Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 02:47:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
512 times
|
| |
|
|
Is man-kind still considered a mammal by the science community or did I miss
out on the "breakthrough" that proves we are not actually animals? Despite
the appearence of higher intelligence and "moral" decision making and
assuming we are still animals, it seems that our "rights" are merely a
collection of those things we are physically and/or mentally capable of...
A fly does not have the "right" to take down a lion with a bazooka, not
because it may not want to, but because it is not physically possible at
this time.
A person who no longer has use of legs, no longer has the right to run
naturally however, with the use of arificial limbs, that person can choose
to strive for that right again.
At any moment a person can kill another person. No matter the laws
implaced, it is a natural ability for an animal to find a way to overcome
its forseen oppressor.
When hungry, no matter the source material, an animal will strive to feed
itself, sometimes even turning to its own feces.
Any animal can "take" something that is not its own if it so pleases.
Breathe.
Touch.
See.
Smell.
Kill.
Eat.
Reproduce.
These are just some of the "rights" that animals and humans share.
My society may be able to prevent me from reproducing, but they cannot
change the fact that it was physically possible for me to so.
A clone could be "programmed" not to reproduce, however, the same technology
could replace that right.
It seems very clear to me that "rights" are simply those things that are
physically and/or mentally possible.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> 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 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
|
|
|
|
