But how do you know they don't think like humans? Perhaps they simply lack the physical advances that humans have, and are simply limited by that? True they are not human, but how do you know that they aren't deserving of BETTER treatment than we give our fellow man? How do you know if I am serious about my previous statements? Sorry, I'm just picking apart a viewpoint, without actually stating one of my own....I learned it here.
What exactly are rights anyways? Can anybody get a dog/cat/fish/cow in here and interpret for me? No. That's as simply as I can put my opinion on this subject. Now, if you disagree; try expressing your thoughts that simply. Simplicity is a great rule of thumb in debates, BTW.
It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese. --Carl Sagan
Does that Dolphin know what the hell it was saying? NO. I've heard a wittle puppy say "mamma" on TV. Wittle puppy made the noise to get a doggie bone, more than likely. Ask that puppy what MAMMA means, and you'll just get a stupid look.
almost noon.... I have to decide if today it is a cow or a chicken that has the right to be my lunch.....
I hate to quote myself, but this is really the only sensible legal explanation of the "animal rights:. I wonder where is the "rats has rights too"-group. You know, they are animal too, they don't deserve to be treated badly either. (NY City is doing quite a good job of protecting them ) If you argue they are less intelligent, if intelligent is the right word here, where do you really draw the line?
The idea of "animal rights" is a human construct, and thus open to interpretation, rationalization and speciesist bias by those who consider the issue. Compassion knows no such bounds -- it springs from inner peace and individual love. I absolutely have compassion for rats, like I have compassion for all sentient beings. The question isn't "Can they reason?" or "Can they talk?" The question is "Can they suffer?" But there's no line to draw. These are decisions and ideas people have to make on their own, using their own judgement, experience and knowledge. I choose to "draw the line" at pain. If they can suffer, they should have what we humans like to call "rights." Pain is pain, whether felt by humans, dogs or mice.
ref- Sorry i didn't get back to you for so long, but i had actually forgotten about my participation in this thread...I am not even really sure where I stand on animal rights, just saw flaws in the resoning used in here to invalidate them. which brings me to... ... A) First and foremost, the commonly accepted human rights as identified in our culture today do not stem from the social contract, in theory, but are ascribed to us as inherent; whether that be God-given, or merely a repercussion of a commonality, they are deemed inalienable, not by social construct or anything else. That tis is so, and that they are not, in fact, given to us by a society was the basis of the creation of our nation. B) Even where we to accept that in reality, however we couch it, these rights are, in fact, the result of this social contract, the basis for our assuming the prerogative for assigning rights to individuals based on their interaction with society remains entirely subjective, in that it assumes the only relevant interaction which merits right assignment based on our understanding of that interaction. The limitations of same, it could be argued, may very well be ours. For example, there are human belief systems which ascribe rights to all living things. Where does that fit into our understanding of the selectivity of our interaction, and what does and does not constitute reciprocity? WHat if a human being were raised in the wild, and had had no interaction with another human since birth? Is that human somehow devoid of his rights by virtue of not having participated in the interaction required by the social contract?
For those of you who really believe animals have no ability to reason, I would agree with you on some subset of animals, but disagree strongly on others. For the most convincing (and almost disturbing) example of an animal reasoning, I refer you to Koko the gorilla. I've read about this gorilla, and she used to live south of San Francisco. I good friend of mine, a biologist, used to volunteer time working with Koko. To make a long story short, she has an extensive vocabulary of sign language, a wide range of emotions and moods. It's really creepy to watch footage of her. At any rate, she is not just goofing around to get "treats" or "snacks."
Or grass, or tree, or....... ask an biologist if you don't believe it. I'm fine with people act on their conscience, but if you talk about "rights", it's different. For every "right", forbids some other "rights".
No, but rights being the result of social contract does not require every individual to have the social interaction to get. See the difference? Rights have absoluteness after they are created. Discreteness will destroy its absoluteness, so this human being will have his rights just for the fact that he is a human being. however your story does nothing to disprove rights are from social contract.
Rights are causal, absolutely. Rights are also human constructs, and open to interpretation, deeper understanding and arbitrary application. Pain is not. There's nothing philosophical about a nervous system or an animal's ability to feel pain. Pain is pain. Grass and trees don't have nervous systems so they can't feel "pain," as we know it. Maybe they do suffer, but on a level that we haven't yet identified. If that discovery is made, I'll make a decision based on interpretation, experience and understanding, like we do now. But even if we find that plants are capable of some level of pain, that doesn't justify the cruelty and suffering of *animals.*
Of course that's not what I was saying. I was saying, that just because you might teach an animal, to make a noise in English, that it doesn't mean that the animal comprehends the meaning.
