- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 63,479
Sorry, not a PETA member. I eat many animals. And they have the "natural" (or universal) right to try to eat me.
Do Animals Have Natural Rights?
- Thread starter Rael
- Start date
-
- Tags
- natural rights
Sorry, not a PETA member. I eat many animals. And they have the "natural" (or universal) right to try to eat me.
Xenophage
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,098
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.
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.
Last edited:
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
Are you bumping it because a third of the people who participated in this poll have brain damage?
osan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
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.
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.
Last edited:
lilymc
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,971
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
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,971
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/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/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.
Last edited:
Swordsmyth
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 74,737
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2011
- Messages
- 2,971
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
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
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 16,866
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.
Last edited:
Similar threads
