Do Animals Have Natural Rights?

[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.