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 13th July 2017, 01:01 PM   #121
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, forgive me but correct terminology is something that I consider very important.
In the dispute about the fine edges of a debate of future legal frameworks, working with ill-read "definitions" from general-purpose thesauruses does not constitute "correct terminology".
Methinks you want to force your own, private definitions on everybody else.

I am not an expert on the philosophy of law. Can you provide a textbook definition of the terms "right" vs. "protection"? Ideally from a textbook on the Philosophy of Law.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 01:16 PM   #122
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.

...
[snipped several inline replies in order to get discussion closer to the things we may eventually agree upon]
...

Then why are you opposed to them? You might have said so already.
...
I think the entire concept of rights, and who can have them, does not hinge at all on the mental capacity to understand them. Making this the foundation of who ought to have rights will get us into all sorts of trouble when looking at the edges.

In my opinion, rights depend wholly on us being a human society - a society, a political union made up of humans - and ultimately, the purpose of such a union is to protect "us" against "them".
it is up to that political union - the legislative community - whatever you call it - to decide who is "us" and who is "them". This is a matter of group egoism. No need to resort to ill-defined properties and abilities.

Within a chimpanzee society, rights might spring up that are granted among chimpanzees, and that may or may not be extended to humans. Same goes for intelligent solar panels, which, in a future power grid, might decide to agree on a set of laws among themselves, and on granting each other rights, and including or not including us humans.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 01:18 PM   #123
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
Assigning guardians and attorneys to animals makes as little and as much sense as assigning guardians and attorneys to babies.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 01:19 PM   #124
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, first and foremost because that's positively insane.
I respect your opinion.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 01:21 PM   #125
Nay_Sayer
I say nay!
 
Nay_Sayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Long Island
Posts: 3,352
I assume the op means animals other than ourselves.

The answer is No.

However, for the sake of continued balance of our ecosystem and the existence of ourselves, It's necessary to preserve their numbers and keep them in good health until slaughter.
__________________
I am 100% confident all psychics and mediums are frauds.
----------------------------------------------
Proud woo denier
----------------------------------------------
“That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” -Christopher Hitchens-

Last edited by Nay_Sayer; 13th July 2017 at 02:36 PM.
Nay_Sayer 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, 01:21 PM   #126
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
...it was long held that minors really had no rights (or gradually increasing rights)...
And now?


It was long held that animals really had no rights (or gradually increasing rights)

And 50 years from now?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 02:57 PM   #127
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Right. Here is one such poster:
What a dishonest representation, AGAIN. I explained exactly why I think the argument holds. You're making it sound like I said that and only that.

Don't you have anything to argue? Because using these rhetorical tricks sure gives the impression that you don't.

Quote:
In the dispute about the fine edges of a debate of future legal frameworks, working with ill-read "definitions" from general-purpose thesauruses does not constitute "correct terminology".
Methinks you want to force your own, private definitions on everybody else.
I don't care what you think, since I know you're wrong about what I want.

Quote:
I think the entire concept of rights, and who can have them, does not hinge at all on the mental capacity to understand them.
Why? I've told you why I think the opposite.

Quote:
I respect your opinion.
You think giving bears the right to a trial is sane?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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, 02:59 PM   #128
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,052
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And now?


It was long held that animals really had no rights (or gradually increasing rights)

And 50 years from now?
We created the concept of rights, therefore we also have the ability to modify that concept any time we wish.

I don't foresee that happening any time soon, but hey maybe my country is behind the times?
__________________
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, 03:08 PM   #129
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
We created the concept of rights, therefore we also have the ability to modify that concept any time we wish.
Bingo

Originally Posted by Red Baron Farms View Post
I don't foresee that happening any time soon, but hey maybe my country is behind the times?
That's not what the OP asked
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 03:18 PM   #130
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,238
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
What a dishonest representation, AGAIN. I explained exactly why I think the argument holds. You're making it sound like I said that and only that.

Don't you have anything to argue? Because using these rhetorical tricks sure gives the impression that you don't.
Your entire argument boils down to "I know the one, immutable, correct and just definition because I made it up myself".

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why? I've told you why I think the opposite.
It's your opinion, and you reply to my opinion.
At least I know mine is an opinion (hence "I think...").

