ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 12th July 2017, 12:11 PM   #81
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
Animals do NOT have rights.

Humans Beings have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat the animals they own humanely.

I think that's where the confusion for at least one poster. A RIGHT is something that can be exercised (the right to vote, to join a church, to run for office) if one meets the qualifications.

The law puts the burden of treating owned animals humanely on HUMANS, not on animals. Therefore, the animals has the EXPECTATION of humane treatment, but it's not a right. It's a RESPONSIBILITY for the owner. Rights can be waived or restricted, a responsibility can only be filled or unfulfilled. Ergo, if I leave my dog out in the heat without water, food or shelter, I can be fined, arrested or deprived of the animal, whatever is appropriate for the city/county/state/country in which I live. The animal itself cannot file a charge against me. The authorities do it. That the animal benefits because of it (being taken away from me or my punishment which makes me do the correct thing) does not make it an animal RIGHT. It means I have failed in my RESPONSIBILITY.

Last edited by desmirelle; 12th July 2017 at 12:14 PM.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:12 PM   #82
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Desmirelle, that's a much better wording of my own thoughts that I seemed to be able to put together. Thanks.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:18 PM   #83
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Thanks for proving my point. You're right and there's no possible discussion to be had. Par for the course for you, Ian.

What you call "animal rights" are not rights at all, but protections. Case closed. Here, I can do that, too!

Did you claim that "animals cannot have rights"? Yes or No?

Is it true that in fact animals most definitely DO have rights in law? Yes or No?
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:23 PM   #84
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Did you claim that "animals cannot have rights"? Yes or No?

Is it true that in fact animals most definitely DO have rights in law? Yes or No?
And again a nice demonstration that you don't read my posts, since the answer to the second question is in the post you quoted.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:27 PM   #85
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 41,330
Human rights are impossible, and we don't even eat them (with some exceptions), let alone animal rights.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:44 PM   #86
desmirelle
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 311
IanS

Animals do NOT have rights. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat them humanely.

Can animals have rights? Not really, you can give them "rights", but since an animal will never be able to exercise them, it's an exercise in futility. It's me telling you to go stand in the corner in the round room, makes no sense to do it.

You have confused the RESPONSIBILITY of ownership by insisting it's the animal's RIGHT. It's not. As I stated above, the animal has an expectation of humane treatment, but that's on the HUMAN, not the ANIMAL.
desmirelle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 12:50 PM   #87
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
IanS

Animals do NOT have rights. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat them humanely.

Can animals have rights? Not really, you can give them "rights", but since an animal will never be able to exercise them, it's an exercise in futility. It's me telling you to go stand in the corner in the round room, makes no sense to do it.

You have confused the RESPONSIBILITY of ownership by insisting it's the animal's RIGHT. It's not. As I stated above, the animal has an expectation of humane treatment, but that's on the HUMAN, not the ANIMAL.
No one has rights, only law can be drafted to recognize rights. The only source of any right is consensus in a community. Rights must be also enforceable to exist. If your point is that animals cannot express themselves to exercise a right, and wish to state they require human advocacy, fine. But rights are simply ways in which the licit field of human behavior is shaped, and that can include with respect to other animals.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:02 PM   #88
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Animals do NOT have rights.

Humans Beings have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat the animals they own humanely.

I think that's where the confusion for at least one poster. A RIGHT is something that can be exercised (the right to vote, to join a church, to run for office) if one meets the qualifications.

The law puts the burden of treating owned animals humanely on HUMANS, not on animals. Therefore, the animals has the EXPECTATION of humane treatment, but it's not a right. It's a RESPONSIBILITY for the owner. Rights can be waived or restricted, a responsibility can only be filled or unfulfilled. Ergo, if I leave my dog out in the heat without water, food or shelter, I can be fined, arrested or deprived of the animal, whatever is appropriate for the city/county/state/country in which I live. The animal itself cannot file a charge against me. The authorities do it. That the animal benefits because of it (being taken away from me or my punishment which makes me do the correct thing) does not make it an animal RIGHT. It means I have failed in my RESPONSIBILITY.


It does not matter whether your mistreated dog can himself/herself exercise an appeal to the court. All that matters is whether the dog is afforded certain rights in law as redress against such things as cruelty and neglect.

We talked about this point before. It's also true that a 3 month old baby cannot personally make an appeal to the court to uphold it's rights to stop beatings from cruel parents. But the fact that the child is in no position to make an appeal to the court, does not take away what are commonly known as the human rights of the child. If the child can be said to have legal "rights" in that position, then so too can the animal be said to have such "rights" in law.

I said before (a long way back), that if you are arguing only that “rights” is the wrong word to use, then that is only an argument about semantics and about whether such legal provisos against cruelty and neglect of animals, should be called “rights” or called “protections” or called by any other word. But the fact of the matter is that in educated civilised democracies such as the UK (and afaik the rest of the EU too), certain animals do have what are commonly known as legal “rights” as redress against cruelty and neglect (and that's the same phrasing I used far back when I made exactly that same point & it's clarification before) … certain animals do have what are called “rights” against cruelty and neglect.

They have a "right" in law, not to be treated in cruel, inhumane ways. That is a right in law.

Here is a useful and very clear article from the BBC (UK British Broadcasting Company), which sets out all the arguments that we have had here, and many more such arguments and claims, on all sides.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/...rights_1.shtml


Here is another article (link below) discussing in some detail the legal position in the UK. Notice that although in the text of the article the phrase "Animal Welfare Law” is used several times, the title of article (by lawyers) is actually “Animal Rights Law”. But be very clear – I already, long ago, clarified what I meant by “rights”, and repeatedly put the word in parenthesis to stress that it's the term used in “common parlance” (that' was my previous wording for it, “common parlance”) to describe what is universally agreed to be the laws that provide redress for animals that suffer illegal harsh treatment.

http://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/whe...mal-rights-law
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 01:12 PM   #89
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
IanS

Animals do NOT have rights. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat them humanely.

Can animals have rights? Not really, you can give them "rights", but since an animal will never be able to exercise them, it's an exercise in futility. It's me telling you to go stand in the corner in the round room, makes no sense to do it.

You have confused the RESPONSIBILITY of ownership by insisting it's the animal's RIGHT. It's not. As I stated above, the animal has an expectation of humane treatment, but that's on the HUMAN, not the ANIMAL.

Please see what Hlafordleas said as reply in post #89.

And please see what I have said in post #90 - notice that I am repeating there what I already clarified many pages back about the use of the term “rights”.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 04:42 PM   #90
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Here is another article (link below) discussing in some detail the legal position in the UK. Notice that although in the text of the article the phrase "Animal Welfare Law” is used several times, the title of article (by lawyers) is actually “Animal Rights Law”. But be very clear – I already, long ago, clarified what I meant by “rights”, and repeatedly put the word in parenthesis to stress that it's the term used in “common parlance” (that' was my previous wording for it, “common parlance”) to describe what is universally agreed to be the laws that provide redress for animals that suffer illegal harsh treatment.
So it's not actual rights, then.

And why's Desmirelle talking about PETA?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2017, 11:45 PM   #91
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
OMG, Ian's with PETA.

Knowing that, I won't discuss this anymore. I refuse to deliberately engage with those who preach animal rights and slaughter more than 80% of the animals turned over to them for re-homing and/or shelter.

OK, well I have no idea what that post (above) is supposed to mean (I've never heard of PETA). But if as you say, you are not going to purse the issue any further, then that is far better as far as I'm concerned, because I don't like arguments such as this either. I am not replying here to Argumemnon because I enjoy it, because I certainly do not enjoy it!
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 01:58 AM   #92
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
OK, well I have no idea what that post (above) is supposed to mean (I've never heard of PETA). But if as you say, you are not going to purse the issue any further, then that is far better as far as I'm concerned, because I don't like arguments such as this either. I am not replying here to Argumemnon because I enjoy it, because I certainly do not enjoy it!
You've never heard of PETA? Boy, you a lucky!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:12 AM   #93
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
Please make a point. These types of posts are more like a petulant child. You do know it is just plain rude to strawman someone right? And here at ISF when someone starts this sort of flawed argument it is a very good sign they no longer have anything worthy of actually posting, so please don't.

