Animal Rights?

[ThisYouWillDo]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away.

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

I don't think we can prevent animals exercising their natural rights, unless we put them in unnatural situations, like zoos or experimental laboratories. We can affect how wild animals behave, for example, many wild animals will avoid urban areas, so their "right to roam" is affected, but they will still roam freely elsewhere. Isn't this reflected in nature where wilderbeast will avoid a watering hole if lions are already drinking there?

In unnatural situations, animals are completely at our mercy, and we have a moral duty to treat them with all due consideration. It is true that there is no "natural right" not to be tortured or to be experimented upon, but we are under legal obligations (in most jurisidicitions) not to cause unnecessary suffering. Our legal duties give rise to quasi-legal rights for animals, although any poor creature whose rights are abused cannot enforce them in the Courts, and it is up to other people to prevent such mistreatment happening, if they are so inclined.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

If it's a natural right as you suggest and the animal cannot be condemned... then isn't it hypocritical to say it would be wise to destroy it?

Rights are a human construct. And we only have to agree to what the rules are to be. Animals have no natural rights... only those rights we humans wish to confer on them.

If you disagree, then in accordance to your example, a man who kills an animal in self-defence should not be condemned but should likewise be destroyed none the less.

Therefore, the rest of your post regarding natural rights and unnatural situations fails (in my eyes) because I believe it's based on an incorrect premise.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Off topic... the comment you didn't read is whether or not abortion is a luxury... which is also off topic in an animal rights conversation. (But that's up to Saucie... it's her thread.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

I'm not sure if that's the point Tom was trying to make... but I'm not sure it wasn't either. Tom?

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

On this I agree. Animals react to pain as we do, we don't like pain, and therefore it is reasonable for us to empathize and wish to avoid causing animals unnecessary pain... which is why (here I go) we, humans, get to decide on what rights we wish to confer on animals.

TYWD

[Saucie]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

What is a "natural right"? Where would it come from? Whose responsibility would it be to enforce those rights? Can they be taken away for any reason, and if so, how? People use that phrase all the time, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means in concrete terms. Would you clarify?