Do Animals Have Rights?

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I give up. The thread is about "Do Animals Have Rights" and you keep challenging people for avoiding questions about should, and haranguing them because they are staying on topic with Do.

What he's trying to say is, "Of course, humans do not treat animals as if they had rights. But should they treat animals as having rights?" Moreover, the word rights has inherently moral connotations, so it automatically entails talk of ought/should.

And when someone says something that sounds like, "No, we shouldn't, because no, we don't," that sounds strange. No one should ever do anything besides what he or she actually does?

You and Mighara are fond of Invoking Natural, Moral, etc Laws. Survival of the Fittest is THE LAW OF NATURE, that's treating Animals equally, and acting just like Animals, just as you continue asking. Lions don't think a thing about eating Gazelle, or Foxes eating Chickens, if we're supposed to be equals, why is it wrong for us to?

There are people who think carnivorous animals don't deserve protection whereas other kinds of animals do. Perhaps someone might argue for hunting carnivores, for factory-farming them too (or just farming them), and not be inconsistent in attributions of rights to animals and humans.

After all, the reason why I get so upset when people I know talk about plans to go hunting is I think about the animals I think they're likely to hunt as innocent, helpless, etc. I'm not sure how I'd feel if I were imagining the death of giant spiders, say.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

But I'll look to nature to show the fallacy of "natural rights".

The word nature has tons of definitions, or nuanced applications. So "the laws of nature" understood as the laws of physics, biology, etc. are not supposed to be totally the same in kind as laws based on the idea of natural rights. The reason these rights are supposedly natural is that they are based on attributes that inhere in those who supposedly have them. Now if we respect in humans a quality shared by (some) animals, and this quality is relevant to some rights-talk of ours, it's inconsistent (or hypocritical, maybe) to fail to respect that quality in the animals as well, and inasmuch as our respect for humanity takes the form of attributing rights to humans, it follows that we ought to attribute rights to animals insofar as they have the quality, in humans, that we respect.

And the quality in question can't just be "is a human"; it has to be something like "is capable of emotional attachments, self-recognition, etc." or whatever you think goes, conceptually-speaking, into judgments of action.

Now respect is an attitude, so a right as an expression of respect may be purely attitudinal and therefore subjective, or dependent on minds, or w/e, yet still natural.

I think some of the best writing I've read on this subject would be section 77 of Rawls' A Theory of Justice, "The Basis of Equality." As he writes:

This fact [that the potential for moral personality entitles one to justice] can be used to interpret the concept of natural rights. For one thing, it explains why it is appropriate to call by this name the rights that justice protects.

Of course, justice is "unnatural" in other senses.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

To go back to the OP:

To this, philosopher Tibor Machan offers the broken-chair analogy: Some chairs have broken legs, but they "are still chairs, not monkeys or palm trees. Classifications are not something rigid but something reasonable." Rights, he says, belong to the class of reasoning animals, i.e., humans—even if some members of the classification cannot reason. We should attend to what is normal for the species, not specific cases.

When a human doesn't develop enough to have moral agency, he or she is not like a broken chair. He or she is like a bunch of wood (or plastic or metal or w/e) that is not a chair but that someone tried to make into one. It would be unreasonable to treat this mass as even a broken chair (i.e. if you couldn't sit on it, it would be silly to try to on the grounds that someone intended it to be a chair). You also wouldn't treat a broken chair like a normal chair; you would tend to avoid sitting on it. "Incomplete" or "broken" humans, accordingly, ought not to be treated the same as "complete" or "stable"(?) ones? Well, no. It turns on the question of what attribute a human has by virtue of which he or she supposedly has rights to say whether they ought to be still treated as bearing rights, though.

Likewise, then, just as we could use something, within reason, as a chair, even were that thing not designed to be a chair (say, a log in a forest), so we could treat animals, within reason, as rights-bearing.

[sindatur]

Interesting. Everyone is talking about Rights as "Legal" Rights enforced by whoever makes the Law (Not as in the opposite of Wrongs), yet you suggest that "Rights" must inherently have Moral Connotations, then, you take the Position that Nature has tons of definitions to wave away a reply?

