Sam Pawlett wrote: > Ajit Sinha wrote: > > > > > Do you think animals have rights or not? > > No. I don't like rights-based theories at all--they have intractable > problems-- but in some cases ,like > abortion, talk about "rights" makes the conversation a lot easier. Most > political philosophies, even contractarians like Rawls and Gauthier, > make some use of the concept of "rights". Nozick argues that one cannot > derive any conception of property rights from a right to life.(A,S,U > p129) So its possible to talk about a right to life while eschewing all > other talk about rights. _______________ I don't understand what right-based theories have to do with my question. The fact is that most of the societies that i know of confer certain rights to animals. For example, if you have a pet and you mistreat it or torture it, you might find yourself put in jail for it--and probably most of the people on this list will not bother to cross the street to fight for you. ______ > If yes, do you think animals have > > consciousness of right and obligation? The ideas of rights and obligations are our > > cultural construct. > > On some theories, yes. A lot of rights-based theorists argue that > rights are absolute and universal with no difference across cultures > (Nozick). N's conception of rights is so strong that he assumes what he > is trying to prove. > Natural law theorists like Murray Rothbard try and derive rights from > nature. ______________ But still they are all cultural construct. The idea of a universal culture, is a particular cultural construct as well, so is the idea that human culture must be built on 'natural laws'. My point is that 'rights' do not exist outside of human culture and consciousness. ______ > The most prominent rights based theorist (and defender of > abortion) ,Ronald Dworkin,I think, agrees with you, he says: "Individual > rights are political trumps held by individuals. Individuals have rights > when, for some reason, a collective goal is not a sufficient > justification for denying them what they wish, as individuals, to have > or do, or not a justification for imposing some loss or injury on them." > (Taking Rights Seriously pXI) _____________ I'm not sure whether I agree with it. I think he is dealing with the issue at much more particular level than we are. _______ > Dworkin isn't interested in discussing the ontological foundations > of rights, he posits them to derive his legal and poltical theories. > > An entity does not have to be conscious of the right that is > > conferred to it by us--it has mainly to do with who we are. > > To repeat, why assign rights to people and not trees? There must be a > criterion for assigning rights or rights become arbitrary. _______________ I think rights are "arbitrary" in the sense that they are not 'scientific' but are rather based on our moral values. I do think that trees should also have rights, as in some cultures they do. _____ > By the way, an infant, in > > my opinion, has no consciousness of anything that would confer it a right to life >by > > your definition. > > An infant does have consciousness, so there must be some intentional > content. ____________ What kind of consciousness an infant has? And how do you know a fetus does not have it? Cheers, ajit sinha ________ > A human infant, unlike many other small animals, is not born > > completely prepared to survive in the outside environment--this is the price we >have > > to pay for having a large brain. > > Yes, humans spend a lot of time--a great deal more than most animals-- > in raising and rearing the young in hopes time invested now will pay off > later in terms of reproductive success. Most human brains operate at > about 10-15% capacity (and that's not just some of the participants on > usenet > groups). > But, Ajit, perhaps you know all this? > Sam Pawlett
