Human Rights

[GTsail]

Ug, another physically impossible what if scenario.

I'm so stuck on the lack of freshwater on a tropical island betraying all known geographical, geological, and meteorological science I can't even concentrate on the morality of the situation....

I'll admit that my scenario is pretty unlikely, but I had to make it pretty extreme in an effort to narrow down the choices.

Rain water may eventually provide a solution (but my feeling was that this will be too late for the five islanders), because initially no one will want to drink the rain-water because it will likely be contaminated by radiation (a left-over present from the "smart" bombs).

Lack of fresh-water on Pacific islands is not impossible. I understand that the island of Nauru has no naturally occuring fresh water, and they even had a 3-year drought between 1998 and 2000, when they had very little rain. See link: Nauru drought

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[FoolKiller]

1) As stated the animals kill for survival, when humans do the same, no issue.

As I pointed out already, animals have been witnessed killing and torturing for fun. Ignore this fact all you want, but they do it.

2) What you see as normal to animals, is actually seen so by a minority of humans:
Islam 1600 mil: Halal: slaughter be done in a way that was least painful and most merciful to the animal: http://www.shariahprogram.ca/eat-halal-foods/islamic-guidelines-slaughtering-animals.shtml
Hindouism/Buddhism: 1500 mil: The principle of karma

Um, OK. I think I missed the point.

Truth be told, if animals have the same rights humans do then murder is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.

I'm still missing your argument.
1) You seem to claim to understand everything an animal thinks, yeh right ....

Are you claiming sentience or intelligent thought in animals? Most of them can't even show signs of recognizing their own self.

2) You come again with the same premiss: you need to understand, you need to be able to explain, ... Why???

If you can never understand you can never recognize them in others.

A right is something that can be defended I see no reason you have to do it yourself => that is why a dead mans rights are defended, a baby is defended, I forgot last time someone with an IQ of 60, ....

We just had this conversation. I'm not running in circles.

I'll admit that my scenario is pretty unlikely, but I had to make it pretty extreme in an effort to narrow down the choices.

Don't worry it's just me. I also say I'd derail the train, killing no one.

Rain water may eventually provide a solution (but my feeling was that this will be too late for the five islanders), because initially no one will want to drink the rain-water because it will likely be contaminated by radiation (a left-over present from the "smart" bombs).

And the spring would be polluted after the first rainfall.

Lack of fresh-water on Pacific islands is not impossible. I understand that the island of Nauru has no naturally occuring fresh water, and they even had a 3-year drought between 1998 and 2000, when they had very little rain. See link: Nauru drought

Springs require rainwater at some point. A drought means no spring.

 

[Encyclopedia]

As I pointed out already, animals have been witnessed killing and torturing for fun. Ignore this fact all you want, but they do it.

Not all species. Not even all within a species who does.

 

[Danoff]

A right is something that can be defended I see no reason you have to do it yourself => that is why a dead mans rights are defended, a baby is defended, I forgot last time someone with an IQ of 60, ....

"Something that can be defended" is a very strange definition of rights. What you mean is "something that can be justly defended" - so what's the criteria of what can justly be defended and what can't be?

Why do you need this premiss? For a right to defendable you do not have to understand it, someone can defend it for you.

You need to understand rights to be able to observe the rights of others - that's why it's important. If you don't observe the rights of others, or are incapable of observing the rights of others, you forfeit your own rights.

It's your actions that define your rights.

I agree that if mental capacity is needed to have rights, that the definition of mental capacity is subjective

Not at all. There is nothing subjective about a criteria for having rights being observing rights. And you need mental capacity to observe rights.

Out of that logic comes that if you value the right to live, your life should be something you can defend, you must expect others to value the right for your life.

Not on board with any of that.

If you value x, x should be something you can defend. Well, what if x was the ability to murder an innocent person? Can you defend your right to murder innocent people? Can you expect others to value your right to murder innocent people?

You can't expect people to do anything. People will do any and everything. Their actions are entirely of their own determination. All we can do is react objectively with a set of actions that are logically supported. That's what human rights are, a logical basis for force.

If they did not value that right, you could not defend your life.

That's simply not true. The murderer never values your right to life, and yet you will defend it. No one needs value your rights for your rights to exist. Rights do not exist because of any external valuation.

Logically if you have the right to live, the others have it as well, since they can defend it on the same basis as you.

Depends on their actions.

1) You have your rights (sorry Danoff), nomatter what, that is what innate means, you only have to be to have them.

Explain to me how a murderer being executed for murder has a right to life.

2) You can only be punished when you violate the rights of others.

What is "punishment" an example of the use of force against a person. How can someone who has their rights be "punished" (have force used against them)?

👍 for ShobThaBob

Danoff you do claim it changes something: If you understand rights they apply to you. If you do not understand rights they do not apply to you.
The rights do not change, why would the applicability of the rights change?

