Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: BarryBarron on January 30, 2013, 03:21 pm
-
Why?
What is it that elevates us above the status of commodity?
I reject the religious notion that man is made in gods image. So what separates us from the rest of the organisms?
Is it intelligence?
So what if a monkey or pig was genetically engineered to have the intelligence of a retarded human? Would that creature have rights like the rest of us?
If not then should we really be giving retarded humans rights? I need some sort of argument to resolve this mess...
This could have probably been thought out better... :-\
-
yes they do
-
What is a 'right'? Where do 'rights' come from? Who or what gets 'rights' and why?
Are 'rights' a concept dreamt up by the powerful to control the weak?
Do animals give a shit if they have 'rights'?
-
Do animals give a shit if they have 'rights'?
No, but animal rights is still important.
There was a recent story on CNN about people sticking rusty fishhooks through the snouts of golden Labrador puppies, often younger than 6 months old, and deliberately cut open but left still alive as shark and alligator bait, struggling weakly to get free.
People who do that are scum and should be shot.
-
Do animals give a shit if they have 'rights'?
No, but animal rights is still important.
There was a recent story on CNN about people sticking rusty fishhooks through the snouts of golden Labrador puppies, often younger than 6 months old, and deliberately cut open but left still alive as shark and alligator bait, struggling weakly to get free.
People who do that are scum and should be shot.
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/sharkbait.asp
Seems more like badly researched extremely rare cases and accidents that people blow out of the water.
-
Humans are animals. I assume you meant non-human animals. I do not think that non-human animals have rights unless they achieve self awareness at the very least, preferably self awareness with some level of intelligence. Dogs do not have self awareness, they are incapable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. I would never harm a dog, actually I like dogs quite a lot. But I do not think that a dog has rights past what its owner gives to it.
-
animals are below humans i don't understand why some people put themselves down to animals
-
Humans ARE animals. Mammals are animals. Humans are mammals. Humans are animals.
-
ok but humans still dominate animals because they're better evolved
-
my two new kittens have rights
-
Animals are property and don't have rights because they are incapable of protecting their rights, or rather they don't meet the behavioral criteria which sets the standard of human rights. I personally choose not to kill or eat them, but that's just me.
Some animals have rights. The mountain lion has the right to eat your face if he catches you unawares in the state of nature, because he possess the force to act upon that right. Rights are not innate nor are they implicitly present as metaphysical constructs. They are constructed in the real world through the utility of force.
-
animals are below humans i don't understand why some people put themselves down to animals
never underestimate the power of human stupidity. this is a prime example. all life is equal. every living being on this planet is connected. having an ego does not make you better than an animal. :)
-
And to say people do? I'll try not to get all meta and philosophical, I consider most of those arguments whimsical bull; but:
To attach important to anything, "good", "bad", are just abstractions we've created, because we value our own happiness - so we say happiness good, unhappiness bad. Some people exploited this and created churches, promising people happiness later, if they did their bidding now. And those few on top got to turn their opinions (abortion, marriage, and ways to exploit money and power for their own convenience) into morals for others to follow.
The idea of mutilating puppies is naturally abhorrent to us - but why is their suffering "bad"? Is it because we sympathize, there's some universal ticker of "unhappiness" that gets added to when we make other people unhappy, and a giant invisible record of "good deeds" that counts how good every living thing in the universe has been?
What about squishing ants? They don't feel pain the way we do; their frantic running around to dodge us is programming to survive. We could make little robots do the same thing, and we might even feel a misplaced sympathy if we interpreted their actions as emotion.
So does suffering become bad when the animal feels pain "like we do" - that's pretty self-centered of us. We say good and bad, the whole moral spectrum, are just extensions of our own drive to be happy and get what we want, programmed into us.
At this point, "rights" is ridiculously abstract, just a system we hope to enforce to stop the "bad guys" from hurting the "good guys", and to protect the happiness of those who might have it taken away. (like puppies)
So I'm not even taking a stance on this, I just want to say the argument is only as valid as your certainty that morality is an objective thing in the universe. Puppies feel pain and whimper because they 'want' to live, but only because that's what evolved to be the best survival mechanism. If we created a robot that "wanted" to survive, and would try its hardest to, would it suddenly deserve it?
-
Animals are intelligent and emotionally evolved beings - they think and feel. They love, they suffer, they mourn.
We are all connected.