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Interesting. Everyone is talking about Rights as "Legal" Rights enforced by whoever makes the Law (Not as in the opposite of Wrongs), yet you suggest that "Rights" must inherently have Moral Connotations, then, you take the Position that Nature has tons of definitions to wave away a reply?

I didn't get the impression, reading this thread, that everyone was talking only about legal rights. But even legal rights have moral, or if that word is not the right one, normative, consequences. That is, saying, "I have a legal right to X," implies, "I should have X."*** My point about nature as ambiguous is separate.

***Or, in other words, saying the former is a coded way of saying, "Give me X or you're doing something wrong," or, "Give me X or I'll try to take it by force," or some other commanding talk. Now if the threat of the use of force in the latter command negates the idea that the command is meant as a moral one, well, then legal rights would not be a subset of moral ones, I guess.

[sindatur]

Perhaps you just don't understand the separation of Forums?

This is The Think Tank, which is pretty much used for Legally and Politically motivated debates and spinning. All the Philosophical/Existential, "Look through this green crystal from this direction and 1 + 1 actually equals 3" stuff is debated in the Philosophical Forum The Close

(I'm not trying to back-seat moderate or dismiss you, I'm just suggesting you are more likely to get a debate going the direction you seem to want it to go, if you were doing so in The Close. If you want to continue this here, you're welcome to, I just don't think you'll get any better results)

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

I'm not trying to steer this thread at all towards a debate about math; I'm making an analogy between disagreement about mathematics and political disagreement. To that extent, at least, bringing up math has political implications...

[sindatur]

<Sigh>It's not the math, it's the mental gymnastics technique needed to prove an otherwise unlikely point

[Fist and Faith]

Yeah, it's really a long time since this thread was about what it's about. Do animals have rights? They do in some places; they don't in others. And what specific rights they have in one place where they have any are not always the same specific rights as they have in another place where they have any.

Should they have rights? We can try to figure that out in the Close, if anyone's game. I suggest we start from the beginning, and take baby steps. Natural Rights

[paulcoz]

I give up. The thread is about "Do Animals Have Rights" and you keep challenging people for avoiding questions about should, and haranguing them because they are staying on topic with Do."

As has already been noted, the answer is different if one makes a distinction between moral and legal rights. If the question asks whether they have legal rights, then there is NO DISCUSSION TO BE HAD. At the present time, they have only a few 'rights' in this sense depending on the desires and whims of humans. QED. End of Thread. Cail could have answered the question himself. However, the article he posted discusses unequal treatment and ethically relevant differences which invokes moral rights. As Mighara affirms, 'legal rights' are predicated on moral rights:

That is, saying, "I have a legal right to X," implies, "I should have X."

As to the culling of the herds, if they starve to death in large numbers, it is a danger of disease for both Humans and Animals.

Exactly the same can be said about famines involving humans. We have procedures for managing disease, but at present these procedures do not involve murdering people.

Incidentally, animal rights theory does distinguish between animals which do and don't represent a threat to moral agents.

"Of course we need to decide to decide what is best for animals, we are the Species in charge of the Planet, and they can't tell us their choices."

We CAN make claims about what is best for moral patients (including animals). Children and some other humans can't tell us their choices either. I don't see how 'what is best for someone' can be twisted to mean killing and eating them, using them as scientific tools to benefit others or forcing them to provide amusement for others. 'Mercy killing' has a very specific meaning and is not usually performed on healthy people. If it is, we refer to it as killing...which is not a "humane service".

Self-appointed species 'in charge of the planet', lol.

You and Mighara are fond of Invoking Natural, Moral, etc Laws. Survival of the Fittest is THE LAW OF NATURE, that's treating Animals equally, and acting just like Animals, just as you continue asking. Lions don't think a thing about eating Gazelle, or Foxes eating Chickens, if we're supposed to be equals, why is it wrong for us to?

