Subject:
|
Re: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 2 Jul 2001 21:31:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
662 times
|
| |
|
|
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
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 definition, animals do not have rights. However,
since people are animals it could be argued that the rest of the animal
kingdom deserves a place in that definition. I will take that premise and
run with it.
Now lets look a little closer at the definition. It says (paraphrasing) "due
by law". There are animal rights laws, but they are mostly there to prevent
cruelty to animals by humans, meaning humans are preventing humans from
inflicting undue harm upon other animals. There are no other laws pertaining
to non-human animals that I know of, other than natural laws i.e. natural
selection and evolution. So there are (in a sense) laws which govern the
animal kingdom.
So: Right – Something that is due to an animal by natural law.
(Now to stretch things a bit)
That means that an animal has the right to live its life as it sees fit
within its cultural boundaries. And yes that does include killing other
animals and procreating, as those are both a part of natural law. It’s just
a human peculiarity that we restrict (govern) ourselves to the point where
it is oftentimes ridiculous.
-Duane
P.S.
Poke holes in this where you see fit. :-)
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
