Human Rights Vs. Animal Rights - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 Old 03-15-2013, 03:05 PM
Beginner
 
kailei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 139

You know rights, those things that allow humans freedom while other non-human animals behind bars, chained and sacraficed... Is this fair?

 

Check out this interesting blog on the subject: "When the topic of rights is brought up, we automatically think of human rights and more than likely, our own. Or maybe we think back to when the rights of humans were based on their skin color or appearance. And while that’s great that we acknowledge the rights that our species has as a whole, we are still missing the bigger picture. What about the rights of non-human animals? Don’t animals suffer in a similar way to the way slaves suffered back from the 1300s until the 1800s? Yet still forms of slavery exist today and they are not only enslaving humans but a majority of animals!"

 

To read the full blog go here.

 

Hope you like it! :)

kailei is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 Old 03-15-2013, 03:38 PM
I ♥ Vegan Guys ◕‿◕
 
4everaspirit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,229

I always say to people, there is no reason you can't care about both humans and animals. That seems to get them to hush up. 

 

Even with people who still think humans are more important, I say, yeah, that's understandable, but in, so , you can still care about animals and want their overall well being. Also, as a quote somewhere said. What can meat eaters possible be doing for humans that warrants the murder of sentient beings. We have already established that we can feed more people on a veg diet. (though I don't think some are willing to admit that message)


"Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?" ~Pierre Troubetzkoy
4everaspirit is offline  
#3 Old 03-15-2013, 09:01 PM
Beginner
 
kailei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 139

Thanks for your insight, I agree! They feel, breathe, and think so why not?

kailei is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#4 Old 03-15-2013, 10:44 PM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052

We are so closely related to the animals that hurting them is like harming ourselves.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#5 Old 03-16-2013, 01:43 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
There are important differences between "human rights" and "animal rights" issues. Though in both cases you can ask questions like "Is it okay to do X to Y", questions about freedom don't translate well. The pigs on a pig farm can't be given their freedom back, its been genetically stripped from them.

As a side note, its amusing that people think they enjoy more freedoms today than "slaves" in the past.
logic is offline  
#6 Old 03-16-2013, 02:29 AM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

There are important differences between "human rights" and "animal rights" issues. Though in both cases you can ask questions like "Is it okay to do X to Y", questions about freedom don't translate well. The pigs on a pig farm can't be given their freedom back, its been genetically stripped from them.

 

Pigs can be given their freedom back. Nothing is forever. There's no fundamental difference between animal rights and human rights, except from the point of view of a bigot, who uses technicalities to justify his discriminations.

 

Quote:
As a side note, its amusing that people think they enjoy more freedoms today than "slaves" in the past.

 

Very philosophical, but I'm of the opinion that nihilism is for the lazy, and is part of the problem.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#7 Old 03-16-2013, 08:30 AM
Beginner
 
kailei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 139

Exactly, I don't see why this is so hard to understand for some people!

kailei is offline  
#8 Old 03-16-2013, 10:01 AM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

~snip~ The pigs on a pig farm can't be given their freedom back, its been genetically stripped from them. ~snip~
Yes they can.

http://blog.mlive.com/flintjournal/outdoors/2007/11/domestic_pigs_quickly_revert_t.html

"...Some are domestic hogs or hybrid breeds. There have even been reports of Vietnamese pot bellies and other pets gone feral."Any pig that gets out can revert back in a matter of months to a state where it can exist in the wild," said Brown. "It will get hairy, grow tusks and get aggressive. They're so good at adapting, and with their scavenging nature, they can get by pretty much anywhere....""
_____________
And
_________
http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/85018.html
And this:
https://ferrebeekeeper.wordpress.com/2010/11/12/feral-pigs/
..."The former is big and pink and tailor- crafted by human to be easily controlled and scrumptious on the table.  However, domestic pigs keep the smarts of their wild kin.  They are the cleverest creature in the barnyard except for the farmer (usually) and that’s saying something considering how cunning goats are.

Thanks to their intelligence and their strength, farm pigs sometimes get away from us. Within only a few generations, domestic pigs return to their wild type—bristly, furtive, and angry. 

There are feral pigs just about everywhere humankind has been except for the frigid polar regions.  The creatures spread across the entire Pacific Ocean on the canoes of intrepid sea-farers and on isolated islands they have sometimes outlasted their hearty tenders: even in the modern world there are islands with pigs but no humans.

