Animal/Human Rights

Hi,

I have been sort of stuck in a philosophical quagmire with regards to animal
rights/welfare for a while now, and I thought I'd post to this group to see
if anyone can guide me out of it. I am interested in hearing from many sides
of the issue, especially the anti-AR side. I am not interested in
name-calling in this thread, only thoughtful responses.

My hangup is on the human/animal borderline. If we respect human rights,
including those of children and infants, why not include some animals?

For intelligence reasons? First of all, why intelligence? If we were overrun
by a more intelligent alien race, we would be powerless to argue against
their failure to assign us any rights. Second, we know that some smart apes
are smarter than severely retarded humans and infants. Fine, we can cut
severe retards out of the rights picture, but infants?

If intelligence is not the issue, then does it have something to do with
being a member of a moral community? But small children and infants are no
more members of such a community than animals. Or do we make the decision
based on the altruistic tendencies of the species? But we know that most
species have these (especially ants), mostly towards their own, but also
sometimes crossing species lines (gorillas saving babies, etc.)

Or do we assign rights based on potential? If so, is it the potential to
become a member of a moral community, or the potential for intelligence?
Children and infants have a definite advantage over animals here, but don't
fetuses also? How about sperm and eggs? How far back do we go?

If none of these are the criteria for distinguishing between humans and
animals, then it seems we are getting into one of two things: 1) A view that
says only humans have souls (a view which I have no sympathy with), or 2) A
Regan-like view that the basis for assigning rights is that we are harming
the individual. Of course Regan takes this into animal rights territory, but
is there a way to avoid that? If so, I don't see it. What harms can you
cause a child that you can't cause an intelligent animal? You can deprive it
of a possibly bright future. But then the potential issue again.

BTW, I haven't read extensively in the field, but I think I get the main
ideas of Singer and Regan.

"Tnedde" <dr67.DeleteThis@cornell.edu> wrote
> Hi,
>
> I have been sort of stuck in a philosophical quagmire with regards to
animal
> rights/welfare for a while now, and I thought I'd post to this group
to see
> if anyone can guide me out of it.

Please don't take this as offense, but I would agree that you are stuck
in a philosophical quagmire, not that you are undecided, that would be a
healthy state of mind, but insofar as it appears to me that you are
thoroughly entranced by this animal rights rhetoric, and presenting
yourself as undecided is merely a pose. Is Cornell a hotbed of AR
radicalism?

I am interested in hearing from many sides
> of the issue, especially the anti-AR side. I am not interested in
> name-calling in this thread, only thoughtful responses.
>
> My hangup is on the human/animal borderline. If we respect human
rights,
> including those of children and infants, why not include some animals?

We already grant a form of passive rights to some animals. Pets,
livestock and some wildlife are protected by legislation that prohibits
abuse, neglect, and in in some cases killing. This front is
ever-advancing. What more do you want?

> For intelligence reasons? First of all, why intelligence?

In my view the two considerations are the animal's perceived capacity to
perceive itself as separate from the world (I don't think flies can),
hence to experience joy and to suffer, and the human connection with the
animal. We may see a lion rip open an antelope fawn but we have no moral
duty to intervene, where if we see a steer in a feedlot in distress we
do.

> If we were overrun
> by a more intelligent alien race, we would be powerless to argue
against
> their failure to assign us any rights.

Perhaps rightfully so, we might be no more evolved than houseflies
compared to them.

> Second, we know that some smart apes
> are smarter than severely retarded humans and infants. Fine, we can
cut
> severe retards out of the rights picture, but infants?
>
> If intelligence is not the issue,

Intelligence is a component of "the issue", not all of it.

> then does it have something to do with
> being a member of a moral community?

That's part of it.

> But small children and infants are no
> more members of such a community than animals.

Which is why their rights are curtailed..

> Or do we make the decision
> based on the altruistic tendencies of the species? But we know that
most
> species have these (especially ants), mostly towards their own, but
also
> sometimes crossing species lines (gorillas saving babies, etc.)

Most species also predate other species when they aren't crossing the
line to be nice to them.

> Or do we assign rights based on potential? If so, is it the potential
to
> become a member of a moral community, or the potential for
intelligence?

Both are important, and are unique to "people".

> Children and infants have a definite advantage over animals here, but
don't
> fetuses also? How about sperm and eggs? How far back do we go?

In my opinion as soon as a human being begins to develop it ought to
have basic rights.

> If none of these are the criteria for distinguishing between humans
and
> animals, then it seems we are getting into one of two things: 1) A
view that
> says only humans have souls (a view which I have no sympathy with), or
2) A
> Regan-like view that the basis for assigning rights is that we are
harming
> the individual. Of course Regan takes this into animal rights
territory, but
> is there a way to avoid that? If so, I don't see it. What harms can
you
> cause a child that you can't cause an intelligent animal? You can
deprive it
> of a possibly bright future. But then the potential issue again.
>
> BTW, I haven't read extensively in the field, but I think I get the
main
> ideas of Singer and Regan.

I think you (and Regan) have lost all perspective. You're forgetting the
basic fact that humans are animals striving for survival in a natural
ecosystem that has no regard for touchy-feely considerations. The basic
design of the world is for living beings to consume and/or destroy and
displace other living matter to survive. We can attempt to do it as
compassionately as possible if we have that luxury, be we will never
avoid it. It happens in the production of fruit and vegetables as well
as in the production of meat.