Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rights of Nature?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 31 of 147 (702533)
07-08-2013 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Straggler
07-08-2013 6:42 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
The decision is what humans want to do.
Or in some more noble cases what humans can convince themselves they should do.
Foe example consider the great ape project:
quote:
The Great Ape Project (GAP), founded in 1994, is an international organization of primatologists, anthropologists, ethicists, and other experts who advocate a United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Great Apes that would confer basic legal rights on non-human great apes: chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans.
The rights suggested are the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture.
Now whilst it might be convenient or even beneficial to humans to treat other apes as objects unworthy of moral consideration there is a growing argument that it is wrong to do so.
This an example of conferring rights on non-humans. Would you support that stance?
No I would not support that stance.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 6:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 6:58 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 147 (702534)
07-08-2013 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by jar
07-08-2013 6:50 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Can you explain why you find the idea of humans conferring the same sort of rights that we do to other humans (sometimes at least....) to non-human entities so distasteful or otherwise unworthy of support?
Why would torturing a gorilla (for example) not be worthy of moral condemnation in your view?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 07-08-2013 6:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 07-08-2013 7:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 147 (702535)
07-08-2013 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Straggler
07-08-2013 6:58 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Sorry but that is totally irrelevant.
Torturing a gorilla might be worthy of moral condemnation but not for the reason that the gorilla has some right not to be tortured just as I do not think a human has some right not to be tortured except within the very limited bounds I have laid out.
The United States can proscribe gorilla torture within those areas where the US has jurisdiction, but that is the limit.
People might morally condemn gorilla torture, but again, condemnation is unenforceable.
Just as you point out we sometimes confer certain limited rights to humans but that is simply talk and often totally dishonest. A good example would be the part of the US Declaration of Independence that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 7:34 PM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 34 of 147 (702537)
07-08-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
07-08-2013 7:22 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
jar writes:
Torturing a gorilla might be worthy of moral condemnation but not for the reason that the gorilla has some right not to be tortured just as I do not think a human has some right not to be tortured except within the very limited bounds I have laid out.
And I'm asking why we can't as a society decide to apply the same sort of 'limited bounds' to a non-human entity (e.g in this case a gorilla) that we do to other humans?
If, as we seem to agree, morality is a human social construct then why can we not as a society decide to confer non-human things with moral worth and thus bestow them with rights?
You position frankly seems contradictory. On one hand the suggestion is that morality is entirely a human social construct but on the other you seem to be denying in absolute terms that humans can confer moral worth on non-human entities.
I don't see why human societies would be unable to bestow moral worth on gorillas, trees, nature or indeed anything else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 07-08-2013 7:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 07-08-2013 7:40 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 07-09-2013 12:15 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 35 of 147 (702538)
07-08-2013 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
07-08-2013 7:34 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
As I have said, I don't even thing we can honestly confer "Human Rights".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 7:54 AM jar has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 36 of 147 (702551)
07-09-2013 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by jar
07-08-2013 7:40 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
jar writes:
No, I don't believe there can be animal rights or rights of nature.
jar writes:
As I have said, I don't even thing we can honestly confer "Human Rights".
So your issue is with conferring rights period. Whether it be humans or non-humans seems irrelevant to your stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 07-08-2013 7:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 07-09-2013 8:58 AM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 37 of 147 (702554)
07-09-2013 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Straggler
07-09-2013 7:54 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
My problem is with language; specifically with applying the term "Rights" as it seems to cause folk to misunderstand both reality and the basic issue.
Up thread I mentioned a good example; the "We hold these truths to be self evident..." passage from the US Declaration of Independence. It sounds great, is satisfying, is lofty and certainly made the signatories feel good. But it was also false and misleading as they really didn't hold those truths to be either self evident or in fact to even exist.
Women were not equal to males, property owners were different from the unpropertied and slaves were not human but property.
But the concept that there were 'human rights' outlined made folk feel good enough that for over 200 years Americans could enjoy living in the fantasy.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 7:54 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 1:07 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 38 of 147 (702564)
07-09-2013 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Straggler
07-08-2013 7:34 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Straggler writes:
And I'm asking why we can't as a society decide to apply the same sort of 'limited bounds' to a non-human entity (e.g in this case a gorilla) that we do to other humans?
You'd have to have different bounds for gorillas and guinea worms, wouldn't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 07-08-2013 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 1:10 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 147 (702566)
07-09-2013 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by jar
07-09-2013 8:58 AM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Well frankly your blanket objection to the use of the term "rights" as applied to humans + everything else seems like a different issue to the one at hand. Maybe you should instead ask whether we can imbue things (humans, animals, trees, nature, whatever) with moral worth.
The fact is that laws are often based on the idea of "rights". And as a society we can make laws concerning humans, animals and even the more abstract concept of "nature" based on bestowing these things with rights.
