"The bulls, or any other animal, lack both of our fundamental rights: the rights to freedom and life" and he added "they have no rights as they have no obligations [...] since they lack free will and ability of taking decitions, we can't consider them ethical beings able to tell wrong from good"
The article itself was pretty short on details, was this in relation to a lawsuit? It almost sounds as if someone was trying to obtain human rights for animals and got knocked back.
Soladrin wrote: Essentialy, they want to make bull fighting a cultural heritage. So it's a apparently good to brutally and painfully murder animals.
Well, it kind of already is part of their cultural heritage, at least regionally. Whether it's a part of their cultural heritage that everybody likes or not is something different of course.
What do they do with the bulls after a bull-fighting match? Do they eat them or otherwise use the body for anything useful?
A tourist goes to a local Spanish restaurant and orders the special. He gets two big pieces of meat and finds them delicious. He asks the waiter what they are and is told "they are the testicles of the bull that lost today's match. We consider them a delicacy!" The man was very impressed and returns the next weekend for another meal. The food was as delicious as last time, but the portion was a lot smaller. He calls the waiter over to tell him that the meal was delicious and to ask about the smaller size today. "I am glad you liked your meal, but today the bull won the match..."
Soladrin wrote: Essentialy, they want to make bull fighting a cultural heritage. So it's a apparently good to brutally and painfully murder animals.
Well, it kind of already is part of their cultural heritage, at least regionally. Whether it's a part of their cultural heritage that everybody likes or not is something different of course.
What do they do with the bulls after a bull-fighting match? Do they eat them or otherwise use the body for anything useful?
Pretty sure they do get eaten. Its not like the fight does anything harmful to the meat.
Of course the meat of a full grown bull is going to be very different to your typical beef which comes from a steer or an old milk cow. Being a full adult male with all his normal hormones does stuff to the texture and flavor. Very strong flavor and tough texture.
More directly on-topic ; It's gakky. Keeping in mind that no sane person wants to go all hippy, it'd be nice if we could all agree that animals have a basic right to live free from suffering caused only for the sake of human amusement.
Except spiders. Spiders can go feth themselves with a claymore for all I care.
Humans are still very different from animals. While some animals do share some of the same features such as emotions and self-awareness there is still a gap. It may not be completely definable, but it is there.
And on the specific, let's not forget there is no manlier thing than to fight a starved, half sedated, beaten up and scared bull, with 4 lads with pikes to assist me.
Grey Templar wrote: Humans are still very different from animals. While some animals do share some of the same features such as emotions and self-awareness there is still a gap. It may not be completely definable, but it is there.
Let's go with 'pedantic and obscure quotation in a foreign language' ;
''Ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement''
- Boileau, l'art poétique (1647)
Body weight isn't a weapon.
It's a statistic.
You only get what your born with.
Humans have a head (Blunt force weapon)
Humans are intelligent. A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.
Bulls? Hell, I've been charged by regular cows. They're an ornery animal.
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.
I said 'reasonnable human beings'. You know, the kind that develops skills that allow them to escape the tedious life of squeezing bovines mamaries at unspeakable hours of the day...
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
daedalus wrote: What's the difference between an animal and a human?
Our brain.
Which difference in our brain?
There's evidence to suggest that dolphins and some apes are self-aware.
Animals have been witnessed having enough problem-solving skills to use tools.
My dog knows how to be deceptive.
I can therefore conclude that there exist animals at least as intelligent as my coworkers.
It's an issue of degree. While there are animals that may display intelligence approaching the very lowest humans, they are few and far between, while humans achieve an average of "ridiculously op gamebreaker".
Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact". We have rights because rights are a nice thing to have, and so individually benefit from a society that acknowledges our rights. It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact. In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Da Boss wrote: I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?
Well, for me there is a difference.
I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.
Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.
Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.
Ratbarf wrote: Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.
It's not so much about the animals, as it is about what a desire to be cruel to them says about us. It makes you a gakky coward of a person to want to hurt something weaker than yourself just for the fun of it. Which is why I would absolutely kick the feth out of anyone I saw abusing an animal for fun, and I'm not generally a violent person. I can't stand it. I once saw a guy kick a dog when I was living in Spain and it took four people to restrain me from going and booting that fether as hard as I could.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.
What about hunting for fun AND food?
Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.
Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact". We have rights because rights are a nice thing to have, and so individually benefit from a society that acknowledges our rights. It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact. In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.
It's an issue of degree. While there are animals that may display intelligence approaching the very lowest humans, they are few and far between, while humans achieve an average of "ridiculously op gamebreaker".
Without being cynical, I think you overestimate the richness of the average human mind.
Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact".
It's a gakload more complex than this. Social contract theories are one of many forms of theory concerning the origin of rights, and mainly a convenient way to explain why we should engage in restricting our freedom. They don't necessarily have a 'production of rights' aspect to it.
It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact.
No it's not. We provide rights to the unborn, to the inanimate (art) and the immaterial (companies). There's nothing insane about it. Law doesn't seek any semblance of 'productivity'.
In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.
You do not need to be identical to something to have a relationship to it. It's that relationship that is the basis for the dicussion on rights,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: If animals have a right to life what are we supposed to do if they keep eating each other?
Having a right isn't identical to recognizing or being able to exercice that right.
Grey Templar wrote: Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.
True, but there are a few (of course depending on your State's legislation). Up here, for exemple, unborn children have a few rights concerning their future patrimony.
Grey Templar wrote: Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.
True, but there are a few (of course depending on your State's legislation). Up here, for exemple, unborn children have a few rights concerning their future patrimony.
Grey Templar wrote: Sadly, I see very little in the way of rights being given to the unborn.
Well, a zygote is no more aware of itself and its surroundings than a dog, in fact, considerably less so.
Oh, wait - dogs don't have 'souls'.
If Dr Damasio is correct, self-awareness is something that is shared by pretty much all vertebrates. It's only less rich because our cerebral cortex is much more advanced. Of the three components of self-awareness (proto, core and autobiographical) we share the first two with all vertebrate species, and the third with a lot of higher forms, including dogs, dolphins and quite a few primates. Those animals remember and plan ahead.
Da Boss wrote: I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?
Well, for me there is a difference.
I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.
Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.
I agree with this d-usa, although living with my parents I have little choice over what I get for food other than a few recommendations.
Da Boss wrote: I can't comprehend the outrage greeting this statement- surely anyone who eats meat has already accepted the premise?
Well, for me there is a difference.
I eat meat, but I want my meat to be raised as humanely as possible. I try to source my meat locally, ideally from a place where I can go and visit the farm. Free range chickens, free range beef, etc. Same with slaughtering the animals. Just because I know the animal will die and end up on my plate doesn't mean that I can't care about the animal and so I try to avoid mass farmed meat.
Just because the animal dies for food doesn't mean it has to be treated like gak and live a misserable life while it waits for slaughter.
I agree with this d-usa, although living with my parents I have little choice over what I get for food other than a few recommendations.
Ideally, we should grow our meat, and only interfere with other species when it comes to preservation and replenishing the necessary genetical material to grow said meat.
Even "organic" cattle and so on suffer. They are slaughtered for food.
Hell, the truth is, people generally only care about the animals they can empathise with. If an animal doesn't have features we can easily apply human attributes to (like, say, an octopus, which are quite intelligent by animal standards), then we don't care about it so much.
As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.
All of that said, I don't condone needless cruelty to animals, I think bullfighting is weird and I wouldn't engage in it, go to watch it or approve of it at all. I don't approve of bloodsports in general. But I think as causes to get worked up about there are so many more that are more important, and I don't get the depth of emotion that people feel about these cases. Probably due to growing up in an agricultural setting and working in the fishing industry.
But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.
As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.
Da Boss wrote: Hell, the truth is, people generally only care about the animals they can empathise with. If an animal doesn't have features we can easily apply human attributes to (like, say, an octopus, which are quite intelligent by animal standards), then we don't care about it so much.
Empathy also relates to actions. The more you see an animal performs acts you recognize, the more you will empathize with them. Just like kids don't have an immanent ability to empathize with animals, even those with relatively 'human' features.
As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable.
Why? We usually punish those that abuse others, especially more if they are in an asymmetrical relationship.
But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.
No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.
As for "beating the gak out of someone" because they kicked a dog, that seems like the actions of someone who is emotionally unstable. I saw plenty of that sort of thinking in the UK though, so it doesn't surprise me.
But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.
I have hunted and fished since infancy. I have killed a lot of things and eaten them. Throughout this, first taught by my father and then carried by me as a code to live by, is the idea that an animal should be subjected to as little suffering as possible. It is what marks us as beings capable of empathizing, of understanding pain and avoiding it. It is what makes us better human beings to one another. Compassion and mercy.
The infliction of needless pain to animals is akin to the abusing of our own young or elderly or infirm, it is malicious and illogical. It is the mark of a flawed and corrupt society. Interestingly I was going to say 'barbaric' but many 'primative' societies hold morals about the treatment of animals and the environment around them, rather than an idiot's ideal about mastery and dominion to abuse as we see fit.
If I saw a man kicking a dog, I would see a more powerful being inflicting needless suffering upon a vulnerable being, I would immediately make that stop. I would question the morality and mental well being of someone who was not angered and moved by it! If the man intended serious harm on the animal I would, as a pet owner, more than willing to employ physical violence on him if he wouldn't stop when ordered to do so.
Well, I was basically gonna run up and kick him as hard as I could, then say "how the feth do YOU like it?", but yeah MGS sums up my thoughts perfectly.
No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.
Of course the question is why?
From a purely empirical point of view, there is nothing to be gained by giving animals any rights. They don't contribute to our social order, unless you consider food to be contributing to the social order. Which I could see as a reasonable view.
Of course that view only works if you eat meat. Vegetarians and Vegans cannot use that angle as the animals don't contribute towards them.
Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.
The way a man treats his animals is an indicator of that person's worth as a human being. You are free to adjust your treatment of him to suit if you care about that sort of thing, which will be the punishment in kind for his slight. Nothing more.
No, they don't have one. Which is why we are discussing giving one (albeit limited) to them.
Of course the question is why?
From a purely empirical point of view, there is nothing to be gained by giving animals any rights. They don't contribute to our social order, unless you consider food to be contributing to the social order.
They give us fur, transportation, companionship, plowing, fertilizer, leather, wool, silk, etc.
The act of gathering Wool is itself a reciprocation to the sheep as you are removing what could be a dangerous amount of insulation in a hotter climate. It also helps the animals cleanliness.
purplefood wrote: A human could stockpile research relating to bulls, allowing him to understand the nature of bulls and therefore give him an edge in strategic play.
You mean, like, understanding that bulls are not a danger to any reasonnable human being and that we shouldn't try to engage them in combat?
Thats actually wrong. Bulls are VERY dangerous animals. The smaller the bull, the more dangerous. Dairy being the most agressive.
I said 'reasonnable human beings'. You know, the kind that develops skills that allow them to escape the tedious life of squeezing bovines mamaries at unspeakable hours of the day...
There's nothing unreasonable about developing a skillset and lifestyle that involves getting up early to milk cows or do other agriculture-related work. In some areas it's more unreasonable not to do these things.
Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.
No, you have an obligation under the law to maintain your animals, provide suitable conditions for them, feed them and ensure they are in healthy condition and free from needless suffering.
You can and should be punished by the law when you fail in your role as custodian of those animals. They are living things, not inanimate objects, they are capable of feeling pain, suffering through neglect and contracting illness through poor husbandry.
