The right to bear rights?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by The Irreverent Mr Black

Dat's very shellfish of you. Clam up or I'll send the hired mussel round.

<giggles>

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by markwemple

Just curious. How many here have attempted to learn the language of another species. Humans are extremely ego centric and give little thought to the plight of others. Now that may be in part true or not but to completely disrespect the opinion of others especially when I can be scientifically prove to improve the condition of the planet is pathetic BS. Justifying that your taste buds are more important than the life of another sentient creature is narrow, shallow and unjustified. IMO indefensible.

Hello Mark
I spend my days working with animals and none of them have shown that they are interested in me as anything other than either food or a threat.

How would you convince an alien that you are sentient, capable of abstract thought, and possess rights? Your answer to this will shed some light on how much you have thought through the problem.

I haven't seen anyone argue that their taste buds are more important than the life of an animal in this thread.

As to humans being anthropocentric: meh. I accept that as fact, but until you show me that I should be otherwise, I don't think of it as an accusation because I don't see it as anything to be ashamed of. My cascade of concern starts with my immediate family, then my extended family, then my community, my society, other societies, then animals that are easily antrhopomorphised, then polychaetes, then all other animals, then plants, fungi, monera, and finishes with theologians and politicians who seek to institute religious mandates as law.

It is instinct that gives me this frame work and it is evolutionary theory that explains it. Why should I reject this frame work by bumping any group up or down that scale of concern?

[davo]

'Rights' as per the Universal Declaration of Human rights is roughly defined as "a conception of what is minimally required for individuals to have a chance to live free and flourishing lives"

What is interesting is that where human rights have not been adequately defined, folk here seem to be identifying the concept of rights to be the same between human rights and animal rights, both protectionist and abolitionist. This to me seems to totally fail to understand the concept of animal rights as it stands, trying to associate it to human rights. It's a false analogy.

The whole idea of human rights is one thing, but also as thinking beings we are able to agree to confer 'rights' or a level of ethical values in the way we treat other life forms. This is animal rights.

To simply treat them as the same thing is wrong I think.

[davo]

I'll add that people that are deeply involved in 'animal rights' tend to reject the concept of rights in general in favour of the concept of Equal consideration of interests.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_c...n_of_interests

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Originally Posted by davo

I'll add that people that are deeply involved in 'animal rights' tend to reject the concept of rights in general in favour of the concept of Equal consideration of interests.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_c...n_of_interests

As is often the case, Davo, your contribution has prompted reading.
Singer is being placed on hold at the library.
Thanks
Matt