...because included in the definition of rights is a prescription for applicability. Applicability is fundamental to rights. It doesn't change, you change where you fall in something pre-prescribed by logic based on your actions. Nothing about the backdrop of human rights depends on your actions at all.

If you murder an innocent person, you change nothing about the nature of rights. The nature of rights prescribes that you lose your right to life based on your actions.

 

[FoolKiller]

Not all species. Not even all within a species who does.

Not all humans recognize human rights.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I'll admit that my scenario is pretty unlikely, but ...

Honestly I believe that people use the "unlikely" statement to avoid answering questions. To discredit the person asking the question.
Yes it is right that the some scenarios are unlikely. Try to understand what the person wants to get and give a more likely example if possible.

In my view saying it is a moral choice to let 75% of the population of the planet die because you have no responsibility to help them is pretty poor. Yes it is her property, but seeing the circumstances it seems the wrong choice. Imagine only 1 part of the island has fruit trees on it and the man owning it states that she can not come on it after he dies from lack of water. Thus with his property right killing the last surviving human, even when he is dead. Yeah property is a great right.

Now on rights, she lets them die, so if they force her to give water to protect their life is that according to rights? (Seeing that the unlikely, but that happens, event they can not use an other source of water).

My take, she is illegally blocking access to common resources, she did no work for it, it is just an accident the others do not have water on their property, chance. It would be different if she dug to get water and afterwards the others instead of helping or digging for themselves went to steal the fruit of her work.

 

[Danoff]

Yes it is her property, but seeing the circumstances it seems the wrong choice.

Perhaps it's not the choice you would make, but using force against her (an innocent person) is not logically supportable.

My take, she is illegally blocking access to common resources, she did no work for it, it is just an accident the others do not have water on their property, chance. It would be different if she dug to get water and afterwards the others instead of helping or digging for themselves went to steal the fruit of her work.

She traded money (labor) for land that someone else owned (through labor). She has legitimate ownership. Forcing her to give her property (labor) to others simply because they need it is a subjective value judgement.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

If you can never understand you can never recognize them in others.

I think I understand you point.
I would not accept the judgement of an animal either.
It still does not change that they have the same rights as humans.
To make it clear, yes in rights for me killing a human or an animal is the same.
In judgement it is not, but that is clearly subjective, stop mixing them up.

"Something that can be defended" is a very strange definition of rights. What you mean is "something that can be justly defended" - so what's the criteria of what can justly be defended and what can't be?

Justly is based on value systems = subjective.
I reject this, if all would agree we can close the thread, there are no objective rights since the definition holds subjective statements.

You need to understand rights to be able to observe the rights of others - that's why it's important. If you don't observe the rights of others, or are incapable of observing the rights of others, you forfeit your own rights.

It's your actions that define your rights.

This mixes a right and wrong statement:
1) you forfeit your rights by incapable of understanding (observing) them => not true, you would only need that to judge, not to have the right.
2) It's your actions that define your rights. => True, a dog that is raised in a family that will not harm a fly that is killed because it is unconvenient is wrong, the dog's action did not forfeit it's rights.

There is nothing subjective about a criteria for having rights being observing rights. And you need mental capacity to observe rights.

See above. justly is subjective, the mental capacity of an animal is subjective. Action is objective.

Not on board with any of that.

If you value x, x should be something you can defend.

You indeed missed the whole point.
If you value right x, x should be something you can defend. Out of the defintion of right.

You can't expect people to do anything. People will do any and everything. Their actions are entirely of their own determination. All we can do is react objectively with a set of actions that are logically supported. That's what human rights are, a logical basis for force.

Mostly correct, but I would expect people to act according to rights. If they do not I'll react accordingly.

That's simply not true. The murderer never values your right to life, and yet you will defend it. No one needs value your rights for your rights to exist.

You right exists no matter what I agree with that.
The murderer does not value your right I agree with that. I think it is only a expression mistake from my side, but interesting:

If others do not value your right to life, they might judge you severely for self defence against the murderer (imagine you killed her in self-defence) and rightly so if they value the murderer higher then you. You are actually living in a society that does not respect your life, all that is left for you is to try to survive in an illogical society. Fear any reaction of anyone since the society is illogical. So the point is not that the right does not exist, the point is the others need to recognise your right because otherwise you can defend against their illogical actions.
Now where most get it wrong is that in that illogical society the right exists, even if you have no instance to call upon for justice. They need to value your right, because theoretically otherwise you could ask them all to be killed since they show illogical murderous actions towards you.

Rights do not exist because of any external valuation.

That is correct, but contradicts:
* value of justly
* value of human comprehension against animal comprehension

Depends on their actions.

Correct, we agree that innocence is a very important concept in rights. Not innocent opens you up for judgement, but only "not innocence". If you did not act, you are innocent.

