Animal Rights?

[Ozme52]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

[Saucie]

That question only mattered "the day after" society's response to animal pain, (when inflicted by dogfighting,) first became illegal. Perhaps those who already had property raised specifically for dogfighting deserved some kind of compensation. Thereafter, there is no excuse, you know the law, owning for that purpose is illegal.

No more than I have the right to drive my property through a schoolzone at highspeed.

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

[Ozme52]

But I'm asking a different question. I'm asking if it was ethical, or politically justifiable, to make it illegal in the first place.

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or politically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

[Saucie]

Was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical or poticically justifiable? Even though before that, slaves were property? Of course.

All laws, including those protecting our own human rights, are ethical by definition.

LIKE "rights", "ethics" is also a human construct. Sometimes we're wrong... or perhaps it would be better to say sometimes our sense of right and wrong changes.

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

[Ozme52]

I would say yes the Emancipation Proclamation was justifiable, because before the slaves were prevented from making contracts, gaining rights, etc., which they were mentally capable of. Disallowing them rights was an initiation of force, in the same way as if a man with a shotgun prevented people from going into a polling booth.

No. The guy with the shotgun was going against the law (at the time) and was being unethical. Those who owned slaves were 100% ethical within the belief system at that time. We believe today that those beliefs were wrong. Our ethics have changed. They are malleable based on knowledge, culture, and beliefs.

And yes, the Emancipation Proclomation was ethical... and if not for the civil war, if it had been passed beforehand, compensation to "property" owners, (i.e., slave owners,) would have been part of the new law. It was or had been under discussion in Congress. Owning slaves, prior to the civil war was considered ethical in the south.

I would completely disagree with the statement that all laws are ethical by definition. Unless, of course, we have radically different ideas about ethics, which is plausible.

I think you're arguing what is and isn't ethical... and I'm arguing about the defintion of ethics.

(Though I admit I raised the question 'was the Emancipation Proclamation ethical' in the prior post... but that was in response to your previous post.... the threads or the conversation grow fuzzy in my mind. lol)

Well sure, rights and ethics are both human constructs. But what does that change? Why is that so significant?

It's significant if you believe in innate 'animal rights' as opposed to whether any rights they have are at our descretion.

I went back and looked at your intial question.

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I don't think we can get to the question "should have rights" until we agree whether or not they have innate rights... and that's what the thread is churning over.

[In2kink]

An interesting topic Saucie. Clearly animals do in fact enjoy limited rights as every state has laws prohibiting animal cruelty but just as clearly they don’t enjoy personal rights to the degree that we as human beings do. The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

Clearly I do think some people overly personify animals (attribute to them human qualities). I have been guilty of that myself on occasion. But just as clearly to me at least, there is much more to an animal that meets the eye. Consider this excerpt from the writings of Voltaire;

“Hold then the same view of the dog which has lost his master, which has sought him in all the thoroughfares with cries of sorrow, which comes into the house troubled and restless, goes downstairs, goes upstairs; goes from room to room, finds at last in his study the master he loves, and betokens his gladness by soft whimpers, frisks, and caresses.
There are barbarians who seize this dog, who so greatly surpasses man in fidelity and friendship, and nail him down to a table and dissect him alive, to show you the mesaraic veins! You discover in him all the same organs of feeling as in yourself. Answer me, mechanist, has Nature arranged all the springs of feeling in this animal to the end that he might not feel?”

[Thorne]

The idea that the use of animals by human beings for food, clothing, entertainment, and as medical research subjects is morally acceptable springs mainly from two sources. First, there is the idea of a divine hierarchy based on the biblical concept of “dominion.” While the concept of dominion need not entail property rights, it has, over the centuries, been interpreted to imply some form of ownership. Second, is the idea that animals are inferior, because they lack language, souls, the ability to reason or perhaps even consciousness, and as such are worthy of less consideration than human beings. Except among those who hold very extremist views with respect to the rights of animals, society in general accepts that animals can be used for the benefit of mankind as long as they are not treated with wanton cruelty and a species is not threatened with extinction.

While it is true that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic based religions (among others) justify the domination of animals, I don't agree that they represent the source of this idea. Basically, we developed from our tree dwelling ancestors into omnivorous ground dwellers, where meat was an important part of our diets. All animals were fair game, and most were as dangerous as they were delicious. The idea of domesticating animals could only come about when the value of the work the animals did exceeded the nutritional value to the tribe. Formalizing this concept through religion was only a way to justify it.

One reason that this topic resonates with me is because one of my most cherished interests is backpacking. In a very few places that I sometimes go (Yellowstone NP and parts of New Mexico and Alaska) bears still exist in the wild. Occasionally when humans and bears happen to come into contact with one another in the wild, humans are injured and more infrequently killed as a result. I have heard many espouse the opinion that the bears should be eradicated to insure that no human is ever injured or killed by one. Thankfully the National Park Service does not agree. Here is an example of competing rights. I believe that bears have a right to exist in their natural habit with minimal interference and disturbance from me. I have the right to visit and enjoy the beautiful wilderness areas as long as I do so in an ethical manner. Yet when I choose to venture into the wilderness then I have to accept that there even as a human being, I am no longer at the top of the food chain and my rights are not superior to those of the bears.

I agree with you 100% here. If the bear were to come into your home, or your neighborhood, you would not be unjustified in killing it, if you can, in order to protect your family or your neighbors. And the reverse is true: if you go into the bear's neighborhood, expect to be attacked.

In fact, I would venture to offer a suggestion to those activists who place more value upon the lives of animals than they do upon the lives of humans: take your manifestos and your speeches out to the African veldt and preach to the lions. They are eagerly waiting to hear from you, and will undoubtedly invite you to dinner. Perhaps you can convert them into vegetarians as well!