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You think giving bears the right to a trial is sane?
Not insane, that is a bit beside the point. Highly impractical in the situation given.
But in a system of law that grants and recognizes animal rights, it will of course be highly sane to provide the animals with some sort of agency that represents them to uphold those rights. This will probably not be an attorney at law representing bears in a court of law, for courts of laws have been set up for humans to peruse indeed. Something else will be found that's more practical for animals.
But giving bears the right to trial is no more insane than giving babies the right to trial.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   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, 03:38 PM   #131
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Your entire argument boils down to "I know the one, immutable, correct and just definition because I made it up myself".
Ok now you're straight up lying.

Have fun with that.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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, 03:55 PM   #132
Thor 2
Master Poster
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 2,964
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post

........

But in a system of law that grants and recognizes animal rights, it will of course be highly sane to provide the animals with some sort of agency that represents them to uphold those rights. This will probably not be an attorney at law representing bears in a court of law, for courts of laws have been set up for humans to peruse indeed. Something else will be found that's more practical for animals.
But giving bears the right to trial is no more insane than giving babies the right to trial.

OK animal rights ..... I'm cool with that.

What sort of animals though? I know we can feel all warm and fuzzy thinking about bears, but what about mice and other small creepy crawly critters? Come to think about it what about including simpler life forms like bacteria?
__________________
There are billions of gods. One or more in the mind of every theist.
Thor 2 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, 04:19 PM   #133
Steve001
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,262
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
"If a adult kills a small child, it’s a rights violation, but if a small child kills an adult, its not."

(Not literally true - a small child is not guilty of a crime, and not civilly liable, that's the correct way to put it; but a rights violation it is still. But the same applies to the bear: A human has the right to life, so a bear killing a human violates that right - but the bear is not responsible and not guilty).
Who declares a bear or any animal does not have the right to life? Those with the power make that declaration.

And yet we kill the bear for not following our human rules.
Steve001 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, 05:44 PM   #134
Jerrymander
Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Who declares a bear or any animal does not have the right to life? Those with the power make that declaration.

And yet we kill the bear for not following our human rules.
That's what we do now but we won't under animal rights.
Jerrymander 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, 05:46 PM   #135
Jerrymander
Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 228
Quote:
Babies do not have rights.
We give babies and children rights became they grow up and learn to understand rights.
Jerrymander 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, 06:05 PM   #136
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
That is likely true, though one might well remember that "useful"is important, and might dispute the use of "only"which implies that such a fiction is not necessary or important. We make up the rules by which we live. That said, perhaps the basic question raised in the original post is answered, because nothing is impossible, however far out or impractical, contrary to established norms, or for that matter self destructive.

We could, after all, all become Jains and change radically how we live. I suspect that such ideas, while practicable at a certain level, would be impracticable globally, and if enforced would result in very great disasters, but that is not to say it's impossible.

I think a large part of the issue is not whether such rights are theoretically possible, but whether they are practical in the word as it actually exists. Some time back in the dim recesses of prehistory perhaps people could have established a different relationship to the rest of nature than nature itself requires. But now, millennia down the road, we depend on a certain relationship to the animal world, and change is likely to be very messy and slow. What do you do with the cows and chickens? What do you feed your dog?
I think it's in society's interest that we afford animals some basic rights, that it's illegal make animals fight each other, things like that. I think you'd see a coarsening of society if animals had no rights.
Fudbucker 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, 06:08 PM   #137
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
A lot of people get emotionally distressed seeing animals abused, sometimes moreso than seeing people abused. We obviously care about animals, so it should be reflected in our legal system.
Fudbucker 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, 06:10 PM   #138
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
A lot of people get emotionally distressed seeing animals abused, sometimes moreso than seeing people abused. We obviously care about animals, so it should be reflected in our legal system.
I don't think anyone here's saying that it shouldn't, but like the distinction between a right and a privilege, there exists one between rights and mere protections.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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, 06:21 PM   #139
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I don't think anyone here's saying that it shouldn't, but like the distinction between a right and a privilege, there exists one between rights and mere protections.
What is a "right"? We could go on and on. I think they're useful fictions that allow society to function. Rights also map on to (most people's) moral sentiments. But whatever you mean by "rights", some of them should cover animals, and not weak property-type rights. They should be rights we give to the animals themselves, for their benefit, and we do give them some basic rights.
Fudbucker 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, 06:32 PM   #140
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What is a "right"?
Depends what you mean by "is".
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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, 06:42 PM   #141
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Depends what you mean by "is".
Are you claiming that defining "rights" in a discussion about animals rights is just a semantic obfuscation? It's a legitimate question, to wonder what "rights" mean.