I totally agree with this.
I have read so many stories about animals (mostly mammals) showing the above qualities, yes, maybe animals are not quite as evolved as humans ... but when you see the acts of cruelty inflicted on some animals you do actually wonder where our evolution is taking us 'superior' beings. Go to 'Animal Cruelty Exposed' on FB and you'll see what I'm talking about.
Where I live there are often articles in the newspaper about dog/cat owners being publicly scrutinised and/or fined/punished for what they have done. Although this does not equate to animal rights it's certainly going in the right direction and raises awareness.
Don't know where I'd be without my animals :)
-
Don't get me wrong - I love animals, pets I've had, and even wild ones, I won't harm. My post was more of a nihlistic "what do we mean, 'rights' " thing.
-
Humans are animals. I assume you meant non-human animals.
Yes, yes. the other animals
I do not think that non-human animals have rights unless they achieve self awareness at the very least, preferably self awareness with some level of intelligence. Dogs do not have self awareness, they are incapable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. I would never harm a dog, actually I like dogs quite a lot. But I do not think that a dog has rights past what its owner gives to it.
So if a dog was genetically engineered to be self aware should it have the rights ascribed to humans? Namely the right not to be caged etc.
And what about people who are not self aware? Newborn babies and people with neurological disorders?
It seems it has to be more than just self awareness. Unless we would be okay with baby farms and caged pensioners?
Animals are property and don't have rights because they are incapable of protecting their rights, or rather they don't meet the behavioral criteria which sets the standard of human rights. I personally choose not to kill or eat them, but that's just me.
Some animals have rights. The mountain lion has the right to eat your face if he catches you unawares in the state of nature, because he possess the force to act upon that right. Rights are not innate nor are they implicitly present as metaphysical constructs. They are constructed in the real world through the utility of force.
Well by that logic, it would seem that the rights of weaklings and idiots should not be protected. Should we not protect those who cannot defend themselves?
Don't get me wrong - I love animals, pets I've had, and even wild ones, I won't harm. My post was more of a nihlistic "what do we mean, 'rights' " thing.
I love animals too - even the ones I eat.
So omitting the argument "animals do have rights", what is it that differentiates us from the rest of the animal kingdom?
I can't think of any argument that eliminates all other animals, but which does not eliminate any humans. Unless simply being a member of homo sapiens grants us these rights - whatever you define to be human rights.
-
Even if you have sapience, and in theory have the capacity to modify your own behavior, most humans are even less deserving than dogs, because all humans (in theory) have the capacity for so much more, and choose not to use any of that potential.
Pathetic.
My dog has more right to live than 5 billion humans.
-
Even if you have sapience, and in theory have the capacity to modify your own behavior, most humans are even less deserving than dogs, because all humans (in theory) have the capacity for so much more, and choose not to use any of that potential.
Pathetic.
My dog has more right to live than 5 billion humans.
Seriously. and humans have enslaved themselves (the rich control the weak and all) so how intelligent does that species sound? we fuck ourselves over in many ways.
-
At the very core of it there is no such thing as a "natural" right. The gorilla bear that just spotted you isn't going to give a damn about your human rights.
The rights we have we bestow upon ourselves as (more) intelligent beings than our animal counterparts. We develop these rights over time through a series of agreements (If you live in our tribe you get the protection of our numbers. In return you go out and hunt for food).
Expand that into government sized groups and you come up with human rights, animal rights, free speech rights, etc... In return for the rights your government bestows upon you, you agree to certain conditions, which are enforced by law.
I'm talking about the concept here people, not about the FUBAR rights seizing organized thieves we have today.
But the concept is still sound. Animals can have no rights of their own because they are incapable of entering into or understanding agreements. The only rights they have are those that we and our humanity bestow upon them through our actions or laws.
It is after all our oneness with the universe, all living things, God, or the spirit that drives our humanity, our humaneness, to fight for rights these animals aren't capable of fighting for themselves. That we do as a humanity by enacting law and giving them rights.
Unfortunately the slippery slope starts there when it comes to who draws what line and on which subject. Before long half the people are on the government dole trying to control the other half's lives. And then we end up with this crapfest.
These thoughts brought to you by purple kush :)
-
I'm sorry to rant in your thread, but this reminded me of something that I personally think is fucked up..
I think it's bullshit that a police officer can kick down your door and shoot your dog without penalty, but if you kill a police dog, it's a felony.
