5 ms·

There is no logic or reason to animal rights. Lets say animals have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What do we do when a mama bear kills a dee

by qiskit 4y ago

There is no logic or reason to animal rights. Lets say animals have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What do we do when a mama bear kills a deer to feed her cubs? Arrest the mama bear for murder? What do we do when an ant colony takes over and wipes out a termite colony? Execute them for genocide? What do we when someone kills a mosquito? If we examine a bowl of salad a vegan is eating and find thousands of microscopic animal parts in it. Do we execute the vegan for crimes against fauna? Like all agenda driven by emotion and virtue signaling, you can reject with a cursory look at the matter. Does that mean we should allow unnecessary cruel behavior towards animals? No. We should be the best stewards of animals, plants, etc on earth we can be.

GPerson 4y ago
I think there’s a few problems with this point. It seems to imply that unless animal rights = human rights, then they don’t exist. The second is related to the first, but it commits the perfectionist fallacy. A third point, perhaps related to the first, is animals may not be capable of moral agency in the same way that humans do, so we may have to treat them differently.
- qiskit 4y ago
  The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth. Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out? If an animal has rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what do you do to the mama bear that kills a deer to feed her cubs? Animals don't have rights precisely because they are animals. Just like plants don't have rights because they are plants. Rights are a human invention for human societies. It does not exist in nature. Animals live in nature and must live under the laws of nature. If animal rights exist, then what are their inalienable rights? Try it and you'll see how absurd the notion is.
  - GPerson 4y ago
    I don’t view this as us having an argument. “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument.” Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? “ Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out?” The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer.
    - qiskit 4y ago
      > I don’t view this as us having an argument. By argument, I don't mean a "fight". By argument, I meant a logical/rational/etc argument. My point is you didn't offer anything worth debating in response to my comment. > Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? Yes. Far more generous than I should be. > The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer. No. It was a straightforward question. Nothing rhetorical about it.
      - GPerson 4y ago
        “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth.” “ Yes. Far more generous than I should be.” This sounds angry. I apologize for upsetting you. I hoped to equip you with some thoughtful feedback on your ideas. Please practice more generosity towards others.
ss108 4y ago
"Like all agenda driven by emotion and virtue signaling, you can reject with a cursory look at the matter." Is there a clearer way of saying you're intellectually and morally lazy about a topic than calling it "virtue signaling" and saying that you can reject postulations that have been the subject of a great degree of academic debate over the past several decades "with a cursory look at the matter"?
- qiskit 4y ago
  What makes you think I didn't participate in the "great degree of academic debate"? > Is there a clearer way of saying you're intellectually and morally lazy about a topic than calling it "virtue signaling" It's a clear way of saying I've intellectually and morally considered it and it's nonsense. The only people who would get upset by it are those whose entire reasoning is emotional and hypocrite virtue signaling. Otherwise, they would provide examples of animal rights or answer my question that I laid out : If animals have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what do you do to a mama bear that kills a deer to feed her cubs? Notice that the two replies to my legitimate comment are rather lacking in any argument or reason.
  - ss108 4y ago
    People (probably correctly) assume you're not a good faith conversant when you say things like "The only people who would get upset by it are those whose entire reasoning is emotional and hypocrite virtue signaling." I find that the phrase "virtue signaling" is used almost universally by people who themselves are deeply morally lacking and thus wish to portray other peoples' altruistic and empathetic moral positions as somehow false so they can feel better about their own lack of empathy, altruism, and charitability. Nobody here said that animals have the rights enumerated in the United States Declaration of Independence (which by the way carries no legal weight). In any event, the general postulations as to the issue you present are that ecologies themselves have intrinsic value and we needn't interfere with nature (there is an in fact a debate about this on the environmental side of the aisle). Indeed, "rights" themselves are never absolute and they aren't somehow abstract (again, if you actually engaged with the literature you may be more familiar with debates surrounding how to define rights, whether are only individual, etc). Most rights exist vis-a-vis x or are things that cannot be infringed upon by other rights-bearing actors or the government. Thus an animal can have a right to not suffer at human hands, but such a right is not susceptible to infringement by another animal. This response was more than you deserve.

