Originally posted by rgoudiePlease, be a bit careful with bringing in that big shame of modern history.
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.
It is not fair to compare your opponents with nazis. It kills any discussion.
Originally posted by fjordi do not understand what you are getting at, fjord - or what you mean by 'opponents'.
Please, be a bit careful with bringing in that big shame of modern history.
It is not fair to compare your opponents with nazis. It kills any discussion.
all rgoudie did was to give an example of how one group wanted to 'exploit' another group and justify doing so by labelling them as 'undesirable' (which is if anything an understatement).
this was hardly a 'big shame' as you write - it is one of the most horrific examples of barbaric magnitude ever seen on the planet. what is really a shame is that there is still plenty of it going around all over the world and in many forms. there are even groups that insist the holocast never occurred and that it is just a big lie. this is exactly how 'self-serving' things can get if it is not recognized and opposed vigorously on all fronts.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by pradtfPrad,
i do not understand what you are getting at, fjord - or what you mean by 'opponents'.
all rgoudie did was to give an example of how one group wanted to 'exploit' another group and justify doing so by labelling them as 'undesirable' (which is if anything an understatement).
this was hardly a 'big shame' as you write - it is one of the most horrif ...[text shortened]... gs can get if it is not recognized and opposed vigorously on all fronts.
in friendship,
prad
There is no disagreement that nazism was a horrific and abject atrocity. And I also support the idea that we should be vigil that such a thing will never happen again. And that is the very reason why I think you should not bring it too easily into a discussion.
I cannot tell to whom the post was directed. I guessed to his opponents. If I'm wrong I hope Ray will tell himself.
The problem with this thread is that the original question of Ivanhoe had two components that he brought as interrelated. I question that ralationship. The first post was:
Should animals have rights ?
My answer to this question is: yes !
Especially the animals in the bio-industry should be treated better.
What are your thoughts on this matter ?
The way Ivanhoe wrote this post makes it clear that for him animal rights are a necessity for better treatment of animals, specially for animals in the bio-industry.
Starting with the last part of his post, I agree with his statement that animals should be treated better. I'm against the bio-industry and already a long time vegetarian, because I do not see the need of killing animals and eating them. So yes I vote for a better treatment of animals.
But that doesn't mean that I believe in animal rights in the way that I believe in human rights (see also my discussion with bbarr).
So, Ivanhoe's question is confusing. Did Ivanhoe ask if animals should be better treated or did he ask if animals have rights?
In one of your previous posts you brought up the example of slavery. You compared the fight against slavery with the struggle for a better treatment of animals. I don't think they are comparable.
The problem at the time of slavery was that the whites did not see the blacks as human beings. They did not see them as equals.
With animals it is quite a different matter. They are not humans, they are not even like humans. You may love them more than humans, you may feel more at ease with them, you may feel you have to protect them because they are vulnerable and defenseless against our bad treatment, but they are not our equals. It is for that reason that I think that we have a great responsibility towards them and should treat them well and protect them.
At the time of slavery there were also some whites who cared for their slaves and gave them, compared to other slaves, a reasonable good life. But good or bad treatment was not the central issue of the struggle against slavery. The point was that blacks should be seen as equals to their old masters. So the fight was not for good treatment but for abolishing slavery.
The issue with the animals it is quite a different matter. Whatever we say or want we are the masters of our earth. The simple fact that we can think, plan, organize puts us in that position. We have no choice here. The only choice we have is if we want to be good or bad masters. If we want to treat nature with respect or not. So, although I do not believe in animal rights, I do think we should make a clear declaration in which we promise to treat animals, plants and nature as best we can.
Originally posted by fjordthank you for your clarification, fjord.
Prad,
And that is the very reason why I think you should not bring it too easily into a discussion.
In one of your previous posts you brought up the example of slavery. You compared the fight against slavery with the struggle for a better treatment of animals. I don't think they are comparable.
it is precisely because nazism was horrific that we must bring it into this discussion. no one is comparing animals to jews. what is being highlighted though are the worst qualities displayed by a species that you clearly indicate should know better.
neither am i comparing to slaves to animals. but you cannot deny that the process of enslavement, degradation, exploitation are the same. it is insufficient to deny this simply because it is happening to another species that you have declared is inferior. that is the only thing being compared - the actions of the oppressors and the subsequent justification.
in my posts, i am not talking about the other species - i am talking about the human species that loses its humanity everytime it wantonly oppresses another being for greed, for gain or for its own sadistic pleasure and it makes no difference who that other being is (we can discuss this if you feel there is a need - but if you see what i'm getting at, it may not be necessary).