Domestic Pig

As invaders, feral pigs are immensely successful.  They flourish in Australia, North and South America, Asia, Africa, and on innumerable islands.  Swine are omnivorous grazers.  Their tremendous sense of smell, along with their strength, smarts, and speed, allows them to run roughshod over unprepared ecosystems..."
LedBoots is offline  
#9 Old 03-16-2013, 02:42 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

"...Some are domestic hogs or hybrid breeds. There have even been reports of Vietnamese pot bellies and other pets gone feral."Any pig that gets out can revert back in a matter of months to a state where it can exist in the wild," said Brown.
See the bold text and note that I said "pigs on a pig farm"....I wasn't talking about pet pigs.

The pigs raised for meat have been pretty dramatically transformed and what you're citing is in agreement with what I've said. You can't take a pig from a pig farm and reintroduce it into the wild and trying to breed back wild features isn't saving the pigs on the pig farm. They have, like I said, been genetically enslaved and there is no helping that. I would add as well that most pigs on pig farms suffer from retardation or psychological issues due to the conditions in the farm, so reintroduction even if their genes were amenable to such wouldn't be possible for those particular animals anyways.
logic is offline  
#10 Old 03-16-2013, 02:49 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

Pigs can be given their freedom back. Nothing is forever.
How do you give a pig on a pig farm his/her freedom back? The fact that you can over many generations selectively breed the pigs (funny idea of freedom) back into an animal that can in principle survive in the wild...isn't giving freedom to any pig that finds himself/herself in a factory farm today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

Very philosophical, but I'm of the opinion that nihilism is for the lazy, and is part of the problem.
Well....I am pretty lazy. But I didn't have nihilism, or philosophy for that matter, in mind....instead anthropology/sociology. How exactly you define "slavery" in connection to human culture isn't all that straightforward and when you start to look at the details you find something interesting.....yesterdays "slaves" aren't too different than today's supposedly free "wage laborers". But that is a much different topic....
logic is offline  
#11 Old 03-16-2013, 04:15 PM
Not such a Beginner ;)
 
LedBoots's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 8,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

"...Some are domestic hogs or hybrid breeds. There have even been reports of Vietnamese pot bellies and other pets gone feral."Any pig that gets out can revert back in a matter of months to a state where it can exist in the wild," said Brown.
See the bold text and note that I said "pigs on a pig farm"....I wasn't talking about pet pigs.

The pigs raised for meat have been pretty dramatically transformed and what you're citing is in agreement with what I've said. You can't take a pig from a pig farm and reintroduce it into the wild and trying to breed back wild features isn't saving the pigs on the pig farm. They have, like I said, been genetically enslaved and there is no helping that. I would add as well that most pigs on pig farms suffer from retardation or psychological issues due to the conditions in the farm, so reintroduction even if their genes were amenable to such wouldn't be possible for those particular animals anyways.
You just chose the part of my post that went along with your beliefs. Did you not see this part?

"..Uncooked and on the hoof, the pig is amazing…and also alarming. The familiar Eurasian swine has two manifestations: domesticated (Sus scrofa domestica) and wild (Sus scrofa).  The former is big and pink and tailor crafted by human to be easily controlled and scrumptious on the table.  However, domestic pigs keep the smarts of their wild kin.  They are the cleverest creature in the barnyard except for the farmer (usually) and that’s saying something considering how cunning goats are.

Thanks to their intelligence and their strength, farm pigs sometimes get away from us. Within only a few generations, domestic pigs return to their wild type—bristly, furtive, and angry. "
LedBoots is offline  
#12 Old 03-16-2013, 04:43 PM
Herbivorous Urchin
 
River's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 9,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

There are important differences between "human rights" and "animal rights" issues. Though in both cases you can ask questions like "Is it okay to do X to Y", questions about freedom don't translate well. The pigs on a pig farm can't be given their freedom back, its been genetically stripped from them.

As a side note, its amusing that people think they enjoy more freedoms today than "slaves" in the past.

It's not a matter of "rights" it's a matter of equal consideration for interests to all animals. In that respect, there is no difference between issues.


I always think it's silly when vegans or omnis say, "Animal rights". We're not going to give a horse the right to vote or own property, what we mean is "I will considering your interests as I would consider another human's interests".

