Debate : 11298


Off-Topic / Debate / 11298	11297 \| 11299

Subject:	Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:14:35 GMT
Viewed:	598 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes: > The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some > creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including > the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" > given to those higher up the hierarchy. • [snip] > So I think there's a sliding scale between "rights" and "no rights" - I'd > agree bacteria are pretty much bottom of the scale, and humans are near the > top, but I'd also say many mammals (and other animals) are nearer the top > than the bottom. This is an interesting point. Maybe the things that animals do resemble our rights cloely enough that we could sometimes call them rights. The dominant chicken (almost always a rooster, if one is present) does have the right to scratch at whatever patch of ground he wants and no one else can come near until he invites them. They do all seem to agree to this setup. I guess it makes me wonder two things. How dependent on mutualism do we want to say that rights are? The 'right' that I cite for the cock of the walk isn't a mutually applicable right, it is a privilege that they all happen to agree on. And it's based mostly on the fact that that chicken will kill whoever disagrees. That makes it sound substantially different than our notion of rights. And how does interspecies (or even intercultural) understanding and respect affect rights? Do rights mean anything between species? If not, how and why is it different for the cross-cultural divides? Chris

Message has 1 Reply:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) that (...) But you could argue that rights we've given to ourselves are just privileges that we all happen to agree on. Based mostly on the fact that we'll sue whoever disagrees. 8?) (...) I think "rights" has no real meaning or usefulness (...) (23 years ago, 2-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
(...) The only thing I'd add to that is that it's not black & white - some creatures have what zoologists call "hierarchys" within groups (including the aforementioned lion). This, as I see it, is a sort of set of "rights" given to those higher up (...) (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

Custom Search