Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Animal Rights: Libertarian Conservative View

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Where do Libertarians and Conservatives here stand on animal rights?

I tend to agree with the Green Party on animal rights. But I still eat meat (I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them).

Is it just a non-issue to Conservatives and Libertarians, and if so, should it be?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 2:47:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Where do Libertarians and Conservatives here stand on animal rights?

I tend to agree with the Green Party on animal rights. But I still eat meat (I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them).

Is it just a non-issue to Conservatives and Libertarians, and if so, should it be?

I tend to think that there should be some animal rights, such as the right to a MODERATE amount of land that is preserved for them, but I do believe that we have domain over animals, and as long as they are treated humanely before death, we have the right to humanely put them down.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 2:54:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Where do Libertarians and Conservatives here stand on animal rights?

I tend to agree with the Green Party on animal rights. But I still eat meat (I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them).

Is it just a non-issue to Conservatives and Libertarians, and if so, should it be?

Animals have 0 rights if they interfere with human progress or needs.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:09:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Laws on something like illegalizing meat would never work out since so many people favor eating meat. I would support farms treating animals more "humanely". The effect would be that prices would rise, which people would complain about, however I don't particularly care myself since I'm a vegetarian (although I drink milk and eat eggs and those prices would rise as well).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 3:59:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Just you wait till animal literacy rates go up.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 4:58:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).

Sorry, I don't literally mean sign a contract; I meant be sentient enough to understand the contract and its implications.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:07:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them.

???

How often does That happen?

how could you even be sure it had a heart attacks?
why heart attacks in particular?

I suppose you just mean any old already dead animal, right?

I like meat.. I want to eat meat.
I'd prefer it's killed as quick as is feasible, and if it were not feasible to have it fairly painless I'd probably be against eating meat.. but I don't think their slaughter is usually all that bad, nor does it really have to be.

and, though I'm sympathetic to bad/un-engaging conditions for mammals, I don't care too much how chickens are kept..
Largely b/c I think they're not smart enough to really care too much... They're already crazy... BB'KAHH!!!
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:11:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:07:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them.

???

How often does That happen?

how could you even be sure it had a heart attacks?
why heart attacks in particular?

I suppose you just mean any old already dead animal, right?

I like meat.. I want to eat meat.
I'd prefer it's killed as quick as is feasible, and if it were not feasible to have it fairly painless I'd probably be against eating meat.. but I don't think their slaughter is usually all that bad, nor does it really have to be.

and, though I'm sympathetic to bad/un-engaging conditions for mammals, I don't care too much how chickens are kept..
Largely b/c I think they're not smart enough to really care too much... They're already crazy... BB'KAHH!!!

And, i'd be for hunting...

b/c though it might often lead to a more painful death.. The animals also get a better/more engaged quality of life beforehand which balances it a bit.

I don't really think it's all too bad.. so long as the hunter's not a sadistic douche or something :/
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:29:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).

A social contract isn't exactly the same as a normal contract; how familiar are you with Hobbes and Locke?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:37:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Where do Libertarians and Conservatives here stand on animal rights?

I tend to agree with the Green Party on animal rights. But I still eat meat (I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them).

Is it just a non-issue to Conservatives and Libertarians, and if so, should it be?

I think it's just a matter of how important morality is to these groups.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:39:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:29:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).

A social contract isn't exactly the same as a normal contract; how familiar are you with Hobbes and Locke?

I've heard of both, read neither.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:51:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:29:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).

A social contract isn't exactly the same as a normal contract; how familiar are you with Hobbes and Locke?

I've heard of both, read neither.

The social contract is, very broadly speaking, a set of rules which govern society, agreed upon when men transition from what both philosophers called the 'State of Nature' (they disagreed on the nature of the State of Nature) to living under a state. Rights are derived from the social contract. Other animals are incapable of doing this with us, of course, so they cannot have rights as classically understood. The founders argue that there are certain rights which, due to man's nature, are inalienable, which must be recognized for a government in order for that government to be considered legitimate, but it's still a twist on the Enlightenment idea and cannot really be separated from it without doing violence to the principles involved.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:51:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:39:02 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:29:03 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:57:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

I didn't claim infants shouldn't have rights -- I brought the point up to demonstrate that not being able to agree to a social contract doesn't necessarily mean rights aren't applicable to that being. I don't support animal rights, but not because animals cannot sign a contract (I find that oddly constrictive and arbitrary).

A social contract isn't exactly the same as a normal contract; how familiar are you with Hobbes and Locke?

