# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Do Animals Have Natural Rights?

## Rael

Do animals have natural rights like humans? And if not, why?

----------


## krazy kaju

No, because natural rights come from free will. Animals, as far as we know, are deterministic organisms, unlike humans.

Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.

From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.

So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."

----------


## Xenophage

> No, because natural rights come from free will. Animals, as far as we know, are deterministic organisms, unlike humans.


I disagree with both points, but I still don't believe in animal rights.  *GASP*

----------


## krazy kaju

Free will is really the basis for natural rights, or perhaps "logical justice," if you will. Only beings that have free will can be said to own themselves, and only beings that own themselves can have any rights.

----------


## coyote_sprit

I'll start by giving animals the right to petition, if they get enough signatures they can have more rights.

----------


## Xenophage

I believe in human rights as social contracts.  They are necessary because a rational individual, in order to live a happy and fulfilled life, requires freedom just as much as he requires a society.  To reconcile the two, we create the concept of a 'right.'  

A right defines the extent of your freedom of action within a societal context.

Rights are necessary because we are, 1 - Volatile beings with the capacity to make choices and 2 - Individuals who's ultimate purpose (whether we admit it or not) is to be happy.

I don't believe rights grow out of our asses, or manifest themselves as an invisible limb, or get coded into our DNA.  They are a logical, necessary precursor to civilization - as opposed to the tribe.

----------


## krazy kaju

If animals have natural rights, then they have the right to property, the right to seek justice against humans that eat them, the right to seek justice against other animals that eat them, etc. We would need to set up a court system to prosecute lions for eating gazelles.

----------


## thasre

I put yes... but I think the "rights" animals have differ substantially from human rights. For example, humans have the rights to life, liberty, and property, but I think animals may be killed, they don't have the mental faculties for exercising liberty, and by extension can't have property. But I do think they have the right not to be mistreated by humans who take them as chattel. I'm willing to debate on the definition of "mistreatment".

----------


## Xenophage

> Free will is really the basis for natural rights, or perhaps "logical justice," if you will. Only beings that have free will can be said to own themselves, and only beings that own themselves can have any rights.


Yeah, I rescind my former comment to you.  I don't disagree with that :P

----------


## Rael

> I'll start by giving animals the right to petition, if they get enough signatures they can have more rights.


So does this mean a retarded person who can't read or write has no rights either?

----------


## Crash Martinez

> I put yes... but I think the "rights" animals have differ substantially from human rights. For example, humans have the rights to life, liberty, and property, but I think animals may be killed, they don't have the mental faculties for exercising liberty, and by extension can't have property. But I do think they have the right not to be mistreated by humans who take them as chattel. I'm willing to debate on the definition of "mistreatment".


Yeah, my opinion is similar... I couldn't find an appropriate answer in the poll options, but would lean toward "yes."

----------


## Truth Warrior

*http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20rights*

----------


## thasre

If we're going the social contract route, saying that animals don't have rights because they can't have social contracts, then I think we're missing the generalization that we are discussing a social relationship between humans and animals. If humans are to take animals away from their natural habitat and breed and raise them for consumption (of either their meat or resources they provide such as wool or labor), then we have a social obligation to them not to abuse them. I feel like it's anti-egalitarian to expect that you can take something in return for nothing. We take their productiveness, we owe them a suitable lifestyle.

----------


## thasre

> *http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural%20rights*


You do realize there can be more than one definition of something, right? I think part of the confusion of whether or not animals have "natural rights" arises out of the fact that people have different mental ideas of what "natural rights" entail.

----------


## krazy kaju

The problem with most ethical systems is that they rely on subjective value judgments. For example, you assume that psychological pleasure is good, which is why we need rights to ensure freedom. This assumption, however, has no justification. It is unprovable.

Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.

From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.

So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."

----------


## Xenophage

> If we're going the social contract route, saying that animals don't have rights because they can't have social contracts, then I think we're missing the generalization that we are discussing a social relationship between humans and animals. If humans are to take animals away from their natural habitat and breed and raise them for consumption (of either their meat or resources they provide such as wool or labor), then we have a social obligation to them not to abuse them. I feel like it's anti-egalitarian to expect that you can take something in return for nothing. We take their productiveness, we owe them a suitable lifestyle.


What is a society?

----------


## Crash Martinez

Also if you killed my cat, I really might kill you in return.  Justice?  Probably not.  I'm just saying, I could totally see me doing it.

----------


## krazy kaju

> I put yes... but I think the "rights" animals have differ substantially from human rights. For example, humans have the rights to life, liberty, and property, but I think animals may be killed, they don't have the mental faculties for exercising liberty, and by extension can't have property. But I do think they have the right not to be mistreated by humans who take them as chattel. I'm willing to debate on the definition of "mistreatment".


Where does this right to not be mistreated come from?

----------


## Scofield

> If animals have natural rights, then they have the right to property, the right to seek justice against humans that eat them, the right to seek justice against other animals that eat them, etc. We would need to set up a court system to prosecute lions for eating gazelles.


Animals absolutely do have rights, however, they do not have a GOVERNMENT to secure and defend those rights.  The only way for animals to defend their rights, is by means of doing it themselves (ie: when you steal from them, they rip your face off).

We have the same rights as other animals, it's only the fact that we have established a government that enables our rights to be protected.

----------


## krazy kaju

^ Well where do those rights come from? What is there basis?

----------


## thasre

> What is a society?


What I'm saying is that we, as social beings, are laying claim to something, and if we expect others to respect our claim to it then we have certain obligations amongst ourselves to agree upon acceptable terms for delineating that respect. I would argue that animals have a degree of autonomy that other forms of property obviously don't. They have the freedom to move about, they have the mental faculties to seek food for themselves, etc., and for us to take away or restrict those behaviors, and to prevent other people from telling us we don't have the right to prevent those behaviors, then we have a social responsibility to compensate the animals for their value to us by treating them properly. 

I'm not even necessarily arguing that there should be laws to enforce this sort of thing. I kind of see it the way I view intellectual property. I can write a book, and the book exists in its own right, free to move about and be exchanged in human society, but I still should have some expection of some kind of attribution or compensation for the book's dissemination. Animals seem to deserve a similar expectation of respect. [EDIT: I'm also against intellectual property laws, so part of the reason I make the comparison is that I feel intellectual property and animal rights don't necessarily entail government protection, but that humans have a moral or social obligation to respect them if they expect to remain in good standing in their communities.]

----------


## brandon

Whence do these "rights" derive?

----------


## pcosmar

*Do Plants have Rights?*
That is the real question.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Whence do these "rights" derive?


I already explained:




> Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.
> 
> From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.
> 
> So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."

----------


## thasre

> The problem with most ethical systems is that they rely on subjective value judgments. For example, you assume that psychological pleasure is good, which is why we need rights to ensure freedom. This assumption, however, has no justification. It is unprovable.
> 
> Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will*. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful*. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind*. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership*.
> 
> From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.
> 
> So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."


You claim to have a "value-free" system, but I've asterisked sentences that have value judgments. Believe it or not, the ideas of "mind" and "free will" are contested by some psychologists, who argue that what we perceive as "mind" is really just the very complex series of processes the brain generates in order to keep and organism functioning, and that the idea of "will" is just an illusion generated by the fact that we have self-perception. I don't believe those claims, but I'm just illustrating the fact that even making statements about "mind" and "will" have value judgments attached to them. And definitely the claim that life without free will is meaningless and purposeless is a value judgment. How do you define meaningfulness? Or purposefulness? Any definition of those must have value judgments.

Also, illustrating that free will and the mind prove self-ownership doesn't prove a lack of self-ownership among creatures assumed to be lacking free will or a mind. It would be like arguing that proving that roses grow in sunlight proves that they don't grow in the dark. You can't say "Self-ownership grows under these conditions, therefore it doesn't grow under those conditions."

----------


## Xenophage

> What I'm saying is that we, as social beings, are laying claim to something, and if we expect others to respect our claim to it then we have certain obligations amongst ourselves to agree upon acceptable terms for delineating that respect. I would argue that animals have a degree of autonomy that other forms of property obviously don't. They have the freedom to move about, they have the mental faculties to seek food for themselves, etc., and for us to take away or restrict those behaviors, and to prevent other people from telling us we don't have the right to prevent those behaviors, then we have a social responsibility to compensate the animals for their value to us by treating them properly. 
> 
> I'm not even necessarily arguing that there should be laws to enforce this sort of thing. I kind of see it the way I view intellectual property. I can write a book, and the book exists in its own right, free to move about and be exchanged in human society, but I still should have some expection of some kind of attribution or compensation for the book's dissemination. Animals seem to deserve a similar expectation of respect. [EDIT: I'm also against intellectual property laws, so part of the reason I make the comparison is that I feel intellectual property and animal rights don't necessarily entail government protection, but that humans have a moral or social obligation to respect them if they expect to remain in good standing in their communities.]


Your arguments are well reasoned.  I'm half-inclined to agree with you.

But I'm not sure I do.

A social contract requires an agreement on behalf of both parties.  Animals are incapable of grasping the social contract, or communicating it.  An animal cannot conceptualize what a "right" is.

Nevertheless, there are social animals that cohabitate with humans.  There are animals that respect and love humans as well as each other.  There are animals that demonstrate the use of rudimentary logic, and the exercise of conscious choice.

----------


## JK/SEA

what does 'natural rights' mean?

its subjective. Do un-armed humans have natural rights in the jungles or the savannas of Africa?  do silver back gorillas have natural rights? or how about whales, do they have natural rights? who decides who gets natural rights?

Does this natural right come from a piece of paper? or is it just a matter of respect for a species? who decides what a sentient being is? and how is it determined, and by what rule?

The bald eagle is protected species by several determinations, one being spirtual, and the other beacause its the National symbol. Why can't we just kill them and eat them? 

I lean more to just respecting a species based on the fact we do not really know the level of intellect, or spritual level that all species have. They all contribute something to the planet, and to the unknown.

----------


## Scofield

> ^ Well where do those rights come from? What is there basis?


The concept of "rights" is merely an abstract idea created by human beings.  In order to make our lives better, we created a notion of "rights."  We believe we have rights from God or Nature, but in all honesty, you only have rights because you believe you do.  Like I said earlier, the only rights you have are those which you defend. 

If you want a right to have butt-sex with monkeys, you have that right...as long as you defend it (by shooting those who try to stop you).  Animals have a right to rip your face off, provided they kill everyone or everything who tries to stop them.

Government, another human creation, was put in place to protect the rights we created, without having to shoot people or having to resort to ripping off faces.  

So, in short....rights come from reason.  Humans have the ability to reason, thus they created government to protect their rights.  Animals don't have the ability to reason, but they still have rights, they just defend them individually (unsuccessfully a lot of the  time, as evident from the amount of extinct animals) without a government.  I have a right to live, so does the average cow.  I merely have a government to stop farmers from butchering me, the cow has to rely on it's own means to secure that right of life.

----------


## thasre

> Your arguments are well reasoned.  I'm half-inclined to agree with you.
> 
> But I'm not sure I do.