My point is that however you define "rights", we should confer them to animals both for their benefit and our benefit.
Fudbucker 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, 06:51 PM   #142
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Are you claiming that defining "rights" in a discussion about animals rights is just a semantic obfuscation?
I wasn't being serious, but the question's been asked and addressed multiple times, so I didn't feel like going through all that again.

Quote:
It's a legitimate question, to wonder what "rights" mean.

My point is that however you define "rights", we should confer them to animals both for their benefit and our benefit.
Your "point" seems to make your question irrelevant, so why do you think it's legitimate?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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, 07:03 PM   #143
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,510
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I wasn't being serious, but the question's been asked and addressed multiple times, so I didn't feel like going through all that again.



Your "point" seems to make your question irrelevant, so why do you think it's legitimate?
What, when I said "What is a right?" to you? I was being rhetorical. I didn't expect you to answer.
Fudbucker 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, 11:22 PM   #144
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,824
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I think you should leave it up to the moderators here to decide if Red Baron Farms made a comment about moderation.

Well I do leave it up to the moderators. It was not me suggesting that others be stopped from making perfectly polite and constructive replies here.

But all you are doing now is just repeating my posts and saying "same to you". That's not a constructive argument from you at all.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
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.

Well what you are saying now (above) is simply untrue isn't it? Yes it is, because I just quoted to you your own post where you very specifically have said “The idea of rights requires a certain form of cognition that no other animal but us has.” … here is your own quote again -


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.

You very specifically do say the reason why you claim animals cannot have “rights” is because “The idea of rights requires a certain form of cognition that no other animal but us has.” … and yet here you are now claiming that's not quite what you had said! … well it's exactly what you said, and I've quoted it back to you several times now!

Look; there is no doubt about it and you said it very clearly in your own words from the very first page of this thread – you have been claiming that the reason why humans have rights is precisely because humans have a “form of cognition” that you claim “no other animal has” … that has been your claim, in your own words!

But you are wrong when you say that, because as I just pointed out to you - that very question has been examined by the courts, and the legal decision is very decisively to accept the scientific evidence which shows that certain groups of animals definitely do have sufficient “cognition” to require exactly the same sort of legal rights that humans have as redress against cruelty and ill-treatment.

It's the same type of protective legal “rights” in both cases.

Neither humans nor animals have any other automatic “rights”. Humans only have whatever “rights” are provided by the law courts. There are no other “rights”. And certain animals have those same sort of legal “rights” for exactly the same reason. And that's a legal ruling of the courts.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, it hasn't. Animals were afforded protections not because they can think sufficiently, but for other reasons entirely.

No! The word “protections” is just an alternative for the word “rights”. All you are doing is making a semantic argument by changing the words around. The “rights” that humans have under the law are also “protections” … the “protections” ARE your legal “rights”. It's the same legal ruling, and it applies in law for both humans and for certain groups of “cognitively aware” animals.
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, 11:46 PM   #145
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,942
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
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.
You are right in part. The borders of “rights” and "not rights" are not objectively established by rational considerations. But they are not absolutely arbitrary. They change in function of the modifications of moral feelings that are specially founded in empathy. In many countries animals have some rights today. In my country you cannot abuse an animal and the movement for the respect to animals has reached some partial successes that were unthinkable in a recent past. There still remains much to be done, but we can see a certain progression. For the moment, the animal rights are not in equality with human rights but there is no reason why in the future animal rights and human rights had not a similar status. This depends of an educational task on the empathic feelings of people, not an abstract reasoning about the “true essence” of the human rights.

I think that the issue doesn't refer to mere sentimentality. The improvement and refinement of our faculty of empathy would have an effect on the quality of human relations. Animal abuse, specially when ritualized, is a school of moral indifference toward humans. If we learn to be implied by animal suffering we would be more implied in the reduction of violence in human relations also.

