in a later phase of their lives." This seems to indicate that rights must be earned in some way, contrary to your other claim that humans just have rights because they are human. So, which is it? Do children have rights because they earn them (in which case the severely disabled must not have rights, nor terminally ill children)? Or do children have rights merely because they are human (In which case the hypothetical aliens above must not have rights)? I'm really interested in finding out just what it is that you think makes humans so special as to make them the exclusive bearers of rights.
Now you seem to feel that all beings that are able to suffer should become part of this parcel. A sympathatic idea. But how can you discriminate between who or what suffers or is able to suffer and what not? You mention mammals and reptiles. But what about trees? (One of the sisters of the queen of Holland is famous for her conversations with trees and according to her they can suffer too). What you probably mean to say is that all categories that can show behavior in way that human beings can interprete as suffering are entitled to have rights. That idea creates some problems as someof the reactions in this thread already show.
Response: No, I don't mean to say that moral consideration ought to be based on behavioral criteria. I think neurophysiological data supports the view than mammals and reptiles are conscious, there is a broad similarity in brain structure, and the brain instantiates consciousness. We have good reason to think that mammals and reptiles (and some other animals) are conscious because they are put together in roughly the same way we are, whereas trees and plants and paramecia and televisions and thermometers obviously are not. So some distinctions here are obvious, although there will be grey areas (are beetles conscious, fruit flies?) I don't see why these grey area sraise any problems, since the animals we are talking about don't fall in their range.
Originally posted by rapalla7here is the interesting line in that article:
Here you go bud http://www.urbanlegends.com/animals/dog_eats_mans_head.html
"Examination of the body showed that death had been due to natural causes, namely coronary disease, and that the dog had been responsible for the decapitation (see Fig. 89)."
this would suggest, my dear watson, that the man had succumbed to a typical meat-eater's condition (coronary disease due to animal protein consumption is one of the #1 killers in north america), but the dog evidently had the decency to wait till the master died before attempting to eat him presumably because the collie was starving.
what i don't understand is why the dog went for the head. do you not find this puzzling too?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfMaybe the dog has always wanted to get a head!🙄🙄😀
here is the interesting line in that article:
"Examination of the body showed that death had been due to natural causes, namely coronary disease, and that the dog had been responsible for the decapitation (see Fig. 89)."
this would suggest, my dear watson, that the man had succumbed to a typical meat-eater's condition (coronary disease due to animal ...[text shortened]... and is why the dog went for the head. do you not find this puzzling too?
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by ivanhoei wish to look at the AR issue from a slightly different perspective, that of rights in general. in these matters, rights are always sought by the 'weaker' party (or their advocates) from the 'stronger' party.
Reading the posts this question rose: Do animals HAVE rights and do we humans have to acknowledge them or do we humans GIVE rights to animals ?
.
let us first look at this within the human species since it is sometimes difficult for some people to extend the notion to other species so that the mechanics behind the idea become clarified.
let's start with slavery in the US. the 'weaker' party were the blacks, forcibly uprooted from their homeland and brought to 'bolster' the economy in the US. the 'stronger' were those making the profits as slave owners and traders. the stronger party did not want to consider these beings as anything other than property or commodities. by viewing them as such, it was easy to subject them to abhorrent actions. there was a fight to gain rights and eventually the 'stronger' party was forced to concede at least legally though not pragmatically till much later and the struggle, at least against bigotry still continues.
the industrial revolution in britain is another example of the same thing. though they were not called 'slaves', the laborers (men, women and children) were effectively treated as such forced to work inhuman hours under inhumane conditions for sustenance wages. there was a whole 'deformed' generation that developed as a result of these 'satanic mills'. the 'weaker' party were the laborers and the 'stronger' party were their employers and others who profited from their work. 'freethinking radicals' and religious leaders spoke out against this treatment because it was abhorrent and eventually the 'stronger' party was forced into some concessions. this struggle also continues in many parts of the world.
the first nations population in canada is the 'weaker' party and the non-aboriginal 'invaders' became the 'stronger'. same thing here again. the stronger party finds it inconvenient to grant rights. there is a 'fight' and some concessions are eventually made, but the struggle still continues.