Explain to me how a murderer being executed for murder has a right to life.

I hope we can close this.

1) Natural rights are innate, you only have to exist to have them, logically.
=> this means Hannibal Lector has his full rights, he exists.
2) If you are innocent you should be free.
=> Hannibal Lector is not innocent.
3) Unavoidable the judgement becomes subjective based on values.
=> Hannibal Lector should he get death penalty or be sent to a murderers reserve.
We go against the right of Hannibal Lector by killing him or taking away his freedom.
However this is highly justified, since you know he will kill again. So you would not be punished for doing this.

In a system where Hannibal Lector loses his rights, rights are not innate, not universal, they can be taken away arbitrarily by a judgement. The judgement does not change the rights people have though, it only determines the punishment on you action.

What is "punishment" an example of the use of force against a person. How can someone who has their rights be "punished" (have force used against them)?

Since there is conflict, I do not believe in the black and white world.
The whole issue is that if rights are universal any punishment will be against rights. If you allow rights to disappear they become arbitrary, you can loose them.

In the conflict of rights, there is a judgement, the rights remain objective, but you can not avoid the judgement to be based on subjectivity, a value statement that chooses between 2 rights violations, the victim (agressor action) and the agressor (punishment).

...because included in the definition of rights is a prescription for applicability. Applicability is fundamental to rights. It doesn't change, you change where you fall in something pre-prescribed by logic based on your actions....If you murder an innocent person, you change nothing about the nature of rights.

I agree with all this, you do not need to understand rights for this though, you just need to act accordingly.

Nothing about the backdrop of human rights depends on your actions at all.
... The nature of rights prescribes that you lose your right to life based on your actions.

Wait a minute:
1) Rights do not change depending on your actions.
2) You loose your rights depending on your actions.

I read that more like:
1) a right is something you have, no action can take it away, since it is logical, action does not influence it.
2) your right goes away when you do certain actions
=> it is 1 or 2, not both, that is where I have an issue with the way you express this, 1 is the only way for me. I always find you mix 1 and 2. 1 when you talk about rights, 2 when you talk about punishment.

We are talking about the same thing, but we do not agree on the way one can express it. From there I said sorry upfront.

She traded money (labor) for land that someone else owned (through labor). She has legitimate ownership. Forcing her to give her property (labor) to others simply because they need it is a subjective value judgement.

The question with land is, it was purchased from someone, who purchased it from someone, .... till you go back to the person that first stole it and thus has a debt to society.
So the amount of debt to the society that you got with buying the land is also subjective. I started for this the other thread on Wealth distribution, calling property a right is a large exaggeration.

 

[GTsail]

.....She traded money (labor) for land that someone else owned (through labor). She has legitimate ownership..

Yeah, I'm in agreement with this.

Before the "Big Bang", there were no "common resources" on the island. And as you say, resident # 1 did work for her portion of the island. Her "work" earned her enough money to buy her portion of the island in the first place.

So, I don't think that resident # 1 is illegally blocking access to common resources. There would need to be a law stating that water is a common resource for her actions to be illegal.

I would still consider her immoral if she decided upon this course of action.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

.... till you go back to the person that first stole it and thus has a debt to society.

How exactly do you steal land that is not owned by anybody? Explain that one to me please.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Not all humans recognize human rights.

I know. But we don't judge the entire human species from it.

Animals do kill for survival a lot more often than not. Some only. So I think Vince's point still stands.

 

[Danoff]

This mixes a right and wrong statement:
1) you forfeit your rights by incapable of understanding (observing) them => not true, you would only need that to judge, not to have the right.
2) It's your actions that define your rights. => True, a dog that is raised in a family that will not harm a fly that is killed because it is unconvenient is wrong, the dog's action did not forfeit it's rights.

I think I understand your beef here and I'll get to it below.

See above. justly is subjective, the mental capacity of an animal is subjective.

Objective, quantifiable, measurable, scientific. I think your real issue is not that the mental capacity of an animal is somehow dependent on opinion, but that you think I'm valuing intelligence over less intelligence - and that that valuation is subjective.

But I'm not.... more below.

You indeed missed the whole point.
If you value right x, x should be something you can defend. Out of the defintion of right.

But it dodges the point - that you need an objective basis for what qualifies as "something you can defend".

You right exists no matter what I agree with that.
The murderer does not value your right I agree with that. I think it is only a expression mistake from my side, but interesting:

If others do not value your right to life, they might judge you severely for self defence against the murderer (imagine you killed her in self-defence) and rightly so if they value the murderer higher then you. You are actually living in a society that does not respect your life, all that is left for you is to try to survive in an illogical society. Fear any reaction of anyone since the society is illogical. So the point is not that the right does not exist, the point is the others need to recognise your right because otherwise you can defend against their illogical actions.
Now where most get it wrong is that in that illogical society the right exists, even if you have no instance to call upon for justice. They need to value your right, because theoretically otherwise you could ask them all to be killed since they show illogical murderous actions towards you.

