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

Greger, once again we're on the same wavelength. Steve, I don't see anyone strongly arguing here that animals have the same rights as people. On the other hand, this thread grew rather rapidly and I may have missed it.

I had the impression that a discussion of specific rights wasn't really what people were interested in. It's been a long day, though. If you could direct me to the appropriate page, I'll re-re-read.

The only rights anyone or thing has are the rights it is able to assert.

One can talk about "inalienable rights" "rights by virtue of birth" and even the "rights bestowed by the Almighty" and yet it is all just words.

One's "rights" don't mean anything if a more powerful being or entity decides that one does not possess that right at a given time. One's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can be taken from one by a neighbor, a government, a criminal, a tiger or a bacterium and so are not inherently one's own always and forever. The Almighty has provided us with the gun to equalize the struggle with many of the threats to our "rights" and unholy science provides the illusion of equalizing the threat posed by others.

One's rights are what one's might (be it brawn or dollars) will secure--all other talk is so much piffle.

All

In an nutshell:
The first question in the thread was “do animals have rights?” and was based on a book excerpt written by Murray Rothbard entitled, “The “Rights” of Animals”.

The first paragraph was:

He was referring to the full natural rights of Man, and His conclusion was, no, they don’t.

I then said that I also thought they did not have any Rights and went on to explain what I meant by Rights as held by Man and applied to Lions (I could have used bunnies, but they are not as dramatic and just look stupid when fighting each other:-)).

I then stated that aside from spiritual, metaphysical, and religious reason, is there any solid basis for claiming that animals do have rights so such 'rights' would not be left to the whim of the powerful.

I then proposed that, “"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 heavily dependent on ethical considerations, no?"

It seems to be virgin territory. Care to take a shot at it?
Yours,
Issodhos

Issodhos,

For those of us involved in animals professionally, or as a serious hobby, 'animal rights' is not some ill-defined philosophical concept. There are groups(PETA, HSUS, DDAL and many more) who have defined what 'animal rights' are, and are working diligently to assert those rights legally, using the political process, as well as violently, using terroristic tactics(lab bombings etc)

We are involved daily in efforts to maintain our rights(privilege) to own pets, and to maintain the freedom to make medical choices for our pets(please check out California AB1634, or the current proposition in Ohio that would require dog breeders to register, and be fingerprinted!)The AR agenda has seeped into every state, under the guise of protecting all those cute and cuddly puppies and kittens put down every year in shelters nationwide. Humane Society of the United States is a massive fundraising machine, and they run ONE shelter in the whole country, they were 'front and center' in the media after Katrina, but talk to any rescue worker who was in the trenches of that mess, and you'll get an entirely different portrait from that which HSUS has painted for itself. I could go on, but not sure how many are interested in the true 'animal rights' agenda in this country, and worldwide.

In America even under our U.S. Constitution, we are too eager to hand our natural rights over to the government. Irked pointed this out that we are only as free as we assert (I think is what he said).

From an independent society, Americans have become self inflicted slaves to the Big Daddy living in the White House. Most of us have been told Big Daddy is God in heaven who has carefully listed his rules and we can find them in the bible. Now we have taken this down a few pegs and we look to our federal government to tell us what is acceptable right down to how we treat the animals on the planet. I sometimes fear that our children are ignored over the threats from PETA and other associations.

I'm waiting for a revolution from the American people to get the government our of our lives, and learn some respect for our natural rights. When our government cannot even fix broken levees that they had built many years ago it shows all of us that we have no natural rights. We are always going to be under the domination of those we put into power.

We have given our social decisions over to the government because we cannot determine right from wrong rationally. If this continues all Americans will be slaves to the government in very short time. We saw this happen in Rome, USSR, China, Europe and our laws will soon be through petitions from a select few Americans who will speak for the rest of us. That seems to be the way human nature demands. The most obvious threat to all Americans at this time is to hand our social family laws over to the Supreme Court. We are not to deviate in any way from the standard set down by the American Christians.

The problem is that not all of us are Christians and those leaders who are, have shown to be deviants themselves. The end game is to continue to put Catholics in the Supreme Court and all of us will have to live under their decisions.

It makes me happy that I am of such an age that I will not have to see America become a massive Vatican.

There may be the beginings of such a philosophy at:
http://www.lcv.org/
The League of Conservation voters, I used to delete their emails immediately mistaking conservation for conservative. I consider myself a conservationist though I can make no claims to be a "tree hugger" as my business revolves around native and exotic hardwoods.
I work with cumaru, ipe', jatoba, and a few other woods you may not have heard of and prefer to imagine that they are farmed and not a direct result of rainforest destruction. The conservation and preservation of wildlife habitat gives the wild beasts the rights to carry on their lives with minimal interference. Corporate factory farms have robbed the farmbeasts of whatever dignity they may once have had as a cherished source of food and textiles. I've heard what goes on in a veal barn and wont eat the stuff, but on the other hand am willing to look away for a moment when a bit of foie gras is served. As you can see, my philosphy is imperfect and stumbling.
Ladies: Let me apologize for my gender. For thousands of years as warriors and hunters we dominated and protected, held as chattel and didn't appreciate the worth of women. Now that brains have become more important than brawn the tables are turning, but, hey, we can still lift heavy s***.

Just to review: it may be true that none of us Ranters is arguing that animals should have the same rights as people. However:


That was the opening thesis. On the second page of the thread, issodhos reminds us of the subject at hand:


I'm with you, Mellow Julia, I don't think that's what the rest of us were intent upon discussing. I replied to iss:


A page of humorous digressions, and issodhos came back with a slight equivocation:


In response to my assertion that his "lion" example was not germane to the opening theme, issodhos once again reminds us:


And reaffirmed the serious intent of posing the question:


No doubt your confusion as to the question at hand is fed at least in part by the thread starter's uncertainty. We have the title question:


But then we have the more specific question reiterated:


And underscored:


I had earlier pointed out that none of us, not one, had asserted that animals' rights should be equal to those of humans, and it doesn't seem that anyone, including issodhos, had or has any interest in that point.

In fact, after these several reminders that the question was whether animals have the same rights as humans, our intrepid guide now offers us a completely different idea:


I think that's what we've all been discussing, all along. Off topic though it may have been.

Yes indeed, Greger you wonderful men do absolutely lift the heavy s*** and I in no way implied that you are redundant. The men in my life have given me my greatest joy. Now please put the toilet seat down.....that's a good boy.

Is this part of your satire schtick, Irked? Just curious.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

PETA? Now that is a self-righteous group who has totally failed to control their raging inner fascist, wot! :/
Yours,
Issodhos