|
Deviate
newbie
Registered: 04/20/03
Posts: 4,497
Last seen: 8 years, 4 months
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
#4987872 - 11/27/05 09:12 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
well i never disagreed with that.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4987883 - 11/27/05 09:16 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I agree with Solutarch's first post in the thread. It is incorrect to refer to animal "rights". The term "rights" when referring to interactions between species -- any two or more different species -- is a null concept, as Solutarch so aptly and concisely explained. I have nothing to add to his analysis as far as it goes.
As for what differentiates Homo sapiens sapiens from other species inhabiting the Earth, the fundamental difference is that a human survives through exercising his reason, while animals survive through the use of inbuilt "knowledge" -- they survive instinctually.
It is not that a human is intrinsically superior to a cougar, therefore God must have valued humans more highly than cougars, or anything like that. A cougar's mode of survival differs from a cow's, which differs from a honeybee's or a coral polyp's, and all of theirs differ from a human's.
Phred
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
#4987911 - 11/27/05 09:26 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive. Does Man's superior intelligence and reasoning ability grant him a status that is above other creatures?
Also...
Quote:
Phred said: while animals survive through the use of inbuilt "knowledge" -- they survive instinctually.
There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.
Edited by RandalFlagg (11/27/05 09:28 PM)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 17 days
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4987960 - 11/27/05 09:42 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive.
Stressed or not stressed, the fact remains I made it very clear in the thread to which you refer that man survives through exercising his reason. Review the thread if you don't believe me.
Quote:
Does Man's superior intelligence and reasoning ability grant him a status that is above other creatures?
Answered above.
Quote:
There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.
Believe what you want. Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason. A human's survival does.
Phred
--------------------
|
crunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
#4988149 - 11/27/05 10:57 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason.
if you let pet mice out into the wild, they die. yet mice born into the wild survive there. this ability to survive is therefore not instinctual, but something each wild mouse learns.
even the lowly mouse uses its mental faculties to help it survive. that's why evolution gave the mouse a brain. animals with more developed brains survive better, not just for the instincts those brains include.
-------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
#4988161 - 11/27/05 11:04 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
crunchytoast said: if you let pet mice out into the wild, they die. yet mice born into the wild survive there. this ability to survive is therefore not instinctual, but something each wild mouse learns.
That is incorrect. There are only a small amount of animals which are completely domesticated. Cows cannot survive without human support, but cats, mice, dogs, etc all go feral relatively quickly.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
#4988164 - 11/27/05 11:04 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Phred, let's say hypothetically that there's some other creature that requires reason to survive. Just to make it interesting, let's also suppose that they taste great with barbecue sauce. Would humans have to respect their natural rights even though they are not human?
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
#4988178 - 11/27/05 11:11 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: I agree with Solutarch's first post in the thread. It is incorrect to refer to animal "rights". The term "rights" when referring to interactions between species -- any two or more different species -- is a null concept, as Solutarch so aptly and concisely explained.
 "Rights" exist because of a social contract which other species don't have the ability to adhere to.
|
crunchytoast
oppositional

Registered: 04/07/05
Posts: 1,133
Loc: aporia
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
That is incorrect. There are only a small amount of animals which are completely domesticated. Cows cannot survive without human support, but cats, mice, dogs, etc all go feral relatively quickly.
i'm just going with what i read from a number of sources on the internet about my little pet mices. but hey, maybe that's wrong, it's just the internet after all. do you know if that's true for all mice? i have the little white snake food ones. do you have support for your conclusion?
also, the issue is the idea that humans use reason to survive and animals use instinct. but animals use their brains in all sorts of ways. many of the earliest learning experiments were done with dogs, and these showed that such animals can learn, and thus that the behavior of such animals is sometimes founded on more than just instinct. furthermore the innate capacity to learn implies that such a capacity was necessary for the survival of some of their anscestors, since this trait was naturally selected for.
similarly chimpanzees, or whatever the primate is, that uses sticks to fish for termites- must have evolved this capacity to figure out how to do this because at some point in the being's evolutionary history, an ancestor with this capacity was naturally selected for, and therefore this capacity was necessary for the survival of one of its ancestors.
-------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Phred]
#4988886 - 11/28/05 06:05 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Randalflagg said: There are many instances of animals learning and engaging in complex social behavior (chimpanzees and wolves for example). I do believe that the "higher" animals demonstrate intelligence; not just instinct.
Quote:
Phred said: Believe what you want. Who says wolves "learn" how to interact with each other rather than behaving as they do through instinct? The fact remains that regardless of what social rituals wolves perform when in the presence of other wolves, their survival does not depend on their ability to reason. A human's survival does.
You don't consider intricate social structures and intelligent actions by the great apes to be intelligence and reason?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
Gorillas are closely related to humans and are considered highly intelligent. A few individuals in captivity, such as Koko, have been taught a subset of sign language
The following observations were made by a team led by Thomas Breuer of the Wildlife Conservation Society in September 2005. Gorillas are now known to use tools in the wild. A female gorilla in the Nouabal?-Ndoki National Park in the Republic of Congo was recorded using a stick to gauge the depth of water whilst crossing a swamp. A second female was seen using a tree stump as a bridge and also as a support whilst fishing in the swamp.
Also, in September of 2005, a two and a half year old gorilla in the Republic of Congo was discovered using rocks to smash open palm nuts.
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
But when you described natural rights and their legitimacy you did not stress the fact that Man can reason, you stressed the fact that he wants to survive.
Stressed or not stressed, the fact remains I made it very clear in the thread to which you refer that man survives through exercising his reason. Review the thread if you don't believe me.
I still think that you have yet to adequately explain why Man's ability to reason imparts any special natural rights upon his body, property, or existence in general.
Edited by RandalFlagg (11/28/05 08:30 AM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
 "Rights" exist because of a social contract which other species don't have the ability to adhere to.
Be careful with your language here. A social contract is an agreement between several individuals; it is an artificial construct. Natural Rights as they are envisioned are not artificial; they are absolute and "set in stone" so to speak.
Hm...but what I think you are trying to say is an interesting view. Are you saying that natural rights exist, are "Absolute", and are available to all species, but Man is the only species that has been able to recognize and access them?
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
#4989012 - 11/28/05 08:37 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Solutarch said: *Definition of conditions means assigning a label to a recognizable situation. For example, middle C exists. We define the vibratory frequency of 278.4375 Hz as middle C. This frequency does exit in nature independent of government or human edict. However it requires a certain situation of the condition of matter, it is humans who have identified these situations and decided to label these conditions as middle C. Now you may decide that you do not like the 7 note or 12 note scale, and prefer a 19 note scale with different labels and never want to play a note at 278.4375 Hz, this does not negate the existence of middle C. Likewise, you may recognize natural rights by applying an objective definition to determine what is a natural right, but you may disagree that such rights should be protected.
I don't think that natural rights proponents have proven the existence of "Middle C" so to speak, but that is a topic for another thread.
|
Solutarch
Satan Claws

