Animal Rights?

[masque12]

I'm constantly running into people on pagan lists who want me to both believe that the human species is no more important than any other species on the planet AND be concerned about "animal rights".

First option: we're just animals and we're no better than any other species, and we are therefore under no obligation to worry about the welfare of other species.

Second option:
We are superior, and are therefore to some degree responsible for taking a caretaker position in regards to other species.

You don't get to have it both ways and be logically consistent. Life feeds on life. I don't see any cougars or lions or bears arguing about the impact that their occasional human predation has on the human species. You know why you don't see that? Because they don't have the brain capacity for it to even occur to them. They are animals, and as such, ethical considerations are beyond their abilities. If we are "just dirty, upright, murderous apes" then you are wasting your time worrying about the plight of other species, the Law of the Jungle is kill or be killed, survival of the fittest. If, however, you think that your concern has a valid basis, then that very capacity for concern lifts you above and separates you from the animals. I'm all for reducing cruelty to animals and responsibly relocating predatory species away from human habitations. Don't talk to me about rights for animals, though. Without the capacity to participate in human society, applying human rights to them is a meaningless gesture that they have no way of understanding anyway.

Comments

[achadachad.livejournal.com]

yep, as Peter Carroll (i think) wrote, 'the universe is not human-hearted, therefore human morals are irrelevant' (or words to that effect)

the wasp that paralyses a caterpillar with a sting and lays its eggs in the eyes of the caterpillar so that the hatchlings have fresh food has no human morality; but it is simply acting for the best future for wasp-kind. Nature is not cruel, nature is simply efficient.

and Peter Singer (philosopher) has much useful stuff to say about animal rights versus human rights, and the notion that trying to give animals rights actually makes them more like us, and thus increases their likelihood of being treated cruelly and used in experiments that are not appropriate (for example mice spontaneously contract cancers that humans do not get, but we still use them in cancer experiments)

if this notion of rights is taken to the fullest extent, all animals get the vote, and that means the insects RULE, and we are toast

: )

[masque12.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Although animals voting in the US might only improve things here at this point, I don't see a need to burden them with something they can't understand. Rights come with responsibilities. If you don't have the capacity for responsibility, you don't get rights.

[achadachad.livejournal.com]

exactly- and one of the things Singer is unpopular for is his take on the definitions of the human (as opposed to the animal) on the rights issue, and *in very brief* it is an elegant, compelling and long argument* he concludes that humans need to be self-supporting and self-motivating, which ultimately allows for aborting children up to the age of about six.... which is a great one to drop onto pagans who need a jolting...

[masque12.livejournal.com]

Sounds about right. I've always been a subscriber to Bill Hicks' "You're not a human being until you're in my phone book" scenario.

[achadachad.livejournal.com]

: ) lovely- and a nice synchronicity as Hicks has cropped up on another thread within the last hour or so....

[vicki-sine.livejournal.com]

Works for me.

Retro-abortion,...can we petition for special cases who need it at middle-age?

[achadachad.livejournal.com]

: ) if only, if only..... i guess we can only hope that sudden attacks of ineptitude with heavy machinery or cars will do the job for us

[vicki-sine.livejournal.com]

I recently got into a debate on civil rights with a guy who was at the same time complaining about regulations which prohibit him from doing any damn thing he feels he wants to do.

Civil rights...they ae called that because civilization is required to endow us with them.

I think maybe they are misnamed, they should be called civil responsiblities.

Including the responsiblity to take care of our environment and the lovely genetic diversity which makes the web of life our whole civilization, indeed our survival is dependent on.

Now pass the steaksauce, I prefer my PETA leader ribs well marinaded and well done.

[achadachad.livejournal.com]

responsibility, and choice, yeah; "rights" is too universal, and that gets us into trouble as human rights thus have to apply to us all, be they Chinese peasant, American business tycoon, Brazilian farmer or German factory worker... (and the rest) and anything that can apply to all of us equally is going to be mercilessly bland and uninspiring... most of us in the West don't consider how lucky we are to have fresh drinking water on tap and freedom from being shot at by military police daily, but a lot of the world focuses on just those kind of basic rights, and how to get them....

[masque12.livejournal.com]

All "rights" are social fictions. The only natural right one has is what Captain Jack so succintly called "What a man can do, and what a man can't do." If you can get away with something, it's within your rights to do it, if it wasn't, someone would stop you. Civil society tricks people into following arbitrary rules, and people generally follow them because those rules grant people the ability to relax their vigilance against the next guy. It's all a matter of privileges and responsibilities.

Sociopathology is billed as a disease, but all a sociopath is really is someone who doesn't play the civilization game. If these silly as pagans really want to see someone in touch with their "animal" side, sociopaths are who they should look at. I'll stick with my "Humanity is superior to animals" notion, thanks.

[masque12.livejournal.com]

silly asS, rather. damn typos.