Community > Posts By > PoisonSting
Police asked the man to move away from school property, but he was not arrested. ![]() |
|
|
|
Topic:
online line
|
|
I think you got your name on a spammer's list. You can probably expect another couple of emails from different addresses saying the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
The internal fight
|
|
Embrace the dark side
Other people's pain will keep you warm at night. ![]() |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
Poison Sting 1) Animals have feelings. Quite frankly, it requires more than that to be my equal. Drug dealers and pimps have feelings, but I think I am better than they are. Warlords and tyrants have feelings, I am better than they are too 2) We are all connected. Again, I have already mentioned that connection does not equal dependence or responsibility. You have a high opinion of your self, not always a bad thing though. You see people only on the surface, but what is beneath what life did the drug dealer, ping or tyrant live? You may judge individuals, but did it ever occur to you to figure out what made them become what they are and what we might do in the future to prevent more people like them? We can put out fires but to find solutions that will work we first have to identify the source of the original problem. Doing this digging, critically trying to understand where the real problems are and what might solve them, would help you begin to understand the interconnectedness between humans, other animals and all the environment. Your response agrees with my position. You are suggesting that there is something "wrong" with them as they are and that they can be fixed?repaired?made better? In short, your response has led you to separate judging the actions of the individual from your vision of who the individual could be. I have no way of knowing who they could be, but more importantly I have no way of knowing who they WANT to be. Their purpose for their own life is their decision. If I find fault with their degradation, abuse and enslavement of others... then yes, I am better than they are. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
boy, miss a day, miss a lot.
What is Ethics? Ethics is a philosophy which has predominantly focused on human beings and moral aspects of what is right and wrong or good and bad. The philosophy of ethics is to question and evaluate moral standards concerning, as Weston states, “the basic needs and legitimate expectations of others as well as our own” (2008 A21st Century Ethical Tool Box – 2nd ed.). That seems reasonable. For myself, I tend to make the distinction that Ethics is the evaluation of what is right and wrong while morality is applied ethics and a moral code are the rules by which one pursues "the good". But this definition seems to cover that. What are “basic needs” Basic needs are whatever is required to sustain life such as food, clean water, protection from the elements and access to basic medical care, and freedom to develope internal potential and a welcoming environment in which to externalize that potential, fulfilling the basic need to find purpose. this is loaded language that I don't necessarily agree with. What are “legitimate expectations”? Legitimate expectations are based on the ethical principle that all humans are, by their intrinsic nature, equal to one another. To be human legitimizes the individuals’ claim to be respected by others, have the unhindered right to the pursuit of livelihood and to freely believe, think, and speak without fearing others, while striving for fulfillment and happiness. However, equality signifies a two-sided equation and individuals are not free of responsibility to ensure his or her behavior does not impede or infringe on the same, equal, legitimate expectations of others. Men are not equal. In America, in the eyes of the law all men are equal, but to suggest that everyone should be "respected" simply because they are human is a flawed suggestion. When police enter a dwelling where the floors and walls are covered with feces and rotted food, the children are naked and filthy and the parents are in a drug induced stupor; would you say that you "respect" the parents or the choices they have made? Respect is earned through actions not by virtue of birth. As I’ve mentioned the philosophy of ethics has expanded beyond the original application for humanity only because it has been recognized that this planet seems to require everything it (nature) has created in order to remain balanced. In other words no thing within our world operates without affecting other things. That is how we and all life and all the environment are interconnected. Ethics is a determination of right and wrong. As such it requires an intellectual choice. Only humans make intellectual choices, therefore ethics is only helpful or required for humans. Animals do not have freewill. They do not make choices of right and wrong or good and evil. This planet does not require everything that nature has created to remain balanced (and I am not even sure if the existing balance is required*). If this planet did require everything, then it would never recover from the mass extinctions of the past (There have been 5 known mass extinctions, one of which 251 million years ago destroyed 95% of all species on earth. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/extinction_sidebar_000907.html). We, as humans, need certain things in nature for this planet to be habitable, but that is something completely different and leads to a different view of things. While it is true that all things in nature are interconnected, that does not preclude change. It occurs in nature all the time where there is a shift instigated by one species or event that the surrounding species must adjust to. I would like to mention that creating these definitions MUST span every socially and culturally acceptable morality. That is why the definition remains so compact. Just like our laws require a court system to interpret the law per case, so must we interpret other peoples’ morals/ethics based on their culture and not our own. I do not think this would lead to any insights or wisdom. First, the law is a strict set of guidelines. Where you were raised, who your parents are, what faith you adhere to are (or should be) completely irrelevant in determining guilt or innocence. Furthermore, to interpret other's moral code based upon their culture is good for an anthropologist but I do not believe it to be helpful here. One quick example: Where I live a man cut his wife's head off with a saw because she said she wanted a divorce. Given your ethical stance above, this would be wrong. However, this man claims that he is a Muslim and it is within his rights. Should we interpret his actions through the lens of his culture and agree with him? The philosophy of ethics attempts to determine a ‘standard’ morality with regards to life and those standards are based on the intrinsic value of life itself. In other words life has value because it is life and if we understand that every life has a purpose and is of value than what conditions, what rights are consistent with the value we place on life?