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 189
Loc: The South Pole
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4989050 - 11/28/05 09:12 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Can you identify conditions where someone can do as he pleases as long as he does not force another to act or prevent another from acting of his own free will or is injuring or initiating some force against another?
If so, you have identified conditions which point to a natural right. Notice that such conditions can exists without government creating them, however as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted to protect these rights.
It is fairly easy to determine whether or not an ability to act is a natural right. What is not fairly easy is getting everyone to agree that government should protect such an ability to act.
Edited by Solutarch (11/28/05 09:24 AM)
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
#4989205 - 11/28/05 10:35 AM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Check out "The natural right's thread to end all natural right's threads" in the P A & L archives.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome


Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Solutarch]
#4990028 - 11/28/05 03:01 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Solutarch said: It is fairly easy to determine whether or not an ability to act is a natural right. What is not fairly easy is getting everyone to agree that government should protect such an ability to act.
That's all well and good when determining a right to act in a given manner by oneself, but surely there are some things which get complicated as one introduces more people into the equation. For example, in the absence of other people, one is free to roam wherever they wish. However, when others settle the area, they put up fences and have this idea called "property" which prevents you from acting in ways that you could otherwise act in their absence. Also, does one have a right to clean air and clean water? Such a right would require restricting the behavior of everyone, even though they would be free to do so in the absense of others.
--------------------
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: crunchytoast]
#4991315 - 11/28/05 07:01 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I'm just going off what my Biology Professor told me. She told us that all species, except truly domesticated animals, go feral eventually. Cats and dogs aren't 'truly domesticated', but animals like cows are. Due to hundreds of years of artifical selection, Cows cannot survive without human support. Mice may be domesticated too, but I'm not sure.
And, the Chimpanzee you're talking about is the Bonobo, which is the only animal, besides humans, that has sex face-to-face.
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: RandalFlagg]
#4991343 - 11/28/05 07:09 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
I was trying to say that "Natural Rights" simply don't seem to exist, at all. Its almost a contradiction in terms. "Rights", as we know them, are a product of human social interaction and language/communication, 'Nature' could care less about fairness, decency, etc. To 'nature', what ever is best suited to survive does survive.
|
Solutarch
Satan Claws

Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 189
Loc: The South Pole
Last seen: 18 years, 1 month
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: Silversoul]
#4991344 - 11/28/05 07:09 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Paradigm said: That's all well and good when determining a right to act in a given manner by oneself, but surely there are some things which get complicated as one introduces more people into the equation.
Rights are a null concept without more than one person.
Quote:
when others settle the area, they put up fences and have this idea called "property" which prevents you from acting in ways that you could otherwise act in their absence
Yes, it is a problem that is not generally recognized (or IMHO, not adequately addressed) in natural rights theory by many political philosophers. What gives one a right to take land from the public or unowned domain and make it theirs without compensation to those deprived of it's use? Should one generation be able to take from all future generations the unearned gifts of nature?
Quote:
Also, does one have a right to clean air and clean water?
Yes, but only as clean as occurs without human pollution. One does not have a right to force others to clean up water or air which they have not polluted. I would consider pollution to be a sort of trespass on that which should rightfully belong to everyone.
Quote:
Such a right would require restricting the behavior of everyone, even though they would be free to do so in the absense of others.
I agree.
|
barfightlard
tales of theinexpressible



Registered: 01/29/03
Posts: 8,670
Loc: Canoodia
Last seen: 14 years, 1 month
|
|
I think cows in India survive just fine. Or are they not wild there anymore?
--------------------
"What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?" - Bill Hicks
Edited by bellylard (11/28/05 07:23 PM)
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger

Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Human vs. Animal Rights [Re: barfightlard]
#4991436 - 11/28/05 07:23 PM (18 years, 2 months ago) |
|
|
There are plenty of bovine that are feral, but European cows will die if they are not milked.
|
|