Quote:
"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit.”
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray
River is offline  
#13 Old 03-16-2013, 05:03 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207

I'd say animals have rights that are based on their interests.


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#14 Old 03-16-2013, 09:43 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by LedBoots View Post

You just chose the part of my post that went along with your beliefs. Did you not see this part?
Yes, I saw that part and its not particularly accurate.... its not even clear what they are saying. You can't undone thousands of years of selective breeding in a few generations. But you are just citing a random blog post.... Not all pig breeds are the same and as I pointed out I was only talking about the breeds that people happen to raise for meat. But here there are differences, the breeds used by factory farms are going to differ than what you see on small family farms. Also, as mentioned, regardless of the underlying genetics pigs on factory farms are going to suffer from retardation, etc...making the idea of a great escape outlandish.

Regardless, there is no way to save the pigs that find themselves in factory farms. They are retarded and highly altered and trying to reverse their selective breeding makes little sense given that there are still wild pigs.
logic is offline  
#15 Old 03-16-2013, 09:48 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: California
Posts: 2,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post

I always think it's silly when vegans or omnis say, "Animal rights". We're not going to give a horse the right to vote or own property, what we mean is "I will considering your interests as I would consider another human's interests".
How exactly do you determine the interests of non-human animals? A lot of people have pets which are often locked away in small apartments (e.g., cats), did they ever consult the cat on this situation? Is this situation in the best interest of the cat....or is it just in the interests of the cat "owner"? How do you resolve this? In fact, what exactly does it mean to have a pet? Some sort of ownership, but what does it mean to own another animal? Did the animal ever sign a bill of sale forging his/her rights?
logic is offline  
#16 Old 03-17-2013, 05:36 PM
Veggie Regular
 
SkepticalVegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 753

human rights are a subset of animal rights

also,

Quote:
I'd say animals have rights that are based on their interests.

 bingo


No gods, No masters, No woo, No whey! Ⓥ
Read my blog and be skeptical not susceptible
http://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/
SkepticalVegan is offline  
#17 Old 03-17-2013, 08:01 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

I am an ethical vegan but I think a rejection of speciesism is simply unrealistic. We need resources and land. We will compete for those with animals. If we need to build residential buildings we will build it on land previously occupied by animals. But we would not build it on land occupied by humans without some sort of compensation. We need wood and minerals and food. We will kick animals from their home and take their land and resources. If there was no artificial B12 we would consume animal products yet if some humans could produce it we would not be willing to consume human products. I think there are many cases which show that we would give much more consideration to humans than animals and we would probably not survive if we did give animals the same consideration, or we would be really mean to humans.

Yes I think we should show compassion to animals but I don’t think we can afford to not be speciesists (I guess it depends on the definition of speciesism).

Cato is offline  
#18 Old 03-17-2013, 08:53 PM
 
ajswara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post

I am an ethical vegan but I think a rejection of speciesism is simply unrealistic. We need resources and land. We will compete for those with animals. If we need to build residential buildings we will build it on land previously occupied by animals. But we would not build it on land occupied by humans without some sort of compensation. We need wood and minerals and food. We will kick animals from their home and take their land and resources. If there was no artificial B12 we would consume animal products yet if some humans could produce it we would not be willing to consume human products. I think there are many cases which show that we would give much more consideration to humans than animals and we would probably not survive if we did give animals the same consideration, or we would be really mean to humans.

Yes I think we should show compassion to animals but I don’t think we can afford to not be speciesists (I guess it depends on the definition of speciesism).

I think the overwhelming majority of cases involving kicking animals from their home to take their land and resources is unjustified without question since it is clearly not usually done for any sort of "necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term like when we tear down forests to create grazing land for food animals or land for animal feed or when we overpopulate and over-consume and make all these matters worse. In most cases, we do not even seriously consider the interests of other animals, we just arrogantly assume the right to exploit others and their values as resources for us.


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.”
-Leo Tolstoy

ajswara is offline  
#19 Old 03-17-2013, 09:25 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

We need resources. If we want wood tables or doors or homes or paper we must cut down trees. Perhaps we should use something else instead of wood. Where is that other thing going to come from? We need metals, so we build mines. More often than not there were sentient beings using the land. We need oil and coal so we take the land and use it for our interests. We need farmland so we take it, or took it before. We need roads so we build on the wilderness. If our population is increasing we could simply increase the density of the buildings instead of building on new land. We can first tolerate two persons sharing a room and then three, ..., and then 8, ..., and then 16, ... Where does it end? At some point it will be so inconvenient that we would not tolerate it.

