Do Animals Have Natural Rights?

[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]

Asking the Right Questions About Rights

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.

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.

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?