If you are incapable of caring for an animal according to it's needs, you should not keep one, whether as a pet or as a utility animal. They are living beings. You are most certainly not free to do 'as you please' with them.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.
What about hunting for fun AND food?
Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.
I can see a point in hunting for food; it's natural and unavoidable. I just don't get why anyone would want to go out and kill stuff because it's "fun". That's what video games are for!
Ratbarf wrote: Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.
Wow, just... wow. If I'm beating up some random dude in the street and you pass by, would you then simply ignore it because it'd be taking away my fun from something that doesn't directly hurt you if you tried to stop me? I'm all for a live and let live society, but there are limits. When you start killing other living beings just because you can, you've crossed a line IMO.
Da Boss wrote: But animals obviously don't have a right to life or freedom. Anyone who is surprised by that is disconnected from reality.
ITT angry Disney fans.
Animals have no natural rights similar to human rights. How could this be a surprise to anyone who understands what human rights are?
Oh wait.
Albatross wrote: It's not so much about the animals, as it is about what a desire to be cruel to them says about us.
Yes, that's quite correct. Animal cruelty is wrong not because of any rights that animals possess but rather because doing bad things like abusing animals is a violation of human dignity.
Animals have no natural rights similar to human rights. How could this be a surprise to anyone who understands what human rights are?
Disney fans? Care to explain this?
What are these human rights you speak of and explain to me why an animal is undeserving of the right to good husbandry and minimal suffering?
Human rights are as much a construct as animal rights, if you allow the notion of 'inalienable human rights' you can allow the notion of 'inalienable animal rights'. As we have advanced as a society, we've enshrined more and more freedoms and protections to ourselves and others around us, extending those to protect other life forms from pain or mismanagement is a mark of our continued advancement.
Thats the point. You would have to seperatly define animal rights. You could not make a jump and say human rights apply to animals.
Human rights would also have no bearing on the definition of said animal rights. There has to be a complete disconnect.
Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats the point. You would have to seperatly define animal rights. You could not make a jump and say human rights apply to animals.
Human rights would also have no bearing on the definition of said animal rights. There has to be a complete disconnect.
Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.
No, an animal is not entitled to the same rights as a human, most human rights have no application in the life of an animal and we, as an omnivorous species still classify several species as lunch.
As I said in my earlier statement here, I've hunted and fished for 30 years, I've eaten what I killed and enjoyed it a lot. There is a great deal of satisfaction in eating something you've worked to obtain. Animals feed other animals, circle of life (there's your disney!).
But in taking animals and farming them, maintaining them, we have a moral obligation to avoid that animal's suffering or pain, because causing suffering or pain, even in something you intend to eat, is bad. Because we experience pain, suffering etc and understand that it is a very undesirable state, even for a 'condemned' lifeform. You mentioned earlier than anyone can do what they want with the animals they own, again, there is a debate there about just what the abstract concept of ownership actually is.
Ultimately, an animal is a posession of the person who owns it and is that person's to with as he pleases.
No, you have an obligation under the law to maintain your animals, provide suitable conditions for them, feed them and ensure they are in healthy condition and free from needless suffering.
You can and should be punished by the law when you fail in your role as custodian of those animals. They are living things, not inanimate objects, they are capable of feeling pain, suffering through neglect and contracting illness through poor husbandry.
If you are incapable of caring for an animal according to it's needs, you should not keep one, whether as a pet or as a utility animal. They are living beings. You are most certainly not free to do 'as you please' with them.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: explain to me why an animal is undeserving of the right to good husbandry and minimal suffering
Undeserving? That's rather emotional, which is what I was getting at by suggesting anthropomorphism is behind the notion of "animal rights." Human rights are not a construct inasmuch as they do not exist simply because we posit their existence. If a human right only exists because we say it does then surely it can just as easily not exist if we say it does not. But such a thing cannot, and I would hope this is obvious, be inalienable. (Any right which is not inalienable is better understood, at least in the everyday sense, as a privilege rather than a right.) As far as I can tell, the absolute value of human dignity is the only basis for inalienable human rights. Thus -- human beings have a right to the conditions appropriate to their dignity: life, food, clothing, shelter, health care, leisure, etc.
So, now we turn to the poor animals and why they are "undeserving." I find these discussions often turn to a solipsistic conflation of humans and other animals. This is no doubt because the word "human" is often used to refer to a species of animal. But this is not the same use of the word human in the sense of human rights. Human beings are obviously animals but human rights adhere not to this aspect of our existence (that is, we do not have human rights by virtue of being animals) but rather to our personhood. The dignity we are concerned with is the dignity of persons and not just any persons (such as fictive or "legal" persons) but specifically natural persons.
Grey Templar wrote: Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.
I was referring more to the fact that Disney films often make no distinction between the characteristics of human beings and other animals, i.e., anthropomorphism. So really Disney is not advocating animal rights for the simple reason that Disney movies rarely portray animals but rather humans disguised as animals.
"Slaughter" in the sense of war is an overblown metaphor for the sense of farms. So it's a little inapt to talk about the "humane slaughtering" of people.
Manchu wrote: "Slaughter" in the sense of war is an overblown metaphor for the sense of farms. So it's a little inapt to talk about the "humane slaughtering" of people.
Not in the eyes if animal activists.
But I get what you are saying.
I don't know if there is a right to humane treatment of animals or anything like that. I want my meat to be sourced humanely and killed as humanely as possible because to me it is the right thing to do.
Hrrrm. So are you guys against physical reprimands for animals in all situations?
I'm trying to wrap my head around this, because I can see a good few situations where these sorts of things can be used to teach animals lessons or to get them to behave as they are needed to behave. Hitting a cow with a stick as part of herding it, pinning a dog if it goes for sheep, all that sort of stuff.
I don't condone needless cruelty, and I agree, you have a duty to take the best possible care of your animal and to look after it as well as you can, but I don't really feel strong emotions about this sort of stuff. I also find it hypocritical that people get all excited about animal testing, unless it's on something like a nematode, which they A. mostly haven't heard of or B. can't empathise with and therefore don't care about.
Manchu wrote: Undeserving? That's rather emotional, which is what I was getting at by suggesting anthropomorphism is behind the notion of "animal rights." Human rights are not a construct inasmuch as they do not exist simply because we posit their existence. If a human right only exists because we say it does then surely it can just as easily not exist if we say it does not. But such a thing cannot, and I would hope this is obvious, be inalienable. (Any right which is not inalienable is better understood, at least in the everyday sense, as a privilege rather than a right.) As far as I can tell, the absolute value of human dignity is the only basis for inalienable human rights. Thus -- human beings have a right to the conditions appropriate to their dignity: life, food, clothing, shelter, health care, leisure, etc.
You're basing this in absolute terms whilst referencing something abstract, dignity is a construct. If you apply it, if you apply the lofty notions you seem to be applying, of the human as something beyond the tool wielding animal it appears on paper, then you're digging into notions of 'the soul' or similar, those are only theories ascribed to by some people, science still regards the human as a sophisticated tool wielding ape with self awareness and complex communications methods. If you can start to bring in the abstract of humans as something 'more', then you're as guilty of adding in additional factors as anyone bringing in abstracts like anthropomorphism of animals.
So, now we turn to the poor animals and why they are "undeserving." I find these discussions often turn to a solipsistic conflation of humans and other animals. This is no doubt because the word "human" is often used to refer to a species of animal. But this is not the same use of the word human in the sense of human rights. Human beings are obviously animals but human rights adhere not to this aspect of our existence (that is, we do not have human rights by virtue of being animals) but rather to our personhood. The dignity we are concerned with is the dignity of persons and not just any persons (such as fictive or "legal" persons) but specifically natural persons.
'poor' animals... 'disney fans'... you're wording is a mite incendiary here.
Personhood comes back to this abstract you're introducing, along with dignity, these are easily argued as constructs. If you want to argue that animals have no rights then it's incredibly easy to say that people have no rights, there is nothing in the structure of the universe that complies with your previous definitions of 'rights' to shelter or food or clothing, these things have to be fought for, worked for and achieved, just like every other animal in nature. We have a right to these things because we claim that right, it has absolutely zero real world value unless we ascribe it value, much like rights for an animal as I mentioned earlier. These are all sociological constructs, all morality is. You dismiss those around other life forms but insist on those for human beings existing somehow beyond being a construct, I'm interested in why? I'm assuming due to a faith or religion or belief in something more as yet undescribed by science?
Grey Templar wrote: Disney Fans obviously refers to Disney films tending to have very strong animal rights undercurrents. Ever notice how many of them have some sort of scene with all the animals being released from their nasty cramped wire cages.
I was referring more to the fact that Disney films often make no distinction between the characteristics of human beings and other animals, i.e., anthropomorphism. So really Disney is not advocating animal rights for the simple reason that Disney movies rarely portray animals but rather humans disguised as animals.
I'm wondering who you were pointing the disney comment at tbh, I don't think I anthropomorphize* the animals I shoot, hook, bash the brains out, snap the neck of, gut, skin and eat, I do understand that those animals react to injury and stressful factors, that it causes reactions in their brains the same as ours that we call pain and suffering and I take the steps to minimize that because I have experienced pain and suffering and have no wish to inflict them upon another life form, doing as I would be done by... Given your construction in the above about other humans, why underneath it all, should I afford more consideration to the 'rights' of another human being at all, over say, a gorilla? Because the human can vocalize?
*(although you bet your petunias I anthropomophize when I'm sat on the lounge floor talking to our three legged mainecoon cat, Mr Beefy... because he really does understand me... )
Manchu wrote: Human rights are not a construct inasmuch as they do not exist simply because we posit their existence.
No, that is basically how it works. Fundamental human rights are agreed-upon. They are not innate, nor are they absolute.
If a human right only exists because we say it does then surely it can just as easily not exist if we say it does not.
Yes, that is basically how it works.
But such a thing cannot, and I would hope this is obvious, be inalienable.
Which is why the 'founding fathers' stated that they held those truths to be self-evident - it was their opinion that certain rights were 'unalienable', but that's all it was, an opinion. As history has shown, it's far too easy to deny people the most basic of rights. Hell, the 'founding fathers' where doing it at the time of writing the documents that make up the US constitution.
Another crushing argument from one of my favorite users.
You posited the existence of a value which explains why human have rights and animals don't. You explained everything which is consequent to this value, but none of it's grounding. Just like in an argument on the existence of God, where the individual positing the existence has the burden of proof, you have the burden of proof (or in this case, definition) on human dignity. Up until now, it's in your discourse a logically empty term, not unlike 'unicorns' in the sentence ''All unicorns are white''.
Let's give it a try. From our Charter of Rights and Freedom, art. 15.1, Human dignity seems reductible to '' self-respect and self-worth. It is concerned with physical and psychological integrity and empowerment. ''. It's quite unclear why self-respect and self-worth are a ground to dignity, whereas self-consciousness and self-preservation aren't. It's also unclear as to what the difference between the two pairs is.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.
What about hunting for fun AND food?
Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.
I can see a point in hunting for food; it's natural and unavoidable. I just don't get why anyone would want to go out and kill stuff because it's "fun". That's what video games are for!
Ratbarf wrote: Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.
Wow, just... wow. If I'm beating up some random dude in the street and you pass by, would you then simply ignore it because it'd be taking away my fun from something that doesn't directly hurt you if you tried to stop me? I'm all for a live and let live society, but there are limits. When you start killing other living beings just because you can, you've crossed a line IMO.