You can defend your right to life against all of society. If everyone on the planet thought that your right to life did not exist, you could still defend it against them and you would still have it. So what the values of the society you live in are is irrelevant.

That is correct, but contradicts:
* value of justly
* value of human comprehension against animal comprehension

I'm not making a value judgement of human comprehension vs animal comprehension. More below.

I hope we can close this.
1) Natural rights are innate, you only have to exist to have them, logically.
=> this means Hannibal Lector has his full rights, he exists.

Nope. Hannibal Lector has lost his rights (objectively, due to his own decisions).

In a system where Hannibal Lector loses his rights, rights are not innate,
not universal, they can be taken away arbitrarily by a judgement.

They're not taken away by arbitrary judgement, you give them away through your own choices.

If you allow rights to disappear they become arbitrary, you can loose them.

You can loose them, but not arbitrarily. Your choices/actions determine what rights you have.

Wait a minute:
1) Rights do not change depending on your actions.
2) You loose your rights depending on your actions.

The framework of human rights does not change depending on anything. It exists. Where you fall within that framework depends on your actions.

The question with land is, it was purchased from someone, who purchased it from someone, .... till you go back to the person that first stole it and thus has a debt to society.

Unowned resources become property when they are mixed with labor. That's not theft, to "steal" it it would need to be owned.


Ok, so I think you're getting way too hung up on the comprehension of rights issue. You're right that if a creature, even without being able to comprehend rights, will always act according to rights (not possible), they would have rights. A rock would not even satisfy this condition - since the rock would not leave your property if you asked it to. The rock would also being willing to crush you if it rolled onto you.

I've consistently argued that animals that do not torture other animals have a right against torture. This is not necessarily due to comprehension, but simply innate behavior. My point about comprehension is that without it, you're going to violate some rights. A cow's brain is simply not able to comprehend the fact that that's your grass its eating, and that it should stop eating it because you asked it to. That cow can be assumed not to adhere to rights that its brain will not understand.

This isn't a value judgement, it's an acknowledgement of behavior. Cows can't have property rights because they can't (medically) observe the property rights of others. If they could (even without gaining intelligence) they would have them.

 

[FoolKiller]

I think I understand you point.
I would not accept the judgement of an animal either.
It still does not change that they have the same rights as humans.
To make it clear, yes in rights for me killing a human or an animal is the same.
In judgement it is not, but that is clearly subjective, stop mixing them up.

So, eating a steak and cannibalism are the same, we just subjectively judge their wrongness?

I know. But we don't judge the entire human species from it.

Animals do kill for survival a lot more often than not. Some only. So I think Vince's point still stands.

So, if in the island scenario one of the other islanders killed the woman for her water in order to survive that would be OK? Or if you killed a bank executive when his bank foreclosed on your home, would that be justified?

If we give animals human rights then we give humans animal excuses.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I think most progress can be made on seeing what we agree upon and what the differences are, without kwibbeling about you are wrong, I'm right:

Many in the thread agree (I do not talk about actual rights, but the structure behind it):

1) Rights that are universally applicable and are purely based on logic exist. This is an objective fact, based on logic. Logic is a system that is irrefutable, timeless, universal and used for discussion. To show your rights you need to disclose your definition and premisses, then explain your logical arguments.

2) People exist that do not believe in universal rights based on logic. These people are illogical, based on point 1, without logic there is no discussion, there is dogma. These people would believe more in determinism then in free will. They are allowed to believe what they want, it does not change objective facts, there is no use discussing dogma (e.g. it is God given).

3) A moral that does not respect rights is wrong, illogical.

4) If you do actions that do not respect the rights of others, you open yourself up for actions against you that do not respect rights.

5) The basic functions of rights are to protect your freedom and the fruit of your effort.

6) Rights apply on an individual level. Groups as an entity have rights, however they can never infringe the right of one of the individual members. e.g. The group might find you need to do something to remain in the group, you always have the right not to do it and leave the group.

7) Even if the rest of the society believes in determinism or pure utilitarianism, so that you can not find an instance to defend your rights, your rights do still exist.

8) Laws are efforts of societies to capture rights in written text. Mostly these efforts fail and the laws do not represent rights correctly, but introduce many right violations. Many laws project what people want on other people and try to oblige persons to follow the ideas of the many, where this would be against the individual right, freedom.

Not clear if we agree:

9) Language is something subjective, when we start writing down rights and logical arguments, we have a great risk of introducing some subjective elements. That is why the discussion will be very long.

10) Responsibility: you are innocent if you do not do actions that do not infringe rights of others, you are not responsible for what others think, want, etc... only direct action of yours that infringes the rights of others takes away your innocence, makes you responsible.

