RE: Do non-humans possess the same inherent rights that humans do?
so, like the right to vote? i would not trust a tiger to adhere to the nonaggression principle in a crowded movie theater. no, i think that we, as humans should treat animals with respect, but that they will always be either dependents or wild and to expect them to be otherwise would be an undue imposition on them and their nature. we couldn't possibly hold them to the same standard that we do ourselves. imagine trying to apply human reasoned laws to animals. i admire your compassion for living things , but i don't think you've thought this through. most animals in the world would be considered homeless, indigent, delinquent. would have to crank up the science machine and figure out how to communicate with them. so we could let them vote. which bathroom does the hyena use? is species just a social construct? no, animals are different from us in that we reason. rights come with responsibilities. i for one would not do that to them.
Voting is not an inherent right, it is a positive right, or more accurately, a privilege.
When have you seen a tiger inside of a movie theater? Why would that ever happen? If the movie theater owner chose to not allow the tiger in, then it woupdnt be allowed in, because it woupd have to respect the inherent rights of other beings... If the tiger violated any body's self-ownership, then self defense would be morally justified. Total non sequitur and strawma/ red herring.
Humans appear to either be dependant or wild as well.
Acknowledging that they possess thr same inherent rights as humans doesn't involve holding them to the same standards as far as behavior and ot capacity goes.
A hyena woupd use the bathroom as he does now...in the safari, or wherever it calls home currently. Acknowledging that non-humans have the same inherent rights doesn't mean that they will be treated like humans and invited to eat at the dinner table, or allowed in all places of business, etc.
Arbitrary laws such as seatbelt laws, indecent exposure laws, or drug laws, etc, wouldn't be applied to non-humans, as they really shoupdnt be unilaterally applied to humans within imaginary borders either; because laws that create "victimless crime" are immoral, and are a violation of autonomy.
just making sure where you stand. we, humans in this country have the right to peaceably assemble, how do you communicate that to an animal? a tiger is an extreme example but it is apt. this is a right that we have naturally and is not given to us. the reason it is stated is for the benefit of the government knowing that they are not allowed to deprive us of that right. there is also the idea of innocent until proven guilty. this implies that we are not allowed to assume that a tiger is prone to actions that we as reasoning beings should be aware that a perfectly evolved predator is not just capable of but actively engages in a desire to do. i would not want to find myself in a situation where i am forced to defend myself against an animal i respect for doing what it naturally does. while we are able to exclude tigers from personal property, in places like india tigers do on occasion wander into the town square. so, that is when that would ever happen.
wild humans are capable of reason. they can reason their interest in not aggressing against others. animals have rights by merit of existence, provided they can defend them. i can't see where the rights of the gazelle are when being eaten by the lion. i like animals, i love animals but i am still grappling with the idea of rights when it comes to predator/prey relationships or parasite/host for that matter . some people might even argue that in relation to psychopaths and the rest of us. not me. psychopaths are human, can reason and so do not enter into it. i try to respect the natural rights of everything. from microbes to broccoli to cats and humans. there are dynamics that i am sure i don't understand. i keep trying, and this makes it easier to have people pointing out when i'm being outrageous without adequate explanation, or just being an idiot.
i am curious where you stand on the matter of plant life. this is in all seriousness. i want to know what you think. you showed enough interest to call me out. so, how about it? also i have doubts on the ethics of owning pets. i haven't been able to get anyone to take me seriously. humans have taken animals from the environment and not just killed them without need but bred them and turned them into things they were never evolved to be. things that are dependent upon us completely in some cases. it is an extreme argument but i find it is often the extremes that best shed light on where i stand.
any opinions or thoughts and especially facts are appreciated. thanks.
The rights of a gazelle who is being mauled and eaten by a tiger, are in the same location and or state that the rights of a rape victim are in, and that is violation.
A rape victim still has rights while they're being raped, the rapist is just violating them. A gazele still has rifhts when It id getting attacked and or eaten, the aggressor is just violating them. Rights are not guarantees.
Does an apple tree die when you eat its fruit? How about blueberry bushes?
If you do not pick fruits or vegetables, what happens? They get eaten, or they rot.
A plant can not express non-consent in any ways that a human can naturally identify. When you aggress against an animal, you get a reaction from the animal that innately informs you of their emotional state; same can't be said for plants.
Plants do not mourn and have never been proven to be sentient and or capable of processing emotion.
so, you're saying that a lion, i believe i said, that is eating a gazelle or some other animal, the only thing it is evolve to eat, is violating the rights of that animal.
is that correct? i don't want to put words in your keyboard.
@lifeworship Animal rights don't refer to giving human rights to nonhuman animals. Animal rights refers to the rights that are appropriate to each species. So no, a cow doesn't need the right to vote, but she does need the basic negative rights to not be enslaved and not to be made to suffer for someone else's benefit.
Rights do not always and do not necessarily have to come with responsibilities. Does a newborn baby have rights? What are her responsibilities? What about someone who is cognitively disabled?