In the words of Robert A. Heinlein, "Men are not potatoes." Your beating a person is an entirely different quandry than your beating a dog that is your property. Now, I certainly would not like your beating of the dog, as I love dogs, but I would not stop you as long as the dog is yours. If it's a stray or another persons property then again that's a different matter.
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
You wouldn't remonstrate with a person who was beating their dog? I would, definitely. I mean, I suppose it would depend on the level of beating. Occasionally, dogs need a gentle tap on the nose to correct them, like the time mine chewed through the power cable to our fridge, for example!
However, If someone was kicking the gak out of his dog in the street, that guy would go on to have a very bad day indeed unless he wised up, and quickly.
Ratbarf wrote:To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
I don't mean literally 'agreed-upon', like we all sat down and decided what the rules were. It's a process. Most advanced countries have reached a consensus about what constitutes ethical treatment of both non-human animals and people. Spain is woefully out of step with that, and not just based on this ruling. I lived there - they're years behind us when it comes to treating animals properly.
Ratbarf wrote: [
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
Or... we're saying that if you can employ one set of abstracts as absolutes, there's a degree of hypocrisy about saying another set of abstracts cannot be absolutes. If you afford notions of soul and human rights, then claiming 'animals rights are stupid' is a contradiction. If we can afford a set of moral rights and wrongs to the treatment of other humans, nothing is stopping us using the same framework to work on (shelter, freedom from pain, access to food and water) to govern what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the keeping of livestock or pets.
Your reference to doing nothing on seeing someone abusing an animal because he owns it is interesting (and personally repulsive), would you also ignore a man screwing his children based on the same logic that it's his family and he can do as he wills with them?
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
Rights and morality are different (but related) domains. And morality doesn't need consensus.
Albatross wrote:You wouldn't remonstrate with a person who was beating their dog? I would, definitely. I mean, I suppose it would depend on the level of beating. Occasionally, dogs need a gentle tap on the nose to correct them, like the time mine chewed through the power cable to our fridge, for example!
However, If someone was kicking the gak out of his dog in the street, that guy would go on to have a very bad day indeed unless he wised up, and quickly.
Ratbarf wrote:To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
I don't mean literally 'agreed-upon', like we all sat down and decided what the rules were. It's a process. Most advanced countries have reached a consensus about what constitutes ethical treatment of both non-human animals and people. Spain is woefully out of step with that, and not just based on this ruling. I lived there - they're years behind us when it comes to treating animals properly.
The consensus reached is a process yes, but it is one of agreement. Different nations agree on different levels of rights, and as they are sovereign constructs it is well within their power to do so. Whether another likes it or not is irrelevant unless they wish to challenge their sovreign authority, ie; their right to do what they wish.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Ratbarf wrote: [
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
Or... we're saying that if you can employ one set of abstracts as absolutes, there's a degree of hypocrisy about saying another set of abstracts cannot be absolutes. If you afford notions of soul and human rights, then claiming 'animals rights are stupid' is a contradiction. If we can afford a set of moral rights and wrongs to the treatment of other humans, nothing is stopping us using the same framework to work on (shelter, freedom from pain, access to food and water) to govern what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the keeping of livestock or pets.
Your reference to doing nothing on seeing someone abusing an animal because he owns it is interesting (and personally repulsive), would you also ignore a man screwing his children based on the same logic that it's his family and he can do as he wills with them?
Again, humans are not animals. No amount of argument from analogy will change that. It's simply a different topic, akin to arguing geometric principles within the realm of psychology.
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
Rights and morality are different (but related) domains. And morality doesn't need consensus.
Morality does need consensus, or at least authority. Since Spain is the authority within their jurisdiction there really isn't anything to discuss unless one wishes to overthrow the spanish government or force the spanish people to change their views and then force that view into law within the legal channels.
Animals are not humans, thus any argument which holds the principles which guide the interaction of human relations is done in ignorance of the fact that animals are not persons, nor do they have the potential to be.
Personally, I do not like animal abuse. That said, what another person does with their property is not within my authority to alter outside of a stiff recrimination. (Angry Letter.)
Ratbarf wrote: [
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
Or... we're saying that if you can employ one set of abstracts as absolutes, there's a degree of hypocrisy about saying another set of abstracts cannot be absolutes. If you afford notions of soul and human rights, then claiming 'animals rights are stupid' is a contradiction. If we can afford a set of moral rights and wrongs to the treatment of other humans, nothing is stopping us using the same framework to work on (shelter, freedom from pain, access to food and water) to govern what is 'right' or 'wrong' in the keeping of livestock or pets.
Your reference to doing nothing on seeing someone abusing an animal because he owns it is interesting (and personally repulsive), would you also ignore a man screwing his children based on the same logic that it's his family and he can do as he wills with them?
Again, humans are not animals. No amount of argument from analogy will change that. It's simply a different topic, akin to arguing geometric principles within the realm of psychology.
Seriously... why is everyone getting worked up over this?
Because some people don't like animal abuse and believe that animals should have some form of legal protection.
Most jurisdictions do have laws on the books regarding animal abuse.
True... what animal abuse are you alluding to Cheesecat? The running of the Bulls in spain?
Oh, I was just talking about some of the posters in this thread in all honesty I know very little about the subject on Spanish Bull fighting so I'll refrain judgement from that topic, but I do know that I dislike animals being mistreated.
It's an issue of degree. While there are animals that may display intelligence approaching the very lowest humans, they are few and far between, while humans achieve an average of "ridiculously op gamebreaker".
Without being cynical, I think you overestimate the richness of the average human mind.
Even a dull, uneducated human has no difficulty outsmarting even a fairly intelligent dog, one of the few "even remotely approaches the level of the least intelligent humans". Even a child will play at building shelter, or arm themselves with a club/pointy stick/rock when in the woods.
Further, rights are derived from the instinctive phenomenon of the "social compact".
It's a gakload more complex than this. Social contract theories are one of many forms of theory concerning the origin of rights, and mainly a convenient way to explain why we should engage in restricting our freedom. They don't necessarily have a 'production of rights' aspect to it.
Note I didn't say "derived from the ethics theory of the social contract," but from "the instinctive phenomenon of". The body of social instincts that manifests as the phenomenon refered to as "the social contract", not the ideas of the various philosophers who said "hey, this seems to exist". We (generally speaking) accord one another rights and look down upon/ostracise those who do not, as a matter of fostering an environment where we benefit as a result of having said rights.
It's counter-productive and insane to apply rights to things that exist outside the social compact.
No it's not. We provide rights to the unborn, to the inanimate (art) and the immaterial (companies). There's nothing insane about it. Law doesn't seek any semblance of 'productivity'.
No, we don't, or at least we shouldn't in the cases where ideologues or wealthy businessmen have subverted the legislative process.
In addition, as we are not, and cannot be, cattle, it doesn't serve us in the least to insist upon rights for them.
You do not need to be identical to something to have a relationship to it. It's that relationship that is the basis for the dicussion on rights,
As mentioned above, rights are, in a round-about way, a matter of self interest. I was, perhaps, overly brief with my earlier statement, excluding discussion of wanting rights accorded to something close to you (emotional self-interest) or out of opposition to some individual or ideology (political self-interest/nose-thumbing).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Well, I guess Spain has no right to bailouts or economic assistance from the EU, if you catch my drift?
On a more on-topic note, so what if they don't have the right to freedom. You're still a complete fethwad for performing something like bull fighting. I don't really care if it's "part of their heritage", it was once part of Sweden's heritage to rape, burn and pillage Spanish coastal cities.
And shame on the Swedish for giving up such a long and glorious tradition.
But really, how is this any different than a big game hunting television show? Especially bow hunting, where the principle is the same, except that I think the Spanish way of doing it is more fair. They are all examples of animals who are being "tortured" or killed for human entertainment. One happens in an arena, the other happens on your television. I personally don't see much of a difference between the two sports.
Neither do I, which is why I think hunting because it's fun is dumb.
What about hunting for fun AND food?
Most people that hunt do it for fun, but they also eat the meat. Or someone eats the meat. It doesn't go to waste.
I can see a point in hunting for food; it's natural and unavoidable. I just don't get why anyone would want to go out and kill stuff because it's "fun". That's what video games are for!
Ratbarf wrote: Oh, well then, please trying stop taking away my fun when it doesn't hurt you directly. If one is so concerned about humanitarian acts that they start doing them for animals I suggest they move to Africa. Or actually Asia, I can't think of anything in Asia that I want to shoot for fun.
Wow, just... wow. If I'm beating up some random dude in the street and you pass by, would you then simply ignore it because it'd be taking away my fun from something that doesn't directly hurt you if you tried to stop me? I'm all for a live and let live society, but there are limits. When you start killing other living beings just because you can, you've crossed a line IMO.
In the words of Robert A. Heinlein, "Men are not potatoes." Your beating a person is an entirely different quandry than your beating a dog that is your property. Now, I certainly would not like your beating of the dog, as I love dogs, but I would not stop you as long as the dog is yours. If it's a stray or another persons property then again that's a different matter.
To those people saying that human rights are social constructs and that they are only significant because they are agreed upon. Then by your own argument nothing is immoral about this case as there is no consensus, which means people are free to treat animals however they wish within the confines of the law in accordance to it's jurisdiction.
I would not just urge you to stop, I would most likely deck you if I saw you harming an animal(except in self defense or something obviously). ESPECIALY if it was your pet.
If I were to come across someone beating their dog or whatever "Because it is their property" I'd be much inclined to run them over.
Honestly, if your an animal abuser, and I'm talking about the kind that does it for no other reason then making themselves feel superior etc. , you are not worthy of calling yourself a human being.
That said, I'm a horrible human being for not actually valueing human life that much so I guess I'm worse.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You're basing this in absolute terms whilst referencing something abstract, dignity is a construct.
So first off, we have to again acknowledge a fudnamental disagreement between us on what can be found in nature. As I mentioned above, science obviously does not give us a complete account of our experiences. If we arise in nature, then so do our expriences. Thus, the account of nature available via science is incomplete. To me, science is not the sum of what is knowable. While I accept that we can know a lot about ourselves via scientific investigation, I do not think we can use science to discover our purpose or the meaning of our existence -- and thus also our dignity. I locate the absolute dignity of human beings in an explicitly Christian anthropology. The absolute quality of our dignity derives from the fact that we were created according to a destiny. I also refuse the idea that this account was made up (constructed) by human minds; therefore its consequences are also not constructs. Humans cannot discover through science any basis for the absolute dignity of human persons. To conclude therefore that human dignity has no absolute basis and is merely a construct is at best myopic. And the consequences are rather dire: if dignity is a construct then rights are constructs; if rights are constructs then they are merely privileges; privileges exist at the pleasure of the powerful; should it please the powerful, they may abuse the weak -- and there can be no moral objection.
The same issue comes up in your other point: what if science (understood extremely loosely) can locate an absolute basis for human rights but that this account actually reveals that said basis exists also for other animals? Again, your confusion seems to arise out of the word "human" used to describe a species of animal rather than a person. Animals are not persons. Personality, you argue, is a construct and by construct you mean "has no basis in nature as discoverable by science." You seem to think I have made up "personality" in order to accomplish the a priori goal of distinguishing between human beings and other animals. But this was not my goal; it is the conclusion of my observation. No other animal does the things humans do except by very weak analogy. We can say that whales sing but it's not the same thing as what "song" really means. And analogically applying all these human words and concepts to our experience of animals does not "prove" that there is little distinction between other animals and ourselves. Anthropomorphism, or Disneyfication in the parlance the effect popular culture has on us, is not scientific even if scientists make the mistake of anthropomorphising animals seemingly all the time.
