So, to say that a dog, in its mental capacity, is similar to a human child is to miss the point that the child is a member of a group with a distinct set of rights and attributes that no dog could possibly display.

Dogs, like many animals including humans, belong to the group of beings who can suffer from imprisonment, injury, and killing.

Show me the mountain lion that respects that "basic right" in another animal, and I might be sympathetic.

Ability to respect the rights of others should not be among the criteria for the possession of rights. Mountain lions don't attack humans with the knowledge that they are doing something wrong because they do not have the capacity to comprehend the suffering of their victims. We know better.

Again, what we consider rights are not natural by any means--they were hard fought, hard won, and hard defended over time.

You're talking about "rights" enshrined by law, which have matched idealistic inherent "rights" to varying degrees throughout history and depending on the state. In the sense of these latter rights, African-American slaves had the right not to be raped by their "owners," for example, even before this right was achieved legally.

Does that apply to the mouse that I catch in a mousetrap?

Well, I think so. Because I believe that mice have the right to live, I would favor non-lethal traps.

How about the cow that provides the hamburger that I'm going to be eating for lunch today?

Yes.

And should those "rights" be imposed on other cultures who might consider dinner something that I would think of as a house pet?

That is a broader question that applies to the world's disparate ethical systems in general, not just for this issue.

Minors do not have a full set of rights because we also do not hold them fully responsible for their actions.

For those rights we're discussing (basic right not to be harmed, imprisoned, killed), minors have full rights. It's not a lesser crime to kill a child than an adult.

Nature doesn't recognize rights, nature only recognizes the efficiency with which something survives.

Humans have the ability to develop ethical ideas in order to prevent suffering, and to limit our behavior based on that.

My belief is that animals do not have rights, but that caretakers have responsibilities, as I stated a number of times.

You're just talking about semantics now. You can say that rights demand certain treatment for rights-holders, or that responsibilities demand certain treatment by caretakers. Same thing.

JJ:

At one point you state: "You're talking about 'rights' enshrined by law, which have matched idealistic inherent "rights" to varying degrees throughout history and depending on the state. In the sense of these latter rights, African-American slaves had the right not to be raped by their "owners," for example, even before this right was achieved legally."

Later you state: "That is a broader question that applies to the world's disparate ethical systems in general, not just for this issue."

These two statement seem to be contradictory to me. If people, and possibly other beings, have inherent rights that transcend the laws of humans then these rights would exist regardless of 'disparate ethical systems.' If rights are relative to 'disparate ethical systems' (otherwise known as moral relativism) then Zombyboy's point that rights come from laws is perfectly valid.

Which is it, then? Are rights universal and transcendant of our laws or are they human creations that can vary from culture to culture?

If I may inject something appropriate into the discussion?
"How can they cut the power?!? They're f___in' animals, man!"

Okay, that wasn't actually appropriate, but it made me happy.

But the simple answer is simply this: an animal is not a human. There are some that may approximate human intelligence, like dolphins... But for the most part, most people intuitively feel that the gulf between humans and animals is wide enough to make a discussion of animal "rights" ridiculous. And yet, other people, through thought or empathy or whatever, do not find such discussions ridiculous at all. That doesn't make them any less so.

And neither side really has much hope of convincing the other.

StumpJumper,

When I said "That is a broader question that applies to the world's disparate ethical systems in general, not just for this issue," all I meant was that the question being posed wasn't an animal rights question per se and thus seemed to be outside the scope of the discussion. But for my part, rights are universal (though ethical action isn't necessarily equally convenient across cultures and classes).

nathan,
I agree for the short-term, although over long periods of time attitudes may gradually shift quite far.

Ability to respect the rights of others should not be among the criteria for the possession of rights.

Why not? In fact, these sentences from the very same paragraph demonstrate exactly why these things should be among the criteria:

Mountain lions don't attack humans with the knowledge that they are doing something wrong because they do not have the capacity to comprehend the suffering of their victims. We know better.

What you really want to say (or should, if you want to stop talking past the rest of us) is that since we do have rights, we also have a responsibility to treat animals humanely.

But that is not the same thing as animals having rights.

Do animals respect each others' rights? Of course not. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Every bunny knows that. That's why I try to hook up adoptable bunnies with nice people. And that's why it's futile to try to invent and enforce rights for animals.

Dogs, like many animals including humans, belong to the group of beings who can suffer from imprisonment, injury, and killing.

...but not to beings who can self-organize, reason, and fight for legal rights to avoid those things. You've proven only that you care about animals, not that they have any rights.

Ability to respect the rights of others should not be among the criteria for the possession of rights. Mountain lions don't attack humans with the knowledge that they are doing something wrong because they do not have the capacity to comprehend the suffering of their victims. We know better.

