Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 68
Do Animals Have Rights?Page 3 of 12    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

butterflies should not have the right to own property

Should humans have that right? It's pretty hard to argue it under natural law, so I suspect that the right to property is not unlike the right to own slaves (also once accepted, even by proponents of natural law, until the assumptions were shown to be invalid, just as I can show some of the crucial assumptions of "property" as proposed by Locke were fallacious)

I have a cat and I know that she is happy because she tells me so every day when she sits on my lap and purrs

The above comment deserves a response as to our motivations in having pets. It should be noted that the following comments are not directed at the poster who made them, (his motives are probably good) but at all of us who have pets.

Our "pets" didn't ask to be stuck in human society (an unnatural environment for them), nor should they be our slaves (seeing eye dogs & are probably morally OK in many circumstances, but dancing bears & performing elephants are not). I could never buy an animal bred for the purpose of being a pet, so somebody could make money in the trafficking of animals bred for our selfish pleasure. I think it is wrong and rather silly, when there are so many animals, which through no fault of their own, find themselves stuck in human society, often hit by cars, etc.

I have and have had dogs and cats (always unwanted strays) that were very much members of the family. They were like my children. They were my responsibility; I loved them and cared for them accordingly, knowing that if I hadn't come along they would likely suffer and/or end up dead one way or another. In that sense, I felt the animals were not in my possession, but in my protective custody, because I felt they had been dealt a bad hand and I wanted to help them live a better life. I very much believe that whether having a "pet" is right or wrong is contingent on the motivation behind it.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 69
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 2:03:10 PM

I have and have had dogs and cats (always unwanted strays) that were very much members of the family. They were like my children. They were my responsibility; I loved them and cared for them accordingly, knowing that if I hadn't come along they would likely suffer and/or end up dead one way or another. In that sense, I felt the animals were not in my possession, but in my protective custody, because I felt they had been dealt a bad hand and I wanted to help them live a better life.


What a wonderful world it would be if this was also a prevalent attitude towards human beings who are homeless, under privileged, etc.


I could never buy an animal bred for the purpose of being a pet, so somebody could make money in the trafficking of animals bred for our selfish pleasure.


I concur 100%

When do you cross the line between “personal belief” and “rights”?

For me, that would be things like constitutionally enshrined civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education, etc; which relate to human beings.

Extending the idea of these "rights" by making analogies to animals is a "personal belief" in that the lines of demarcation extending to "what gets rights", is for some a matter of relative sentience, and for others a matter of not weeding a garden. Making this a "rights" issue is to me; sophistry.

I'm fine with the broader issue of not being destructive in general, necessity not being a fixed arbitrary value, without the need to make it an issue of; "People who weed their gardens are not as mindful to the rights of weeds as they should be".

The "as they should be" part is forcing a personal template to assume a perceived moral high ground, again; to me this doesn't as much make a case for the rights of all animate things as it is an erosion and misapplication of the idea of "rights".
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 70
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 3:28:53 PM

As well you should! My personal addiction runs to"Kettle-Cooked" Old Dutch Jalapeno chips.
At least we can agree on Old Dutch; in spite of their inhumane slaughter of millions of innocent potatoes.

Couldn't we argue eating them out of "necessity"?


Necessity? You're risking your health with a noble selfless act; it keeps others from eating them thus helping others live a healthier lifestyle. You're heros
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 71
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 5:11:15 PM

What a wonderful world it would be if this was also a prevalent attitude towards human beings who are homeless, under privileged, etc.

All it takes is the will in each of us to make it so. Our modern, densely populated cities are especially bad for such a loss in human compassion. I suppose there are psychological reasons for it; there is probably a natural tendency to shuck responsibility for others off on somebody else if they're around, or to look first and see if somebody else is helping & if not, feel that we should also be able to abrogate our responsibility to our fellows, or to figure it must be somebody else's job, etc. Whatever the reasoning turns out to be, we're cheating ourselves out of a lot of happiness in not living by the golden rule and helping others.

If people would only realize how happy it would make them to do the right thing and help others, with no expectation, hope, or desire of reward, it might motivate them to do it. If it does, the whole world could change almost overnight into the kind of world we'd LIKE living in.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 72
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 5:55:45 PM

If people would only realize how happy it would make them to do the right thing and help others, with no expectation, hope, or desire of reward, it might motivate them to do it.


