 | | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was off by a bit: "To have a right ... is ... to have something which society ought to defend me in the possession of." And also: "When we call anything a person's right, we mean that he has a valid claim on society to protect him in the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 3 Question (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) OK. You asserted "animals are amoral" with nothing to back it up. Go type "dog hero" into your favourite search engine, look through the list of hits. Many acts can be explained by (the dog exhibiting) self preservation, but what causes a dog (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) Being the relative moralist that I am, I'll push that one step further and say I don't believe there *are* "natural" or "fundamental" rights. It's a moral definition humans create based on an emotional response. Perhaps, however, there are (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Nature of rights? (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
|
(...) I was exploring the idea that perhaps the only fundamental right is the right to an impartial "rights based" mediation of disputes. This does suggest why animals then don't specifically have rights since they don't have the capability to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
|
(...) Here is my take on the subject: From my dictionary here at work "Right (noun) - Something due to a person or governmental body by law." There are other definitions, but I feel that this one is the most relevant to the discussion. By this (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
