What is Animal Rights?

[doglady]

It seems to me that "We" as a society already recognise that animals have rights otherwise there would be no animal welfare laws.
Amiright?

Yes.  You are right.

[Pollock]

It seems to me that "We" as a society already recognise that animals have rights otherwise there would be no animal welfare laws.
Amiright?

Not sure it would be recognizing rights for animals as opposed to putting limits on certain forms of human behavior pertaining to animals, and like Bad said.

[I've got the best usernym on the Shit Field]

Not sure it would be recognizing rights for animals as opposed to putting limits on certain forms of human behavior pertaining to animals, and like Bad said.

...aaand rights are merely one type of limit on human behavior.

[Badattituud]

Not sure it would be recognizing rights for animals as opposed to putting limits on certain forms of human behavior pertaining to animals, and like Bad said.

...aaand rights are merely one type of limit on human behavior.

not all limits are the result of rights.  As I said, it is my opinion that animal welfare laws (the limits) are to ensure that we uphold our moral obligations.

I feel that we have a moral obligation to preserve and protect our environment on a global (as well as local) level.  I feel that we have a moral obligation to make our environmental footprint as small as possible.  Does that mean the Earth has rights?

[I've got the best usernym on the Shit Field]

not all limits are the result of rights.

Never said they were.

I feel that we have a moral obligation to preserve and protect our environment on a global (as well as local) level.  I feel that we have a moral obligation to make our environmental footprint as small as possible.  Does that mean the Earth has rights?

That would depend on whether you think those obligations are owed to the environment and Earth itself, or whether they're owed to humans. If the latter, you could say that current and future generations have a right to a healthy environment.

[Badattituud]

not all limits are the result of rights.

Never said they were.

not all rights result in limits either.

I feel that we have a moral obligation to preserve and protect our environment on a global (as well as local) level.  I feel that we have a moral obligation to make our environmental footprint as small as possible.  Does that mean the Earth has rights?

That would depend on whether you think those obligations are owed to the environment and Earth itself, or whether they're owed to humans. If the latter, you could say that current and future generations have a right to a healthy environment.

IMNSHO, our moral obligation to the planet has nothing to do with future generations having a nice spot to live.  The entire planet is essentially a living being on its own.  Each and every living thing, inanimate object, and weather phenomena are the skin and bones and internal organs of Earth.  My moral obligation is to the planet itself - not for what I can get out of it.

I can't help but see a parallel between ecological welfare to ensure we can continue to "exploit" the planet for generations to come - and animal welfare to ensure we can continue to "exploit" animals for generations to come.

[I've got the best usernym on the Shit Field]

not all rights result in limits either.

Give some examples.

IMNSHO, our moral obligation to the planet has nothing to do with future generations having a nice spot to live.  The entire planet is essentially a living being on its own.  Each and every living thing, inanimate object, and weather phenomena are the skin and bones and internal organs of Earth.  My moral obligation is to the planet itself - not for what I can get out of it.

I can't help but see a parallel between ecological welfare to ensure we can continue to "exploit" the planet for generations to come - and animal welfare to ensure we can continue to "exploit" animals for generations to come.

Well, I don't think ecological morality is about human welfare either. I do think it's about the well-being of current and future sentient inhabitants of ecosystems however - plants, rivers etc. don't really have any interests on their own.

But be that as it may, I would suggest that the following conditions are, together, sufficient (even if not necessary) to imply a moral right for individual I:

1. it is wrong to do, or not do, X which affects I
2. other individuals' interests are not sufficient, by themselves, to justify doing, or not doing, X
3. doing or not doing X is directly owed to I

[Sally1230]

I think animal welfare is for people that are ready to stop picketing a fast food company that never touches a live chicken and actually help actual animals. You can't change the world with extremism and AR is extreme. But when you set positive examples and show how reasonable you can be, people are much more willing to listen to you and your point goes farther. Expecting people to put down chicken and pick up spinach is not going to happen, that's unreasonable.

[Jeni]

and AR is extreme.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. SOME AR is extreme, not all.

[Pollock]

Not sure it would be recognizing rights for animals as opposed to putting limits on certain forms of human behavior pertaining to animals, and like Bad said.

...aaand rights are merely one type of limit on human behavior.

They can be, but what I'm not sure is clear in this situation is whether they were indeed the limit.

[Sally1230]

and AR is extreme.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. SOME AR is extreme, not all.

Erm, yes the belief that you should extend rights to non-human beings is extreme. The move from, for example, the mass killing of chickens to affording them the right to be alive (and thus punishing their "murderer") is very extreme.

[Badattituud]

Give some examples.

"the pursuit of happiness" springs to mind.

The rights of women and non-whites to vote.

The right to marry (according to the Court in Zablocki v Redhail (1978))

Well, I don't think ecological morality is about human welfare either. I do think it's about the well-being of current and future sentient inhabitants of ecosystems however - plants, rivers etc. don't really have any interests on their own.

So your umbrella criteria for rights is sentience?  What about individuals in a vegetative state?  They don't have any interests on their own either.

But I see, even with this quoted bit from you that your moral responsibility towards the planet is based solely on what sentient (or possibly sentient) beings can exploit from it.

[UmBongo]

and AR is extreme.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. SOME AR is extreme, not all.

Erm, yes the belief that you should extend rights to non-human beings is extreme. The move from, for example, the mass killing of chickens to affording them the right to be alive (and thus punishing their "murderer") is very extreme.

Hardly. Just because it's not a popular opinion doesn't make it "extreme". If anything it's "extreme" to lack compassion for animals that we can easily empathise with if we bothered to stop and think for once.

[UmBongo]

Murder requires intent of harm and pretty much malicious aforethought.

That dog had every intent of killing that chicken. Pretty much proves my point, thank you. LWOP!

Dog will probably kill the chicken for either territorial, food or other reasons.

Other reasons? No kidding, really. LOL

Intention to harm with malicious aforethought isn't killing something for food. So no, I didn't prove your point.

[Sally1230]

and AR is extreme.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. SOME AR is extreme, not all.

Erm, yes the belief that you should extend rights to non-human beings is extreme. The move from, for example, the mass killing of chickens to affording them the right to be alive (and thus punishing their "murderer") is very extreme.

Hardly. Just because it's not a popular opinion doesn't make it "extreme". If anything it's "extreme" to lack compassion for animals that we can easily empathise with if we bothered to stop and think for once.

The move from calling something "food" to calling it "companion" is an extreme move.