But there isn't complete agreement as to what's "the right thing".
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 73
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 6:23:49 PM

But there isn't complete agreement as to what's "the right thing".

Isn't there? I guess I could be wrong; please give me an example. (i.e something a rational man or woman might deem to be the right thing to do under natural law that another, given the same rationality & information might consider wrong or unfair).
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 74
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 6:59:03 PM

But there isn't complete agreement as to what's "the right thing".

Isn't there? I guess I could be wrong; please give me an example. (i.e something a rational man or woman might deem to be the right thing to do under natural law that another, given the same rationality & information might consider wrong or unfair).


Now you're tossing "unfair" into the mix, that's a whole other ballgame. It isn't "fair" that some people are born with cystic fibrosis, with AIDS, etc. Life isn't and never will be "fair".

Natural law? That's also a slippery catchphrase. If it's a "Natural Law" that would suggest that any child born allergic to peanuts should have to take their chances surviving in the world and it'd be up to them ( and their family) to make sure they don't encounter peanuts, peanut butter etc when out in public; and the other children at school can eat whatever they want.

OK here's an example: you encounter a burning house & are informed that there is still someone inside that can't get out on their own and the fire fighters are not there yet, & you are the only person there capable of attempting to rescue them what do you do? Do you rush in & risk your life to save a stranger or not?

That would be a personal decision, which you would have to make on your own. Either choice ( attempting a rescue or not) would be right, as it's your decison & your life that is on the table.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 75
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:16:13 PM
Willows proactive approach to animal rights does not demean the fact he cannot, as far from being a superhuman, tackle all of humanities woes, including homelessness.

I didn't state anything even close to this, aside from that fact, - that comment wasn't even a response to any comment he made, the block quoted content makes this crystal clear. Nor do I equivocate human rights with any perceived rights of non-humans, which BTW does not mean I endorse cruelty to anything in any way shape or form.


when others tag anothers passionate cause as either misdirected

"Causes" are often harmed when those who advocate for them do so fallaciously or when actions based solely on misdirected emotional connects, are not well thought out, and no thinking is put towards likely negative consequences to the idea the "cause" is suppose to achieve. Animals "freed" from their "bondage" and "released" into the wild, ...followed by the destruction of ecosystems comes to mind.

Which is why I find any reference to animals and "rights" a specious concept designed to absolve some of a guilty conscience via mere motivation/intent and a personal view of "necessity", and to further project this on others. Intent and ameliorating one's own destructive environmental footprint can be accomplished in very empirical ways without resorting to "Appeal to ____" fallacies, equivocation and emotional blackmail.


But there isn't complete agreement as to what's "the right thing".

Isn't there? I guess I could be wrong; please give me an example.


I'll give you a few:

Do people "need" to live in cities to live?

No!
Do you?
I don't

Do people "need" to drive cars to live?

No!
Do you?
I don't

Do people "need" to be hooked up to all industrial water an waste utilities to live?

No!
Do you?
I don't

Do people need to own or keep pets or "recreational" animals to live?

No!
Do you?
I don't

Do those who do not do these things occupy a higher moral standard because they choose not to do so because of the motivation of personal necessity?

No, it's just a "personal" choice, and it can be a reasoned and logical one that doesn't require anthropomorphizing via equivocation.

Why should I expect others to conform to my idea of necessity or my means of doing less harm to the environment that both animals and people MUST exist in?

By the same token, why should I "need" to attach somebody else's specious moral template to justify myself? People can sugar coat their own standards in equivocal terms to pat themselves on the back all they want, but what it comes down to as "humans" is really: How much is destroyed in order for you to exist?

All the moralizing and good intentions in the world can't change that particular cause/effect as much as taking responsibility through the actions regarding how you live.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 76
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 7:36:30 PM
^ ^ ^ ^ those are good examples too
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 78
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:11:46 PM

We all have blood on our hands. We all destroy the earth by our very existence. There is just too dam many of us.


Perhaps, but there isn't really a practical solution to that problem. I suppose we could outlaw any & all medical treatment, that'd whittle the population down (or you could volunteer to take the necessary step to remove yourself).


