I can't believe this thread warrants 3 pages; the mind wobbles.
1. OK. No. Chimps, dolphins, nor any of the other "lesser animals" have rights that we loosely term "human."
2. Yes--there do exist acts, thoughts, and sentiments that are objectively, categorically and unassailably "good".
Hope that clears everything up.🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloydI think you are basing your idea of human superiority strictly on a biblical interpretation aren't you?
I can't believe this thread warrants 3 pages; the mind wobbles.
1. OK. No. Chimps, dolphins, nor any of the other "lesser animals" have rights that we loosely term "human."
2. Yes--there do exist acts, thoughts, and sentiments that are objectively, categorically and unassailably "good".
Hope that clears everything up.🙂
What if in fact Dolphins are in the future proven to be having at least human level communications in Dolphinese that we cannot as yet understand?
Would intelligent speech between Dolphins be enough to prove to you humans cannot be put on a higher than any other Earthly life form pedestal?
Originally posted by sonhouseNope.
I think you are basing your idea of human superiority strictly on a biblical interpretation aren't you?
What if in fact Dolphins are in the future proven to be having at least human level communications in Dolphinese that we cannot as yet understand?
Would intelligent speech between Dolphins be enough to prove to you humans cannot be put on a higher than any other Earthly life form pedestal?
And my belief in the superiority of man over the lesser creatures is more out of "team loyalty" than a biblical interpretation. If I were a dolphin, I would no doubt have a different opinion--if dolphins had opinions which they don't.
Originally posted by PinkFloydHas anyone pointed out yet that in the past under slavery and apartheid, there were similar concepts of 'lesser humans' and people frequently claimed that the slaves / blacks were incapable of having their own opinions.
Nope.
And my belief in the superiority of man over the lesser creatures is more out of "team loyalty" than a biblical interpretation. If I were a dolphin, I would no doubt have a different opinion--if dolphins had opinions which they don't.
In general, rights are granted by others in respect. If we do not respect others, we do not grant them rights. It is unlikely that dolphins or chipanzees will gain human like rights unless the majority of humans have the necessary respect for them, and currently those with such respect is a tiny tiny minority. Even most 'animal lovers' would quite happily confine chimpanzees to a particular area / cage etc (for their own safety or otherwise) but would not accept chimpanzees imposing similar restrictions on them.
Granting a partial set of rights is another matter. For example I might agree with granting the right not to be eaten by humans.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot to be eaten, hunted, trapped, experimented on, or their environment polluted. The last would be good for human beings too.
Granting a partial set of rights is another matter. For example I might agree with granting the right not to be eaten by humans.
Attitudes towards animals are shifting. Increased prosperity has resulted in many Chinese becoming pet owners, so that an animus against the eating of dogs and cats is developing -- a source of social friction, by all accounts.
Imagine life under a Jain dictator.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAttitudes do have a lot to do with our experiences. People who have close pets as a child usually grant those pets far greater rights than other animals. There are lots of organizations in Cape Town trying to help stray dogs and cats - and no organizations for rats.
Attitudes towards animals are shifting. Increased prosperity has resulted in many Chinese becoming pet owners, so that an animus against the eating of dogs and cats is developing -- a source of social friction, by all accounts.
Also farmers (or other people who regularly interact with livestock bread for food) tend to have a more practical attitude than those of us who buy our meat at a butcher and try not to think about where it comes from.
Originally posted by twhitehead
[b]Has anyone pointed out yet that in the past under slavery and apartheid, there were similar concepts of 'lesser humans' and people frequently claimed that the slaves / blacks were incapable of having their own opinions.
I don't know--this point may have been made. The point is that tis point was found to be wrong. Apartheid, slavery, etc. = baaaaad. ...[text shortened]... to avail ourselves of this triumph of human intelligence. I just don't see it any other way.
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59No, this is about whether dolphin have rights. It has nothing to do with granting those rights. They either have them or they don't. It also has nothing to do with your rights.
Perhaps this is not a question of granting dolphins rights but more about extending human rights?
Do I have the right to live in a world which respects life?
Do I have the right to live in a world in which animal suffering at the hands of man is not tolerated?
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoung'It has nothing to do with granting those rights'
No, this is about whether dolphin have rights. It has nothing to do with granting those rights. They either have them or they don't. It also has nothing to do with your rights.
Can you read?
Should Dolphins be granted human style rights?
Originally posted by wolfgang59A natural right is a negative right against all other people that all people have simply by virtue of being people. The right to not be murdered (AKA the right to life) is one.
What is a 'natural right' ???
Name one which cannot be granted.
Rights can be violated, but that does not take the right away. It's kind of like saying nations can grant people part of the Ten Commandments. It doesn't make sense. The rule applies whether the right (or Commandment) is respected or not.