"Rights" is simply shorthand for saying that we as a society have decided to bestow some sort of moral consideration.
Are you making a blanket objection to bestowing moral consideration as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by jar, posted 07-09-2013 8:58 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by jar, posted 07-09-2013 1:38 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 40 of 147 (702567)
07-09-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ringo
07-09-2013 12:15 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Sure. So?
It's still a case of applying the same sort of 'limited bounds' (to use jar's phrase). The bounds don't have to have the same limits in order for us to confer some sort of rights on non-human entities.
The question, apparently, is whether we can confer rights on anything at all. Jar seems to say not.
I say we can ultimately confer rights on whatever we deem to be worthy of moral consideration. The more moral consideration we bestow the greater the rights we are likley to confer.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ringo, posted 07-09-2013 12:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2013 3:09 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 56 by ringo, posted 07-10-2013 12:02 PM Straggler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 41 of 147 (702568)
07-09-2013 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Straggler
07-09-2013 1:07 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Straggler writes:
Are you making a blanket objection to bestowing moral consideration as well?
Not at all.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 07-10-2013 7:43 AM jar has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 42 of 147 (702571)
07-09-2013 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Straggler
07-09-2013 1:10 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Straggler writes:
The question, apparently, is whether we can confer rights on anything at all. Jar seems to say not.
This is a really strange argument because of course we can confer rights on anything so long as we understand we're making it up.
For example, I've just granted the right for the seagull to nest on my chinmey. I don't grant the right in perpetuity and I reserve the right to revoke the decision if my wife gets dive bombed too often or if they splatter my car after it's been washed.
And most importantly, the sea gulls neither know nor care and will shit on my car regardless.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Straggler, posted 07-09-2013 1:10 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-09-2013 3:20 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 44 by dronestar, posted 07-09-2013 4:11 PM Tangle has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 43 of 147 (702572)
07-09-2013 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tangle
07-09-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
I noticed a wasp thought he had the right to build a home under my porch... and then I murdered his family.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2013 3:09 PM Tangle has not replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1407
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 44 of 147 (702574)
07-09-2013 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Tangle
07-09-2013 3:09 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Tang writes:
And most importantly, the sea gulls neither know nor care and will shit on my car regardless.
But what about creatures with more sentience? Sure, sure, we probably unanimously think lowly creatures such as wasps, guinea worms, or politicians should not have any protective rights. But what about:
Dogs?
Dolphins?
Primates?
For them, how would you know it is necessarily a made-up right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2013 3:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 07-09-2013 4:33 PM dronestar has not replied
 Message 46 by Tangle, posted 07-09-2013 4:35 PM dronestar has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(1)
Message 45 of 147 (702576)
07-09-2013 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by dronestar
07-09-2013 4:11 PM


Re: Non-Human Rights
Dronester writes:
Dogs?
Dolphins?
Primates?
For them, how would you know it is necessarily a made-up right?
I think what is being discussed is that all the rights, even those that we have as humans, are simply made up rights. We have decided that not murdering one another is a good thing and from this comes our idea of a right to life. If you look at us in nature, we are woefully at risk of death from many different things, it does not look like nature gives us the right to life, rather that we decided it was important.
I think looking at Jar's example of the opening to the Declaration of Independence has some merit to it and really shows this point and shows that these ideas of "Rights" are constantly evolving. Originally, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was only intended to be rights for white males who owned property. Well, we realized that it was unfair for only these people to have rights and so it was extended to black men (albeit unevenly) around the late 1860's-1870. Later, we felt that this needed to be extended toward women as well, but it is still an arbitrary decision on who we feel deserves "Rights"
Recently, we have begun to recognize the sentience in many animals. This led to the thought that perhaps they deserved some of the "Rights" we make up for ourselves, such as not torturing great apes, attempting to avoid dolphin bycatch, and the releasing of most chimpanzees used for scientific research.
However, the new idea is that these "Rights" should be extended for all of nature. And I would tend to agree that we should not treat nature as wastefully as our ancestors did. The problem is that as humans, we are required to use nature! It is from nature that we are able to create all of the amazing tools that have made us the most brilliant tool makers in Earth's history and allowed us to thrive throughout the world.
The point is that as cognitive thinkers, we must search for ways to help nature, while continuing to utilize what we can for our benefit. Giving nature full "Rights" would be a death nail for our species, as is continuing to take whatever we want without regard for the future. Finding the balance between that which can be sustained, that which must be used, and that which should be left in peace is the important step. Stating with a blanket response that all of nature has "Rights" does nothing to explain what the rights are, how we can still thrive, and what we can use to replace that which must be given up...

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by dronestar, posted 07-09-2013 4:11 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by onifre, posted 07-10-2013 1:33 AM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024