Deconstructing animal rights in an age of progress

Top 2. Jun 11, 2004 5:44 AM

» Franc28 - Re: Animal rights & welfare

In response to message posted by bossel:

"There is no sharp distinction between humans & other animals. Volition or consciousness happen to exist in many species, only to varying degrees."

I am not convinced by the evidence provided on volition so far. But either way, what does it has to do with societal interaction ?

"How rational are human beings? Not all human beings trade."

Of course. But that is the individual's decision. It is not a biological limit.

"Hmm, animal rights have been written into the German constitution in 2002. I have not yet experienced the accompanying catastrophe."

The German constitution makes predation illegal ? Never heard of that.

"Ah well, what are lower animals? Who are we, who know?"

Good point. The expression "lower animals" is a misnomer. Perhaps I should have simply said "most animals".

"Sorry, it is valid. E.g. chimpanzees are considered to equal the intellectual abilities of 4 year old humans (the estimates differ from 2-6, I think). Frans de Waal has wrote some good books about apes, could be a good starting point for you."

Why should I read about something I already agree with ? It is besides the point.

"Why? That very much depends on the rights that are given."

Not at all. The right to life is the fundamental right from which all others are derived. To give other animals *any* right is a vindication of their right to life, and therefore makes predation illegal.

"All your reasoning seems to go against some extreme view of animal rights, but animal rights do not have to be so extreme."

No, it is based on the hierarchical nature of rights. It is meaningless to speak of singular specific rights detached from context.

-- posted by Franc28

Top 3. Jun 14, 2004 5:55 PM

» bossel - Re: Re: Animal rights & welfare

In response to message posted by Franc28:

"I am not convinced by the evidence provided on volition so far."
No matter if you are convinced, or not, volition exists in non-human animals. De Waal has presented quite good accounts of that. There are others who provided scientific evidence as well.

"But either way, what does it has to do with societal interaction ?"
That was not part of my original argument & maybe I should have left that out. But, anyway, pets & domesticated animals are in a way part of human society.
What's more, I don't see any reason why you need to be part of a society to be granted rights by that society.

"But that is the individual's decision. It is not a biological limit"
Not necessarily: babies, outcasts, handicapped, coma-patients, prisoners, a.s.o., did not really chose not to participate in trade.
On the other hand, there are bonobo females who trade sex for food.

"The German constitution makes predation illegal ? Never heard of that."
Never said that. Animal rights are in the German constitution, simple fact. What I wrote was a reaction on your text (that I quoted in the post above), the context of which reads:
"Likewise, advocates of "animal rights" fail to grasp the worldwide food problems, and that giving non-existing rights to animals would not only mean catastrophe for most of the world's population, but also raise the price of food products for the poor in Western countries."
Where is predation here?

Furthermore, this inclusion of a predation ban in animal rights is your subjective, rather extreme view of the issue. Can't see why Germany should subscribe to your point of view.

"Why should I read about something I already agree with ? It is besides the point."
Well, in your article that sounded different:
"don't reason as well as some non-human animals" is invalid."
If chimps have the mental ability of human 4-year-olds, they obviously have better reasoning
than human 2-year-olds. Hence the notion is not invalid as you claim.

"The right to life is the fundamental right from which all others are derived."
I doubt that. But, nobody can prove this, since the first rights were not written down. I wonder, how do you know?

"To give other animals *any* right is a vindication of their right to life, and therefore makes predation illegal."
But, again, that's just your definition of rights. Why should I subscribe to that?

"It is meaningless to speak of singular specific rights detached from context."
No, it's not. For most rights are not applied universally, but in certain contexts. One day, there may be some Universal Declaration of Animal Rights, but I don't see why this should include all Human Rights.

BTW, you could say that it is meaningless to argue philosophically against self-constructed, unrealistic animal rights, while in the real world "specific rights detached from context" are already applied (as in Germany).

-- posted by bossel

Top 4. Jun 22, 2004 12:06 PM

» Franc28 - Re: Re: Re: Animal rights & welfare

In response to message posted by bossel:

"No matter if you are convinced, or not, volition exists in non-human animals. De Waal has presented quite good accounts of that. There are others who provided scientific evidence as well."

Whether you like it or not, I need to be convinced before I uphold a position. If there is scientific evidence on the topic that I haven't seen, I will check it out, but I won't accept what you say at face value.

"That was not part of my original argument & maybe I should have left that out. But, anyway, pets & domesticated animals are in a way part of human society."

"In a way" being the key words.

"What's more, I don't see any reason why you need to be part of a society to be granted rights by that society."

Well, that was the point you were addressing. Refer to the original article on that.

"Not necessarily: babies, outcasts, handicapped, coma-patients, prisoners, a.s.o., did not really chose not to participate in trade."