We all destroy the earth by our very existence.


Not really ( if you want to nitpick); the Earth will get along quite well no matter what we do or how many of us there are ( or even if all life here perished). The ecosystem is another thing tho...
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 79
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 10:34:29 PM
I was trying to portray the fact that we all have differing agendas on a range of societal issues, and that no one person can carry the burden to 'fix' all the problems or 'enlighten' the rest of us to societal wrongdoings.

And, obversely, no one person is entitled to decide who is and isn't moral based on subjective necessity and a specious moral template, which is the point I was making.


Animal rights is the issue at hand here, not homelessness.

With all of the comparisons to "rights" and so very many false analogies with anthropomorphizing as their lever, ...the context of the reference should be obvious.


How much is destroyed? how much suffering are we causing?

Don't forget what the proverbial "road to hell" is paved with. In any case, actions speak far louder than words, especially equivocations.
 Vancer
Joined: 10/29/2006
Msg: 80
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/22/2009 11:55:11 PM
All I can wonder now is, if a super being comes along, will it even think twice about hunting and eating me if it suited it's needs?

What if my behaviour was perceived by it to be nothing more than some quaint, pale reflection of its own, not on a level for them to feel any empathy towards me... or whatever supremely inconceivable beings may feel which most closely resembles empathy.

Now I picture myself chained to its toilet.
Forced to recite poetry for treats. Oh what a world.
Gonna have awful dreams tonight.
 nevaagin
Joined: 4/8/2009
Msg: 81
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 1:37:55 AM
Wasn't the point to our outrage at what Hitler and the Nazi regime put forward as a philosophy that the Jewish people had no rights and certainly less than the beautiful Alsation dogs used to control these 'animals ' of the human race was on behalf of basic rights in living a life . Now animals want to live a life just like the Jewish people did , so where's the conflict in believing that they and the Jews had and have rights ?
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 82
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:16:29 AM

you encounter a burning house & are informed that there is still someone inside that can't get out on their own and the fire fighters are not there yet, & you are the only person there capable of attempting to rescue them what do you do? Do you rush in & risk your life to save a stranger or not?

That's easy. The right thing to do is try to save the stranger. To attempt nothing would be the result of fear or apathy and would have no moral value whatsoever. While doing nothing is technically not wrong (from a utilitarian point of view), it obviously isn't the right thing to do. The difference between right and "wrong" is a difference between being ruled by courage or fear.

The way to tell the difference is to listen to your heart. Do you think it's fair that a stranger shoud die horribly in a fire? If so, then you are either right, or irrational. If you think it's unfair (unjust) then you already know what's right & wrong under natural law. The only thing that remains is a moral decision; are you going to be ruled by fear or courage? Are you going to do the right thing, or simply stand there and feel bad about not being able to save him (which I would call wrong, not because it's evil in and of itself, but because it isn't right to allow injustice when it is in our power to make things right).
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 83
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:37:59 AM

Do people need to own or keep pets or "recreational" animals to live?

No!
Do you?
I don't

Do those who do not do these things occupy a higher moral standard(?)

Of your examples, this is the only one that involves more than personal choice (with no associated moral value). This invoves other sentient beings. It is either right or wrong under natural law, and I would contend it is wrong.
It is unfair to infringe on the rights of another except by necessity. It extends beyond people to animals, plants and even rocks. Taking something as property simply because you want to is wrong...What makes something your "property"? Simply saying it's so? In that case, I'll be leasing the mineral rights to Mars for a pretty good penny if & when they ever care to establish a colony (I'll be reasonable about the rent).
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 84
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 7:49:45 AM

That's easy. The right thing to do is try to save the stranger. To attempt nothing would be the result of fear or apathy and would have no moral value whatsoever.


So your life is less important thna a strnger's life? And if you are the sole support for your family? What about the reaction of your family should you die in the attempt? While it would be a personal choice, there are many factors to consider other than stating it's the "right" thing to do. It would be a "good" thing to do, but not doing it isn't automatically the "wrong" thing to do. Also, different societies have different moral values.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 85
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 7:58:28 AM

The way to tell the difference is to listen to your heart. Do you think it's fair that a stranger shoud die horribly in a fire?


