Rights of Nature?

Again, already answered. In fact several times. And answer is still the same.YOU may understand that I don't like the term "rights" because I think it implies something innate etc and that YOU are not talking about anything innate.But I don't think that is generally true.

The OP is talking about laws.Do you object to bestowing moral consideration through the legal mechanism of assigning non-human entities protection from things like torture, destruction etc...?These assigned legal protections are commonly referred to as "rights" but if we remove that apparently problematic term are you OK with the idea - Or not?

Again, that has already been answered. My issue is with the term and concept of rights and I have a major problem with the concept of assigning rights to nature or animals or humans.Yes, humans should have both a moral and practical concern for other things, but not because those things have any rights whatsoever.Laws are one thing and what is important is, as I have said, proscribing and prescribing human behavior.As an example consider torture. I would favor a law proscribing torture. I am not in favor of a law that says gorillas have the right not to be tortured.

Hi Tangle,I think I am late to the party and beating a dead horse with this post because it seems Oni and Straggler have effectively covered this already, but let me try in my own words . . .2000 years ago, the idea of innate rights for anyone but royalty was probably seen as ridiculous. Then about 200 years ago in america, leaders proclaimed rights for 'common' individuals (but not black people, nor native americans, nor women). Fast forward 200 years, it seems there are now inalienable rights to ALL citizens (in theory).But in India, there is still a caste system that has much inequality. Maybe in 200 years Indians will see that all people have innate rights too. But right now, for Indians it seems rights SHOULD BE given arbitrarily. Does this seem fair/correct/ethical?Now, do you still feel, like the Indians, that any rights for Indian's lower-class, (like recent history's black people, native americans, and women) . . . be simply 'made up,' or be "arbitrary"? If you were one of these groups, would you feel it a kick in the head to know that any rights you have now is based on arbitrary, made-up decisions?Sooo, if we could do a little extrapolating from history, and apply it to the future, why would giving added rights to sentient animals be necessarily arbitrary?I don't think it too unimaginable that someday, like history's slow march to civilized behavior, minimal rights would be afforded to most living things.And, as a bonus, by piggybacking these new found rights to nature, we can also give extra legal tools to combat corporations that hope to poison your child.

It's the added bullshit like "... corporations that hope to poison your child" that keep folk from ever taking you or your position seriously.

Of course I'd feel pissed off about it too and all those groups did and some still do. You've confirmed your own point - people make up the rules that suit them and they change over time. We almost certainly will grant more rights to various animal groups - sentient or otherwise. That doesn't make them any less arbitrary. Doubtful - we tend to eat a lot of them. That's one hell of a non sequitur

Sheesh, and they say gorillas are the ferocious beasts.

You don't necessarily have to visit a third world country to see just how far corporations would poison an environment for profit.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what I quoted.Sorry but still just more rhetoric from you.

SHOULD granting rights to blacks, women, and native americans be arbitrary? If not why? If you didn't read my OP, you may erroneously think it is.

Not only should it be arbitrary, it is arbitrary.

You publicly stated that giving rights to blacks, women, and native americans SHOULD be arbitrary???I guess I have nothing more to add. Ummm, . . . kudos Jar, . . . well done.

No, everyone SHOULD have he same rights. But they don't and the reason they don't is because some people don't agree with me and I can't make them.Opinions on morality depend on your own position in society and the times and the country you live in.

Okaaay. So what would be some of the reasons for their disagreemnet with you? Why would some people (cough, cough, Jar), believe that rights SHOULD be arbitrarily given to blacks, women, and native americans? Hmmm, are these good reasons?Edited by dronester, : No reason given.

Dronester, you are missing what everyone is saying completely. It's not that it SHOULD be arbitrary, but rather that it IS arbitrary. This is why the rules on who has "Rights" changes as the society around these "Rights" grows, learns and realizes the errors in some of its thinking. Also, when you think about nature, you must remember the multitude of ways that it would like (Obviously personifying nature here) to make our entire species go extinct. It is the way of things and most species have been wiped out, so it seems the right to life for us is not important to nature.We make up the rules, and they tend to follow whatever society is creating these rules. Should Blacks, Natives, and women have gotten Rights when America was founded? Yes. Was that likely to happen in the society where the Declaration of Independence was signed? No. and Thomas Jefferson even said that it was a battle for future generations to fight because those who tried in those meetings had failed.Should we create laws that protect nature? Yes, but not at detriment to our own societies. We must find balance.Oh, and jar was saying he would not suuport a law that gave gorillas the "Right" not to be tortured. This does not mean he would not support a law that says, "Humans, do not torture Gorillas." It's the term "Rights" that is at issue. We determine the rights, there is nothing innate in it.Look at it this way, if only three species were left, humans, chimps, and gorillas...would we still see the same right to life of these two other species or would or decisions have to change with a need for protein in our diet?