Human personhood is an expression for what we actually meet in the world; namely, we encounter persons only in other humans and only analogically (that is to say, not really) in other animals. For example, this is why we say animals cannot commit crimes. We have some evidence that animals can act "cruelly" (anthropomorhically speaking) but we acknowledge that this "cruelty" is actually only a person's way of understanding a non-person's behavior -- and, moreover, the standards of the person should not really apply to the behaviors of non-persons. Thus when an animal "kills for sport" (again, this is more anthropomorphism) we don't put them on trial for murder.
I would submit that your disavowal of human dignity as something uniquely human proceeds from an a priori goal of protecting animals. But there is no reason to "tear down" the actual basis of human rights in order to protect animals. Animals do not need rights in order for us to have an obligation to not abuse them. It is wrong for humans to abuse animals for the very reason that it is not humane -- it is not the human thing to do -- it is contrary to the personhood of human beings -- it is a violation or our dignity. But note that it cannot meaningfully be said that it wrong for animals to abuse one another. Indeed, in what sense other than metaphor (specifically the metaphor of anthropomorphism) can we even say that animals abuse one another?
These are relatively simple questions rendered complex only by our disavowal of any ability to know outside of scientific empiricism (i.e., the abstraction away from reality).
Albatross wrote: Fundamental human rights are agreed-upon. They are not innate, nor are they absolute.
If human rights are just something we agree on then they are also something we can disagree on and, moreover, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing on them. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with denying some people their human rights just as long as the agent denying the rights disagrees with their existence. Oh Albatross, it really does work that way doesn't it. Just ask the Syrians. I maintain, however, that Bashaar al-Assad is in the wrong whether or not his government has ever signed on to any convention or treaty agreeing to human rights. I don't think you can do the same in an intellectually serious way. Same goes for Kovnik and his solipsism.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You're basing this in absolute terms whilst referencing something abstract, dignity is a construct.
So first off, we have to again acknowledge a fudnamental disagreement between us on what can be found in nature. As I mentioned above, science obviously does not give us a complete account of our experiences. If we arise in nature, then so do our expriences. Thus, the account of nature available via science is incomplete. To me, science is not the sum of what is knowable. While I accept that we can know a lot about ourselves via scientific investigation, I do not think we can use science to discover our purpose or the meaning of our existence -- and thus also our dignity. I locate the absolute dignity of human beings in an explicitly Christian anthropology. The absolute quality of our dignity derives from the fact that we were created according to a destiny. I also refuse the idea that this account was made up (constructed) by human minds; therefore its consequences are also not constructs.
You and I are debating ultimately to a pointless conclusion where you will cite religion and I will cite science and we will fail to meet in the middle. 'If we arise in nature, so do our experiences', quite true, so does our compiling a series of sociological codes and guidelines based around our (I say constructed, you say God given) religion and belief system. You can say that science fails to answer all the questions, true enough, it does not possess the caveat of a religion like Christianity to say 'well, god made it' or 'god decided that's the way it is'. Science is open, expanding and in a constant state of evolving as it grows. It does have many questions, it also continues to answer questions as it progresses.
You talk about 'refusing' and 'absolute quality' or similar, it's basically saying that you believe these things exist, despite science, due to your own personal belief in the collected religious writings of people 2 thousand years ago, you are entirely entitled to believe those writings but I adhere to current thinking and modern, evidenced science, that can chart the rise of humans, the species of hominid, from it's ancestors and it's evolution of moral and social codes set out in historical evidence.
Humans cannot discover through science any basis for the absolute dignity of human persons. To conclude therefore that human dignity has no absolute basis and is merely a construct is at best myopic. And the consequences are rather dire: if dignity is a construct then rights are constructs; if rights are constructs then they are merely privileges; privileges exist at the pleasure of the powerful; should it please the powerful, they may abuse the weak -- and there can be no moral objection.
I can show you many places on the earth this has happened and still happens. Morality is a mercurial concept, even on that luxuary cruiser just being towed into harbor, when food started to run low, people began hoarding and fighting. Of course there can be moral objections, from others who's morality is constructed differently, if I want to bugger my own child to death (and this ties in with ratbarf's abused animal analogy above and 'ownership'), then I can do so and perhaps the worst I get in Saudi Arabia is a fine, because my child and my wife is my property according to my religion and the local custom. If I want to go down the road to the next village and take women against their will to become my wife, I can do this in many parts of the world without concern, because it is tradition and morally acceptable in my culture. We can say, with our Judeo-Christian morality set, that this is outrageous and contemptible, and it really is, to us, and it really isn't, to them. Again, you will cite your absolutes, as immobile and 'of course they exist' and millions in other countries, with other faiths and rituals and beliefs, will tell you you're wrong and they are right.
The same issue comes up in your other point: what if science (understood extremely loosely) can locate an absolute basis for human rights but that this account actually reveals that said basis exists also for other animals? Again, your confusion seems to arise out of the word "human" used to describe a species of animal rather than a person. Animals are not persons. Personality, you argue, is a construct and by construct you mean "has no basis in nature as discoverable by science." You seem to think I have made up "personality" in order to accomplish the a priori goal of distinguishing between human beings and other animals. But this was not my goal; it is the conclusion of my observation. No other animal does the things humans do except by very weak analogy. We can say that whales sing but it's not the same thing as what "song" really means. And analogically applying all these human words and concepts to our experience of animals does not "prove" that there is little distinction between other animals and ourselves. Anthropomorphism, or Disneyfication in the parlance the effect popular culture has on us, is not scientific even if scientists make the mistake of anthropomorphizing animals seemingly all the time.
I have no 'confusion', nor is what I've said 'myopic', you seem very adept at insinuating that other people are misguided or 'a bit dumb' because they do not see things as you do, it's not covering your stance in glory, it reads as patronizing, please knock it off. I have never argued that a construct "has no basis in nature as discoverable by science", personality is a construct drawn up from a mixture of genetic makeup, learning and environment. Please do not attribute quotes to things I've not said.
And 'no other animal does what we do' is a flimsy reason for claiming some form of seperation from the animal kingdom, some form of 'special dispensation', there are plenty of examples in nature of animals doing something no other animal does.
And now 'the scientists' are wrong for anthorpomorphizing animals seeminly all the time? When do they do this? Why are 'they' wrong and you right? What is this secret you've uncovered that has elevated your own understanding above the scientific community? What I'm reading is you basically saying 'but people are just different!', I want to know why, I want you to explain what makes a human different, that cannot be ascribed to chemical reactions in the brain or learned behaviors?
Human personhood is an expression for what we actually meet in the world; namely, we encounter persons only in other humans and only analogically (that is to say, not really) in other animals. For example, this is why we say animals cannot commit crimes. We have some evidence that animals can act "cruelly" (anthropomorhically speaking) but we acknowledge that this "cruelty" is actually only a person's way of understanding a non-person's behavior -- and, moreover, the standards of the person should not really apply to the behaviors of non-persons. Thus when an animal "kills for sport" (again, this is more anthropomorphism) we don't put them on trial for murder.
Personhood is a highly controversial concept, it is entirely existent in matters of religion, law and social interaction, it is therefore, from a scientific perspective, a social construct. It is this I was referencing as a construct, not personality, which is a measurable attribute defining behaviors. Personhood is also mutable value in society, ask any black person in the 1800s...
We have no evidence for animals acting cruelly, again, cruelty is a human moral construct, we judge what is or is not cruel, animals are not governed by nor capable of this trait. We can judge an animal's actions 'cruel' but the animal is simply performing an action. One might as well accuse a plant growing into another plant's part of the flower bed as greedy.
I would submit that your disavowal of human dignity as something uniquely human proceeds from an a priori goal of protecting animals. But there is no reason to "tear down" the actual basis of human rights in order to protect animals. Animals do not need rights in order for us to have an obligation to not abuse them. It is wrong for humans to abuse animals for the very reason that it is not humane -- it is not the human thing to do -- it is contrary to the personhood of human beings -- it is a violation or our dignity. But note that it cannot meaningfully be said that it wrong for animals to abuse one another. Indeed, in what sense other than metaphor (specifically the metaphor of anthropomorphism) can we even say that animals abuse one another?
My disavowal of human dignity is because it is totally un-measurable, it has no clear definition and is a construct of advanced societies and is variable between them. It fluctuates so immensely because it's a vague human concept. It's likely different in the minds of every human being on the planet. Rights exist because we say they do, morality exists because the majority makes it exist. I brought this into the discussion due to several other posters conjuring the notion that humans have some special manifest destiny over the rest of the earth when I see no evidence of that anywhere. It could be argued that our tool wielding and capacity to alter our environment is claim enough, but then our ability to rationale against doing harm and to empathize and show caring or protective behaviors counters that well enough.
Animals would not need legal rights if what you said was remotely true, unfortunately I've been involved with animal welfare long enough to know that really isn't true, animals need legal protection from some people. Humans are unique in our ability to understand cause and effect and to empathize in this manner, there is your 'humane' measurement. This again is countered in various societies and needs some work. It cannot be said to be a measure of a society's development into a technologically advanced culture, as we know many 'primitive' cultures have a more 'respectful' notion of the taking of other animals lives, minimizing suffering.
These are relatively simple questions rendered complex only by our disavowal of any ability to know outside of scientific empiricism (i.e., the abstraction away from reality).
So how do we 'know' outside of scientific empiricism? Do we accept a compilation of religious writings from two thousand years ago? Which ancient religious writings do we treat as the ones to make all this so much simpler? The ones you follow which give mankind dominion over everything, to do with as property of his own, or perhaps the other guy's writings that mean all those animals either were people or might yet be people in future lives, the 'soul' moving throughout them and us? Because then that guy kicking his dog in Ratbarf's example, is kicking a potential future child or perhaps an old man I used to know and we really need to stop him then.
And I want to state something here. Because it annoyed me and I want to be clear going forward. When you came into the thread to say 'Disney fans in this thread' due to your disdain for those taking a position of pro animal rights, I was insulted. I had prior explained my belief, a belief every bit as strong in it's conviction as your faith, in protection of and good husbandry to animals both wild and domestic. It is one of the principals that guides my life and how I behave and your comment was as dismissive and rude as me wandering into a thread on religion and throwing out some 'amusing' comment about 'look out, it's the catholics, hide your kids!'. It's a flaw of this site's rules on what is and is not protected that religion is (pardon the pun) treated as a sacred cow here whilst other beliefs, such as mine, in regard to how to live my life, are subject to open mockery. It would be nice if some more respect was afforded by you or others, you would expect it of me discussing your faith, engage it when discussing my morality.
Animals have no rights, and I don't think they deserve any.
At the same time, I believe that humans have an obligation to treat animals well. Of course that is mearely my opinion and I cannot force it upon anyone, that would open up a whole can of worms thats more trouble than its worth.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
Albatross wrote: Fundamental human rights are agreed-upon. They are not innate, nor are they absolute.
If human rights are just something we agree on then they are also something we can disagree on and, moreover, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing on them. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with denying some people their human rights just as long as the agent denying the rights disagrees with their existence.
There would be nothing wrong in denying the human rights to the victim in the abuser's mind if the abuser did not recognise those rights. We, of course, will view those actions and make our own judgements according to our own recognition of and definitions of human rights.
