animal "rights" zone ? - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-29T05:58:02Zhttp://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/animal-rights-zone?commentId=4715978%3AComment%3A99099&feed=yes&xn_auth=noHi Josh,
You're right, Roger…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-06-01:4715978:Comment:996332012-06-01T22:24:49.957ZCarolyn Baileyhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
<p>Hi Josh,</p>
<p>You're right, Roger will be very much missed in ARZone, and his choice to leave is a great loss, both to ARZone and to me personally. I think it's very sad that he has made the decision to leave, rather than discuss the differences he has with Tim's position.</p>
<p>Roger knows how I feel about him, and he knows how sad I am about this. It also makes me incredibly sad to see this being played out so publicly, and in such a nasty way. </p>
<p>Perhaps it's time for everyone to…</p>
<p>Hi Josh,</p>
<p>You're right, Roger will be very much missed in ARZone, and his choice to leave is a great loss, both to ARZone and to me personally. I think it's very sad that he has made the decision to leave, rather than discuss the differences he has with Tim's position.</p>
<p>Roger knows how I feel about him, and he knows how sad I am about this. It also makes me incredibly sad to see this being played out so publicly, and in such a nasty way. </p>
<p>Perhaps it's time for everyone to leave their anger behind and remember why they call themselves advocates. </p> Hi Joshua, the way I see it,…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-06-01:4715978:Comment:995452012-06-01T21:38:26.877ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>Hi Joshua, the way I see it, the people who are opposed to animal rights would be willing to exploit every weakness in our arguments if by doing they feel justified in ignoring the substance of our claims. It's only because of that that it's important to me that people accept views I've come to adopt, that is, it's important only insofar as I believe that the movement would benefit from some clarity and consistency. At the same time, if someone takes the time to make a convincing…</p>
<p>Hi Joshua, the way I see it, the people who are opposed to animal rights would be willing to exploit every weakness in our arguments if by doing they feel justified in ignoring the substance of our claims. It's only because of that that it's important to me that people accept views I've come to adopt, that is, it's important only insofar as I believe that the movement would benefit from some clarity and consistency. At the same time, if someone takes the time to make a convincing counterargument to any of the arguments I offer, I'd be compelled to change my mind.</p>
<p>I agree with you though, I've not suggested that anyone exploit bees or interfere in the natural lives of bees when such interference would cause them harm and no one else has suggested that either. I also agree with you we ought to be focused on the goals we all share and what we all have in common. I don't think it matters to nonhumans whether one person talks in terms of moral rights and another person talks in terms of not causing harm to those who prefer to remain unharmed. It's just semantics as far as I can see. I'd count it as a win if a significant percentage of the population accepted either way of talking - certainly the animals would win either way.</p> Hey everyone,
Before I even…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-06-01:4715978:Comment:994622012-06-01T20:45:08.945ZJoshua Harperhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/JoshuaHarper
<p>Hey everyone,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Before I even started typing this a sense of regret overtook me because I try to stay out of these frays, but I wanted to talk about something that I think is applicable to this debate. Back in the 1970's there was an exorbitant amount of internal conflict between various environmental organizations. The contentious debates between various groups got so heated that it threatened to delay the progress of the very movement that these organizations had supposedly…</p>
<p>Hey everyone,</p>
<p></p>
<p>Before I even started typing this a sense of regret overtook me because I try to stay out of these frays, but I wanted to talk about something that I think is applicable to this debate. Back in the 1970's there was an exorbitant amount of internal conflict between various environmental organizations. The contentious debates between various groups got so heated that it threatened to delay the progress of the very movement that these organizations had supposedly formed to advance. This led Dave Foreman (I know, I know...) to say the following: “<span class="quote">One of the things we said when we started Earth First! was, ‘We’ll let our actions set the finer points of our philosophy.’ That’s one of my disagreements with the Greens, is that they seem content to sit around and hammer out these detailed agendas and statements of principles and all of this, and they don’t ever do anything about it. Earth First! is the only activist green group around, if you want to look at it that way. The others are debating societies.