women were defined by british common law as 'persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges'. as such women could not hold public office because they had to figure out 'Does the word "person" in Section 24 of The British North America Act include female persons?' again a fight on behalf of the 'weaker' party to gain concessions from the 'stronger' party. though the feminist movement has made enormous strides, here again the struggle still continues.
the pattern appears to always the same. the 'stronger' party cling tenaciously to what they have regardless of how badly they mistreat the 'weaker' party. the 'rights' have to be fought for and eventually concessions are made.
so here is the question: what does it say about the 'stronger' party that they are willing to oppress others for their own gain? how, in fact, does posterity view these oppressors and most importantly why is it that these oppressors eventually are viewed this way by later generations?
the trend in 'civilized' society generally seems to be towards restricting the power of the oppressors. people aren't allowed to keep slaves, owners are legally forced to provide proper working conditions and decent wages. if someone tries to force aboriginal people off their land, or if promotion is withheld on the basis of creed, color or sex there is usually a mechanism for protest and very often significant legal action as well. hence, society does not look favorably on oppression in general. in fact, we not only speak of oppressors of the past in derogatory terms, the laws that are set up are usually to some extent intended to prevent such acts from taking place in our present and future. hence, we have laws against murder, violence, fraud, animal cruelty etc. the idea is to protect the weak against the oppression of the strong. in fact, it is often the strong who initiate and implement these ideas following through on that wonderful moment of enlightenment that king arthur had when he realized that it was not 'might is right', but that it needs to be 'might for right'.
why does this happen? it happens because there is a continual awakening to the realization that being cruel, greedy and barbaric is not in the best interests of the individual, society or the human species. our literature, theatre, cinema and even television are filled with support for the 'underdog' who overcomes the odds against the powerful oppressor - there appears to be a natural tendency to fight the good fight against this sort of thing. when we instill values in our children we generally try to bring about qualities of honesty, decency, kindness and courage. the 'golden rule' of 'do unto others ...' appears in many forms and in many places.
some people are too quick to point out that in nature it has to be 'the survival of the fitest', yet they do not stress strongly enough the other 'nature' adage that it is 'only those who adapt, that survive'. the human species has been adapting for centuries not so much biologically, but psychologically, ethically and spiritually. it is a necessary part of our evolution.
whether animals have rights or not can always be debated, but whether we grant our fellow creatures these rights, whether we acknowledge their dignity to life, whether we stop exploiting and abusing them says a lot about ourselves and the progress our species has made in the short time it has shared the earth.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by richhoeyI think there is new technology now which means that medical research does not need to rely on animal testing. Perhaps the reason why animal testing continues is because a lot of people involved don't have as much concern for animal welfare as they should, and also because it is a cheaper way of experimenting than the use of computer technology for example. At the end of the day there are a lot of drug companies who want to get medicines on the shelves in order to make money.
[b]
I'm much more relaxed about the use of animals in research though, both because there are strict regulations governing the way that experimental animals are treated and because medical research relies totally on the use of animals, whereas it's perfectly possible to survive without being a carnivore.
Originally posted by bbarr
You seem to think that rights are by definition entities only humans can possess, but you have not given any arguments in support of this view.
No. I think that rights and obligations are made by and belong to beings with self-awareness and reason. Up to now human beings are the only ones I know of.
But perhaps we ought to take a different approach here... Suppose, hypothetically, that we encountered an alien species. Suppose the members of this alien species could communicate with us, reason about the world, engage in artistic endeavor, etc. In short, suppose that these aliens had a rich mental like just like humans. Would you be prepared to say that these aliens have rights we must respect (e.g., that they have a right not to be tortured by us for fun)?
I suppose so.
If you think that these hypothetical aliens have rights, then rights cannot be entities that belong solely to humans, because ex hypothesi these creatures are not human. So, in virtue of what do these aliens have rights? It must be that they share something in common with humans, and that this shared property (perhaps the capacity to suffer, perhaps the capacity to reason...) is the foundation for the possession of rights. So, here is my question to you: What is this shared property?
As you suggested reason. Or self-awareness.
Can you give me one example where somebody has a right and nobody else has a moral obligation to respect that right? Can you give me one example where somebody has a moral obligation, and nobody else has a right corresponding to that obligation?