I've heard of both, read neither.

The social contract is, very broadly speaking, a set of rules which govern society, agreed upon when men transition from what both philosophers called the 'State of Nature' (they disagreed on the nature of the State of Nature) to living under a state. Rights are derived from the social contract. Other animals are incapable of doing this with us, of course, so they cannot have rights as classically understood. The founders argue that there are certain rights which, due to man's nature, are inalienable, which must be recognized for a government in order for that government to be considered legitimate, but it's still a twist on the Enlightenment idea and cannot really be separated from it without doing violence to the principles involved.

I still don't understand why animals can't or shouldn't have rights based on that.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 5:57:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:07:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 3/1/2013 2:35:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I believe in eating animals that have heart attacks, and not forcibly killing them.

???

How often does That happen?

how could you even be sure it had a heart attacks?
why heart attacks in particular?

I suppose you just mean any old already dead animal, right?

I like meat.. I want to eat meat.
I'd prefer it's killed as quick as is feasible, and if it were not feasible to have it fairly painless I'd probably be against eating meat.. but I don't think their slaughter is usually all that bad, nor does it really have to be.

Which books have you read on this subject?


and, though I'm sympathetic to bad/un-engaging conditions for mammals, I don't care too much how chickens are kept..
Largely b/c I think they're not smart enough to really care too much... They're already crazy... BB'KAHH!!!
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:00:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights."

This Roussean concept of social contract is a common enough point of view but it is factually inaccurate. As Oppenheimer points out, the genesis of the state was not social contract, but conquest and exploitation, as one tribe would conquer another and demand contract. It exists today as a form of exploitation of net tax consumers over net taxpayers. The state does not protect our rights but rather constantly violates them. We have a right to own property, and yet the state constantly extorts our property from us. The idea of government protecting our rights is most definitely the idea of the fox guarding the hen house.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:48:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.

Since when does compassion form the basis of our principles regarding justice and morality? I recall an old adage about justice being blind, if I'm not mistaken. And moral codes vary widely; many are not founded on compassion at all. Your argument that humans and animals belong to the same taxon necessitates the same laws to be applied to them are nonsensical and arbitrary; I could just as easily expand the claim further to include plants, fungi, and bacteria. Or restrict it to chordates. Or to primates. Or to (*gasp*) humans. There is no justification as to why the kingdom Animalia has special status. By the way, I hope you've never killed a rotifer.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 7:51:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:48:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.

Since when does compassion form the basis of our principles regarding justice and morality? I recall an old adage about justice being blind, if I'm not mistaken. And moral codes vary widely; many are not founded on compassion at all. Your argument that humans and animals belong to the same taxon necessitates the same laws to be applied to them are nonsensical and arbitrary; I could just as easily expand the claim further to include plants, fungi, and bacteria. Or restrict it to chordates. Or to primates. Or to (*gasp*) humans. There is no justification as to why the kingdom Animalia has special status. By the way, I hope you've never killed a rotifer.

I think the kingdom Mammalia has higher status than Fungi for the same reason humans have the highest status: sentience.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:00:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:00:27 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
"this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights."



This Roussean concept of social contract is a common enough point of view but it is factually inaccurate. As Oppenheimer points out, the genesis of the state was not social contract, but conquest and exploitation, as one tribe would conquer another and demand contract. It exists today as a form of exploitation of net tax consumers over net taxpayers. The state does not protect our rights but rather constantly violates them. We have a right to own property, and yet the state constantly extorts our property from us. The idea of government protecting our rights is most definitely the idea of the fox guarding the hen house.

A state cannot exist to conquer other states without having established itself through social contract. The fact that it conquers other territories afterwards is irrelevant. One of the central points of social contract theory as established by Hobbes is that certain rights afforded to men in the State of Nature are sacrificed in order to protect other, more important ones (Hobbes states life as the primary right). Government is an imperfect art; no one denies this. The Hobbesian argument is that the alternative is so horrific that government is an improvement over it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 8:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:51:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:48:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.

Since when does compassion form the basis of our principles regarding justice and morality? I recall an old adage about justice being blind, if I'm not mistaken. And moral codes vary widely; many are not founded on compassion at all. Your argument that humans and animals belong to the same taxon necessitates the same laws to be applied to them are nonsensical and arbitrary; I could just as easily expand the claim further to include plants, fungi, and bacteria. Or restrict it to chordates. Or to primates. Or to (*gasp*) humans. There is no justification as to why the kingdom Animalia has special status. By the way, I hope you've never killed a rotifer.