</span>”<font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3">Dave's point here was not that debate wasn't healthy, or necessary, or that it couldn't help inform action. His point, in my opinion, was that debate could become unhealthy, not necessary, and stifle action. </font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3">Reading the honey posts and this thread makes me wonder what the benefit of this specific debate is. No body seems to be arguing that bees should be exploited for their excretions, or that humans are somehow entitled to make money off of the labor of these insect nations. (I can already hear Tim gearing up to debate whether insects can have nations, but let's save that for another time, Tim!) Since no policy is being set here I am having difficulty figuring out what the importance to our praxis is. </font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3">This contentious debate doesn't seem to serve the best interest of animals, it has gotten so heated that it seems to be wasting the time of those participating, and worse, it appears to be keeping people from working together who would otherwise seem to have much in common. We are already so marginalized and weak compared to our opponents, is it really wise to allow a debate (upon which nothing substantial rests and for which no one side is likely to win) to fracture us even more?</font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3">I love that AR zone allows people to discuss issues of importance, and I also like that people take their points of view seriously. But c'mon. Every so often can't we have the maturity and tactical sense to just let something drop? Come on back, Roger, we need you. Stick around, Tina, we need you too. Tim, you appear to be a smart, lovely guy, but is it really that important that everyone accept your views? And Carolyn, I think that deep down you must recognize Roger's departure as a loss. </font></p>
<p><font size="3"> </font></p>
<p><font size="3">In short: Let's keep these debates civil and have the sense to recognize when they get in the way of advancing what we all want for non-humans. Just my two cents.</font></p> Tom Regan's attempt to explic…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-31:4715978:Comment:988002012-05-31T16:15:58.516ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>Tom Regan's attempt to explicate his own view of moral rights, by his own account and as Carolyn mentioned above, involves examining "among moral philosophy’s most contentious questions". These are not easy questions and they cannot be answered by reading one quote from any book or by reading any simple statement on one website.</p>
<p>In his landmark book, The Case for Animal Rights (1983), Regan explains and defends his conception of moral rights and, by his own words, that book "means…</p>
<p>Tom Regan's attempt to explicate his own view of moral rights, by his own account and as Carolyn mentioned above, involves examining "among moral philosophy’s most contentious questions". These are not easy questions and they cannot be answered by reading one quote from any book or by reading any simple statement on one website.</p>
<p>In his landmark book, The Case for Animal Rights (1983), Regan explains and defends his conception of moral rights and, by his own words, that book "means more" to him "than all the others" (Empty Cages, 2004, p. 72). Regan has never repudiated the essential arguments he made in "The Case" and there is no reason for him to. In that book he makes a thorough, detailed and wide-ranging defense of the "rights-view" considering not only the strengths of his view but also the weaknesses of it and the many possible challenges to it. It takes Regan the first 7 chapters and 264 pages of that book <em>just to lay the foundation</em> for his argument for rights - he begins actually making the case for rights in chapter 8. If people on this thread think that they can do, in one or two throwaway comments on the internet, what it took Tom Regan a 400 page book written over a ten-month period to do, then I submit that they don't understand what they are going on about. In any event, Regan <em>argues for a position</em> -- he doesn't just assert things as if they were true. Moreover, just in case Regan gets a lot of things right in The Case for Animal Rigths, that doesn't mean that he gets everything right or that, in the end, his position is ultimately a satisfactory one. That is for the reader to decide, hopefully based on a clear understanding of all the complexities the issues involve.</p>
<p>It is commonly thought that there is "one true way" to think about moral philosophy - for example, it is not uncommon to hear 'animal people' talk about utilitarianism as if it is obviously false or that only people who aren't genuinely concerned for other animals suscribe to utilitarianism. This thought is incorrect. No one can prove any theory about morality; moral theories are not the sort of thing that are subject to proof. All that a person can do is think deeply and considerably and then come to a judgment about which theory both best describes what morality is as well as best prescibes what moral behavior ought to be. But there is no fact of the matter on which anyone can ultimately prove that any particular theory is "right". Indeed, all moral theories lead to either aburdities or contradictions (or both) when taken to their logical conclusions. (Read about what Kant has to say about whether a person ought ever to tell a lie and you'll see quickly what I mean.) If utilitarianism is obviously false, then a "rights-based" theory is also obviously false. But we need not think of the theories in terms of truth or falsity at all. What we ought do is think in terms of how we ought to behave in the world, and why what we do - to and for others - ought to matter, to them and for them. If believing in "moral rights" makes it easier for you to do the right thing, great, but don't mistake what makes something easier for you with what makes something "the truth".</p>