Now now, you're being rather discriminatory. The only really pertinent example here is babies, and of course we all agree that babies do not possess all rights either. They are the responsibility of their parents.

"On the other hand, there are bonobo females who trade sex for food."

Sex with humans ? I doubt it.

"Never said that. Animal rights are in the German constitution, simple fact."

And yet I never heard that Germany forbids predation of animals on other animals.

""Likewise, advocates of "animal rights" fail to grasp the worldwide food problems, and that giving non-existing rights to animals would not only mean catastrophe for most of the world's population, but also raise the price of food products for the poor in Western countries."
Where is predation here?"

That would be in the "catastrophe" part.

"If chimps have the mental ability of human 4-year-olds, they obviously have better reasoning
than human 2-year-olds. Hence the notion is not invalid as you claim."

What is your point ?

"I doubt that. But, nobody can prove this, since the first rights were not written down."

What are you talking about ? "First rights" ? "written down" ? This makes no sense. We are talking about political rights, in case you're confused.

"But, again, that's just your definition of rights."

How exactly could I use any other definition ? Obviously any definition I accept enough to write down can be classified as "mine". So what ?

"No, it's not. For most rights are not applied universally, but in certain contexts."

What does that has to do with anything ? I wasn't talking about how people apply rights at all. You seem to want very hard to obfuscate a simple issue, which is that recognition of any animal right implies that predation is illegal. For some reason you have decided to latch on to that, although it was a peripherial issue in my original article.

-- posted by Franc28

Top 5. Jul 7, 2004 9:29 AM

» shiloh - Re: Animal rights

If I may enter this discussion late... Let me say that I think I'm more convinced than Francois, concerning the reasoning capabilities of many animals. But that is beside the point, for two resons.

First, while humans reason about the state of animals, animals do not reason about the state of humans. We can be sure that there are no monkey groups advocating better living conditions for the poor of Germany or anywhere else.

Second, the central issue is the definition of "rights" as liberty. No other creatures on earth have approached the environmental mastery that humans have achieved. Thus we have infinitely more liberty than other animals. We do not migrate from place to place only when the weather permits. We do not settle in one small region of the planet or another, only if the environment is suitable to us. We go everywhere, live everywhere. No other species has the same liberty as human beings. Thus a priori no other species can claim the same rights, nor can humans claim the same the same rights on behalf of other species.

No sensible person argues that we should treat animals with unnecessary cruelty. Animals do not need "rights" in order to be treated well by humans. I don't beat my dog. But that doesn't mean my dog can decide to move to Canada, build a house, start a business, and prosper with any real sense of human liberty. He simply is not biologically or mentally capable of claiming that kind of liberty for himself. Without liberty, he has no rights. I, however, can claim for myself a responsibility to treat my dog well, for my own peace of mind and for my own enjoyment of him as a companion animal. If I treat him well, that does not give him rights, it gives me responsibility.

-- posted by shiloh

Top 6. Jul 12, 2004 5:24 PM

» bossel - Re: Re: Re: Re: Animal rights & welfare

In response to message posted by Franc28:

"If there is scientific evidence on the topic that I haven't seen, I will check it out, but I won't accept what you say at face value."
Don't see why this should be necessary. As I said de Waal has wrote some books about the subject. In those books you will find references to other works.

"of course we all agree that babies do not possess all rights either"
Exactly. Then why should animals be given all or nothing?

"Sex with humans ? I doubt it."
Nope, with males of their own species, of course. They don't need humans to trade with.

"And yet I never heard that Germany forbids predation of animals on other animals."
Simply because that's part of your self-defined animal rights. Again, I don't see why Germany should subscribe to your personal view.

"What is your point ?"
Well, the answer to your "It is besides the point."

"What are you talking about ? "First rights" ? "written down" ? This makes no sense. We are talking about political rights, in case you're confused."
The first human societies worked without written rights. Hence we don't know which rights & duties they had.

"How exactly could I use any other definition ? Obviously any definition I accept enough to write down can be classified as "mine". So what ?"
Yep, so what? You make up your own definition of rights from which you derive your very own version of animal rights, & then you "deconstruct" your own construct. That's my main point: So what?

"You seem to want very hard to obfuscate a simple issue, which is that recognition of any animal right implies that predation is illegal."
Simply because it does not. That may be some philosophical point but it hasn't much to do with reality (as can be seen by the German example). There is not only one definition of animal rights & implementation of animal rights doesn't need to have any catastrophic results.

-- posted by bossel

Top 7. Jul 12, 2004 5:33 PM

» bossel - Re: Re: Animal rights

In response to message posted by shiloh:

"Animals do not need "rights" in order to be treated well by humans. I don't beat my dog."
Well, maybe you don't, but there are enough people who do.
Then you have to either give pets the "right not to be beaten" or you deny humans the right to beat their pets. Same result.

-- posted by bossel