There are no "intrinsic values". There is nothing that you can point to that is "good" just because it is. To be valuable, something must be good "for something". Gold has no intrinsic value. However, we have noticed that it is very stable and does not rust, that makes it good for currency. A tree is not good because it is a tree. It might be good for us because it is a CO2 scrubber or because it will aid in drainage or soil retention or makes good building materials or is an excellent resource for paper (which in itself is invaluable for transmitting information from one generation to another), but a tree is not good or bad. When you say that something is "good" in and of itself and outside its relationship to other things... that is a religious interpretation for God. Ethics attempts to answer this but humans are unlike other animals because we do not simply subsist on the natural world, we create. Therefore part of ethics requires that humans take responsibility for what they create and part of that responsibility is to make sure that all life continues to be ‘valued’ and their ‘rights’ maintained no matter what it is we create. This is a higher sense of ought, own that is BOTH personal and collective—morals we can all agree on no matter what else our society or culture teach us. But we must first have a sense of right and wrong, and that is a socially learned process and varies between people and greatly from culture to culture. So we have a personal sense of ought that is influenced by many areas but one of those areas should always include ‘ethical/moral’ consideration which spans all life. I really agree with this (if I am understanding you correctly). We must move to an ethical understanding of the world that transcends culture, religion and society. In short, we must approach morality from our greatest common factor: being human. We must accept that even though we may have learned right and wrong from a limited cultural view point, that should not keep us from moving beyond that. ------------------------------- Unfortunately, as much as I enjoy debating ideas, I am quickly running out of time to read and respond in the depth required. Since I will have to limit myself to a part time participant to this thread, please feel free to disregard my above reservations to that you may more easily form a consensus. ------------------------------ * by existing balance I mean that balance is an idea, not a thing, and there are many ways to create equilibrium. If you place your finger half way along a yard stick, you can balance it there. However, you may still achieve equilibrium by moving your finger closer to one end if you compensate with weight on the other. We all know this. What makes one type of balance "better" than another? Those who say that we must maintain the natural order of things because that is the way it was created are not really answering the question. It is true that to alter a balance point requires an understanding of all the interacting forces, but is that an argument against the "right or wrong" of changing the balance? To me it sounds more cautionary than a charge of immorality. Change the world all you like, just understand what you are doing. A case in point would be hydroelectric power. No one can deny that there is a huge impact on the environment when people dam rivers. However, the benefits for both power and agriculture are monumental. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
Sorry Bushido, I am not really sure I am following you.
