Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 1 Jul 2001 23:56:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
637 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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?
They both equal natural "rights" to try to thrive and succeed. If both are
in competition, the one that can reproduce more or faster, or finds a niche
in a specific environment, may be the one who survives longer. Look at
"Africanized" honey bees. Their queen will mature sooner that regular bees
and this is their advantage and why their colonies thrive. Is thriving a
violation of nature or of another species natural rights? No, because the
same system of checks and balances apply.
> 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.
I know, Larry, but we just see it differently. I don't think because we can
communicate with words and ponder the abstract notion of rights doesn't mean
we invented it. Definitely we invented the word (in whatever language) to
call it "rights" but not the existence of the condition. I think the
condition revealed itself to us, partly through observance of nature and
partly through trying to get along with each other as societies grew and
became more complex.
> So I
> don't see the statement, taken out of context, "all organisms have a natural
> right to reproduce" as valid.
Different views, hard to convince me the other way as well.
> 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.
Darn roadrunner!
> 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.
Yes, but what "right" do we have killing off the lions either? Look at what
happens to the ecosystem? Look at the example of wolves and deers in North
America. I'm saying it is a delicate balance and the rights do exist in
nature, not in written down, perscribed sense but more in harmonious, cause
and effect sense.
> > 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.
Well, my friend, you can add or delete whatever wording you find
disagreeable but the bottom line is there in my original statement and I
wouldn't presume to change my sentiment whatsoever. That's the way I feel
about "rights" and that's how I try to live and that's what I'll teach my
kids. I don't find my attitude harmful to nature or mankind and I am
confident of what I'm saying. Take everything with a grain of salt, there's
no winner or loser on this topic.
Dan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