 

We can often reduce the amount of land we take from animals by tolerating greater inconvenience but we can never eliminate it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajswara View Post

I think the overwhelming majority of cases involving kicking animals from their home to take their land and resources is unjustified without question since it is clearly not usually done for any sort of "necessity" by any reasonable definition of the term like when we tear down forests to create grazing land for food animals or land for animal feed or when we overpopulate and over-consume and make all these matters worse. In most cases, we do not even seriously consider the interests of other animals, we just arrogantly assume the right to exploit others and their values as resources for us.

Cato is offline  
#20 Old 03-17-2013, 10:01 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Tiger Lilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by River View Post


It's not a matter of "rights" it's a matter of equal consideration for interests to all animals. In that respect, there is no difference between issues.


I always think it's silly when vegans or omnis say, "Animal rights". We're not going to give a horse the right to vote or own property, what we mean is "I will considering your interests as I would consider another human's interests".

 

 

I do so love semantics!

I think the word "rights" is appropriate for what we mean. 

A 'right' in our modern context, is ethics made solid/into legislation.

You're correct, in that we wouldn't give a horse the right to vote or own property. We don't give those rights to children in our society either. Are children without rights?


No. They just have a different set of rights, that in many ways mirror adult's rights, but they're not the same. I think it's possible to come up with such a set for animals.
 

Tiger Lilly is offline  
#21 Old 04-13-2013, 05:56 PM
 
EMB Whisper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Lilly View Post

 

 

I do so love semantics!

I think the word "rights" is appropriate for what we mean. 

A 'right' in our modern context, is ethics made solid/into legislation.

You're correct, in that we wouldn't give a horse the right to vote or own property. We don't give those rights to children in our society either. Are children without rights?


No. They just have a different set of rights, that in many ways mirror adult's rights, but they're not the same. I think it's possible to come up with such a set for animals.
 

 

This is an interesting point, allow me to expand on it with my own perspective for a moment.


In my knowledge there are two camps for rights, natural, inalienable rights (as common among Libertarian philosophy) and rights as a social construct (as typical of a more utilitarian view). First camp requires the source of rights to be an external giver (a deity/creator), while the second camp views ourselves as the source of our own rights, and I think the second camp is a lot closer to reality and is a lot better at explaining how children don't have the same rights as adults and animals don't have the same rights as humans, so I'm going to go with the second camp as a basis for my view.


If rights (read: codified privileges) are a product of our own society, our own invention, then without our society the rights would not exist. Prior to evolution of man, there were no rights, and they still really they don't exist anywhere outside of being a concept in the human society. So to compare animal rights to human rights seems rather pointless, seeing how neither species have rights. All they have is rules that they decide among themselves and agree upon. You can observe it in a number of social animals. With wolves for instance, the alpha has the "right" to eat first, but it's not really a right, it's just how their social structure evolved, and it may very well evolve out in another million years or so. When for instance a bear kills you and eats you, he's not violating your right to life or being unethical towards you, and if you kill and eat a bear, you're not violating his rights either, because neither of you have rights.

 

Of course this does not mean we should not try to reduce unnecessary suffering of animals (including humans), it's great that we have brains that allow us to be aware of these concepts, rather than just following instinct, but the concept that animals (once again, including humans) have rights that need to be respected is a bit too abstract to draw any lines at all. If we agree that we shouldn't do something that causes discomfort because we decided that causing discomfort is a bad thing, then that should be the point to argue for, and rights should play no role in it.

 

Hopefully that wasn't confusing or seemed too fringe.
 

EMB Whisper is offline  
#22 Old 04-13-2013, 09:44 PM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB Whisper View Post

 

This is an interesting point, allow me to expand on it with my own perspective for a moment.


In my knowledge there are two camps for rights, natural, inalienable rights (as common among Libertarian philosophy) and rights as a social construct (as typical of a more utilitarian view). First camp requires the source of rights to be an external giver (a deity/creator), while the second camp views ourselves as the source of our own rights, and I think the second camp is a lot closer to reality and is a lot better at explaining how children don't have the same rights as adults and animals don't have the same rights as humans, so I'm going to go with the second camp as a basis for my view.