<p>I will leave you all with this quote from "The Case" wherein Regan presents how he will go about framing his defense of the "rights-view". If you all want to read this as his statement that "rights" have an ontological status in reality such that "rights" exist absent the formulation of them in the rational minds of moral agents, I will not bother to try further to dissuade you, but whatever you do, please just don't take my word for it; read the book!!</p>
<p>“[D]isenchantment with the idea of moral rights can be partly explained by... impatience with the method of validation some have favored – for example, that moral (natural) rights are conferred by nature itself, or that they are ‘self-evident,’ or, relatedly, that they are there to be discovered by the ‘pure light of natural reason.’ One can agree that these are unreliable procedures for validating rights and still allow that rights can be validated – that is, that good reasons can be given to recognize some claims to rights as valid claims. (...) The validity of a right...must depend on its compliance with moral principles whose validity has been independently established.” Tom Regan, The Case for Animal Rights, 1983, p. 270</p> http://www.animalsvoice.com/r…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-31:4715978:Comment:987932012-05-31T11:56:01.028ZKate✯GO VEGAN+NOBODY GETS HURT Ⓥhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/KateGOVEGANandNobodyGetsHurt
<p><a href="http://www.animalsvoice.com/regan/?p=221">http://www.animalsvoice.com/regan/?p=221</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.animalsvoice.com/regan/?p=221">http://www.animalsvoice.com/regan/?p=221</a></p> The above statement, Tim, see…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-31:4715978:Comment:987822012-05-31T04:11:52.960ZCarolyn Baileyhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/CarolynBailey
<p>The above statement, Tim, seems to suggest that rights are not something that an individual is born with, nor are they something that are automatically given by God.</p>
<p>Rights are something, according to Gary Francione, who, some believe, created the animal RIGHTS movement in 2006, are "accorded" to others by humans, for example he says: "<em>a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that…</em></p>
<p>The above statement, Tim, seems to suggest that rights are not something that an individual is born with, nor are they something that are automatically given by God.</p>
<p>Rights are something, according to Gary Francione, who, some believe, created the animal RIGHTS movement in 2006, are "accorded" to others by humans, for example he says: "<em>a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>we</b></span> should not <span style="text-decoration: underline;"><b>accord</b></span> her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others."</em></p>
<p>Also, Professor Tom Regan, who has been described as the philosophical leader of the animal rights movement. has said: <em>"As already noted, whether humans (let alone animals) have rights is among moral philosophy’s most contentious questions."</em></p>
<p>Would you agree with me then, Tim, when I say that if the philosophical leader of the animal rights movement sees how difficult a concept "rights" is, and if the leading theorist of the abolitionist movement thinks that rights are something that humans extend to others, then perhaps some people who comment on internet forums thinking that these things are simple matters about which there can be no discussion or disagreement are either confused about the issues, or just avoiding the facts. </p>
<p></p>
<p><i> </i></p>
<p><em> </em></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Just so that everyone knows t…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-31:4715978:Comment:994132012-05-31T01:09:48.911ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>Just so that everyone knows that I'm not out on a limb here, I think it might be helpful to the discussion about what rights are and where they come from if I post this:<br></br><br></br></p>
<div>Question 2: Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?</div>
<div>Answer: Just as the moral status of a human or animal is not determined by who caused the human or the animal to come into existence, the application of a moral concept is not determined by who devised it. If…</div>
<p>Just so that everyone knows that I'm not out on a limb here, I think it might be helpful to the discussion about what rights are and where they come from if I post this:<br/><br/></p>
<div>Question 2: Rights were devised by humans. How can they even be applicable to animals?</div>