The slave owners of the Southern American plantations were not abusing human rights in their society at that time, they most certainly were in our eyes due to the society we live in in this time. The age to marry off your daughter in sharia law is puberty or 15, whichever applies first, I consider that repugnant, but then do those girls deserve the right to be older than children before being married and choose their own spouse? Absolutely in my view, but my view is that of a western man raised in a different morality, does that mean I'm right? Damned straight!........ in my view.....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Animals have no rights, and I don't think they deserve any.
At the same time, I believe that humans have an obligation to treat animals well. Of course that is mearely my opinion and I cannot force it upon anyone, that would open up a whole can of worms thats more trouble than its worth.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
Taken from your profile:
Interests: Burning Heritics, specifically Greenpeace members
As someone who's donated to Greenpeace, I have to say that's a bit mean, but if you'd like to try harming me, I can give you directions and we can discuss it in person. I'm a mostly gentle individual, usually.
MGS, I'll be clear as well, I don't really care whether you are insulted by me bringing up Disney. The issue with Disney is they present characters that look like animals but act like human beings. The basis of your argument is that that there is no real difference between human beings and animals concerning rights. I contend that this argument is facially preposterous because the only proper subject of a right is a person, regardless of whether said person is an animal. That is, animalness cannot give rise to personhood as Disney -- and you -- seem to imagine.
Your counterargument is that personhood is a construct and therefore could meaningfully be extended to animals. I should have reminded you earlier that the characteristic of being an animal is also a construct. Could it therefore be meaningfully applied to plants? Obviously not. Science insofar as it is empirical is the process of encountering phenomena and explaining them by means of abstraction. Every single scientific explanation is also merely a human construct. Their meaning, in the proper context, is not for that reason inhibited.
This is also true of non-scientific constructs, such as human dignity. You're correct that human dignity cannot be precisely measured in abstract empirical terms such as inches, temperature, or mass. That does not mean we do not encounter human dignity and its violation in the real world. The inability to scientifically account for human dignity is no argument that human dignity is not a thing that exists. Of course, you will tell me that it definitely exists -- but only in our minds. This in turn relies on a particular reference to Cartesian duality, for which there is also no scientific evidence. Moreover, like Albatross, as long as you contend that human dignity and the natural rights derived from it exist only as a subjective imposition upon the real world, which is entirely material, you must stand in the position of raising no intellectually serious moral objection to the violation of human rights.
Therefore your view is myopic, at least to the extent that raising a moral objection to violations of human rights is a desirable thing. If all you want to do is rattle on in an emotional appeal to authority about you experiences caring for animals or some fantasy of beating up people who, in terms of your own argument, simply disagree with you ... then I concede you are amazingly foresighted inasmuch as you have accounted entirely for your very narrow goals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
We force beliefs on people all the time without causing genocide. The chief way that we prevent genocide is by forcing our beliefs on others.
Grey Templar wrote: Animals have no rights, and I don't think they deserve any.
At the same time, I believe that humans have an obligation to treat animals well. Of course that is mearely my opinion and I cannot force it upon anyone, that would open up a whole can of worms thats more trouble than its worth.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
Taken from your profile:
Interests: Burning Heritics, specifically Greenpeace members
As someone who's donated to Greenpeace, I have to say that's a bit mean, but if you'd like to try harming me, I can give you directions and we can discuss it in person. I'm a mostly gentle individual, usually.
Also: you spelled Heretics wrong.
Do you seriously think my profile is completely serious? I simply think Greenpeace is a silly organization.
And I never noticed I had misspelled Heretics, thanks for catching that.
We force beliefs on people all the time without causing genocide. The chief way that we prevent genocide is by forcing our beliefs on others.
That depends on how far you go and what the beliefs being forced are. If we follow nearely every belief system to its logical, and extreme, conclusion it will cause genocide or some form of repression.
Forcing your beliefs on others is never going to be seen as a good thing by everyone, nor would it be a good thing for everyone involved.
Manchu wrote: MGS, I'll be clear as well, I don't really care whether you are insulted by me bringing up Disney. The issue with Disney is they present characters that look like animals but act like human beings. The basis of your argument is that that there is no real difference between human beings and animals concerning rights. I contend that this argument is facially preposterous because the only proper subject of a right is a person, regardless of whether said person is an animal. That is, animalness does not give rise not personhood as Disney -- and you -- seem to imagine. .
OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'. I'll bear your 'care' of my beliefs in mind the next time we're discussing your dearly held belief in a beared giant sky man who's told you how to live according to a collected tome of desert tribe's mythology on why things are the way they are, given their own diminutive knowledge of reality, written two thousand years ago then filtered through languages time and the manipulations of various bodies writing it. Say three hail marys and it will all go away and your 'dignity' will remain intact (see, not very nice is it, how about some decorum from you towards an opposing viewpoint, that is how you'd expect someone else to debate, both according to the rules of the forum and the expectation of a decently conducted conversation). You can continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout loudly that 'these things obviously exist and anyone who doesn't immediately realize that they are so obvious and intrinsic are fools!' and you'll still be you and the entire scientific world will still be the entire scientific world, you keep your fairy tale and I'll stick with modern learning. Might just as well say humans are special because it says so in the Lord of the Rings... Perhaps I don't have the 'obvious' understanding of the 'absolute' nature of human dignity because I did not correctly read the chicken entrails?
Your counterargument is that personhood is a construct and therefore could meaningfully be extended to animals. I should have reminded you earlier that the characteristic of being an animal is also a construct. Could it therefore be meaningfully applied to plants? Obviously not. Science insofar as it is empirical is the process of encountering phenomena and explaining them by means of abstraction. Every single scientific explanation is also merely a human construct. Their meaning, in the proper context, is not for that reason inhibited.
Incorrect. Animal is a 'concrete'/'literal' or 'real', personhood is an 'abstract'. You can't just make everything up as you're going, slap some big words around it and pretend it's rational thinking.
This is also true of non-scientific constructs, such as human dignity. You're correct that human dignity cannot be precisely measured in abstract empirical terms such as inches, temperature, or mass. That does not mean we do not encounter human dignity and its violation in the real world. The inability to scientifically account for human dignity is no argument that human dignity is not a thing that exists. Of course, you will tell me that it definitely exists -- but only in our minds. This in turn relies on a particular reference to Cartesian duality, for which there is also no scientific evidence.
We encounter human dignity within the framework we have constructed for it in terms of it's sociological application, as a construct of our society. Take a look at the people stranded on a life raft eating the weakest and ask them where that 'absolute' human dignity exists. It exists right up until it needs to step aside to more primitive driving forces, like survival.
Moreover, like Albatross, as long as you contend that human dignity and the natural rights derived from it exist only as a subjective imposition upon the real world, which is entirely material, you must stand in the position of raising no intellectually serious moral objection to the violation of human rights.
Do you hear the contradiction in what you're writing? So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights? Of course my constructed morality and belief system can be upset by instances that break it's framework. How do you think people with no threat of failing the laws of a God manage to survive on a day to day basis without raping or eating our peers? I recognize that I live my life with a sense of what's right and wrong for me and my society, that I judge my peers and other people not in my society based upon my moral code, constructed from my upbringing and surroundings. It still remains a sociological construct.
Therefore your view is myopic, at least to the extent that raising a moral objection to violations of human rights is a desirable thing. If all you want to do is rattle on in an emotional appeal to authority about you experiences caring for animals or some fantasy of beating up people who, in terms of your own argument, simply disagree with you ... then I concede you are amazingly foresighted inasmuch as you have accounted entirely for your very narrow goals.
Again, you're being rude. Stop it. I have not said i will beat people up, if you're referring to my answer to Grey Templar, it was in humor, although I wonder what your reaction would have been to 'burning heretics and catholics'? Not as amusing I'm guessing? I was simply showing him that making these off the cuff remarks is liable to insult the people around you.
If you can't discuss these things in a mature fashion, without resorting to passive aggressive attack and insult, then we should agree to part company on this and further discussion.
This last paragraph is directly personal in nature and insulting, you really need to chill when you encounter someone who does not immediately concede to your wisdom. Especially when you're wrong.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'.
You are absolutely wrong. The reason that I don't care whether you think me bringing up Disney is insulting is that you finding it insulting does not make it insulting. I have repeatedly explained why I brought up Disney and your continued misunderstanding of it and twisting it into an insult does not produce an insult in reality. And then you tell me to chill out? Amazing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your hypocritical sparring.
Wrong again. There is no such thing in the material world as an animal. There are material things that you abstractly classify as animals according to social constructs.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights?
As I already said, you can have a moral objection -- just not an intellectually serious one. According to your own argument, the only objection you can raise to an abuse of human rights is that according to you such an abuse is wrong. But the rest of your argument provides that it might not be wrong insofar as the abuser is concerned. Therefore, your objection is entirely meaningless to the abuser -- unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board. (But that's not intellectually serious.) More importantly, you have no basis to judge his indifference to your objection or to the object of those he abuses. If he abused you, you could not really object. You believe that he shouldn't abuse you but in your own argument your belief is no better or worse than his belief that he should or at least that there is no reason for him not to.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: OK, that's a rude response, I had said you were insulting to my beliefs and to have a care and your response is 'F**k your beliefs'.
You are absolutely wrong. The reason that I don't care whether you think me bringing up Disney is insulting is that you finding it insulting does not make it insulting. I have repeatedly explained why I brought up Disney and your continued misunderstanding of it and twisting it into an insult does not produce an insult in reality. And then you tell me to chill out? Amazing. I'm going to ignore the rest of your hypocritical sparring.
You came into this thread by saying 'ITT disney fans ', you stated there that you equated the viewpoint of people speaking about animal rights with children's cartoons. That was patronizing and dismissive. If I've misunderstood and somehow you meant to compliment those advocating animal rights, instead of equating our views with something infantile and trivial, to be ridiculed, then please explain it clearly, because I read it as insulting. The correct answer when presented with someone who has taken offense at something you've said is to either explain that they have misunderstood and that you really meant was 'x' or apologize, not dismiss the offense with 'I don't care'. At least in the framework of how we are supposed to operate on this site and in discussions.
Wrong again. There is no such thing in the material world as an animal. There are material things that you abstractly classify as animals according to social constructs.
The word 'animal' is an abstract, animal in conversation is an abstract, animal is a literal, animal exists. Unless you want to get existential about it. Love is abstract, Dignity is abstract, animal is literal and solid, along with brick or car or woman. I am not wrong.
I have no doubt that the thing we call animals exist. Whether or not they are animals is the question and the answer is that identifying them as such is an abstraction; the concept of animal is a construct in the exact same sense as human dignity.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: So I cannot have a 'moral' objection to the violation of human rights?
As I already said, you can have a moral objection -- just not an intellectually serious one. According to your own argument, the only objection you can raise to an abuse of human rights is that according to you such an abuse is wrong. But the rest of your argument provides that it might not be wrong insofar as the abuser is concerned. Therefore, your objection is entirely meaningless to the abuser -- unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board. (But that's not intellectually serious.) More importantly, you have no basis to judge his indifference to your object or to the object of those he abuses. If he abused you, you could not really object. You believe that he shouldn't abuse you but in your own argument your belief is no better or worse than his belief that he should or at least that there is no reason for him not to.
Look, what I'm saying is that we all exist in a society with rules and guidelines, that's what fashions our view on the world. The right and wrong I perceive is likely not the same as the animal abuser as that's why they are, to me, abusing the animal and to them, they are doing whatever it is, 'educating' the animal or whatever. It's all on a sliding scale as all abuse is, at the nearest side it's heavy handed discipline and on the furthest side it's terrible torture.