If rights (read: codified privileges) are a product of our own society, our own invention, then without our society the rights would not exist. Prior to evolution of man, there were no rights, and they still really they don't exist anywhere outside of being a concept in the human society. So to compare animal rights to human rights seems rather pointless, seeing how neither species have rights. All they have is rules that they decide among themselves and agree upon. You can observe it in a number of social animals. With wolves for instance, the alpha has the "right" to eat first, but it's not really a right, it's just how their social structure evolved, and it may very well evolve out in another million years or so. When for instance a bear kills you and eats you, he's not violating your right to life or being unethical towards you, and if you kill and eat a bear, you're not violating his rights either, because neither of you have rights.

 

Of course this does not mean we should not try to reduce unnecessary suffering of animals (including humans), it's great that we have brains that allow us to be aware of these concepts, rather than just following instinct, but the concept that animals (once again, including humans) have rights that need to be respected is a bit too abstract to draw any lines at all. If we agree that we shouldn't do something that causes discomfort because we decided that causing discomfort is a bad thing, then that should be the point to argue for, and rights should play no role in it.

 

Hopefully that wasn't confusing or seemed too fringe.
 

 

Actually, this is sort of confusing. In the third paragraph, you suggest that rights, because they are concepts, aren't real, yet ideas (concepts) are as real as anything that is physical. That we have technology, invented by way of concepts, is proof that concepts are real. As you point out in the fourth paragraph, that we can follow concepts- directing our own actions- is farther proof that they exist. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, the concept of rights, and rights themselves may be intangibles, but are no less a part of "reality." That we have evolved to the point that we can exchange ideas, through communication, is not what gives us our rights. I cannot bestow rights on you, any more than you can bestow them on me; we are each capable only of suppressing one another's rights. In the example of the wolves you cited, it is not the alpha's right to eat first, but only its suppression of the rights of the others' that is the social function. If you were alone on earth, and not part of a social construct, would you cease to have rights? I don't think so.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#23 Old 04-13-2013, 11:00 PM
 
EMB Whisper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

 

Actually, this is sort of confusing. In the third paragraph, you suggest that rights, because they are concepts, aren't real, yet ideas (concepts) are as real as anything that is physical. That we have technology, invented by way of concepts, is proof that concepts are real. As you point out in the fourth paragraph, that we can follow concepts- directing our own actions- is farther proof that they exist. Thoughts, ideas, concepts, the concept of rights, and rights themselves may be intangibles, but are no less a part of "reality." That we have evolved to the point that we can exchange ideas, through communication, is not what gives us our rights. I cannot bestow rights on you, any more than you can bestow them on me; we are each capable only of suppressing one another's rights. In the example of the wolves you cited, it is not the alpha's right to eat first, but only its suppression of the rights of the others' that is the social function. If you were alone on earth, and not part of a social construct, would you cease to have rights? I don't think so.

 

Let me try to give an example of the difference. Imagine a chair in front of you. Now try to sit on it. You see, the chair is just in your head, so when you're gone, the chair is gone as well, so not only is it intangible, but the object of your idea is not real either unless you can demonstrate its existence to others. Same with rights. Just because you can conceptualise a right, doesn't mean rights exist or can be used. If I'm alone in the world, I don't have rights, I just have abilities.

EMB Whisper is offline  
#24 Old 04-13-2013, 11:05 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

Far be it from me not to discuss abstractions. I have never formally studied ethics. I think for me rights are something like guidelines for acting towards others that I would like humans to follow. For others it is guidelines they like. Even for me they change with time, they are not stable.

 

I don't like talking about the existence of rights. What does that even mean? What does it mean for ideas to exist? There are always contradictory ideas. Do they all exist? Yes we grasp ideas but what could it mean for them to exist? I agree that we have beliefs, for example, but what does it mean for beliefs to exist? 

 

I say it is a right to not be abused and another says it is a right for everyone to be abused. If both those rights exist then we are no closer to choosing which behaviour is appropriate and have unnecessarily inflated our concept of the Universe. It seems completely arbitrary to say that only one of those rights actually exists and the other doesn't. If they both exist then it is right to abuse others and it is right to not abuse others. If instead I accept rights as guidelines I would like others to follow I can explain the contradiction. I like these guidelines and another person likes those, not much point in talking about their existence. Nor are they objective.