You want us to imagine a perfect world so that we can imagine a perfect morality? I don't think I can do that since I am the guy who believes our morality is based on our human condition. In essence, the fundamental choice to live or to die. Every human must make this choice every conscious minute. Do you light a cigarette or not? Do you throw out that tin can or recycle it? Do you blow off work to party with your friends? Do you go to college? Do you accept a high paying but ultimately unfulfilling job? Do you choose to have children? I think every choice you make ultimately boils down to your life and how you want to live it. By removing the need to make these choices you minimize the most basic question of ethics: is it right or wrong? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
Red,
Somehow I get the impression that you think me a cold and uncaring eco-marauder determined to subjugate Mother Nature under the wheels of my SUV. ![]() Not the case. Once again... Yes, I believe that we need to concern ourselves with the future of the planet and our children. Yes, I believe that there are some real tragedies in the world. Yes, I believe there are things that each of us can do to alleviate problems, both locally and globally. But this paragraph seems to be the crux of our disagreement... We really could produce more than enough healthy food choices for the world IF we use the world for that production. But today people whose countries are frought with war or drought or simply too impoverished to help their own people to help themselves are starving and those that have (as you say) are asked to provide. But you would provide charity and feel that denied for having to give part of what you ‘rightfully’ worked for to feed the poor. Please think beyond your life of ease, think of what alternatives might correct the problem so you will not be asked for charity. Many millions of people are capable, willing and desire to be productive, to work harder than you will ever have to work, just to feed themselves while you work overtime to get a new car. I think that if you knew me you might be surprised at what I know about the 3rd world and what I am personally doing to help. However, SOME countries are undergoing severe difficulties do to situations beyond their control, some from poor planning and leadership, and some from evil governments. Yes, I believe that not all forms of government are created equal and when tyrannical warlords destroy nations, that is evil. Again... Yes, I believe in charity. Yes, I like to help others. But when you stop asking for help and start to demand it under threat of imprisonment if denied, then I have a problem. When you demand that I must provide for you and for your children and your children's children... I say no. And when alternatives are provided and disregarded, then I feel no moral compulsion to continue. As far as the topic at hand... I would still like to know what animal rights you believe every animal should be afforded and how they should be provided for. I am guessing from your post to fusion you believe that animals should not be considered property, but partners. Except I don't think you are supposed to eat your partner. I am also guessing that you believe that people should view animals as equals. They are not. This in no way sanctions abuse or unnecessarily painful treatment to animals. However I would never save the life of my dog at the expense of my daughter (or even a stranger) because animals and people are not equal. So far I have only been able to divine 2 reasons why you believe animals and people should be considered equals: 1) Animals have feelings. Quite frankly, it requires more than that to be my equal. Drug dealers and pimps have feelings, but I think I am better than they are. Warlords and tyrants have feelings, I am better than they are too. We do not live in a world of equality. Nor should we. Excellence, liberty, justice and wisdom should be extolled virtues and not things thrown into the muck of human degradation in an attempt to make us all equal. 2) We are all connected. Again, I have already mentioned that connection does not equal dependence or responsibility. Let me go further and suggest that connection is not equality. A parent is not a partner to their child. A shepard is not a partner to the sheep. In fact, let's look at that particular analogy a bit closer... The shepard is the owner (or a representative of the owner) of the sheep. His concern is to keep the sheep safe so that they will provide him with what he needs. In no way could they be considered equals. It is in his best interest to do his job because if the sheep become sick or killed by wolves he will lose his investment and his livelihood. The shepard might be lucky enough to have a dog to help him. The dog represents a substantial investment in training, but that investment pays off because the shepard is able to take care of more sheep. The dog is not a partner. In your view of the world, the dog is a slave. It gives its labor to the shepard for what it needs to live and no more. The dog gets not say in what it is told to do. Again, it is in the shepard's best interest to take care of the dog. Are the sheep happy? Their happiness isn't a concern one way or the other, they are a resource. Anyone who would try to make a sheep happy would only be guessing anyway. Is the dog happy? It would seem so. Most dogs like to chase sheep around, it never goes hungry and has a strong pack leader to tell it what to do. however, once more the dog's happiness is irrelevant. It is a piece of property that should be taken care of to that it will remain useful longer. Is the shepard happy? I would hope so because if he isn't he is wasting his time engaging in an activity that does not fulfill him. However, it is his life and I will give both him and myself enough respect to make their own choices. I hope I haven't mischaracterized your words and if I have please correct me. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
I can see I am going to have to limit my exposure to this thread since I will never have enough time to say everything I want to say...