<div>Answer: Just as the moral status of a human or animal is not determined by who caused the human or the animal to come into existence, the application of a moral concept is not determined by who devised it. If moral benefits went only to the devisers of moral concepts, then most of humankind would still be outside the moral community. <b>Rights concepts as we currently understand them were actually devised</b> as a way of protecting the interests of wealthy white male landowners; indeed, most moral concepts <b>were historically devised</b> by privileged males to benefit other privileged males. As time went on, we recognized that the principle of equal consideration required that we treat similar cases in a similar way and<b> we subsequently extended rights </b>(and other moral benefits) to other humans. In particular, the principle of equal consideration required that we regard as morally odious the ownership of some humans by other humans. If we are going to apply the principle of equal consideration to animals, then <b>we must extend to animals the right</b> not to be treated as a resource.</div>
<div><b>It is irrelevant whether animals devised rights or can even understand the concept of rights</b>. We do not require that humans be potential devisers of rights or understand the concept of rights in order to be beneficiaries of rights. For example, a severely retarded human being might not have the ability to understand what a right is, but that does not mean that we should not accord her the protection of at least the basic right not to be treated as a resource of others. (emphasis added)</div>
<div>Gary L. Francione: <a href="http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/" target="_blank">http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/</a></div> As I understand the concept,…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-30:4715978:Comment:987812012-05-30T23:53:19.361ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>As I understand the concept, anarchism is the rejection of the authority of the state in recognition of the rights of autonomous agents to govern themselves in all matters. Therefore, it seems incongruous to me that an anarchist would deign to impose their views on another person - it seem antithetical to the principle of anarchism itself. However, I will leave you to your understanding of the concept, it really matters not at all to me, I was just amused by what I take to be another…</p>
<p>As I understand the concept, anarchism is the rejection of the authority of the state in recognition of the rights of autonomous agents to govern themselves in all matters. Therefore, it seems incongruous to me that an anarchist would deign to impose their views on another person - it seem antithetical to the principle of anarchism itself. However, I will leave you to your understanding of the concept, it really matters not at all to me, I was just amused by what I take to be another inconsistency in your views.<br/><br/>To the matter at hand, bees, nor anyone else, has rights in the absence of rational actors who can grant them. <br/><br/>Bees have no rights against natural predators, because those nonhuman predators of bees - the birds and other insects who eat bees - are not able to grant the rights of bees. Neither birds nor bees understand the concept of rights and there is nothing about birds, bees or any other nonhuman animal such that any one of them will ever grant rights to another - or stake a rights-based claim against another. Therefore, if bees have rights, it can't be anything about bees that causes bees to have rights, it must be something about humans or other rational actors that leads to bees having rights, if bees do have rights. We talk about rights when we recognize that others have interests that matter to them (whether they recognize it or not)- we decide to protect those interests with what we call rights, but there aren't any such things as rights inherently existing in any nonhuman animal or anyone else. </p> Thank you Carolyn, I apprecia…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-30:4715978:Comment:994122012-05-30T21:40:39.700ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>Thank you Carolyn, I appreciate that you've taken the time to read and understand what I've written. </p>
<p>Thank you Carolyn, I appreciate that you've taken the time to read and understand what I've written. </p> I am opposed to actions by hu…tag:arzone.ning.com,2012-05-30:4715978:Comment:995082012-05-30T21:37:53.919ZTim Gierhttp://arzone.ning.com/profile/TimGier
<p>I am opposed to actions by humans that cause harm in the lives of others, when such harms would matter to others, whether they are aware of the nature of those harms or not. <br></br> <br></br> <cite>Frank Panetta said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/animal-rights-zone#4715978Comment99099"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I don't know if there is a universally accepted definition of veganism, but in my thinking, I have absolutely no right to in anyway exploit…</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I am opposed to actions by humans that cause harm in the lives of others, when such harms would matter to others, whether they are aware of the nature of those harms or not. <br/> <br/> <cite>Frank Panetta said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://arzone.ning.com/forum/topics/animal-rights-zone#4715978Comment99099"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>I don't know if there is a universally accepted definition of veganism, but in my thinking, I have absolutely no right to in anyway exploit another sentient being. </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>