Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
ITT angry Disney fans.

You really are poor mod material.

Mods make mistakes too.

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

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?

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
You really are poor mod material.

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.

Also, what Albatross said.

Run away with me, Kovnik. Let's leave tonight.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 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?

 Albatross wrote:
Run away with me, Kovnik. Let's leave tonight.

No. Love is the death of duty.

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.

Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Run away with me, Kovnik. Let's leave tonight.

No. Love is the death of duty.

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.)

Actually humans are part of the animal Kingdom.

 Ratbarf wrote:

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.

Say what now?

WOOOSH!

Hey... HEY!

I'm an Animal!!! or more appropriately a MANIMAL!



Seriously... why is everyone getting worked up over this?

 whembly wrote:
Hey... HEY!

I'm an Animal!!! or more appropriately a MANIMAL!



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.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey... HEY!

I'm an Animal!!! or more appropriately a MANIMAL!



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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey... HEY!

I'm an Animal!!! or more appropriately a MANIMAL!



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?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Hey... HEY!

I'm an Animal!!! or more appropriately a MANIMAL!



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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

Sir Pseudonymous wrote:

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).

 Ratbarf wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:

 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.

Violence is always the answer.

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).

Exalted

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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?

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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.

 Manchu wrote:

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?

It could only lead to another Holocaust.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

Also: you spelled Heretics wrong.

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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:


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.