I can live with a half-inclination towards agreement. 

In the end, I don't really feel compelled to make people agree with me in regards to this particular question, because I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and I think it's kind of ridiculous the way libertarians will tear each other apart over arguments about things like "animals' natural rights" when we agree on 98% of everything else.

But I still like to argue my perspective...

----------


## krazy kaju

> You claim to have a "value-free" system, but I've asterisked sentences that have value judgments.


Value judgments are judgments that incorporate value: i.e. "this is good" or "that is bad." I did that nowhere in the paragraph. 




> Believe it or not, the ideas of "mind" and "free will" are contested by some psychologists, who argue that what we perceive as "mind" is really just the very complex series of processes the brain generates in order to keep and organism functioning, and that the idea of "will" is just an illusion generated by the fact that we have self-perception.


Yes, the mind is simply a direct extension of the physical brain. Where do I argue otherwise? It possible, however, to have a brain and not a mind: animals, for example, lack free will and therefore must lack a mind. Metaphysically speaking, I'm defining the mind as the entity that provides you with thoughts and other inputs.

In order to deny free will, these psychologists must necessarily use free will to do so, thus showing that their claims are wrong. Hence, free will exists.

[quote]I don't believe those claims, but I'm just illustrating the fact that even making statements about "mind" and "will" have value judgments attached to them.[quote]

Which I never made any such value judgments...




> And definitely the claim that life without free will is meaningless and purposeless is a value judgment. How do you define meaningfulness? Or purposefulness? Any definition of those must have value judgments.


No, they're definitions. A purposeful or meaningful action is, by definition, an action where you consciously seek certain ends by using certain means. Animals, as far as we can tell, lack such ability.




> Also, illustrating that free will and the mind prove self-ownership doesn't prove a lack of self-ownership among creatures assumed to be lacking free will or a mind. It would be like arguing that proving that roses grow in sunlight proves that they don't grow in the dark. You can't say "Self-ownership grows under these conditions, therefore it doesn't grow under those conditions."


Now, a nice false analogy to top your argument off. In order to have self-ownership, you must be able to partake in conscious decisions. In other words, you must be able to have free will. If you do not have free will you cannot own yourself, by definition. If someone else controls your thoughts, how can it be said that you control, and therefore own, yourself? Likewise, if you do not have any thoughts, how can it be said that you own yourself? You clearly do not.

Hence, we arrive at the value free ethical system I described earlier. Clearly, some beings have self-ownership and free will. Any encroachment on free will or self ownership by another being is clearly self-repudiation of these assets, therefore allowing others to bring justice to the action-originator for violating free will/self-ownership. It is value free because it doesn't engage in calling something "good" or "bad."

----------


## Xenophage

> The problem with most ethical systems is that they rely on subjective value judgments. For example, you assume that psychological pleasure is good, which is why we need rights to ensure freedom. This assumption, however, has no justification. It is unprovable.
> 
> Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.
> 
> From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.
> 
> So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."


Your entire argument is founded upon illogic.

All ethical systems require value-judgements.  The concept of a right, as a moral concept, requires value-judgements.  Choices require value-judgements, or they're simply arbitrary.  Free-will requires value-judgements.

Your own concept of a right incorporates value-judgements, and you have in multiple cases made value-judgements.

Human beings are value-seeking creatures.  Any definition of what it means to be human has to include this.

By saying that the self-owned human who engages in an act of unprovoked violence against another self-owned human is "denying their own self-ownership" you are implying something that defeats your entire argument:  That someone can choose not to own themselves, or to defeat the recognition of their self-ownership from a societal standpoint.  For this to be a negative would mean the self-owner values his self-owned status.

Therefore "self-ownership" is not axiomatic.  Free-will is obvious, but this does not automatically lead to the concept of self-ownership.  Its a choice.  To choose not to own yourself is, of course, self-destructive and illogical - but human beings have the unique capacity to engage in self-destructive behavior by choice.

A human can choose to become a slave to another human.  A human can also choose to commit suicide.  Therefore self-ownership is a choice, not an axiomatic fact.  At any point a human can choose to own himself, or he can choose to let someone else own him, or he can choose to let society own him.  The self-actualized human that thinks for himself and refuses to let anyone own him does so because he has made a value-judgement: he has judged his own life as valuable.  It is entirely possible to judge one's own life as worthless - we see it every day - and to abdicate any responsibility of ownership over your body and mind.

Of course, self-ownership is special.  At any point in time you can reclaim it, because you ARE yourself.  You can't stop being yourself.  But to actually OWN yourself requires cognition.

Example: a rock is itself, but it does not own itself.  Ownership implies and requires choice.

To make any choice requires values.  Value-judgements are therefore necessary to any self-owned human, and necessary to the concept of a right.  The self-owned person values his life, and chooses to own it.

----------


## Xenophage

I edited that last post a lot.  :P

----------


## Kludge

It is disputed whether or not some species of animals are self-aware. Those that are, should definitely be protected by law. While I personally oppose the killing of other animals (less self-defense and food), I think it would be too costly to protect "intelligent" animals who do not contribute to society (huh... that sounds pretty bad out loud).

----------


## SWATH

Sure I think they have natural rights as in the right to life and all that.  I would not fault an animal who killed a human in self-defense or for food to survive, just as I would not fault a human for the same.  I hunt for food but I do so fully aware that I am violating their right to life so that I may enable my right to life.  To me, my right to life trumps theirs, I'm sure they have the same notion too but in reverse.  This is the law of nature.  Is it fair?  No.  However I have an obligation to this organism I inhabit to survive.  When we live in a perfect world then I will regard the rights of different species the same as mine. 

Having said that, I personally detest any forms of cruelty to animals.  I saw a poor cat get rocked by a car yesterday and was upset about it for a while, even now.  A few years ago I saw a dog get nailed by a car in front of me and as I drove passed it on the street I could hear it whimpering.  It upset me so much that it was still alive and suffering, I turned the car around a few miles later to come back to shoot the dog and put it out of it's misery, I didn't care if it was in the middle of the city or who saw me do it.  To my great relief the owner had found the dog and took it to the vet before I got there.  It ended up making a full recovery.  Being in those situations makes me very angry that I can't do anything to help the animal or at least ease it's pain short of killing it.  It makes me wish I could have morphine in my med kit, but thanks to the stupid government we are all forced to endure the pain of trauma without the permission of bureaucrats.

This greatly upsets me, and I've killed at least a few thousand animals (a few from hunting, but most from performing experimental surgeries in a research lab at UK).  I went above and beyond the DLAR requirements to prevent the animals from experiencing any pain.

----------


## Rael

If being able to enter social contracts gives rights, does this mean minors don't have rights since they cannot enter into contracts? What about retarded people who don't have the capacity to enter into contracts? It has been said that a dog has the intelligence of a 3-4 year old, but no one would deny that a 3-4 human has rights. If my dog can understand that performing a service (fetching the paper) will get him a payment (a treat or praise) does that not constitute a contract? Since my dog guards my house while I am gone, does this not onstitute a service to me that requires compensation(providing food, shelter, medical care)?

----------


## Xenophage

> I can live with a half-inclination towards agreement. 
> 
> In the end, I don't really feel compelled to make people agree with me in regards to this particular question, because I don't feel terribly strongly about it, and I think it's kind of ridiculous the way libertarians will tear each other apart over arguments about things like "animals' natural rights" when we agree on 98% of everything else.
> 
> But I still like to argue my perspective...


Here I agree with you 100%

----------


## sdczen

Both animals and humans have the right to eat each other.

----------


## Xenophage

> If being able to enter social contracts gives rights, does this mean minors don't have rights since they cannot enter into contracts? What about retarded people who don't have the capacity to enter into contracts? It has been said that a dog has the intelligence of a 3-4 year old, but no one would deny that a 3-4 human has rights. If my dog can understand that performing a service (fetching the paper) will get him a payment (a treat or praise) does that not constitute a contract? Since my dog guards my house while I am gone, does this not onstitute a service to me that requires compensation(providing food, shelter, medical care)?


Its necessary for children to be legally protected from abuse and extreme neglect, but to argue that they have "rights" in the way I've defined them is a bit difficult.  I would argue the same for pets.  Adults are rational producers and traders and have a necessity for rights - but children's rights necessarily have to be more restrained.

To say that a child is afforded all the liberty of an adult is absurd.  Parents give everything to a child, and restrict a majority of their action.  As children grow and start engaging the adult world, they ought to be afforded more freedoms.

Children are becoming rational beings, and for this they should be respected.

Dogs, on the other hand, are not rational nor are they becoming rational.  Like children, they should be protected legally from extreme abuse, but its ridiculous to consider that you have a "social contract" with a dog.  What you might have is a mutually loving, affectionate relationship.

----------


## Bman

I voted for animals.  Since we have the ability to choose and animals do not, they are the truly innocent of the world.

----------


## Angio333

Humans have rights, animals don't.

----------


## Theocrat

I guess if you believe in macroevolution, then you would have to believe that animals have rights, since all humans are just evolved animals. But then that would mean you violate an animal's right to life whenever you hunt, kill, and eat it for food.

----------


## agitator

> I'll start by giving animals the right to petition, if they get enough signatures they can have more rights.


How can you give them that right when we don't even possess it.  (I know, it is written down on a old parchment, but try to get the government to respond).

----------


## idiom

> For what befalleth the children of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other, and they have all one breath;* and man hath no pre-eminence above the beast: for all is vanity*.


Nobody has any rights. Not God-given anyways. If somebody tries to rape you God isn't going to intervene (well not everytime).

----------


## ChaosControl

I think all entities with the ability to feel pain or the ability to think have rights. The question would be how far the rights of the lesser intelligent species extend.

----------


## Theocrat

> Nobody has any rights. Not God-given anyways. If somebody tries to rape you God isn't going to intervene (well not everytime).


You really know how to take a passage out of context, don't you? Congratulations for not understanding the motif of that book, the audience it's written to, the context of what the author is writing about, and the application it has in our lives today under God's sovereign rule. That passage has nothing to do with establishing human rights, and your using it as such just shows how little you know of God's inspired and inerrant Word of God.

Why don't you give your heart to Jesus before you try to misquote His words?

----------


## Rael

> Its necessary for children to be legally protected from abuse and extreme neglect, but to argue that they have "rights" in the way I've defined them is a bit difficult.  I would argue the same for pets.  Adults are rational producers and traders and have a necessity for rights - but children's rights necessarily have to be more restrained.
> 
> To say that a child is afforded all the liberty of an adult is absurd.  Parents give everything to a child, and restrict a majority of their action.  As children grow and start engaging the adult world, they ought to be afforded more freedoms.
> 
> Children are becoming rational beings, and for this they should be respected.
> 
> Dogs, on the other hand, are not rational nor are they becoming rational.  Like children, they should be protected legally from extreme abuse, but its ridiculous to consider that you have a "social contract" with a dog.  What you might have is a mutually loving, affectionate relationship.


I would argue that it is quite reasonable, even obvious to say that my dog and I have a social contract. I expect and receive things from him, such as love and affection, as well as protecting me and my house. He expects from me love and affection, and food. The fact that he brings his bowl to me when its empty indicates that he does have that expectation.

