User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 64

  1. #21
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    I think that animals should have rights. I find most arguments for them not having rights is based upon a utilitarian hurdle that is arbitrarily set at the "human" ability. The question is "what rights". Personhood is probably not the best way to approach this, but we do accept some basic rights for animal already (you probably won't have your car taken away from you by kicking it, but you may with an animal!)

    My opinion is based on reduction arguments. Children, mentally incapable, criminal etc. cause huge exception gaps. As technology gets increasingly close (be it cloning/genetics or AI) to replicating intelligence, we also are attacking our pre-conceptions around consciousness and what it means to be human. Every argument I have heard that requires the presumption of humans as being different ends up with those exception gaps.

    I also find myself definition chasing. Does an eye-seeing dog have responsibilities? Can they be held responsible? An eye-seeing dog that fails is likely put down; is it significantly different than our criminal system? Same outcome, but different process.. Yet we don't hold all humans responsible (insane, incapable, immature). And if mental faculty was the determinant, is it just a hurdle? Are we really proxying the loss of rights when someone acts (arbitrarily defined) irresponsible? That negates the entire concept of rights.

    Even the concept of responsibility is not entirely factual. It's no longer a good argument to say that we have "someone driving us" that is responsible. We don't. It's not clear where the animal ends and human starts, if there is even an objective line.

    The only way I know of to resolve these differences is to claim rights aren't given to individuals but to groups, and in that way, we can take away individual's rights so long as it maintains the group's. Every exception then proves the rule - we take away rights from those incapable, proving that a being that is capable has rights. We don't give children rights because they aren't yet capable, proving that they will (as a group) eventually become capable. We give certain animals "responsibilities" (even if they could not held responsible) by exception, proving by exception that they are not responsible.

  2. #22
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Wow! I can see why animal rights can't keep up - imagine an animal trying to do this.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  3. #23
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Wow! I can see why animal rights can't keep up - imagine an animal trying to do this.
    Yes, because they don't have the power.

    Might = right is a very uncivilized way of looking at progressing society. It's actually barbaric, if you really look at it. And at best, a naturalistic fallacy.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Yes, because they don't have the power.
    Let's back that up a little bit - if humans have the power to do something, does that mean they should have the right to do it? If animals DON'T have the power to do something, does that give them the right to do it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Might = right is a very uncivilized way of looking at progressing society. It's actually barbaric, if you really look at it. And at best, a naturalistic fallacy.
    Ok, but what does this have to do with animal rights?
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #25
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Let's back that up a little bit - if humans have the power to do something, does that mean they should have the right to do it? If animals DON'T have the power to do something, does that give them the right to do it?
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MqpG_useW0...ircularBig.jpg


    Ok, but what does this have to do with animal rights?
    *sigh*

  6. #26
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    What does any of this have to do with animal rights? All you're saying is that corporations have rights because they have political power.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  7. #27
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I think that animals should have rights. I find most arguments for them not having rights is based upon a utilitarian hurdle that is arbitrarily set at the "human" ability. The question is "what rights". Personhood is probably not the best way to approach this,
    Exactly. A lot of ridiculous things have gained "personhood" status.

    My opinion is based on reduction arguments. Children, mentally incapable, criminal etc. cause huge exception gaps. As technology gets increasingly close (be it cloning/genetics or AI) to replicating intelligence, we also are attacking our pre-conceptions around consciousness and what it means to be human. Every argument I have heard that requires the presumption of humans as being different ends up with those exception gaps.

    I also find myself definition chasing. Does an eye-seeing dog have responsibilities? Can they be held responsible? An eye-seeing dog that fails is likely put down; is it significantly different than our criminal system? Same outcome, but different process.. Yet we don't hold all humans responsible (insane, incapable, immature). And if mental faculty was the determinant, is it just a hurdle? Are we really proxying the loss of rights when someone acts (arbitrarily defined) irresponsible? That negates the entire concept of rights.

    Even the concept of responsibility is not entirely factual. It's no longer a good argument to say that we have "someone driving us" that is responsible. We don't. It's not clear where the animal ends and human starts, if there is even an objective line.

