When Human Rights Extend to Nonhumans

by hamilcarr 47 Replies latest social current

• 

  BurnTheShips

  That seems a strange argument for an individualist to make.

  How so?

  What if a new species of ape were to be discovered whose members were on average less intelligent than humans but more than other apes, say where there was a significant overlap between the intelligence of members of that species, and of our own? Or what about a human-chimp hybrid? Or a (natural or artificial) mutant chimp? Would any of them have rights?

  I do not have an good answer to give you regarding chimeras. Regarding the hypothetical species, we may as well be arguing the attributes of an intelligent race of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Such things are not known to exist.

  I think that's all that anybody is arguing for. The obligations on us not to mistreat animals are essentially equivalent to a right of those animals not to be mistreated.

  The way we erect the ethical framework regarding how we treat animals will color our future decisions. To give animals the same degree of moral regard that we give humans by granting them "rights" will increase human suffering.

  Perhaps in the future we will use a term other than human rights.

  I certainly hope not, absent the presence of another intelligent species than our own, perhaps from outside the Solar System. To do so otherwise is extensio ad absurdum.

  BTS
• 

  Satanus

  'A chimp at an Israeli wildlife park'
  
  Will israel start to treat palestinians as human, and release them from the wall?
  
  S
• 

  BurnTheShips

  The word community is crucial indeed.

  But has it been proven that apes aren't able of morality within a moral community?

  If we welcome them into the human moral community and extend them human rights, will they extend humans rights in turn?

  Will they abide by the morality of the human community?

  BTS
• 

  Narkissos

  Once again I think the notion of right(s) proves utterly unsatisfying -- and one merit of this discussion may be to help point out why.

  Law is (human-like) language; it is the ever-changing set of rules negotiated and consented by "players" in thisgame of language -- which I might call the logos community. Every member of this community can be construed as having "rights" and "duties"; in that subjective sense the law can only apply to the language-committed logos community; but in the objective sense it can apply to anything -- "animal, vegetable or mineral" -- as a self-restriction of the logos community toward what isn't part of it. And this is nothing new: when you are not allowed to pick up stones or flowers, hunt or fish in a natural reserve, this doesn't imply anything as "pebble rights" or "flower rights" or "animal rights" or "fish rights".

  Now what are the exact borders of the logos community? That's a tricky question, but once you understand the above it becomes practically secondary. Let's deal with it theoretically though. Can the logos community be simply equated with "mankind"? Is there any meaning in something like "infant's (i.e., etymologically, speechless) rights, or duties?" What about so-called "autism," which to some extent rejects the game of language? What about the "part" of any of us which obscurely resists, subverts or outright revolts against it? Who/what are we punishing whenever we punish? A "bad player" in the game of language, or something which has never been part of the game?

  I tend to think that law, in the subjective sense, can only apply to those (whether "men," "animals," aliens or machines maybe?) that are both able tonegotiate it and willing to submit to it. And of course it must apply in the objective sense to whom/whatever is not. But that is ultimately a matter of consciousness, negotiation and decision within the "logos community". It seems meaningless to me (or at least to the part of me which is involved in the logos community) to force "rights" or "duties" on that (including among and within "us") which doesn't want them.
• 

  Fadeout

  "Rights" I don't think is a proper term to use for animals. Animals do not have rights.

  In nature there are no rights. Rights were invented by humans.

  If we as a species decide to abide by a code of treatment for other species, it is for our own sake, and not theirs, a recognition of our superiority and an acceptance of the caretaker responsibility that entails.
• 

  funkyderek

  BurnTheShips:

  That seems a strange argument for an individualist to make.

  How so?

  Because it's an inherently collectivist idea, one I thought would have been anathema to you. You seem to be saying that whatever rights an individual has derive not from his/her own nature but from that of his/her relatives.

  Regarding the hypothetical species, we may as well be arguing the attributes of an intelligent race of Flying Spaghetti Monsters. Such things are not known to exist.

  Well, it wouldn't be hypothetical if they did exist, would it? In any case, while such species (intelligent apes, not FSMs) are not known to exist now, they are known to have existed in the past. If they existed now, how would we treat them? Could they have rights? I think these questions are worth considering because they show the difficulty of drawing a line where no natural line exists.

  The way we erect the ethical framework regarding how we treat animals will color our future decisions. To give animals the same degree of moral regard that we give humans by granting them "rights" will increase human suffering.

  Nobody is suggesting we do that. The suggestion is to give them a lesser "degree of moral regard" than we give humans but more than we give inanimate objects.

  I certainly hope not, absent the presence of another intelligent species than our own, perhaps from outside the Solar System. To do so otherwise is extensio ad absurdum.

  Only because you insist on rights being confined strictly to members of our own species. Nobody is talking about the right to vote or to bear arms, we are talking about the rights of conscious beings not to have undue suffering inflicted on them. Certainly only (some) humans are currently known to be capable of protecting those rights, but it does not necessarily follow that they alone should be granted them.
• 

  hillary_step

  Funky,

  Because it's an inherently collectivist idea, one I thought would have been anathema to you.

  Just a tip here.

  Never take anything Burn has to say as his position on anything as he is never quite sure where he stands on issues. His views are in constant flux and he lands on them like a lead butterfly then flits off to another position.

  The common denominator is that he sounds as if he has held these views since childhood, but actually picked them up from Wikipedia yesterday.

  HS
• 

  Witness 007

  Wow stop! This is how "The Planet of the Apes" got started....."GET YOUR HANDS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY APES!!!"
• 

  hamilcarr

  Burn. Thx for rephrasing my question. I think they're worth consideration.

  Narkissos. Massive post as always. Maybe we should extend the logos community to nonhumans?

  funkyderek. Drawing line is very difficult indeed, unless you accept on a methodology. Good post!

  Side remark: Speciation is not an ontological concept. Special barriers are agreed on by (neodarwinist!) convention, they don't represent a supernatural reality.

  hillary_step. To me, Wikipedia is a valid research tool. I don't believe there's anything wrong with fluctuating ideas. My current view on animals rights for sure has drastically changed over the years thanks to internet research and informal discussions.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  hillary_step. To me, Wikipedia is a valid research tool. I don't believe there's anything wrong with fluctuating ideas. My current view on animals rights for sure has drastically changed over the years thanks to internet research and informal discussions.

  This is HS' default position when his windbag is out of air.