Rights of Nature?

What do any of those pictures have to do with Nature having any rights?

I have read your links in the opening post and as I have said in the past, I see no more evidence that there are any innate Rights of Nature than that there are any innate Human Rights.

As long as we also understand that they are not universal, are not innate and are simply bestowed by humans and for human interests. No, I don't believe there can be animal rights or rights of nature.What we can do is proscribe and prescribe human behavior and human rights. The issue and problem is that proscribing or prescribing behavior must be done either voluntarily or though force. If voluntary then those rights are only among those who consent. If through force it devolves to the interests of the most powerful.We can say that within a given society, culture, state some actions are proscribed or prescribed. But such rights exist only within that particular society, culture or state.The US, as an example, could say that it does not have the right to use fracking or burn coal.

I'm not sure that you post does anything but support what I've been saying.We as humans can proscribe or prescribe our actions. If we convince enough people not to cut down a 1000 year old tree then we do not cut down that tree; but it has nothing to do with whether or not the tree has any rights. The decision is what humans want to do.As humans we can create any argument to support our desired position. That can include creating something as imaginary as "Natural Rights", but that does not mean the tree or hill or mountain or river or animal or view actually has any rights.

No I would not support that stance.

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."

As I have said, I don't even thing we can honestly confer "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.

Not at all.

And I have already answered that question at least once in this thread in Message 37.My problem with using the term rights is that it implies the fiction that such rights actually exist and are a property of the object named; that humans actually have certain rights or nature has rights or animals have rights when what in reality we are deciding to prescribe human behavior.

Or even the desires of the few or era, or geographic location, or current conditions or ...

Do trees have the right to not get hit by lightning.Do forest fires have the right to burn homes.Do dermatophytes have the right to grow on humans.Do floods have the right to kill people.Do weeds have the right to grow in yards.There are no innate rights.

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.

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.

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