    The only way I know of to resolve these differences is to claim rights aren't given to individuals but to groups, and in that way, we can take away individual's rights so long as it maintains the group's. Every exception then proves the rule - we take away rights from those incapable, proving that a being that is capable has rights. We don't give children rights because they aren't yet capable, proving that they will (as a group) eventually become capable. We give certain animals "responsibilities" (even if they could not held responsible) by exception, proving by exception that they are not responsible.
    Good thoughts and points. Hopefully, @Mal12345 tackles these.

    (sidenote: good to see you are still around )

  8. #28
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    I think that animals should have rights. I find most arguments for them not having rights is based upon a utilitarian hurdle that is arbitrarily set at the "human" ability. The question is "what rights". Personhood is probably not the best way to approach this, but we do accept some basic rights for animal already (you probably won't have your car taken away from you by kicking it, but you may with an animal!)

    My opinion is based on reduction arguments. Children, mentally incapable, criminal etc. cause huge exception gaps. As technology gets increasingly close (be it cloning/genetics or AI) to replicating intelligence, we also are attacking our pre-conceptions around consciousness and what it means to be human. Every argument I have heard that requires the presumption of humans as being different ends up with those exception gaps.

    I also find myself definition chasing. Does an eye-seeing dog have responsibilities? Can they be held responsible? An eye-seeing dog that fails is likely put down; is it significantly different than our criminal system? Same outcome, but different process.. Yet we don't hold all humans responsible (insane, incapable, immature). And if mental faculty was the determinant, is it just a hurdle? Are we really proxying the loss of rights when someone acts (arbitrarily defined) irresponsible? That negates the entire concept of rights.

    Even the concept of responsibility is not entirely factual. It's no longer a good argument to say that we have "someone driving us" that is responsible. We don't. It's not clear where the animal ends and human starts, if there is even an objective line.

    The only way I know of to resolve these differences is to claim rights aren't given to individuals but to groups, and in that way, we can take away individual's rights so long as it maintains the group's. Every exception then proves the rule - we take away rights from those incapable, proving that a being that is capable has rights. We don't give children rights because they aren't yet capable, proving that they will (as a group) eventually become capable. We give certain animals "responsibilities" (even if they could not held responsible) by exception, proving by exception that they are not responsible.
    From what I read here, the answer is to uncloud your mind and to clarify your concepts.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  9. #29
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Are rights contingent upon have the free-will to act upon them? Does an infant have the right to free speech? Does an infant have the right to bear arms? Does an infant have the right to vote? Any being that has these rights not only has the political freedom to potentially carry them out, but the free-will to act on them.

    These rights employ active verbs, do you see where I'm going with this? What you are proposing is that there are rights that employ passive verbs - e.g., the right to be physically cared for by others.

    An infant doesn't have rights, an infant has human guardians that literally own this baby. I'm not therefore saying they have the right to sell this infant or trade it for another one. But this is NOT because the baby has the right not to be bought or sold, traded or bartered for. It is because moral society as a whole would be diminished by these actions. It is because we are civilized that we don't do uncivilized things.



    A funeral, as a form of ritual, is not enacted because death is the end of consciousness.
    Guardians don't own infants. Are you not aware of this? If it were true, then killing an infant wound have no criminal aspect, but it obviously does. If I kill my cat, I'm a bad guy, but I won't go to jail. If I kill an infant...

    I never mentioned funerals, but I think they are directly related to the fear of the lose of consciousness. Humans have religion, which in my opinion exists to mitigate the fear of death and dying, specifically the death of consciousness. funerals are but one aspect of that need.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qrious View Post
    Exactly. A lot of ridiculous things have gained "personhood" status.



    Good thoughts and points. Hopefully, @Mal12345 tackles these.

    (sidenote: good to see you are still around )
    I handled it all at once. For example, "Even the concept of responsibility is not entirely factual." Then clarify your concepts. As for, "It's not clear where the animal ends and human starts," that's a personal problem.

    For example, I may say, "It's not clear where Einstein got E=MC^2." However, it is clear to some people.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 166
    Last Post: 09-08-2015, 02:27 PM
  2. Do animals have types?
    By Royal Xavier in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 03:29 PM
  3. What should everyone be doing right now?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 02:05 AM
  4. Animals have personality right?
    By Vicki in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-26-2007, 05:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO