Spain's Parliament Votes To Extend Human Rights To Apes

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL256586320080625
Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.

[figuer]

There is something rotten in the Kingdom of Spain...

...protection is one thing, rights is another. Why forbid their use in films, t.v. and circuses? Don't they have a "right" to earn a living?

[Civil1z@tion]

This paragraph (one part of it in particular) kind of irked me.

Philosophers Peter Singer and Paola Cavalieri founded the Great Ape Project in 1993, arguing that "non-human hominids" like chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and bonobos should enjoy the right to life, freedom and not to be tortured.

"non-human hominids?" There hasn't been one of those since Neanderthal days. Hominids are a specific genus that is only occupied (currently) by the human species.

As to the rest of the article, I can understand I desire to protect apes, and all animals to a certain extent, but I think this goes too far. For instance, why can't apes be in a circus? I wouldn't mind laws banning the mistreatment of apes in a circus, but if they aren't mistreated then circus life is awesome from their perspective. Getting a regular meal schedule in a safe envinronment with no predators or worries about deadly conflict between other apes of the same species is a hell of a lot better than living in the jungle and struggling for a living every day. Same thing applies to TV commercials and apes on film. They've got a sweet deal if they aren't being starved/abused.

Can someone answer me why it suddenly becomes evil when someone gives apes a safe and healthy environment that they have the ape do some pretty easy tasks for the provider? What is it "undignified?" The apes would not understand what our specific culture would view as undignified or dignified as those are human concepts and whether an act is dignified or not is specific to the human culture you're in. For an Arab it might be undignified to shake someone's left hand, but for me as a Westerner that means nothing. Think of how much more that would apply to another species. Is it because its slavery? Do these people honestly think that apes care more about being "free" (another human concept) than living a secure life? I would like to see some evidence that apes can not only understand the concept of freedom and enslavement, but would prefer freedom where they have to struggle daily for not only their own lives but the lives of their children to "slavery" where they are not abused and have a regular and healthy food supply.

I'm all against animal mistreatment, but this bill doesn't seem to address actual mistreament much.

[Sabine Grant]

Though I agree with some of your comments CivilIz@tion, IMO such animals are still exploited for human profit. What needs to be evaluated here is whether they have a right to be protected from exploitation as members of our species are.

- Can we hold them into slavery? Providing them with nutrition and shelter in exchange for labor is slavery.
- Can we restrict their whereabouts by keeping them confined to environments we design for them? Such as zoos.
- Can we take possession of their bodies and deprive them from physical freedom without them having engaged in any criminal behavior? That is what is done when they are captured and caged to be shipped to a different environment.

Even in non profit centered scientific studies of great apes, Koko has been kept captive for many years just to observe and draw further conclusions on the neuro cognitive capacities and behaviors of gorillas. Does it advance our own species into contributing to its own betterment? It is my opinion that such endeavors are better conducted when great apes are observed in the wild and that without intruding on them.

[Civil1z@tion]

Though I agree with some of your comments CivilIz@tion, IMO such animals are still exploited for human profit. What needs to be evaluated here is whether they have a right to be protected from exploitation as members of our species are.

- Can we hold them into slavery? Providing them with nutrition and shelter in exchange for labor is slavery.
- Can we restrict their whereabouts by keeping them confined to environments we design for them? Such as zoos.
- Can we take possession of their bodies and deprive them from physical freedom without them having engaged in any criminal behavior? That is what is done when they are captured and caged to be shipped to a different environment.

Even in non profit centered scientific studies of great apes, Koko has been kept captive for many years just to observe and draw further conclusions on the neuro cognitive capacities and behaviors of gorillas. Does it advance our own species into contributing to its own betterment? It is my opinion that such endeavors are better conducted when great apes are observed in the wild and that without intruding on them.

To the first, yes. Unless it can be proven that animals both recognize slavery and prefer freedom to enslavement without abuse/neglect. Even if some animals can be shown to pass both those requirements, this is certainly not true for all animals. Dogs and cats, even working ones, seem to enjoy their "enslavement" quite a bit. Do remember that ideas of slavery and freedom are human concepts and may mean nothing at all to an animal.

To the second, yes. So long as there is no abuse/neglect things like zoos seem to be paradises for animals. They get to experience an environment close to their original home, while not facing any of the dangers of it.

To the third, if the first is yes then I'd say the second should be yes. Obviously breeding in captivity where possible is preferable if for no other reason that animals raised from birth to do a task are more likely to be more comfortable with humans (and thus safer) as well as being easier to train to do said tasks. However, this ought not to be done to the point of threatening the survival in the wild of a species due to the potential damage such can have to an ecosystem.

With your example of studying gorillas in the wild as opposed to in the lab, there is only one problem with that: in the wild you cannot get controlled conditions. For an experiment to be scientifically valid, one must be able to control conditions. This is not the case in the wild. Obviously observing animals in the wild can yield valuable data and is necessary, but for a complete understanding of the neuro-cognitive capabilities of a gorilla, controlled conditions and experiments are required.

[maxparrish]

Spain's idea of a re-written Declaration of Independence:

When in the Course of primate events, it becomes necessary for one ape troupe to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of primate kind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all apes are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Apes, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

I don't know, just doesn't quite make it...

[figuer]

- Can we hold them into slavery? Providing them with nutrition and shelter in exchange for labor is slavery.If we can eat cows and pigs I don't see why "slaving" other apes is a reprehensible act. If they are well treated I see no harm.

[figuer]

"non-human hominids?" There hasn't been one of those since Neanderthal days. Hominids are a specific genus that is only occupied (currently) by the human species.No. Hominid includes the other apes.

[Doddy]

Well, if human toddlers can get their right to life and freedom without living up to the cognitive abilities of adult humans, I don't see why chimps and gorillas can't have those rights too.

Rights are, I think, to be attributed to protect certain mental capacities. The right to life, for instance, is to protect those who value their life from having it take away. Now, I believe non-human apes and human toddlers are both self-aware and capable of valuing things, so I can assume they have the ability to value their own life. Thus, I think both deserve the right to life.

[figuer]

Well, if human toddlers can get their right to life and freedom without living up to the cognitive abilities of adult humans, I don't see why chimps and gorillas can't have those rights too.The comparison is invalid. Human toddlers receive their rights because they are HUMAN. Cognitive abilities have nothing to do with human rights. It is a matter of "BLOOD" (the species).

[J842P]

"non-human hominids?" There hasn't been one of those since Neanderthal days. Hominids are a specific genus that is only occupied (currently) by the human species.No. Hominid includes the other apes.

Yup. The definition has had many revisions over the years.

[Doddy]

Well, if human toddlers can get their right to life and freedom without living up to the cognitive abilities of adult humans, I don't see why chimps and gorillas can't have those rights too.The comparison is invalid. Human toddlers receive their rights because they are HUMAN. Cognitive abilities have nothing to do with human rights. It is a matter of "BLOOD" (the species).
That's ridiculous.

If, say, we found a rare species of ape in the jungles of Borneo that was as intelligence as ourselves, I should say that we would be compelled to give them the same rights we humans have. Likewise, if some alien beings appear tomorrow have the same cognitive capacities as we do, then they should have rights too, no? Likewise for any artificial intelligence that approximates the human mind.

So, these hypothetical non-humans should deserve rights. That would suggest that rights are reflecting cognitive capacities, not any concept of what is human or not. Currently, giving rights to humans is a shortcut to giving rights to beings with a high level of consciousness. So, in cases where that shortcut breaks down (e.g. non-sentient humans or highly intelligent non-humans), it should be abandoned.

[Tigers!]

How would an ape ask for some of it's rights?
Contraception for example?

[nogods4me]

Look. If we can elect one as President I think it is high time we guaranteed them some rights...

