resurrectionsong

November 21, 2003

Another Voice on Animal Rights

The original animal rights conversation was spurred because VodkaPundit pointed out that a couple of folks (Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh) were going to be part of a discussion about animal rights on Reggie Rivers' TV show.

What followed was a series of comments and discussion that revolve around, essentially, what "rights" are and what is required to attain them. An interesting discussion all around.

Ari Armstrong has posted a follow up on the Colorado Freedom Report that covers quite a bit of ground. Well worth reading for those who have commented on and been interested in this topic.

A sampling:

One argument I wish I'd made more clearly on the show is that the reason human beings have rights is that they are distinctly rational. This is an old argument, but I think a correct one. People have the ability to conceptualize, to reason in a robust way, to communicate with others in a sophisticated and conceptual way, to cooperate with each other in a broad economic market that involves a division of labor, to contemplate and advocate for rights, and to create a complicated system of written rules and laws to resolve conflicts. All of these things are a part of what it means to be rational, and all of these things are impossible to (other) animals.

Yes, very nicely stated.

A lengthy read--and a thorough one--that is well worth the effort.

Thanks, Walter.

Posted by zombyboy at November 21, 2003 09:28 AM | TrackBack

Comments

And what, exactly, is wrong with "speciesism?"

First, I hate this word. It is logically fallacious to compare racism and sexism to the assertion that humans are superior to animals. Racism and sexism are assertions that one subset of humans are superior to another. These claims are false. Moreover, they are about humans vs. humans. An assertion that humans are superior to animals is factual - humans are the only species capable of rational thought. Period. The term "speciesism" is a propaganda tool developed by the animal "rights" lobby to cast dispersions against those who disagree with them. The use of the word "speciesism" amounts to nothing less than an ad hominem attack.

That being said, my question still stands. It is a biological fact that humans are superior to animals due to the mental capacity of our species. A smart dog is no more human than a comotose person is inhuman. Armstrong mentions the hypothetical alien with respect to "speciesism." News flash: we have yet to encounter aliens. We can probably safely cross that bridge when we come to it. In the interim, we can also safely say that any such alien species that is capable of rational thought is also superior to animals. Case closed. Armstrong does a great job of philosophically defending the position that humans are superior to animals, but this should be unnecessary.

Basically, I agree with most of Armstrong's piece. It is extremely well-writen and thorough. That's why he is a professional. I only wish that he had taken greater issue with that ridiculous term.

Posted by: StumpJumper at November 21, 2003 10:58 AM

And what, exactly, is wrong with "speciesism?"

I must confess that I was speciesist in my search for, and choice of, a mate.

I'll be in sensitivity re-education for the next five weeks. Unless I can tunnel out sometime tonight.

Posted by: McGehee at November 21, 2003 02:58 PM

>humans are the only species capable of rational >thought

it'd be good if they used it! (war, climate change, murder, rape, drug abuse etc. how much rational thought ever went into these?!)

most do not, if only to avoid making the effort. are they "inferior" then? perhaps if so those of us capable of thinking out of our caveman instincts should use the others as meat and/or slaves.

why not? how is a non-thinking human different from an animal...?

Posted by: asd at January 17, 2004 07:09 AM