----------


## krazy kaju

> Your entire argument is founded upon illogic.


So humans do not act?




> All ethical systems require value-judgements.


Do they? What is your proof?




> The concept of a right, as a moral concept, requires value-judgements.


Didn't Habermas establish freedom of speech rights using discourse ethics? Didn't Hoppe expand on this with argumentation ethics, establishing a full set of rights without value judgments?




> Choices require value-judgements, or they're simply arbitrary.  Free-will requires value-judgements.


So? How does this prove that ethical systems require value judgments?




> Your own concept of a right incorporates value-judgements, and you have in multiple cases made value-judgements.


Nope, my own concept of a right does not incorporate value judgments. I use the standard definition for right, I do not incorporate judgments of "good" and "bad" or "beautiful" and "ugly" or any other measure of value into the ethical system.




> Human beings are value-seeking creatures.


So? How does this effect an ethical system? Are there objective values?




> Any definition of what it means to be human has to include this.


Where did I attempt to define what it means to be human?




> By saying that the self-owned human who engages in an act of unprovoked violence against another self-owned human is "denying their own self-ownership" you are implying something that defeats your entire argument:  That someone can choose not to own themselves, or to defeat the recognition of their self-ownership from a societal standpoint.  For this to be a negative would mean the self-owner values his self-owned status.


The logical extension of your argument is that one cannot lease out one's property, cannot sell one's fruit of labor, and cannot work for a wage, because in all of these cases, the action-originator is selling or renting out a part of his self ownership. This, however, is a false argument. It is clear that if you own yourself, you are able to decide what to do with yourself. This includes contracting out your self ownership and the immediate consequences of your self ownership, whether explicitly (in the form of contracts) or implicitly (via estoppel).




> Therefore "self-ownership" is not axiomatic.


Which I did not state. Self ownership is a corollary of free will which is a corollary of human action.




> Free-will is obvious, but this does not automatically lead to the concept of self-ownership.  Its a choice.


Having a fee will necessarily leads us to the concept of self ownership. You cannot have a free will unless you have your own thoughts that are completely separate from outside influences. That implies self ownership.




> To choose not to own yourself is, of course, self-destructive and illogical - but human beings have the unique capacity to engage in self-destructive behavior by choice.


So here you admit that one can deny one's own self ownership? This contradicts your statement that one cannot deny one's own self ownership.




> A human can choose to become a slave to another human.  A human can also choose to commit suicide.


Exactly. One can deny one's own self-ownership. This is why when one aggresses against someone who also has self-ownership, one implicitly denies one's own self ownership.




> Therefore self-ownership is a choice


Which is what I've argued.




> not an axiomatic fact.


Which I've never said it is.




> At any point a human can choose to own himself, or he can choose to let someone else own him, or he can choose to let society own him.


Exactly. This is why my value-free principles for justice and ethics is valid and sound.




> The self-actualized human that thinks for himself and refuses to let anyone own him does so because he has made a value-judgement: he has judged his own life as valuable.


How does an individual's subjective value judgments disprove a value-free ethical system?




> It is entirely possible to judge one's own life as worthless - we see it every day - and to abdicate any responsibility of ownership over your body and mind.


Yup. You're agreeing 100% with the ethical system I outlined earlier.




> Of course, self-ownership is special.  At any point in time you can reclaim it, because you ARE yourself.  You can't stop being yourself.  But to actually OWN yourself requires cognition.
> 
> Example: a rock is itself, but it does not own itself.  Ownership implies and requires choice.


So here you yourself admit that self ownership comes from free will, something you denied a mere few sentences ago.




> To make any choice requires values.


Yup. I never denied that.




> Value-judgements are therefore necessary to any self-owned human


Yup. I never denied that.




> and necessary to the concept of a right.


How so? This is a non sequitur:

Humans have value judgments.
Therefore, ethical systems need to include value judgments
Your argument simply does not follow.




> The self-owned person values his life, and chooses to own it.


Yup. Never denied that either. How does that effect an ethical system?

----------


## krazy kaju

I must quote myself, because apparently nobody is reading it. Rights are a logical extension of human action:




> No, because natural rights come from free will. Animals, as far as we know, are deterministic organisms, unlike humans.
> 
> Free will grants us an axiomatic, praxeological basis. We know that humans act. To deny this, you would have to act, proving yourself wrong. As a corollary to human action, we know that humans have free will. Without free will, human action would not be purposeful or meaningful. In order to deny this, you would have to use your free will to deny the existence of free will, therefore proving yourself wrong. From free will, we know that there must be an originator of free will - what we shall call the mind. The mind is the originator of all thoughts of a given being, making it the legitimate owner of it. So because of the existence of the mind, we know that every being with free will is a self-owner. From this, we can deduce that all property homesteaded by such beings is owned by the homesteader, since this property ownership is a natural extension of self-ownership.
> 
> From all of the above, we can deduce that anyone who coerces or uses violence on another being capable of free will essentially enters a logical contradiction: by denying the free will/self-ownership of a being capable of free will/self-ownership, the action-originator denies his own free will/self-ownership. The action-originator implicitly allows any other being capable of free will/self-ownership to exact justice for the victim against the action-originator by using force.
> 
> So there we have it. A value-free system of justice that establishes certain "rights."

----------


## Nanerbeet

I didn't bother to read the thread because it is as simple as this-- take humans off of the planet and out of the equation and rights disappear.  This is a human concept, nothing more.  The real question is why we even bother to treat animals like they have any rights at all?

----------


## Bman

> Humans have rights, animals don't.


That's kind of funny.  Because in my house my dogs would have rights and you would not.

----------


## Bman

> I guess if you believe in macroevolution, then you would have to believe that animals have rights, since all humans are just evolved animals. But then that would mean you violate an animal's right to life whenever you hunt, kill, and eat it for food.


What part of thou shall not kill don't you understand?

----------


## krazy kaju

> I didn't bother to read the thread because it is as simple as this-- take humans off of the planet and out of the equation and rights disappear.  This is a human concept, nothing more.  Anybody who ponders this is wasting time.


Aren't rights inherent in free will?




> The real question is why we even bother to treat animals like they have any rights at all?


Because people value emotions over reason. Kind of like this one:




> That's kind of funny.  Because in my house my dogs would have rights and you would not.

----------


## Bman

> Because people value emotions over reason. Kind of like this one:


So what reason can you give me that your life should be considered more important than that of my dogs?  The fact that you can articulate a thought better than it can?  So is a person with a lower IQ entitled to less of a right thatn a person with a higher IQ?

Personally, I know who I am and what I think.  It is the only reason that any of us knows.  The question after that is if you can live with yourself.  Personally, I lose no sleep over my postitions.

----------


## strapko

If humans have natural rights... why are we in this mess? The answer is we do not have any rights we cannot defend.

----------


## Nanerbeet

> Aren't rights inherent in free will?



$#@! no.   And what makes you so sure we have any free will at all?  Day in and day out all I see is people doing the $#@! over and over again complaining about one thing or another.  If people have free will they certainly don't use it.


And no-- making a choice such as froot loops for breakfast or captain crunch doesn't prove it.  Most people were conditioned to make predictable choices by their parents or their churchs or whatever social group they belong to.


My personal feeling on the subject of free will is that its a coping mechanism we invented to deal with mental slavery.  Since your basis for the argument of rights is arbitrarily derived from having free will I don't see how we can reconcile our differences.

----------


## krazy kaju

> So what reason can you give me that your life should be considered more important than that of my dogs?  The fact that you can articulate a thought better than it can?  So is a person with a lower IQ entitled to less of a right thatn a person with a higher IQ?


Straw man: I never said that intelligence or articulation are factors. Read the second post in this thread.




> Personally, I know who I am and what I think.  It is the only reason that any of us knows.  The question after that is if you can live with yourself.  Personally, I lose no sleep over my postitions.


What? This doesn't even make any sense.

----------


## krazy kaju

> $#@! no.


So free will doesn't necessitate a thought originator (i.e. the mind or soul)? And a thought originator doesn't necessitate self-ownership (if your thoughts are yours, you own them by definition)? And violation of others' self ownership doesn't estopp you to give up your own self-ownership?




> And what makes you so sure we have any free will at all?


Ahh, the irony of someone using their free will to argue that they do not have free will.




> Day in and day out all I see is people doing the $#@! over and over again complaining about one thing or another.  If people have free will they certainly don't use it.


People don't make conscious decisions over what they do?




> And no-- making a choice such as froot loops for breakfast or captain crunch doesn't prove it.  Most people were conditioned to make predictable choices by their parents or their churchs or whatever social group they belong to.


So going to church and having particular parents dictates what you will do with the rest of your life with 100% certainty?




> My personal feeling on the subject of free will is that its a coping mechanism we invented to deal with mental slavery.  Since your basis for the argument of rights is arbitrarily derived from having free will I don't see how we can reconcile our differences.


So everything in your life necessarily dictates everything you will do in the future using with a 100% certainty?

That argument collapses on its own weight. Past actions cannot determine for sure what you will do in the future, it can only indicate a certain path.

----------


## Bman

> Straw man: I never said that intelligence or articulation are factors. Read the second post in this thread.



Well if you are to have reason you must have some sort of reasoning. I'm all ears.





> What? This doesn't even make any sense.


Sure it does.  We all have our own reasoning.  It is why we all make different choices.  Now you said I use emotion over reasoning.  Which while it has some truth, it does not mean I am unreasonable.  It means that in my reasoning I would care more about something I have an emotional attachment to rather than someting I do not have an emotional attachment too.

And remeber I'm talking about life vs life.  I certainly would not let someone be consumed by fire to save my television or such.

Life means something different for us all.  And reasonably the most importants life to us are the ones that have the most direct impact on our choices.

Sorry, that you are offended that I would choose an animal over you.  But hey I'm sure you'd choose something I wouldn't agree with either at somepoint.

And I certainly could not say you made your choice based upon lack of reason.  Emotion is a reason, and I obviously have reasoning for liking my dog better than a stranger.

----------


## Mini-Me

> If humans have natural rights... why are we in this mess? The answer is we do not have any rights we cannot defend.


You're confusing the definition of natural rights with the definition of legal rights here.  Legal rights are rights (or even non-rights) recognized and protected by the justice system.  Natural rights simply define the equal respect we *deserve* from each other and which others *owe* us by virtue of our _________ (insert whatever qualities you want here, such as "free will," "human dignity," or "self-ownership").




> I think all entities with the ability to feel pain or the ability to think have rights. The question would be how far the rights of the lesser intelligent species extend.


