Subject:
|
Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 20:33:44 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
544 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Let's talk about organisms other than man for a bit.
> > I'm in the camp that doesn't see bacteria as having rights, per se. Bacteria
> > have an *imperative* to reproduce, it is genetically programmed into them.
> > But I am not sure I'd speak of them having rights to reproduce. Do you?
> > Why so? That is, what do you mean by "right" in this case? How do you >determine what rights are?
>
> Well, humans are every bit as genetically programmed to reproduce as any
> bacteria. But we are also sentient beings and can learn and make decisions
> regarding reproduction. Bacteria cannot, they just do what they've been
> doing for eons. However, their "rights" still apply in nature's example. If
> we infringe on a bacteria's natural right to live and thrive, we may offset
> the delicate balance just enough to destroy ourselves as well.
I want to leave people out of this at least for a bit. While your point is
valid, it is not necessarily helping the question get any clearer. Just
stick to two different species of bacteria, interacting in a natural
environment with no people present, if you would, rather than introducing
people. Does one species of bacteria have *more* of a right to exist than
the other species of bacteria?
I think the answer is no. They don't have any rights whatever with respect
to each other. Rights are *our* invention. That's what I am getting at. So I
don't see the statement, taken out of context, "all organisms have a natural
right to reproduce" as valid. The rabbit and the coyote (or the roadrunner
and the coyote if you prefer)... neither one of them has rights that the
other is bound to (by morality) honor.
Animals are amoral creatures.
They don't have a system of rights (of their own invention), they have the
rights that we assign them. Now, we can reason about rights all we want (and
we should, it's important to treat animals appropriately) but nothing can
change that. No amount of reasoning will get a lion to stop his charge at a
human if the lion is hungry and clearly can win.
> I understand what your saying, and I'm trying to find a better way to
> explain my view. If I think of something better I'll post again.
I'll wait. In the meantime, you ought to consider taking back your statement
that all creatures have a natural right to reproduce, and replace it with
something more along the lines of that they have a genetic imperative to try
to reproduce... that's a lot more accurate and a bit more helpful to
reasoning about the larger question.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Is this sexism?
|
| (...) I think "rights" came along after bouts of give and take, either within nature or within society, until equilibrium (long or short term) was achieved. I think all "rights" thus far in human society were preceeded by violence until it became so (...) (23 years ago, 1-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