I have already addressed those points. Also, see the difference between moral agents and moral patients.

----------------

What you (and Dawkins, and Regan) apparently fail to understand is that deer (or fish, or cows, or dogs) are not human. It's a circular argument you make, and it's really not worth debating.

People have explained why they believe what they believe, and you've dismissed them out of hand, and responded with quotes from other people. That's cool, but it doesn't bolster your position.

You want to be nice to animals, that's fine. The second you start treating animals as equal to humans, you've crossed a line that's dangerously close to sociopathy.

Cail, I understand that animals are not human. You are claiming that humans are more worthy (and due better treatment) than all animals. I simply expect you to explain what it is about humans that makes them more worthy. You're not the only one who believes that your claim is self-evident. The same logic (reference to a qualitative class, rather than the individual qualities of the members of that class) is used to defend racism. You say 'animals are not human', racists say 'asians are not caucasian'. If we accept that 'not being human' is a valid reason to discriminate without any discussion, then we have no reason to doubt that 'not being caucasian' is a valid reason to discriminate without any discussion either.

As for the jibe about sociopathy, sociopathy usually entails the absence of empathy with others. It is more commonly associated with those who do horrible things to animals and/or people. Since I don't accept that the way another being tastes or looks is a good basis for deciding the way we should treat it, I think that makes me more empathetic than you.

----------------

Fist - I have clarified that I am talking about MORAL rights. These are not self-evident, they are based on valid claims and appeals to ethical principles. You may think that these do not (objectively) exist, yet we both seem to act as if they do. As I mentioned before, the existence of 'objective moral truths' is discussed in philosophy. I am now keen to read some more, so I can make a better contribution.

[Cail]

Paulcoz - It's simple. Humans have the capability to reason, and (for the moment) we're at the top of the food chain. Animals exist at our leisure, and for our use.

No jibe about sociopathy. If you believe that animals and humans are equal, you're a scary sonofabitch, and meet every definition of a sociopath.

[finn]

Rights are what we as people in a society, give ourselves. We gather together and agree that we have certain rights and that if people do not observe those rights we'll gang together to do something to them, be it a fine or a jail term or whatever.

As such we can 'give' animals rights by the same methodology, but animals cannot give themselves 'rights' tho' some have priviledges.......... not far from here certain members of the shark family have their own version of rights; the right to feed on whatever they choose!

Should we give animals rights is the real question.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

<Sigh>It's not the math, it's the mental gymnastics technique needed to prove an otherwise unlikely point

You don't need to do any mental gymnastics to figure out that there's a lot of debate when it comes to abstract mathematics. You just need to look at the history of the subject.

(SECOND EDIT): I also brought up the example of creationist-evolutionary biologist disagreement as entrenched, despite the objectivity of the question (as to whether evolution happens).

Besides, if people aren't thinking very hard about politics, the conclusions they're gonna come to won't be very good ones.

EDIT: John Rawls was preeminently a political philosopher, but his arguments turn in part of stuff like the Prisoner's Dilemma, Kant's theory of transcendental freedom, etc. Political judgment can depend very easily on very difficult reasoning.

[Mighara Sovmadhi]

Paulcoz - It's simple. Humans have the capability to reason, and (for the moment) we're at the top of the food chain. Animals exist at our leisure, and for our use.

There's decent evidence that some animals can reason; moreover, not everyone would accept the ability to reason as the standard (remember Bentham's, I think it was, "Can they suffer?") And what about humans who can't reason or who are severely limited in their ability to?

No jibe about sociopathy. If you believe that animals and humans are equal, you're a scary sonofabitch, and meet every definition of a sociopath.

What psychology textbook are you quoting, if any? Or the DSM-IV? Sociopathy is technically defined; so if your claim doesn't meet that definition, it's just a personal attack.

[paulcoz]

After a long discussion about the definition of a 'right', we must now talk about what it means to be 'equal'.