[figuer]

That's ridiculous.No. That is the way it is, regardless of you liking it or not.

If, say, we found a rare species of ape in the jungles of Borneo that was as intelligence as ourselves, I should say that we would be compelled to give them the same rights we humans have. Likewise, if some alien beings appear tomorrow have the same cognitive capacities as we do, then they should have rights too, no? Likewise for any artificial intelligence that approximates the human mind.:rolleyes: Where do you get this unrealistic ideas from, Star Treck? Rights are not based on intelligence level. They are based on being human.

Currently, giving rights to humans is a shortcut to giving rights to beings with a high level of consciousness. That is plainly absurd. Human rights are centered on human well being, it has nothing to do with any other life form, conscious or not. I think you are watching to much Scifi channel.

[Doddy]

That's ridiculous.No. That is the way it is, regardless of you liking it or not.
No, that's the way the current system works. Unless you think that we have already the most perfect ethical standards imaginable, then I should be able to say it is wrong.


If, say, we found a rare species of ape in the jungles of Borneo that was as intelligence as ourselves, I should say that we would be compelled to give them the same rights we humans have. Likewise, if some alien beings appear tomorrow have the same cognitive capacities as we do, then they should have rights too, no? Likewise for any artificial intelligence that approximates the human mind. :rolleyes: Where do you get this unrealistic ideas from, Star Treck? Rights are not based on intelligence level. They are based on being human.
They are currently based on being human because it is shorthand for being intelligent. But our moral rules should work even in thought experiments, regardless of whether the beings involved exist or not.

So, if you did find a civilization of very intelligent apes (like in Planet of the Apes), would you feel perfectly comfortable with keeping them in zoos? If an alien being, capable of very similar emotions to you or I, landed on Earth, would you feel comfortable allowing scientists to forcibly experiment on that alien? If robots existed that were self-aware and had free will (or a good approximation of it), then should you be keeping them as unpaid slaves?

Rights are either to protect autonomy, or to protect individual welfare (depending which rights theory you subscribe to). So, any being for whom welfare is important OR has some autonomy should be a candidate for rights.

Currently, giving rights to humans is a shortcut to giving rights to beings with a high level of consciousness. That is plainly absurd. Human rights are centered on human well being, it has nothing to do with any other life form, conscious or not. I think you are watching to much Scifi channel.
It shouldn't matter whether it is science fiction or just philosophical musings that come up with these thought experiments. If they show that rights should be extended to other highly aware, conscious beings, then doesn't that prove that humans are not the only ones who should have rights?

[Aesthete]

This is ridiculous. I don't see any reason to treat apes differently from other animals. If it's okay to use those animals to a reasonable extent for human gain (which I believe it is), then it should be so apes as well.

[Doddy]

This is ridiculous. I don't see any reason to treat apes differently from other animals. If it's okay to use those animals to a reasonable extent for human gain (which I believe it is), then it should be so apes as well.
What reason is there to treat you (Homo sapiens, I assume) any differently from other apes, or indeed any other animals?

[Aesthete]

This is ridiculous. I don't see any reason to treat apes differently from other animals. If it's okay to use those animals to a reasonable extent for human gain (which I believe it is), then it should be so apes as well.
What reason is there to treat you (Homo sapiens, I assume) any differently from other apes, or indeed any other animals?

Because we are a superior and civilized species.

[Doddy]

What reason is there to treat you (Homo sapiens, I assume) any differently from other apes, or indeed any other animals?

Because we are a superior and civilized species.
Superior, how?

If civilization is the mark of superiority, does that make an American superior to a Zambian native tribesman?

[Aesthete]

If civilization is the mark of superiority, does that make an American superior to a Zambian native tribesman?

America is certainly a superior society to that of Zambia, but it does not follow that the individual American is superior to the individual Zambian.

[Doddy]

If civilization is the mark of superiority, does that make an American superior to a Zambian native tribesman?

America is certainly a superior society to that of Zambia, but it does not follow that the individual American is superior to the individual Zambian.
Why not?