by qiskit 4y ago

GPerson 4y ago

I think there’s a few problems with this point. It seems to imply that unless animal rights = human rights, then they don’t exist. The second is related to the first, but it commits the perfectionist fallacy. A third point, perhaps related to the first, is animals may not be capable of moral agency in the same way that humans do, so we may have to treat them differently.

qiskit 4y ago
The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth. Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out? If an animal has rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what do you do to the mama bear that kills a deer to feed her cubs? Animals don't have rights precisely because they are animals. Just like plants don't have rights because they are plants. Rights are a human invention for human societies. It does not exist in nature. Animals live in nature and must live under the laws of nature. If animal rights exist, then what are their inalienable rights? Try it and you'll see how absurd the notion is.
- GPerson 4y ago
  I don’t view this as us having an argument. “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument.” Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? “ Why not just answer the difficult question I laid out?” The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer.
  - qiskit 4y ago
    > I don’t view this as us having an argument. By argument, I don't mean a "fight". By argument, I meant a logical/rational/etc argument. My point is you didn't offer anything worth debating in response to my comment. > Do you think this is a generous interpretation of the ideas I put forward? Yes. Far more generous than I should be. > The way you framed it sounded like a rhetorical device and not a call for discussion and answer. No. It was a straightforward question. Nothing rhetorical about it.
    - GPerson 4y ago
      “ The first is related to the third is related to the second is related to the first isn't an argument. It's trying to avoid the argument because you can accept the truth.” “ Yes. Far more generous than I should be.” This sounds angry. I apologize for upsetting you. I hoped to equip you with some thoughtful feedback on your ideas. Please practice more generosity towards others.

ss108 4y ago

"Like all agenda driven by emotion and virtue signaling, you can reject with a cursory look at the matter." Is there a clearer way of saying you're intellectually and morally lazy about a topic than calling it "virtue signaling" and saying that you can reject postulations that have been the subject of a great degree of academic debate over the past several decades "with a cursory look at the matter"?

qiskit 4y ago
What makes you think I didn't participate in the "great degree of academic debate"? > Is there a clearer way of saying you're intellectually and morally lazy about a topic than calling it "virtue signaling" It's a clear way of saying I've intellectually and morally considered it and it's nonsense. The only people who would get upset by it are those whose entire reasoning is emotional and hypocrite virtue signaling. Otherwise, they would provide examples of animal rights or answer my question that I laid out : If animals have rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, what do you do to a mama bear that kills a deer to feed her cubs? Notice that the two replies to my legitimate comment are rather lacking in any argument or reason.
- ss108 4y ago
  People (probably correctly) assume you're not a good faith conversant when you say things like "The only people who would get upset by it are those whose entire reasoning is emotional and hypocrite virtue signaling." I find that the phrase "virtue signaling" is used almost universally by people who themselves are deeply morally lacking and thus wish to portray other peoples' altruistic and empathetic moral positions as somehow false so they can feel better about their own lack of empathy, altruism, and charitability. Nobody here said that animals have the rights enumerated in the United States Declaration of Independence (which by the way carries no legal weight). In any event, the general postulations as to the issue you present are that ecologies themselves have intrinsic value and we needn't interfere with nature (there is an in fact a debate about this on the environmental side of the aisle). Indeed, "rights" themselves are never absolute and they aren't somehow abstract (again, if you actually engaged with the literature you may be more familiar with debates surrounding how to define rights, whether are only individual, etc). Most rights exist vis-a-vis x or are things that cannot be infringed upon by other rights-bearing actors or the government. Thus an animal can have a right to not suffer at human hands, but such a right is not susceptible to infringement by another animal. This response was more than you deserve.