User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 64

  1. #1
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default Should some Animals have Rights?

    http://news.sciencemag.org/plants-an...d-legal-rights

    'This week, an animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed a series of lawsuits in New York courts in an attempt to get judges to declare that chimpanzees are legal persons. The move is just the first step in a nationwide campaign to grant chimps, dolphins, elephants, and other cognitively advanced creatures rights and free them from captivity, whether it be a zoo or a research lab. Should animals have rights? What impact would “legal personhood” have on scientific research? And can researchers and animal rights advocates find common ground?'

    No no and no.

    Of course it's possible to legally render rights onto animals. But this is possible only when the concept of "right" is considered in a free-floating way - i.e., as separate from the concept of "responsibility." It's possible only when the concept of "right," in other words, is taken out of its purely human context of morality and considered arbitrarily.

    As arbitrary, the concept of "right" retains at least a remnant of its former valor. It simply means, "You can't morally or legally stop me, as an individual person, from doing such and such." But as a citizen with rights, it is incumbent upon me to practice certain responsibilities inherent to a social system, the most basic of those being to obey the laws of the land. If I don't obey those laws, then I lose my rights.

    Champions of animal rights advocate natural freedom, that is, freedom without responsibility. A right without a social responsibility to go along with it is no longer a right, it is simply freedom to do whatever nature, and not society, requires of us. The concepts of "nature" and "responsibility" are totally antithetical because to be responsible is to be morally accountable, and nature cannot be held accountable.

    If a chimp, a dolphin, or an elephant cannot be held accountable for its actions, then it cannot be granted 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.”

  2. #2
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Animals rights advocates treat "rights" as a free-floating concept, separated from the context of civilization which makes it possible, and from the context of that which makes civilized society possible.
    "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. #3
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    I don't think our current legal system is up for that task yet, but it should evolve in that direction yes.

    A template to start from and work on might be the rights that children have in our society, which then could lead to laws regarding other species.

    Either way, it'll be a long and arduous process.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  4. #4
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Do infant humans have rights? They don't have any responsibilities. Should they be treated as chattels?

  5. #5
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    Do infant humans have rights? They don't have any responsibilities. Should they be treated as chattels?
    Theoretically, it depends on the consequences this would have for society as a whole. If treating infants as chattel to be bought and sold is destructive to civilization, then it shouldn't be allowed.
    "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.”

  6. #6
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Actually, society can go and find another way to not get destroyed or to benefit, whatever the case.

    A living being has basic rights - the big 5, to begin with. Especially those we've made dependent on us. How similar those rights should be to a humans as we currently see them today, is up for debate and should be tailored to the species' needs. Much like with children, their biological capacity, mental state of mind and accountability capabilities should be taken into account, as well as the way the species evolved should be taken into account - and precautions for respectful cohabitation taken. And that is just off the top of my head.

    They aren't objects. And treating them as such is criminal, imho. They have a will of their own, can suffer, have needs and share this planet with us. Im sure we, with our big brains, can make this work, somehow. Once we stop feeling entitled to their territory, bodies, offspring and even minds.

    In that respect, our society is as backwards is it has ever been.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  7. #7
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amargith View Post
    Actually, society can go and find another way to not get destroyed or to benefit, whatever the case.

    A living being has basic rights - the big 5, to begin with. Especially those we've made dependent on us. How similar those rights should be to a humans as we currently see them today, is up for debate and should be tailored to the species' needs. Much like with children, their biological capacity, mental state of mind and accountability capabilities should be taken into account, as well as the way the species evolved should be taken into account - and precautions for respectful cohabitation taken. And that is just off the top of my head.

    They aren't objects. And treating them as such is criminal, imho. They have a will of their own, can suffer, have needs and share this planet with us. Im sure we, with our big brains, can make this work, somehow. Once we stop feeling entitled to their territory, bodies, offspring and even minds.

    In that respect, our society is as backwards is it has ever been.
    Those are floating concepts held up by a "somehow."

    It is possible to protect those dependent upon humans without granting them rights. Certainly this is possible - "somehow."
    "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.”

  8. #8
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    3,860

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Theoretically, it depends on the consequences this would have for society as a whole. If treating infants as chattel to be bought and sold is destructive to civilization, then it shouldn't be allowed.
    Of course we protect infants...there is no theoretical consideration involved. We protect their rights in the absence of their ability to act 'responsibly'.

    But it's not possible for animals to have responsibilities in human society.
    Humans engage in all sorts of ritual behaviors to deal with death, because death is the end of consciousness.
    Yet some, maybe most, animals express some degree of consciousness. Some can paint self portraits. They act socially and sometimes compassionately towards each other, even to other species.
    Should their consciousness be considered inferior (and therefore disposable) simply because they are not human, and can have no responsibility in human society?

    How do you reconcile these facts?

  9. #9
    The High Priestess Amargith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    Enfp
    Enneagram
    497 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEE Fi
    Posts
    14,658

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal12345 View Post
    Those are floating concepts held up by a "somehow."

    It is possible to protect those dependent upon humans without granting them rights. Certainly this is possible - "somehow."
    I wonder if the same arguments were made when slavery was the issue before us, over 200 years ago.


    @Stanton Moore

    You've got this, it seems. I'm delighted by your posts so far and look forward to future ones in this thread.
    ★ڿڰۣ✿ℒoѵℯ✿ڿڰۣ★





    "Harm none, do as ye will”

  10. #10
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    14,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    Of course we protect infants...there is no theoretical consideration involved. We protect their rights in the absence of their ability to act 'responsibly'.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanton Moore View Post
    But it's not possible for animals to have responsibilities in human society.
    Humans engage in all sorts of ritual behaviors to deal with death, because death is the end of consciousness.
    Yet some, maybe most, animals express some degree of consciousness. Some can paint self portraits. They act socially and sometimes compassionately towards each other, even to other species.
    Should their consciousness be considered inferior (and therefore disposable) simply because they are not human, and can have no responsibility in human society?

    How do you reconcile these facts?
    A funeral, as a form of ritual, is not enacted because death is the end of consciousness.
    "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