Thanks in advance,
The peanut gallery

Well firstly you should leave it up to the moderators here to decide if anyone should be warned to stop posting for any reason. And secondly it is actually you (and before that it was Argumemnon too) who are personalising the discussion with derogatory remarks such as "petulant child" ... I have not made any such personalised derogatory remarks at all.

Look - the entire reason for the disagreement here is that Argumemnon began by saying “animals cannot have rights”. And he he explained his reason by saying the following -

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's also nonsensical. The idea of rights requires a certain form of cognition that no other animal but us has.

I love animals, too, but the concept is just bonkers. Humane treatment is enough for me.

Argumemnon has been arguing that humans alone can have “rights” (no other animal can have “rights”), purely because humans have a more highly developed capacity for “cognition”. I'm not intending to have an “argument by dictionary”, but just to be clear what “cognition means -


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cognition

cognition

NOUN
mass noun
1The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
Example sentences
Synonyms
1. 1.1count noun*A perception, sensation, idea, or intuition resulting from the process of cognition.



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dict...lish/cognition
cognitionnoun*[*U*]
*UK*​*/kɒɡˈnɪʃ.ən/*US*​*/kɑːɡ-/formal*or*specialized

the use of*conscious*mental*processes:
a*book*on*human*learning,*memory, and cognition



Those definitions apply also to many animals, i.e. being defined as “The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.” … “the use of*conscious*mental*processes:”


He (Argumemnon) is talking about what we call consciousness, intelligence, awareness of our surroundings, fear and pain etc., as understood and experienced in humans, and he's claiming that to be the reason why humans alone can have “rights” … he is saying that animals such as cat's and dogs cannot have “rights” simply and precisely because they do not have that same capacity for awareness, consciousness, fear, pain etc.

I am just pointing out that he is wrong when he gives that as his reason for saying that “animals cannot have rights, by definition”. He's wrong because in civilised educated societies, the law courts have considered that argument long ago, and decided that the argument is wrong … they have long ago decided in law that certain animals do have sufficient “cognition”, conscious awareness, capacity to feel pleasure, pain, fear etc. to be given similar rights under the law to those rights that are afforded to humans.

I am simply pointing out that Argumemnons' argument based on insufficient cognition, has already been tested in the courts, and it has been found untrue and wrong.

However there is a caveat to that last remark from me, though it's one that I have repeatedly stated in this thread. Namely that I am basing my remarks on the legal treatment and status of animals in the UK (and afaik in all countries of the EU), though things may be very different in other countries around the world. In particular the USA is in many respects a surprisingly different country to the UK or the states of the EU … for example you still have capital punishment in many parts of the USA, and in many states private citizens are allowed own all manner of loaded guns simply for hobbyist amusement … and afaik one of those hobbies/amusements with guns is to hunt and kill defenceless wild animals.

At one time all that was legal and allowed in the UK too, but that was a long time ago. Since then the courts have been forced to listen to genuine scientific evidence which has shown that things like “blood sports” and other cruelty to animals is simply not acceptable in an educated civilised society.

But the bottom line on this whole issue is that the only reason that any humans have what in common parlance we call “rights”, is because of legal rulings in the courts. Humans have no other “rights” except those which are agreed in law. And that is exactly the same case for animals which have also been granted similar “rights” of legal redress against cruelty, torture and neglect etc. It's the same category of “rights” from the same source of the law courts, for the same reasons of a legal ruling against treating living animals with cruelty.

Last edited by IanS; 13th July 2017 at 04:14 AM.
IanS is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:22 AM   #94
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Now, now. I don't think it's necessary for someone who pops in to ask one of the participants to make a point, to make a point themselves beyond that. Is it?

Also, I notice you didn't make a point yourself. Does that make you the stove?
He, he. In the interest of board comity, I ended up deleting almost all the text. As for substance, since I have you on the line, I would like to know what our resident Canadian-Egyptian might have to say about post #80. Since rights have come up, maybe we could use the opportunity to make some foundational observations.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:22 AM   #95
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well firstly you should leave it up to the moderators here to decide if anyone should be warned to stop posting for any reason.
I think you should leave it up to the moderators here to decide if Red Baron Farms made a comment about moderation.

