I agree, at least, that the moral permissibility of an act is dependent on the “circumstances” in which it is committed. But I can conceive of no circumstance under which eating meat is morally permissible if it is not required for human health or survival.
By that analogy, animals should be the ones who create the rights for the animals. Unfortunately, the animal kingdom is hopelessly divided politically and will never come to an agreement on any form of government.
The analogy is flawed because “legal rights” is an abstract concept contemplated only by humans.
Except, of course, that you can’t raise vegetables or soybeans or other human consumable crops on most grasslands. That’s why they’re still grasslands. Some might work out for a year or two, but then the soil is ruined. Most won’t bear even in the first year.
Okay, I understand. I was referring to inherent rights. Such as they are bestowed & inherent in the creation. If this basic right does exist in animals, then we should proceed to make legal rights because that is their due.
If the animal rights are conferred upon animals from humans (that is the source of their rights) but humans do not recognize the rights of the mammal; then this is a possible circumstance in which the act is permissible and the circumstances permit it.
I don’t accept the notion of “inherent rights.” Rather, I believe every sentient being has interests (e.g., interest in not being tortured), and those interests should be given equal consideration no matter the species. If a dog suffers as much as a child from being whipped, both beings have equal interests in not being whipped.
The moral permissibility of an act isn’t dependent on whether humans decide to confer legal rights on animals. It’s wrong to torture a chicken (happens ALL the time), even though that’s perfectly legal.
Amen!!!
I’m misunderstanding. You said the moral permissibly is not dependent upon whether or not a human confers the rights, which means the rights pre-exist the acknowledgement by the one who confers them. Yet you said no inherent rights exist. But just interests of beings. I’m unable to connect this all together. Kindly. James
To add: Couldn’t animal welfare laws cover all the “interests” of mammals? Except for the slaughter component, but leading up to that act, animal welfare should cover everything else and eliminate 99.99% of animal abuse. Agree?
No, this doesn’t follow, because I reject talk of 'moral rights" while I favor talk of “moral considerability.” But perhaps this is a technical point. I believe animals have inherent value that isn’t dependent on any legal rights conferred by humans.
For many complex reasons that is practically impossible. In principle, maybe, and if so, the vast majority of people would be vegans.
This is new to me. I’ve never heard arguments for moral consider-ability. Or that term used. If you feel me in, i would happily discuss it with you. If not, that is okay. I’m not sure if moral consider-ability equates to animal rights unless you alert the animal rights to mean animal consider-ability.
But the logic of the argument still holds. Animal welfare is sufficient to cover animal interests & moral consider ability while animal rights is modern day invention.
Animals are not on our level though. There is no way to make them up to our level. That is why the attempt do do so diminishes our humanity. I do believe the are to be given greater consideration than either inanimate objects, or plants, but not that of mankind.
But man is not only biological, or even primarily biological. Calling humans animals is at the very root of the de-humanization I was speaking of, even though you were only referring to biology.