Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society THE “RIGHTS” OF ANIMALS

Actually, she eventually mates with him. Go figure.

Anyway, I disagree with you on self-ownership and on the lack of inherent Rights (if by that you mean natural Rights), however that is neither here nor there because I am more interested in your suggestion that ethics may play a major part in how animals are eventually treated -- not based on the whimsical emotionalism and mysticism displayed by many and subject to fickle change, but a more reliable and grounded base of protection for the lesser critters.

The natural Rights of Man is the center of a political philosophy concerning the relationship between the Individual and the state, and extends to how individuals relate to each other. It is based on negative Rights. Since there seems no logical way of recognizing such negative Rights in animals, perhaps what we need to do is develop a political philosophy concerning the relationship between Man and animal. Such a relationship would probably have to be based on what is referred to as positive rights -- something more one way and directed toward a lesser living being. Determining what those positive rights may be will probably be heavilly dependent on ethical considerations, no? But that can wait for another day. Time for me to hit the sack.
Yours,
Issodhos
p.s. Thanks for the suggestion.

Rights of Animals?

Could it be that male humans look at animals with different brain functions than women do? Men, being mainly hunters see our forest animals as feed for the family. Women see animals as family units much in the same way as they see their own families. Could it be that man has the capacity to find association with young animals who are helpless and need a little TLC from humans? We women do it all the time.

Our children find a puppy or kitten or even a bird’s nest that has fallen from a tree and brought them home. Is it not a desire to help a helpless critter? Is this not a good action to expand the child’s love for nature?

I have a keen respect for Murray Rothbard but a deeper respect for the human mind which is unique in all respects if allowed to develop individuality. There is no set model for the human brain and our strength at being top of the food ladder can be found in our individual look at the animal world as well as how we treat our planet.

Even our indigenous American natives understood the care of the soil they used to grow their grains and fruits by staggering their plants not to deplete the nutrients and probably learned too late to stop slaughtering the bison that fed and clothed them.

The human brain has learned the art of balancing what they seem to enjoy and that is showing the power of men over the animals, especially when holding the power of a gun in their hands. The female brain sees a different point of view and we tend to find this action offensive. But human nature is just that. Maybe the balance of male and female points of view are necessary for the survival of the animal world and mankind.

I didn't write the obvious because it was ... obvious.



The argument is just as wrong if you replace the gender with a race. For me, that means the argument is seriously doubtful when applied to any class of being.

As for the Declaration of Independence making no such distinction - it may not a legally binding document, but I've never heard it discounted for that reason before, and that does not negate its effect on this country. The writers may have made no such distiction; the readers most definitely have.

Second, if you have not read it, I'd introduce you to a Declaration of the Rights of Women?; even the first two paragraphs make a huge difference.

Which is why I'll tell the lioness to get it in writing.

(Edited note: I realize this is not a discussion of women's rights. My point is that if this form of argument stands, then all we have to do re-define the kinds of people we don't like, as animals, and rights are gone. And I don't put it past us, because I believe it's been done before.)

Ah, lass, the Indigenous Tribes of the original occupants of this country did NOT slaughter the Bison. They killed them with respect and only as needed. The actual slaughter and near extinction of the mighty herds of Buffalo was a directive handed down from Washington. It was a simple theory, kill all the food and all the Indians will die. Genocide plain and simple. Trainloads of men with guns were sent to kill ALL the Bison. Another beautiful example of why mans "natural rights" are undeserved. Although if I think in racist terms it seems that ethics are more often set aside by white folks than by races of colour. Most all the nasty shite that has happened in in our recorded world history has been perpetrated by us white folks.
Not all of it of course,in our dim past we couldn't be everywhere at once, now we can. AS a brief f'rinstance, Iraq, everyone got along okay under Saddams brutal regime, enter the white man and the killing commences. This is strictly conjecture though and unrelated to the topic.
Issodoss, what has mankind, male, female and non white done to deserve any natural rights beyond that of other species? Religious claims don't do it for me and rescuing kittens is cute but doesn't earn totalitarian claims over the planet. All the studies and theories about mans nature have been conducted by men (and women) and so might be a we bit slanted in our favor.
Who gave us these rights and did not give them to animals?
In a nutshell is it simply that might makes rights?

Issodos,
I'm sorry, I got to ranting along and forgot that you had cleared up where the rights came from. Political philosophy. Quite correct.

Indeed.

A pun my word!

Oh.



We are all in agreement, issodhos. Animals should not have the same rights as man.

For those who may be confused, the second 'quote' is a paraphrase of what I wrote. The flaw in it need not be pointed out because -- well -- because it is so obvious.:-)

Yours,
Issodhos

Actually, the whole "Nobel Savage" thing can be quite overworked, Greger. One tactic used by some tribes was to drive a group of buffalo over a cliff at the bottom of which was waiting the rest of the tribe to do the processing work for current consumption and preserving for later consumption – I suspect that they would have done back-flips for a functioning freezer. Not much respect there. As to claims that the American Indian did a lot of praying and respecting of the animals, it was probably more a superstitious attempt to placate the Spirit World and ensure a good hunt than out of any sense of kinship with the critterworld.

And it seems to be historically accurate that the elimination of the herds was indeed done at the direction of Washington with the intent of starving the Western Indian tribes onto reservations.


Yeah, it is racist, but in this era it is to be expected and is neither here nor there. The ‘sin’ here is in the error of thinking “nasty” comes with a skin color – or even that your statement is even correct. However, that is not what this thread is supposed to be about, so maybe you or someone else could start a separate thread entitled, “Whitey is the Devil”. That could be fun.:-)


Who wrote that natural rights had anything to do with deserving?;-)
Yours,
Issodhos