Quote:
Argumemnon has been arguing that humans alone can have “rights” (no other animal can have “rights”), purely because humans have a more highly developed capacity for “cognition”.
That's not quite it. I said that humans alone can have rights because it requires an understanding of the concept. It's not that we have a more highly developed cognition, it's that we pass the congnition threshold required for rights.

Not a huge distinction, but I think it's important. The rest of your critique being based on this, it can be dismissed.

Quote:
I am simply pointing out that Argumemnons' argument based on insufficient cognition, has already been tested in the courts, and it has been found untrue and wrong.
No, it hasn't. Animals were afforded protections not because they can think sufficiently, but for other reasons entirely.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:24 AM   #96
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
He, he. In the interest of board comity, I ended up deleting almost all the text. As for substance, since I have you on the line, I would like to know what our resident Canadian-Egyptian might have to say about post #80. Since rights have come up, maybe we could use the opportunity to make some foundational observations.
I believe I've already addressed it, but didn't respond to your post directly.

My response is contained in my last post: gradation of cognition is unimportant. The being has to pass a certain cognition threshold. Only the human species does this.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:39 AM   #97
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I believe I've already addressed it, but didn't respond to your post directly.

My response is contained in my last post: gradation of cognition is unimportant. The being has to pass a certain cognition threshold. Only the human species does this.
Leaving aside the degree of sentience/sapience, evidence of culture (significant post-natal learning of common behaviors), or passing mirror tests, we still have Franz de Waals' work on fairness (cucumber-tossing macaques). But anyway.

What is of interest is the definition of rights as boundaries and guides to human behavior with respect to animals. What "rights" are called is less an issue than agreements to behave toward animals based on what we might agree is their ability to suffer. Further, what is the proper derivation of any right and what is a right?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 04:46 AM   #98
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Leaving aside the degree of sentience/sapience, evidence of culture (significant post-natal learning of common behaviors), or passing mirror tests, we still have Franz de Waals' work on fairness (cucumber-tossing macaques). But anyway.
I didn't say they didn't think or weren't self-aware to a degree. I talked about a specific level of cognition that has to be cleared.

Quote:
What "rights" are called is less an issue than agreements to behave toward animals based on what we might agree is their ability to suffer.
That's why we afford them protections, at least in certain contexts.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 07:35 AM   #99
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
A right that is only bestowed but not accepted is a fickle thing indeed.

Our progress of human rights is mostly due to the fact that, once a right was given, people fought hard to keep it. This had a "ratcheting-up" effect where rights once gained are rarely lost.

So every right we give to an animal with the stroke of a pen can just be taken away with the stroke of a pen - the creature will not know either way.

Agreed.

However, I don't see how this applies, at all, to whether or not animal rights are a thing, or should be. That human rights are more 'sticky' than animal rights, more self-sustaining, and that animal rights are less intrinsically durable than human rights, that surely is no argument against providing animal rights?

But perhaps you're not addressing that question at all, and merely making a general comment about one basic way in which animal rights differ from human rights? If that is the case, then like I said I agree 100% with you.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 07:48 AM   #100
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I didn't say they didn't think or weren't self-aware to a degree. I talked about a specific level of cognition that has to be cleared.



That's why we afford them protections, at least in certain contexts.
Ehhh! Terminology. Case of the matter is that rights/protections involve guidelines to human action. However, the more interesting question, admittedly broader than the OP is the second part of my post above.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 07:51 AM   #101
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Ehhh! Terminology.
Well, forgive me but correct terminology is something that I consider very important.

Quote:
However, the more interesting question, admittedly broader than the OP is the second part of my post above.
What, the definition of "rights"? Haven't we covered that already?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 08:20 AM   #102
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 301
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
Animals do NOT have rights.

Humans Beings have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat the animals they own humanely.

I think that's where the confusion for at least one poster. A RIGHT is something that can be exercised (the right to vote, to join a church, to run for office) if one meets the qualifications.

The law puts the burden of treating owned animals humanely on HUMANS, not on animals. Therefore, the animals has the EXPECTATION of humane treatment, but it's not a right. It's a RESPONSIBILITY for the owner. Rights can be waived or restricted, a responsibility can only be filled or unfulfilled. Ergo, if I leave my dog out in the heat without water, food or shelter, I can be fined, arrested or deprived of the animal, whatever is appropriate for the city/county/state/country in which I live. The animal itself cannot file a charge against me. The authorities do it. That the animal benefits because of it (being taken away from me or my punishment which makes me do the correct thing) does not make it an animal RIGHT. It means I have failed in my RESPONSIBILITY.

Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
IanS

Animals do NOT have rights. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat them humanely.

Can animals have rights? Not really, you can give them "rights", but since an animal will never be able to exercise them, it's an exercise in futility. It's me telling you to go stand in the corner in the round room, makes no sense to do it.

You have confused the RESPONSIBILITY of ownership by insisting it's the animal's RIGHT. It's not. As I stated above, the animal has an expectation of humane treatment, but that's on the HUMAN, not the ANIMAL.

Your position seems to mirror that of another poster on here. I had some questions about this particular position. That other poster was unable to clarify them for me. May I ask you, instead?

(1) This distinction between "rights" and "protection" (or call it "responsibility" if you will), do you base this distinction on law? If yes, could you elaborate?

(2) If it isn't based on law, then what do base this distinction on? Some definition of the word "rights"? Which one?

(3) Granting for argument's sake that your position is correct, how then would this play out in practice? What, for example, would be the difference in granting a dog the "right" of not being subjected to cruelty, and in granting it "protection" from such?

(4) Would you take that same position for infants? That infants can only have "protection", not "rights"? If not, then why not?

Thanks!
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 09:20 AM   #103
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, forgive me but correct terminology is something that I consider very important.



What, the definition of "rights"? Haven't we covered that already?
I think I shall wait for a more propitious opportunity. Too much noise in the thread signal right now for calm discussion. At some future time, perhaps we will find ourselves discussing how one derives rights, not what they are, which is something I think pending. The term I'm struggling to recall is foundational postulates; yeah, that's what I think needs work.

Next time around, then.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 09:23 AM   #104
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
I think I shall wait for a more propitious opportunity. Too much noise in the thread signal right now for calm discussion. At some future time, perhaps we will find ourselves discussing how one derives rights, not what they are, which is something I think pending.
I really think that's a discussion for another thread, though. Furthermore, I'm fully capable of discussing calmly with you while screaming at the top of my lungs at another poster.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 09:29 AM   #105
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 6,164
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I really think that's a discussion for another thread, though. Furthermore, I'm fully capable of discussing calmly with you while screaming at the top of my lungs at another poster.
Very funny! But I'm not so capable, unfortunately. Another day perhaps, say, while discussing this year's vintage maple syrup?
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion. Spends that time videogaming.
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 09:30 AM   #106
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
Very funny! But I'm not so capable, unfortunately. Another day perhaps, say, while discussing this year's vintage maple syrup?
MMMMmmmmmmm.... Maple!
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 11:45 AM   #107
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, it really doesn't. The obvious difference is that you're citing special cases while the rights we're talking about apply to all humans. On the flip side, _no_ animals besides humans meets the requirements. But you knew that.
Your argument has become circular.

You had earlier said that only humans can hav rights because they have certain mental abilities. When pointed out that some humans lack those abilities, you said they have rights because they are humans.

So which is it? Which is the correct direction to argue?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, Merriam-Webster defines it as "something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do". They specify "person".
M-W has several definitions for (legal) "right" - not all specify a person.
M-W also is an all-purpose thesaurus, not a legal dictionary.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Dictionary.com's list for the noun all presuppose the ability to think or own stuff, etc. I don't know why people keep asking for cites for definitions when it's trivially easy to look up. It's not like this is a paywall-protected, leading-edge-of-science article.
I am little surpsised that your reading of Dictionary.com's definition is simply wrong!
Precisely ZERO of the definitions "presuppose the ability to think". None whatsoever.
Again, you seem to think that little babies thus cannot have rights.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The point is that the idea of rights assumes one's ability to understand these rights and use them, in addition to suing for redress should they be breached, at least in the general case.
We are talking about a particular case.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Humans are the only ones able to even understand the concept of rights. How animals could be given rights baffles me. They sure can be given protections that are exactly the same as they are now, but those are not rights.
Bafflement is your problem, not an argument.
Again, many humans do have rights despite not understanding them - in which case, ideally, they are provided with custodians and representatives.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
For some reason this conjures up an image of a bulldog in a suit and tie carrying a briefcase to a courtroom.
Cute.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
So lawn chairs could have rights? Don't be ridiculous.
In principle - yes.
I agree it would be ridiculous to give lawn chairs rights, and I am also opposed to the idea of animal rights, but not on the grounds of ignorance.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 11:46 AM   #108
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by applecorped View Post
When animals start creating their own laws then they will have rights
When babies start creating their own laws, then they will have rights
[/silliness]
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 11:47 AM   #109
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You're essentially stamping your foot on the ground and insisting that you're right because reasons. Simply saying that it's a matter of law doesn't make it magically true. If a law said that dogs can have PhDs, it doesn't mean they can actually earn one.
You are essentially stamping your foot on the ground insisting that law cannot create rights.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 11:53 AM   #110
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your argument has become circular.