This is my view as well, which is kind of funny, considering neither of us have articulated our opinions on what kind of rights animals have.   It's easy for us to define the rights of humans with respect to other humans, because we're the highest-order, most intelligent species we know of.  We know that humans think, act, and have hopes and dreams for the future.  *In my opinion, our human rights of life, liberty, and property - with respect to each other - derive from our equal self-ownership.  My life is my own, just as yours is your own, and neither of us are "better" than the other in the sense that we deserve to take full or partial ownership of any other person.*

As humans, we generally desire respect from each other, and we're intelligent enough to know and understand this and come up with reasons why.  The idea of natural rights and self-ownership becomes a lot hazier when we start talking about animals, though.  In many ways, animals are sentient enough to possess some of the same traits that give our own lives and self-ownership meaning...but in many other ways, they are not.  Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and we don't even know if they have hopes and dreams for the future...but we do know they feel love, affection, fear, and pain, they have complex social interactions, and they're actually smart enough that they can construct and use *tools*.  Bonobos are farther from us genetically, but in many ways they might be smarter than us, since they've already figured out that settling tribal disputes with sex contests is quite preferable to settling them with brutal violence.   Dogs are still similar to us in many ways, but they're farther from us than apes and still less sentient, and in general, every step farther from humans is another step backward in sentience.  Bacteria, for instance, are hardly worthy of consideration except when they threaten us (they're not animals anyway, but still). 

So...do animals have natural rights with respect to each other?  *With respect to other animals of the same species*, I believe that animals probably have the same kind of rights that we do, stemming from self-ownership with respect to other members of their species.  I mean, even if you're Chimpanzee Ed and your neighbor is Chimpanzee Bob, you don't want him taking it upon himself to kill you.  After all, Bob can do with his life as he pleases, but your life is your own...and you'll fight to protect it, too.  Interestingly, tribal animals do form societies where they they have some primitive and instinctual notion of rights, and as I mentioned, bonobos might just be more sophisticated than we are with respect to their governance. 

The interesting question as it pertains to us is, do animals have natural rights with respect to us?  *That* is a hard question.  "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."  We may not be equal in individual talents or qualities, but we are equal in the sense that we all possess the same general range of sentience.  We love, we laugh, we cry, we bleed, we create things, we think in abstractions, we have hopes and dreams, etc.  Furthermore, in the event that some of us *are* "better" enough than others to justify taking partial ownership over the life of another, there's no way to objectively verify and demonstrate who is superior overall and/or by how much anyway, especially to the standard of proof that stripping someone of their liberty should demand!  Any roughly equal lifeforms would deserve roughly equal consideration to what we should give to each other, and they would be equally self-owning with respect to us...but the less sentient that animals get, the less that rule applies.  There are no other animals - not even chimps - who reach the level of sentience that we are at...but some are close enough that I'd be very hesitant treating them with anything other than respect and care.

*I think our emotions can help to guide us here.  Our emotions help let us know which animals "feel" close enough that they deserve respect, and they help let us get an instinctual feel for what kind of respect each animal may deserve from us.*  Our emotions aren't perfect indicators of course, and some people's emotions give them some really off-the-wall readings that place the value of a mosquito on par with the value of a human.   To give a more intermediate example though:  Cows are nowhere near equal to us in terms of sentience, so it stands to reason we're probably enough "above" them that we can justify taking some degree of ownership over them.  Are we far enough above them that killing and eating them is okay?  I'd say, "Probably," but I could be wrong.  Are we far enough above them that it's okay to torture them for the sick, sadistic fun of it?  I'd say, "Hell no."  I believe there's some universal truth about what kind of respect each species of animal deserves from us (and from our future alien overlords, may they look upon us with mercy ), but there's really no way for any of us to know the right answer for sure.  The best each of us can do is make our case and try to find some kind of reasonable consensus about moral behavior.

*The bottom line of this post, though - the point I really want to make - is this:*
Our sentience, free will, capabilities, hopes, dreams, etc. contribute to our equal human dignity.  Our rights - with respect to what we deserve from each other - derive from that equal human dignity and equal self-ownership with respect to each other.  Simply put, because we are each equally dignified, or at least roughly so, we deserve to be free from the tyranny of another or by many others.  Animals are markedly less dignified and sentient than we are, so it stands to reason that they do not necessarily deserve equal self-ownership with respect to human beings...it follows that we can justify at least some level of ownership over them and/or use them for our purposes.  However, various animals are still dignified enough and close enough to us in terms of behavior and characteristics that we cannot justify entire, 100%, absolute ownership over them (see "sadistic animal torture"  )...and that's why we have these conversations about what kind of treatment of animals is morally acceptable.

----------


## mediahasyou

Life needs to die for humans to live.

----------


## Imperial

i turn to religion on this one, and believe humans should be stewards of creation. If animals had no rights whatsoever, there is nothing wrong with harming any animal that does not belong to a certain being. Or animal cruelty. Thus, there is a certain level that must be determined...

----------


## SWATH

Everything that is alive has a right to its life.  Just be aware of this when you take life, there is no need to rationalize it away to absolve yourselves from the pangs of guilt.

"Vicariously I live while the whole world dies, much better you than I"

----------


## dr. hfn

> If we're going the social contract route, saying that animals don't have rights because they can't have social contracts, then I think we're missing the generalization that we are discussing a social relationship between humans and animals. If humans are to take animals away from their natural habitat and breed and raise them for consumption (of either their meat or resources they provide such as wool or labor), then we have a social obligation to them not to abuse them. I feel like it's anti-egalitarian to expect that you can take something in return for nothing. We take their productiveness, we owe them a suitable lifestyle.


I agree. I don't even think anything has natural rights.  Rights are a human invention and wouldn't exist w/o humans.  Rights also are easily taken and can't exist if they are not defended or defined.

----------


## Nanerbeet

> Ahh, the irony of someone using their free will to argue that they do not have free will.



Hah!  Hardly!  You're making quite the assumption there.  If the existence of thought merely proves free will, then the existance of the Universe and all things proves God created it!!  So what's the question?!?  God gave men their rights!  Not animals!  He gave it to us!  There is your answer!! /sarcasm



So let me put this another way; what I say is what I believe.  Its not what I _decided_ to believe, rather, over time and with age its what my mind was capable of understanding.  In my belief system the brain does not make things up.  It simply grows to understand them and reacts to the information _in a predictable way_.  That is hardly free will if you ask me.

----------


## tremendoustie

I believe animals are basically automatons, so they do not have rights. Frankly, I have no way of really knowing this for sure. If you really want to know why I lean this way, it's based on the Bible -- God says "kill and eat" in the NT, and I have a hard time believing he'd support killing conscious beings this way. Please don't jump on me for this, I'm fully aware that this is certainly no proof, nor a basis for convincing those who don't agree with my premises. 

If I somehow knew for sure that animals were fully aware beings, I would immediately become a vegetarian and try to get as many people as possible to stop killing animals -- through law if necessary. 

To me, conscious awareness=mind=soul, from which natural rights derive.

----------


## Athan

> No, because natural rights come from free will. Animals, as far as we know, are deterministic organisms, unlike humans.


I agree. 

I would like to add for animal lovers though that I do believe animals are still sentient organisms that are vital to our community our environment their general needs, and protection must be attended to and maintained for future generations. Some animals are considered part of families and they should be protected from violent acts accordingly. Any serious abuse of animals by neighbors also sets a bad example for community as well as the pain and suffering inflicted to the animal in their domestic care and those abusing them should be punished by a legal system of responsible individuals in a jury. If you don't want to properly care for an animal, don't live in populated areas with ordinances protecting their well being.

As for our land and environment must also be protected because of property rights and destruction of property value. America's natural beauty is valuable resource that can be destroyed with reckless mismanagement.

----------


## emazur

> I put yes... but I think the "rights" animals have differ substantially from human rights. For example, humans have the rights to life, liberty, and property, but I think animals may be killed, they don't have the mental faculties for exercising liberty, and by extension can't have property. But I do think they have the right not to be mistreated by humans who take them as chattel. I'm willing to debate on the definition of "mistreatment".


Agreed 100% (and I say this as  a vegetarian).

----------


## Mini-Me

> Hah!  Hardly!  You're making quite the assumption there.  If the existence of thought merely proves free will, then the existance of the Universe and all things proves God created it!!  So what's the question?!?  God gave men their rights!  Not animals!  He gave it to us!  There is your answer!! /sarcasm
> 
> 
> 
> So let me put this another way; what I say is what I believe.  Its not what I _decided_ to believe, rather, over time and with age its what my mind was capable of understanding.  In my belief system the brain does not make things up.  It simply grows to understand them and reacts to the information _in a predictable way_.  That is hardly free will if you ask me.


Even if free will is really just an illusion, and all of our decisions are deterministic and inevitable consequences to our exact previous brain state and exact stimuli reaching it...in any case, we *still* have the perceptual illusion of free will, and we're still capable of self-aware observation and experience.  Even if our decisions are entirely predictable to an omniscient observer, they're still not entirely predictable to the conscious mind, let alone any of the rest of us.  When our brains are processing information, it still takes time, even if it's a totally programmed, deterministic process...and our consciousness is present for the ride and at least thinks/feels like it's in charge.  While I approach the subject of rights differently from krazy kaju, I do think our will is "free" enough - *at least from our conscious perspective* - that it shouldn't be a sticking point with his argument, even if you're the Merovingian from The Matrix Reloaded.

----------


## Kludge

> Life needs to die for humans to live.


Luckily for us (and potentially animals), unthinking and unfeeling plants are all around us which are not self-aware, as some studies claim certain species of animals are, at least, capable of.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Luckily for us (and potentially animals), unthinking and unfeeling plants are all around us which are not self-aware, as some studies claim certain species of animals are, at least, capable of.


Unfortunately for us (and potentially animals), humans are naturally omnivorous, and a healthy diet greatly benefits from a balance of nutrients and such not necessarily present in significant amounts in the aforementioned plants.

----------


## Kludge

> Unfortunately for us (and potentially animals), humans are naturally omnivorous, and a healthy diet greatly benefits from a balance of nutrients and such not necessarily present in significant amounts in the aforementioned plants.


Odd how so many vegetarians (and vegans) can exist without their bones crumbling as their frail bodies collapse on the ground.

----------


## Paulfan05

Animals might have rights, but I have the right to call animal abusers a-holes, lol

----------


## Mini-Me

> Odd how so many vegetarians (and vegans) can exist without their bones crumbling as their frail bodies collapse on the ground.


...but then again, not all malnourishment produces symptoms so severe as "sudden croaking" so quickly.

----------


## brandon

> Even if our decisions are entirely predictable to an omniscient observer, they're still not entirely predictable to the conscious mind, let alone any of the rest of us.


Not yet anyway. If the universe is in fact deterministic, it is possible that one day humans could have the computational power and knowledge to build a complete model of the universe, and have machines that accurately predict every aspect of the future.

Of course we have theoretical limitations to this right now such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but maybe we as a species will be able to work past these issues at some point in the future.

----------


## inibo

I don't think animals have rights in the sense that people do, but people who inflict unnecessary suffering, particularly for the fun of it, are flirting with renouncing their humanity.

----------


## Mini-Me

> Not yet anyway. If the universe is in fact deterministic, it is possible that one day humans could have the computational power and knowledge to build a complete model of the universe, and have machines that accurately predict every aspect of the future.
> 
> Of course we have theoretical limitations to this right now such as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, but maybe we as a species will be able to work past these issues at some point in the future.


