Wouldn't that be more like indentured servitude? I mean, they do eventually
work off their "debt", right?
CW
----- Original Message -----
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 6:05 PM
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It is dated 1985, so the examples are out of date, but the argument still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
-----Original Message-----
From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 10 December
2005 19:19
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Update: The fur fellow's feet
People who advocate animal rights don't understand that rights also
entail responsibilities. Animals can't be held responsible for their
actions so they cannot have rights, it's a two edged sword, unless you
wish to completely redefine what rights are.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/197 - Release Date: 12/9/2005