You had earlier said that only humans can hav rights because they have certain mental abilities. When pointed out that some humans lack those abilities, you said they have rights because they are humans.
I certainly said the former but not the latter. What I said is that humans as a species clear the threshold of cognition required to understand and have rights. It does not follow that all humans have that ability all the time. Otherwise I'd be left to argue that sleeping people can't have rights, which is obviously absurd. They don't have rights because they're human. They have rights because humans have certain mental abilities. The second, corrected claim follows from the first.

However, even if I did make the claim as you wrote it, it wouldn't be circular. It might be contradictory or unclear, but not circular.

Quote:
M-W has several definitions for (legal) "right" - not all specify a person.
M-W also is an all-purpose thesaurus, not a legal dictionary.
What's a legal dictionary? Dictionaries just collect the various meanings of words used by people. They're rarely official.

Quote:
I am little surpsised that your reading of Dictionary.com's definition is simply wrong!
Precisely ZERO of the definitions "presuppose the ability to think". None whatsoever.
Er... look under "noun", not "adjective".

Quote:
Again, you seem to think that little babies thus cannot have rights.
As I said before, I'm open to the suggestion that they also have protections, instead, but I've already explained why I'm in agreement with the idea that all humans are afforded those rights.

Quote:
Bafflement is your problem, not an argument.
That's obvious. Does that mean I can't express my bafflement?

Quote:
Again, many humans do have rights despite not understanding them
Irrelevant as I've explained before.

Quote:
Cute.
We have got to get that movie made.

Quote:
In principle - yes.
I agree it would be ridiculous to give lawn chairs rights, and I am also opposed to the idea of animal rights, but not on the grounds of ignorance.
Then why are you opposed to them? You might have said so already.

Quote:
You are essentially stamping your foot on the ground insisting that law cannot create rights.
When someone explains their reasoning for something, it cannot reasonably be called foot-stamping. I realise that this is just another emotional response, essentially you have to make the same accusation you've received, but it isn't less childish than the last time you did it.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか


Last edited by Argumemnon; 13th July 2017 at 11:55 AM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 11:57 AM   #111
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,875
What, exactly, is the point of giving rights that that the animal/person in question aren't aware of?
In the case of children, we have guardians that check that their rights are not infringed.

Unless you give power of attorney to animal-right activists, giving animals themselves rights makes little sense.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:06 PM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Not unless a large enough group of idiots manage to bring it to a vote and more idiots manage to pass it into law. And even then the solar panels would have no real say or vote in any future elections as their lack of any ability to communicate would legally prevent such.
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
That's precisely my point.
Coincidentally, that is also the reason why babies do not have the right to vote. It doesn't mean that babies cannot have any rights.
And so, by extension, solar panels should never be granted the right to vote, but perhaps in some future world, they will be granted the right to an underground burial. Or whatever.

No somewhere between voting adults and solar panels, we have babies, the demented, those in a coma, and sentient animals.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:08 PM   #113
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
But, in most such situations, the bear will be killed for the protection of other people!!!
Unless society decides, through proper legislature, that a bear, too, has a right to a fair trial, a right to life, and a right to be spared cruel and unusual punishment.

And why should it not?

Society might as well decide that its best to shoot delinquent primary schoolers who have attacked other humans, for the protection of other humans. Or bears.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:09 PM   #114
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,281
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Unless society decides, through proper legislature, that a bear, too, has a right to a fair trial, a right to life, and a right to be spared cruel and unusual punishment.