Well, it depends:  Do we want a real-time simulation that we can compare with reality to verify whether everything is deterministic?  If so, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will definitely make it difficult to measure the complete state of every particle in the universe at the same time (to create a base state consistent with reality, after which we'd determine whether reality and simulation undergo the same events) ...and special/general relativity messing with the definition of "same time" won't exactly help, either.  Plus, we have size constraints to deal with:  It'd be awfully difficult to build a computer capable of storing the complete state of every particle in the universe...especially considering it would have to store the complete state of every particle in the *computer itself*...to an infinite level of recursion, since the people checking and reacting to the simulation must be part of the simulation as well!

----------


## idiom

> You really know how to take a passage out of context, don't you? Congratulations for not understanding the motif of that book, the audience it's written to, the context of what the author is writing about, and the application it has in our lives today under God's sovereign rule. That passage has nothing to do with establishing human rights, and your using it as such just shows how little you know of God's inspired and inerrant Word of God.
> 
> Why don't you give your heart to Jesus before you try to misquote His words?


Lol. the whole book has the same motif. And its living and active and applies to us today. Why don't you stop trying to write off the bits you don't like as being for 'another people of another time'.

Do you want lots of other 'out of context' quote showing how God doesn't answer to your demands for rights?

----------


## jack555

IMO they have natural rights, just not the same ones as us. They have a right to be treated in somewhat humane manners and not say be tortured for fun, killed without a purpose, etc.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Humans ARE animals. Obvious but important point.

If your question is about non-human animals, they have the same universal "inherent" rights as humans.

Beyond that, when we talk about rights and laws, we are talking about human concepts. Those would not apply to non-human animals. But we humans can certainly make laws and grant rights to other animals. We already do that. It's still all a human construct, and done without any input, acknowledgement or consent from the non-human animals.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Well, it depends:  Do we want a real-time simulation that we can compare with reality to verify whether everything is deterministic?  If so, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle will definitely make it difficult to measure the complete state of every particle in the universe at the same time (to create a base state consistent with reality, after which we'd determine whether reality and simulation undergo the same events) ...and special/general relativity messing with the definition of "same time" won't exactly help, either.  Plus, we have size constraints to deal with:  It'd be awfully difficult to build a computer capable of storing the complete state of every particle in the universe...especially considering it would have to store the complete state of every particle in the *computer itself*...to an infinite level of recursion, since the people checking and reacting to the simulation must be part of the simulation as well!


Nicely done. Along similar lines, check out Godel's theorems, if you're not familar. I think they're among the most beautiful in mathematics and logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6...eness_theorems

----------


## tremendoustie

> Humans ARE animals. Obvious but important point.


I wouldn't say it's obvious. There are many, including me, who disagree with that statement.




> If your question is about non-human animals, they have the same universal "inherent" rights as humans.


Of course, if humans are not the same as animals, this does not follow.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I wouldn't say it's obvious. There are many, including me, who disagree with that statement.


Then you must be mineral or vegetable?

----------


## Bman

> I wouldn't say it's obvious. There are many, including me, who disagree with that statement.


Well than what would you think of dolphins that can understand concepts in syntax.  Are they to be thought of less now, not on their ability to think and percieve, but because they cannot live on land?  That they cannot form words?

Or how about Orca's which have they largest most active frontal lobe region of any mammal.  Surely, they have the brain power to understand any concept we have.

If you look at nature you can start to eventually understand that why we are special there is plenty out their which is easy to see as being just as if not more special than any of us.  Some of that stuff happens to be other life forms.  There is no god who made you superior to anything.  It's the biggest lie of mankind.

----------


## TER

Animals and our relationships with them are amongst the most important responsibilities we have inherited as children made in the image of the Father.  The Holy Scriptures speak of a Paradise where Man lived in complete harmony with all of creation until pride caused the fall from grace.  

There have been many eyewitness accounts of holy saints who have lived in harmony with creation and the animals in it.  Some who rode on lions and others who lived with bears.

----------


## ChaosControl

> Unfortunately for us (and potentially animals), humans are naturally omnivorous, and a healthy diet greatly benefits from a balance of nutrients and such not necessarily present in significant amounts in the aforementioned plants.


You can get all needed nutrients in a vegetarian diet.
I'm not sure about vegan, although I imagine it may be workable, if not then supplements can be added where needed.

----------


## idiom

Because Plants, being living things, also have no rights.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Because Plants, being living things, also have no rights.


Good point. Plants have the same inherent universal rights as other livings things. They are just too lazy to exercise them most of the time (except the weeds, which have no problem exercising their natural right to take over my garden).

----------


## Kludge

> Because Plants, being living things, also have no rights.


Plants do not think or feel. They are not capable of it. Some animals, however, not only think and feel, but appear to be self-aware.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...nt_mirror.html

----------


## tremendoustie

> Well than what would you think of dolphins that can understand concepts in syntax.  Are they to be thought of less now, not on their ability to think and percieve, but because they cannot live on land?  That they cannot form words?
> 
> Or how about Orca's which have they largest most active frontal lobe region of any mammal.  Surely, they have the brain power to understand any concept we have.
> 
> If you look at nature you can start to eventually understand that why we are special there is plenty out their which is easy to see as being just as if not more special than any of us.  Some of that stuff happens to be other life forms.  There is no god who made you superior to anything.  It's the biggest lie of mankind.


It is impossible to determine self-awareness by external observation. I know that I am self aware. I think it is a reasonable assumption that my fellow humans are self-aware. I am not convinced that animals are self aware. 

Now, you could alternately assume that you are the only self aware being, or that all other persons as well as animals are self aware.

It is awareness itself that defines person hood, for me. See the thread in off topics on the discussion of the existance of God/the nonphysical for clarification on this, if you're interested. Complexity alone does not define personhood -- a supercomputer is complex.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Plants do not think or feel. They are not capable of it. Some animals, however, not only think and feel, but appear to be self-aware.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...nt_mirror.html


A certain observed behavior does not imply self-awareness. It simply could be a programmed response mechanism. I could program a robot to do the same.

Now, a particular set of behaviors might be described as "self-awareness", and that's fine -- but I don't think we should confuse this with any sort of evidence of self-awareness in the philosophic sense.

I suppose one could make the argument, "I know I am self aware, and this behavior seems enough like mine that I will assume the elephant is self-aware", and the assumption might be reasonable -- but it is only an assumption. To me, other people seem very similar to me, but there is a vast gulf between other people and even the most similar animal. That is where I draw my line. If you think elephants should be included, more power to ya .

----------


## idiom

> Plants do not think or feel. They are not capable of it. Some animals, however, not only think and feel, but appear to be self-aware.
> 
> http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...nt_mirror.html


Fruitarians eat only what falls (or would fall) naturally from a plant, that is: foods that can be harvested without killing the plant.



What the hell happened to the right to life Kludge?

----------


## Kludge

> A certain observed behavior does not imply self-awareness. It simply could be a programmed response mechanism. I could program a robot to do the same.
> 
> Now, a particular set of behaviors might be described as "self-awareness", and that's fine -- but I don't think we should confuse this with self-awareness in the philosophic sense.


Well, if we're going to go that route, then I don't believe you are self-aware, no matter how often you tell me otherwise, as it is possibly a programmed survival instinct. Thus, you have no rights.

----------


## Kludge

> Fruitarians eat only what falls (or would fall) naturally from a plant, that is: foods that can be harvested without killing the plant.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell happened to the right to life Kludge?


$#@! plants.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> $#@! plants.


You are one kinky dude...we may need to pass a law against that. Plants have a right not to be molested by Kludge.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Well, if we're going to go that route, then I don't believe you are self-aware, no matter how often you tell me otherwise, as it is possibly a programmed survival instinct. Thus, you have no rights.


Ok -- if you think the most reasonable assumption is that you are the only self-aware being, then the conclusion that I do not have rights is reasonable. (now we know why people tend to be nervous around solipsists .)

For my part, I know I am self aware, so I will defend my rights. What's more, I believe you are too, so I will defend yours.

----------


## garrettwombat

some animals do have rights... 

police task force dogs are officers of the law.
police equine are officers of the law.

both have rights to life and are protected under law.
along with assistance animals such as dogs, pigs, and miniature horses.
in addition all of the above can be emergency transported via ambulance or life flight at any given time to an emergency vet.

other animals who have the right to life are endangered or protected species.

in the united states laws go even further to protect all animals rights. it is illegal to harass an animal in any way that causes harm or constitutes as cruelty.


the line drawn between human and animal is entirely debatable and opinionated.
would you say humans have rights now?
would you say humans had rights 10,000 years ago?

humans just have a very large imagination. opinion varies from person to person.
people like to justify reasons for their own cause or a groups causes.
in other words there is no right or wrong.

To deny animal rights you have indiscriminately denied your own.

----------


## 0zzy

Animals have rights, I think. They should only be used if you need them, they should be tortured or killed for no reason.

----------


## Rael

> in the united states laws go even further to protect all animals rights. it is illegal to harass an animal in any way that causes harm or constitutes as cruelty.



Sometimes when giving my dog a treat I deliberately  delay to watch him beg and drool, while threatening to eat the treat myself. and sometimes I manipulate his chin to make it look like he is talking. He does not seem to mind though. Is this considered harassment?

----------


## garrettwombat

> Sometimes when giving my dog a treat I deliberately delay to watch him beg and drool, while threatening to eat the treat myself. and sometimes I manipulate his chin to make it look like he is talking. He does not seem to mind though. Is this considered harassment?


of course that is defined as harassment...

does that hurt the dog though?

----------


## garrettwombat

even humankind cant determine if we have rights.
every few generations the laws and liberties get twisted, boiled down, or outright changed.

a man on death row can be justifiably killed.
a man on drugs can have his property stolen.
a man who commits a crime can have his liberties and happiness taken.

If "free will" can justify the right to have rights -
and that by using that very same free will can also justify you to not have rights...

..who can deny that everything out of everyone's filthy mouth is not just a debatable paradox?

----------


## tremendoustie

> the line drawn between human and animal is entirely debatable and opinionated.
> would you say humans have rights now?
> would you say humans had rights 10,000 years ago?
> 
> humans just have a very large imagination. opinion varies from person to person.
> people like to justify reasons for their own cause or a groups causes.
> in other words there is no right or wrong.
> 
> To deny animal rights you have indiscriminately denied your own.


Again, these views are firmly based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. To firmly differentiate between animals and humans is only illogical if you accept this worldview.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Sometimes when giving my dog a treat I deliberately  delay to watch him beg and drool, while threatening to eat the treat myself.


Nancy Pellosi? Is that you?

----------


## garrettwombat

> Again, these views are firmly based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. To firmly differentiate between animals and humans is only illogical if you accept this worldview.


likewise all other points of view.
you cant say they are materialistic though, that doesnt make much sense.
worldy maybe... 

but rights were never given to us by a belief system, or were they?

refer back to my final statement in post #100

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Again, these views are firmly based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. To firmly differentiate between animals and humans is only illogical if you accept this worldview.


Religion does not mandate this. It is just your personal interpretation of your particular religious sect.