Suppose you agree, out of free will or by group decision that from now on every day you will give some money to a beggar. The beggar does not know about it. Nevertheless you are obliged by agreement to donate. What happens when you don't donate? You surely do not act according to your obligation. But has the beggar a right when he does not know about your obligation?
In India this habit is cultivated. They call it dana. Giving without receiving.
If you think that we have an obligation to treat animals with respect, then they have a right to be treated with respect.
This doesn't seem logical to me. We could also say that we have an obligation to treat nature with respect. But - according to your own definition - nature has no rights, except mammals. So obligations and rights are not always paired.
I don't see how this follows from your previous claim that "The rights [children] have got they normally pay back in a later phase of their lives." This seems to indicate that rights must be earned in some way, contrary to your other claim that humans just have rights because they are human.
We have not rights because we are humans. But because we are humans we are able to constitute our rights and obligations.
And normally we don't earn rights; we agree that all human beings have obligations and rights. Because that is the way to keep our lives in balance; it diminishes the fear for suffering and it feeds our happiness.
So, which is it? Do children have rights because they earn them (in which case the severely disabled must not have rights, nor terminally ill children)? Or do children have rights merely because they are human (In which case the hypothetical aliens above must not have rights)? I'm really interested in finding out just what it is that you think makes humans so special as to make them the exclusive bearers of rights.
We do not earn rights (although we may loose them). We agree to have them, so we can feel save and comfortable. And yes, children have rights because they belong to the human race (to be more precise: to the group with reason and self-awareness). And that is also true for retarded old people, disabled people etc, although they themselves may have lost their rational faculties or never had caused by a failure of mother nature.
No, I don't mean to say that moral consideration ought to be based on behavioral criteria. I think neurophysiological data supports the view than mammals and reptiles are conscious, there is a broad similarity in brain structure, and the brain instantiates consciousness. We have good reason to think that mammals and reptiles (and some other animals) are conscious because they are put together in roughly the same way we are, whereas trees and plants and paramecia and televisions and thermometers obviously are not. So some distinctions here are obvious, although there will be grey areas (are beetles conscious, fruit flies?) I don't see why these grey area sraise any problems, since the animals we are talking about don't fall in their range.
I agree with you that beings with consciousness are close to us and for that reason we may decide that these species should be treated with more care than others. But that is something civilized humans can (and should) agree on. That is not the right of the animals; it should be our decision. Animals have no vote. That is already one very good reason to be even more careful with them.
Originally posted by stofferwhat you say of course is the essence of the problem. while we consider another being as 'undeserving', it is easy to subjugate, abuse and exploit them.
animal testing continues is because a lot of people involved don't have as much concern for animal welfare as they should.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by stofferThe research industry is money driven. Researchers are continually after grants and drug companies want to sell their products so that they can make a profit. Research on animals is an accepted way of practice and many jobs depend on it. I think pointing out the importance of money in this arena is valid and very significant.
I think there is new technology now which means that medical research does not need to rely on animal testing. Perhaps the reason why animal testing continues is because a lot of people involved don't have as much concern for animal welfare as they should, and also because it is a cheaper way of experimenting than the use of computer technology for example ...[text shortened]... are a lot of drug companies who want to get medicines on the shelves in order to make money.
In Friendship
Ranjana
Originally posted by pradtfExactly!
that is a curiously self-serving argument, but fairly standard in exploitive circles: we want to do this to those, therefore let's not give them any rights.
prad
Look at human history for more fine examples of the depths of this type of human ignorance:
A few centuries ago, white-skinned European settlers in the so-called new world assumed the right to own slaves. The slaves were black-skinned. To the whites, blacks "obviously" did not have any rights, so the whites went ahead and acted "as if" the blacks actually did not have any rights. People still exist today with this same mentality, but they are now in the minority.
During World War II, the Nazis were busy ridding themsevles of "undesireables". To the Nazis, it was "self-evident" that these undesireables were not worthy of respect, and did not possess any rights. The Nazis went ahead and acted "as if" the undesireables actually did not have any rights. People still exist today with this same mentality, but they are now in the minority.
Throughout history, the majority of humans have believed that other life forms did not possess any rights and were not as "special" as the humans were. Humans are still acting "as if" the other life forms do not have any rights. There are still way too many people with this mentality. When will this ignorance become as self-evident?
🙁
-Ray.