[Godstud]

The dolphins and apes are welcome to do up a petition to oppose this, any time they wish.

Fuck them apes and dolphins! All they do is grunt or squeal, anyhow.

[Cromwell]

Cromwell, almost anything is capable of suffering, if it feels pain in any way. That's a pretty weak argument for animal rights, if it's simply based on pain threshold.

Animals should never be treated AS humans, because they simply are NOT humans. People who lose this distinction are the people you really have to worry about.

The quotation was there to offer another perspective, rather than reinforce the Animal rights argument.

It argues for animal welfare, rather than animal rights. Bentham was not even a vegetarian.

He believed, as I do, that it is our right to exploit our natural resources (this includes animals) as long as they are not subjected to unnecessary suffering. As technology has progressed, however, I would suggest that killing animals for food, at least in the developed world, is unnecessary as there are enough meat-alternatives and there is enough nutritional advice available for most people to live on an ovo-lacto vegetarian diet.

[Godstud]

I'm all for animal welfare, as it demonstrates our human capacity for compassion, but I am against those animals having rights, to where they are as deemed, or seem, as important as humans.

[SecretSquirrel]

Animals have the following rights:

1) The right to be fluffy
2) The right to be cuddly
3) The right to be cute
4) The right to be funny
5) The right to be delicious

[Nunt]

The dolphins and apes are welcome to do up a petition to oppose this, any time they wish.

Fuck them apes and dolphins! All they do is grunt or squeal, anyhow.

Why would a creature's right not to be killed depend on their ability to communicate with us?

I have always found the libertarian idea that a creature's rights depend on rationality to be insufficiently proven. Why rationality and not something else? For example, if you maim an animal, you can see by its reaction that you are causing pain and that the animal wants you to stop. Imo at such a time an animal is clearly communicating to you to stop. But you disregard it because it is not asking you to stop in human language? Something doesn't feel right here. Animals are petitioning every day to not to be hurt, they only petition it through grunts or squals. But why wouldn't that count?

An animal knows the difference between being burnt and not being burnt.

[Godstud]

I'm not for hurting animals for pleasure, Nunt. My quotes you listed there were in jest. If you'd read the rest of what i posted in this entire thread, you'd see that.

[Eran]

I have always found the libertarian idea that a creature's rights depend on rationality to be insufficiently proven.

We have had this discussion before, but let me try again.

"Rights" are certain legal privileges. Their place is to enshrine certain moral principles in law so as to allow human societies to function peacefully.

"Rights" do not enshrine all moral prohibitions. For example, your rights aren't violated when an implicit promise is violated, when people are impolite, when you reasonable requests for assistance are spurned, or, more generally, when people behave towards you in various immoral ways.

Causing unjustified pain to animals is a moral wrong. But it is a moral wrong that lies outside the legal structure designed to ensure the peaceful co-existence of human society.

[Nunt]

Why would rights only exists between humans and not between humans and other species?

[Godstud]

Read Eran's post again.

Know any animals that have legal privileges? Know any animals who will sue you, take you to court, or things like that? Know any animals that have influence in human society?

[Nunt]

Read Eran's post again.

Know any animals that have legal privileges?

This doesn't matter. I am not saying that animals currently have legal rights. I am questioning whether animals should have rights.

Know any animals who will sue you take you to court, or things like that?

,
Does the possession of rights depends on the possibility to sue? Why?

[AFAIK]

Why would rights only exists between humans and not between humans and other species?

What sort of legal system would mediate disputes between different species?
Libertarianism hasn't proposed one.

The distinction here is between legal rights and obligations and morality, which isn't legally enforceable.

[Nunt]

The distinction here is between legal rights and obligations and morality, which isn't legally enforceable.

Why is the act of stabbing a person covered by legal obligation and stabbing an animal is just morality?

[Phred]

Why is the act of stabbing a person covered by legal obligation and stabbing an animal is just morality?

AFAIK is wrong. It has nothing to do with either legality or morality. Once again: neither "rights" (which are the foundation of legal systems) nor "morality" are concepts applicable to interactions between species.

It is not "immoral" for a parasitic worm to harm its host lion, for example, nor does the host lion have the "right" to not be tormented by parasite. In the context of interspecies relations, many terms (moral, right, legal) are null concepts.


Phred

[Nunt]

Once again: neither "rights" (which are the foundation of legal systems) nor "morality" are concepts applicable to interactions between species.

Why not?

I agree that one cannot say that a creature without the power to make any decisions cannot be said to make morally right or legally right decisions. They cannot be said to act morally or legally, but this does not mean that creatures who can make decisions are not able to act morally/legally with respect to those creatures.

[Eran]

Rights are part of the norms that regulate the interaction of intelligent members of society. Their application is reciprocal. People are obliged to respect the rights of others, even while those others are obliged to respect their own rights. Rights, in other words, regulate the mutual interaction of people capable of understanding and choosing to comply with them.

Rights for humans are also typically well-defined. All humans possess equal legal rights, reflecting mutual respect for the inherent value of other humans.

Animal rights are inherently different from those of humans, and defining their scope is difficult, ambiguous and an invitation for strife and conflict amongst people of differing values and moral perspectives.

Nunt, where would you draw the line for animal rights? Is slaughtering pigs not violating their rights? How about catching mice? Riding horses? Hunting? The rape of cows by bulls?

[AFAIK]

The distinction here is between legal rights and obligations and morality, which isn't legally enforceable.

Why is the act of stabbing a person covered by legal obligation and stabbing an animal is just morality?

How would you respond to a chimpanzee killing a human? Or a whale attacking a dolphin?
Which institutions are capable of regulating interactions between different species?

AFAIK is wrong. It has nothing to do with either legality or morality. Once again: neither "rights" (which are the foundation of legal systems) nor "morality" are concepts applicable to interactions between species.

It is not "immoral" for a parasitic worm to harm its host lion, for example, nor does the host lion have the "right" to not be tormented by parasite. In the context of interspecies relations, many terms (moral, right, legal) are null concepts.


Phred

Why not apply that logic to different races or tribes?

I expect people in the near future will treat other animals more ethically than we currently do.

[Eran]

I expect people in the near future will treat other animals more ethically than we currently do.

As do I. However, this has nothing to do with animal rights.

People in the near future will continue to treat the environment and historic artefacts more ethically (or with more respect) than we currently do. That doesn't mean that trees and ancient ruins have rights.