If group A can create civilization, and group B can't (or hasn't), then my impression is that you'd say group B is inferior to group A. Why should it matter if the groups are species or races? Or ages or genders?

[figuer]

What reason is there to treat you (Homo sapiens, I assume) any differently from other apes, or indeed any other animals?First, because we are of the same species and we give preeminence to our own, not the "others". Second, because of the golden rule, which applies only to humans, since humans are the only ones that can reciprocate. Humans grant each other rights as a way of guaranteeing each other's well being. Other animals are out of the system of rights because they can not grant us rights. They can be tamed, but they can not participate as responsible members of society.

I find it strange that people do not value their own species over others. It seems diseased.

[Aesthete]

America is certainly a superior society to that of Zambia, but it does not follow that the individual American is superior to the individual Zambian.
Why not?

If group A can create civilization, and group B can't (or hasn't), then my impression is that you'd say group B is inferior to group A. Why should it matter if the groups are species or races? Or ages or genders?

You posed a question to me about individuals (an individual American and an individual Zambian), and now you shift to the collective. American society is superior to Zambian society. And if you disagree, then may I ask you which one you'd honestly rather live in?

[figuer]

If group A can create civilization, and group B can't (or hasn't), then my impression is that you'd say group B is inferior to group A. Why should it matter if the groups are species or races? Or ages or genders?Group B is inferior in terms of culture to A. It matters (rights) because the concept of human rights is sustained in a conceptual equality before the law of all humans, regardless of age, education or economic achievement.

[Doddy]

What reason is there to treat you (Homo sapiens, I assume) any differently from other apes, or indeed any other animals?First, because we are of the same species and we give preeminence to our own, not the "others". Second, because of the golden rule, which applies only to humans, since humans are the only ones that can reciprocate. Humans grant each other rights as a way of guaranteeing each other's well being. Other animals are out of the system of rights because they can not grant us rights. They can be tamed, but they can not participate as responsible members of society.

I find it strange that people do not value their own species over others. It seems diseased.
Not all humans can grant us rights. Some humans are still protected under rights even though they cannot protect our rights nor act as responsible members of society (e.g. young children, mentally-disabled).

Apes have well-being, and we humans should protect that by giving them rights.

As for this "us vs them" thing, that is precisely what causes racism, sexism and, evidently, speciesism. Should we value our own gender over the other(s)?


Why not?

If group A can create civilization, and group B can't (or hasn't), then my impression is that you'd say group B is inferior to group A. Why should it matter if the groups are species or races? Or ages or genders?

You posed a question to me about individuals (an individual American and an individual Zambian), and now you shift to the collective. American society is superior to Zambian society. And if you disagree, then may I ask you which one you'd honestly rather live in?
No, I agree with you that American society is superior, and that humans are superior to apes. I just don't see either of those as being morally significant to the individuals within those groups.

If group A can create civilization, and group B can't (or hasn't), then my impression is that you'd say group B is inferior to group A. Why should it matter if the groups are species or races? Or ages or genders?Group B is inferior in terms of culture to A. It matters (rights) because the concept of human rights is sustained in a conceptual equality before the law of all humans, regardless of age, education or economic achievement.
But what if the concept of human-only rights is WRONG (like I've been arguing this entire time)?

[Aesthete]

The "us vs. them" point is quite moot here, as the differences between human races don't begin to compare with the differences between humans and animals.

[Doddy]

The "us vs. them" point is quite moot here, as the differences between human races don't begin to compare with the differences between humans and animals.
True, but that is a matter of degree, not of kind.

And the differences between human age groups DO compare with the differences between humans and apes. A human neonate is intellectually inferior to an adult chimpanzee. So at least ageism is relevant, if racism is not.

[Aesthete]

The "us vs. them" point is quite moot here, as the differences between human races don't begin to compare with the differences between humans and animals.
True, but that is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Exactly. The life forms in question do not run along a continuum from man to ape. Rather, the boundaries are clearly demarcated and distinct. The degrees in question are negligible.