There are still fundamental differences in views:

11) Moral:
a) Moral is only about where you are responsible, purely objective based on rights. You always have a moral choice.
b) Moral is about making choises, there is a first objective part based on rights that is complemented with a subjective part, based on your culture. You can have to make choices between several moral or immoral choices, there is a value appreciation in that case.

12) Justice:
a) under moral a), justice is objective. If you chose the moral choice you are free, if you chose the immoral choise you loose freedom.
b) under moral b), justice can be objective, if you have the choice between violating rights and not violating rights, violating rights will always be wrong. If you have no choice but to violate rights it becomes subjective and will use a value system to determine justice.

13) Punishment:
a) if you have shown not to respect rights, you have lost your rights and thus are open for arbitrary action against you.
b) punishment is against your rights, the only point for punishment is to defend the rights of others, there is basically a conflict of rights, if you infringe the rights of others, you open yourself up for your rights to be infringed by action that defends the rights of others. When you are innocent = you did not act, you hold the right.

14) Maybe most fundamental: what is a right?
Any of these might apply in your defintion, but will depend on your sense of Moral, Justice and Punishment:
a) you must be able to defend a right
b) a right allows you to take away freedom, fruit of effort from someone that does not respect rights
c) a right can not be changed (by actions)
d) criteria apply that you need to fulfill to have the right:
i) you need to exist (e.g. they are innate)
ii) you need to respect the right of others = be innocent
iii) you need to be able to observe the rights

15) Irrealistic cases can help to get to insight: yes/no (I propose that people do not react on them if they think no).

The above is a basis for discussion, I think we should add more or refine then try to remove views. I believe some points contradict and that is where we are discussing, some part of the above that one holds on to, does not go with the part that some others hold on to.
e.g. belief 11)a) makes 14)d)iii) logical, if you do not observe the rights, how can you make the moral choice? However choice 11)b) makes 14)d)iii) irrelevant for objective rights, it is a value decision, so subjective, no matter what.
One other example seems to me if you believe in 12)b) you can not believe in 14)d)ii) since that would make rights subjective and would be against point 1; there is 14)b) as alternative, a small but essential difference to me.

Rights for me are: 14) a) b) d)i) => c) is logic, does not need to be mentioned
d)ii) and d)iii) go against my choices above: 11)b) 12b) and 13)b)

How exactly do you steal land that is not owned by anybody? Explain that one to me please.

If it is not owned by anyone, we all have the freedom to go over it and use it, no matter where or when we are born.
By making it your property you take away that freedom. That might be needed for agriculture, etc... but taking away a freedom from everyone is stealing that freedom, it puts you in debt.
It is a well known libertarian dilemma, that I still confront.

The framework of human rights does not change depending on anything. It exists. Where you fall within that framework depends on your actions.

First Danoff thank you for the converstation.

In my view the above is based on 14)d)ii) and thus implies 11)a). A too simple view of Moral according to me.

Unowned resources become property when they are mixed with labor. That's not theft, to "steal" it it would need to be owned.

You follow Locke, not the worst thing to do.
Nozick gave an example like this, I make an ocean with tomato juice, I take a tomato and squize it into the ocean. I mixed my labor squizing the tomato with the ocean, so now I own the ocean with tomato juice. No of course not, you lost the juice. Same thing with land, if you grow things on land that belongs to everyone, you risk losing your work of sowing, you do not gain the land. That does not take away that good property laws are needed for development, it just makes it anything but a pure right, by the freedom you took away (see above) it is more a rights violation.

Ok, so I think you're getting way too hung up on the comprehension of rights issue. You're right that if a creature, even without being able to comprehend rights, will always act according to rights (not possible), they would have rights. A rock would not even satisfy this condition - since the rock would not leave your property if you asked it to. The rock would also being willing to crush you if it rolled onto you.

I've consistently argued that animals that do not torture other animals have a right against torture. This is not necessarily due to comprehension, but simply innate behavior. My point about comprehension is that without it, you're going to violate some rights. A cow's brain is simply not able to comprehend the fact that that's your grass its eating, and that it should stop eating it because you asked it to. That cow can be assumed not to adhere to rights that its brain will not understand.

This isn't a value judgement, it's an acknowledgement of behavior. Cows can't have property rights because they can't (medically) observe the property rights of others. If they could (even without gaining intelligence) they would have them.

The discussion was about can I do to animals whatever I want. Some state yes since they have no rights, they do not understand them. That is just not a correct statement.

All your arguments are based on property, sadly that is a controversial point.
Going from a premiss of property I can follow the above. Thinking about it I remain with that the way we define property is not taking into the equasion the reduction of freedom it brings with it.

I use irrealistic cases to try to understand on this. e.g.: I take water from a little stream. So this is my water, essential for my life. I see a fish poop in my water. Do I have the right to kill this fish for trying to kill me?