i am glad though that you feel if we are indeed 'masters of the earth' we should at least be responsible ones. i will not debate the assumption with you, though i have a feeling that the earth may have something to say about it 😉
i do not doubt that you are a compassionate individual - and i apologize if it appeared that i thought we had a disagreement regarding nazism or even about the treatment of animals. apparently, we do not. however, you leave the latter is still open to abuse so long as animals are denied rights (since, humans seem to be guided by this concept)
but the real problem isn't whether we are superior and they are inferior. the real problem is when we use that argument to perpetrate and justify oppression. human beings will never be equal until they are treated equal - and that is the whole point of my earlier post - it is those in power that need to show the responsibility because this is their chance to aspire.
the extension to non-human beings is a natural and necessary one because again it says much about those in power. the extension does not imply that all beings are inherently equal (whatever that is), because that is a completely irrelevant issue for the purposes here - unless, of course, one wishes to misuse the contrary notion to justify barbaric behaviour (as i keep reiterating).
unfortunately, while we glue ourselves to ideas of other beings (human or non-human) as having or not having rights because they are superior or inferior, we will continue to walk down the same path in history over and over again.
in friendship,
prad
Pradtf: " ... unfortunately, while we glue ourselves to ideas of other beings (human or non-human) as having or not having rights because they are superior or inferior, we will continue to walk down the same path in history over and over again." Pradtf
The same ways of changing ideas and definitions about human beings is being used in a self serving way to rationalise the killing of new unborn human life. We say to ourselves: Well, these "cells" are not human life according to our definitions. These "cells" cannot have any rights, therefore it is morally justified to kill them and we use beautiful and very eloquent reasoning to rationalise this action. If unborn humans do not have a right to live, do unborn or born animals have such a right ?
Originally posted by fjordHello.
I cannot tell to whom the post was directed. I guessed to his opponents. If I'm wrong I hope Ray will tell himself.
The post wasn't directed any any specific individuals. It was simply a demonstration of how human have before been unable to see past their own ignorance, and that there is no valid reason to think otherwise concerning animals.
-Ray.
Hi!
Your right it was shameful and so is the slaughter of our friends.
Animals are being killed for no reason othere then greed.
There is no need to eat meat.
I can tell you that my grandmother who was in Poland at the time of the War sure has a different view of the situation.
It's funny on how when there is a value placed on anything we will tend to take care of it more but when there isn't one especially monetary then well you know.
Big G.
Fjord, sorry about the delay, I was hoping to respond to this sooner.
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.
Response: There are two different claims you're making here. The first is that rights and obligtions are made by self-aware reasoning creatures, the second is that rights and obligations only belong to such creatures. I'll respond to these in turn.
1. First, I'm sure you think that you personally have rights/obligations. Who made the right/obligations that you personally have? It can't be that EVERYONE has agreed to give you rights and enforce obligations upon you, for there are millions of people who were never asked and thus never agreed to grant you the rights you possess or to enforce upon you the obligations by which you are constrained. So, it must be either you individually or some select group of people that granted you rights and enforced upon you obligations. If you did this individually, then you are assuming that rights can arise simply by fiat, in which case there is nothing to prevent you from stipulating that, for instance, you have the right to my life and property. Clearly you have no such right, so rights cannot be brought into being by an individual alone. You position entails that nobody has inalienable rights, or rights that are always wrong to violate. Similarly, if you individually decide which obligations will bind you, then nothing prevents you from refusing to be bound by moral obligations. You could, in effect, remove yourself from moral obligation by fiat. Since moral obligations are things that bind us regardless of what we feel about them (e.g., you ought not torture others, even if you really want to), your position entails that there are no such thing as moral obligations. Hence, your view reduces to a kind of moral skepticism. Similar arguments can be made for the position that it is some select group (like a government or a culture) that grants us rights and enforces upon us obligations. For instance, if it is some group that grants you rights and enforces upon you obligations, then your rights can be taken away and your obligations can be dissolved by that group. Hence, you would not have any inalienable rights nor any necessarily binding obligations.
NOTE: By the way, if we are the ones who make rights/obligations, then there is no reason why we can't give rights to animals, and obligate ourselves to treat them with respect. So your view actually entails that it is possible for animals to have rights (though they wouldn't be inalienable rights, because of the considerations above).