And the differences between human age groups DO compare with the differences between humans and apes. A human neonate is intellectually inferior to an adult chimpanzee. So at least ageism is relevant, if racism is not.

The human baby has the capacity to grow a full human mind.

[Doddy]

True, but that is a matter of degree, not of kind.

Exactly. The life forms in question do not run along a continuum from man to ape. Rather, the boundaries are clearly demarcated and distinct. The degrees in question are negligible.
Species are not demarcated and distinct.

Richard Dawkins once asked to imagine a thought experiment where a human holds hands with her mother, who holds hands with her mother, and to imagine that line extending back to the common ancestor of chimps and humans. At what point does the gap between ape and human appear?

Now if you think human evolution didn't occur, then there are other sections on this forum for you to be set straight on that. But the fact is that apes are members of the same family as humans. Other humans are more closely related.

And the differences between human age groups DO compare with the differences between humans and apes. A human neonate is intellectually inferior to an adult chimpanzee. So at least ageism is relevant, if racism is not.

The human baby has the capacity to grow a full human mind.
Irrelevant, but that has been dealt with in countless abortion threads. And besides, we don't give human rights to human embryos anyway, despite them having that same capacity.

[Aesthete]

Exactly. The life forms in question do not run along a continuum from man to ape. Rather, the boundaries are clearly demarcated and distinct. The degrees in question are negligible.
Species are not demarcated and distinct.

The species in question are. (Man, ape).

Now if you think human evolution didn't occur, then there are other sections on this forum for you to be set straight on that. But the fact is that apes are members of the same family as humans. Other humans are more closely related.

It doesn't matter to me... they're not humans!


The human baby has the capacity to grow a full human mind.
Irrelevant, but that has been dealt with in countless abortion threads. And besides, we don't give human rights to human embryos anyway, despite them having that same capacity.[/QUOTE]

No, we don't. And this justifies giving apes rights... how?

[Doddy]

Species are not demarcated and distinct.

The species in question are. (Man, ape).
Actually, the species in question are Homo sapiens and Pan trogolodytes, of the family Hominidae (i.e. great apes). Humans are apes, so are chimps.
It doesn't matter to me... they're not humans!
And the fact they are not humans doesn't matter to me (see my argument with figuer a few posts back).

Irrelevant, but that has been dealt with in countless abortion threads. And besides, we don't give human rights to human embryos anyway, despite them having that same capacity.

No, we don't. And this justifies giving apes rights... how?
It doesn't by itself, but if we take all my points together:

Premise 1 - If we found a non-human with the same mental characteristics as a normal adult human (e.g. sentient robots), they should be protected under the same rights as humans.
Premise 2 - Any organism, human or otherwise, without such characteristics should not be protected (e.g. human embryos).
Conclusion 1 - Therefore, rights are obviously not protecting humans, but protecting expression of certain mental characteristics. So, any organism found with such mental characteristics should be protected.

Premise 3 - An adult chimpanzee has similar mental capacities as a human child (aged three years).
Premise 4 - Human children deserve the same key rights that adult humans have.
Conclusion 2 - the same rights given to human children should be extended to adult chimpanzees.

[J842P]

The "us vs. them" point is quite moot here, as the differences between human races don't begin to compare with the differences between humans and animals.

Humans are animals.

[figuer]

Not all humans can grant us rights. Some humans are still protected under rights even though they cannot protect our rights nor act as responsible members of society (e.g. young children, mentally-disabled).Children grow up, the mentally-disabled are still human, and thus it is healthy for society to give them rights.

Apes have well-being, and we humans should protect that by giving them rights. As for this "us vs them" thing, that is precisely what causes racism, sexism and, evidently, speciesism. Should we value our own gender over the other(s)?Other apes should be treated fairly, but giving them rights is nonsense. The "us vs them" thing is part of life. "Species" is not comparable to "gender".
But what if the concept of human-only rights is WRONG (like I've been arguing this entire time)?I don't see any sense in your argument as it avoids biological essentials but includes sciencefictional space aliens.