----------


## garrettwombat

> Again, these views are firmly based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. To firmly differentiate between animals and humans is only illogical if you accept this worldview.


pondering even more into belief.

what if for instance it was truth there was no god.
would that falsify any rights that humans once had?

----------


## TER

> pondering even more into belief.
> 
> what if for instance it was truth there was no god.
> would that falsify any rights that humans once had?


No.  Just simply make them more meaningless.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Religion does not mandate this. It is just your personal interpretation of your particular religious sect.


Differentiating between humans and animals is quite reasonable apart from any religion at all. I know I'm self aware, other people are very much like me, animals are much less so, so I may assume other people are aware and the animals are not.

Or, as I say, I may assume the more similar animals are also aware.

My only point is, it is not necessarily illogical, unless you assume that degree of complexity is the only differentiating factor.

----------


## tremendoustie

> pondering even more into belief.
> 
> what if for instance it was truth there was no god.
> would that falsify any rights that humans once had?


I do think God is the source of our rights, since rights are based in morality, and God is the source of morality. However, I could see the possibility of an argument from a non-materialistic atheistic point of view that defends rights or absolute morality.

I don't think materialists can logically believe in rights, or absolute morality. So, in this case, I think it would mean "rights" or "morals" are only a description of a common pattern of human behavior.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Differentiating between humans and animals is quite reasonable apart from any religion at all. I know I'm self aware, other people are very much like me, animals are much less so, so I may assume other people are aware and the animals are not.
> 
> Or, as I say, I may assume the more similar animals are also aware.
> 
> My only point is, it is not necessarily illogical, unless you assume that degree of complexity is the only differentiating factor.


In some religions animals are gods and have more rights than humans. Not an issue of complexity.

You can certainly compare and contrast all kinds of animals (including humans), but they would still all be animals.

One of the basics of most non-microscopic animal life is that they are self-aware. Being fully aware of everything that surrounds them (and outside of them) is where it takes more complexity. The ability to see from different perspectives for instance, then you are getting somewhere.

----------


## tremendoustie

> In some religions animals are gods and have more rights than humans. Not an issue of complexity.
> 
> You can certainly compare and contrast all kinds of animals (including humans), but they would still all be animals.
> 
> One of the basics of most non-microscopic animal life is that they are self-aware. Being fully aware of everything that surrounds them (and outside of them) is where it takes more complexity. The ability to see from different perspectives for instance, then you are getting somewhere.


You cannot show that any animal is self-aware. It is only an assumption on your part. You cannot even prove to another person that you are self-aware.

----------


## garrettwombat

> I do think God is the source of our rights, since rights are based in morality, and God is the source of morality. However, I could see the possibility of an argument from a non-materialistic atheistic point of view that defends rights or absolute morality.
> 
> I don't think materialists can logically believe in rights, or absolute morality. So, in this case, I think it would mean "rights" or "morals" are only a description of a common pattern of human behavior.


what do you consider morality?

what if we arnt supposed to have sex out of marriage because its healthier.
what if we dont kill because its safer to live that way.
what if we dont steal because we wouldnt like to be stolen from?

"what if" morality was a human theory designed for better living.

would that then make morality materialistic?

since you can neither prove nor deny the origin the whole theory of rights becomes just an illusion.

why do you keep saying atheist also, i dont believe in a god but im not denying he isnt real, how am i to know? if i was to make assumptions and credit their existence to chance then a lot of things i believed in would strongly be my imagination.

----------


## garrettwombat

> You cannot show that any animal is self-aware. It is only an assumption on your part. You cannot even prove to another person that you are self-aware.


then how can you prove that humans have rights if you can not prove they are self aware?

----------


## tremendoustie

> then how can you prove that humans have rights if you can not prove they are self aware?


You can't.

All you know is that you are self-aware. Because other people are so similar to me, I assume that all people are also self-aware, and therefore have rights. I find animals different enough that I am not willing to necessarily make that assumption for them.

If you believe you are the only mind that exists (i.e. you are a solipsist), and everyone else is an automata, then the logical conclusion would be that they do not have rights, just as computers or wind up toys do not have rights. I think it's a foolish and rather limiting viewpoint, but it cannot be disproven.

----------


## tremendoustie

> what do you consider morality?
> 
> what if we arnt supposed to have sex out of marriage because its healthier.
> what if we dont kill because its safer to live that way.
> what if we dont steal because we wouldnt like to be stolen from?
> 
> "what if" morality was a human theory designed for better living.
> 
> would that then make morality materialistic?


Well, materialism is the theory that all that exists is matter. So, a true materialistic view of morality cannot say what people "should" do, only what people do, as dictated by the particles bouncing around in their head. So, that would mean "morality" is only a set of human conventions which have arisen (evolved) to improve survival. If a materialist is logically consistent in this regard, they will be completely amoral, since there is no logical reason to judge between these conventions, or to judge a departure from them. To be a nazi should be just as fine as to be a philanthropist -- both are simply the result of natural processes. I find that materialists still get pissed when someone intentionally stomps on their toes though, so go figure . I guess the particles made them do it.




> since you can neither prove nor deny the origin the whole theory of rights becomes just an illusion.


There is such a thing as evidence which does not rise to the level of proof, and there is such a thing as a reasonable, unproven idea. I believe one can prove the non-physical exists, and that there is evidence, but not proof, of God. If you actually relied only on ideas which could be proven, you wouldn't get anywhere -- you couldn't even believe your own senses. 




> why do you keep saying atheist also, i dont believe in a god but im not denying he isnt real, how am i to know? if i was to make assumptions and credit their existence to chance then a lot of things i believed in would strongly be my imagination.


Do you believe people are only matter? If so, then there can be no special distinction between us and the animals (or your chair for that matter). Most people who hold this view are also atheists, since it would be odd to assume that people are purely physical, and then propose the idea of a non-physical god or spiritual world. That's why I call this idea atheist, but perhaps I could have been more accurate.

If you do not hold this view, you are not a materialist, although you still may be an atheist. That would mean you believe non-physical things exist -- most notably human minds -- but that there is no greater mind in charge of things. 

If you believe there is such a greater mind, then you are not an atheist.

----------


## captainelectron

> If being able to enter social contracts gives rights, does this mean minors don't have rights since they cannot enter into contracts? What about retarded people who don't have the capacity to enter into contracts? It has been said that a dog has the intelligence of a 3-4 year old, but no one would deny that a 3-4 human has rights. If my dog can understand that performing a service (fetching the paper) will get him a payment (a treat or praise) does that not constitute a contract? Since my dog guards my house while I am gone, does this not onstitute a service to me that requires compensation(providing food, shelter, medical care)?


I just spent the evening with an eleven-month-old human child, and I have never seen a dog with more than a small fraction of the intelligence of this child, who had a spoken vocabulary of 15-20 words and an understanding of dozens more.  The child rapidly learned how to manipulate several items handed it, and was hungry to learn about more.  I like dogs, but they are not even close to a one-year-old in intellect.  Humans are amazing when compared to the other biological entities on this planet.

That said, I think you raise a great question about the rights of children and imbeciles.  Obviously, there is a loss of many individual rights if one is dependent on others for survival.

----------


## eOs

We have rights that are man-made that we deem the basic of the basic, and that nature/god has granted it to us. Your rights may exist but no one has to abide by them. And usually the government never does. The humans allow the rights to take place, they can also disallow. Do they exist no matter what? That's like asking if God exists. And I never knew intelligence was the deciding factor in who has rights, krazy kaju. That's pretty interesting.

----------


## Bman

> Again, these views are firmly based on a materialistic, atheistic worldview. To firmly differentiate between animals and humans is only illogical if you accept this worldview.


Would you say a baby is aware?  Personally my first memory in life is from somewhere in the 2 year old range.  Was I aware before then?

So when actually should human rights start.  Certainly not at an early age since you would not yet be completely aware.

----------


## tremendoustie

> Would you say a baby is aware?  Personally my first memory in life is from somewhere in the 2 year old range.  Was I aware before then?
> 
> So when actually should human rights start.  Certainly not at an early age since you would not yet be completely aware.


Yes, I think a baby is aware -- I don't think what you remember is a meaningful indication -- it's quite possible to be aware of something and later forget it, as I am unfortunately wont to do on a daily basis ...

----------


## SWATH

Put it this way.  If life was found on another planet in whatever manifestation, be it plant or microbe.  Would that life not have the right of self-determination or could we just go and eradicate it since it has no right to live anyway?

----------


## diggronpaul

> Do animals have natural rights like humans? And if not, why?


While everyone is free to ask and answer any question they please, I'm also free to comment.  

Hence, this question is an abomination of our entire construct of unalienable rights as based upon *John Locke's* works.

This question elicits this negative reaction because the poster is unknown and their motive for posting unclear.  It is well known that representatives of the one world movement, such as Maurice Strong and his *Earth Charter*, are deliberately working to destroy Locke's concept of self, "that conscious thinking thing."  Locke espoused that "in a natural state all people were equal and independent, and everyone had a natural right to defend his 'life, health, liberty, or possessions.'"  

If we choose to modify Locke's construct (i.e. the American Declaration of Independence) to includes animals and other living things, as being promoted by Strong and the UN, then Americans will soon find themselves nothing more than a biomass that has no liberty, no security, and can be biologically manipulated by technology however the owners of that technology sees fit. 

This entire line of thinking is an abomination against our own souls, which is one of the seven deadly sins.

Perhaps the OP would like to explain why they posted such a question and what they or their associates plan to do with the information gleaned from this thread.

----------


## jclay2

Wait a second, Wasn't there a constitution or something that declared rights for animals in animal farm?

----------


## Uncle Emanuel Watkins

> Do animals have natural rights like humans? And if not, why?


First define "natural rights."

----------


## PaulineDisciple

It depends on how you define natural rights.  Yes, if by natural rights, you mean rights that are derived from our being made in the image of God, no, if by natural rights, you mean rights that are derived from our being made in the image of a warm spot in the ocean.

----------


## Theocrat

If rights come from impersonal nature (as is understood from a non-theistic interpretation of "natural rights"), then why should governments be compelled to uphold those rights, especially if they can control nature and destroy its resources?

Also, given the evolution paradigm of understanding life shared by many members here, are rights constant by nature, or are they something which evolve as our brains supposedly evolve to understand them?

----------


## Mesogen

There are no real such things as rights per se. Humans are in the same boat as animals. Hell, they are animals. All humans and other animals can do, as biological organisms, is attempt to carve out their niche in the world as long as they live. 

Humans can try to convince each other that there are certain things they shouldn't do to each other and call these things "rights" but that doesn't mean that these rights are any kind of real thing. Peer pressure tends to enforce this notion that there are certain boundaries that you should not cross with other people and the idea is propagated.

Animals aren't going to bother with these illusions, but some intelligent social animals do have a social structure and seem to follow certain guidelines that would appear to be some sort of "rights" as recognized by their fellows. But, these social structures are pretty much entirely within each species. 

Then there are certain cross-species relationships that humans have developed, basically I mean domestication of other animals. 