So, eating a steak and cannibalism are the same, we just subjectively judge their wrongness?

Tell me where they are objectively different, I would like that as much as you, however I always bring in subjective value or survival of the fittest. Survival of the fittest, just means that I believe the man is more fit to defend his rights and thus I go for the steak, that is objective, but it does not change your conclusion above. Logic might be universal it is not gentle in my experience.

So, if in the island scenario one of the other islanders killed the woman for her water in order to survive that would be OK?

Lets analyse instead of jumping to judgement:
1) The woman threatens the life of others by refusing them access to water.
2) The others kill the woman for refusing them access to water.

Somehow I do not see an equilibrium in the actions, so 2 is using excessive force. Let's change 2) The others break down the fence of the woman used for refusing them access to water.

Here the judgement becomes a lot more difficult:
1) She defends her property => no rights issue if you believe in property rights.
2) They defend their lives by getting to water, infringing in the process the property rights of the lady.

Does the property right go over their right to live? => This is a judgement and a difficult one. If you forbid them to take the water, should you sentence someone that jumps on a private terrain, because otherwise he would be killed by a truck?

Or if you killed a bank executive when his bank foreclosed on your home, would that be justified?

Somehow I do not see an equilibrium in the actions. What if you went to camp on the terrain of the bank or on his terrain => can you forbid people to be somewhere if you took everything from them? If there is sufficient unowned terrain so they could build a hut, property should not be an issue.

If we give animals human rights then we give humans animal excuses.

Too late they use them already. As Danoff stated:

I've consistently argued that animals that do not torture other animals have a right against torture. This is not necessarily due to comprehension, but simply innate behavior. My point about comprehension is that without it, you're going to violate some rights.

If they act against rights humans or animals, you can take action against that violation. we do not need to make a difference.

 

[Keef]

If it is not owned by anyone, we all have the freedom to go over it and use it, no matter where or when we are born.
By making it your property you take away that freedom. That might be needed for agriculture, etc... but taking away a freedom from everyone is stealing that freedom, it puts you in debt.

It is a well known libertarian dilemma, that I still confront.

Property rights aren't a dilemma, they're simple. If a person finds land which is not owned by anybody then that person can use their labor to make that land their own. They can build a hosue or a farm or a fence and draw lines which denote their land. Draw a map with markings to define it, etc. That land becomes the property of the owner.

Nobody has a right to the free use of whatever land they want. They have a right to the land that they own. They have a right to their property, but first they have to make it their property.

 

[Encyclopedia]

So, if in the island scenario one of the other islanders killed the woman for her water in order to survive that would be OK? Or if you killed a bank executive when his bank foreclosed on your home, would that be justified?

If we give animals human rights then we give humans animal excuses.

First example, I'm not sure OK is the right word. But understandable. Providing of course that there's no other way for the person to get any water. Survival is the most basic thing there is.

The second example no. It's not exactly a life and death scenario.

I don't quite understand what this has got to do with what I wrote though. I was only saying you can't judge animals as one species.

 

[Keef]

First example, I'm not sure OK is the right word. But understandable. Providing of course that there's no other way for the person to get any water. Survival is the most basic thing there is.

Understandable because through science we have come to understand animal instinct which is what that reaction would be.

Basically you're telling us that murder is fine as long as the person I'm killing has something I need.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Understandable because through science we have come to understand animal instinct which is what that reaction would be.

Basically you're telling us that murder is fine as long as the person I'm killing has something I need.

I said it was understandable. Not fine.

 

[Danoff]

If it is not owned by anyone, we all have the freedom to go over it and use it, no matter where or when we are born.

Yup, until it is owned, at which point you still have the freedom to go over to and use all unowned property. Nothing has changed, none of your freedoms have been removed.

By making it your property you take away that freedom.

That's like saying that me buying a trinket from a market takes away your freedom to buy that trinket from a market. You're not guaranteed that things that you do not own will be there for you in the future. You have no control over things you do not own - it's not a right.

It is a well known libertarian dilemma, that I still confront.

There's no dilemma - you don't have rights over things that aren't your property.

Nozick gave an example like this, I make an ocean with tomato juice, I take a tomato and squize it into the ocean. I mixed my labor squizing the tomato with the ocean, so now I own the ocean with tomato juice.

Good luck proving that you've mixed your labor with the entire ocean. Establishing your property rights here is impossible - and that's very much the point. You can't demonstrate that you've mixed your labor with the ocean.

This isn't a value judgement, it's an acknowledgement of behavior. Cows can't have property rights because they can't (medically) observe the property rights of others. If they could (even without gaining intelligence) they would have them.

All your arguments are based on property, sadly that is a controversial point.

It's not based on property, property was used as an example. The cow doesn't stop eating your grass even though you explain to it that it doesn't have your permission and the grass belongs to you - it doesn't understand property rights. The lion doesn't stop eating your head even though you explain to it that it doesn't have your permission - it doesn't understand freedom from force.

It's a general example, not specific to property.

 

[Keef]

I said it was understandable. Not fine.

Really?

Providing of course that there's no other way for the person to get any water.

You insinuated that murder is fine provided the person has no other way to get water. I'm not pulling strings here bro, I'm reading what you wrote.

 

[FoolKiller]

Is it also understandable to kill someone who threatens to take your territory, er, property? I mean animals kill over territory all the time.

My point, which people missed and tried changing the scenario to avoid, is that animals kill for many reasons that are not acceptable human excuses. If animals should be shown the same rights as humans we either hold them to the same standard as humans or we give humans the same excuses we give animals.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Really?


You insinuated that murder is fine provided the person has no other way to get water. I'm not pulling strings here bro, I'm reading what you wrote.

No I insinuated that it was understandable. It's not understandable to kill someone when there's no need whatsoever. That's just psychopathic.

Is it also understandable to kill someone who threatens to take your territory, er, property? I mean animals kill over territory all the time.

My point, which people missed and tried changing the scenario to avoid, is that animals kill for many reasons that are not acceptable human excuses. If animals should be shown the same rights as humans we either hold them to the same standard as humans or we give humans the same excuses we give animals.

Yes. Some territorial animals do. Humans do all the time too, but at a much, much grander scale with many more dead.

 

[FoolKiller]

No I insinuated that it was understandable. It's not understandable to kill someone when there's no need whatsoever. That's just psychopathic.

But in a struggle for limited resources you are saying it would be understandable?

Yes. Some territorial animals do. Humans do all the time too, but at a much, much grander scale with many more dead.

Is that understandable in humans? Natural and excusable? No. In the case of humans we determine them incapable or unwilling to recognize the rights of others and remove those rights from them via imprisonment or death.

So, when animals exhibit the same lack of ability to recognize those rights they are not granted those rights.

I should point out I have witnessed hummingbirds and ducks fight over food and nesting grounds. Even herbivores will react violently to each other in situations that we would consider unacceptable for humans.

EDIT: I think we have gotten away from the fact that this started when it was claimed that animals do not participate in unacceptable violence. I am trying to show that in order to grant animals with the same rights we grant humans you must use a double standard. If you must change your judgement criteria then you are just making excuses to defend, what I believe is, a feel-good stance based more on emotions than logic. It is understandable to not like seeing something that is dumb and cute be abused, but to base it on the same legal and moral ground as a human being abused is not understandable to me.

It's that thinking that gets people owning five pets while needing food stamps to feed their kid. No, you didn't honorably save an animal. You gave your pets more importance than your children. You aren't a great person. You are a crappy parent.

 

[Encyclopedia]

But in a struggle for limited resources you are saying it would be understandable?


Is that understandable in humans? Natural and excusable? No. In the case of humans we determine them incapable or unwilling to recognize the rights of others and remove those rights from them via imprisonment or death.

If the other option is dying then yes, it is understandable.
Do we? Not always that's for sure. Is Bush in prison? We war all the bloody time. Yet there is often not much justice involved.

So, when animals exhibit the same lack of ability to recognize those rights they are not granted those rights.

My only problem with this is that it's rarely upheld in larger conflicts. War. Whch doesn't necessarily have to be about territory. But is essentially the same thing, a fight for the continued well being of the group.

EDIT: I think we have gotten away from the fact that this started when it was claimed that animals do not participate in unacceptable violence. I am trying to show that in order to grant animals with the same rights we grant humans you must use a double standard. If you must change your judgement criteria then you are just making excuses to defend, what I believe is, a feel-good stance based more on emotions than logic. It is understandable to not like seeing something that is dumb and cute be abused, but to base it on the same legal and moral ground as a human being abused is not understandable to me.

Well the problem here in my opinion is generalization. Animals consist of an enormous amount of different species with different behaviours. Not all participate in unacceptable behaviour, just as not all don't. So I do agree with you here to an extent.

 

[FoolKiller]

If the other option is dying then yes, it is understandable.

So if a homeless guy kills you for food or access to your home during a severe winter it is understandable?

Do we? Not always that's for sure. Is Bush in prison?

We have a thread discussing a high profile homicide case right now. Bush isn't in prison, but the rights violators he pursued are dead. Napoleon was set on an island. Charles Manson is in prison.

We war all the bloody time. Yet there is often not much justice involved.

No one loses in a war and possibly faces criminal charges at home or internationally? I'll admit that wars don't always start or end how they should but blatant rights violators do not get a free pass. Bush isn't ever going to face legal charges but he will forever be known as the man who put the free world on the path to a police state.

My only problem with this is that it's rarely upheld in larger conflicts. War. Whch doesn't necessarily have to be about territory. But is essentially the same thing, a fight for the continued well being of the group.

Did you ever think that perhaps it isn't upheld for the very reason it became war? It isn't easy to enforce punishment for rights violations on a guy who commands an army. That is why it comes down to war. It's the only possibility for getting to him or stopping him.

Well the problem here in my opinion is generalization. Animals consist of an enormous amount of different species with different behaviours. Not all participate in unacceptable behaviour, just as not all don't. So I do agree with you here to an extent.

Ok fine. We don't hurt animals that are only cute and cuddly. The assholes are dinner though. What about the fat, slow animals?

 

[Encyclopedia]

So if a homeless guy kills you for food or access to your home during a severe winter it is understandable?

If his only other option is to starve and/or freeze to death yes. Understandable. Not ok.

We have a thread discussing a high profile homicide case right now. Bush isn't in prison, but the rights violators he pursued are dead. Napoleon was set on an island. Charles Manson is in prison.

So it's not always upheld.

No one loses in a war and possibly faces criminal charges at home or internationally? I'll admit that wars don't always start or end how they should but blatant rights violators do not get a free pass. Bush isn't ever going to face legal charges but he will forever be known as the man who put the free world on the path to a police state.

Well I think it's getting away easy. No justice. But maybe that's just my opinion.

Did you ever think that perhaps it isn't upheld for the very reason it became war? It isn't easy to enforce punishment for rights violations on a guy who commands an army. That is why it comes down to war. It's the only possibility for getting to him or stopping him.

I understand. Not saying it's an easy thing or anything. It is complicated. The world isn't black and white. Look at Syria for example. There's civilians supporting the regime. They're not all rebels and they're not all feeling oppressed.

Ok fine. We don't hurt animals that are only cute and cuddly. The assholes are dinner though. What about the fat, slow animals?

I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean now. All I said is that you can't judge animals as one species.

 

[Danoff]

My only problem with this is that it's rarely upheld in larger conflicts. War. Whch doesn't necessarily have to be about territory. But is essentially the same thing, a fight for the continued well being of the group.

Whether or not it's upheld has no bearing on whether or not it exists. Otherwise human rights would have no meaning.

You say human rights violations occur rampantly without repercussion during war, and I agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are human rights violations (this should not be taken to mean that all war consists of is rights violations).

 

[Encyclopedia]

Whether or not it's upheld has no bearing on whether or not it exists. Otherwise human rights would have no meaning.

You say human rights violations occur rampantly without repercussion during war, and I agree. That doesn't change the fact that they are human rights violations (this should not be taken to mean that all war consists of its rights violations).

Not disagreement there really.

 

[FoolKiller]

If his only other option is to starve and/or freeze to death yes. Understandable. Not ok.

I disagree, but I don't find even looting during a natural disaster acceptable.

Now, what do we do with him, as we understand but denounce his actions? Do we let him go or judge him for refusing to recognize your rights?

So it's not always upheld.

Well I think it's getting away easy. No justice. But maybe that's just my opinion.

I understand. Not saying it's an easy thing or anything. It is complicated. The world isn't black and white. Look at Syria for example. There's civilians supporting the regime. They're not all rebels and they're not all feeling oppressed.

But the simple fact that you recognize there is no justice already puts you ahead of animals.

I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean now. All I said is that you can't judge animals as one species.

Right, so I'm determining their outcome in relation to human as separate groups. By your logic it should only be just that we only farm and kill the animals that exhibit unacceptable behavior toward others. At least that is how it works with humans. I'm giving animals equal respect in view of them supposedly having equal rights.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I disagree, but I don't find even looting during a natural disaster acceptable.

Now, what do we do with him, as we understand but denounce his actions? Do we let him go or judge him for refusing to recognize your rights?

Maybe there's a misunderstanding. I mean that it's understandable that a desperate individual would take desperate action. It's easy to understand. That doesn't mean it's right.

But the simple fact that you recognize there is no justice already puts you ahead of animals.

Yes. At least most of them. But that doesn't mean I can do just anything I please to them.

Right, so I'm determining their outcome in relation to human as separate groups. By your logic it should only be just that we only farm and kill the animals that exhibit unacceptable behavior toward others. At least that is how it works with humans. I'm giving animals equal respect in view of them supposedly having equal rights.

What I'm about (and I've should've probably made this clear from the start. My apologies), is that I don't think it's alright to do just anything. I fail to see how causing unecessary pain can be considered anything but wrong, even if the recipient is dumb. Even if it can't understand it is wrong itself.

It's cruel and unecessary. It can only be wrong.

As for killing animals for food. I don't think it's the same thing at all.

Look, I'm not sure if what I wrote is completely on-topic. I'm not good at debating at all and I find it very hard to order my thoughts into words. But I guess my point is that it seems like this line of thinking opens up for all manner of foul behaviour towards other beings. At least if you're following it to the letter so to speak.