Zombyboy's assertion that rights are linked to responsibility is perfectly consistent with this view of the mountain lion. It doesn't know not to eat people; it also doesn't get to negotiate its fate when it does.

You're talking about "rights" enshrined by law, which have matched idealistic inherent "rights" to varying degrees throughout history and depending on the state. In the sense of these latter rights, African-American slaves had the right not to be raped by their "owners," for example, even before this right was achieved legally.

I think you're confusing zombyboy's meaning. Slaves still had the capacity to reason and argue for rights, and to try to secure them. Those are the sorts of hard-fought rights zombyboy was talking about. That the legal system of the time denied those rights doesn't make them go away; they were still being fought for, strived for, and had been long before. This striving is something that all humans have in common, and have throughout recorded history.

For those rights we're discussing (basic right not to be harmed, imprisoned, killed), minors have full rights. It's not a lesser crime to kill a child than an adult.

But these rights are afforded children because they're a part of the human group that fought for them. Moreover, children's parents fight for that right as well.

In every aspect of the argument you're letting your own axiom shortcut a major point in the reasoning: You're assuming that animals and humans are in all important ways part of the same group and equals. This is informed by your desire to protect animal life, but not by any analysis of the other issues. Zombyboy's central point that rights stem from their own defense remains unaddressed by you; you haven't been able to address it because your axiom gets in the way.

Humans have the ability to develop ethical ideas in order to prevent suffering, and to limit our behavior based on that.

You've just proven zombyboy's statement that the side you're really arguing is responsibility, not rights.

You're just talking about semantics now. You can say that rights demand certain treatment for rights-holders, or that responsibilities demand certain treatment by caretakers. Same thing.

Not really, because you glossed over one important thing and the language you use is a bit distorted in the first part. (Semantics matter after all, it turns out.) Rights don't demand certain treatment for their holders; their holders demand that treatment for themselves. A "right" itself can demand nothing; its holder may not assert it, and its caretaker may not respect it; in the ongoing absence of either it doesn't exist.

Holy cow--I thought that I had more to say, but I found that it has already been said. Thank you, all, for discussing this and saying quite a bit of what I would have said--and for keeping the conversation above the belt.

Beautiful.

I'd tell you that I love you all, but I'm afraid that you'd just think it was the booze talking.

Seriously, thank to all.

What you really want to say (or should, if you want to stop talking past the rest of us) is that since we do have rights, we also have a responsibility to treat animals humanely.

No, that is not what I mean to say. Since we reason and know suffering, we have the responsibility to avoid causing suffering to beings capable of it. This status amounts to the possession of rights. I understand you may have a different definition of the word "rights," but rather than explain to me why said status doesn't amount to "rights" under your definition, explain to me why animals do not deserve that status, whatever you like to call it.

Slaves still had the capacity to reason and argue for rights, and to try to secure them. Those are the sorts of hard-fought rights zombyboy was talking about. That the legal system of the time denied those rights doesn't make them go away; they were still being fought for, strived for, and had been long before. This striving is something that all humans have in common, and have throughout recorded history.

The position seems to be that only groups capable of fighting for rights deserve them. By this reasoning, babies and certain severely disabled people deserve no rights. But the fact is that, like many animals, these individuals are deserving of rights because they have the capacity to suffer. Where we differ is that while I believe rights should be bestowed upon beings whose capacity to suffer requires rights in order to prevent consciously caused suffering, you believe rights should be bestowed upon whomever is capable of muscling a spot at the bargaining table.

You're assuming that animals and humans are in all important ways part of the same group and equals. This is informed by your desire to protect animal life, but not by any analysis of the other issues. Zombyboy's central point that rights stem from their own defense remains unaddressed by you; you haven't been able to address it because your axiom gets in the way.

I am absolutely not saying all animals (human and nonhuman) are equal. Again, what we share is the capacity to suffer. Zombyboy and I offer differing opinions on the source of rights, and I am trying to explain why my explanation is more reasonable. It seems to me that his explanation consists more of an analysis of how inherent rights happen to have come about legally (striving, fighting, etc.), rather than upon what we base our belief in inherent rights for humans. A woman's right not to be raped exists regardless of who's "fighting for it."

"Humans have the ability to develop ethical ideas in order to prevent suffering, and to limit our behavior based on that."

You've just proven zombyboy's statement that the side you're really arguing is responsibility, not rights.

Wow. That's some leap. Look again; what I'm saying is that:
1) Beings with the capacity to suffer deserve basic physical rights.
2) Beings with the capacity to understand suffering have the responsibility to respect basic physical rights.

(1) isn't necessarily limited by (2).

Rights don't demand certain treatment for their holders; their holders demand that treatment for themselves. A "right" itself can demand nothing; its holder may not assert it, and its caretaker may not respect it; in the ongoing absence of either it doesn't exist.