You're bringing "fair" into the discussion again; life isn't fair. Is it fair that people are born with disabilities/into poverty/mentally challenged? No, but life isn't fair.


While doing nothing is technically not wrong (from a utilitarian point of view), it obviously isn't the right thing to do.


It may be obvious in your opinion, but your opinion doesn't make it a law; which is why we havee forums like this to discuss these types of thing.


Are you going to do the right thing, or simply stand there and feel bad about not being able to save him (which I would call wrong, not because it's evil in and of itself, but because it isn't right to allow injustice when it is in our power to make things right).


There's a difference between bad things happening and injustice; injustice requires a wilfull act or actions on the part of individuals or a group/organization. A house fire in and of itself isn't injustice ( arson would be).

{quote]If you think it's unfair (unjust) then you already know what's right & wrong under natural law.

Again you use the fuzzy catchphrase "natural law". So I'm going to restate my response to that phrase from post # 132: If it's a "Natural Law" that would suggest that any child born allergic to peanuts should have to take their chances surviving in the world and it'd be up to them ( and their family) to make sure they don't encounter peanuts, peanut butter etc when out in public; and the other children at school can eat whatever they want.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 86
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 9:27:17 AM
"Justice" and "fairness" are synonymous and may be used interchangeably.
We all know that nature isn't "fair". Any justice or fairness MUST come from moral agents (like people). We base our sense of right and wrong on what is and isn't fair.

We are powerless to act against nature in many instances, and it is not "fair" that an accident of birth should place some in harms way and others out of it. (Should someone die from a tsunami because he lives near the ocean?) Should we feel nothing when we see unfairness that IS in our power to correct? If we do feel for the suffering of others, don't we feel a moral obligation to try to alleviate it?



It may be obvious in your opinion, but your opinion doesn't make it a law

not my opinion, law is law, and law for humans ought to be universal. It is, and is called natural law. How would you define "law" (in terms of justice)? If it isn't natural law, then what is it?



If it's a "Natural Law" that would suggest that any child born allergic to peanuts should have to take their chances surviving in the world and it'd be up to them ( and their family) to make sure they don't encounter peanuts, peanut butter etc when out in public; and the other children at school can eat whatever they want.


It is NATURE that causes the child to be born with the handicap. It is NATURAL LAW that says it isn't fair that some children are born handicapped and others aren't. It is our sense of natural law (fairness, compassion and reason) that says there has been an injustice that ought to be corrected if it is in our power to do so. We call that our moral obligation; does it mean we are obliged? If we want to call ourselves compassionate, yes. If one has no compassion whatsoever, and does nothing to help anyone, can we say that man is moral? It seems to me that amoral would be a better description. That doesn't mean he's evil (in the sense of causing harm or being immoral), but it doesn't make him a good man does it?
 Jiperly
Joined: 8/30/2006
Msg: 87
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 11:21:32 AM
>>>If we do feel for the suffering of others, don't we feel a moral obligation to try to alleviate it?

But that's the thing- you're attempting to take individuals ability to decide such things for themselves. When it comes to the situation described, a house fire, it is an extremely personal decision to make- to sacrifice ones self or not. You wish to deprive the person from making such a decision, claiming enforcing morality supersedes their rights- that throwing their life away is the only thing they can do and still be moral. I find such a worldview to be absolutely abhorrent, with little regard for life or rights, and whose actions act immorally to enforce a dictated morality- and yet ridiculously claims to be FOR rights, FOR life, and FOR morality. Its a mess of contradictions .

If you do not go into a burning down building, you are not immoral- and if you really feel such a person would be, ask a fireman how many people throw their lives away in such misguided acts of heroism, and why you feel its A-OK for you to egg them on to do so.

>>>not my opinion, law is law, and law for humans ought to be universal. I

Come on- we're all adults here- rights are an idea, nothing more. They do not actually physically exist, nor would a person intrinsically know of rights if they were not taught the idea of them. To say animals start to have rights makes as just as much sense as saying that animals must also start doing their own math for taxes. They are incapable of conceiving such an idea- they simply fight for resources, and your pleas of rights and freedoms will always go unnoticed and ignored, because they simply do not understand.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 88
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 12:21:48 PM
if willow not only feels grateful for the sacrificial beast, but would like for it to be treated in a way thats doesnt cause it too suffer unnecessarily, then perhaps he is MORE moral.