Is a student who specialises and excels in Mathematics more equal than a student who specialises and excels in Biology? It seems that either student could be considered more equal depending on the area of specialisation that we compare. In other words, they could BOTH be more equal in different respects. In terms of the ability to reason, most humans are more equal than animals. In terms of other abilities, many animals are more equal than humans. For example, the use of drug sniffer dogs suggests that these animals are more equal than humans when we compare their sense of smell. There is evidence that dogs can smell cancer. When we compare the hearing of animals to humans, there are animals which must also be considered more equal. Some people seem to be more equal than others when it comes to running a business, but lack people skills. Others don't know anything about business, but have traits which make them more suited than anyone else to social work.

From All Animals Are Equal by Peter Singer ( www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.pdf ) :

When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting? Those who wish to defend a hierarchical, inegalitarian society have often pointed out that by whatever test we choose, it simply is not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand for equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand.

We might say that most humans are 'generally' more equal than animals in terms of ability, although if we did we would be expressing a bias towards a selection of abilities that are regarded as desirable in humans. But if we did accept this statement, we would also have to acknowledge that some humans are 'generally' more equal than other humans. In fact, there are some humans (young children, the senile, those born with learning difficulties or severe irreparable brain damage) who are substantially less equal than other humans in terms of ability. Furthermore, some animals are 'generally' more equal than these humans in the same respect. What has all this to do with how beings should be treated?

The fact is, that many of the differences that exist between beings are not ethically relevant.

...we should make it quite clear that the claim to equality does not depend on intelligence, moral capacity, physical strength, or similar matters of fact. Equality is a moral ideal, not a simple assertion of fact. There is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a factual difference in ability between two people justifies any difference in the amount of consideration we give to satisfying their needs and interests. The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans: it is a prescription of how we should treat humans.

It is an implication of this principle of equality that our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess—although precisely what this concern requires us to do may vary according to the characteristics of those affected by what we do. It is on this basis that the case against racism and the case against sexism must both ultimately rest; and it is in accordance with this principle that speciesism is also to be condemned. If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans?

Still, philosophers have found it difficult to discuss the issue of human equality without raising, in a paragraph or two, the question of the status of other animals. The reason for this, which should be apparent from what I have said already, is that if humans are to be regarded as equal to one another, we need some sense of "equal" that does not require any actual, descriptive equality of capacities, talents or other qualities. If equality is to be related to any actual characteristics of humans, these characteristics must be some lowest common denominator, pitched so low that no human lacks them—but then the philosopher comes up against the catch that any such set of characteristics which covers all humans will not be possessed only by humans. In other words, it turns out that in the only sense in which we can truly say, as an assertion of fact, that all humans are equal, at least some members of other species are also equal—equal, that is, to each other and to humans. If, on the other hand, we regard the statement "All humans are equal" in some non-factual way, perhaps as a prescription, then, as I have already argued, it is even more difficult to exclude non-humans from the sphere of equality.

I don't have to believe that human and non-human animals are actually equal to believe that what interests and valid claims (moral rights) they have should be considered equally.

If you haven't seen that article before, it's worth reading in full.

[finn]

Rus is still in Russia right? He's not moved to this side of the rainbow and renamed himself.....???

[Fist and Faith]

I've been thinking the same thing for a couple pages.

[Avatar]

I don't know how I can state it any more simply or plainly than I already have: we have rights only because we think and believe that we do.

For me, the point Vraith was making there is that they're not based on nothing...we don't have a right to fly from the tree-tops...we have "rights" based on things we want/need. So they have a correlation to, (but not a dependence on), the physical/actual.

(Oh, Fist has started a thread in The Close...go there and check it out.)

--A

[Blackhawk]

No they dont, but I would protect any animal i saw being abused. remember the scene in Tombstone where Kurt Russel bitch slaps that bastard beating his horse. great scene and a good point for animals not having rights but as human beings it is our responsibility to protect the weak or those not capable of rationally thinking for themselves.

[Avatar]

I dunno...animals got on just fine without us for a long time. I think it's our manipulation of their environments which obliges us, out of reciprocity, to protect them to greater or lesser extents.

--A