Also explain why the objection cannot be intellectually serious? What are you basing that on? What measurement? Of course the objection raised is not as valid to the abuser as to the accuser, if it were, the 'crime' would likely not exist.
unless you can just beat him up as you often "humorously" imply on this message board.
I am unaware I make frequent physical threats? Please expound on this. It sounds like I'm doing something that personally offends you, can you explain more?
I have no doubt that the thing we call animals exist. Whether or not they are animals is the question and the answer is that identifying them as such is an abstraction; the concept of animal is a construct in the exact same sense as human dignity.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
It doesn't personally offend me because, instead of trying to be personally offended, I understand that you're not really trying to bully people. At least I think so. And if you are trying to bully people, then do I really need to explain what is offensive about that? In the context of this discussion ... maybe so ...
So let's get back to the simple example of someone depriving you of your human rights. According to you, your only objection is that you think this is wrong. But you refuse to object that it really is wrong, wrong in a way that binds both you and your abuser. In your argument, he might even be doing the right thing by abusing you -- that's up to him, I guess. This is what I mean by not intellectually serious. I mean it is absurd. To scream out to your torturer, "I wish you'd respect my opinion that torturing me is wrong" is absurd.
I'm putting everything else in a spoiler because I think it's a sideshow.
Spoiler:
MeanGreenStompa wrote: you claim I'm misunderstanding what you've said, the onus is on you to expand this
I've already met my burden. If there is any further onus, it's on you.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
According to you,
"solidity" (I think you mean, whether something is material) = exists
abstraction = does not exist
Therefore, you would say inches, democracy, and physics do not exist. Biology could not exist in your terms and neither could biological categories. Therefore the category of animals also cannot exist.
So whatever all these things are that are running around, they cannot be animals because animals don't exist.
Meanwhile, I have said that non-material things do exist. Science is not just a name for a thing made up of atoms. Being made up of atoms is not a requirement of existence.
So do you really perhaps mean that human dignity does not exist because different people have different conceptions of what it is? And in that case, how do you explain how other things (like science or democracy), which are available to multiple interpretations, exist?
I'll be honest with you, I think this is entirely dumb but I'm willing to go along with you if you continue to insist that somehow the construct of "animal" exists in a more privileged way than the construct of "human dignity."
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
Manchu wrote: It doesn't personally offend me because, instead of trying to be personally offended, I understand that you're not really trying to bully people. At least I think so. And if you are trying to bully people, then do I really need to explain what is offensive about that? In the context of this discussion ... maybe so ...
So why bring it up? What relevance did portraying me as 'someone who likes to threaten people' have to our discussion? It seems very out of the blue and random. It read as personal.
So let's get back to the simple example of someone depriving you of your human rights. According to you, your only objection is that you think this is wrong. But you refuse to object that it really is wrong, wrong in a way that binds both you and your abuser. In your argument, he might even be doing the right thing by abusing you -- that's up to him, I guess. This is what I mean by not intellectually serious. I mean it is absurd. To scream out to your torturer, "I wish you'd respect my opinion that torturing me is wrong" is absurd.
That's puerile. I'm going to think it's very wrong if someone is torturing me, I might well try to convince the torturer of the wrongness, by deploying attempts at empathy. If the torturer is convinced I'm a threat to national security and he's got to get vital information about me to protect his country and his family, he's not liable to view it as wrong, he's liable to see it as very right. In my reality it's terrible I'm getting the car battery to the nads, in his, he's got a limited time to make me talk before the dirty bomb goes off in a city center. My abstract vs his abstract. Neither is wrong in each reality. I'm the unfortunate victim of circumstance and he's doing what's best to prevent a terrible outcome and I'm a nasty terrorist. That's why it's an abstract, it's not got a viable measurement and it's variable according to the viewpoint.
I'll be shouting 'this is wrong' and that's correct in my version of the truth and he'll be shaking his head and waiting for me to cough up the location of my bomb, according to his truth.
If he's torturing me because there is a bomb that may kill his family located somewhere, is that taking away my human rights? Am I a muslim in a hercules transport over international waters at the mercy of CIA agents racing against time to locate a viral weapon in Civilian US? Am I a Navy Seal captured by the North Koreans trying to locate a spy team in NK? One may well seem acceptable, one not. That's what I'm saying about human rights, that's all I've been saying, they are not absolute, they are not fundamental and they can be removed at any time by another in a position of power, is that a good thing? Location, location, location. Who are you? Who are they? Who's judging?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: you claim I'm misunderstanding what you've said, the onus is on you to expand this
I've already met my burden. If there is any further onus, it's on you.
You said in explaination:
Manchu wrote: [I was referring more to the fact that Disney films often make no distinction between the characteristics of human beings and other animals, i.e., anthropomorphism. So really Disney is not advocating animal rights for the simple reason that Disney movies rarely portray animals but rather humans disguised as animals.
So you were saying that people in this thread were guilty of anthropomorphizing animals, in the manner of a Disney cartoon. It read extremely poorly as seems to infere that anyone, including myself, saying that animals deserve protection in the law were stupid enough to assume our animals could talk and think like humans, in the manner of a child's cartoon, further hinting at considering those speaking of animal rights as childish. It read as aloof, dismissive and patronizing. It was commented on immediately and your response to that (and I have no idea about your relationship with Kovnik Obama) was sarcasm and again, immediate dismissal. His comment wasn't helpful but did demonstrate that you may have opened with a less than stellar statement. When I mentioned that I did not like it, you told me to take a running jump, again, reinforcing a very negative message and abrasive stance.
Yes, the things we call animals, so animals, exist, they are solid, physical and concrete. So, animals exist. The word and definition 'animal' is what remains as an abstract, applicable to a solid physical thing. There is no solid physical thing for human dignity, it is entirely abstract, it is a concept, I cannot change a tire with it or set it on fire or eat it for lunch. Your comparison doesn't work.
According to you,
"solidity" (I think you mean, whether something is material) = exists
abstraction = does not exist
Therefore, you would say inches, democracy, and physics do not exist. Biology could not exist in your terms and neither could biological categories. Therefore the category of animals also cannot exist.
So whatever all these things are that are running around, they cannot be animals because animals don't exist.
Meanwhile, I have said that non-material things do exist. Science is not just a name for a thing made up of atoms. Being made up of atoms is not a requirement of existence.
So do you really perhaps mean that human dignity does not exist because different people have different conceptions of what it is? And in that case, how do you explain how other things (like science or democracy), which are available to multiple interpretations, exist?
I'll be honest with you, I think this is entirely dumb but I'm willing to go along with you if you continue to exist that somehow the construct of "animal" exists in a more privileged way than the construct of "human dignity."
Your implying again. I must not be elaborating well enough, because you seem to take half of what I've said and turn it into something wildly skewed from what I thought I was saying. You've conjured this notion that I'm operating in some black and white 'is and is not' state, you're wrong.
I was not saying abstracts do not exist, I said they exist as a construct. Democracy exists only as long as there is a human society that recognizes it as real. It would cease to exist if there were no people familiar with the concept. Do you understand what I'm saying here? Society vanishes, human viewpoints vanish and the 'animal' would still exist. The concept would cease but the actual animal would remain. The Human Dignity(tm) you've talked about can be said to exist in certain societies or viewpoints, in that regard it's real to those who believe in it. But if those people vanish, it ceases. It is conceptual. It will also be variable in it's quality according to who you talk to.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
This sounds unethical.
What is unethical about it?
I would say its unethical to try and make someone do something that is against their belief system. Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
kronk wrote: Looking at his views on animals and women in this thread, I'm not surprised.
Aren't people in the medical industry supposed to give fair and unbiased treatment to there patients?
I don't know if pharmicists are under any such obligation. They are simply trained and qualified to dispense medicine. If they object to certain medicines why should they be forced to violate their belief systems?
For if we can force our view of how animals are to be treated on people, what stops people from forcing their beliefs in other areas on people?
It could only lead to another Holocaust.
You mean like a licensed pharmacist denying a woman birth control pills because it's against his beliefs, even if he's the only pharmacist she can go to?
This is actually a perfect example.
The Pharmicist is not the one doing the forcing, its the women asking for birth control who is attempting to have the pharmicist violate his beliefs and morals.
The solution is to go to a second pharmicist who doesn't have the same beliefs. If a second such pharmicist doesn't exist, too bad. You are not entitled to birth control.
This sounds unethical.
What is unethical about it?
I would say its unethical to try and make someone do something that is against their belief system. Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
So If a Doctor refused to give medical treatment to black people, he/she should be allowed to after all it his/her belief that black people don't deserve medical attention, see why this is a flawed theory?
There is a complete difference between overt racisim and refusing to dispense medicine which terminates unborn human life, which is also a luxury treatment that is a privilege and not in any way an entitlement.
There are plenty of birth control methods that would not be objected to. You have options, its not like you have only one choce for birth control.
But this is getting off topic so lets drop it here.
Businesses reserve the right to refuse service. If the business objects to this practice that is their deal. The customer can be turned away by the pharmicist.
A pharmicist is not obligated to fill a prescription if he doesn't want to. What happens as a result is a different matter.
Maybe he shouldn't have been a pharmicist, but the fact remains he is and is being asked to violate his beliefs.
But you won't agree with me and I am not changing my view either, so lets drop this as its off topic for the thread.
Manchu wrote: @MGS: You say the person torturing you may be right. I think that's about as far as we can go.
Classy response. Congratulations.
Yeah, at this point I don't think Manchu is really interested in what you actually said anymore.
He actually said that, as between himself and the torturer, it's just abstract viewpoint against abstract viewpoint. To quote him specifically, "Neither is wrong in each reality." The trouble is there aren't multiple realities. There is one reality. One would think this would be clear, even hypothetically, given the example of torture. MGS says "well that could be okay in his point of view" about a torturer -- and if a torturer, why not also a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile -- or even someone who abuses animals? What more is there to say to MGS about rights since he basically admitted to them not really existing in his view. According to him, animals have rights among people who think they have rights; for every one else, they don't have rights. As it turns out, the people who think animals have rights live in the same reality as the ones who don't. So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
Manchu wrote: @MGS: You say the person torturing you may be right. I think that's about as far as we can go.
Classy response. Congratulations.
Yeah, at this point I don't think Manchu is really interested in what you actually said anymore.
He actually said that, as between himself and the torturer, it's just abstract viewpoint against abstract viewpoint. To quote him specifically, "Neither is wrong in each reality." The trouble is there aren't multiple realities. There is one reality. One would think this would be clear, even hypothetically, given the example of torture. MGS says "well that could be okay in his point of view" about a torturer -- and if a torturer, why not also a murderer, a rapist, a paedophile -- or even someone who abuses animals? What more is there to say to MGS about rights since he basically admitted to them not really existing in his view. According to him, animals have rights among people who think they have rights; for every one else, they don't have rights. As it turns out, the people who think animals have rights live in the same reality as the ones who don't. So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
There is one reality, perceived through the eyes of billions of people, all interpreting it in a different fashion. 'Given the example of torture', what is torture then? In which situation is something torture and in which is it something, anything else?
We only function due to working from the principal that 'the masses dictate reality'.
You insist that something either is or is not, something you accused me of just a few posts up, that 'it's torture so it's wrong!' and I've just given you an example of when it's not wrong, according to one thing, over and over, perception.