Again, you seem to define rights as however individuals demand to be treated. But there are actions that are ultimately "right" or "wrong," regardless of striving and asserting. What is of interest to me is whether it is inherently wrong to commit a given action. How actions happen to be treated by the laws of whatever land aren't the issue - they merely serve to encourage right action or discourage wrong action as the lawmakers define it, with which individuals may or may not agree.

No, that is not what I mean to say. Since we reason and know suffering, we have the responsibility to avoid causing suffering to beings capable of it. This status amounts to the possession of rights. I understand you may have a different definition of the word "rights," but rather than explain to me why said status doesn't amount to "rights" under your definition, explain to me why animals do not deserve that status, whatever you like to call it.

You're conflating the possession of rights by one group with responsibility by another. Where they go together is where they apply to the same group, not disparate ones, as I think zombyboy made abundantly clear. If nothing else, common sense can shred that misconception: We humans have rights because we fought for them; when a mountain lion eats one of us, we don't expect it to be responsible for maintaining those rights.

The position seems to be that only groups capable of fighting for rights deserve them. By this reasoning, babies and certain severely disabled people deserve no rights.

Did we skim past zombyboy's whole discussion on the concept of group membership, hmm?

But the fact is that, like many animals, these individuals are deserving of rights because they have the capacity to suffer.

Again, rights are a function of groups, not individuals; they apply to individuals in the group to whom they belong.

Where we differ is that while I believe rights should be bestowed upon beings whose capacity to suffer requires rights in order to prevent consciously caused suffering, you believe rights should be bestowed upon whomever is capable of muscling a spot at the bargaining table.

Incorrect. I believe, in agreement with zombyboy, that rights are not bestowed but created by those who work them out.

I am absolutely not saying all animals (human and nonhuman) are equal. Again, what we share is the capacity to suffer. Zombyboy and I offer differing opinions on the source of rights, and I am trying to explain why my explanation is more reasonable. It seems to me that his explanation consists more of an analysis of how inherent rights happen to have come about legally (striving, fighting, etc.), rather than upon what we base our belief in inherent rights for humans. A woman's right not to be raped exists regardless of who's "fighting for it."

The right not to be raped exists because 1) rape is by definition nonconsentual and therefore people implicitly strive to live in conditions where such a thing won't happen, and 2) collectively we know that what could happen to one woman could happen to any, and therefore we seek to protect those closest to us from such a thing. This remains consistent with zombyboy's analysis.

The same tack can't be applied to animals, because they don't have the same capacity for choice implicit in #1 and #2.

"Humans have the ability to develop ethical ideas in order to prevent suffering, and to limit our behavior based on that."

You've just proven zombyboy's statement that the side you're really arguing is responsibility, not rights.

Wow. That's some leap. Look again; what I'm saying is that:
1) Beings with the capacity to suffer deserve basic physical rights.
2) Beings with the capacity to understand suffering have the responsibility to respect basic physical rights.

There's no leap about it; you spoke of humans modifying their behavior toward animals, and therefore you're talking about human responsibility--not the animals' rights. To tackle your subpoints:

1) Again, rights need not be considered inherent. I understand this is our main point of contention, but you're not even trying to argue against zombyboy's point on its merits; you merely keep brushing past it and insisting that all rights are immutable.

2) Responsibility of one group to respect the rights of another exists only where there are common rights. Common rights, common responsibilities, because the two go hand in hand.

Again, you seem to define rights as however individuals demand to be treated.

Use a strong pole to hold up that strawman, or a good gust of wind will take it right down. I said nothing of the kind.

Rights are, as zombyboy said, a property of a group. It's the actions of the group that count. Rights are worked for, fought for, sought after, and understood by the group. Individuals do their part; it may even be something done as many individuals rather than explicitly by the group.

But there are actions that are ultimately "right" or "wrong," regardless of striving and asserting. What is of interest to me is whether it is inherently wrong to commit a given action.

I'm a big believer in absolutes, but right and wrong don't necessarily enter into this. A right is a legal term; it is not the same as what's "right" in a moral sense. The two may or may not overlap. Our disagreement is on what the legal term really means--but if you're somehow conflating the two, then I must reiterate that semantics matter.

What I sense you're trying to do here is to lay a foundation for declaring all meat-eating or use of animals "inherently wrong". Whether you think it is is your own business, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with the rights of animals, even if it's not right in a moral sense.

How actions happen to be treated by the laws of whatever land aren't the issue - they merely serve to encourage right action or discourage wrong action as the lawmakers define it, with which individuals may or may not agree.

In fact law is the central issue. In its source all law exists to try to make sense of what humans as a group expect is our reasonable due in life (our rights, which we have to work to maintain), balanced with our need for each other to be responsible to those rights.