 

Can we even talk about the existence of numbers (not numerals) or words? I simply don't know what could be meant by stuff like that so I prefer to be pragmatic about it. I like to see what difference it makes to me and go from there. Considering rights as guidelines I would like others to follow, I would like for there to be animal rights. I have grown to appreciate down to Earth explanations.

 

Keep up the good debate!

Cato is offline  
#25 Old 04-14-2013, 12:42 AM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB Whisper View Post

 

Let me try to give an example of the difference. Imagine a chair in front of you. Now try to sit on it. You see, the chair is just in your head, so when you're gone, the chair is gone as well, so not only is it intangible, but the object of your idea is not real either unless you can demonstrate its existence to others. Same with rights. Just because you can conceptualise a right, doesn't mean rights exist or can be used. If I'm alone in the world, I don't have rights, I just have abilities.

 

If I can imagine the chair, I can also imagine myself sitting in it; therefore, the concept of my sitting there is real. Furthermore, if I leave, and take the concept with me, the concept continues to exist. Tangibility is not a requirement for reality. Proof of existence to others is not required for intelligence to exist. If you were alone on earth, one of your abilities, even though you were alone, would be to conceptualize.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#26 Old 04-14-2013, 01:35 PM
 
EMB Whisper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

 

If I can imagine the chair, I can also imagine myself sitting in it; therefore, the concept of my sitting there is real. Furthermore, if I leave, and take the concept with me, the concept continues to exist. Tangibility is not a requirement for reality. Proof of existence to others is not required for intelligence to exist. If you were alone on earth, one of your abilities, even though you were alone, would be to conceptualize.

Yes, the idea is real, but the object of your idea isn't. That's a crucial difference. You can conceive of a dragon, but that doesn't mean dragons are real. Most of the time fantasy and reality do not agree. If I'm alone on earth, what are my rights? Who gives them to me? Because if I'm the one who gives me rights, then I can have unlimited rights and can do whatever I want. However, if I were to die, my "rights" would instantly seize to exist.

 

Take the most basic right - the right to life. Where does it come from? Outside of human invention it doesn't exist anywhere else in nature. It cannot be observed or measured. It's an abstract that we agree to accept for utilitarian purposes. In other words, rights are basically permissions.

EMB Whisper is offline  
#27 Old 04-14-2013, 01:44 PM
 
EMB Whisper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post

Can we even talk about the existence of numbers (not numerals) or words? I simply don't know what could be meant by stuff like that so I prefer to be pragmatic about it. I like to see what difference it makes to me and go from there. Considering rights as guidelines I would like others to follow, I would like for there to be animal rights. I have grown to appreciate down to Earth explanations.

 

Keep up the good debate!

Basically this. If you get rid of the idea of rights as something intrinsic, things become incredibly simple and easy to sort out. You basically separate behaviors your brain appreciates from behaviors it doesn't, and if enough of your society agrees on a particular set of behaviors, they become rules, laws, and systems.

EMB Whisper is offline  
#28 Old 04-14-2013, 03:00 PM
Impeach the gangster
 
Capstan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB Whisper View Post

Basically this. If you get rid of the idea of rights as something intrinsic, things become incredibly simple and easy to sort out. You basically separate behaviors your brain appreciates from behaviors it doesn't, and if enough of your society agrees on a particular set of behaviors, they become rules, laws, and systems.

 

Rules, laws and systems ('systems' being a rather ambiguous term- what does it mean?) are based on the restriction of unacceptable behaviors, not on the definition- or creation- of an artificial set of acceptable behaviors. The right, or ability, to engage in any form of behavior, for good or bad, is not given by one man, group of men or government to anyone, but can only be restricted, or controlled. Rights, abilities and freedom of behavior is intrinsic to the individual. It is society that is artificial.