[Doddy]

Children grow up
Irrelevant. Why don't embryos get rights?

the mentally-disabled are still human
Irrelevant.
thus it is healthy for society to give them rights.
Why is it healthy to give rights to all humans, but not to apes?
Other apes should be treated fairly, but giving them rights is nonsense. The "us vs them" thing is part of life. "Species" is not comparable to "gender".
Gender is as much a part of animal life as species - perhaps even more so.

Why is the species designation morally relevant, but gender/race/age/religion/nationality not? Should which group/category an individual belongs to ever be morally relevant to the rights of that individual?


But what if the concept of human-only rights is WRONG (like I've been arguing this entire time)?I don't see any sense in your argument as it avoids biological essentials but includes sciencefictional space aliens.[/QUOTE]
I'm dealing in hypothetical situations, as is common in ethical debates. Unless my hypothetical situation breaks the rules of logic, then it should be relevant. And surely you must admit that a non-human with the mental capacities of humans is plausible.

Why biological essentials did I miss, and why are they relevant?

[figuer]

Why don't embryos get rights?They should. I oppose abortion, based on the concept of human rights.

Why is it healthy to give rights to all humans, but not to apes?Other apes are not part of society. Rights have to do with social stability.

Gender is as much a part of animal life as species - perhaps even more so. Why is the species designation morally relevant, but gender/race/age/religion/nationality not? Should which group/category an individual belongs to ever be morally relevant to the rights of that individual?Species is more relevant than gender, gender can be altered, but not species. The aspects you mention are not barriers to interspecies interaction, which is the primal biological imperative.


I'm dealing in hypothetical situations, as is common in ethical debates. Unless my hypothetical situation breaks the rules of logic, then it should be relevant. And surely you must admit that a non-human with the mental capacities of humans is plausible.Why biological essentials did I miss, and why are they relevant?Your arguments seem decadent and self destructive, a species is the biological imperative. Non human intelligences would merit respect...but more likely at a distance (specially if extraterrestrials.

[Doddy]

Well, I don't see the relevance of any biological imperatives. What does that even mean?

Just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good moral guiding point.

[figuer]

Well, I don't see the relevance of any biological imperatives. Just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good moral guiding point.
Everything is natural. Morality is self interest. The species is the collective self.

[Sapho]

Well, I don't see the relevance of any biological imperatives. Just because something is natural, that doesn't make it a good moral guiding point.
Everything is natural. Morality is self interest. The species is the collective self.

Are these slogans of you new range of T shirts?

[Sabine Grant]

Why don't embryos get rights?They should. I oppose abortion, based on the concept of human rights.

Quoting the Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights :

Article 1.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Care to explain how an embryo is endowed with " reason and conscience" in view of the total absence of ANY level of reception and interpretation of stimuli, self awareness, sentience. As a reminder, it is only at the specific fetal stage of about 22 weeks that chemical synapses are active.

I suggest that before you invoke the concept of human rights, you reflect on which physical realities based motivations such rights were formulated.

[Trout]

How amusing.

Spain = inquisition, mass mutiliations and genocides against native tribes, latest civil war attrocities, etc and today, gorillas get to have the same rights as people.

If they're smart they'll ask for something different.

[Doddy]

Wesley J Smith has a poll on this topic (http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/06/great-ape-project-poll.html), and the answer "Giving apes rights will destroy Judeo-Christian civilisation" has 38% of the vote!!!

Honestly...

[Aesthete]

The "us vs. them" point is quite moot here, as the differences between human races don't begin to compare with the differences between humans and animals.

Humans are animals.

More a semantical difference.

[ChuckE99]

That's ridiculous.No. That is the way it is, regardless of you liking it or not.

:rolleyes: Where do you get this unrealistic ideas from, Star Treck? Rights are not based on intelligence level. They are based on being human.

Currently, giving rights to humans is a shortcut to giving rights to beings with a high level of consciousness. That is plainly absurd. Human rights are centered on human well being, it has nothing to do with any other life form, conscious or not. I think you are watching to much Scifi channel.

Let me be careful here, because I don't want to imply that anyone here is racist, but I really, really want to use this as an example: If "human rights" are literally to apply just to humans, can't we go back in time and say that human rights "literally" should be "affluent, white, human male rights"? I mean, that was the literal intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But if we can re-interpret "All men are created equal" to mean, "All humans are created equal" why can't we re-interpret that to mean, "All sentient beings are created equal"?

And if we can do that (and I am all for it) and then determine that great apes, or blue whales, or even giant squid are sentient, then they should get the same rights we do.

[figuer]

Let me be careful here, because I don't want to imply that anyone here is racist, but I really, really want to use this as an example: If "human rights" are literally to apply just to humans, can't we go back in time and say that human rights "literally" should be "affluent, white, human male rights"? I mean, that was the literal intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But if we can re-interpret "All men are created equal" to mean, "All humans are created equal" why can't we re-interpret that to mean, "All sentient beings are created equal"?.Because we need to eat pork, beef, and poultry, and food is not given rights.

[ChuckE99]

Let me be careful here, because I don't want to imply that anyone here is racist, but I really, really want to use this as an example: If "human rights" are literally to apply just to humans, can't we go back in time and say that human rights "literally" should be "affluent, white, human male rights"? I mean, that was the literal intent of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. But if we can re-interpret "All men are created equal" to mean, "All humans are created equal" why can't we re-interpret that to mean, "All sentient beings are created equal"?.Because we need to eat pork, beef, and poultry, and food is not given rights.

Wow, thanks for pushing that right past its logical conclusion!

I'll say this: If we discover that pigs are sentient, then, yes, I'm saying you should take them off the menu. But I'm clearly not arguing that ALL animals or even all mammals are sentient.

[figuer]

Wow, thanks for pushing that right past its logical conclusion!

I'll say this: If we discover that pigs are sentient, then, yes, I'm saying you should take them off the menu. But I'm clearly not arguing that ALL animals or even all mammals are sentient.Pigs are sentient (although not in the same degree as humans). I have no intention to take them off the menu.

[ChuckE99]

Wow, thanks for pushing that right past its logical conclusion!

I'll say this: If we discover that pigs are sentient, then, yes, I'm saying you should take them off the menu. But I'm clearly not arguing that ALL animals or even all mammals are sentient.Pigs are sentient (although not in the same degree as humans). I have no intention to take them off the menu.

To what degree of sentience would pigs have to rise before you would take them off the menu? If they could read and write, would you leave them on the menu?

[ZeusTKP]

It's these kinds of comical scenarios that show the concept of "inalienable rights" to be false.

There are no rights. There are only agreements made between beings that can make agreements. Right now, that's only humans.

[premjan]

Are apes capable of recognizing our rights?

[Angra Mainyu]

Are apes capable of recognizing our rights?
I can't even say I am, since I'm not sure about that concept "rights" as in "inalienable rights", but in any case, some (many) apes have greater cognitive abilities than some (many) humans (very young humans, for instance, as well as some severely disabled people).

[ChuckE99]

It's these kinds of comical scenarios that show the concept of "inalienable rights" to be false.

There are no rights. There are only agreements made between beings that can make agreements. Right now, that's only humans.

That's just semantics. "Rights" are granted by an authority to its subjects (for lack of a better term). Jefferson said that "the Creator" endows us with rights. Governments assign rights. Sovereigns assign rights. That they are "agreements" between beings that can make agreements is a given. Whether you call them agreements or rights does not change what they are.

Now, whether or not "rights/agreements" can be inalienable is another argument. If they are rights granted by Man, certainly they are not. If they are granted by God they are, if, that is, God exists to grant them in the first place.