Last edited by David Mo; 13th July 2017 at 11:48 PM.
David Mo 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 14th July 2017, 01:49 AM   #146
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
What, when I said "What is a right?" to you? I was being rhetorical. I didn't expect you to answer.
I already addressed it, however. It's not as if we haven't been discussing this for a while now.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 14th July 2017, 01:51 AM   #147
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
Well what you are saying now (above) is simply untrue isn't it? Yes it is, because I just quoted to you your own post where you very specifically have said “The idea of rights requires a certain form of cognition that no other animal but us has.” … here is your own quote again -
I know what I said. The fact of the matter is that "cognition" is what's needed for the thing that makes us eligible for rights. It is not the thing itself. Again, it's not a huge distinction, but it is one.

Quote:
Look; there is no doubt about it and you said it very clearly in your own words from the very first page of this thread – you have been claiming that the reason why humans have rights is precisely because humans have a “form of cognition” that you claim “no other animal has” … that has been your claim, in your own words!
Well, it seems that you simply can't understand the argument.

Quote:
No! The word “protections” is just an alternative for the word “rights”.
Absolutely not. The two are different concepts, and they have been explained to you already.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 14th July 2017, 05:24 AM   #148
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,052
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
When babies start creating their own laws, then they will have rights
[/silliness]
This is why the problem with calling protections rights in the first place. While it is true that we humans could all agree to have some sort of redefinition of rights to include other animals, we haven't yet.
__________________
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 14th July 2017, 05:54 AM   #149
Red Baron Farms
Illuminator
 
Red Baron Farms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 4,052
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
That's not what the OP asked
No but that's what YOU asked.
__________________
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 14th July 2017, 11:59 AM   #150
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 38,709
Mod WarningSeveral posts have been shuffled off to AAH. Please keep to the topic, and keep it civil.

Thank you.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin 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 14th July 2017, 01:03 PM   #151
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 21,714
Thinking about this, and having skipped much of the bickering, so perhaps redundant, it seems to me a lot of this depends not only on what you think rights actually are, and who gets them, but where you think they come from.

I think people of faith probably have a easier time with rights, because "god given rights" can be said to exist because God said so, and our historical inability to settle on what they are can be put down to error, rather than fluidity of the rights themselves.

Those of us who have no faith must decide what a right is, and what differentiates it from a privilege or something else. I've always sort of presumed that rights are defined by belonging to a group or class, to which one belongs by definition and that the rights themselves are conferred without qualification other than the qualification they themselves demand. Thus, for example, a baby has whatever rights are considered "human rights," because the baby is human, whether it knows or not. A citizen has voting rights, for which request and qualification exist, but those requirements apply only to voting and not to any other membership, qualification, or criterion. If you meet the standards for voting, you need not meet standards for race, religion, property, or whatever else.

So where does that leave animal rights? I don't know. I would presume if we as rights-dispensing persons decide to grant rights to animals, then we can say they have them, though if we don't assume a god we cannot palm responsibility off on a higher authority. And, of course, they had better be rights specific to animals and their situation, including their relationship to humans, unless we're all going to become vegetarians and set the cows free.

joke:

A man's car is stuck on a back road in a blizzard, and he's freezing to death, expecting to die, when up comes a pig with a wooden leg, which gestures to him to follow. He does so, and comes to a farmhouse where the farmer feeds him and warms him up. The motorist thanks the farmer and says what an unusual pig that is. The farmer agrees saying he's a very special pig indeed. Last year, he saw the barn was on fire, warned us, and saved the barn. A year before, my wife was out in the field, and had a heart attack, and he came back and fetched me. Saved her life. Great pig! The motorist says, he sure is, but I do have one question: why does he have a wooden leg? The farmer replies, well, an animal that special, it would be a shame to eat him all at once.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto 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 14th July 2017, 03:06 PM   #152
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
So where does that leave animal rights? I don't know. I would presume if we as rights-dispensing persons decide to grant rights to animals, then we can say they have them, though if we don't assume a god we cannot palm responsibility off on a higher authority. And, of course, they had better be rights specific to animals and their situation, including their relationship to humans, unless we're all going to become vegetarians and set the cows free.
I understand what you're saying.