Wux, I largely agree with Sky. I think you have latched on to a specific idea and not explored the alternates enough. But Sky, in the case of the doctor he would be blameless. He would have done everything in his power to treat the 5 dying patients and so would not have been negligent. You cannot sue an auto mechanic for not fixing your 1920 Ford if he cannot find the parts. As for what you believe to be a universal moral code: Since we are talking about morals: As a definition I like to say that a moral choice is one in which one foregoes his own short- or long-term gain in order to aid someone else with relinquishing the resources he himself could use for his own benefit. With the proviso that individuals will give preferential treatment to those who are genetically closer. That is your moral code and one that I personally refuse to live under. According to your definition, a man who runs into a burning building to save a stranger is immoral because he is risking being lost by his family to save a stranger. If that man dies doing so, that would make him down right evil. Although I somehow get the idea from your writing that a man would be incapable of making that choice. The idea that ethics?morality? (can't figure out exactly which you mean) are passed down genetically... ummmm.... that is just a baaaad idea. Think about it this way. If morality is genetic, that means that evil and good will be passed down to offspring. And since you believe that our actions are governed by our genes, there can be no redemption for the wicked... in fact, no freewill (but let's leave the redemption/freewill issue out of it). You also suggest that our actions and choices are based on sacrificing ourselves to those less fortunate (closer to our DNA first). ummm... yeah, this is a racist belief. If I own a company with one opening, I will offer it to the one who is closest to my genes. I will only allow my daughter to marry someone close to my genetic type (but I don't have to worry about it since she will be attracted to someone close to her genetic type). This idea of genetically hardwired ethics and morals isn't a very cheery picture for homosexuals either. Although, since we are all genetically hardwired to make choices to promote our DNA there probably aren't any homosexuals anyway since that is a dead end development. I am thinking I probably misunderstood your points... Another point about our morality is shaped over time by what we witness... If we make moral choices based upon what we are familiar with (fur trader vs. transplant), then we have only 2 choices... 1) rely on tradition as our moral compass with the understanding that if we break tradition we are evil since: "This is how it works: A moral person is looked up in society. They are revered." 2) allow that society can only progress through immoral (i.e., evil) actions. Since the new by definition breaks tradition, advancements in society can only be performed by the evil. Conclusion: Since immoral actions will be bred out of society through selective breeding ("so eventually the genes that called for unethically programmed or rather not ethically programmed behaviour were eliminated. If they presented in submissive genes, then they perhaps survive.") we will ultimately reach some form of homogeneous, albeit stagnant, society in which evil has been eliminated. I don't think I can agree with your conclusions. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Kabbalah
|
|
From what I have seen, it is a perspective. If it resonates with you, rock it.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
![]() Well Sky, looks like I am immoral. I agree that morality is a code of conduct, but I believe that it is fashioned and maintained by the individual and not the group. Wux, I might have agreed with you if the mother cat had a choice in the matter. But if every cat reacts the same way to a particular circumstance, I am going to have to side with instinct. This happens when a male lion takes control of a pride. He systematically destroys every cub present so the females will go into heat and his genes will be passed along. The lionesses watch. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
Sky,
So there are no morals without a group? An individual cannot be moral on his own unless he is being judged so by others? That would mean that we rely on others to define us, to tell us what to do and how to do it. That would mean that each of us is a simple brute that must be tamed and domesticated by society. That without society, we are lost and can NEVER be good. I can't accept that. I think it is possible for an individual man to be both good and moral outside a group. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
ok. I can follow that. Since rights are a social expression of morality.
But, can morality be objective? If it cannot, then what happens to the individual whose morality is counter to the societies? There is no hope for an individual. Additionally, the best relationship that countries can hope would be a level of tolerance; the only way to alter it would be through conquest or proselytizing. But would it be possible to develop a morality based on being human instead of being a member of a group? Would there be a way to evaluate a method of conduct that will objectively define what is good for all people? I think it is possible if "less is more". If you minimize the rules to be the least restrictive necessary to protect the interests of everyone. But, I don't expect a lot of people to agree with me. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
But the fundamental basis for them is the same as for “beauty” – in the eye of the beholder. I am not so sure that morality is subjective. Morality governs a persons actions and their choices may be based on subjective decisions, but does that make their choices moral? I tend to believe that there is a right and wrong in the world. If your actions and decisions are based on a rational approach to a situation, then your morality will be more objective than subjective. Consider this, taking a human life. As a society we have all decided that we will avoid taking another's life if possible. But the if possible does not cover dying yourself. If your life is threatened by another you are allowed to defend yourself using the minimum force necessary but up to and including killing your assailant. This is not a subjective response. It is based on the rational observation that your life is your greatest value and you are allowed to protect it. Does that make sense the way I wrote it??? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
We have not only made living conditions of these animals pitifully and needlessly painful and a life filled with suffering but the payback is obesity, cancer causing (carcinogens) in our food, diabetes, tooth decay, unnecessary stomach problems that lead to stomach, esophageal, and colon cancer. These are the byproducts of our NOT considering the moral issues of other life. In response to this, these issues have nothing to do with moral issues of other life but with (in some cases) a disregard of future outcomes. But in all fairness, even you must appreciate the fact that modern agriculture produces more food than it ever has in the past. Enough food to feed the population of the world. Without these advances, human population would have been suppressed through starvation and disease to a level that could be been sustained by a lower production level. In a very real sense, many of us would not be here today without these advancements. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
OK, I have read your points 3 times but I am not really sure how you got them from what I wrote.