Humans (and perhaps some other animals) have developed this emotion called empathy. Basically, we wouldn't want other beings to suffer as we would not want to suffer. Humans can convince other humans that there are certain things that they shouldn't do to other species because we wouldn't want these things done to us. They can call these things "animal rights."

----------


## strapko

> You're confusing the definition of natural rights with the definition of legal rights here.  Legal rights are rights (or even non-rights) recognized and protected by the justice system.  Natural rights simply define the equal respect we *deserve* from each other and which others *owe* us by virtue of our _________ (insert whatever qualities you want here, such as "free will," "human dignity," or "self-ownership").
> 
> 
> This is my view as well, which is kind of funny, considering neither of us have articulated our opinions on what kind of rights animals have.   It's easy for us to define the rights of humans with respect to other humans, because we're the highest-order, most intelligent species we know of.  We know that humans think, act, and have hopes and dreams for the future.  *In my opinion, our human rights of life, liberty, and property - with respect to each other - derive from our equal self-ownership.  My life is my own, just as yours is your own, and neither of us are "better" than the other in the sense that we deserve to take full or partial ownership of any other person.*
> 
> As humans, we generally desire respect from each other, and we're intelligent enough to know and understand this and come up with reasons why.  The idea of natural rights and self-ownership becomes a lot hazier when we start talking about animals, though.  In many ways, animals are sentient enough to possess some of the same traits that give our own lives and self-ownership meaning...but in many other ways, they are not.  Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, and we don't even know if they have hopes and dreams for the future...but we do know they feel love, affection, fear, and pain, they have complex social interactions, and they're actually smart enough that they can construct and use *tools*.  Bonobos are farther from us genetically, but in many ways they might be smarter than us, since they've already figured out that settling tribal disputes with sex contests is quite preferable to settling them with brutal violence.   Dogs are still similar to us in many ways, but they're farther from us than apes and still less sentient, and in general, every step farther from humans is another step backward in sentience.  Bacteria, for instance, are hardly worthy of consideration except when they threaten us (they're not animals anyway, but still). 
> 
> So...do animals have natural rights with respect to each other?  *With respect to other animals of the same species*, I believe that animals probably have the same kind of rights that we do, stemming from self-ownership with respect to other members of their species.  I mean, even if you're Chimpanzee Ed and your neighbor is Chimpanzee Bob, you don't want him taking it upon himself to kill you.  After all, Bob can do with his life as he pleases, but your life is your own...and you'll fight to protect it, too.  Interestingly, tribal animals do form societies where they they have some primitive and instinctual notion of rights, and as I mentioned, bonobos might just be more sophisticated than we are with respect to their governance. 
> 
> ...


I know what the definition of natural rights is. The fact of the matter is I do not believe Natural rights exist; it is a human concept.

----------


## tmosley

> If rights come from impersonal nature (as is understood from a non-theistic interpretation of "natural rights"), then why should governments be compelled to uphold those rights, especially if they can control nature and destroy its resources?
> 
> Also, given the evolution paradigm of understanding life shared by many members here, are rights constant by nature, or are they something which evolve as our brains supposedly evolve to understand them?


Because the individual enforcement of natural rights is a bloody affair.  Civilization exists so that people don't have to hurt or kill people to defend their rights, but rather allow the government to take care of justice through court of law and implied force.  That is what separates civilized peoples from barbarians and animals.

Animals have natural rights, it's just that humans are not compelled to recognize them because animals are too weak and stupid to defend them in such a way as to FORCE us to recognize them.  They might get some rights recognized through human social contracts, but that is entirely up to humans.

A natural right (as opposed to a right granted by social contract or a divine right), is one that when violated consistently results in violence.  Attack most animals, and they will fight back.  Force of arms is the source of natural rights.  This is opposed to rights granted by a social contract, which finds it's source in the government (and its implied use of force), and divine right, which finds it's source in God and the wrath of God (whether by plagues or other means of divine retribution, or threat of imprisonment within Hell).

----------


## RideTheDirt

> That's kind of funny.  Because in my house my dogs would have rights and you would not.


Awesome post.

----------


## Rael

> Awesome post.


+1

----------


## tremendoustie

> Then you must be mineral or vegetable?


No, I am a person. More specifically, I am a mind. This did not used to be a revolutionary statement .

----------


## tribute_13

I said neither have natural rights. I think all rights are derived from the ability to appreciate certain things such as shelter, food, love, life, and result of hard work. But when people stop appreciating these things is when you start losing them. When humans, as a collective, can prove they value their liberty enough to fight and protect it then I'll change my mind.

Mind you, I'm thinking of current status. I think we all DESERVE natural rights, but right now, I think humans don't appreciate them enough to actually want to have and keep them which is why the majority let them slip away without noticing or caring.

Its like a cycle, it isn't until they lose them that they start to appreciate them again and eventually and hopefully sometime soon we'll see an overwhelming number of people finally get sick of it and start to do something about it. 

States declaring their sovereignty recently is just one example that people are starting to get sick of losing their freedoms.

----------


## diggronpaul

I'm extremely suspicious of this post's intent.  


OP, can you please provide some level of assurance that you are not affiliate with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the publics willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms?

----------


## Kludge

> I'm extremely suspicious of this post's intent.  
> 
> 
> OP, can you please provide some level of assurance that you are not affiliate with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the publics willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms?


As great of an actor as I claim myself to be, I have no idea whether or not you're serious.

----------


## tremendoustie

> As great of an actor as I claim myself to be, I have no idea whether or not you're serious.


I hope it's a joke . That would be some seriously dry humor.

Lol at RP forums being a representation of the public. If only.

----------


## Rael

> I'm extremely suspicious of this post's intent.  
> 
> 
> OP, can you please provide some level of assurance that you are not affiliate with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the publics willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms?


I hereby declare that I am not affiliated with with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the public's willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms.

----------


## Rael

2 people answered that only animals have natural rights. How did you reach that conclusion? And what does that mean for humans?

----------


## TER

> 2 people answered that only animals have natural rights. How did you reach that conclusion? And what does that mean for humans?


They're probably putting humans in the animal category?

----------


## mconder

The people that said both sound like a much of deranged PETA people. Animals are a natural resource for the use of man, but not the abuse of man. The only right they have is to be treated as humanly as possible as they become my next hamburger. We are the ones who won the race to the top of the food chain, so it is quit nataral for us to subdue them for our purposes.

----------


## mconder

> When humans, as a collective, can prove they value their liberty enough to fight and protect it then I'll change my mind.


Assuming this is how it is, if I am the only one in society who values liberty, the right of liverty is not mine until everyone agrees it should be.

----------


## diggronpaul

> As great of an actor as I claim myself to be, I have no idea whether or not you're serious.


Given that this is a forum that supposedly support the ideas of libertarianism as represented by Ron Paul, I'm more than a little surprised that my post garnered this reaction.... when, instead, it would have been more appropriate to post this reaction to the OP's post.




> I hereby declare that I am not affiliated with with or acting as an agent on behalf of a private firm, non-profit organization, foundation or other private party who is interested in this information, where this information is some level of insight into the public's willingness to accept the divergence of natural rights across ALL living organisms.


Then why did you start a thread that is diametrically opposed to all current libertarian teachings?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The people that said both sound like a much of deranged PETA people. Animals are a natural resource for the use of man, but not the abuse of man. The only right they have is to be treated as humanly as possible as they become my next hamburger. We are the ones who won the race to the top of the food chain, so it is quit nataral for us to subdue them for our purposes.


Sorry, not a PETA member. I eat many animals. And they have the "natural" (or universal) right to try to eat me.

----------


## Xenophage

Reply to krazy kaju:

_Quote:
Your entire argument is founded upon illogic.
Reply:
So humans do not act?_
*
- You apparently did not understand the nature of my argument.  That's my fault, for making assumptions about language that you do not share.*

_Quote:
All ethical systems require value-judgements.
Reply:
Do they? What is your proof?
_
*- This is the crux of our argument.  What is morality?  That clearest definition I could give is: Morality is a code of action.  Humans act, as you state so profoundly, and because humans act we need morality.  We need morality because humans aren't computers - to weigh the pragmatic pros and cons of every action would tax us beyond our intellectual capacity.  Morality provides a basis for action that we can refer to.  It helps us choose.  By what basis?  On the basis of "good" or "evil," and the way we define "good" and "evil" depends on our particular values.* 
_
Quote:
Choices require value-judgements, or they're simply arbitrary. Free-will requires value-judgements.
Reply:
So? How does this prove that ethical systems require value judgments?_
*
- Because morality is a code that helps us choose our actions, and all chocies require value-judgements, therefore morality requires value-judgements.  Morality is an ethical system defining "good" and "evil."  Now I'm just reiterating.
*

_Quote:
Human beings are value-seeking creatures.
Reply:
So? How does this effect an ethical system? Are there objective values?_

*- Because an ethical system is one that defines "good" and "evil," it isn't a question of our value-seeking nature "effecting" our ethics, but rather of our ethics being directly derived from our nature as value-seeking creatures.*

*The 2nd question is much more interesting, and in short I believe that YES there are objective values.  We can logically deduce that all humans, as biological organisms, are essentially driven toward the same biological end: self-preservation.  We can also say that "your own life" is a value because without life you cannot value anything.  It is the basis for making any sort of value-judgement.  So, I have touched upon one objective value, and there are others that are more debatable but I won't get into it.
*

_Quote:
By saying that the self-owned human who engages in an act of unprovoked violence against another self-owned human is "denying their own self-ownership" you are implying something that defeats your entire argument: That someone can choose not to own themselves, or to defeat the recognition of their self-ownership from a societal standpoint. For this to be a negative would mean the self-owner values his self-owned status.
Reply:
The logical extension of your argument is that one cannot lease out one's property, cannot sell one's fruit of labor, and cannot work for a wage, because in all of these cases, the action-originator is selling or renting out a part of his 
self ownership. This, however, is a false argument. It is clear that if you own yourself, you are able to decide what to do with yourself. This includes contracting out your self ownership and the immediate consequences of your self ownership, whether explicitly (in the form of contracts) or implicitly (via estoppel)._

*- I fail to see how any of this is a logical extension of what I said... I also fail to see the relevance of your response to the quoted section.  I said that self-ownership requires choice, which requires morality, which requires value judgements.  You imply from that argument that I don't think people can work for a wage?  Confusing.*

_Quote:
Free-will is obvious, but this does not automatically lead to the concept of self-ownership. Its a choice.
Having a fee will necessarily leads us to the concept of self ownership. You cannot have a free will unless you have your own thoughts that are completely separate from outside influences. That implies self ownership._
*
- If one chooses not to think for themselves, what does that imply?  Certainly not that freewill doesn't exist, because they still have made a choice (thank you Neil Peart) - but definitely that they have abdicated the responsibilities of self-ownership.  In the fullest sense, nobody has their own thoughts that are completely separate from outside influences, but I still know what you meant.*

_Quote:
To choose not to own yourself is, of course, self-destructive and illogical - but human beings have the unique capacity to engage in self-destructive behavior by choice.
So here you admit that one can deny one's own self ownership? This contradicts your statement that one cannot deny one's own self ownership._

*- I never made that statement that you can't deny self-ownership.  Part of my argument is predicated upon the assertion that you CAN deny self-ownership - e.g., that it isn't an absolute.  Now you're just sounding confused, and you're confusing me!