My torturer isn't torturing me, he's 'applying necessary force during interogation of a potentially lethal enemy of the state'. Now, you have two realities, or perceptions of the same reality if you prefer, the one where I'm being subjected to the attentions of a brutal torturer and the other where I'm being rightfully questioned using strong but valid techniques to extract information.
I once made two questionnaires at college on fox hunting (another blood sport, like bull fighting, that was made illegal when enough of the masses applied pressure to legislate their version of reality, that it was cruel, and made it illegal).
I asked the question 'do you believe in vermin control in farming food?' on the first and 'do you believe it's acceptable to have the british fox torn apart by dogs in this day and age? with a picture of a fox cub, on the other. In this way, I controlled the vast amount of the answer I got, I dictated that reality via positioning and lettering to trigger two different viewpoints of the reality of fox hunting.
In your quote you go on to say 'why not a pedophile or murderer', they absolutely justify their actions in their worlds in many cases. Many pedophiles will tell you about how much the child enjoyed participating, that it was mutual and enjoyable for both parties or even 'love' or the murderer that what they did was necessary or right or that it just doesn't matter. in their realities, (sorry, their perceptions of the one true reality) they have justified themselves as right, it is the masses that disagree, set a different moral code and measure them as failing that and committing a crime. Murder or Pedophilia, by our standards in the West, are both allowed in certain other cultures, we view these cultures as wrong and criminal, but they will only become so when their own majority change it's moral practices or the rest of the world (the majority) applies enough pressure to force their view of reality of right and wrong onto that culture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: So when the ones who don't think the animals have rights abuse animals, what can those who do think they have rights really do about it? "You there, please respect my opinion that the animal has the right not to be abused! Pretty please!" -- or, as has been expressed in this thread, the person who thinks animals have rights simply goes over and violently enforces his opinion on the person who doesn't.
Violent sentiment being expressed here is certainly due to a couple of things, 1. Those posting it are usually males and we males in Western society have a certain level of machismo that means that we express our affection and love and protective urges in terms of violence - 'I'd die for you', 'Anyone comes near my kids in a dirty van and I'd shoot them!', 'Anyone kicks a puppy near me is a dead man!' and 2. That you might well find yourself in a situation where protecting a less powerful being from a more powerful being might require you to deploy violence to prevent further harm on the less powerful being.
What is actually the most likely scenario is 'oh I've seen that guy be abusive to an animal, I'll contact the law enforcement agencies established to serve the majority view of right and wrong and get them to dispense our society's punishments on this person for their crime as our majority have dictated that the protection of an animal's well being is a right we afford animals in our society's version of (view of) reality.
You say rights are subjective rather than objective. I'm just telling you that if this is true then rights don't functionally exist. What you're actually talking about is privileges conceded by the strong in favor of the weak that can be rescinded by the strong at any moment for (arguably) any reason. For example, we might concede humane treatment to one another. But, under your argument, there is nothing to prevent treating other people inhumanely so long as we can subjectively justify doing so and have the objective (i.e., violent) capacity to do so.
Manchu wrote: You say rights are subjective rather than objective. I'm just telling you that if this is true then rights don't functionally exist. What you're actually talking about is privileges conceded by the strong in favor of the weak that can be rescinded by the strong at any moment for (arguably) any reason. For example, we might concede humane treatment to one another. But, under your argument, there is nothing to prevent treating other people inhumanely so long as we can subjectively justify doing so and have the objective (i.e., violent) capacity to do so.
Yes, all rights are subjective. They exist if we create and recognize and enforce them, they cease when we don't.
If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.
If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.
The native american cultures were 'wrong' in the eyes of arriving Europeans who felt their behaviors did not conform to the Christian ideal so they employed a number of options, including violence to bring them into the Christian view of how to behave in reality. The sacrificing of humans to their gods atop ziggurats was not 'wrong' until viewed by a stronger culture who viewed it as unacceptable to their own view of what 'human rights' are.
So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated? Unless a stronger country says so?
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
Forgive if I missed this being answered up in the passive aggressive swipes at one another that occupied the last three to four pages of the thread, but what are the differences between rights belonging to humans, and human rights?
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
Let's take the genital mutilation of girls in african tribes, it's a very unwholesome thing to us, it's illegal in the UK and I'd imagine, the US, yet it's been a part of the tribal culture for a very long time. We are aghast at the 'torture' of women, this removal of the rights of the girl before she is butchered by this misogynistic and barberous society, I personally find it very unpleasant, and a measure of female subjugation, but within that society it's perfectly acceptable.
That tribe is wrong to us, it's committing a crime. We abhor it.
Then we circumcise our male babies. WTF? How can we perform such a hypocrisy? Simple, one child's genital mutilation is wrong and an abuse of rights and the other is part of our religious or socially acceptable behaviors.
Your people in countries with no human rights are absolutely having their human rights abused when we, who hold these notions, view them.
Women forced to cover themselves, for another example, married at puberty. We find this disgusting, discriminatory and against the notions of right and wrong we hold, yet our own morality in the West was little better a few centuries ago.
It's mutable and always has been. The world over.
And if you accept that, you can accept my original point that we can ascribe certain rights to animals, should we as a society decide to do so. Most of our countries already have, to varying degrees, along the lines of avoiding suffering, limiting pain, providing food and water, providing medicines etc.
daedalus wrote: what are the differences between rights belonging to humans, and human rights?
The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights.
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
This is why I said there was no point in further addressing you. You're not talking about rights at all. You're just talking about violently asserting your opinion on others wherever possible. You think animals should be protected by rights in the sense that you have warm feelings toward animals and angry feelings toward people who hurt them. Hence Disney.
Manchu wrote: The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights.
Nope, those rights that arise from being a human only arise from being a human if enough humans agree that it's a good idea, that's a construct. We can go round and round on this if you like, but these things did not spring from the same place as instinct or reaction, which are animal behaviors, human rights are advanced concepts, borne from theorizing. We all instinctively want to have shelter and food, we only construct that we have the right to them.
Manchu wrote: So people who are abused in countries that do not acknowledge human rights are not having their human rights violated?
According to me and my views, created by a mixture of my upbringing and parent society, absolutely.
This is why I said there was no point in further addressing you. You're not talking about rights at all. You're just talking about violently asserting your opinion on others wherever possible.
I'm sorry you feel that, I'm here for the discussion, not to fight you. Rights are afforded by the barrel of a gun, or the jawbone of an ass or having more friends than the other guy, your view of the world is carried forward by majority to become The World View. Underneath it all, we give rights to those we sympathize with and remove them from those who we do not. We the masses, the majority, will define the reality of those in minorities as to whether we afford them a right or do not. If gays want to marry in the US, it will require the benevolence or at least the indifference of the heterosexual majority to afford them that right. If the majority is unsympathetic, and there are plenty of countries to look to for that, then they will continue to have that 'human right' withheld.
I don't mean you are threatening to beat me up or something. I mean you are not talking about rights and you do not seem to know what the concept of rights actually involves. What you are talking about is coercion.
If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.
If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.
What if the blond haired people disagree with their enslavement? Does it become wrong, and a violation of their rights then? Or can that only be decided by someone external to that society?
In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.
Manchu wrote: In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.
That's how I was interpreting it too, but I want to give him the opportunity to confirm that's where this is heading.
If you exist in a society that condones slavery of the blonde haired, then the blonde haired have no right to freedom in that society. It only becomes wrong when viewed by someone who disagrees, for whatever reasons, with that slavery.
If that society is viewed by another group of people, who hold blonde haired people as equals, then it's a denial of the right of freedom in the new society's eyes, because blondes have that freedom, that 'right' in this other society. Rights are gleaned from the value system of the society that creates them.
What if the blond haired people disagree with their enslavement? Does it become wrong, and a violation of their rights then? Or can that only be decided by someone external to that society?
Yes, it becomes wrong because they have the idea that their servitude is wrong and against their own wish to be free, their 'reality' their view of the reality is one where they are enslaved against their will.
What I was showing an example of was a society where something we find abhorrent was enshrined in the culture. So take that blonde slave race and make their servitude ritualized, a caste system. It's cultural for them but against our notions of slavery.
Also, Manchu, I think I've worked out why you reacted as you did. When I said 'absolutely', i was agreeing that I found the notion unpleasant and a breach of human rights as I understand them and apply them in my life, as the result of my upbringing and value set. I think you read it that I was saying 'absolutely' that is was not 'wrong'. I would find it 'wrong', because I am an adult result of my society's education and moral teachings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: In his view, the blonde people's disagreement with their slavery only matters to the extent that the blonde people or someone else can overpower the people enslaving them. No rights are involved at all.
No, I'm saying it only changes when they can overpower, by violence or social pressure btw, not just hitting each other, the current dominant thinking.
In real world terms, black people knew for them it was wrong to be enslaved, it only became wrong for those holding them as slaves when enough external pressure forced them to reevaluate their slave keeping culture. It is wrong, certainly, for us looking back on it, it was decidedly wrong for those in chains, it was not wrong for those who kept slaves at the time or they wouldn't have been doing it. It was not an issue of human rights in that time, remember the constitution regarded a black slave as being less of a human being than a white man. We now believe that is abhorrent, there are still racists in the nation, but they are a minority and it is viewed as a social stigma and potentially a crime to now hold views which were widespread at the time.
Manchu wrote: The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights..
I see. Personally, I do not believe that there are any such thing, if for no other reason than simply because no one has proved any such authority upon the universe as to decree them "universal". I again refer to Hobbes's opinion that all rights are derived through social contracts, and then the response to your previous question would be that those people abused by 'our' standards are not having their rights actually infringed upon because those rights are not recognized there.
At the same time, I consider it a great shame that they do not have said rights available to them, and I wish that there were some way to make them available, but I feel that those rights are a legal mandate, and not a divine/natural one.
Manchu wrote: The term "human rights" refers to a subset of natural rights, which are in turn rights that arise from the nature of the being that possesses them rather than being posited by law (legal rights). Human rights are therefore those rights that arise from the nature of the human person (not the animal that is classified as human). Humans can posses both legal and natural rights..
I see. Personally, I do not believe that there are any such thing, if for no other reason than simply because no one has proved any such authority upon the universe as to decree them "universal". I again refer to Hobbes's opinion that all rights are derived through social contracts, and then the response to your previous question would be that those people abused by 'our' standards are not having their rights actually infringed upon because those rights are not recognized there.
At the same time, I consider it a great shame that they do not have said rights available to them, and I wish that there were some way to make them available, but I feel that those rights are a legal mandate, and not a divine/natural one.
Great! This is basically what I've been saying for two pages.
The trouble remains, the concept of rights requires some sense of objective morality. Otherwise, politics is just a matter of might making right (pun intended) -- and whether one argues that this is "how things are" or not, the issue remains that actual rights language is a matter of challenging violence-based authority. The notion that rights are just points of view ultimately vests legitimacy in power alone.
Manchu wrote: The trouble remains, the concept of rights requires some sense of objective morality. Otherwise, politics is just a matter of might making right (pun intended) -- and whether one argues that this is "how things are" or not, the issue remains that actual rights language is a matter of challenging violence-based authority. The notion that rights are just points of view ultimately vests legitimacy in power alone.
I think you're making a mistake in fixating on 'might' and seeing it only as military force or the potential for dominating violence.