PoisonSting No, animals do not have rights. They don't need them.
Animals do torture and kill other animals, but that isn't really what this is about. The reason they don't need rights is because they don't need to reason. In your reasoning is there any concern given for the continuance of the human species? If you care at all about the survival of future generations would it not be wise to consider the impact of your behavior in your life time on three or four (at least) generations into the future? The human species cannot survive without the survival of individuals. Conversely, if humans cannot survive neither can individuals. So I would have to say, yes. It would be wise to plan for the future, both short and long term. Man is the only animal which requires intellect to survive. Animals are bigger, stronger or faster; they breed quickly, have sharper senses and a whole host of adaptations that aid their survival. Most importantly they function on instinct.
Man needs to use his mind to survive. He must puzzle out problems and plan for the future. Man has also learned how important it is to work together. So you do plan for the future or is that only as far as you think you will personally live? Do you think we are winning “the war on cancer”? Is our water and food safe to eat and drink? Or are we creating more cancer with chemicals, microwaves, irradiation, and poisons in our water supplies? These are some problems a good mind would be puzzling out, but a lot of research would be necessary to discover that the problems actually exist. Will you plan for your future with money or with your mind? I am missing the link between "animal rights" and microwave ovens. But to your later point, yes again. There are issues like pollution and disease that effect humanity as a whole. We will only find the solution to these problems by applying our intellect to solve the puzzles and our time (i.e., money) to apply the solutions. This holds for all cases: individuals, societies, short term and long. If the most valuable thing a person has is their life (since nothing can be accomplished without it) and therefore survival becomes the supreme goal of each individual. Human rights are those things we have identified to be required for survival, and the list is pretty short.
You confuse me, you said “Man is the only animal which requires intellect to survive.” So now we need each other? Is one persons’ intellect inadequate all by itself? There was a time we needed animals to pull our loads, to plow our fields and we treated them with respect for the help they gave us. We needed them then before they were ever considered a main dietary source. I never suggested that we need each other. I said that working together is beneficial, but not required. Yes, an individual can exist on his own and in doing so will require his intellect to solve problems and plan for the future. If you are on your own, you must think or you will die. There was also a time before we needed animals for labor that we didn't need them at all. My point is, we domesticated animals to harness the things that they had that we did not. They had strength, we caught them, trained them, harnessed them to a plow (and later used gears to enhance their power) to make our farming more efficient. Today, we use tractors instead of mules. They are more reliable, more powerful and more efficient. I am sorry but I have missed the link once more. How does the fact that historically man has harnessed the power of animals for labor relate to "animal rights"? I can't think of a way around this. For example, it might be nice to have a right to shelter and have a living space provided for everyone. But whatever you give to one person must be taken from someone else since things do not simply appear from no where. But if you have a right to keep what you work for, then you can work for your own shelter.
You do not give people enough credit. Do you really think that people are so incapable of providing for themselves – IF ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL, that is? Do not just look around you for the answer, look at other countries as well. Are we not all interconnected through our environment, through our intellects? Providing opportunity is the most helpful, and where opportunity is lacking we need to use our ‘superior intellect’ to provide the basic needs until opportunity becomes available. This is the best we can do, it is what you seem to thing we ought to do, since you have stated we NEED EACH OTHER. Depending on your criteria of comparison, I do not necessarily believe that all men are created equal. However, I believe the exact opposite of what you have paraphrased. I give people a great deal of credit and I believe that all people should provide for themselves. Yes, we are all connected (again, the level of connection depends on your criteria), but connection does not mean either dependent or responsible. Yes, providing opportunities is a very good thing, but providing opportunities is vastly different than providing basic needs. True, in cases of extreme circumstances (i.e., natural disasters) people often need food, clothing and shelter to sustain them until they can produce their own requirements. However, this is a limited situation. I have nothing against charity and believe it to be a highly noble endeavor. However, forced charity has another name: theft. It should also be noted that I do not believe in minority rights, women's rights or gay rights. I think these are simply things that are used to confuse the issues. Since everyone is a human, then they all have human rights. (A little off-topic, I know and I apologize)
What exactly do you think the issues are? It may be a little off-topic, but this may be important to the conversation because all the ‘issues’ surrounding rights, are moral ones and that’s part of what we’re discussing. The issue that is usually being obfuscated is that one group is attempting to attain power over another group. I do not agree with Rush very often, but he is absolutely correct when he says "the smallest minority in the world is the individual". When a group believes that it should have "rights" that are denied to individuals outside their group then something shady is at work. If any person is allowed to marry, then all people should be allowed to marry (in my previous post this would be the idea of freedom). Nothing against what you have written, but I am having trouble linking these ideas to the debate on animal rights. Perhaps you would be able to tell me what rights all animals should have and who is to provide for those rights? |
|
|
|
Topic:
afghani law
|
|
![]() whatever happened to religious tolerance? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
LMAO!