Self-ownership is a choice, and choices require values - if you still don't get this, I don't know how else to explain it.

The rest of this was redundant or confused.  If we agree at least that self-ownership is a choice, that's great.  If self-ownership is a choice, and all choices require value-judgements, and your concept of a "right" is predicated upon self-ownership, then your concept of a "right" is based upon a value-judgement.*

----------


## timosman

bump

----------


## Krugminator2

> bump


Are you bumping it because a third of the people who participated in this poll have brain damage?

----------


## idiom

Just gonna say, a decade later I am especially proud of my posts in this thread.

----------


## timosman



----------


## osan

I think this is the first I've seen of this thread.

Do animals have natural rights?  Absolutely yes.  After all, what is a right?  It is a valid CLAIM and nothing more.  "Right" and "claim" are 100% synonymous.  It is clear that animals, most of them anyway, claim their lives as their own as evidenced by their will to preserve themselves from destruction and other harms.  They are, therefore, asserting their claims upon their own lives whenever they go about the business of survival, whether it be eating, procreating, or defending life, limb, territory, or other property from violation at the hands of another.  

Anyone doubting this is welcome to visit my home where I will be more than happy to show you how Millie, our large and fearlessly badass Rhodesian, and Luna, our similarly badass West Virginia red dog behave when either Oliver, Hercules, or Ralph come anywhere near their food at dindin-time.  Moreso do the sparks fly at cookie-time.

Therefore, in accord with the proper definition of "right", animals most definitely do assert their claims.

The difference between humans and other animals species is that as matters of survival, humans choose not to fully respect the rights of animals because we eat them, put them to work, wear them as clothing, and consume them in other ways.  Were we to respect the rights of animals as we pretend to respect one another, eating would likely become problematic with all the men of the planet becoming docile soy-boy-sissies from the lack of animal protein in the diet.

Survival pretty well demands that some of us eat meat, which in turn requires us to disregard the valid claims of animals in many cases and circumstances.

That we choose to disregard the rights of animals, it does not follow that those rights do not exist.  The case for animal rights is prima facie axiomatic and apodictic.  We disregard those claims because we are the apex predators, need (and desire) to eat animals, and therefore do so as a practical matter at the very least.  Otherwise, we would not be the current apex species, but rather a race of likely very short hominids, scurrying about eating berries and twigs, and sleeping in trees to avoid the apex predators whose interests compel them to disregard OUR valid claims to life.

This ain't rocket surgery.

----------


## lilymc

> I think this is the first I've seen of this thread.
> 
> Do animals have natural rights?  Absolutely yes.  After all, what is a right?  It is a valid CLAIM and nothing more.  "Right" and "claim" are 100% synonymous.  It is clear that animals, most of them anyway, claim their lives as their own as evidenced by their will to preserve theselves from destruction and other harms.  They are, therefore, asserting their claims upon their own lives whenever they go about the business of survival, whether it be eating, procreating, or defending life, limb, territory, or other property from violation at the hands of another.  
> 
> Anyone doubting this is welcome to visit my home where I will be more than happy to show you how Millie, our large and fearlessly badass Rhodesian, and Luna, our similarly badass West Virginia red dog behave when either Oliver, Hercules, or Ralph come anywhere near their food at dindin-time.  Moreso do the sparks fly at cookie-time.
> 
> Therefore, in accord with the proper definition of "right", animals most definitely do assert their claims.
> 
> The difference between humans and other animals species is that as matters of survival, humans choose not to fully respect the rights of animals because we eat them, put them to work, wear them as clothing, and consume them in other ways.  Were we to respect the rights of animals as we pretend to respect one another, eating would become problematic with all the men of the planet becoming docile soy-boy-sissies from the lack of animal protein in the diet.
> ...


I was with you for the first few paragraphs, until you got to the part about needing to eat animals because of protein.  There is protein in tons of plant-based foods, and you can get everything you need nutritionally from a whole food plant-based diet.    Apart from someone who is starving on a desert island, there is absolutely no need to eat dead animals in this day and age. Especially in a country like the US, where there are tons of options.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> I was with you for the first few paragraphs, until you got to the part about needing to eat animals because of protein.  There is protein in tons of plant-based foods, and you can get everything you need nutritionally from a whole food plant-based diet.    Apart from someone who is starving on a desert island, there is absolutely no need to eat dead animals in this day and age. Especially in a country like the US, where there are tons of options.


You can't get everything you need from plants and some of the things you can get only come from obscure plants that couldn't be used to feed all of humanity.

----------


## lilymc

> You can't get everything you need from plants and some of the things you can get only come from obscure plants that couldn't be used to feed all of humanity.


Yes you can.


*Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics*

It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that *appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.* These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.* Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.* 

https://jandonline.org/article/S2212...192-3/fulltext


*The Mayo Clinic*

A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) *can meet the needs of people of all ages*, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.


*Harvard Medical School*

Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and *studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.*


*Dietitians of Canada*

*A healthy vegan diet can meet all your nutrient needs* at any stage of life including when you are pregnant, breastfeeding or for older adults.


*British Dietetic Association*

Well planned vegetarian diets (see context) can be nutritious and healthy. They are associated with lower risks of heart disease, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, obesity, certain cancers and lower cholesterol levels. This could be because such diets are lower in saturated fat, contain fewer calories and more fiber and phytonutrients/phytochemicals (these can have protective properties) than non-vegetarian diets. (...) *Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of life and have many benefits.*


*The British National Health Service*

With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, *you can get all the nutrients your body needs.*


*The Dietitians Association of Australia*

Vegan diets differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.


I can post more, if you want.   Plus, there are lots of people who have been either vegan or vegetarian their whole life, and are super healthy and smash all the lies that we've been sold, such as the idea that meat and dairy is necessary.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes you can.
> 
> *Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics*
> 
> It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that *appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.* These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.* Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.* 
> 
> https://jandonline.org/article/S2212...192-3/fulltext
> 
> 
> ...


And I could dig up sources other than mainstream organizations that push veganism and are not very good at nutrition that say otherwise but I'm not interested, enjoy your plants and I will enjoy my meat.

----------


## lilymc

> And I could dig up sources other than mainstream organizations that push veganism and are not very good at nutrition that say otherwise but I'm not interested, enjoy your plants and I will enjoy my meat.


I get it. We can agree to disagree.

For anyone who is interested, I want to share this excellent documentary that just came out. I think everyone in the world should watch it.  It's satanic, what is going on. And completely unnecessary.

----------


## osan

> I was with you for the first few paragraphs, until you got to the part about needing to eat animals because of protein.  There is protein in tons of plant-based foods, and you can get everything you need nutritionally from a whole food plant-based diet.    Apart from someone who is starving on a desert island, there is absolutely no need to eat dead animals in this day and age. Especially in a country like the US, where there are tons of options.


Actually, that appears not to be the case.  Apparently, and I have not myself read them, there have been recent studies that have revealed certain deficiencies of cognition that are noted in those of non-meat diets, established early on in those born into it and that which arises in those who move away from flesh proteins.

Since I have not read them, but have discussed this with people who have, I cannot say how conclusive the studies are.  As we have seen, studies have been used to swing people toward one avenue, then back again, particularly where dietary issues are concerned.  "Oh my GOD! Proteins are bad for you!."  Some time later... "Oh my GOD! Carbs are bad for you, but you can eat proteins!"  This nonsense, attributable largely to less-than-ethical marketers, has rendered the trustworthiness of such studies as questionable at the very least.

That said, there _are_ those that have produced pretty conclusive determinations, such as the harmful nature of phytoestrogens to men, causing the now much snickered-at "soy boy" syndrome wherein entire legions of millennial <AHEM>... "men"... have apparently been converted into docile, whiny, premenstrual sissies who like wearing dresses, ladies undergarments, and makeup, apparently having no issue with taking big salami in places God never meant them to go.

----------


## osan

> Yes you can.
> *Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics*
> 
> It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that *appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.* These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.* Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity.* 
> 
> https://jandonline.org/article/S2212...192-3/fulltext
> 
> 
> *The Mayo Clinic*
> ...


I would take such assessments with goodly measures of salt.  Why?  Because we live in an age where _everything_ has been politically weaponized.  This includes the opinions, assessments, interpretations, and other determinations of a great many institutions.  Herein we find yet another deep danger directly following from the political correctness bestowed upon us by "progressives" and the resultant fall-away from proper ethics that has grabbed humanity by the throat, shaking us with non-trivial violence for the sake of getting that which one desires.  As I've written so many times before, humanity is deep in the kimchee.

I would also note that one ought not have to _plan_ one's diet beyond the now age-old adage of "proper balance". 

I spent two years as a vegetarian in college.  I rode approximately 700 miles (bicycle) every week, was strong as bleeding hell, and still had some problems as a result of having forsaken animal proteins, the most prominently obvious being that of endurance.  After about 80-90 miles I would invariably begin to flag.  One of the trainers with the Davis Bike Club suggested I become a track racer because as he put it, "you have the strongest legs I've seen in anyone, but you don't have the wind to go distance".  I attribute that largely to the diet because the moment I went back to meat, my endurance increased markedly.  I do not regard that as a coincidence.

That all aside, having to plan one's meals to the degree I witnessed in my vegetarian acquaintances is not natural in any way, shape, or form.  Without current technology, which is to say if we were reduced to stone-age tech by whatever catastrophic means, vegetarians would likely be faced with the choice of getting serious about eating, or dying off.  That goes double for vegans, who I do not think are dietetically rational.

While I'm at it, allow me to clarify a point I made previously regarding meat-eating being essential to our survival.

While we may as humans get by without eating meat, it is becoming clear that not consuming animal protein causes fundamental changes in both cognition and temperament.  Disregarding the cognitive angle, if veganism leads to a form of soy-boy syndrome, and this apparently has been suggested by some research, then unless we eliminate all consumption of non-human animalia, those who continue to eat meat position themselves in both terms of physical strength and aggressiveness to dominate the rest.  Therefore, even if America became 95% soyfags, our desire not to be depredated by whomever... China, Mexico...  even Canada <snurk> would dictate that those who guard the rest would have to retain the meat-eater's edge by... well... eating meat.  That, of course, leaves the 95% at the mercy and good behavior of the 5% who have retained their proper capacities as predators.

Therefore, no matter how you slice this pie, walking away from animal protein leaves one at a notable disadvantage.

Besides, critters taste good.  Don't get me wrong, I don't like killing anything - not even for the sake of eating.  I am, in fact, having a VERY bad week because my does threw eight kids and five of them died, so my own head is in knots over this... foolishly I admit, but that's how I roll... as a fool for babies of any sort.  So it is not like I cannot wait to git on my Carharts and git-a-gunnin' fer Bambi the moment season opens.  It is all very distasteful to me, but I accept our lot on this world as meat eaters and what that all implies.  I do not, however, have to like it, and I don't.  As I wrote, I am a fool.

----------