The second premise doesn't require the first, morality is moot.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 89
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 12:26:54 PM

Any justice or fairness MUST come from moral agents (like people). We base our sense of right and wrong on what is and isn't fair.


And different societies & individuals will have differeing opinions on what is and isn't moral. Homosexuality is one example; some have no problem with it ( if 2 people are consenting adults, who cares?) others see it as an immoral abomination.


It is NATURE that causes the child to be born with the handicap. It is NATURAL LAW that says it isn't fair that some children are born handicapped and others aren't. It is our sense of natural law (fairness, compassion and reason) that says there has been an injustice that ought to be corrected if it is in our power to do so.


You can call it infair ( it is but life isn't fair) but it isn't injustice--- injustice requires an active decision &/or action, not random chance.
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 90
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 12:47:18 PM

Wasn't the point to our outrage at what Hitler and the Nazi regime put forward as a philosophy that the Jewish people had no rights and certainly less than the beautiful Alsation dogs used to control these 'animals ' of the human race was on behalf of basic rights in living a life . Now animals want to live a life just like the Jewish people did , so where's the conflict in believing that they and the Jews had and have rights ?


This is the perfect example of the dangers of anthropomorphizing via equivocation and the concept of "rights". Your argument "for" is a very solid argument "against", see: "Slothful Induction". Don't be surprised if some find the idea of comparing factory farming to Jewish genocide to be contemptible for how you are still comparing Jews to animals, just as Hitler did, albeit with a different purpose. The "ends don't justify the means" comes to mind.

But yet another example of how the concept of "rights" is eroded via equivocation, and in this case, also basic human dignity.


It is unfair to infringe on the rights of another except by necessity.

...and necessity is subjective in the context of "law" you posit it in.


It extends beyond people to animals, plants and even rocks.


It's the extension of "rights" that's not only specious, but unnecessary baggage, ...critical reasoning can be far more objective and effective than the equivocal notion of any rights of the non-sapient, insentient and inert ideas of "other".
 late™
Joined: 9/11/2009
Msg: 91
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 1:10:10 PM
Ok, then where is the line between moral and immoral.

You have to remember, sometimes there's no difference between, good intentions, ignorance (willful or otherwise), stupidity and pure malice when one considers the consequence of actions.

If you are killed by a vehicle while crossing city street, does it matter to you whether the driver was avoiding a different obstacle, impaired by booze or actually aiming at you? Does it matter to you at all that you may have been jay-walking when you died? Or is the consequence - death make any consideration moot?

Here we run the gamut of law abiding, and ethical/moral consideration, ...does your personal outcome change?

If you were breaking the law crossing the street, is it not then "right" that you are run over by the driver obeying the law avoiding a pot hole in fringing on his "rights" to avoid it out of necessity?

Equivocation is particularly messy and dissonant at times isn't it?
 Ideoform
Joined: 9/23/2007
Msg: 92
view profile
History
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 2:16:00 PM

"...you're attempting to take individuals ability to decide such things for themselves. .."


With rights comes responsibility. Morality implies judgement. Evaluating morality from "the outside" of someone, is essentially judging them. Making a law about what some people have decided is moral, is taking away a person's freedom to decide each situation as it occurs. Learning right from wrong is expected by society to be taught to us by our parents as part of acculturation, and socialization. Not knowing the law doesn't exempt an adult in a society from the expectation he/she will obey the laws of the society he/she is in.

Is the person obeying a law that was enacted for moral reasons themselves moral? Or are they just being obedient?

Are we keeping people "moral children" when we make morality about obedience and not discernment?

There is a wide area where individuals are relied upon by society to act in a moral way even though there is no law governing the behavior. This is the way most social and community and cultural interactions work. Unless there is change. If something is "traditional" it gets passed on through the generations and through the "melting pot" of society (if people move from one culture to another.) If something is not tradition, and if the world changes (as it inevitably does -- there is a natural law for you) then this process of change often requires people in a society to act "as if" they are moral agents even when they haven't totally voluntarily come to the same point as the society they are in that is in the throes of change. Sometimes a law is passed, sometimes public opinion pushes change outside any laws. Sometimes the change involves a law that has become obsolete.