And why should it not?
Well, first and foremost because that's positively insane.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:29 PM   #115
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I have to go with Argumemnon on this one: there is no objective reason why animals should be granted rights but inanimate objects not.
What about a cockroach compared to a van Gogh painting? Don't we have a moral obligation to preserve the latter more than the former, even if only of of them, as far as we know, feels pain?

These are not ideal questions, especially if we get into issues of cybernetics and computer-human hybrids: should a person who is only 35% organic have the same rights as non-modified humans?
This is talking.
What about artificial intelligence - is a future solar panel has been given an electronic brain that enables it to understand the concept of "rights" on a level a baby, or an adult, can, must we grant it rights, as per Argumemnons criterion?

The van-Gogh/cockroach problem can be resolved, as can any other conflict of rights, once there are laws and precedent. It will be difficult to construct a case where the van Gogh painting infringes on the rights of the cockroach.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:31 PM   #116
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But some posters here would rather just say that that's the way it is and don't question it because reasons, which is more than a little unfortunate given the forum we're on.
Right. Here is one such poster:
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm arguing from what rights _are_.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:38 PM   #117
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
A right that is only bestowed but not accepted is a fickle thing indeed.

Our progress of human rights is mostly due to the fact that, once a right was given, people fought hard to keep it. This had a "ratcheting-up" effect where rights once gained are rarely lost.

So every right we give to an animal with the stroke of a pen can just be taken away with the stroke of a pen - the creature will not know either way.
The fight for the rights of children is not really fought by children.
The fight for the right of unborn humans isn't at all fought by them.

What is, by the way, the difference between an unborn and a born infant? It's not the mental capacity to "accept" or "understand" or even "fight for" rights, is it?

Are infant rights nonsense?
Are rights of the unborn nonsense?

Someone drew a line, and drew it somewhat arbitrarily. And that's how rights come into existence: By people drawing arbitrary lines, and enforcing them.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:40 PM   #118
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,048
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post

(4) Would you take that same position for infants? That infants can only have "protection", not "rights"? If not, then why not?

Thanks!
Interestingly yes, it was long held that minors really had no rights (or gradually increasing rights) until they reached legal adult age. They do however have protections under the law which in some cases are similar to rights and in other cases not.
__________________
Scott
"Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted & thoughtful observation rather than protracted & thoughtless labour; & of looking at plants & animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single-product system." Bill Mollison
Biome Carbon Cycle Management
Red Baron Farms is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:42 PM   #119
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by Hlafordlaes View Post
See post #16 for the one liner that, imo, covers the issue. To put flesh on it, see, for example, Franz de Waal's work with primates. But stated in general terms: if (notice the 'if') (1) one bases the formulation of rights on the Theory of Mind1, which, I would argue, is about the only place to do so, and (2) recognizes that evolution has produced a gradation of cognitive profiles in the animal kingdom, meaning that it is unlikely that "mind" is at all exclusive to humans, then, indeed, the reasoning leading to recognizing rights for humans may include other animals.

Also, whether a right is actionable by choice by the agent or not, given that rights are rules in a system, rights they would be.

_______
1For our purposes, the importance of the Theory of Mind is that, among social animals, it refers to the skill of assigning agency to other agents. This then determines how and when, for example, I might hide food, such as when no one is looking. Critically, success is dependent on being able to assign one's own internal states to others, making them in essence equally possessed of preference, will, and choice. Which, for brevity, I think leads to the obvious point about how a political ideology of equality may be derived from the workings of social behavior and the attributes/skills it depends on; a shared sameness [IMO, basic empathy lies at the crux of success as social animals, learning by imitation, and the ethics of fairness and equity in willing exchanges.]
Thanks for that intelligent post.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2017, 12:45 PM   #120
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,124
Originally Posted by desmirelle View Post
IanS

Animals do NOT have rights. Humans have the RESPONSIBILITY to treat them humanely.

Can animals have rights? Not really, you can give them "rights", but since an animal will never be able to exercise them, it's an exercise in futility.
Babies do not have rights.

Do you agree with that fully?
If not, your argument is special pleading.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.