dunno, but I have met a few militant vegans who were anything but peaceful. One berated me because I was buying honey which was further perpetuating the oppression of honey bees -- Whatever the f**k that means. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Is It Ever Okay To Lie?
Edited by
PoisonSting
on
Sun 08/16/09 01:12 AM
|
|
Yeah Katz...
here is a cheesy little internet story (urban myth) that kind of gives another example... Girl and guy were speeding over 100 mph on a motorcycle. Girl: Slow down. I'm scared. Guy: No this is fun. Girl: No it's not. Please, it's too scary! Guy: Then tell me you love me. Girl: Fine, I love you. Slow down! Guy: Now give me a BIG hug. (Girl hugs him). Guy: Can you take my helmet off and put it on? It’s bugging me. In the paper the next day: A motorcycle had crashed into a building because of break failure. Two people were on the motorcycle, but only one survived. The truth was that halfway down the road, the guy realized that his breaks broke, but he didn't want to let the girl know. Instead, he had her say she loved him, felt her hug one last time, then had her wear his helmet so she would live even though it meant he would die. ==== I think it all boils down to the intention of the lie. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Is It Ever Okay To Lie?
|
|
Yes it is ok to lie to someone you love. In fact, sometimes I think you should avoid the truth at all costs.
![]() Sometimes there are comforts in lies that cannot be found anywhere else. When my father was dying of cancer, he would routinely lie to my mother about how badly he was feeling to spare her the frustration and pain that the truth would have put her through. Sometimes we need to lie about our feelings to bolster our partner. I remember going through a tough financial patch and telling my wife how it would be alright because I could feel it in my gut. A lie. But it made her feel a little bit better in a dark time. I feel no guilt in that. I remember times when I was growing up that I did things I shouldn't have done. My father and I talked things out and I really learned my lessons from those talks. If my mother would ask what was going on, my father would tell her that he wasn't sure, but that she should give me the time and the space to work things out on my own. He wanted me to learn what I needed to know while protecting my privacy. I think we should be careful about making blanket statements. ALWAYS telling the truth means that sometimes you will hurt the ones you love needlessly. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Rights to life.
|
|
No, animals do not have rights. They don't need them.
I am pretty sure that animals experience pain and pleasure. And I have seen cats toy with field mice before killing them and my dog certainly seems to be brimming with pride when she brings me a dead snake, which by the way she has absolutely no interest in eating only in tearing it to pieces. Animals do torture and kill other animals, but that isn't really what this is about. The reason they don't need rights is because they don't need to reason. Man is the only animal which requires intellect to survive. Animals are bigger, stronger or faster; they breed quickly, have sharper senses and a whole host of adaptations that aid their survival. Most importantly they function on instinct. Man needs to use his mind to survive. He must puzzle out problems and plan for the future. Man has also learned how important it is to work together. If the most valuable thing a person has is their life (since nothing can be accomplished without it) and therefore survival becomes the supreme goal of each individual. Human rights are those things we have identified to be required for survival, and the list is pretty short. If you think about it food, clothing and shelter are "things" you need to survive but you really have no "right" to them. Instead, our society guarantees you the right to live you life in a way that you deem best to achieve happiness with the proviso that you do not impinge on the rights of others to make those same choices (i.e., freedom). You have the right to keep the products of your labors since you will require those to live. Additionally, we have made a contract with each other that we will only allow violence to be initiated by an objective authority so that we do not kill each other. I can't think of a way around this. For example, it might be nice to have a right to shelter and have a living space provided for everyone. But whatever you give to one person must be taken from someone else since things do not simply appear from no where. But if you have a right to keep what you work for, then you can work for your own shelter. It should also be noted that I do not believe in minority rights, women's rights or gay rights. I think these are simply things that are used to confuse the issues. Since everyone is a human, then they all have human rights. (A little off-topic, I know and I apologize) |
|
|