Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are free to be irrational and exercise your religion. Just keep it to yourself and keep it at home. You have no right to inflict this on others. You can design and obey your own Sharia Law, however we live in a free society. So leave others to live rationally and eat whatever meat they want to hunt for, purchase, or consume.
You are the one that is making the religious style arguments. In fact I am willing to bet you are religous and believe the nonsense the bible spews about humans having dominion over animals.
I think DetailSymbolizes might be into Ayn Rand philosophy. Any Rand -- who wasn't really a real philosopher -- is known for objectivism, and I've seen the author of that article associated with objectivism in multiple places. If true, that would explain the very loose commitment to reason on this topic.
Meh, I'm mostly an objectivist these days. More a nihilist than anything else these days. But the objectivists are right about animal rights though. It is a complete oxymoron.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
who wasn't really a real philosopher
Nice attempt at a subtle ad hominem there. Ranks up there with the old playground favorite "nanny boo boo stick your head in doo doo"
And I assume you are going to entertain inflicting upon us the irrational musings of the debauched non-philosopher Wittgenstein. Which would explain much in your mystical and irrational views.
No, I'm not going to bring up Wittgenstein because his work isn't very relevant here. However, it is telling that Wittgenstein was selected as the most influential philosopher of the last 200 years in a survey of working philosophers. Ayn Rand? She's a running joke among real philosophers. It is well-known that people who really dig Rand's work probably don't have any actual philosophical training. It's not an ad hominem to point out that Ayn Rand is not a real philosopher. You are not Ayn Rand. Further, I'm not trying to prove my case by insulting you.
But, back to the point. When are you going to give us the justification for the view that rights depend on reasoning?
Even if his arguments were valid, which they aren't, he is still using speciesist arguments. There isn't an argument to justify killing a pig but not a toddler or mentally handicapped person that doesn't involve speciesism.
Utter nonsense. Civilized behavior is a reflection of the implementation of the concept of rights, which ONLY applies to the species that designed and utilizes them. And that is why in a civilized society we don't kill retards or blind people. Or stupid or mystical people for that matter. Being human MATTERS. Being human admits you to the Civilization Club, where rights are recognized by others in the club. A club which is only to open to rational animals. Men.
I didn't say the messenger mattered. I said you should actually post the explanation here rather than making us look through the article. I've read the article twice now, and I can't find any justification for why it is that reasoning is necessary for rights. Since that is the claim you are making, and I'm not able to find the justification, how about you help me out and post it here?
Your entire argument hinges on this. Why are you so reluctant to actually give this justification?
Can't see it because you don't want to. I gave you the justification by pointing to his argument. It's in his argument. I don't need to restate it. That's why I said "this says everything I have to say on the subject". So I don't have to say it.
No, I'm not going to bring up Wittgenstein because his works isn't very relevant here. However, it is telling that Wittgenstein was selected as the most influential philosopher of the last 200 years in a survey of working philosophers. Ayn Rand? She's a running joke among real philosophers. It is well-known that people who really dig Rand's work probably don't have any actual philosophical training.
But, back to the point. When are you going to give us the justification for the view that rights depend on reasoning?
Because without Reason, the cardinal attribute of homo sapiens, rights would not exist. And in fact, prior to homo sapiens, did not exist. And in the absence of homo sapiens, are non-existent. And if we were destroyed by a cataclysm, would NO LONGER EXIST.
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man’s right to his own life.
Both of these statements would be rejected by any moral philosopher. It's worth noting that the author of this article, Edwin Locke, isn't even a philosopher. He's a psychologist.
To live successfully, man must use his rational faculty — which is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other men — free to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.
Sure, I suppose. None of this is relevant, though, so we can ignore this part.
None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics.
Even if we were to agree that this is true, it doesn't follow that animals don't have rights. He is pointing out a difference between humans and animals, but that's not the same thing as explaining why we should have rights and animals shouldn't.
A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.
Yes, correct. But one need not be capable of moral reasoning himself in order to have rights.
Utter nonsense. Civilized behavior is a reflection of the implementation of the concept of rights, which ONLY applies to the species that designed and utilizes them. And that is why in a civilized society we don't kill retards or blind people. Or stupid or mystical people for that matter. Being human MATTERS. Being human admits you to the Civilization Club, where rights are recognized by others in the club. A club which is only to open to rational animals. Men.
Exactly, nonsense speciesism. The same exact arguments were used to persecute and inslave people for millennium. "I'm white and you are black so it's okay for me to do whatever I want with you, because you aren't part of the group (white people)."
Civilized behavior is a reflection of the implementation of the concept of rights, which ONLY applies to the kingdom that designed and utilizes them. And that is why in a civilized society we don't kill retards, blind people or animals. Or stupid or mystical people for that matter. Being an animal MATTERS. Being an animal admits you to the Civilization Club, where rights are recognized by others in the club. A club which is only to open to animals.
Because without Reason, the cardinal attribute of homo sapiens, rights would not exist. And in fact, prior to homo sapiens, did not exist. And in the absence of homo sapiens, are non-existent. And if we were destroyed by a cataclysm, would NO LONGER EXIST.
Are you getting it yet?
You're confusing the concept of rights with rights themselves! Sure, we were the first species to think of the concept of rights. That doesn't mean that rights sprung into existence when we thought of them. We discovered rights, we didn't create them.
That's what rights are. They exist whether they are recognized or not.
By this reasoning, biological concepts didn't exist until we "invented" them. Come on!
Because without Reason, the cardinal attribute of homo sapiens, rights would not exist. And in fact, prior to homo sapiens, did not exist. And in the absence of homo sapiens, are non-existent. And if we were destroyed by a cataclysm, would NO LONGER EXIST.
Are you getting it yet?
You know, this actually reminds me. If animals have rights. Why do those rights only need to be protected from the actions of humans? If a gazelle has rights, why is it that those rights are not being violated by the lion that kills it?
Shouldn't we arrest the lion? Shouldn't the police stop lions from murdering gazelles? And if we do arrest the lion will it be appointed an attorney? What if the lion doesn't want his court appointed attorney? How will we know? Do we put the lion in prison? Grant it bail? Do the cops read it its rights when they arrest it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