The process of social evolution is one of change, and we are constantly trying different social patterns to see what works and what doesn't. Some patterns only work short term for a particular situation. In the end, justice is "natural" because the natural restraints of physical laws limits things.

The thing about human consciousness, human awareness, and other human (and godlike) qualities is that there is no natural limitation to what can be explored. There are real things that are essentially invisible to natural law, like love. Nobody disputes the existence of love. Love exists in a human dimension that goes beyond natural law, but yet we exist in the natural environment.

Compassion, empathy, wonder, grace, covanant, are intangibles that can apply to the natural world, as both reflections of our evolving consciousness as human beings, and also the creation of human beings. It is the true frontier of humanness, that has nothing to do with it's object (the things and objects in the natural material world) whether that be animals, minerals or vegetables. Fire, water, earth and air. These are the things that populate the natural world which we then make into beauty, meaning, justice, fairness, the substance of what is insubstantial.

The insubstantial is what humans bring to the table of existence. Without that we are animals in all their natural glory, but neither human nor trancendent of anything but what we react to.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 94
Do Animals Have Rights?
Posted: 9/23/2009 5:42:13 PM

it isn't injustice--- injustice requires an active decision &/or action, not random chance.

It is here that you have failed to understand. Injustice is quite literally unfairness. A conscious action is not required for unfairness to occur. All that is required is a differential in the pain/pleasure of two or more equal (under natural law) sentient organisms.
The online dictionary's primary definition of injustice: "Violation of another's rights or of what is right; lack of justice."
Given that we all have a right to life, it would be wrong for a volcano to take lives when it erupts, so Vesuvius was a very unjust eruption. Of course it wasn't the volcano's fault, a mountain isn't a moral agent, so it can't be blamed for its "actions." Nevertheless, it serves to illustrate that nature is inherently unfair, because it doesn't recognize what we call rights, so justice doesn't come from nature, it comes from us, and our perception of it. If we are rational and perceive an injustice, then an injustice must have occurred.


necessity is subjective in the context of "law" you posit it in

Necessity is simply what is needed for survival. Food is a necessity, a three car garage isn't, especially if you still have to park the Viper in the rain.

reason can be far more objective and effective than the equivocal notion of the rights of the non-sapient, insentient and inert ideas of "other"


The concept of "rights" is not subjective, nor does it differ from reason. The process of reason is used to determine rights. They are an entirely rational concept. People may not agree on them, but I'm quite sure that rights are not determined democratically, as many seem to think. You are born with rights long before you know what's going on, long before you "vote." It is by extrapolating the concept of rights to non-sapient objects that I intend to show (objectively) how they are tied to the concept of legitimate claim, property rights and ownership.

The post where I asserted ownership of planet Mars by right of my claim that it belonged to me, points out the absurdity of ownership by claim. In the same way that none of us can own Mars, neither can any of us own earth. By extension, if we can't own the planet, then we can't own any part of it. The best we can do is lay claim to some bits of it and hope nobody disputes the claim. I'm inclined to say the same of our own bodies. After all, they are just another form of earth and a part of the planet, so we can't even own them either. We do have legitimate claim to them though, and I doubt anyone would dispute that we have a right to use our bodies as we see fit, so in that sense, we "own" them. The only thing we can truly own is our labour, but I digress...

We all know that we can do as we wish with our property (and contrapositively, if you don't own something, you can't morally do what you want with it.), but we make the erroneous assumption that things we don't really own are our property. In the old days, slaves were our property, and were treated accordingly, until we decided that you can't own people and abolished slavery. Today, we stand on the verge of knowing that we can't own property. A flea doesn't own the dog just because he landed on him and set up housekeeping. The flea has a right to exist though, and of necessity bites & irritates the dog. We can't fault the flea for that, since he does what he does to survive, but we note that the flea doesn't own the dog (or any part of him).

With respect to homosexuality and consenting adults, the old law prohibiting it was known to be wrong under natural law, so the old law was abolished, in spite if the fact that it was consistent with Mosaic law, Christian law, Muslim law, common law, etc. Obviously those laws were unjust. The fact that many people still adhere to them (believing that law comes from God) doesn't alter the fact that they are fundamentally unjust and therefore not true law.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >