Don't you know the difference between slaves and convicted prisoners? -- Cheers, Bob
> -----Original Message----- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 December 2005 23:05 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet > > Well, if you think that there is a right not to be enslaved, > I suggest you go check out any prison industry. Here in NC > you can see that right violated on the highways. I assume > that people working under a gun are not employees. About the > only right that actually exists is the right to die > (freedoom), and most states have laws trying to eliminate that. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > > Bob W wrote: > > >First, rights do not entail responsibilities. A right is a > right. For > >example, you have a right not to be enslaved. This right > comes with no > >strings attached whatsoever. If you disagree with this, perhaps you > >could tell me what responsibilities you might neglect that would > >justify your enslavement. > > > >Second, I suspect you have not really examined the question > of animal > >rights. The phrase itself is unfortunately rather misleading. The > >standard argument in favour of animal rights makes it quite > clear that > >the rights in question are not the same as those accorded to people, > >such as the right to vote. The crucial thing is the right to equal > >consideration. If you accept that animals have interests and moral > >status (and perhaps you don't accept this), then this > argument claims > >that you should give equal moral weight to the comparable > interests of > >animals and people unless there is a relevant difference > between them that justifies unequal consideration. > > > >The Australian philosopher Peter Singer expressed this in his book > >"Animal Liberation". There is a summary of the argument here: > >http://www.utilitarian.org/texts/alm.html. > > > >It is dated 1985, so the examples are out of date, but the argument > >still holds. It is worth reading the essay all the way > through. For a > >more detailed examination, read the book. > > > >-- > >Cheers, > > Bob