-
In a word: Sentience.
God given sentience.
-
In a word: Sentience.
God given sentience.
You mean sapience.
There IS a difference! Dogs have sentience, but not sapience.
Here are the dictionary definitions:
sapience: The property of being sapient, the property of possessing or being able to possess wisdom.
wisdom: The ability to make a decision based on the combination of knowledge, experience, and intuitive understanding.
sentience: The state or quality of being sentient; possession of consciousness or sensory awareness.
So basically, sentience is the ability to subjectively sense the environment, whereas sapience is the ability to apply wisdom to decision-making.
Sapience, not sentience, is what distinguishes humans from non-humans, at least in theory.
-
I'm not an expert on this, however I(with limited knowledge on the topic haha) disagree.
Animals don't have 'knowledge' per say. The have a memory, but not knowledge. I believe having knowledge implies the ability to reason or follow a line of logic with said experience. I have never seen, heard, or read about any circumstances in which this was demonstrated or even observed.
That being said, there is something that's clearly different in all humans from animals. Such has been understood if not spoken for millenia and I've seen no evidence to point to the contrary.
-
Animals don't have 'knowledge' per say. The have a memory, but not knowledge. I believe having knowledge implies the ability to reason or follow a line of logic with said experience. I have never seen, heard, or read about any circumstances in which this was demonstrated or even observed.
Isn't knowledge basically awareness that can be communicated to others?
Some social nonhuman animals have clearly demonstrated this capacity, but I did not say any nonhumans have proven reasoning capacity.
There are some reports about whales, dolphins, and certain types of monkeys or apes having complex societies and languages, but I'm too lazy/tired to grab the links right now.
Either way, the whole concept of humans being distinct from other animals is based on the concept of sapience, and the assumption that only humans have this capacity.
That's assuming a lot, especially when systems of human law grant rights to humans, but anything outside of the definition of human are not given many rights, if any at all.
-
Sure animals have rights. They are creatures of nature, the same as we are. They choose to exercise their rights everyday, same as we do. Do we all not have the right to air? Food? Water? Shelter? Are we not exercising our rights everyday in the pursuit of what's rightfully ours, air, food, water, etc?
-
Dogs do not have self awareness, they are incapable of recognizing themselves in a mirror. I would never harm a dog, actually I like dogs quite a lot. But I do not think that a dog has rights past what its owner gives to it.
I don't think the mirror test is a fair test of "self awareness" for an animal that relies so much more on their sense of smell. Dogs definitely do recognize the smell of their own piss and will ignore it compared to sniffing out the piss of other dogs, even if that piss is placed somewhere that the dog never put it. I think this alone is pretty good evidence to conclude that dogs are very much self aware.
Animals don't have 'knowledge' per say. The have a memory, but not knowledge. I believe having knowledge implies the ability to reason or follow a line of logic with said experience. I have never seen, heard, or read about any circumstances in which this was demonstrated or even observed.
By your definition of "knowledge" there shouldn't be any doubt that animals are capable of "reason" or following "a line of logic with said experience". If an animal, benefiting from experience, adapts his actions to varying circumstances, how can you say this is not the ability to reason? This is more than just memory.
That being said, there is something that's clearly different in all humans from animals. Such has been understood if not spoken for millenia and I've seen no evidence to point to the contrary.
Oh? And what is it then?
A higher capacity for more complex and abstract reasoning *maybe*. I think the tendency has been to perpetually underestimate the intelligence of animals for millenniums. The goalposts keep moving on what "it" is that separates animals from humans. I remember hearing as recently as 10 years ago that animals were incapable of using tools and that distinguished "us" from "them" until that was observed to be false when some primates were observed using sticks to gauge how deep the water in a lake was before jumping in for a bath and some dominant chimps were observed using sticks to beat females into subservience with.
-
It depends which rights, the right to vote? No. The right to not be beaten by their sadistic owner? Yes. The right to not be eaten by a predator? No.
Personally I would extend their rights to the right not to be hunted purely for sport. But that is more out of my hate for a waste of resources than my hate for animal cruelty.
That said, people who campaign for "animal rights" can go ride their fucking horse off a cliff. They have some serious priority issues because there are some PEOPLE who still do not have any rights and I doubt that there is a country in the world that gives it's citizens the full spectrum of rights that they deserve. Case and point? The right to use drugs.