2. Second, many mammals have both the ability to reason and a self-concept. Gorillas and chimps, for instance, both show the capacity for learning and novel problem solving that are constitutive of reason. Additionally, both gorillas and chimps (and others) can recognize themselves in pictures and mirrors (as the 'Blush Test' from the animal behavior literature can attest). So it seems these animals have at least a rudimentary self-concept as well. This entails that, by your own criteria, these animals qualify as rights holders. Perhaps you think, however, that although these animals have some mental capacity, this is not sufficient to grant them rights. In other words, you probably think that these animals just don't have enough of the relevant mental capacity to qualify as rights holders. But then the question arises: Just how self-aware or able to reason does a creature have to be in order for it to qualify as a rights holder? Surely, an adult gorilla or chimp has a mental capacity that far exceeds that of a newborn infant or a severely retarded human adult (like those with profound Down's syndrome). Yet you are prepared to grant rights to the newborn or the retarded human and deny them to the adult gorilla or chimp. This is a clear inconsistency on your part. If you take seriously your own admission that the properties of being self-aware and/or capable of reason are criterial for the holding of rights, then you are committed to recognizing the rights of at least some animals. If you deny such a committment, then you are simply discriminating against animals on the basis of their species. In the words of Peter Singer, you would be guilty of speciesism, a fault akin to racism or sexism.
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?
Response: You are confused here. If you agree amongst friends to donate money to a beggar, then you have made a promise to your friends. The people to whom you promised are the ones who have rights in this case, not the beggar. Suppose my friends and I all agree to donate money to a beggar. What we have done is make a promise to one another, not the beggar. This promise may obligate us to give money to the beggar, but this obligation isn't one that we owe to the beggar, for we haven't promised him anything at all. This is an obligation we owe to one another. I owe it to my friends to keep my promise, and they owe the same obligation to me. My friends and I have the right to have our contracts abided by. We all have the right not to be the victim of a lying promise, and that is what they would be if I backed out of my promise by not donating money to the beggar. In such a situation, I would have violated my firends' right, not the beggars. So, you just failed to look in the right place for the rights that arise together with the obligation to donate money. Thus, your example fails to show that rights and obligations do not arise together, and in fact provides evidence for my claim to the contrary. So, unless you think that when we are cruel to animals we are actually violating obligations we owe to other humans, then the truth of my claim that rights/obligations always arise together commits you to granting rights to animals (because you have claimed previously that you think we are obligated to treat animals 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.
You misread my previous post concerning our obligations regarding nature. I think that we have an obligation to treat nature with respect, but I do not think that this is an obligation we owe directly to nature itself. I think we owe this obligation to conscious creatures; we owe it to them to take care of their habitat and minimize the damage we do. Our obligations regarding nature are a function of the rights of animals to have space within which to live. Again, you fail to look in the right place to find the rights correlated with our obligations, and thus my original claim is unthreatened. This may be a difficult distinction to grasp, the difference between having an obligation with regard to something, and oweing and obligation directly to some creature. Hopefully the following analogy will help: Suppose I ask you to take care of one of my paintings, and you promise to me that you will notallow any harm to befall it. In such a case you are obligated by your promise to keep my painting out of harm's way, or, in other words, to treat my painting with respect. But it is clearly not the case that you owe this obligation to the painting itself. Rather, you owe it to me. I'm the one with the rights in this case, not the painting, even though your obligations are reagarding the painting. It is similar to the respect to which we have obligations regarding nature.
Originally posted by ivanhoeguess it's a bit like kids. you take care of them, teach them lifeskills, share joy in their growth, but you don't own them (although in some cultures at different points in history, kids were considered property).
If I understand things correctly it will be impossible to own an animal that holds animal rights.
our responsibility to companion animals amounts to something similar - expect they stay with us even after they 'grow up'. we don't need to 'own' them, even though the dog license says we do. however, since they are living with us, we do need to put restrictions on some of them so they don't hurt themselves or others and we need to make some sensible decisions on their behalf (eg spaying and neutering) because they are living in domestic circumstances.
ownership that is abused can lead to some very ugly situations and fortunately, at least in many places, there are laws against that.
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by bbarrI agree with you and your answer affirms what I have been trying to express. If we decide (and we should in my opinion) to treat animals (and nature) with dignity, it does not imply that you give rights to the animals. The rights and obligations are part of the people, organizations, and countries that make that decision together. They can strengthen their mutual rights and obligations by (international) law. The animals (and nature) are the beneficiaries.
You are confused here. If you agree amongst friends to donate money to a beggar, then you have made a promise to your friends. The people to whom you promised are the ones who have rights in this case, not the beggar.
- Joined
- 20 Oct 02
- Moves
- 610682
Originally posted by ivanhoeWhat rights does a lion give a zebra? What rights would a hungry grizzly give a child on a camping trip?
Should animals have rights ?
My answer to this question is: yes !
Especially the animals in the bio-industry should be treated better.
What are your thoughts on this matter ?