"There is more wisdom in the song of a bird, than in the speech of a philosopher...." -Oahspe
"The thing is, you cannot judge a race. Any man who judges by the group is a pea-wit. You take men one at a time." -Buster Kilrain, The Killer Angels -Michael Shaara
"Anyone who doesn't believe in miracles isn't a realist." -Billy Wilder
Capstan is offline  
#29 Old 04-14-2013, 04:14 PM
Beginner's Mind
 
Mike4891's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Indiana
Posts: 645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

 

Rules, laws and systems ('systems' being a rather ambiguous term- what does it mean?) are based on the restriction of unacceptable behaviors, not on the definition- or creation- of an artificial set of acceptable behaviors. The right, or ability, to engage in any form of behavior, for good or bad, is not given by one man, group of men or government to anyone, but can only be restricted, or taken away. Rights, abilities and freedom of behavior is intrinsic to the individual. It is society that is artificial.

Well, I don't know about socialism being more contrived than individualism, necessarily, but I definitely agree with rights as inherent and inalienable, endowed by the Creator, or whatever your personal belief system may take "the Creator" to metaphorically represent.  I'm much more in sympathy with the vision of Thoreau's Walden than that of Skinner's Walden Two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato View Post

We need resources. If we want wood tables or doors or homes or paper we must cut down trees. Perhaps we should use something else instead of wood. Where is that other thing going to come from? We need metals, so we build mines. More often than not there were sentient beings using the land. We need oil and coal so we take the land and use it for our interests. We need farmland so we take it, or took it before. We need roads so we build on the wilderness. If our population is increasing we could simply increase the density of the buildings instead of building on new land. We can first tolerate two persons sharing a room and then three, ..., and then 8, ..., and then 16, ... Where does it end? At some point it will be so inconvenient that we would not tolerate it.

 

We can often reduce the amount of land we take from animals by tolerating greater inconvenience but we can never eliminate it.

 

We've overpopulated ourselves and the animals we have enslaved.  Stop artificial livestock breeding; that would be a great first step.  Nature is actually quite good at self balance.  We just happen to be very bad at balancing the whole, with our extenuated self-consciousness.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by logic View Post

As a side note, its amusing that people think they enjoy more freedoms today than "slaves" in the past.
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

Very philosophical, but I'm of the opinion that nihilism is for the lazy, and is part of the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABxIJ8ONGeQ

Especially good quote at 05:14.

 

When Carlin was honored posthumously with the Mark Twain award for American humor, Bill Maher said "In fact you could divide Twain and Carlin's work into the same three stages. The early stage: 'some people suck'; to the middle stage: 'most people suck'; to the later stage: 'You suck.'"

But even if he did slip partly into being "part of the problem," I think he was really correct in making similar claims.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKQs-jDI7j8

And this is off-topic only until you realize that the illusion the super-rich have no special control over common people directly relates to the illusion that the same people have no special control over how "we" treat animals.


Jenner: I learned this much: take what you can, when you can.

Justin: Then you have learned nothing!

 

The Secret of NIMH

Mike4891 is offline  
#30 Old 04-14-2013, 06:03 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 774

I agree. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EMB Whisper View Post

Basically this. If you get rid of the idea of rights as something intrinsic, things become incredibly simple and easy to sort out. You basically separate behaviors your brain appreciates from behaviors it doesn't, and if enough of your society agrees on a particular set of behaviors, they become rules, laws, and systems.

 

 

What is the good then? What are rights and how do we know how to recognize them? Suppose I say we have the right to kill others. What makes that incorrect? I can easily come up with a strange set of “rights” and claim they are objective and independent of humans. What makes me wrong in claiming the existence of those strange “rights” and you correct in claiming the independent existence of your “rights”? To me, claiming objective rights would be a very strange and disharmonious addition to our current understanding of the Universe and ourselves. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Capstan View Post

 

Rules, laws and systems ('systems' being a rather ambiguous term- what does it mean?) are based on the restriction of unacceptable behaviors, not on the definition- or creation- of an artificial set of acceptable behaviors. The right, or ability, to engage in any form of behavior, for good or bad, is not given by one man, group of men or government to anyone, but can only be restricted, or controlled. Rights, abilities and freedom of behavior is intrinsic to the individual. It is society that is artificial.

 

 

We can reduce the harm caused but I don’t think we could eliminate it. We still need wood and metals and other raw materials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike4891 View Post

We've overpopulated ourselves and the animals we have enslaved.  Stop artificial livestock breeding; that would be a great first step.  Nature is actually quite good at self balance.  We just happen to be very bad at balancing the whole, with our extenuated self-consciousness.

 

Cato is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off