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

 

[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?