I think the kingdom Mammalia has higher status than Fungi for the same reason humans have the highest status: sentience.

Mammalia is not a kingdom. It is a class. Why does sentience give something higher value? I would argue that the abilities inherent in abstract reasoning give humans their status.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:29:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 7:48:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.

Since when does compassion form the basis of our principles regarding justice and morality? I recall an old adage about justice being blind, if I'm not mistaken. And moral codes vary widely; many are not founded on compassion at all. Your argument that humans and animals belong to the same taxon necessitates the same laws to be applied to them are nonsensical and arbitrary; I could just as easily expand the claim further to include plants, fungi, and bacteria. Or restrict it to chordates. Or to primates. Or to (*gasp*) humans. There is no justification as to why the kingdom Animalia has special status. By the way, I hope you've never killed a rotifer.

Why didn't you respond to my point about terminally ill children, who have no potential to engage in a social contract, being afforded legal rights, by all societies, as a consequence of human compassion. It can't be said that you've provided a rejoinder to what I've said until you address that argument. You also didn't respond to my point that the law is inconsistent with regard to these children and other animals.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/1/2013 11:41:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/1/2013 8:04:42 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:51:21 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 7:48:13 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 5:54:43 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:49:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:08:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 4:02:08 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:29:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:27:53 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:07:22 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/1/2013 3:00:41 PM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
Animals will have rights when they petition for them.

Natural rights were recognized by the Founders. You don't gain rights, you are born with them inherently (negative rights). Should a Constitution be written up to protect their inherent rights?

Many people mistake this principle and oversimplify it. A good example of this is the conservatives who say that 'God gave us our rights, and only he can take them away'. The whole point of legal rights is that anyone can take them away; this is why governments are founded amongst men to protect their rights. They are, essentially, enlightenment principles which delineate how human beings govern themselves, largely through social contract theory. Animals cannot enter into a social contract (they cannot agree to not infringe upon your rights), so the principle doesn't apply to them.

Neither can infants.

But they eventually will be. Animals will not.

But as of that moment, infants are no different than animals according to that view. They have the potential for rights (if rights are only assigned to sentient beings). The only rights they have is that of their potential, future self. Do the unborn have rights?

No. The unborn must aggress on the mother's rights for sustenance, so she has the sole right to determine the nature of their relationship. Infants which have been born may be raised by others, and thus their potential to hold rights comes into play, since aggression is not necessary for them to exist. And infants are not the same as animals because they have the potential for rights. You cannot say that an acorn is no different than an animal because neither have rights; there are other things to take into consideration.

Children are basically treated by the state as if they have certain rights because they will eventually have them and be able to engage in the social contract. None of the arguments which support giving children these rights apply to animals.

The rights of terminally ill children are universally respected by even the most devolved states. By definition, they have no potential to engage in the social contract.

The reason the rights of children are respected is because adults have compassion for them. This is an immutable law of human nature.

We also have, to a lesser extent, compassion for other animals. This compassion forms the basis our principles regarding justice and morality, which is, consequently, expressed in our laws. In order for our laws (our legal rights as they actually are) to be consistent, they must acknowledge that humans are a species of animals, and that to say one species of animal (humans) has the right not to be tortured for profit, requires that it must be said of all animal.

Since when does compassion form the basis of our principles regarding justice and morality? I recall an old adage about justice being blind, if I'm not mistaken. And moral codes vary widely; many are not founded on compassion at all. Your argument that humans and animals belong to the same taxon necessitates the same laws to be applied to them are nonsensical and arbitrary; I could just as easily expand the claim further to include plants, fungi, and bacteria. Or restrict it to chordates. Or to primates. Or to (*gasp*) humans. There is no justification as to why the kingdom Animalia has special status. By the way, I hope you've never killed a rotifer.

I think the kingdom Mammalia has higher status than Fungi for the same reason humans have the highest status: sentience.

Mammalia is not a kingdom. It is a class. Why does sentience give something higher value? I would argue that the abilities inherent in abstract reasoning give humans their status.

Sentience, i.e., the subjective states of pleasure and pain experienced by virtually all animal, is the only thing that can be valued by humans. This is why it's not arbitrary to grant members of the animal kingdom legal rights; they, as a group, are the only entities that we consider sentient - capable of feeling pain and pleasure. And this is the de facto criteria we use when determining whether something deserve legal rights (when we are consistent, at least).

Sentience is the only thing that humans can value. The only reason you would value abstract reasoning would be as an expedient to pleasurable subjective states for yourself and possibly others.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it