The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums: Politics:
Animal Rights

Human Rights and Animal Rights.

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#2New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 16:42:36
@rogy Said

Dear Colleagues:

Rather, the point is that if we accept that animals are members of the moral community,







Had to isolate that sentence.
Animals simply aren't members of the moral community. How can they be, they don't make moral choices? And it would be (humanly)immoral of me to apply my human presumptions on to an animal. So without that all the rest of the reasoning is flawed!
crazychica On March 13, 2011
A taste of insanity





Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#3New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 18:59:07
Ummmm...Animals don't have the ability to destroy the world at the touch of a button. Humans do.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#4New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 19:22:04
@rogy Said

Dear Colleagues:

?There are too many human problems in the world that we have to solve first before we think about animals.?

?Let?s work on world peace first; we can then work on animal rights.?

Anyone who pursues animal advocacy frequently encounters these and similar comments. I am often asked how I respond to such comments.



There are more non-humans in the world than humans. The question is, which non-humans should be assigned moral status? I'd like to know what your criteria are for assigning something moral status.


@foosyerdoos Said

Had to isolate that sentence.
Animals simply aren't members of the moral community. How can they be, they don't make moral choices? And it would be (humanly)immoral of me to apply my human presumptions on to an animal. So without that all the rest of the reasoning is flawed!



One might propose that animals are moral patients rather than moral agents. That is, they have rights but no responsibilities. Young children, disabled people and others among human communities are given such status.
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#5New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 19:28:02
@buffalobill90 Said


One might propose that animals are moral patients rather than moral agents. That is, they have rights but no responsibilities. Young children, disabled people and others among human communities are given such status.




I share a link with those humans who are unable to choose a moral foundation for themselves. I am part of the same species, I have an allegiance with them because of that. Rabbits I share no allegiance with!
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#6New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 19:51:05
@foosyerdoos Said
I am part of the same species, I have an allegiance with them because of that.



Why? Do you share a particularly strong allegiance with bipedal creatures over quadrupeds? Mammals over reptiles? People with your hair, eye or skin colour? Isn't that just nepotism?
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#7New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:09:33
@buffalobill90 Said

Why? Do you share a particularly strong allegiance with bipedal creatures over quadrupeds? Mammals over reptiles? People with your hair, eye or skin colour? Isn't that just nepotism?



Strictly speaking no it isn't. But I suppose we could broaden it to mean an entire species. I share a particularly strong allegiance with them because I am also human. A pack of wolves or a pride of lions shows allegiance to others in their group. They ,also, don't show allegiance to rabbits. Why would they? It doesn't benefit them them in any way. If the OP argues that we are just another type of animal why would we differ in this animal trait?
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#8New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:13:41
@foosyerdoos Said
A pack of wolves or a pride of lions shows allegiance to others in their group. They ,also, don't show allegiance to rabbits. Why would they? It doesn't benefit them them in any way. If the OP argues that we are just another type of animal why would we differ in this animal trait?



The human race isn't a pack or a pride. The vast majority of the human race are complete strangers to you. They are not closely related to you, you have no evolutionary advantage in allying with them or affording them rights of any kind. But you do; this is a unique trait to humans. Maybe that's something we should take into account with regards to animal rights? Maybe it reveals something about humans which is relevant to the ethical debate?
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#9New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:22:25
@buffalobill90 Said

The human race isn't a pack or a pride. The vast majority of the human race are complete strangers to you. They are not closely related to you, you have no evolutionary advantage in allying with them or affording them rights of any kind. But you do; this is a unique trait to humans. Maybe that's something we should take into account with regards to animal rights? Maybe it reveals something about humans which is relevant to the ethical debate?



You are right when you say I don't know the vast majority of the species.
I think you are wrong when you say there is no advantage in affording them rights. If I don't afford them rights they may get pissed off and kill me. The fact that nobody has killed me yet insures my survival and my ability to pass on my genes.

If I kill or don't offer another species rights, it doesn't effect my survival.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#10New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:34:55
@foosyerdoos Said

You are right when you say I don't know the vast majority of the species.
I think you are wrong when you say there is no advantage in affording them rights. If I don't afford them rights they may get pissed off and kill me. The fact that nobody has killed me yet insures my survival and my ability to pass on my genes.

If I kill or don't offer another species rights, it doesn't effect my survival.



But what about people who can offer you nothing in return? Why should you respect children or disabled people, moral patients of the kind I mentioned earlier? You have nothing to gain.
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#11New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:39:26
@buffalobill90 Said

But what about people who can offer you nothing in return? Why should you respect children or disabled people, moral patients of the kind I mentioned earlier? You have nothing to gain.




Maybe it's an inherent empathy(very very possibly exclusive to humans). Maybe it's because children and disabled people have relatives that would get mighty pissed off for them.
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#12New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:48:06
@foosyerdoos Said

Maybe it's an inherent empathy(very very possibly exclusive to humans). Maybe it's because children and disabled people have relatives that would get mighty pissed off for them.



I think it's our consciousness which allows us to construct all kinds of concepts, including the concept of human and animal rights.
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#13New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:51:14
@buffalobill90 Said

I think it's our consciousness which allows us to construct all kinds of concepts, including the concept of human and animal rights.



Perhaps you're right. Then we still don't have to apply our consciousness to animals. Do animals share consciousness?
buffalobill90 On July 12, 2013
Powered by tea





Viaticum, United Kingdom
#14New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 20:53:33
@foosyerdoos Said

Perhaps you're right. Then we still don't have to apply our consciousness to animals. Do animals share consciousness?



I don't know. Probably some do, but almost certainly not all. Only a handful exhibit behaviour which suggests higher-order metnal representation.
foosyerdoos On March 10, 2015




Aberdeen, United Kingdom
#15New Post! Sep 12, 2010 @ 21:04:04
@buffalobill90 Said

I don't know. Probably some do, but almost certainly not all. Only a handful exhibit behaviour which suggests higher-order metnal representation.




I have a dog, lovely dog,a little nuts, but lovely all the same. As mammals go, he is pretty high up the scale of development. I don't think he has a concept of being alive or being dead though. He definately doesn't seem to fear death, because as far as I know he hasn't invented a religion to allay the fear of death. Because of this I don't believe he has consciousess of self.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 3 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Animal Rights
Mon Jan 18, 2010 @ 20:00
0 642
New posts   Animal Rights
Sun Feb 28, 2010 @ 04:24
23 1763
New posts   Animal Rights
Tue Aug 11, 2009 @ 00:14
1 615
New posts   Animal Rights
Wed Jul 22, 2009 @ 19:43
3 1118
New posts   Animal Rights
Tue May 29, 2012 @ 07:52
9 3058