The thing is, if you want to take it that way, all concepts are human creations, and they are what they say they are at any given point. But that's not a particularily pragmatic way to approach the conversation: We can say that "species" is now defined as how many legs you have, so that dogs and cats are the same species. Unfortunately that's also not very useful. There's arbitrary, and then stupid arbitrary.

In the case of rights, in my perspective they do require not only the ability to understand the concept, but also the ability to use these rights, which of course requires the understanding in the first place. Animals, being unable to understand the concept to begin with, cannot use them and cannot have them. They can, of course, be given protections. Even inanimate objects can be protected, because that's entirely external to the thing being protected.

Not all humans can understand concepts at all times, but it's sufficient that humans as a whole can in order to make the concept work. As an analogy, if abortion becomes illegal post-viability, you only need to know the average point of viability, not the viability of each foetus individually, for the principle to function.

Take the right to free speech, for instance. You can't have the right to free speech unless you can grasp the concept and use it. You don't grant the right to free speech to a piece of paper, but to the person who writes on it. Rights are, by and large, something you're not prevented from doing, and something you're guaranteed to have. Something that's entirely out of your hands is a protection, and we have plenty of those for animals, babies and comatose people.

To me it's as important a distinction, perhaps even moreso, than the distinction between "right" and "privilege" in the US legal system.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 14th July 2017, 05:57 PM   #153
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 7,571
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=286625
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!
These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN 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 14th July 2017, 10:03 PM   #154
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
To me it's as important a distinction, perhaps even moreso, than the distinction between "right" and "privilege" in the US legal system.
I think you're more right than you know.

...

It seems to me that if you create law that, for example, bans the unjustified killing of great apes, great apes then have the right to life. And they're plenty capable of exercising that right--by going about the business of being alive. The rest is just an attempt to smuggle in conclusions with bespoke definitions.
mumblethrax 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 15th July 2017, 12:16 AM   #155
David Mo
Graduate Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,942
Originally Posted by IanS View Post

Neither humans nor animals have any other automatic “rights”. Humans only have whatever “rights” are provided by the law courts. There are no other “rights”. And certain animals have those same sort of legal “rights” for exactly the same reason. And that's a legal ruling of the courts.
There are also moral duties that imply moral rights. You are right in that animal rights is mainly a subject of legal laws now, but there is a moral background that usually precedes the proclamation of a law. It is because cruelty against animals causes something like moral disgust in many people that the issue of protective laws of animals is on the table. We are in the same situation that abolitionism of slavery around 1800.
David Mo 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 15th July 2017, 01:55 AM   #156
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Phew. For a moment there I thought you'd actually agree with me on something! It's good to see we're not going to break tradition today.

Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
It seems to me that if you create law that, for example, bans the unjustified killing of great apes, great apes then have the right to life. And they're plenty capable of exercising that right--by going about the business of being alive. The rest is just an attempt to smuggle in conclusions with bespoke definitions.
I had thought about that, but "being alive" does not qualify as exercising a right unless one mangles language beyond the point of any recognition. What I do automatically cannot constitute "using" a right. It has to be deliberate.

In other words "right to life" would be categorised as a protection more than a right.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 15th July 2017, 04:43 AM   #157
IanS
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,824
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I know what I said.


We all “know what you said”, because I had to quote it all back you, three times! And yet you are still refusing to accept what you said, and still trying to change it!

It does not matter to me what you think about so-called “rights” in law (which are the only rights that any of us have). But when you argue on the basis of saying that “humans have a form of cognition that animals do not have, by definition”, and when you continue to argue for that on page after page, then you must accept that you did say it, because people will quote your own words back to you. Just accept that that it is indeed what you have been claiming as the fundamental reason why you say it's impossible for animals to be given so-called “rights” by the courts (even though in fact animals have been given such legal “rights” by the courts”).


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The fact of the matter is that "cognition" is what's needed for the thing that makes us eligible for rights. It is not the thing itself. Again, it's not a huge distinction, but it is one.

It's been pointed out to you very many times that animals also have “cognition”. And that point is not arguable. Because that entire issue has been decided long ago in law by the courts who have accepted all known genuine scientific evidence which shows that the kind of animals we are talking about here most definitely do have “cognition” at a level which the courts accept as qualifying those animals for a legal right of redress against cruelty and neglect etc. That issue has already been debated to death and decided very definitely in favour of the animals and against what you are falsely trying to claim. It's not arguable – it's already established as the law.



Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Well, it seems that you simply can't understand the argument.

No, I understand your so-called “argument” very well. And it's false. And it's false because the courts have decided that it's false!


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Absolutely not. The two are different concepts, and they have been explained to you already.

They are two words that describe what the law offers as redress to either people or in some cases to animals. People, ie humans, are also said to have protection under the law. That very same word “protections” applies to humans just as much as it does to any animals. Actually, “redress” is a better word in almost all these cases, because in most cases the legal action is sought after the event, i.e. after the “crime”.

But if you asked what “right” does any person have when a crime is committed against them. The answer is that the courts offer them a “right” of redress and/or protection against such offences. The only right that people have is a right to appeal to adjudication from a court of law. It's the court of law that decides what is right or wrong in the case of a criminal offence against either a person or against an animal.

If you want to use the word “protection” instead of “rights” then you should also be using that word in the case of people who apply to the courts for justice. They too will be asking for “protection”, i.e. “redress” under the existing laws. But in any case, I pointed out to you from the start that if you are just saying that “rights” is really the wrong word to use, and that some other word should be used, then you are just arguing semantics over which words you prefer.

However, the reason the word “rights” is in common parlance/usage in cases of cruelty and neglect, is because the courts have decided that both people and certain animals do have sufficient levels of “cognition” (i.e. “conscious awareness” and the ability to feel pain and fear) to be afforded legal rights of redress against such ill treatment. That test of “cognition” is the same for both animals and humans (that does not mean animals have the same level of cognition that humans have, but it does mean that in law they both meet the required standard).

Last edited by IanS; 15th July 2017 at 04:49 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 15th July 2017, 06:14 AM   #158
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by IanS View Post
We all “know what you said”, because I had to quote it all back you, three times! And yet you are still refusing to accept what you said, and still trying to change it!
You not understanding what I said despite being able to read the words does not change what I meant. The problem here is that, as usual, you see your intepretation as the only possible truth. There is no possible discussion because of this.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 15th July 2017, 11:41 AM   #159
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,980
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Phew. For a moment there I thought you'd actually agree with me on something!
No danger of that, not when you're being so careless.

US law doesn't recognize this sharp distinction between rights and privileges. Consider what is guaranteed by the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment, for example.

Similarly, there's no sharp distinction between "protections" and rights. Rights are nothing more than protected interests--narrower than all protections, but not non-overlapping. You're fighting very hard (and sacrificing much) for a semantic point that gets you nowhere.

Quote:
I had thought about that, but "being alive" does not qualify as exercising a right unless one mangles language beyond the point of any recognition.
You mean, mangling language beyond the point of any recognition by not audaciously cherry-picking a definition, but going with the first relevant one you see?

Quote:
What I do automatically cannot constitute "using" a right. It has to be deliberate.
I wouldn't say that I'm "deliberately" alive at the moment. Yet I tend to think that a rights violation would occur if, say, the police were to storm into my home right now and shoot me in the head. I guess you want to say, "No, no, no. That's just a protections violation."

Quote:
In other words "right to life" would be categorised as a protection more than a right.
Obviously. That's why we call it the right to life.

How far out onto this thin branch will you go?
mumblethrax 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 15th July 2017, 12:26 PM   #160
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,372
Originally Posted by mumblethrax View Post
US law doesn't recognize this sharp distinction between rights and privileges.
Really? I was told in no uncertain terms here a few years ago that US law made a very clear distinction between the two. That the first are things the government can't do and the second are things they allow you to do. Sounds about right to me.

Quote:
Similarly, there's no sharp distinction between "protections" and rights.
Well, I was asked what _I_ mean by "rights" and the two have important differences, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:
I wouldn't say that I'm "deliberately" alive at the moment. Yet I tend to think that a rights violation would occur if, say, the police were to storm into my home right now and shoot me in the head. I guess you want to say, "No, no, no. That's just a protections violation."
That would be consistent, yes.

Quote:
How far out onto this thin branch will you go?
Why do you always _start_ conversations with me like this? Have I killed one of your relatives at some point?
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is online now   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 06:15 AM.
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.