In this case, the power rests in the hands of the collective conscience of the dominant society, we view all the world via our morality, constructed from rules we've evolved from a range of influences that has built the Judeo-Christian Western morality. This massed majority dictates our 'rights', the 'might' involved is simple pressure of the majority view vs minority views, it is not literally the threat of violence, but force via cultural dominance and the will of the masses, it is applied whenever individuals or smaller groups breach that constructed set of sociological rules (rights) in a way the majority finds extreme; murder, abuse etc. If I say the sky is red and everyone else says the sky is blue, I become wrong and they become right, because the weight of their viewpoint sculpts reality as viewed by our shared society as the sky is now blue.
You continue to state that something 'else' exists beyond the sociological construction of morality and what is acceptable, that is is something that cannot be altered by views or majority pressure and is immutable as 'right'. What evidence do you have that something that appears to be constructed is actually existent beyond the constructs built by a society?
I believe we construct these rights and social rules along basic survival principals coupled with the needs of our society as it has evolved from a widely dispersed hunter gather to a densely packed consumer society. We have added the rules as we went along, to create order in our societies and, in enlightened self interest, to prevent ourselves falling victim to more predatory instincts among our peers. Not killing others is useful to me because it lessens my chances of being killed by another, not sleeping with my sister prevents inbred offspring with defects, not stealing means I'm less likely to be stolen from, not torturing people lessens my chances of being tortured.
Consider, MGS, what power enforces the preferences of your "massed majority." Your red sky/blue sky metaphor is telling. No matter how many people say the sky is red, it will still be blue. No matter what violence is brought to bear on the issue, the sky will remain blue. The natural world exists beyond our subjective experience. I say that morality is a dimension of the natural world, even if it is unavailable to abstracted empirical measurement.
It will still be the hue you refer to as blue, but, by virtue of everyone else declaring the sky red, the meaning of the language itself has changed.
Kinda like how I can no longer chop down a few trees and carry a (see forum posting rules) or two up to the house.
Or how, when I bake bread, I can (see forum posting rules) the leavening process by sticking the dough in the fridge for a day or so if I'm not ready to use it all.
Manchu wrote: Consider, MGS, what power enforces the preferences of your "massed majority." Your red sky/blue sky metaphor is telling. No matter how many people say the sky is red, it will still be blue. No matter what violence is brought to bear on the issue, the sky will remain blue. The natural world exists beyond our subjective experience. I say that morality is a dimension of the natural world, even if it is unavailable to abstracted empirical measurement.
What power enforces the preferences? Current thinking, ideas, points of view achieving popularity. What is taken on as majority view will appeal to senses as 'best' and be adopted.
Sky analogy: No, if enough people say that the sky is red, it is now red. Blue is a construct.
You can say morality is a dimension of the natural world all you want, you still have no ability to prove it. Sorry.
When I say "rights" I mean the thing that the study of rights contemplates rather than the empty signifier that anyone can fill with any perspective. Similarly, when I say "blue" I do not mean the word blue as an empty signifier but rather the match of the signifier with the signified band of electromagnetic radiation. The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.
Manchu wrote: When I say "rights" I mean the thing that the study of rights contemplates rather than the empty signifier that anyone can fill with any perspective.
And what is that? Because I'm well aware you can study 'rights', just as you can study 'democracy' or 'fascism' or 'romantic love' and they will all still be man made constructs with a variable quality according to the observer. Please stop skirting around with elaborations on the study of or the consideration of rights when you are claiming that rights exist beyond our construction of them. Are you or are you not saying that 'rights' exist in a state beyond the human construction of them, because if you are, I want to know where they originated, what they are made of and how you prove to the rest of us that they exist in the state you claim they do, other than what you've given here so far, which is 'it's obvious' or 'undoubtably', don't claim absolutes, prove it.
Similarly, when I say "blue" I do not mean the word blue as an empty signifier but rather the match of the signifier with the signified band of electromagnetic radiation.
You mean the electromagnetic radiation's registered effect on the human brain as filtered through to it via the human eye. Fair enough, that electromagnetic radiation will indeed still exist, we will call it what the majority regard is the right term for it and all the connotations we then care to attach to that. BTW, I can demonstrate the sky exists and that electromagnetic radiation exists to a wavelength that we call 'blue', can you now reciprocate and prove 'rights' exist as you've claimed?
The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.
Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.
I'm not going to replicate everything MGS has said thus far, so just try to visualise me popping out from behind his shoulder doing pistol fingers and shouting 'Yeeah, bwooyy!', Flava Flav-style.
The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.
Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.
1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.
2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.
The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.
Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.
1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.
And I was not, at any stage discussing physical authority, but the acceptance of a viewpoint becoming the agreed reality. Separate figurative conversation and metaphor from the literal.
2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.
Allow me to enlighten you, Manchu had stated that gifting 'rights' to animals was daft, I then countered that human rights were as much a construct and if you can give rights to humans, there is nothing stopping a society awarding rights to animals, so in a legal and ascribed sense, Manchu claimed human rights were an absolute, a 'given' that existed beyond the physical or the constructed and were therefore intrinsic whereas any right given to an animal would be a nonsense. We carried on from there and taking my discussion on that and then reapplying it to the original post is misleading and false.
But I've got a nice cup of tea here and I've finished my chores for the day, so I'll indulge you with a counter.
If (and I'm not sure it's the case at all) the majority in Spain thought there was nothing wrong with bullfighting, then, for the Spanish cultural mindset, there would be nothing wrong with bullfighting. However, then being viewed by the larger majority of the European Union, it was viewed poorly, it would be wrong, in the European mindset. If it's considered cruel by a majority of the Western World, then it becomes something wrong in the mindset of the Western World.
We then come to the degrees of wrongness, on a scale, measured against acceptability, this can be argued to further exist on a 'for vs against' scale and the larger the numbers for or against vs the smaller the numbers for or against will continue to tip those scales towards or away from a practice or act being acceptable, as something continues down this scale of unacceptability, it passes beyond what might be considered eccentric or unusual until it reaches unacceptable, once a culture believes something is unacceptable to it's masses, things become the criminal or the insane.
Let's consider one of the most widely reviled abuses of human rights, the abuse of a child. In the medieval society, the vast population were for (or mostly indifferent) to a 13 year old marrying. As time went by, health and longevity improved and notions of childhood were constructed, it became less and less acceptable and age restrictions were imposed and moved. Now, in most of Europe (not Spain btw, it's still 13 there...) the age of consent to intercourse is much older. You engage in sexual acts with a 13 year old in the UK and you're likely to end up in a very very large amount of trouble and labelled more severely than a murderer. This can relate back to Manchu's 'absolute' human rights, many if asked, would cite 'child abuse' as an attack on a human right, but is a man of 20 sleeping with a child of 13, who consents to the act, a human rights abuse? Absolutely yes here and now, in the US or UK, in medieval Europe, nope, that's just sex, in parts of Asia or Africa, nope, that's just sex. In many of these societies, a long childhood is not indulged and work and 'real life' kicks in a lot earlier, also the life expectancy is much shorter, again, reducing the indulgence of a long period of considered childhood vs acceptable entry to the adult world.
Welcome to sliding scales of grey and a world with no absolutes.
The purported arbitrariness of the signifier is beside the point, except inasmuch as I'm asking you to in good will say blue when you mean blue. I detect here a kind of totalitarianism: if the Party says the sky is Red then the sky is Red.
Reality and the rules we conduct ourselves by within it are dictated by mob rule, at the very basic level. If you buck against that too far, we put you in an asylum or a prison. Life and living in the natural world has a totalitarianism about it, you conform to rules or you don't make it very far.
1. Mob rule is actually not the basis of physical authority. Supreme force is, If one individual was more powerful than the mob it would not matter what the mob wished to impose upon said individual as they would not be able to physically force the issue. See the movie Hancock.
And I was not, at any stage discussing physical authority, but the acceptance of a viewpoint becoming the agreed reality. Separate figurative conversation and metaphor from the literal.
Then what authority were you discussing? An agreed upon viewpoint leading to an agreed upon reality are not necessarily in tune with reality. Also you should note that you were indeed discussing physical authority in the paragraph that I was referencing. As you stated that if one bucks against the mob's rule too far the mob then places you in prison or in an asylum. That would indicate that you are saying that they have the force to do that, as they can't well imprison you if you do not agree to it and they cannot physically make you. Heinlein once wrote that all real authority is based in force, and that is pretty much the truth, and it still applies to moral authority.
2. I don't necessarily understand why you are arguing the way that you are MGS, as pretty much everything you've said when related back to the thread is that the Spanish are right in doing what they wish to their bulls because within Spain that is the "mob rule" and it will not change until the mob does or an outside population forces the issue through violence. So in relation to the thread at hand it would seem that you're committing argumentative suicide.
Allow me to enlighten you, Manchu had stated that gifting 'rights' to animals was daft, I then countered that human rights were as much a construct and if you can give rights to humans, there is nothing stopping a society awarding rights to animals, so in a legal and ascribed sense, Manchu claimed human rights were an absolute, a 'given' that existed beyond the physical or the constructed and were therefore intrinsic whereas any right given to an animal would be a nonsense. We carried on from there and taking my discussion on that and then reapplying it to the original post is misleading and false.
But I've got a nice cup of tea here and I've finished my chores for the day, so I'll indulge you with a counter.
If (and I'm not sure it's the case at all) the majority in Spain thought there was nothing wrong with bullfighting, then, for the Spanish cultural mindset, there would be nothing wrong with bullfighting. However, then being viewed by the larger majority of the European Union, it was viewed poorly, it would be wrong, in the European mindset. If it's considered cruel by a majority of the Western World, then it becomes something wrong in the mindset of the Western World.
We then come to the degrees of wrongness, on a scale, measured against acceptability, this can be argued to further exist on a 'for vs against' scale and the larger the numbers for or against vs the smaller the numbers for or against will continue to tip those scales towards or away from a practice or act being acceptable, as something continues down this scale of unacceptability, it passes beyond what might be considered eccentric or unusual until it reaches unacceptable, once a culture believes something is unacceptable to it's masses, things become the criminal or the insane.
Let's consider one of the most widely reviled abuses of human rights, the abuse of a child. In the medieval society, the vast population were for (or mostly indifferent) to a 13 year old marrying. As time went by, health and longevity improved and notions of childhood were constructed, it became less and less acceptable and age restrictions were imposed and moved. Now, in most of Europe (not Spain btw, it's still 13 there...) the age of consent to intercourse is much older. You engage in sexual acts with a 13 year old in the UK and you're likely to end up in a very very large amount of trouble and labelled more severely than a murderer. This can relate back to Manchu's 'absolute' human rights, many if asked, would cite 'child abuse' as an attack on a human right, but is a man of 20 sleeping with a child of 13, who consents to the act, a human rights abuse? Absolutely yes here and now, in the US or UK, in medieval Europe, nope, that's just sex, in parts of Asia or Africa, nope, that's just sex. In many of these societies, a long childhood is not indulged and work and 'real life' kicks in a lot earlier, also the life expectancy is much shorter, again, reducing the indulgence of a long period of considered childhood vs acceptable entry to the adult world.
Welcome to sliding scales of grey and a world with no absolutes.
I would assume that the majority of the people on earth do not give two feths about bullfighting in Spain, seeing as a vehement opposition to animal bloodsport is something that appears to be unique to the modern western world. That said, why are you even discussing the goings on of the Spanish government and people when you recognize that they're okay with it, in addition to recognizing the very likely fact that you are part of the minority when it comes to opposition to animal abuse when the human population is taken as a whole. Should you not then limit your conversations and opinions to things that are only applicable to your sphere of influence? Namely the British Isles and (I think) America.
)
